Don't drop out, Bernie

[jeaniebueller]

.

www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/don_t_drop_out_bernie.html

N
o Democrat would ever insist Bernie Sanders drop out of the race, Sen. Sherrod Brown told Politico this week. “I don’t think any Democrat should call on him to get out,” he said. “Almost no Democrat I know would say that. And shouldn’t.”

The Democrats won’t force him out of the race, no; they’ll just smother him with smarmy condescension.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, for instance, tells Politico that “what’s important is not whether or not he gets out, but how he campaigns. If the contrast is now about what separates us from Donald Trump, then I think it’s fine.” Did you hear that, Sanders? You have McCaskill’s permission to continue campaigning as long as you only speak about how Democrats are better than Donald Trump. “It’s good [for Sanders] to continue to raise the concerns that people have,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen says, similarly, “but I think it ought to be in the context of, ‘This is the difference between the Democrats and Republicans in this race.’ ” It’s unclear where either McCaskill or Shaheen got the perception that Sanders is campaigning to be the rapid-response director of the Democratic National Committee. And it’s also not as if Sanders has been especially vicious with Clinton this race.


Sanders isn’t going anywhere, and since he’s still in the race, he’s going to keep trying to win states. He won two of them Tuesday night. Though Hillary Clinton took the big catch—Arizona—Sanders was able to net the most delegates on the night. Clinton’s 58 percent to 40 percent victory in Arizona netted her 15 delegates over Sanders, while Sanders’ blowouts in Utah and Idaho netted him 31. Net the nets and Sanders trimmed into Clinton’s delegate lead by 16.

Sanders’ good night, however, makes him only 5 percent less finished than he was before the night began—which was pretty finished. He still trails Clinton by 303 pledged delegates, per the Associated Press, and he’s running out of states. His extremely narrow chance for besting Clinton in the final pledged count still rests on thumping her in large contests such as New York, Pennsylvania, and California. In the short term, he can continue making gains—and maintaining a pulse in the media narrative—with favorable upcoming contests in Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Sanders needs a medium- to large-sized miracle to overcome Clinton. But as long as he’s not mathematically eliminated and his campaign still has money, there’s no reason for Sanders to drop out—not this far into a process that no one figured he’d survive past Super Tuesday. Sanders has earned the right to finish out his candidacy, just as Clinton had in 2008.


The question within the Democratic Party is more about how he should campaign for the remainder of the primary season. This is where the problems come in. Sanders and his supporters, of course, would like to continue campaigning aggressively in order to win or at least to keep the heat on Clinton. Clinton and her supporters, which include the vast majority of the Democratic Party apparatus, would like Sanders to back the hell off and not put her in any uncomfortable positions.


Putting Clinton in uncomfortable positions is exactly what Sanders wants to do. His continued presence in the race performs the valuable service of cornering her into commitments she otherwise may not feel comfortable making. In other words: He pulls her to the left. This is simultaneously why Sanders won’t stop competing against Clinton one second before he’s required to and why the Democratic Party apparatus would like him to stop competing with her altogether.

Consider what would have happened had Sanders dropped out before the last debate in Miami. There would have been no debate, duh. And if there hadn’t been a debate, Clinton would never have been cornered into pledging not to deport any children or any adults without criminal records. That was an extremely important moment for progressive immigration reform activists and not a commitment she would have made in a vacuum. Two Democratic debates remain.

These are the sorts of positions that begin to give Democratic leaders the willies. Sure, the entire party has moved leftward on immigration in recent years. Not every elected Democrat, though, will be pleased to defend his or her party standard-bearer’s position that only criminal adults should be deported. And party operatives will worry that this position veers too far from the center.


This is why the likes of McCaskill and Shaheen would like Sanders to spend the remainder of his time speaking exclusively about how Trump is a jerk rather than pressuring Clinton into making more commitments with which the center may be uncomfortable. They’re asking Sanders to continue running for the nomination without really running for the nomination. It doesn’t work that way.

[isabel]

They have a point. He definitely pulls her to the left. I was actually really surprised that she confirmed she wouldn't deport children and non-criminals. That's the sort of thing I expect her to hem and haw around. In that regard, I can appreciate Bernie and what he's trying to do. But I'm also wary of his influence and the fact that she may continue to make promises she can't or doesn't want to keep. I know the things these candidates say are not set in stone, but it doesn't look good if she makes all these promises and goes back on them once she's in the White House.

[aurora]

Eh, Sanders can do what he wants with his campaign. If D leaders' calls for a specific type of campaign bother him, he might want to rethink whether President is a good job for him.

[isabel]

Mar 24, 2016 7:48:22 GMT -5 aurora said:

Eh, Sanders can do what he wants with his campaign. If D leaders' calls for a specific type of campaign bother him, he might want to rethink whether President is a good job for him.

Or, you know, whether or not he should run as a Democrat... since he supposedly isn't one.

[cayl]

I wish all of the primaries were on the same day. I haven't voted yet, and it sucks that candidates drop out before everyone can vote for them (and I'm voting for HRC). I'm also over the insanity. If the conventions are in late July, have the primaries all on one day in June or early July. No debates until, I don't know, April?

[laurack]

Mar 24, 2016 7:48:22 GMT -5 aurora said:

Eh, Sanders can do what he wants with his campaign. If D leaders' calls for a specific type of campaign bother him, he might want to rethink whether President is a good job for him.

I doubt it bothers him or that he gives a shit at all. I don't get the impression he plans to cater to their suggestions.

At this point I think the DNC is probably worried that if they effectively force him out, he'll run as an independent and that will screw up Hillary's chances so they'll just have to deal with him doing whatever he wants, and hope that when he finally loses he'll just endorse Hillary and get his supporters behind her

At this point I think going forward the contests will be tight enough that she won't reach her required delegates before June, so as long as the $ keeps rolling in he's going nowhere. I'm sure nobody*, including Bernie, actually thinks he can eradicate her lead but he's keeping the narrative going that they have a chance because he wants to stay in the race until the bitter end

*except his most fervent supporters

[StrawberryBlondie]

I read an article yesterday on HuffPo that said that Bernie is actually winning by a huge margin because he's winning in the states that don't allow early voting, which is just like the election where it's impossible to vote unless you show up at the polls that day.

Oh, wait...

[bellejar]

Mar 24, 2016 9:15:23 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

I read an article yesterday on HuffPo that said that Bernie is actually winning by a huge margin because he's winning in the states that don't allow early voting, which is just like the election where it's impossible to vote unless you show up at the polls that day.

Oh, wait...

This is a response to that piece (if it's the one I think you mean):

www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/23/sorry-bernie-supporters-your-candidate-is-not-currently-winning-the-democratic-primary-race/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_thefix-sanders-230am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

[jojoandleo]

Mar 24, 2016 9:08:41 GMT -5 laurack said:

Mar 24, 2016 7:48:22 GMT -5 aurora said:

Eh, Sanders can do what he wants with his campaign. If D leaders' calls for a specific type of campaign bother him, he might want to rethink whether President is a good job for him.

I doubt it bothers him or that he gives a shit at all. I don't get the impression he plans to cater to their suggestions.

At this point I think the DNC is probably worried that if they effectively force him out, he'll run as an independent and that will screw up Hillary's chances so they'll just have to deal with him doing whatever he wants, and hope that when he finally loses he'll just endorse Hillary and get his supporters behind her

At this point I think going forward the contests will be tight enough that she won't reach her required delegates before June, so as long as the $ keeps rolling in he's going nowhere. I'm sure nobody*, including Bernie, actually thinks he can eradicate her lead but he's keeping the narrative going that they have a chance because he wants to stay in the race until the bitter end

*except his most fervent supporters

I am pretty sure he can't run as an independent at this point.  You have to petition each state to appear on the ballot as an independent and get a shit ton of signatures (sometimes the signatures have to be from people registered independent-so no Democrat bros could sign) and the time to petition in some states has already run.  So, no.  He won't run independent.

[ttt]

I don't have a problem with any of this. I'm glad that he's pulling her left on some things, I'm glad that he's talking about important issues (or rather, issue), I'm glad that Hillary gets to clarify her positions in relatively friendly and civil debates. I think Bernies presence is good, overall, even if he's not my preferred candidate and even if some of his supporters are insufferable and even if he can be annoying as hell in some of the debates.

I also don't have a problem with Democrats prioritizing the success of their party in the upcoming election over Bernie's campaign. That's what politics is.

[laurack]

Mar 24, 2016 9:22:23 GMT -5 jojoandleo said:

Mar 24, 2016 9:08:41 GMT -5 laurack said:

I doubt it bothers him or that he gives a shit at all. I don't get the impression he plans to cater to their suggestions.

At this point I think the DNC is probably worried that if they effectively force him out, he'll run as an independent and that will screw up Hillary's chances so they'll just have to deal with him doing whatever he wants, and hope that when he finally loses he'll just endorse Hillary and get his supporters behind her

At this point I think going forward the contests will be tight enough that she won't reach her required delegates before June, so as long as the $ keeps rolling in he's going nowhere. I'm sure nobody*, including Bernie, actually thinks he can eradicate her lead but he's keeping the narrative going that they have a chance because he wants to stay in the race until the bitter end

*except his most fervent supporters

I am pretty sure he can't run as an independent at this point.  You have to petition each state to appear on the ballot as an independent and get a shit ton of signatures (sometimes the signatures have to be from people registered independent-so no Democrat bros could sign) and the time to petition in some states has already run.  So, no.  He won't run independent.

oh I don't think he will run independent.

[katietornado]

Mar 24, 2016 9:22:23 GMT -5 jojoandleo said:

Mar 24, 2016 9:08:41 GMT -5 laurack said:

I doubt it bothers him or that he gives a shit at all. I don't get the impression he plans to cater to their suggestions.

At this point I think the DNC is probably worried that if they effectively force him out, he'll run as an independent and that will screw up Hillary's chances so they'll just have to deal with him doing whatever he wants, and hope that when he finally loses he'll just endorse Hillary and get his supporters behind her

At this point I think going forward the contests will be tight enough that she won't reach her required delegates before June, so as long as the $ keeps rolling in he's going nowhere. I'm sure nobody*, including Bernie, actually thinks he can eradicate her lead but he's keeping the narrative going that they have a chance because he wants to stay in the race until the bitter end

*except his most fervent supporters

I am pretty sure he can't run as an independent at this point.  You have to petition each state to appear on the ballot as an independent and get a shit ton of signatures (sometimes the signatures have to be from people registered independent-so no Democrat bros could sign) and the time to petition in some states has already run.  So, no.  He won't run independent.

Plus Ohio has a law, for example, such that you cannot run in a primary as a Dem or Rep and then in the general as another party. This specifically prohibits an independent run by someone who didn't win his or her party's nomination.

[jojoandleo]

Mar 24, 2016 9:31:48 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Mar 24, 2016 9:28:12 GMT -5 katietornado said:

Plus Ohio has a law, for example, such that you cannot run in a primary as a Dem or Rep and then in the general as another party. This specifically prohibits an independent run by someone who didn't win his or her party's nomination.

Interesting.  Bet you'll see a lot more of these laws pop up in the next 2-3 years!

Apparently, a lot of states do have them, but they don't apply to presidential primaries:

"Some states bar candidates who sought, but failed, to secure the nomination of a political party from running as independents in the general election. Ballot access expert Richard Winger has noted that, generally speaking, "sore loser laws have been construed not to apply to presidential primaries." In August 2015, Winger compiled a list of precedents supporting this interpretation. According to Winger, 45 states have sore loser laws on the books, but in 43 of these states the laws do not seem to apply to presidential candidates. Sore loser laws apply to presidential candidates in only two states: South Dakota and Texas."

ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates

[laurack]

Does the DNC have the ability to remove him from the race/their party? Like can they just say, sorry you can no longer run as a Dem this race is over? I mean I don't think they would but if they CAN they could use it as a bargaining chip to affect his campaign?

I agree that it's good he's pulling her to the left, but as @littlemoxie says this could also be bad. I liked hearing that she would never deport a child, but that's also kind of impossible I assume no matter how much you care about the children. I think in some ways he is helping to pull her left but in other ways he's causing her to say a lot of things that will come back to bite her later. I mean, if he was in office and he didn't achieve his lofty goals people would say "it's the republicans fault! obstructionists! assholes! Bernie loves the children but the republicans hate them. He is the only pure one!" but if Hillary is president and shockingly, can't actually achieve all the things bernie forced her hand on promising, people will say "SEE?? I knew it all along! she's just like the republicans. She never cared about the children!"

[heyjude]

I believe he is damaging the party and the party's chances in Nov. He is not mathematically eliminated but his path to victory rests on fairy dust and millenial wishes. It's not going to happen. We don't need HRC going even more to the left if we expect her to run a viable general. The only purpose Bernie serves now is to act as a spoiler. And sorry. I don't like that. Nor do I have to. As a life long registered Dem I don't need to make nice to the interloper who is using the party for name and money only.

[froggy76]

The man has a right to run and he doesn't exactly have a failed campaign. I like him and respect him. I assume he'll endorse HRC if she wins the nom. Part of me is also glad we have an alternative in case anything blows up with Hillary (which it shouldn't, but we all know how she's been targeted for decades).

It's ridiculous to say he's damaging the party. It's a primary. This is how it works. We do this every 4-8 years.

[lexus]

Mar 24, 2016 10:12:39 GMT -5 froggy76 said:

The man has a right to run and he doesn't exactly have a failed campaign. I like him and respect him. I assume he'll endorse HRC if she wins the nom. Part of me is also glad we have an alternative in case anything blows up with Hillary (which it shouldn't, but we all know how she's been targeted for decades).

It's ridiculous to say he's damaging the party. It's a primary. This is how it works. We do this every 4-8 years.

Agreed! He isn't damaging the party he is highlighting how an important demographic wants to see the party change. If the Dems are smart, some of those shifts will start to occur in the next few years as the millennials age. Like it or not, millennials aren't going anywhere and if the party wants their votes in the future they will take note.

[jigsy]

I think it is great that he is still running. We have states that rarely get to participate in the primary now getting a chance to do so and I think that the high turnout at these primaries/caucuses should be encouraging.

I don't mind Bernie pulling Hillary to the left...but it does feel disingenuous on her part. I wish she would just say what she really believes rather than getting pulled one way or the other. This is my major issue with her - I don't know if she says things because it is politically expedient, or because it is what she really believes.

[jigsy]

Mar 24, 2016 10:50:32 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Mar 24, 2016 10:42:44 GMT -5 jigsy said:

I think it is great that he is still running. We have states that rarely get to participate in the primary now getting a chance to do so and I think that the high turnout at these primaries/caucuses should be encouraging.

I don't mind Bernie pulling Hillary to the left...but it does feel disingenuous on her part. I wish she would just say what she really believes rather than getting pulled one way or the other. This is my major issue with her - I don't know if she says things because it is politically expedient, or because it is what she really believes.

So she should never be pulled any way?  That's the only way to solve this problem.  Once you've drunk the "she's untrustworthy" kool aid, she can never change her mind again or else it's suspicious.

Which, btw, is what every politician in the US does.  It's actually kinda in the job description (compromise, maybe even evolve on positions over time).

I think compromise and changing opinion is different than saying what is politically smart in the moment. I know my own positions have evolved over time...but why is it "pulling her to the left" to say she isn't going to deport non-criminals? Does she really believe that that is the best policy? Does she think that policy is good, but in the current political climate it just isn't possible? Is it something she will fight for or is it something she said because it sounds good, but in the end, when the compromises start being made, that will go by the wayside?

If she is a moderate, she should be a moderate. Don't try to pander to me on the far left. Tell me what you will really do, not what you think I want to hear you say.

[heyjude]

"Millenials aren't going anywhere."

Well. Yeah. And neither are baby boomers....who largely propelled McGovern to total loss and then Bush to a disastrous win.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Mar 24, 2016 11:05:36 GMT -5 heyjude said:

"Millenials aren't going anywhere."

Well. Yeah. And neither are baby boomers....who largely propelled McGovern to total loss and then Bush to a disastrous win.

Also, I think it's intellectually dishonest to say that their own opinions or things they value aren't going to evolve over time.

For example: me at 25 would've probably not cared about the lack of anything resembling a plan to execute Bernie's vision because I really like the vision. Me at 35 is extremely concerned about that to the point that it's one of the biggest reasons I can't support him.

[jeaniebueller]

Mar 24, 2016 10:40:09 GMT -5 lexus said:

Mar 24, 2016 10:12:39 GMT -5 froggy76 said:

The man has a right to run and he doesn't exactly have a failed campaign. I like him and respect him. I assume he'll endorse HRC if she wins the nom. Part of me is also glad we have an alternative in case anything blows up with Hillary (which it shouldn't, but we all know how she's been targeted for decades).

It's ridiculous to say he's damaging the party. It's a primary. This is how it works. We do this every 4-8 years.

Agreed! He isn't damaging the party he is highlighting how an important demographic wants to see the party change. If the Dems are smart, some of those shifts will start to occur in the next few years as the millennials age. Like it or not, millennials aren't going anywhere and if the party wants their votes in the future they will take note.

But....we saw this in 2008, 2004, 2000, basically every election since the beginning of time. Young people are generally progressive and want hope and change and all that good feel good stuff. Do they come out and vote though? 

ETA: I guess I am referring to the DNC primaries specifically.

[heyjude]

Mar 24, 2016 10:47:14 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Mar 24, 2016 10:12:39 GMT -5 froggy76 said:

The man has a right to run and he doesn't exactly have a failed campaign. I like him and respect him. I assume he'll endorse HRC if she wins the nom. Part of me is also glad we have an alternative in case anything blows up with Hillary (which it shouldn't, but we all know how she's been targeted for decades).

It's ridiculous to say he's damaging the party. It's a primary. This is how it works. We do this every 4-8 years.

I'm very wary of drawing any lessons from previous years.  The rules have flown out the window for this election and I don't think anyone knows what Bernie's ultimate effect will be just yet.  I'm not ruling anything out.

Yes. We don't do "this" every 4-8 years. This primary is very different than others. I don't remember a primary this nasty.

[Vespasia]

I don't have an issue with Bernie staying in the race in theory. What I do have a huge problem with the level of vitriol being spewed by that side against HRC this late in the game. It seems to be getting worse as time goes on. That is what is going to hurt in November.

[heyjude]

I have a feeling if Bernie won the nom he wouldn't say anything different in a general. One of the reasons I'm terrified of him in a general contest.

[heyjude]

One of the problems with Bernie is that his message does not change. Some people call this conviction. But honestly you don't govern on formulaic conviction alone. You have to govern to the needs of the nation in the moment. So I see his "conviction" as actually obtuseness, which for POTUS? No thank you. I LIKE that HRC can evolve based on what is best at the time. That to me is part of her strengths.

[jeaniebueller]

Mar 24, 2016 11:27:34 GMT -5 heyjude said:

One of the problems with Bernie is that his message does not change. Some people call this conviction. But honestly you don't govern on formulaic conviction alone. You have to govern to the needs of the nation in the moment. So I see his "conviction" as actually obtuseness, which for POTUS? No thank you. I LIKE that HRC can evolve based on what is best at the time. That to me is part of her strengths.

TBH, I don't want to elect someone who hasn't grown intellectually in what, 40 years. 

[MrsAxilla]

Mar 24, 2016 11:27:34 GMT -5 heyjude said:

One of the problems with Bernie is that his message does not change. Some people call this conviction. But honestly you don't govern on formulaic conviction alone. You have to govern to the needs of the nation in the moment. So I see his "conviction" as actually obtuseness, which for POTUS? No thank you. I LIKE that HRC can evolve based on what is best at the time. That to me is part of her strengths.

And frankly, this is one of the things Ds usually hate in Rs - the unwillingness to change one's "convictions" when confronted with new facts and information.  Climate change is a prime example.  And really, what the fuck is the point of political discourse and democracy if changing your opinion and evolving your views is discouraged?  

[lexus]

Mar 24, 2016 11:14:21 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

Mar 24, 2016 10:40:09 GMT -5 lexus said:

Agreed! He isn't damaging the party he is highlighting how an important demographic wants to see the party change. If the Dems are smart, some of those shifts will start to occur in the next few years as the millennials age. Like it or not, millennials aren't going anywhere and if the party wants their votes in the future they will take note.

But....we saw this in 2008, 2004, 2000, basically every election since the beginning of time. Young people are generally progressive and want hope and change and all that good feel good stuff. Do they come out and vote though? 

ETA: I guess I am referring to the DNC primaries specifically.

They seem to be showing up for the primaries in a lot of states. My point about them not going anywhere is that they are more likely to be reliable voters as they get older.

[heyjude]

What purpose does he serve by staying in?

I think his purpose at this point is to win. I think we have moved beyond starting a revolution or spreading a message. I think he wants to win. I don't think he started with this motivation but I think that's the driving force now. And of course that's his right, that is unquestionable. But at what cost? Because the reality is that he very likely cannot win. His only stated strategy is to try to turn HRC's pledged and super delegates against her. And that will absolutely damage the party. And her.