2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat does Bernie want?
One of my worries with Bernie is how the adoring crowds play on his psyche. When he went to the Vatican that increased my worries. The amount of ego gratification he has experienced must be overwhelming. Is it possible that he is now addicted? Is it possible that he can no longer walk away from the power and influence, the adoring crowds, and the possibility that there are higher forces at play?
No, it's not possible. Whatever one thinks of Bernie, he has always been humble and ethical. He has never sought glory, not even in this race, in which one suspects he's as surprised as anyone at his popularity. He himself has generally spoken positively of Hillary, with a few rare exceptions. He has stated consistently that he would support the Democratic nominee. (Just a week ago, Jane Sanders said that she and Bernie would vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination.)
So, my guess is that right now, he is either negotiating with Clinton and the Democratic Party or preparing to do so if he does not score a significant upset victory soon. What's his leverage in these negotiations? His influence on his base of young new voters, the fact that if he reduces his campaign activity it gives Clinton a better chance to focus on the Republicans, the fact that he can help elect downstream Democrats in certain areas, the evidence that he can help build the party among rural white voters where Democrats are weak, the likely support he has from local Democratic leaders in many of these rural communities, and the fact that he can help ensure a successful (or messy) Democratic convention. But, his leverage is only meaningful if the Clintons believe that Bernie is prepared to be disruptive.
Right now, Bernie has a lot of power. Right now, he and his team are probably trying to wrest a few things away from the Democratic establishment. He probably wants some kind of reform in the Democratic Party, some of his people to occupy roles in the Democratic Party hierarchy, some specific issues (such as a renegotiated TPP) in the Democratic platform, some public promises from Hillary, and even influence over some of her appointments should she win the presidency.
These negotiations won't be easy. God knows, if there's one thing the Clintons are good at, it's politics. They won't give in too quickly, and Bernie may be forced to demonstrate his power by being disruptive before the Clintons back off. But, in the end, the record with both Clintons is it's better to compromise than to get nothing. They will ultimately compromise with Bernie. I would not be surprised if over the next week, we see both a conciliatory and a disruptive Bernie, as he tries to win concessions from the Democratic establishment. If he wants these concessions, he has to prove that he can be tough. He has to make the Democratic Party think he's prepared to mess things up.
In the end, it's likely we will end up with Hillary as the nominee to a reformed and more progressive Democratic Party ... thanks to Bernie and his supporters.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
pat_k
(9,313 posts)(and read beyond the headline)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1798895
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)with people who cannot be trusted? What compromises can be granted that will be counted on? Which of the newly adopted issues can the other side be counted on to see through to completion?
Will Black LIves Matter to an ascendant Clinton administration? How far with the $15 minimum wage get? Remove the cap on FICA payments? Face down the fossil fuel industry to help combat the effects of Climate Change? Clean Flint's water once the cameras have moved on?
And so on, and so on and so forth...
You cannot compromise with people who cannot be trusted to fulfill their commitments.
That is the essential weakness that has actually led to Sanders campaign in the first place.
These modern aristocrats don't even want to let us eat cake.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)that BLM was protecting thugs?
Joob
(1,065 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)first time for a Democratic contender who has no history of opposing my rights on the basis of his own profound relationship with Jesus, who has never exploited bigotry against LGBT as smokescreen for scandals in their own households. I am sick to death of voting for candidates who have trash talked my family. Sick of being berated my people whose ethics and morals do not seem sound to me at all.
So I don't want to vote for 'One man, one woman' Hillary. I do not wish to validate that bias.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:31 AM - Edit history (2)
The fact is that Bernie voted against DOMA arguing that each state should have the right to decide marriage for itself, a fundamentally conservative position (the one that Ted Cruz supports today).
Bill Clinton was in a much different position. The Republicans voted on DOMA about 5 weeks before the presidential election, and Bill made the obvious (but disappointing) election calculation, especially given that DOMA had passed by vetoproof margins.
Bernie's ONLY claim to fame on gay rights while in Washington, DC is that he voted against DOMA. What did that vote get us? Nothing at all.
The fact remains that under Bill Clinton, AIDS research and education funding was markedly increased, that gays from oppressed countries were granted asylum, that scores of gays were appointed to federal position, that discrimination in federal contracts were barred by executive action, and he also was first to bring up gay rights in a State of the Union address. I can give other examples too, such as Hillary's powerful pro gay remarks in Switzerland as Sec'y of State (Gay rights are human rights, human rights are gay rights).
Bernie actually has done nothing for gay rights. The Clintons have made a difference.
That fact that Bernie elevates a useless vote as a major accomplishment underscores how little he's done. Believe me, if had a achieved a single right for gays or even introduced an important piece of legislation, he'd be talking about it. What has he done for us? Even on gay marriage, he only publicly endorsed it after the Vermont Legislature made it legal. Yes, he was ahead of Hillary on that, but he did nothing to make it happen.
