He has some important issues.

I don't really understand why he waits...next week will be very bad for him.

And he honors his commitments. He also thinks that everyone should have a right to vote for their candidate before the convention.

I have brought this up repeatedly, but it is met with a deafening silence on the part of Hillary supporters (with one or two exceptions). If you want people who support Sanders to rally around Clinton after the convention, you should support our right to vote for our choice of candidate now. Otherwise, why should we rally around her? And no, don't tell me that these repeated threads suggesting that he should drop out have nothing to to with Hillary's campaign; there have been too many of these for them to just be lone supporters expressing their opinion. There has been a steady effort to persuade Bernie to drop out, and to encourage his supporters to abandon him NOW.

I won't do that, and I doubt that many of his supporters will. You see, for us it is not about him, but about the future of our country and the world. We think that drastic change is needed and that it can't wait for another four or eight years.

with their intended vote. It is STILL primary voting.

The taunting is unnecessary, and, immature.

I think your post was just common sense, and too bad some posters here on both sides have just become addicted to the fighting and don't want to see past the moment. The worst are more likely to be GOP trolls instigating at Dem sites.

of wasting all this money...could be used down ballot to get the GOP out.

he would better serve the issues he cares about if he got out of the race. Here's why: If he wants to continue to drag this out as long as possible, many in the establishment are going to be rightfully annoyed that he is taking time, money, and energy away from starting the general election campaign earlier. In return, they would be less likely to make big concessions to Bernie in the platform, since he won't be helping the party as much as they would like. If he were to drop out this week, after another bad round of press declaring his candidacy over, his leverage for platform changes would never be greater. The party would be grateful that he took the high road, and I think he would get more of what he wants than if he slogs it out through the end.

"since he won't be helping the party as much as they would like"

It would appear that he's already doing that if you peruse over to HRC group or read all the replies, like yours, in GD-P

Pushing the issues through until convention makes sure they remain in the forefront, REGARDLESS of candidate, and isn't that the more important reason we as voters need to have during this primary process?

I'm sure HRC and her supporters can understand that but, it would appear if one were to read your reply that maybe you aren't wanting to have that happen...

They don't take the views Sanders has been pushing for seriously. Nor do they care to cater to the millions of people who share those views (including many mainstream Democrats who are voting for Clinton for "pragmatic" reasons" ).

Even if they express appreciation to Bernie for leaving quickly and quietly, they will not make any real changes, in the platform or any otehr way.

He's in it to get these messages and goals out into the public, express what many people know, but never hear, and offer an alternative interpretation of "reality" than the corporate-approved agenda.

He IS taking the high road by not just perpetuating the things he believes are wrong in the system.

I think some of Bernie's ideas are good which is why I voted for him in Ohio but why should Hillary who won on her ideas adopt his and jettison what is a winning campaign?

not all of her policies -- but the issues Bernie is addressing.

Frankly, if she did that -- and meant it -- combined with those who support her, she could wipe the floor with the GOP, and actually get good things done as president.

She can campaign against Trump all she wants.

What she can't do is promise tax cuts for the rich, "reforming" Social Security and boast about the benefits of free trade agreements.

I'd prefer to delay that pivot indefinitely.

They think it's about Bernie (for us and for him) Or about Bernie vs Hillary. Or Even just this election cycle. It's not. It's about the issues, and it's about fixing a rigged and broken political and economic system that is not working for the vast majority of people in this country. The establishment may win this round, but these issues are not going away. Revolution will happen- the status quo is not sustainable. At this point the only question is what form it'll end up taking.

Last edited Sun May 1, 2016, 02:33 PM - Edit history (2)

The contribution I have sent to him is a small price to pay for the thousands of hours he has spent in his lifetime, speaking for me. And he is not a one-issue candidate. He has always advocated for better education, better treatment for military people and veterans, better care of our infrastructure, better response to climate change, better voting rights policies, and better civil rights guarantees for Black people.

I was gratified when he began to mention the names of the Black people being injured and killed by vicious police officers, even before the Black Lives Matter activists began interrupting speeches. That was while Hillary was still saying that "all lives matter." Well, that is true, but she did not seem to notice for awhile that white supremacists were using that phrase to try to shut down the Black Lives Matter people.

I am not a socialist; I think big corporations have a dynamic role to play in the generation and management of technological progress and financial management. Some people just have a knack for business, and some people just want to be rich. I don't. If you do, then go ahead and create a large corporation. As Elizabeth Warren says, keep a bundle for yourself and God bless you. But give some of it back. You guys have begun to take too much of the profit, and you need to give more of it back.

I am old enough to remember a time when they plowed more of their profits back into research and development and compensation to even their lowest employees. People were mostly happy to work for them then, and some of these big corporations actually did a good job of advocating better social justice and demonstrating how well it could work. Back then, American corporate leaders were genuinely patriotic, and they did not expect one-way loyalty from the rest of us (that, by the way, is as good an operational definition of slavery as any). Things were starting to get better, until a bunch of white people panicked about the loss of their master status. These people need to be told firmly that a bunch of the rest of us will not cooperate with the reinstatement of ridiculous white privilege.

Bernie Sanders does not speak for me on every issue, but then I don't expect that in a candidate. I have been gratified to see Hillary Clinton learning not to use the phrase "all lives matter" when it has unfortunately been co-opted by white supremacists and will therefore encourage their delusions of grandeur. I remember her good efforts to install a form of universal health care in the nineties and her advocacy for women's and children's rights through the years. It is certainly possible for her to win my vote. I am going to observe her words and her deeds. I do not expect the Democratic platform to conform to Bernie's ideas, or to my somewhat more moderate ideas. I am waiting for greater willingness to rein in the multinational enfants-terribles such as Jamie Dimon, for repudiation of the oligarchy urges of the Republican regimes and the Ryan-Bush-Cheney-Kissinger crowd, and for respectful dialogue and negotiation with other wings of the Democratic party. That is how politics works.

transported instantly forward in time (like Rip vanWinkle) they'd be appalled at our values and what has become Standard Operating Procedure for too many businesses...and the effect it has had on the lower and working classes, and impact of Monopolistic "Win at Any Cost" Capitalism has had on actual competitive free-enterprise capitalism.

And you can say the same for any previous generation. Western civilization, as a whole, always becomes more progressive and less conservative. It's never fast enough and there are pitfalls along the way but it's the nature of our society to keep advancing.

Those previous generations would also be appalled that we dare talk openly about trans-gender issues.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

First of all, I am not talking about people from 1910...I',m talking about a few decades ago....(Many of us remember it, but we have been like boiled lobsters where the heat has been turned up gradually.)

We have definitely advanced on many social issues, and access by women, AAs and others who are not white males.

But we are steadily turning back the clock on the gains of the early and mid 20th Century in terms of broadening the base of the economy and political power, and the expansion of a middle class.

We are reverting to a modern version of the Gilded Age and dominance by Robber Barons and a newer national version of Tammany Hall.

That brings us all to a more homogenized way of life with its ups and downs. We gain from this, we lose from it.

It's part of why we see such conflict in the Middle East, in general a much more regressive society. They are being brought kicking and screaming into the 20th century.

It's part of why corporations are becoming more international. It's why mom-and-pop stores can sell their goods overseas.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

Beginning with the Oil Crises of the 70's, Corporate America, Wall St. started pushing Orwellian double speak down the public's throat. They used the global economt to enable them to shed social responsibility and accountability to the public interest so they could advance an immoral, greedy and destructive agenda.

"We have to eliminate competition through merging to form monopolies to protect competition."

"We have to slash your wages and benefits to protect your standard of living.....(Never mind that I am collecting millions abd billions of personal wealth in the process.)"

"We have to eliminate jobs or ship them overseas to protect jobs."

Collectively, we as the public accepted this crap. The Reagan Revolution embodied it,. But neither party has really stood up and challenged it and pointed out that the Emperor has no Clothes.

The effort to rectify and restore a balance and accountability is the core of what Sanders and those who support him are about.

Women were granted the right to vote in 1020. And probably the majority existed for awhile before this change was made official.

My objection to the Third Way is that they are caving in to the regressive tax breaks for the super-rich and the regressive power grabs by huge corporations which are driving us back toward the excessive income disparities of the Gilded Age, which really were not that much better than the neofeudal disparities of the Confederacy.

[center]
Figure 1: Pie-in-the-sky.[/center]

I disagree.

"Pie in the sky" doesn't mean it's not desirable. It just means it's impossible.

I prefer a more realistic approach that sees progress by finding common ground.

Bernie (and presumably his supporters) approach things with an all-or-nothing philosophy. And ultimately, they get nothing ... and oddly enough, they seem to be quite proud of themselves for achieving nothing.

It's as if the actual reward was just the self-satisfaction of being able to smugly state that they had "tried" and that they "stood their ground" and "didn't compromise". Yet, they still end up with nothing.

His type of "revolution" can't succeed as strictly a top-down change. (This has been discussed many times already.)

Besides, none of this bickering matters anyway. Bernie's not going to be the nominee. He tried and he failed.

The people who wanted universal access through a single-payer system where is shut out of the room from the beginning. The public option was a compromise. The compromise was eliminated by the same people who rejected single-payer. Compromise was all one-way from the advocates for it.

If you want to talk about purists it's the my-way-or-the-highway mentality of people who call other people purist.

... if there had been more support further down the line, then the possibility of being "shut out" would be unlikely. I wonder why that was. I wonder if any lessons can be learned from that.

look at what Clinton did to health care reform in the early 90's.

common ground. That's how he got expanded veteran support through--with help from Republicans. I don't think it's an all or nothing philosophy; rather, it is stating up front what you want to accomplish and seeing how much of it you can get. When you start negotiating from a compromise position to begin with, as Obama has to frequently done, you get very little.

But some issues are important enough to fight for, and there is something to be said for the possibility of taking on a broader fight, using populist positions, to win back the Congress in the face of recalcitrant Republican leadership. These are likely the worst batch of Congress critters in history, and if we gave their consitutents something to vote for we should have a good chance of sweeping back into power. If we need a President the abiliity to make at least changes comparable to those made by LBJ, if not FDR. We will never have that without a candidate who is willing to fight, and call out Republican positions for what they are,. It's hard to do than when you are busy triangulating into a position they will vote for. Indeed, much of the Republican success with the white working class is related to their abondonment by Democrats, IMO.

I wonder where all the "math" experts were on that one.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151220/08101633141/hillary-clinton-wants-manhattan-project-encryption-not-back-door-that-makes-no-sense.shtml

Any 'commitment to a greater good' should be paramount. DU usually united behind that simple truth.

However, 'greater good' seems to be in short supply around here these days, while 'teams' are trying to win by throwing elbows and taunting each other endlessly. Keeping exaggerations and propaganda checked used to be a thing here at DU, but, that activity is now viewed as suspicious behavior.

This has been the worst primary season at DU.

Some of you are helping keep the rest of us sane here.

Issues are for nerds, dorkwads, and geeks!

But then I read the text...nerds, dorkwads and geeks unite!

Why stay in ? What would be the point...waste of time and money.

If so, is that due to a problem in his leadership, organization, or followers? When he concedes, will the revolution end with the concession?

No Bernie did not create those problems. The problem is the way our system has been operating.

He and millions of other people have been trying to solve them on many levels in ,many ways.

Pay attention.