I haven't heard anything about this from any other source. Seems strange to me, somehow.

ETA: I Googled this, and did find some other sources, including the LA Times. Based on my search, I wonder what Sanders is thinking, really. This makes no sense at all. Elections are ALL about winning. He seems detached from the reality of the challenge Clinton is facing and stuck on his own agenda.

'Elections are ALL about winning.'

I disagree, elections are about governance and issues, to disregard good governance and issues just to 'win' makes for the exact opposite of good governance and dedication to issues

...when I was a young boy I asked my father what a politician's most important job was.

He said, simply, "to get elected", then added "if one doesn't get elected one can't do very much".

That was sixty years ago, I'll never forget it.

he's just one example....

seems you may have forgotten that...

an ordained minister and one of the greatest moral voices in the history of the U.S.

Harriet Tubman

we could on and on with this 'back and forth' but I believe my point is well made that 'if one doesn't get elected one can't do very much' is bunk...

Yes, people who do not seek office can still have a large impact. Once you run, though, you run to win that office. Bernie Sanders has run and won a number of times, and still holds a seat in the Senate. He will not, however, be the Democratic nominee for President, and must recognize that at this point.

you posted this:
'I wonder what Sanders is thinking, really. This makes no sense at all. Elections are ALL about winning. He seems detached from the reality of the challenge Clinton is facing and stuck on his own agenda.'

it's in the very article in the OP

"Sanders also stunned some of the Democrats in attendance when he told them that winning elections wasn't the only thing they should focus on."

"The goal isn't to win elections, the goal is to transform America," Sanders said at one point, according to multiple lawmakers and aides in the room.
Some Democrats booed Sanders for that line, which plays better on the campaign trail than in front of a roomful of elected officials.
House Democrats overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary fight, so it was not surprising that Sanders got a cool reception from them."

"Sanders complained about the "super delegate" process used during the primaries. "One person is starting with 900 delegates before anyone even votes," Sanders said. The Vermont socialist and his supporters have been upset about the issue for months."

"The senator also talked about his outstanding issues with the party's platform, particularly when it comes to trade."

“What he said very clearly is we’ve got to beat Trump and the way he believes we’re “What he said very clearly is we’ve got to beat Trump and the way he believes we’re going to do it is by having a commitment to an agenda that excites people, including the younger people. And he’s working on that."

and there is this.. to better 'answer' your 'point'

For his part, Sanders said he had a basic message for House Democrats.
“My message was a simple message: We have got to fight for the needs of the middle class and working families of this country,” Sanders said as he left the caucus meeting. “We got to get people involved in the political process, we got to get a large voter turnout, and if we have a larger voter turnout, Democrats will regain control of the Senate and I believe they’re gonna take the House back.”
Sanders also weighed in at a press conference on the FBI's decision not to recommend charges against Clinton for sending classified information over her private servers as secretary of State.
"I think you’ve heard me say from day one that there is a process in terms of the investigation regarding Secretary Clinton and the emails," Sanders said. "Yesterday was an important part of that process. Now we wait to hear from the Justice Department."

Shows how detached he has been throughout this entire process.

Does he not realize that there are only 714 superdelegates? So who were those other 186 delegates?

oh ok... making a mistake... it's ok for HRC but not same deference given to Bernie, got it

the point still stands, what is democratic about having SDs pledge BEFORE a single primary vote is cast... exactly what is DNC stating by allowing SDs pledge BEFORE a single DEM voter casts their vote?

...in how you define 'governance'?

dependent on that answer would matter in how I would proceed to answering your comment here

You can't ever lose if you don't run. Nor can you win, but standing outside of the political race, you can certainly raise issues.

Out first job is to get elected. There can be no progressive movement of any sort under Trump.

An engaged and focused movement can make ANY elected official act... human history validates that

But not if they threaten an election as consequential as 2016. No progressive movement can survive a Trump presidency and the thirty-year fallout from bad policy (more wars, economic chaos ) and the loss of the Supreme Court.

I do not assume we will beat Trump easily...maybe we will maybe we won't. I am prepared for a fight to elect Hillary because hate sells. I am a Hillary volunteer and look forward to making sure Ohio gets to vote...we always have dirty tricks in this state under a GOP governor. We have had some court victories, but we do have an ID law now...so we will be getting people to the polls and registering voters. I know because in my town is in Trumbull country (Democratic area)and we have lost all of out precincts except for one location with a parking lot that holds 30 cars maybe that part of the GOP effort will be causing long lines in Democratic areas by shutting down precincts. I will be in Youngstown or Cleveland passing out water on election day or hot drinks as is needed...disgusting and disgraceful bu this is what we face. Honestly, I don't care what the Dem platform states (do we even know what it said in prior election years?). I simply want to unite and defeat the greatest threat to our country ever...Donald Trump.

at least, but your post is far too realistic for comfort. "Hate sells." There's a run on hate these days.

Trump still could win, and with him people like the Koch alliance. They are far too clever not to find ways to use Trump to their ends. He has already promised to appoint justices from the list provided by the Heritage Foundation, and their operatives would be experts in schmoozing and debasing themselves as needed.

We'll win this one almost certainly, in spite of election theft. I think. People like the Kochs may well have decided to focus on more definitive methods than influencing minds.

But we have seen some violent episodes which will certainly ramp up the fear in the electorate...we must be prepared to fight hard. Sorry about the terrible grammar and spelling...obviously spell check was not my friend!

Btw, didn't notice whatever. Message so much more interesting than the whatever.

principles are always consequential, regardless of election cycle

liberal/progressive ideology will always survive individual(s) and 'election cycles', this is validated throughout human history in terms of democracy context

what you're attempting to do is use 'fear extortion' to suspend one's principles to get a 'win' regardless of principle... I don't accept that premise and neither should you, let alone should you be pushing that narrative

Trump is a real danger...and I put his defeat ahead of any movement ...this is an election year. We need to elect Hillary Clinton- our Democratic nominee. No progressive movement will survive a Trump presidency. He would pack the courts and enact policy that would be difficult to end as Reagan did. We still suffer the consequences of Reagan to this day. Trump literally threatens the lives of the American people;this includes women, LGBT, Immigrants, Muslims ET AL ...I have no greater priority this year than trouncing Trump...I will look at movement politics on January 21st, 2017.

Those who win become the leaders. Therefore, elections are all about winning and who wins. Losers do not gain the offices, and thus will not contribute to governance.

We vote for candidates who come the closest to our own opinions about governance and issues. Those who are not candidates on our ballots cannot receive our votes. Primary elections are for determining who the winners are for the various parties. General elections are about who the real winners actually are and who will hold office.

In the end, winning is the only goal. Elections are about choosing those who will govern. Their issues are why we vote for them or against them.

Simple.

'He seems detached from the reality of the challenge Clinton is facing and stuck on his own agenda'

Care to defend that comment using your most recent reply?

What 'agenda' do you specifically refer to?

How is Bernie 'detached from reality'?

To an outside observer it would look like a massive attempt by you to marginalize / minimize what Bernie has done this primary cycle

I'm not capable of marginalize or minimize anything. I'm just a poster on a relatively obscure internet forum. Nothing I write is massive in any way. It's just musing in the morning.

However, I do not believe you are reading my post above carefully enough. You appear to have misunderstood what I wrote.

I'm merely pointing out what you have replied/posted

care to reply to my specific point as you specifically posted about Bernie or no?

Then why did he complain so much about "rigged elections'" superdelegates, and closed primaries? I think he changes his narrative when it suits him, just like any politician. It was about winning there for awhile, there's no denying that. Now that he's lost, he's trying to change the narrative. That's fine for him to do it, because that's what politicians do, but let's not pretend he wasn't in this to win until he couldn't.

advocating for reform is now 'complaining' got it...

I would guess that's why he's doing this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2239531

n/t

He doesn't seem to care at all about anything that worked to his advantage, but wasn't fair. That's self-serving, and completely at odds with the fairy tale he's trying to spin about wanting to 'save' the party. Bull. He wants to change things so he can say he would have won if the new rules were in place when he ran.

interesting perspective you have within that bubble you're creating there

Even thought it's the only thing that lets anyone do a single thing on his agenda for making America great again.... whoops, I mean fostering the revolution.

All his "reforms" we're about selectively getting more votes for himself because he was losing the primary and he wanted to win. If he was truly about reform and voting rights, he'd be attacking the people making it harder to vote (the GOP), not the person beating him in the primary from the party that supports voting rights. He'd want undemocratic caucuses removed, too, but he didn't say a word about them, except to praise them. It's reform, but opportunistic reform rather than sincere reform, IMO.

He is not going to run again, and he knows the deck is already stacked against him this year. So he has nothing personally to gain by advocating for reform.

That's a silly meme.

n/t

n/t

Why ignore the fact that not a single person here is agreeing with you? Maybe because most of us at DU agree with DU's core principles:

principles are always consequential, regardless of election cycle

liberal/progressive ideology will always survive individual(s) and 'election cycles', this is validated throughout human history in terms of democracy context

use of 'fear extortion' to suspend one's principles for a vote to get a 'win' regardless of principle is never a valid premise, this is why the DEM slide continues right... I don't accept that premise and neither should you

There is such a strong narrative here on DU lately that concerns suspending one's principles to garner a vote because the other side has 'that guy'... but when folks ask and point out issue of their candidate and not the 'other guy' that conversation is shut down, it's actively suppressed and dismissed

Does 'core principles' allow for principled stances and discussion concerning the DEM party and current governance?

One thing I have learned is that when you have a real discussion with folks, overwhelmingly, we all want the same things. We just disagree on how to go about it. But it doesn't mean that the "other" is without principles.

n/t

And that should be more than obvious from his behavior. Very similar to the shtick that even though he has been in congress for 30 years he's not part of the establishment. LOL - sure, right.

No, he is actually the quintessential politician. But very good at pretending to be pure.

FFS, this is Civics 101 basics here, how do so many people not get it?

...that directly impacted 'governance and issues'

You're trying to equate two things that are not the same.

n/t

It was all about raising the tone, and being better than everyone else, and giving the same speech over and over, and calling attention to himself, and talking and talking and talking, and not winning. No, it was not about winning elections. It was about, um, other things, inexplicable.

Old habits are hard to break.

He is "waiting to hear from the Justice department" ????

He just can't. If he is, then he needs to go home to Vermont for a long rest.

I didn't believe that for a while, but he does seem to be holding out some sort of hope that he will become the Democratic nominee, even now. The only circumstance that could lead to that would be a Clinton withdrawal. The only think I can think of that would cause her to withdraw would be an indictment.

I can't really come to any other conclusion. Sanders appears to believe that there is some mechanism that might lead to his becoming the nominee. He must know that won't happen, but he continues to refuse to work toward unity. It's puzzling and more than a little disturbing to me.

Yes, he's pushing ideas and positions, but he could do that after conceding as well. He still has a large number of people who supported him during the primaries, but those primaries are over. At this point, there is no point in continuing to insist that he's still campaigning.

I can't imagine hoping for such a fate for a person I said I know, liked, and respected for nearly twenty five years.

What's always bothered me is - he and his campaign spent the last half of the primary season moving the goal posts around, regarding super delegates - he didn't approve of 'em, thought they should be done away with, but then he switched that and wanted them to flip to him, declared there were several different, and changing, metrics for what constituted reaching the critical number of delegates, no-she-can-only-win-with-pledged-delegates, and on and on. Seemed like it changed every doggone week forcryingoutloud!

I don't know what the deal is with him now. Unless it's an old tired syndrome I've witnessed for years in my own experience, among men in professional or powerful positions. They don't like women in there. They're bothered by women breaking through barriers to get in when they should know their "rightful place." It was awfully hard to get used to, and to have to "accommodate." They don't like to have to move over and make room when it used to be that they didn't have to. Just what I've observed, personally.

It's just a damn shame. He's squandering all the good will and clout and leverage that was built up, including all the hopes of his many supporters who really believed with all their hearts. I used to feel more troubled by what this was doing to him and his legacy. But whatever damage he's doing now is self-inflicted. At this point, all I care about is that his followers are the ones who'll wind up getting hurt the most. It's not fair to them to keep stoking their hopes the way he's now doing.

He's been someone I've respected for many, many years. However, at this point, he is harming the chances that his positions and ideas will become policy in this country. He ran to become the Democratic nominee, but failed to win election to that position. It's an extremely difficult goal. Someone else won. When that happens, candidates who did not achieve their election goal almost always support the candidate from the same party for the general election. They do not continue to pretend that they are contending for the nomination. Such a pretense is detrimental to one's goals.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders share many priorities. Since he did not win in the primaries, it is now past time for him to enthusiastically endorse the candidate who did. To do otherwise lessens that candidate's chances of winning, and that's especially true in this election year.

I'm disappointed in his decision. I don't attribute it to misogyny, though, or to anything but ego. That's also disappointing to me. I wish Senator Sanders would take a few days to reflect on what his support could mean and compare it to what his non-support might mean. I truly do.

I don't like what it's doing to his supporters - it's really unfair and, frankly, rather selfish, of him to keep their hopes up when he's NOT gonna be the nominee, he's NOT gonna be the quarterback, he's NOT going to be carrying the ball, he's NOT going to be setting the agenda, and he's NOT going to be calling the shots. He seems to be trying to do that now. But he LOST! I don't like seeing the negative impact on the many people who believed in him, in good faith, and took him seriously, and placed their hopes and dreams in him. Including a lot of people here. And he's just leading them all down the garden path with a lot of false and misleading expectations. That's not fair to them. And it's not fair to HIM, either, and the stands he's taken and the beliefs he holds. He's pissing his legacy away. I've lost count of how many times I've read, and that I've stated also, that he isn't doing himself any favors. The biggest blow is being dealt to his followers to whom he's still making promises he can't keep.

are being demonstrated again and again as time goes on. This behavior is entirely consonant with being so righteous in one's own positions that recognizing validity in alternative answers is out of the question.

What may have seemed with less exposure like ONLY holding to high principles with more exposure during this campaign looks ALSO like an expression of rigid patterns of thinking that don't allow compromise in goals or further evolution of closely held opinions.

His unwavering convictions give Sanders's message the power to reawaken millions of Americans to believe we can choose to reform and advance our nation, and that has been a great contribution, hopefully in itself a truly transformative one. But.

MineralMan, you wrote, "The only circumstance that could lead to that would be a Clinton withdrawal. The only think I can think of that would cause her to withdraw would be an indictment."

I don't expect or endorse any of the following but your post provoked these thoughts.

Hillary Clinton might withdraw if she or maybe her husband were diagnosed with a terminal illness.
She might withdraw if there were a threat to her or her family.
If she were seriously injured or even assassinated she wouldn't be the Democratic candidate.

In the event she couldn't continue, even if the FBI's decision had been to bring charges against her, I don't think the Democratic Party would turn to Senator Sanders as the candidate.

Keeping this kicked!

Is that not correct?

He needs to stfu.

as are Democrats across the country.

And the song is so apropos.

why is he advocating for larger turnouts?

Curious, that

I swear, the guy is having an end-of-life crisis and he sees this, after a lifetime of making only small changes along the margins in Congress, as his last opportunity to do something lasting.

The rest of us should just sit down, shut up and do what he says.

It's his turn, damnit!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

so they can actually enact and implement policy instead of making speeches about it

"there's more to elections than winning" sounds a lot more like an excuse than a plan

are expressions of frustration.

To defeat Trump isn't very hopeful.

Plural.

Clearly he's talking about more than one campaign.

The primary is over.

There's no there, there.

HRC won.

Sanders Urges House Democrats to Address Middle Class Needs

Sanders Talks to House Democrats about Campaign Finance Reform

Sanders Talks to House Democrats about Strategy for Taking Back Congress

====

But Politico didn't use one of the above headlines, as it gives articles on Bernie Sanders as negative a slant as possible.

Nancy Pelosi, who endorsed Clinton, apparently likes Sanders, too, since she had him address the caucus.



Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders this morning

Everyone has heard the Sanders stump speech thousands of times, that is not news.

Besides endorsing five Democrats running against other Democrats?

Love to hear what it is...

The question is what Sanders will be willing to do to get people elected in competitive districts. I could provide him with a list...

With regard to what he'll do next, that has to do with the DSCC, DCCC, and HRC campaign. If one of those organizations wants to fund a speaking tour for him, then I'm sure he'll do a speaking tour. He probably doesn't have enough campaign funds of his own to do a speaking tour.