Advice to Hillary in advance of her meeting with Sanders on Tuesday

[Attorney in Texas]

Dear Secretary Clinton:

I was happy to hear you are meeting with Senator Sanders on Tuesday.

I offer you three suggestions for that meetring:

1. Ask Sanders for his help in New Hampshire, Colorado, and Wisconsin

New Hampshire, Colorado, and Wisconsin are three of the most important states this election cycle. They are three key swing states in the presidential election and also three states with tight races critical to re-taking control of the Senate. The Sanders organization is much stronger than the Clinton organization in New Hampshire, Colorado, and Wisconsin; don't be too proud to ask for Sanders' help in these key states (and other states, too, but these three states are the most critical in terms of bringing Sanders' strengths to the table in critical battlegrounds).

2. Give Sanders what he wants in terms of platform and party rules/leadership reform

The first step in fixing a problem is identifying and acknowledging the problem. Sanders won 22 states (the same number the Clinton campaign won in the 2008 primary you described as incredibly close), and you are not universally trusted by young Democrats, progressive Democrats, and liberal independents who lean Democratic. Nobody likes the anti-democratic superdelegate scheme, and the DNC is widely seen as biased. Adopting the progressive platform and DNC reforms that Sanders seeks would do much to reinforce the fractures in that trustworthiness among progressives, and it would help you distance yourself from perception that you are a status quo candidate basically offering a third Obama term in an election cycle where the voters crave change. You need only see the polling that two-thirds of Americans believe we are on the wrong track to know that you ought to embrace change where you can, and embracing much-needed change within the party would be a concrete demonstration that you can be more than a status quo candidate.

3. Seek Sanders' input on a running mate

Your first leadership test will be whether you can unite the party. Your choice of a running mate can further fracture the party (as Gore's choice of Lieberman did) or you can unite the party. No matter who you choose, it makes sense to solicit the advice of the candidate preferred by about 46% of Democrats. Your choice could put us on the Gore-Lieberman path or on a pathway to unity and a victory by a large margin.

Good luck.

[redstateblues]

1. No mention of caucuses? They are undemocratic as well.

[Chan790]

97. They're going out largely at state initiative.

The state parties are increasingly dropping them or making them not-count in favor of primaries. Other than a few holdouts like IA that values that process for arcane reasons, I think you can honestly expect to see the end of caucuses in the next 16-20 years

[Algernon Moncrieff]

176. I've been to two now. I don't like them

You meet in a meeting hall, and divide up by candidate. The smaller candidate groups and the undecided sit in the center of the room. Then both sides harass the folks in the middle to come over to their side.

IMHO, mail-in ballots are the way to go for the primaries.

[Lil Missy]

2. I urge Hillary to keep with her winning strategy with her own experts, and without the advice of DU

or DU Bernie supporters.

[Lucinda]

4. Yep. n/t

[robbedvoter]

43. Indeed!😎

[AgingAmerican]

52. Her support base has shrunk continually for a solid year

[rjsquirrel]

55. Yeah sure

That's why she lost California and New Jersey by double digits right?

Oh wait.

[AgingAmerican]

75. In a period of a year

She went from 80%+ ahead of Sanders to a tie. He chewed away at her lead slowly the whole year until he caught up with her. And he did so with the entire Democratic establishment, in collusion with the whole mainstream corporate media, attempting to stop him.

She has no momentum. Hopefully that changes, but she has no momentum.

[rjsquirrel]

76. So? No one had heard of him

She beat him. Now she's our nominee.

And she beat him handily in the end.

[AgingAmerican]

77. Because the MSM refused to acknowledge his existence

And did so in coordination with the Democratic party.

Fact remains, she hemorrhaged supporters for the entire year.

[rjsquirrel]

80. I'm talking about before he declared

He got better treatment, if less face time, by the media than Hillary after. That's been shown definitely in objective analyses as I recall.

And she didn't "hemorrhage" anything. She was unopposed. Then she had an opponent. Whom she beat handily. She only lost the ones who won't vote for her on the general, which is at best 20 percent of Bernie's 12 million right now and sure to shrink as people contemplate the alternative.

You've come to believe the propaganda. You still haven't accepted the outcome it seems. The way it works in a party primary is most people on the party support the eventual winner.

[MyNameGoesHere]

120. 24/7 Sanders and tRump were plastered on the news

And talk shows. They didn't ignore him, people just didn't vote for him in numbers that made a difference. It's time to #bernout

[swhisper1]

130. wrong

[Fla Dem]

175. Bernie Sanders More Than Triples Hillary Clinton in Sunday Show Appearances

There’s one metric, though, that clearly indicates how much of the most advantageous kind of coverage a candidate is getting, the kind of coverage in which the candidates get to speak for themselves directly to a national audience. On that score, Bernie Sanders is the hands-down winner, racking up more than triple the number of Sunday news show appearances of Hillary Clinton, and even eclipsing the total of media puppeteer Donald Trump.

Since the beginning of this campaign, Sanders has made 82 Sunday show appearances to Hillary Clinton’s 25, while Trump is close behind Sanders at 75, including this past weekend.

Even by other measures, though, it doesn’t appear that Sanders is getting short-shrift from the media. Analysis of “earned” versus paid media shows Hillary Clinton more than doubling Sanders (while Trump doubles the two of them put together), but another recent study shows that most of the free media Hillary earns has been negative. In blunt metrics like cable news mentions over the past three months, Clinton and Sanders split about a hundred thousand mentions 60-40, which roughly tracks with the vote totals they’ve received in the primaries. Donald Trump, meanwhile, is mentioned as much as Sanders and Clinton combined, despite earning millions fewer votes.

>>>More

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-more-than-triples-hillary-clinton-in-sunday-show-appearances/

[AgingAmerican]

131. Sanders was plastered on the news 24/7?

[MyNameGoesHere]

133. Here in Chicago it was Sanders all the time

barely heard a peep about Clinton. See how that works? I based my observations globally on local events. Kind of like those climate folks

[AgingAmerican]

136. No it wasn't

You are making things up. It's what cognitive dissonance does.

[Mr Maru]

159. All we saw on the news through most of the primary was Sanders, Sanders, Sanders

[font size = 4]Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Sanders, Sanders, Trump, Trump, Trump, Sanders, Sanders, Sanders, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump[/font]


They only took a breath from this once every few days to say "Hillary has a problem with her TONE"

[brush]

158. Come on now, when you don't have an opponent, of course your lead is huge.

Once you have an opponent that changes. That's not rocket science. The race begins then and it's up to each candidate to make their case to the electorate.

Bernie made his, Hillary made hers, O'Malley made his.

The voters choose Hillary.

That's it.

[swhisper1]

110. the little darlings refuse to see or feel. Hillary peaked before she ran

they are frogs in a warming skillet, unwilling to save themselves

[Mr Maru]

160. I'ts SO APPROPRIATE that BOTH of those things are a complete myth

And not based in reality at all.

[Fla Dem]

170. Oh Bless your heart!

[Fla Dem]

166. In posts further down I have posted polls that refute your claim. Post proof of

Last edited Mon Jun 13, 2016, 05:04 PM - Edit history (1)

what you say.

[TheFarseer]

122. Not that it matters now

But since you're going to be a sore winner-I think the media telling everyone bernie lost so don't bother showing up for him the day before the election kind of hurt and telling everyone come be part of history with your vote for Hillary kind of helped.

[rjsquirrel]

124. I guess his non-voters weren't all that committed then

They had time to show up at rallies and they could have voted by mail for weeks beforehand.

[Fla Dem]

173. Oh so even though the "media" sent a coded message out not to vote, HRC supporters

showed up and voted, while Bernie voters gave up. Is that what you're saying? Guess HRC supporters were more committed than BS supporters.

[TheFarseer]

179. The media was telling HRC supporters they could be part of history

Bernie supporters would just be losers wasting their time. That was the message all day the day before the election - again, not that it matters now but if you all insist on kicking us while we're down, I won't just shut up and take it.

[Fla Dem]

149. Her support by DEMOCRATS has remained high.

Only when you add in polls which include Republican (no surprise they hate her, she is so opposite of what they support) and independents which include all the the fringe party members, do her unfavorable numbers go down.



There has been no recent polling since March which separates out Dems, Repub's and Ind's. So of course the numbers used by the media and anti-HRC pundits will include the homogenized results.

But don't you believe that Democrats don't have her back and enthusiastically too. The media would like to present a different scenario so they have something to talk about.

[AgingAmerican]

150. She steadily lost support for an entire year

Among Democrats.

[Fla Dem]

163. No. HRC has not steadily lost her support base.

This poll goes back to July,2015.
Her favorability was at 79% among Democrats then, it's 76% now. How is that losing support AMONG DEMOCRATS?




If you're talking about the question "Who would you vote for?" That's a different story. Of course when there are more Democratic candidates to choose from the vote is going to be split. But HRC has consistently been higher AMONG DEMOCRATS than BS and has maintained a solid base of support of between mid 40% to a high 62% compared to BS's support among Democrats of between mid 20% to mid 40%, never cracking 50%.

[AgingAmerican]

168. Her numbers dropped while his rose

Do the math

[Fla Dem]

169. LOL, you can't show me can you?

[Her Sister]

121. this!

[Phlem]

151. Excellent work on that unity thing!

But your right. We all know that's a bunch of bullshit.

[LaydeeBug]

164. This. And because closed primaries are the only way to go. nt

[BobbyDrake]

3. This is ridiculous. What other modern losing primary candidate exercised this much control?

Why not just demand he be made Co-President already? You're not that far off already, in terms of being just plain laughable.

[Skink]

7. I think the future SOS did

[boston bean]

9. You think. LOL

[senz]

11. Love your attitude.

[KittyWampus]

31. As compared to the attitude that the woman who wins should cede control

over so much to the losing man.

That is what's disgusting.

[senz]

32. You forget that Hill, if she wins, would need Bernie's supporters.

However, if she gets haughty and elitist about it, thinking along win/lose lines -- like some ignorant people do -- well, then we'll see how she does in the GE.

[Fla Dem]

171. She will get the support of those that care about our future.

Those that don't care were never going to vote for her. They wanted a revolution and thought Bernie would deliver for them. He didn't so.....

[MaggieD]

67. I've seen things in my fellow liberals.....

.... That I wish I could unsee. Sad. And yes, it is disgusting. And disappointing.

[Hortensis]

118. Yes, but they're not all liberals by a long shot.

For the some few who are, I agree.

Aside from his conservatives, though, most of Bernie's hostile followers are radicals, a very different breed that I really hate to see mischaracterized as liberals in the media just because we're all on the left. They are extremists to various degrees and typically hostile to liberals far more than to conservatives. Weird, but after all extremism manifests weird in a lot of ways.

[swhisper1]

146. extremists exist and rarely see themself as same

[Hortensis]

174. Right. I probably shouldn't have said just "weird,"

though, but rather "manifests in ways that may strike others as weird, but not themselves." We all have our viewpoints, after all.

[swhisper1]

144. right field ranting wont get you anywhere. Gender is irreverent and a hangup

afflicting many here

[seabeyond]

24. Co President? That list is beyond even Co president. Only a man would lose and demand he be the boss

[athena]

78. Exactly.

He wants to be the boss. The double standard is sickening.

Would Bernie supporters allow Hillary a tenth this much influence if the situations were reversed? No way. They wouldn't even want to hear her name mentioned.

[annavictorious]

82. Bingo!

The degree of entitlement coming from the losing side is staggering. And they are so used to the perquisites of gender that they don't even see that it's going on.

[democrattotheend]

27. Hillary, in 2008

She had a lot of leverage and she knew it. The main difference was that she needed help paying off a massive debt, so most of what she wanted from Obama related to that rather than policy concessions.

Also, keep in mind that she had a lot more incentive to work hard to get her supporters behind Obama, because she wanted to run again and knew people might blame her if he lost. I don't think Bernie plans to run again, and he is so popular in his home state that the party doesn't have much leverage with that either. He has the freedom to do as much or as little as he wants for her, and I think his decision will be based largely on whether he can believe that she will fight for the things he cares about.

[jillan]

37. 12 million votes. Does she want them or not?

[Demsrule86]

69. I would tell him to f off honestly he lost.

[Silver_Witch]

109. You seem nice....

[BobbyDrake]

79. You're hardly the spokesperson for 12 million people. I LOL'd though, so you accomplished that. nt

[annavictorious]

85. You only speak for one vote, dear.

Nobody can guarantee the rest, not you, not Sanders.

Extortion and threats are not going to work. The vote of an extortionist is not worth the price that has to be paid.
Besides, who would trust an extortionist? There are few life forms lower.

[seabeyond]

91. Over 80% already said they would comfortably vote Clinton, .... Without threat.

[swhisper1]

111. 80 % of dems is about 15% of all americans, but go ahead and close the door

[Fla Dem]

172. OK, do you have the key?

[robbedvoter]

45. it's a matter of 🍆 vs no 🍆. Girls are not allowed on podiums and can't

make their own minds about stuff on their own

[MaggieD]

65. For reals

One of the main reasons I could not support Bernie was this self entitled white male thing attitude manifesting itself at this moment in not conceding and admitting he lost. Ugh.

[Zynx]

5. Don't play that slight of hand about the 22 states.

Hillary's states in 2008 were a lot larger on average. They included New York, California, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, etc.

[LiberalFighter]

157. Out of the top 10 largest states Hillary won 9 out of 10.

Hillary won states and territories with populations totaling over 249 million. While Sanders was nearly 70.5 million.

The electoral votes of states Hillary won is 399 vs 136 for Sanders.

The electoral votes of states Obama won in 2008 is 261 for Hillary and 84 for Sanders.

[Squinch]

6. You forgot to tell her to make him a sandwich.

Hillary is doing just fine without your advice. Hard to believe, I know.

[randome]

8. Ha!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[jehop61]

12. And a

cup of coffee, not too strong....perhaps she should also takes notes on his statements. I prefer the Gregg method, myself. 🌯☕️🍽📝

[seabeyond]

25. Exactly. So tiresome. Nt

[senz]

33. Oh, cooperation is considered sexist now?

As a feminist woman, that makes me want to

[DLCWIdem]

162. not that what the OP is suggesting is cooperation more like co-opt- eration.

Which is frankly something that Bernie and the Berners have seemed to ever want. They always wanted it their way or the highway, no mediums, no shades, just one way. That is not cooperation.

[rjsquirrel]

57. Perfect !!! ROFLMAO

He wants to Bernsplain to her how to win.

She beat him handily. His voters have nowhere to go without her that matters. They'll vote their own interests in the end.
I doubt more than a million will remain outside the tent.

[MaggieD]

70. No shit

[okasha]

100. Or iron his shirt.

[Maru Kitteh]

104. Exactly this. n/t

[procon]

10. Hogwash.

"Give Sanders what he wants in terms of platform and party rules/leadership reform"

Why?

He's not a Democrat. He's never been a Democrat, a never will be one. He's not one of us. He has no loyalty to the Party, any other Democrats, or Democratic policies, he's only interested in tooting his own horn. If the voters wanted the Democratic Party to embrace Sanders ideas they have voted for him instead of making Hillary the winner.

You're saying that Hillary should throw over all of her loyal supporters, just kick all those voters the curb, for the off chance of attracting some dishard Bernie Bros? You say voters don't want a "status quo candidate", and yet millions more voters chose Hillary, not Sanders. Your conclusions are ridiculous. Most of Sanders (at least those who will ever bother to go vote) will still vote Democratic on election day.

He'll get some nice consolation prizes as the 2nd place runner up, maybe a sash gold glitter and the home game, but he's not going to be handed an opportunity to share in the perks that rightfully belong only to the winner.

[Armstead]

17. Ariund 40 percent supported him for a reason

Yoiu wanna throw all of those off the bus with an arrogant attitude? Say hello to President Trump.

[seabeyond]

26. And over 40% of those were republicans, Libertarians and baggers who would never vote Dem.

[B Calm]

36. Link?

[Armstead]

47. Yeah sure whatever you say absolutely yeppers makes perfect sense

[DLCWIdem]

103. the West Virginia exit polls

[Armstead]

105. Yeppers the whole nation is West Virginia

[DLCWIdem]

107. Have you seen so.e of these CT posts:; straight out of the R. Paul contingent

only mentioned 1 but there are others. Like

[swhisper1]

112. the General isnt about dems. Is that why you hate Bernie because he has the support of non dems

or is it you are just manhaters? Not every non dem is interested in Trump, in fact, the radical right equals the number of radical Hillary, leaving the majority firmly in Bernies camp. If he loses the nomination,they will pretty much go their comfort route. It is a toss up. As long as there is no enthusiasm for Hillary, she loses. I suspect the write in will be historically high from all political groups, all for the same man, the only man who inspires hope.

[seabeyond]

123. There will always be a group of white men that will never vote Clinton in. They particiapted

in our primary, which was the point. Clinton will do fine in the GE.

[swhisper1]

142. I do not see a point you are making

[senz]

13. Hey, Hill fans! Keep telling us what you think of us!

And get ready for the GE.

[Squinch]

14. This is a thread of someone telling the winning candidate what he thinks of her.

And it is insulting. So, it is not really about the widespread victimization of Sanders supporters.

But, hey! Don't let that stop you from levying those empty threats!

[senz]

16. Actually, the OP advocates for progressive goals

but you wouldn't know anything about that, and neither would your candidate, right?

[Squinch]

18. Certainly not! No one is pure except those BS has allowed his followers to admire. That is until

those pure ones voice any dissent, at which time they become unpure. Like Liz! She doesn't have a progressive bone in her body any more, does she?

[senz]

19. I still like Liz just fine. She did what she had to do and I'm pretty sure

she didn't like it. But as they say, "Politics makes for strange bedfellows."

[AgadorSparticus]

115. She didn't like it? What you mean is that YOU don't like it.

Elizabeth Warren has always wanted Hillary to run for president. Here's an article from the Washington Post from 2014:

"Elizabeth Warren : I hope Hillary Clinton Runs for President".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-i-hope-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president/

[swhisper1]

143. I dont think Sanders would presume to TELL anyone what to do or say or think

He is the amendment king and is successful in politics due to his negotiating skills

[GulfCoast66]

108. Ok, you asked...

We think you are full of shit.

Now tell me, why does my opinion in any way effect your vote?

Because you make it apparent that our opinion of you matters. And there have been countless post here saying that if Hillary supporters are mean to Bernie supporters they will not vote for her.

So go pound sand and vote for her or not.

Got news for you. Most of us here really do not care what you or anyone else thinks of us. We will vote as we will.

[peace13]

138. Dear Skinner....this is what you are left with.

Pretty impressive. The sentiment out here is pretty frightening.

[seabeyond]

22. Queen of entitlement, words from sore losers.

[rjsquirrel]

59. Sexist words

From mostly white male sore losers.

[seabeyond]

63. Ya, of course. But hey, even I get tired of saying it. Bitter and loser for sure, not accepting

the peoples voice who gave Clinton the win.

[rjsquirrel]

66. Yes you see the people's revolution

is more important than the people's votes. All
Those 3.5 million more HRC voters (many of color)are dupes of the System and don't know their own minds or interested. So some campus left socialist radicals and their mostly white allies will make them see that their votes were wrong and the revolution will be glorious, comrade.

The radical elite know what's good for the peasants. Voting is only important when they win.

[creeksneakers2]

30. Here's what I don't understand

Part of Hillary's negatives is the belief that she changes positions when she gets a political benefit. Sanders supporters have been very vocal in accusing Hillary of this. But now the Sanders supporters want Hillary to change her positions in exchange for a political benefit. Which is it the Sanders supporters want? Wouldn't changing to appease Sanders give her even higher negatives?

[senz]

34. Taking others into consideration as part of an agreement

is not the same as flip-flopping for the purpose of fooling the public.

[glowing]

93. Which is why trying to fold in his supporters into

Clinton supporters is going to be semi-difficult... Plus, I don't think she will bother. She's getting plenty or Republican support at the moment. The Coke Bro's don't care for Donald at the moment and are seemingly happy with Hillary. She certainly isn't anti- oil or anti-fracking or anti-war.

I think the establishment is still going to try and overplay their hand on the populace to rid themselves of a "revolution" that gives power back to the people. But I don't think that genie is going back in the bottle.

On the other hand, she's done taken every nickel and dime from every corporation ever, knows just about everyone, has her hit lists and dirty laundry lists on just about everyone in DC, has literally bought new outlets that are friendly to her, and seems to own the DNC, if she wanted to choose to be progressive, I think she could easily. On the other hand, she's amassed almost as much power as the RNC has, with the exception of talk radio, but there are quite a few progressive online outlets now that have podcasts and YouTube channels.

She can use this power for good or she can use it for evil, however, there's no further higher achievement than the Presidency for her to go. This is the end. She can write her own history. She doesn't have to be the new-liberal, pro-corporate, pro-MIC, etc President. If she really wanted to make history, she would adopt a more FDR approach for the country.

Ultimately, it's up to her. She can listen to Sander's champion just causes, listen to his ideas about bringing all of these new, young voters into the Democratic Party with a welcoming hand, listen to him regarding what his campaign sees as the most important issues to enfold into her campaign. But no one is "mansplaing" shit. I'm a woman and I would like to see the "Bernie issues" addressed. I want to see a future for my child that I certainly don't see for myself.

she has 4 years to prove herself. Nothing is a guarantee. Shoot, the presidency isn't even a guarantee in November.

[senz]

44. Ugh. I don't know who you're talking to

but I know a bully when I see one.

There's nothing wrong with the OP; certainly no snark in it. It's just very trusting and sincere.

[ancianita]

46. Oh, crap! Sorry, senz! I meant to post to Attorney. I was agreeing with you. Will delete.

[andym]

20. All reasonable requests

Hopefully she can find a way Bernie can influence the party. Perhaps make him the next party chairperson too.

[seabeyond]

21. Wow. We should have simply elected him, instead of neutering Clinton in the name of Sanders.

[democrattotheend]

23. I think these are good ideas

I would also add, which you kind of implied, that she should seek his advice on how to appeal to young people and progressives. I would also like to see her agree to appoint progressives to certain key policy positions once elected, or at least to seek his input. I think that matters more than the party platform, honestly.

[NorthCarolina]

28. I thought she was leaning towards someone like Kasich for a VP choice

as a "unity" gesture.

[Vote2016]

48. If she could get away with it, she totally would. She is well right of Nixon

[NorthCarolina]

50. I recall there was actually some discussion of it on Hardball, as if they were releasing

a "trial balloon".

[Vote2016]

102. This would be her preference if left to her own devices. Let's not leave her to her own devices.

[Mike Nelson]

29. That seems a bit much, considering...

...she won. Instead, I would give Bernie the advice:

1. Offer Clinton help in New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin and other states.

2. Give Clinton your ideas about the Democrat Party platform and reform.

3. Do not discuss Vice Presidential options, unless asked.

[Mike Nelson]

38. I don't believe in royalty...

...uncomfortable even looking at many photos of the Queen several times while visiting Canada. I think the UK and foreign governments should get rid of royalty - peacefully, of course.

[rjsquirrel]

60. Just can't help yourselves

The misogyny just slips out like snot out of a runny nose.

[seabeyond]

64. You are really disrespectful and dismissive of the peoples voice.

[ancianita]

42. As a Berner, I like this.

[Vote2016]

40. Lol! You are amusingly gullible!

[Beacool]

49. Frankly, I don't give a fig about super delegates.

Since their inception, they have ended up supporting the candidate with the most pledged delegates. For example, the majority of super delegates switched from Hillary to Obama when it was clear that he had the pledged delegate advantage.

Want to get rid of an undemocratic process? Get rid once and for all of the caucuses. That is a system that truly suppresses voters.

As for choosing a VP, Obama was only ahead of Hillary by 102 pledged delegates and the popular vote was equally close. Yet, he didn't consult with her on his choice of VP.

[Skink]

54. You would had she been a little short.

[Beacool]

58. My point is that the super delegates are not as undemocratic as some think they are.

They have never subverted the will of the people by nominating the person who got less pledged delegates. If this is about Sanders, even if all the super delegates in the states that he won had supported him, he still would have lost the nomination. Hillary is too far ahead of him in pledged delegates and even in the popular vote.

[strategery blunder]

81. There was a fear early in the primary that they would.

I had expressed the fear early in the primary that Hillary's 400 supers would stay with her even if Bernie won a majority of the pledged delegates. I've long wanted the superdelegate system gone for that reason.

However, those fears did not come to pass. Hillary did win a majority of the pledged delegates, so the spring nailbiting notwithstanding, the superdelegates are irrelevant. (They obviously weren't going the other way.)

Though I supported Bernie, I was not impressed with his plans to "flip" the superdelegates after he lost the New York primary. Yes, that was hypocritical as hell. It smacked of desperation and I feel that it cost Bernie votes that he sorely needed. That is why I waited until after California had voted before deciding whether to contact my superdelegates on the issue. Hillary ended up passing 2026 pledged delegates that day, so I decided against it as I had recognized that Hillary had won.

The Monday AP call with superdelegates committing to Hillary the day before the vote, however, left me equally unimpressed with Hillary, as Bernie's superdelegate desperation had left me with Bernie. It was a near certainty that Hillary would secure enough pledged delegates to reach a pledged delegate majority (and she already had deep superdelegate support) the next day. That wasn't necessary, and why risk looking dirty when those Bernie voters will be needed in the GE?

I can recognize that Hillary won the primary and simultaneously argue for the rules for the next primary to become more democratic. This includes advocating for my state Democratic party to respect the primary provided for by WA state law instead of allocating delegates by caucus--which I repeatedly pointed after my state caucused and Hillary supporters were complaining about how undemocratic caucuses are. After WA switched to primaries, the state Democratic party sued for the right to re-inflict caucuses upon us.

[Beacool]

90. Yes, there's a lot in the process that needs to be fixed.

There are two times when Sanders truly angered me: 1) When he called Hillary unqualified to be president; 2) When he and his campaign came up with the totally undemocratic strategy to try to flip super delegates to him, when Hillary was far ahead in pledged delegates and the popular vote too. IMO, that was outrageous. He was trying to subvert the will of the people by trying to convince the SD to switch to him.

As for the AP, I don't think that Hillary's campaign had anything to do with this. The AP acted independently to be the first to break the news. Hillary's campaign even put out a statement requesting for people to please go out and vote that there were still six states that hadn't voted. It wasn't to her advantage if her voters had stayed home too.

WA needs to reevaluate their process. It's ridiculous that one candidate got all the delegates from the caucus, when only a handful of people voted. While the winner of the primary, where thousands more people voted, didn't get one single delegate. That makes no sense.

[strategery blunder]

117. To be fair...

...Sanders didn't call Hillary unqualified until after her "destroy and discredit" remarks after Wisconsin. Now, even though I disagree with Hillary on a great many things, she is qualified to be president, and no reasonable person (this obviously excludes Trump supporters) can conclude that she lacks the experience required. Many of us feel that it is the wrong experience, but that is a matter of opinion that should hopefully become settled as the party unites to defeat Trump. I disagreed that Hillary was unqualified when Bernie said it, but I also thought it was an "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" moment as I felt Hillary initiated that exchange.

As for trying to flip superdelegates? Yes that was outrageous and it had me SMH. Of course I was pretty quiet on DU about it, other than occasionally declaring that I was waiting until after the June primaries to decide to join such efforts, because the primary season around here got so toxic.

As for the AP, I claim no knowledge of its motives or inclinations. The suspicion I alluded to, however, is present amongst Bernie supporters, who, if the caucuses were any indication are most decidedly not Trump supporters. Hillary has done much to cultivate trust among party leaders and in places like Iowa that are the target of heavy presidential campaigning, but that trust has not "trickled down" to the rank and file in politically unimportant states. As I told my fellow Bernie supporters, Hillary is very, very good at patronage politics, and there are parts of the country where patronage is simply how things get done (NY being one of them).

As for WA, the thing that is most upsetting to us is that we did re-evaluate our process. The voters of the state passed an initiative REQUIRING the state to hold primary elections. The state Democratic Party sued in court for the right to continue the caucuses and allocate delegates thereby. The state party won. So the fact that we use undemocratic caucuses instead of holding primary elections rests solely upon the state party leadership that decided to sue to overturn the new primary elections. Hopefully now that the caucuses delivered a result that the party establishment disliked and the primary would have given the desired result if it was binding, the state party will become more receptive to honoring the will of the state's voters.

We have a really weird situation here in Washington State if you couldn't tell.

[DLCWIdem]

106. The supers are there so that Dems don't nominate a Trump

[swhisper1]

113. dems by definition cannot elect a Trump- no, it is DNC control and undemocratic

[Ken Burch]

84. Well, it probably did have an effect in convincing some people that Bernie never could be nominated.

n/t.

[Beacool]

87. I don't think so.

If that were the case, it would have stopped people in 2008 from voting for Obama.

[MFM008]

51. I think that it will go fine

I take the Senator at his word and when all is said and done HRC will know the values of advice.

[CrowCityDem]

53. Why not just give him the nomination? You suggest giving away everything else.

[Ken Burch]

73. Nothing he'd be "given" is bad for HRC or her supporters.

She doesn't need to be seen as defeating the Sanders people on platform issues and there is no good reason to maintain the status quo in terms of party organization.

[CrowCityDem]

83. Completely remaking the party for a lose is a bad precedent.

Not to mention the idea of giving him say on the running mate is a complete farce. We have primaries for a reason. The winner gets to make their own picks, since you know they won.

I guarantee no one would stand for any of this if it was Hillary demanding control of Berni's campaign.

[Zen Democrat]

89. The ultimate goal is to win a general election. That's a whole new world.

[CrowCityDem]

94. I think Hillary and Obama know more about how to win than Bernie does.

[MaggieD]

56. My advice to Clinton is....

Whatever Bernie tells you to do, ignore it and follow the advice of her own campaign strategists. Also, remind him that he needs to concede. You won.

[rjsquirrel]

61. They're in the bargaining phase

It will pass.

[MaggieD]

62. Well that is progress

[rjsquirrel]

68. Yep

And it's really just a few "revolutionary" sorts, over-represented on a site like DU. In the real world they are a tiny fraction of Bernie's voters. Most were never really democrats. And most are white men.

Well and Susan Sarandon. So rich white women too I guess, wearing cashmere in the back of their limo
on the way to the rally for "socialism."

[Demsrule86]

71. Exactly right nt.

[itsrobert]

72. "Give Sanders what he wants"

You do know Sanders was the loser? Right?

[Ken Burch]

74. As a candidate.

That doesn't mean the party rejected where he stands on the issues.

And there's nothing in his program that the party needs to be seen saying "no" to.

If HRC did what's listed in the OP, she'd beat Trump in a landslide.

[DCBob]

86. Considering your track record on analysis and predictions during this campaign season so far..

I would advise Secretary Clinton to do the exact opposite of anything you recommend.

[still_one]

88. LOL

[Tarc]

92. What the actual fuck? No, 1000x no, not even a remote chance of any of this

1. Those 3 states are easily in the Democrats' corner this fall. It's not even close, Trump is barely holding on to Republicans traditional red states, much less threatening any battleground ones.

2. What Sanders role is, if any at all will entirely depend on how soon his concession speech comes and how sincere he is about assisting...they are not partners...in Clinton's presidential campaign.

3. Zip, nada, zilch. Clinton has Liz Warren solidly in her corner now to attract the progressive vote. Sanders is in danger of becoming an afterthought here.

[bluedye33139]

96. Indeed

Thank you for this. It's like she owes him control over her presidency? Ugh.

[AgadorSparticus]

116. He should have just conceded after California. I know he wants you stay in to keep his

Word. But really, at this point, it hurts his movement far more than anything else.

[LuvLoogie]

95. 4. Make sure there's a metal detector

[peace13]

139. So funny!

Hill is the one who cackles when someone gets killed on her policy! You might be right, Bernie should frisk her for a gun before they sit down.

[Gothmog]

98. Are you going to the state convention?

[2banon]

99. Excellent Post ! Reccomend

This is very well articulated and well reasoned. Thank you for taking the time and labor backing up each of the bullet points.

As to some of the comments in this thread, many are sadly missing the point, but then they have done from the start. They don't get that this is NOT about what Sanders want, it's about what WE want.

Their response: "We won, Screw you" attitude does not a "Party Unity" make, but of course we didn't expect anything other, did we?

[DLCWIdem]

101. the only reason he won Colorado is because it was a caucaus state

[swhisper1]

114. Not true. Bernie had the most popular vote hands down, and still does

I can not think of a district that prefers her- maybe Colo srings. It is the Republican stronghold in Colo

[Her Sister]

126. Pueblo, CO with lots of Latinos!

and other areas also with Latinos: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/colorado

[swhisper1]

129. so? Latinos like Bernie too and would certainly choose him over Trump. What is your point?

[Her Sister]

135. What is your point? Point is about Colorado and caucuses... and all that fun stuff...

...plus add Demographics!!

A whole bunch of info! That's my point! My point!

[swhisper1]

141. demographics lean liberal in Colo.Bumper stickers are predominently Bernie, then Trump, then a

peppering of Clinton. Colleges are easily 90% bernie, businesses are mostly small here and are definately not for Clinton. Even the Military is split Trump/Bernie. This is one state where caucus did represent the people, students, farmers, agra, medical, and retirees, so go pick on another state with your assumptions.

[Her Sister]

147. Nah! Am military, was stationed in Colorado!

Got Bach and Master's in Colorado. Voted there for the first time when going to college. Did a couple caucuses, too. So no, I'll pick Colorado all I wanna. Nice try!

[swhisper1]

148. I too was born and educated here, military. and I repeat, you are wrong

[Her Sister]

155. "you are wrong" lol!

eom.

[MyNameGoesHere]

119. My advice would be a little different.

Senator, go home. I will call you when I need you and you will help with whatever I ask. Good day.

[athena]

125. I love it! (eom)

[peace13]

127. You guys are so big and strong....and powerful.

How you think you don't need Bernie supporters is just a mind boggle to me. Your post says go to hell to every Berine supporter. Way to keep it classy!

[MyNameGoesHere]

134. Not go to hell. I would never say that, however I would say just go away.

There is a candidate out there who has opened his arms to Sanders supporters if you are interested.

[peace13]

137. Despicable comment.

I would alert you for these two posts but it would change nothing. I will say that you represent Hill in fine fashion. You aren't unique though.

[MyNameGoesHere]

145. You may alert away.

I have said nothing despicable as you put it. Sanders, needs to go away. I hear Vermont is nice this time of year.

[LexVegas]

128. In other words, do what no male nominee has ever been expected to do.

[obamanut2012]

132. Thank you -- exactly this

Just...

[DCBob]

140. I hope everyone notices this was a hit and run.

The OP never responded to a single comment.

[Phlem]

152. The Horror. Quick! Call 911!

Why should an a person write an opinion piece on a Democratic discussion site!

The fucking nerve!

[DCBob]

153. Its an indicator of the intentions of this poster.

[Phlem]

156. Uh huh. He's going to commit a crime in the future don't cha know!

Didn't know you could see the future. I bet you also look like Tom Cruise!

That's fucking awesome!!!!

Wow, Hillary's got some fantastical supporters stumping for her!!!!!

WooHoo!

[Phlem]

154. Dude, your on Hillary Underground.

All negatives, real or contrived, are off limits and terms for banishment from this fine upstanding website!

It's got the words Democratic and Underground in it!

It's the Big Umbrella, except for when it's not!

[Lil Missy]

161. That's right. The OP has absolutely nothing to do with unity. It's about the Losers

insisting we pretend the Loser actually won, and has a right to set the agenda.

It's rude, but it certainly isn't unity.

[LiberalFighter]

165. Every little bit helps. But that help will be limited when his organization

is not in place.

I see the platform to hold a lot of agreement. The question is the degree.

Sanders only won 9 of the states that Obama won in the general election. Throwing out that Sanders won 22 states is a useless comparison. The states Clinton won in 2008 had a census population of just over 174 million unlike the nearly 89 million for states Sanders won.

The states Sanders won are not all the same ones that Clinton won in 2008.

Most young people of any political persuasion don't trust anyone that is old.

There is nothing anti-democratic about the unpledged delegates. What is undemocratic is for outsiders demanding that an organization change their process. Those unpledged delegates are leaders and members elected to their positions within the DNC. They represent Democratic Party members in every state and territory. Some are wanting them be eliminated. In effect, denying members of the DNC the right to participate in their own convention. How democratic is that?

State and national convention delegates don't have the right to determine the party rules. Nor to determine the leadership of the DNC.

As for change. Change by itself is not enough. They type change is important. And all change is not all good. Rather change should be built on what Obama has accomplished instead of tearing it all down.

The nearly 44% vote does not give Sanders the right to be at the table for decisions that Clinton makes. Sure, if he has a good choice it should be considered. But he should not be the sole person to provide advice on the matter.

[Fla Dem]

167. Tell me what male democratic nominee would accept these demands?

This is so condescending. Almost everyday the Sander's campaign/supporters keep sticking pins in their little voodoo doll that is their credibility. SMH.

[RobertEarl]

178. Three more days

And the type of replies on this thread which fight against unity will no longer be tolerated.

Bernie is trying to unify but the Hillary people just won't have it.

Oh well, just three more days.