Will Bernie Sanders be gracious in defeat?

[RaphaelDLG]

Of the three options you mentioned, I think #2 is the most likely.

He will continue to stay in the race forever to advance his message and pressure the democratic party to adopt his policies, and generally will not cease being a stubborn old codger. 

But at and after the convention he will emphasize the dire necessity of voting for Clinton to stop Trump and talk about how he has known the secretary for many years and likes and respects her blah blah blah.

[RaphaelDLG]

Of course Bernie will be gracious in defeat, and when Hillary becomes the nominee going against Trump, the electorate will be faced with the two worst choices for President in history.

I don't agree with you much, and I don't 100% agree, but we certainly have some agreement there. I'd say maybe the worst since 1924.

It's not clear to me that Hillary would be better or worse than Obama, but she'd definitely be better than Bill (even if she's less skilled politically than him) because she is markedly more liberal/has been dragged to the left, so not even close on that side of the choice, at least. 

Trump is obviously a horror show in several ways.

[RaphaelDLG]

Of course Bernie will be gracious in defeat, and when Hillary becomes the nominee going against Trump, the electorate will be faced with the two worst choices for President in history.

I don't agree with you much, and I don't 100% agree, but we certainly have some agreement there. I'd say maybe the worst since 1924.

It's not clear to me that Hillary would be better or worse than Obama, but she'd definitely be better than Bill (even if she's less skilled politically than him) because she is markedly more liberal/has been dragged to the left, so not even close on that side of the choice, at least. 

Trump is obviously a horror show in several ways.

Well 1996 was also a pretty bad matchup. But at least Dole > Trump. Bill was pretty terrible for being a Democrat. Hillary might be more of a hawk than Bill, though.

Fair points

[RaphaelDLG]

Of course Bernie will be gracious in defeat, and when Hillary becomes the nominee going against Trump, the electorate will be faced with the two worst choices for President in history.

I don't agree with you much, and I don't 100% agree, but we certainly have some agreement there. I'd say maybe the worst since 1924.

It's not clear to me that Hillary would be better or worse than Obama, but she'd definitely be better than Bill (even if she's less skilled politically than him) because she is markedly more liberal/has been dragged to the left, so not even close on that side of the choice, at least.  

Trump is obviously a horror show in several ways.

Well 1996 was also a pretty bad matchup. But at least Dole > Trump. Bill was pretty terrible for being a Democrat. Hillary might be more of a hawk than Bill, though.

The only two democrats better then Clinton since the civil war are FDR and Truman mainly since he actually new how to compromise.

Clinton deregulated WS resulting in the most devastating economic environment in 07-08 since the thirties.  He basically just capitulated halfway to Republicans his whole Presidency and didn't do anything insane while he sat on awesome increases in technology that resulted in a great economy and didn't fight for any progressive either.  He would have been better than the Republican alternatives but he wasn't good/helpful.

I have a lot of reservations about Obama that are the same as my reservations about Clinton, but he in many was was able to move the country forward.

FDR is way, WAY better than everyone else.  I'd put Truman 2nd post-WWII, probably ahead of Wilson.  Johnson is effective domestically but has the whole vietnam thing; Kennedy is good but short and too conservative behind all of his charisma; Carter is a good man but obviously not good at the House of Cards aspect to the job.

Bush Sr somewhat and Eisenhower and Teddy especially are Republicans that are as good in my liberal point of view as some of the democrats

[RaphaelDLG]

If "gracious in defeat" means putting his support behind Hillary Clinton, he would never do that.  At no point will he endorse her or call for party unity.  He has no interest in the Democratic Party at all, except as a vehicle for his own message.

He's endorsed every Democratic presidential nominee since Mondale. Why would that change now?

[RaphaelDLG]

But I thought Bernie was a narcissistic selfish madman bent on destroying the Democratic Party and delivering the election to Trump?  What happened, guys?!?

[RaphaelDLG]

Puh. Lease. He's probably still torturing squirrels in his 94% white dream world right now.

Hahaha

[RaphaelDLG]

Pretty much a sellout at this point. Lost a lot of respect for a "revolution" that gives up so easily.  Ron Paul didn't.

Ron Paul really capitalized on the momentum that "liberty" had in 2012, didn't he?