Should Sanders be given a speaking slot at the DNC if he refuses to endorse

[HagridOfTheDeep]

As a young PUMA, I have to say that the Busters probably are more scary than the PUMAs were for Obama's supporters in '08.

I was 16 in 2008. I pretended the issues mattered to me because that's what I needed to project, but in reality... I really just *liked* Hillary. I believed Obama wasn't up to the job (and I still think I was right and that it took the guy far too long to grow into his responsibilities, but I digress ). So I supported McCain. In hindsight, if I had actually been an intelligent person, I probably should have gotten over myself and realized that Hillary's values were not John McCain's values. But I couldn't, because I was young and stupid and didn't really understand what was at stake in politics.

Most of Hillary's other supporters, though, were older. They'd been through it all and knew that it just made sense to support Obama in the end. PUMAism didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, draws most of his support from young people who are more likely to not really understand why voting for Hillary is the right thing to do come November. That's what's a little bit scary. They're political n00bs who, like me in 2008, think they know everything.

[Likely Voter]

There is no way the DNC and Clinton are going to give him a primetime speaking slot if he doesnt concede and endorse. Maybe he pulls a Jerry Brown and seconds his own nomination before the roll call but that will not be in primetime, and I wouldn't put it past the DNC and the CLinton team to change the rules to even prevent that. 

But he will almost certainly come around long before things get that ugly

[President Johnson]

Why not? Must any Democrat support Hillary? He won 45% of the pledged delegates, of course he should be allowed so speak.

[Likely Voter]

Why not? Must any Democrat support Hillary? He won 45% of the pledged delegates, of course he should be allowed so speak.

As an active candidate he would be given the same opportunity to speak as other active candidates. So if he won the roll call, then he can give his acceptance speech.  But an active candidate is not going to be given a speaking time ahead of the roll call, just like Clinton will not be giving a speech ahead of the roll call. 
 
If the rules allow he, hey may be able to force his way to a speech like Jerry Brown did, but that wasn't primetime and was rather short.

[Fuzzy Bear]

A.) I do not want to speak at the Green Convention because I am a Democrat.
B.) There is no "sickening" double standard. Clinton does not have 2,383 pledged delegates, and therefore Sanders has a right to make a case for himself.
C.) Sanders has been caucusing with Democrats since first entering the House in 1991. Jim Jeffords and Angus King were/are also both independents who caucus with the Democrats. Sanders merely registered as a Democrat for the purpose of running, but he is not new to the cause. It is not as if he was the 2012 Green nominee (Jill Stein) who registered as a Democrat in 2016 to have a better chance at victory. He has been devoted to the cause his entire career.
D.) Even if Clinton wins the nomination, I will not be voting for her because she does not represent my values. If that makes me a sore loser, then so be it.

B)  There's no "right" to be given a speech to try to convince superdelegates to vote for you hours before they're going to vote, especially when all of them have said they will support Clinton.  And even if there was, it's absolutely obvious that by any measure of decency Bernie should do what Hillary did in 2008 and accept that he lost instead of irritating everyone and hurting the party by hopelessly trying to convince the superdelegates to vote for him.  That aside, Bernie and his campaign have even said that they're not trying to flip superdelegates anymore, so you're arguing something Bernie's not even arguing.

C)  Angus King and Jim Jeffords don't go around talking about how terrible, corrupt and full of crooks the Democratic Party is and how it needs to change its policies and accept their ideas or it will die.

D)   I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that Hillary actually does represent your values, but when asked about it you'll pick the one or two values Bernie told you she disagrees with you on and pretend those are more important than all the ones she agrees with you on, so that you can pretend to have a stubbornvaliant justification for what is really an immature, pathetic, sad little sulk of a vote.

As Jim Jeffords has passed away, he doesn't go around saying much of anything.

I'm able to be convinced that Bernie Sanders is self-serving.  He's morphing into the new Eugene McCarthy; the guy with the big head who thinks he's owed something.  Such a conclusion doesn't cause me to be any less certain that Hillary Clinton leads one of the most "It's All About Me!" existences of anyone in politics.

[Lyin' Steve]

The word is "blackmail": to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.

I keep hearing that the supporters of "Hillary's ball and chain" and also the ball and chain himself are demanding things happen a certain way during the convention or else....

What's up with that?

Hillary is ahead of him in every way. What is so hard to understand about that? She has worked very hard for years to garner the support she has in the Democratic Party. What has Bernie done?

It's not nice to threaten blackmail when you lost the campaign.

Clinton has a majority of the Democratic Party (not necessarily delegates) behind her, according to polls, but that is not enough to win in itself. Sanders supporters like myself want to see a more progressive Democratic candidate and Party. Some will be content to see Clinton adopt a few positions of Sanders at the convention; others will not.

Sanders has caucused and voted with the Democratic Party on a majority of issues since he entered the House in 1991, and has supported the Democratic candidate in every election since, with the possible exception of 2000 (I am not sure about that one).

Look kid, your guy tried and he lost, you don't have a divine right to get what you want no matter what.  The election is Clinton vs. Trump, pick one side or the other.  You don't always get to have your personal perfect candidate to vote for.  If this wasn't your first election maybe you'd understand that that's not how politics works.  Your chance to get that candidate was in the primaries.  There's a whole cottage industry out there of fake candidates who exist only to take advantage of people like you for attention; Jill Stein is just one of them, and she doesn't even represent your views anyway because your views probably include the president being sane, mature, and capable of running the country.

I feel like these Bernie children don't even understand what the presidency is.  It's not some page of a history book where you stamp your manifesto.  It's an actual job that requires a massive toolbox of skills and experiences to perform competently.  By wasting your vote on Donald Trump or Jill Stein you're not just saying "oh I agree with some views of this person", you're saying "I think this person should sit in the Oval Office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for the next for years, speak for the entire country, navigate the most challenging and risky situations and make tremendously difficult and consequential decisions on my behalf."  You know perfectly well, deep down, that Hillary Clinton is the candidate you would feel most comfortable having in that position, no matter how much you try to immaturely delude yourself otherwise.

Your vote has tremendous consequences that reach across the entire planet.  Helping Donald Trump by voting for Jill Stein indicates a refusal to accept not just reality but also the consequences of your actions.  You can put your fingers in your ears and pretend it's some noble decision all you like but in your heart you know that if Trump were to win by one vote and people suffered as a result, you would regret it until the day you died.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Sanders supporters like myself want to see a more progressive Democratic candidate and Party. Some will be content to see Clinton adopt a few positions of Sanders at the convention; others will not.

And I want to be rich and handsome kid, but life is a bitch.

In all fairness, Bernie voters compromise a significant part of the primary electorate and will be needed in GE. They should be given a consideration relative to their importance.

Of course that means a need for Sanders to embrace the nominee, but I'm sure it will happen before the convention. Otherwise, there would indeed be no choice but to shun him.

[RaphaelDLG]

The word is "blackmail": to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.

I keep hearing that the supporters of "Hillary's ball and chain" and also the ball and chain himself are demanding things happen a certain way during the convention or else....

What's up with that?

Hillary is ahead of him in every way. What is so hard to understand about that? She has worked very hard for years to garner the support she has in the Democratic Party. What has Bernie done?

It's not nice to threaten blackmail when you lost the campaign.

Clinton has a majority of the Democratic Party (not necessarily delegates) behind her, according to polls, but that is not enough to win in itself. Sanders supporters like myself want to see a more progressive Democratic candidate and Party. Some will be content to see Clinton adopt a few positions of Sanders at the convention; others will not.

Sanders has caucused and voted with the Democratic Party on a majority of issues since he entered the House in 1991, and has supported the Democratic candidate in every election since, with the possible exception of 2000 (I am not sure about that one).

Look kid, your guy tried and he lost, you don't have a divine right to get what you want no matter what.  The election is Clinton vs. Trump, pick one side or the other.  You don't always get to have your personal perfect candidate to vote for.  If this wasn't your first election maybe you'd understand that that's not how politics works.  Your chance to get that candidate was in the primaries.  There's a whole cottage industry out there of fake candidates who exist only to take advantage of people like you for attention; Jill Stein is just one of them, and she doesn't even represent your views anyway because your views probably include the president being sane, mature, and capable of running the country.

I feel like these Bernie children don't even understand what the presidency is.  It's not some page of a history book where you stamp your manifesto.  It's an actual job that requires a massive toolbox of skills and experiences to perform competently.  By wasting your vote on Donald Trump or Jill Stein you're not just saying "oh I agree with some views of this person", you're saying "I think this person should sit in the Oval Office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for the next for years, speak for the entire country, navigate the most challenging and risky situations and make tremendously difficult and consequential decisions on my behalf."  You know perfectly well, deep down, that Hillary Clinton is the candidate you would feel most comfortable having in that position, no matter how much you try to immaturely delude yourself otherwise.

Your vote has tremendous consequences that reach across the entire planet.  Helping Donald Trump by voting for Jill Stein indicates a refusal to accept not just reality but also the consequences of your actions.  You can put your fingers in your ears and pretend it's some noble decision all you like but in your heart you know that if Trump were to win by one vote and people suffered as a result, you would regret it until the day you died.

Even though I loathe you, I think you make some highly valid points, but he lives in Maine, so it's not like his vote really matters.  It'd be much different if he lived next door in New Hampshire.

And I think if you don't live in a crucial state, there is a valid reason to vote for a major third-party candidate other than because you think they would make a good President:  For instance, I think Hillary is a way better choice for President than Gary Johnson.  But voting for Johnson in a safe state might be logical because it could eventually help Johnson get on the debate stage and voice an anti-war, anti-police state perspective that desperately needs to be heard on the debate stage.

I don't understand why you're getting that worked up about this for people who don't live in crucial states.

[Lyin' Steve]

Even though I loathe you,

Who are you?  I don't even recognize your name.

I don't understand why you're getting that worked up about this for people who don't live in crucial states.

The conversation I'm having isn't so much about this kid personally as about the mentality in general.  It's not my mission to convince one Jill Stein supporter to flip his vote; rather, by having the conversation I want to put in writing how I've been feeling about the entire mess.  And hopefully in a way that's convincing and makes sense.

The internet can make me seem unhinged because I often write in an aggressive, provocative way, but I promise you I'm not worked up about this.  Atlas is just a pastime.

[Suck my caulk]

The election is Clinton vs. Trump, pick one side or the other.
No sir. Absolutely not. This is supposedly a democratic republic ruled by the people and the law. There are more than two crummy choices for the highest office in the land  

You don't always get to have your personal perfect candidate to vote for.  If this wasn't your first election maybe you'd understand that that's not how politics works. Your chance to get that candidate was in the primaries.
I don't agree with Bernie Sanders on every policy, and I understand what a primary is for. That is why I voted for Sanders in March.

You know perfectly well, deep down, that Hillary Clinton is the candidate you would feel most comfortable having in that position, no matter how much you try to immaturely delude yourself otherwise.
Have we met before?

Your vote has tremendous consequences that reach across the entire planet.  Helping Donald Trump by voting for Jill Stein indicates a refusal to accept not just reality but also the consequences of your actions.
Thanks for the inspiration, but if Hillary Clinton is as great a candidate as you believe her to be, she should be able to irrespective of where my vote goes. Jill Stein 2016!

[Hermit For Peace]

The word is "blackmail": to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.

I keep hearing that the supporters of "Hillary's ball and chain" and also the ball and chain himself are demanding things happen a certain way during the convention or else....

What's up with that?

Hillary is ahead of him in every way. What is so hard to understand about that? She has worked very hard for years to garner the support she has in the Democratic Party. What has Bernie done?

It's not nice to threaten blackmail when you lost the campaign.

Clinton has a majority of the Democratic Party (not necessarily delegates) behind her, according to polls, but that is not enough to win in itself. Sanders supporters like myself want to see a more progressive Democratic candidate and Party. Some will be content to see Clinton adopt a few positions of Sanders at the convention; others will not.

Sanders has caucused and voted with the Democratic Party on a majority of issues since he entered the House in 1991, and has supported the Democratic candidate in every election since, with the possible exception of 2000 (I am not sure about that one).

All the information I read says that about 75% of Bernie backers are going to vote for Hillary. And as each day passes his base is eroding. Hillary shouldn't feel threatened to do anything Bernie wants if she doesn't want to. But she is one smart cookie and I'm sure she will do what is necessary -- up to a point -- to try and keep the party united.

And about Bernie voting with Democrats a lot of the time, that's not the same thing as being inside the party and working for and establishing friendships over the span of year and years. Bernie's votes don't do that by themselves. He hasn't spent the time that Hillary has forging alliances and friendships in her party. Actually joining the party at the very last minute in order to run for President doesn't count for much in my book.

Bernie is a ball and chain at this point and that's all there is to it.

[Suck my caulk]

The word is "blackmail": to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.

I keep hearing that the supporters of "Hillary's ball and chain" and also the ball and chain himself are demanding things happen a certain way during the convention or else....

What's up with that?

Hillary is ahead of him in every way. What is so hard to understand about that? She has worked very hard for years to garner the support she has in the Democratic Party. What has Bernie done?

It's not nice to threaten blackmail when you lost the campaign.

Clinton has a majority of the Democratic Party (not necessarily delegates) behind her, according to polls, but that is not enough to win in itself. Sanders supporters like myself want to see a more progressive Democratic candidate and Party. Some will be content to see Clinton adopt a few positions of Sanders at the convention; others will not.

Sanders has caucused and voted with the Democratic Party on a majority of issues since he entered the House in 1991, and has supported the Democratic candidate in every election since, with the possible exception of 2000 (I am not sure about that one).

Look kid, your guy tried and he lost, you don't have a divine right to get what you want no matter what.  The election is Clinton vs. Trump, pick one side or the other.  You don't always get to have your personal perfect candidate to vote for.  If this wasn't your first election maybe you'd understand that that's not how politics works.  Your chance to get that candidate was in the primaries.  There's a whole cottage industry out there of fake candidates who exist only to take advantage of people like you for attention; Jill Stein is just one of them, and she doesn't even represent your views anyway because your views probably include the president being sane, mature, and capable of running the country.

I feel like these Bernie children don't even understand what the presidency is.  It's not some page of a history book where you stamp your manifesto.  It's an actual job that requires a massive toolbox of skills and experiences to perform competently.  By wasting your vote on Donald Trump or Jill Stein you're not just saying "oh I agree with some views of this person", you're saying "I think this person should sit in the Oval Office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for the next for years, speak for the entire country, navigate the most challenging and risky situations and make tremendously difficult and consequential decisions on my behalf."  You know perfectly well, deep down, that Hillary Clinton is the candidate you would feel most comfortable having in that position, no matter how much you try to immaturely delude yourself otherwise.

Your vote has tremendous consequences that reach across the entire planet.  Helping Donald Trump by voting for Jill Stein indicates a refusal to accept not just reality but also the consequences of your actions.  You can put your fingers in your ears and pretend it's some noble decision all you like but in your heart you know that if Trump were to win by one vote and people suffered as a result, you would regret it until the day you died.

I think you make some highly valid points, but he lives in Maine, so it's not like his vote really matters.  It'd be much different if he lived next door in New Hampshire.

I actually live in Florida, Raphael, and will be voting down here in November. I am originally from Maine, however. Regardless, I understand that, pragmatically speaking, living in a swing state gives your vote some more weight, but in an election like 2016, states like Pennsylvania and Utah are considered toss-ups, so I think everybody's vote matters. Anyways, whether I live in Florida, Ohio, or Maine, I will vote for the best candidate in November. Steve, take a Xanax and have an orgasm. If Clinton is as strong and qualified a candidate as you believe her to be, she will win in November. I will not be returning to this thread. Have a good weekend, folks!

[Landslide Lyndon]

Even if you live in a swing state, you're not forced to choose between two people if you consider them to be disgusting individuals. There is no chance I would vote for either Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton if I lived in Ohio, for example. This idea is just as stupid as Democrats blaming Nader for their loss in 2000.

Nader explicitly stated during the 2000 campaign that he wanted to hurt Gore, so it's disingenuous for him to complain when he is blamed for Bush's victory.

[Hermit For Peace]

As a young PUMA, I have to say that the Busters probably are more scary than the PUMAs were for Obama's supporters in '08.

I was 16 in 2008. I pretended the issues mattered to me because that's what I needed to project, but in reality... I really just *liked* Hillary. I believed Obama wasn't up to the job (and I still think I was right and that it took the guy far too long to grow into his responsibilities, but I digress ). So I supported McCain. In hindsight, if I had actually been an intelligent person, I probably should have gotten over myself and realized that Hillary's values were not John McCain's values. But I couldn't, because I was young and stupid and didn't really understand what was at stake in politics.

Most of Hillary's other supporters, though, were older. They'd been through it all and knew that it just made sense to support Obama in the end. PUMAism didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, draws most of his support from young people who are more likely to not really understand why voting for Hillary is the right thing to do come November. That's what's a little bit scary. They're political n00bs who, like me in 2008, think they know everything.

I agree with you about Hillary. I voted for her in 2008 and I also didn't think Obama was good for the job. I was totally bummed when she didn't win the nomination; I wanted nothing to do with Obama, but I did end up voting for him. And over the years I've grown to like him as a person and I like some of the things he's accomplished...like Obamacare, for one.

But his working relationship with Congress has been a bad marriage from the beginning, and I never want to see a repeat of that whoever the next President is. I feel that with Trump, he won't get any cooperation at all. Hillary, at least, worked in the Senate and there were people on both aisles who had a high opinion of her. I have high hopes that she would figure out a way to work with Congress and get things done! It's what she's geared for.

[RaphaelDLG]

As a young PUMA, I have to say that the Busters probably are more scary than the PUMAs were for Obama's supporters in '08.

I was 16 in 2008. I pretended the issues mattered to me because that's what I needed to project, but in reality... I really just *liked* Hillary. I believed Obama wasn't up to the job (and I still think I was right and that it took the guy far too long to grow into his responsibilities, but I digress ). So I supported McCain. In hindsight, if I had actually been an intelligent person, I probably should have gotten over myself and realized that Hillary's values were not John McCain's values. But I couldn't, because I was young and stupid and didn't really understand what was at stake in politics.

Most of Hillary's other supporters, though, were older. They'd been through it all and knew that it just made sense to support Obama in the end. PUMAism didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, draws most of his support from young people who are more likely to not really understand why voting for Hillary is the right thing to do come November. That's what's a little bit scary. They're political n00bs who, like me in 2008, think they know everything.

I agree with you about Hillary. I voted for her in 2008 and I also didn't think Obama was good for the job. I was totally bummed when she didn't win the nomination; I wanted nothing to do with Obama, but I did end up voting for him. And over the years I've grown to like him as a person and I like some of the things he's accomplished...like Obamacare, for one.

But his working relationship with Congress has been a bad marriage from the beginning, and I never want to see a repeat of that whoever the next President is. I feel that with Trump, he won't get any cooperation at all. Hillary, at least, worked in the Senate and there were people on both aisles who had a high opinion of her. I have high hopes that she would figure out a way to work with Congress and get things done! It's what she's geared for.

I think it's naïve to expect the Republican Congress to be an ounce more cooperative with Hillary is Prez.  I do think Hillary is more politically talented than him and will be better at applying pressure when she can.

[This account no longer in use.]

Oh boy is this thread a clusterf--k. I assumed these arguments would be over after DC. But why should I have trusted Atlas to act like civilized human beings?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

As a young PUMA, I have to say that the Busters probably are more scary than the PUMAs were for Obama's supporters in '08.

I was 16 in 2008. I pretended the issues mattered to me because that's what I needed to project, but in reality... I really just *liked* Hillary. I believed Obama wasn't up to the job (and I still think I was right and that it took the guy far too long to grow into his responsibilities, but I digress ). So I supported McCain. In hindsight, if I had actually been an intelligent person, I probably should have gotten over myself and realized that Hillary's values were not John McCain's values. But I couldn't, because I was young and stupid and didn't really understand what was at stake in politics.

Most of Hillary's other supporters, though, were older. They'd been through it all and knew that it just made sense to support Obama in the end. PUMAism didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, draws most of his support from young people who are more likely to not really understand why voting for Hillary is the right thing to do come November. That's what's a little bit scary. They're political n00bs who, like me in 2008, think they know everything.

Didn't you support Romney in 2012 because you were still upset over Obama owning Hillary in 2008?

I'm sure that was part of it. I let my id steer my ego, so to speak. I always thought of myself as more of a centrist, and at that time I let my instinctual anti-Obama feelings compel me to go down the Republican rabbit hole. But in so doing I did still "believe" what I believed. I could defend my reasoning on most things and I trusted my arguments. So I don't regret supporting Romney and I still think he would have been a decent president.

Even now, I have a green avatar for a reason. It's just that when a candidate is so completely inflammatory, all the good "hard" policies in the world would not be able to undo the "soft" damage that would result from the despicable rhetoric. And as someone who came to terms with some things about myself over the last two years or so, I'm definitely more keenly in tune with what the consequences of divisiveness can be. Coming out definitely complicated my political identity a lot and made me face up to the harder truths about which side I wanted to be on. Add onto that the fact that Trump's "hard" policies aren't good at all (he has no f-cking idea what he's talking about), and it's not surprising that I'd have few good things to say about the Republican Party in its current form.

So back to that green avatar... I'm still pretty right-wing/hawkish on foreign policy, believe in free trade, think raising taxes is a bad idea, and am pro-pipeline/drilling/fracking/etc. On the other hand, I'm mostly pro-affirmative action, hate Republicans' approach to the school system, support amnesty, am increasingly okay with Obamacare even though I think the timing of the whole thing was shi-tty, am obviously for gay rights, support sensible gun control that the GOP isn't even willing to budge on, can engage on topics around race without being a total dingus (white conservatives who advocate colour-blindedness and think they're being "progressive" are literally the worst), and am pro-union.

But when one side decides it's an electoral strategy to begin defying logic in general, the half of me that would have otherwise been inclined to support that side gets a hell of a lot less enthusiastic. I'd add that Romney has proven this cycle that he's not one of the complete and total dopes, so I take a bit of gratification from that.

Anyway, yeah. If y'all think psychology doesn't play some role in role politics (and how politics shapes identity), I don't know what to say. I will readily admit that I am partly a product of my post-facto adjustments to decisions I have chosen to make based on gut. Maybe it doesn't make me the most reliable partisan or give me a strong ideological core, but now that I know a bit more about who I am (or at least want to be), I can feel things "locking in" in a way that they weren't before. And I did not completely go over to the other side, either. The GOP just eliminated itself from contention. I hope one day there'll be a time when I can actually have a real choice.