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

[Suck my caulk]

Yes. He ran a competitive campaign, won over 20 state contests, and has several million followers, many of whom are still on the fence as to whether they can even vote for Clinton in good conscience (I personally cannot and will not). Whether he endorses the nominee or not, he should have a chance to make his case and list the concessions he would like to see from the nominee before he can encourage his followers to vote Clinton. It is also worth pointing out that Clinton does not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to win the nomination outright, and therefore even if Sanders trashes Clinton, he should still get a speaking slot, because he deserves to be able to make his case to the superdelegates. Yes, Clinton is ahead (via questionable campaign tactics and overwhelming establishment backing), but she has not hit 2,383 outright, and Sanders continues to poll better than her against Trump, along with the fact that he is from the scandal of indictment.

[Suck my caulk]

Yes. He ran a competitive campaign, won over 20 state contests, and has several million followers, many of whom are still on the fence as to whether they can even vote for Clinton in good conscience (I personally cannot and will not). Whether he endorses the nominee or not, he should have a chance to make his case and list the concessions he would like to see from the nominee before he can encourage his followers to vote Clinton. It is also worth pointing out that Clinton does not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to win the nomination outright, and therefore even if Sanders trashes Clinton, he should still get a speaking slot, because he deserves to be able to make his case to the superdelegates. Yes, Clinton is ahead (via questionable campaign tactics and overwhelming establishment backing), but she has not hit 2,383 outright, and Sanders continues to poll better than her against Trump, along with the fact that he is from the scandal of indictment.

Jfern, is that you?

But muh general election polls! Polls do not translate into votes.

No, he should absolutely NOT be given a speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention if he doesn't endorse the nominee. Take your ball and go speak at the Green Party National Convention. Jill Stein would love to have you there, even though she thinks you're too conservative to call yourself a socialist. Lol

Your same argument above could have been used eight years ago; of course, had Hillary NOT endorsed Obama, she would have been put on the guillotine. Once again, the double standard is beyond sickening. Hillary won the nomination fair and square. You sound like a sore loser just trying to cry foul because your candidate lost. Better luck next time, kiddo.

Bernie Sanders only became a "Democrat" because he knew there was no way for him to win as an independent or to hitch his wagon to the Jill Stein Train. He talks about how both parties are corrupt and entities of Wall Street and yet he sought to exploit the party for his own benefit. He's also hoping to be on the ticket with her, which raises the question, "Why would he want to be on the same ticket with someone so corrupt and morally bankrupt as Hillary Clinton," as you and others in the Jfern Asylum have repeatedly whined.

As for the superdelegates, Bernie should have done his homework before deciding to run as a Democrat. Political parties have every right to make their own convention rules; if you don't like it, you can either run under a different party or seek to change the rules for future elections, which seems to be what Sanders is attempting to do now, and that's all fine and dandy by me. Sanders talks about how the system is rigged because of the superdelegates, but now you're suggesting that he should be given a speaking slot at the convention to try to convince those same cheating superdelegates who are rigging the system to basically overturn the will of the voters and back a candidate who is behind in the popular vote and who is behind in the pledged delegates? Can you say, "hypocrite?" That's really an insult to everyone, including myself, who cast a vote for Hillary Clinton. When will you all on the far left learn that everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton was not bribed by Wall Street to vote for her? I'm sure that's a conspiracy theory being floated out there in the fantasy land of The Young Turks/Daily Kos/Reddit.

Your argument for why he should be given a speaking slot is just weak, sour (and salty) grapes and merits little credibility.

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.) Parties can set rules for the convention as they please, but they should keep in mind that Sanders has amassed a giant movement behind him and if we feel our candidate has been cheated and/or that the ultimate Democratic nominee is insufficiently progressive, your candidate will be the one who loses millions of potential voters to another candidate.

[Suck my caulk]

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.

B.) You are correct that there is no "right" to speak at the DNC and I am not suggesting there is. I am, however, suggesting that there may be electoral consequences for the Democratic nominee if she does not offer concessions to the Bernie Sanders supporters/faction of the Party, because many will not "hold their nose" and vote for Clinton.

C.) You are correct about that. I gladly voted for Angus King in 2012, but it is not a secret that Sanders is to the left of King and only slightly agrees with the Democrats more than he does the Republicans.

D.) Incorrect. I liked Clinton in 2008, and did not have a problem with her as First Lady or Senator, but when she became Secretary of State, her true colors (with respect to Keystone XL, fracking, TPP, foreign policy [which was already hawkish], NSA/spying, and the Clinton Foundation) showed clearly. Those may seem like talking points, but they are individual issues that I have long cared about, and that I have seen Clinton flip-flop on and sell out to multi-national corporations on. Sanders did not tell me anything about Clinton I did not already know. I do not want to damage the Democratic ticket by mindlessly repeating negative talking points, but neither Bernie Sanders nor I are the ones causing the damage to the Party; the damage is being done by Hillary Clinton, and the fact that she is a right-wing Democrat with too much baggage for my liking.

[Suck my caulk]

I don't understand how so many people who are supposedly political observers seem to cling to this idea that he won't eventually endorse the Democratic nominee...

Well, Eugene McCarthy, Ted Kennedy, and Jerry Brown didn't endorse the democratic nominee.  It's not unheard of for a democratic primary to end in bitterness with the loser making unreasonable demands and refusing to endorse the winner.

Thanks for the history lecture.  But my claim is specifically regarding Bernie Sanders.  If he endorsed the Democratic nominee even when he was an Independent (as you are all so fond of pointing out repeatedly), why would he not do so now that he identifies as a Democrat?

Because he said he wouldn't?

Dead wrong.

"...On her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and President than the Republican candidate on his best day." -- Sanders

Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that she and Bernie Sanders' campaigns have "been reaching out to each other" and that both Democrats will eventually unite to defeat Republican Donald Trump in November.

Are you saying Hillary Clinton was lying about this?

You are very naive if you think that Sanders 'taking this to the convention' is the same thing as what Ted Kennedy did in 1980.  But it fits the narrative you are trying to push, so I understand.  You just deserve to be called out on the disingenuous concern trolling, that's all.

Good points, Ebowed. It is important to remember that Bernie Sanders is not his supporters. He may be willing to work with Hillary Clinton to defeat Trump, and that's an acceptable position if he believes that is best for the country. Nonetheless, as much as I support Sanders politically, I will not just fall in line and vote for Clinton, even if he tells me to, or if he accepted a position as her running mate. If Steve is implying that Sanders and/or his supporters are hesitant to endorse Clinton because she is a woman, that is getting old. I am so sexist that I will be voting for Jill Stein in November because, unlike Clinton, Stein is actually a progressive who represents my values. If I was in a swing state, I would do the same thing.

[Suck my caulk]

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.

B.) You are correct that there is no "right" to speak at the DNC and I am not suggesting there is. I am, however, suggesting that there may be electoral consequences for the Democratic nominee if she does not offer concessions to the Bernie Sanders supporters/faction of the Party, because many will not "hold their nose" and vote for Clinton.

C.) You are correct about that. I gladly voted for Angus King in 2012, but it is not a secret that Sanders is to the left of King and only slightly agrees with the Democrats more than he does the Republicans.

D.) Incorrect. I liked Clinton in 2008, and did not have a problem with her as First Lady or Senator, but when she became Secretary of State, her true colors (with respect to Keystone XL, fracking, TPP, foreign policy [which was already hawkish], NSA/spying, and the Clinton Foundation) showed clearly. Those may seem like talking points, but they are individual issues that I have long cared about, and that I have seen Clinton flip-flop on and sell out to multi-national corporations on. Sanders did not tell me anything about Clinton I did not already know. I do not want to damage the Democratic ticket by mindlessly repeating negative talking points, but neither Bernie Sanders nor I are the ones causing the damage to the Party; the damage is being done by Hillary Clinton, and the fact that she is a right-wing Democrat with too much baggage for my liking.

LMAO. You're completely hopeless, child. You ARE damaging the ticket by not supporting the nominee and parroting right-wing talking points. I'm sure you've heard that "united we stand, divided we fall" thing. We do not want to engage in a civil war similar to what is going on in the Republican/Tea/Trump Party. If you really care about progressive principles, you need to understand that there's more at stake here than just the Presidency: we also have to win seats in Congress, at the state level, and down the ticket to fully implement the progressive principles and ideals that we hold dear. People such as yourself just make it all the more likely for people to doubt Hillary Clinton given all the right-wing lies and smears that have been launched against her, and that just leads them to vote for the other guy; in this case, Trump. Think about that...

But your whines are still nothing but salty, sour grapes. Furthermore, we are going to desist with the lettered bulleting of our points because this is not a multiple choice test, although you're about to be schooled, so take some notes.

Hillary Clinton has been more than gracious to Bernie Sanders and stubborn supporters such as yourself. She's extended the olive branch about as far as she can, only to have it fall on deaf ears because it seems as though she can do nothing to appease folks such as you who despise her so much that you're willing to throw your vote away for a candidate who couldn't crack half of one percent of the nationwide vote in 2012 and who didn't even qualify for the ballot in all 51 states (that's including the District of Columbia). If you really hate her that much, please don't call yourself a progressive, because you're not: you're just another sore loser who's making it easier for Donald Trump to creep closer to the finish line, because every time you attack her using right-wing talking points and smear tactics, you're doing nothing but validating the Karl Rove playbook. Nothing progressive about that.

What are these alleged"unforeseen "electoral consequences" of which you speak? Are you looking into a crystal ball, Larry Sabato, or are you just another Miss Cleo trying to spread panic and fear and being a concern troll because "muh general election polls says..." Your warning is just more smack talk from someone who got beat fair and square; thus, a sore loser.

[Suck my caulk]

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.

B.) You are correct that there is no "right" to speak at the DNC and I am not suggesting there is. I am, however, suggesting that there may be electoral consequences for the Democratic nominee if she does not offer concessions to the Bernie Sanders supporters/faction of the Party, because many will not "hold their nose" and vote for Clinton.

C.) You are correct about that. I gladly voted for Angus King in 2012, but it is not a secret that Sanders is to the left of King and only slightly agrees with the Democrats more than he does the Republicans.

D.) Incorrect. I liked Clinton in 2008, and did not have a problem with her as First Lady or Senator, but when she became Secretary of State, her true colors (with respect to Keystone XL, fracking, TPP, foreign policy [which was already hawkish], NSA/spying, and the Clinton Foundation) showed clearly. Those may seem like talking points, but they are individual issues that I have long cared about, and that I have seen Clinton flip-flop on and sell out to multi-national corporations on. Sanders did not tell me anything about Clinton I did not already know. I do not want to damage the Democratic ticket by mindlessly repeating negative talking points, but neither Bernie Sanders nor I are the ones causing the damage to the Party; the damage is being done by Hillary Clinton, and the fact that she is a right-wing Democrat with too much baggage for my liking.

"Me and many other Bernie supporters will not vote for Clinton no matter what! Stein 2016!"

"If Clinton doesn't do X, Y, and Z, me and many other Bernie supporters will not vote for Clinton! Stein 2016!"

I see you aren't very skilled in the art of negotiation.

Let me put this in layman's terms, buddy: I will not be voting for Clinton. Period. Some "Sandernistas" will vote for Clinton if she adopts some positions demanded by the Sanders campaign. Some "Sandernistas," out of spite for Trump will vote for Clinton, even if she tells Sanders to  off and moves further to the right. Some "Sandernistas" will vote for Trump, Johnson, or Stein. I am one person, and only speak for myself. I will not vote for Clinton even if she adopts some of Sanders' positions because I will not believe her convictions of those positions. Others will. I was simply stating that in the sentences you quoted.

[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).

[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!

[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!