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

[HAnnA MArin County]

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.

[HAnnA MArin County]

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.

The thing is, people remember McCarthy and Brown as tremendous assholes for what they did.  Nobody today remembers Jerry Brown's 1992 campaign fondly, he's remembered as bitter, petulant, and caught up in a one-sided feud with Clinton that Clinton couldn't care less about.  Eugene McCarthy's 1968 temper tantrum is the case study everyone points to for how someone could completely screw up a convention and presidential race, and he had far more of a case than Bernie given that the race was in complete flux after the assassination of Bobby Kennedy.  The only reason Ted Kennedy isn't viewed as negatively is because most people are aware that Carter was a dick to Kennedy throughout his presidency.

What is Bernie's justification for going to the convention?  Clinton has been extraordinarily kind and gentle with him throughout the primary process, not running a single attack ad against him.  His claims of the party stealing the nomination from him and being unfair to him or not respecting his supporters are just a bunch of insubstantial fluff and he knows it.  McCarthy and Kennedy at least had motivations for refusing to endorse.  What is Bernie's motivation?  Is he just Jerry Brown '92 redux?  That's the most irritating thing about his issuing of demands and his insistence on going through to the convention.  He doesn't seem to have any actual good reason to do it other than that he wants attention (a.k.a. "the movement must survive", "the revolution must continue", whatever) or, as the Politico article inside his campaign revealed, that he's just bitter and angry at Hillary Clinton and the DNC in a one-sided way.

Well said. I think one thing the Sanders people is missing is that you can't really call your campaign a "revolution" when the vast majority of your support only comes from white people and college kiddies. That's not a coalition that's representative of the Democratic Party or the country as a whole. He's "resonating" with a small yet vocal faction in the party, and those who make the most noise are often heard the most. Fact of the matter is that her coalition of voters is much broader, more diverse, and more representative of the party and country.

[HAnnA MArin County]

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.