Bernie Sanders
Joseph Sohm/Shutterstock

I learned to stop worrying by reading Jamelle Bouie at Slate...

Two weeks ago, after the Democratic primary’s official end, the Vermont senator gave a campaign speech that had all the trappings of a concession but lacked the part where he actually conceded.... Sanders wasn’t going to be the Democratic nominee, but he still held a good amount of leverage in the form of his voters. After a tough primary, they were hesitant to back Clinton, a fact apparent in the polls. Clinton stood ahead of Donald Trump, but not by much: Her lead was weakened by the party’s unbridged divisions. By holding off on a concession and an endorsement, the Vermont senator was keeping this leverage in reserve ahead of the Democratic National Convention. It made sense.

Still, it was a risky move. Whatever influence or leverage Sanders had was tied to his voters. As long as they stuck with him—and didn’t move to Clinton—he could make demands and win concessions on items like the Democratic Party’s platform, a key object of his rhetoric over the past month. But if his voters moved without his endorsement, either pushed by fear of Trump or support from other Democrats, then the value of his support would fall accordingly.

Which is what happened. In his non-concession speech, Sanders told supporters their “major political task” was to “make certain that Donald Trump is defeated and defeated badly.” It turns out that was the message that landed. In the most recent poll from ABC News and the Washington Post, Clinton leads Trump 51 percent to 39 percent, expanding her previous lead by 5 points, as Trump has seen a complete collapse in his support. And what’s driving the move toward Clinton? Democrats and independents who supported Bernie Sanders. In May, 20 percent of Sanders supporters said they would back Trump over Clinton in the general election. In June, that number is down to 8 percent. Overall, 81 percent of Sanders backers have rallied to Clinton, surpassing the 74 percent of Clinton supporters in 2008 who fell in behind Barack Obama. By any measure, the Democratic Party is unified.

So, yeah, what Jamelle said. And what Diable said too:


I spent a good chunk of a recent SECB endorsement meeting laying into a Democrat who endorsed Sanders but now isn't sure when—or whether—she's going to get around to endorsing the Democratic nominee. This pol condescendingly assured the SECB that she was "thinking about it," and that she was "hearing from the Clinton camp," but didn't need to endorse now because "the Democratic nominee isn't determined until the convention."

The first item on her list may be true—she's may be thinking about it—but I doubt she's been getting calls from the Clinton camp, as they have better things to do over at Clinton HQ. But the third item on her list is complete bullshit.

The nominee in '08 was "determined" long before the convention—in '08 and all other years under our current system. Obama clinched the nomination when he hit the magic number with pledged delegates and super delegates alike. Clinton conceded four days later (and got grief for waiting that long!) and offered Obama her endorsement and her enthusiastic support. But the rules are different now, it seems, because Bernie is a revolutionary snowflake. It doesn't matter that Bernie has fewer votes and fewer pledged delegates now than Clinton had in '08. Didn't you see that bird land on his podium? Doesn't that count for something?(The candidate we were interviewing also argued that we need more women in elected office—and so we should endorse her—and condemned the sexism and double standards hold women back. Ahem.) More importantly, the candidate and some other members of the SECB asserted, we had to think of Bernie's supporters. If Bernie isn't allowed to "have his moment," if he's not allowed to contest the nomination a la Kennedy in '80 and Reagan in '76 (and how did that work out for Carter in '80 and Ford in '76?), his followers will have a sad, stay home or vote for Jill Stein, and through no fault of their own [barf emoji here] throw the election to Trump.

Yeah, well, it looks like we're worrying about—and it looks like I wasted a good chunk of an hour arguing with a candidate about—a group of people who either don't exist or who exist such small numbers that we can stop thinking about them and focus instead on winning the election**.

So, Pramila, let's make a deal: I'll stop pretending your endorsement matters if you do.


* Why, yes, that is a 52-year-old pop culture reference.

UPDATE: About this comment...

sad that a pseudo "alternatvie" weekly in Seattle fawns over a war criminal beholden to Wall Street. Fuck yourself Dan. love, not a bernie fan either.

I challenge you, Trollytrolltroll, to point to the part of this post (or any post) where I fawned over Clinton. I was for Bernie or Hillary or both this year, just as I was for Barack or Hillary or both in '08. I'm not ripping into Sanders for challenging Clinton; I wanted him to get in the race and posted that to Slog more than once. I'm ripping into Sanders for not endorsing the Democratic Party's nominee. If Bernie were the presumptive nominee—if he had enough pledged delegates and super delegates to clinch the nomination—and Hillary were pulling this same shit, Trollytrolltroll, I'd be ripping into Hillary.

And if you want to hear someone really rip into Bernie Sanders... listen to that last nine or so minutes of The Gist with Mike Pesca from June 8th...