For obvious reason to anyone with an once of common sense, Sanders and his supporters are not willing to give a blank check to establishment Democrats. You better get used to it, Dan Savage.

The Blue Dog Coalition is running strong lately. Thats ok. I'm hoping the old regime loses in a landslide.

'Some house Democrats' hasn't the same meaning as 'house Democrats' but leave to Savage to catapult the propaganda.

Sanders (and his supporters, or anyone else for that matter) is under no obligation to endorse Hillary Clinton, elected Democrats, or any part of the Democratic party platform.

They may choose to, but they don't have to. Deal with it.

"The goal isn't to win elections, the goal is to transform America." Um...short of violent revolution, you can't change anything without winning elections.

As clear proof as any that Sanders totally squandered his moment to become a party leader who could push Democrats in any direction at all. Warren swooped in and stole his thunder and she'll be the main force driving the party left from here on out.

Hooray! House Democrats don't give a shit about anything except keeping their jobs! No wonder everything is great!

As usual, Dan demonstrates why he shouldn't quit his day job.

what @6 said. California transformed itself BECAUSE DEMS WON THE ELECTION and consolidated power: Executive and Legislative branches.

So did Kansas, which transformed itself into the shitter.

Sanders has turned into a pumpkin, but he doesn't seem to realize it yet. Campaigning is fun! Getting whisked around by the Secret Service is cool! Who cares that Secret Service protection costs taxpayers $40,000 per day?

The vast majority of former Sanders supporters are Democrats, and are fully prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton. The outlines of the campaign are becoming clear, and his "endorsement," whatever form that takes, loses value with each passing day. The president and Senator Warren have been already out on the campaign trail, and will soon be followed by other Democrats. And the last hope of the Sandersistas - the F.B.I. E-mail Server Inquiry - ended without an indictment.

Sanders seems bent on a course in which he alienates the very voters and elected officials he needs to advance his progressive agenda.

@6- If all you do is win elections without bothering to do anything transformative (which is the Clintonian path), then you're useless. And actually the Democrats haven't been particularly good at winning elections.

@7- I don't think Sanders has any problem with being Left of the the biggest name on the Left of the Democratic Party. The fact Warren is now the "moderate left" of the Democratic Party is a triumph.

@6 Marriage Equality just called, and it would like to respectfully disagree with you.

Remember that Dan when the current budget extension runs out in February 2017.

@13/MajordomoPicard: The ghost of Antonin Scalia called to remind you that Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president.

Bernie not obligated to endorse - You can be right and still be an asshole..

@9: I can certainly agree with that. The best path for him and the country is probably for him to drop pretenses and just remove himself from the race, and try to ensure the people who were going to vote for him do not vote for Trump or stay home.

That being said, I find it hard to agree with the idea that he somehow owes it to Clinton or the Dems to now fall lockstep into place with them. It is not like he was ever really a part of the party to begin with.

Bernie Sanders should help to hold Hillary Clinton for her record as Secretary of State under the Obama administration, particularly in regard to Haiti and Honduras, two countries that are still reeling from U.S. intervention into their affairs. At one of the last Democratic debate, Bernie Sanders brought up the epidemic of violence in Honduras that has forced many unaccompanied minors to flee, but stopped short of bringing up Clinton’s role in the 2009 coup in Honduras that removed the democratically elected Manuel Zelaya and helped lead to a new era of repression and lawlessness. Bloodshed reigns supreme in Honduras today, not only in terms of its astronomically high murder rate, but also for activists, LGBT persons, journalists and indigenous leaders. At least 174 LGBT persons have been killed in Honduras since 2009. According to Global Witness, 101 environmental activists were murdered between 2010 and 2014, including Berta Cáceres, a fearless environmentalist who fought for indigenous land rights and who was assassinated in her home in March. In 2014, Cáceres called out Clinton for her role in the 2009 coup, saying, “We’re coming out of a coup that we can’t put behind us. We can’t reverse it. It just kept going. And after, there was the issue of the elections. The same Hillary Clinton, in her book, ‘Hard Choices,’ practically said what was going to happen in Honduras. This demonstrates the meddling of North Americans in our country.” (As Roque Planas of the Huffington Post pointed out, while Clinton discussed her role in the hardcover of edition of ‘Hard Choices’, the paperback edition of ‘Hard Choices cut out the discussion of the Honduras coup entirely)

Bernie Sanders should help to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for her record as Secretary of State under the Obama administration, particularly in regard to Haiti and Honduras, two countries that are still reeling from U.S. intervention into their affairs. At one of the last Democratic debate, Bernie Sanders brought up the epidemic of violence in Honduras that has forced many unaccompanied minors to flee, but stopped short of bringing up Clinton’s role in the 2009 coup in Honduras that removed the democratically elected Manuel Zelaya and helped lead to a new era of repression and lawlessness. Bloodshed reigns supreme in Honduras today, not only in terms of its astronomically high murder rate, but also for activists, LGBT persons, journalists and indigenous leaders. At least 174 LGBT persons have been killed in Honduras since 2009. According to Global Witness, 101 environmental activists were murdered between 2010 and 2014, including Berta Cáceres, a fearless environmentalist who fought for indigenous land rights and who was assassinated in her home in March. In 2014, Cáceres called out Clinton for her role in the 2009 coup, saying, “We’re coming out of a coup that we can’t put behind us. We can’t reverse it. It just kept going. And after, there was the issue of the elections. The same Hillary Clinton, in her book, ‘Hard Choices,’ practically said what was going to happen in Honduras. This demonstrates the meddling of North Americans in our country.” (As Roque Planas of the Huffington Post pointed out, while Clinton discussed her role in the hardcover of edition of ‘Hard Choices’, the paperback edition of ‘Hard Choices cut out the discussion of the Honduras coup entirely)

@6: /thread

Have fun with your Syrian war Dan, since Clinton's election just about guarantees it.

Also of note: Everyone is talking about the importance of qualifications with respect to a politician who can't even follow basic departmental policies and procedures.

(and yes, I'm voting for Clinton BUT ONLY because she's my only electable option now).

Notice how the commenters who claim that Sanders has no leverage are pretty much the same who never gave a chance to his campaign and claimed over a year ago that Clinton had already won. I guess some people will never learn ... or is it willful ignorance?

#23: It's worse than that. It's politics at the level of sports. Policies and long-term political commitments don't actually matter, just winners and losers. Incrementalism is the promise of not getting much done but looking like a pro while you do it. That's the Clinton wing of the party in a nutshell.

"...looks like house Dems aren't in the mood to take anyone's crap anymore..."
God if only that were true. Can't wait to see how incompetently they tuck their tails between their legs for the Comey hearing tomorrow.

@21 it should be obvious to any thinking person that winning elections is one necessary mean among others but it isn't the goal because it isn't sufficient by itself to bring about meaningful change, which is the point that Sanders is making.

@26 compromise isn't equivalent to giving away the farm from the get go like you do. I surely wouldn't want you to negotiate any compromise for my team.

Wow, Dan. This is really gross. You're cheering on the establishment for placing winning over principles. You know why priests fuck kids, famous college coaches let their colleagues abuse children in their own locker room, or our political leadership often only pay us lip service while selling us out to the highest bidder? Because our institutions put winning over principles and we let them. Bernie wouldn't be doing this if these spineless wimps had gotten their shit together during the disaster of the Bush administration.

@7: "As clear proof as any that Sanders totally squandered his moment to become a party leader who could push Democrats in any direction at all. Warren swooped in and stole his thunder and she'll be the main force driving the party left from here on out."

If Warren "swoops in" and makes the same changes Bernie has been pushing for then how is that a loss?

@11: "Sanders has turned into a pumpkin, but he doesn't seem to realize it yet. Campaigning is fun! Getting whisked around by the Secret Service is cool! Who cares that Secret Service protection costs taxpayers $40,000 per day?"

Where do you get this idea that it's solely about Sanders ego? Just more baseless criticism.

@15: "He doesn't owe anyone his endorsement but it's a pretty bold move to run for the Democratic nomination and then take a dump on the party when they refuse to properly kiss his ass after he loses."

He ran with the Democrats because their base is liberals and progressives as is his. That's it. You say he's taking a dump on them as if he's somehow beholden to the party. He's trying to do what the party's base wants and knows is right. If the party isn't smart enough to see this then they're the pumpkin. They should be kissing Sanders' ass for showing them how to be an unapologetic, principled liberal. They need to smarten up if they don't want to end up on the scrap heap with the republicans.

@16 Oh, that's right! I forgot about that time people elected Ronald Reagan (R) specifically so he would nominate Justice Kennedy so he could write the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges! Clearly the broad cultural victory on this issue — including changing opinions of the electorate, pressure from corporate interests, and multiple Federal court decisions — was either the result of violent revolution or the direct result of an election! How else could something so revolutionary have occurred?

What @6 said.

Sanders saying the goal isn't to win elections is actually pretty consistent with how he has wound up trying to obtain the nomination after losing the election. If you don't care who wins, then you're free to argue somebody other than the winner should be the nominee. It's insane, but it's consistent.

@26: "@23, I voted for him, but the last month or so since Clinton won the nomination has been an embarrassment and a betrayal to his supporters. You don't get concessions by being obstinate - you have to be willing to compromise, especially after losing."

I don't feel betrayed or embarrassed. Sanders actually has an excellent track record of compromise, that's not the problem. The problem is one side is insane, wrong about everything, and utterly exposed as such to the voting public at this time. We have a number of massive problems for which incrementalism is not up to the task and once again liberals are talking about managing expectations and compromising with children, charlatans and zealots rather than seizing the narrative and notching some more legislative victories, the only kind that really matter.

Democrats have been compromising while Republicans dismantle everything they built rather than pushing forward. This is why they lose and by extension so do we. That's the problem. Its time to stop capitulating to crazy.

@26 "I voted for him, but now that he's doing exactly what he said he was going to do I'm bowing to the DLC narrative and insulting him."

At this point, nobody cares if he endorses Clinton. But after the convention, he needs to end his campaign.

Dan Savage is the new Rahm Emmanuel.

Win the House back? What are they smoking?

The key to getting the House back and being able to keep it is to clean up big on the state level in 2020 (unlikely if Mrs C is running for re-election, given that she'll get double the Republican grief Mr O got, and is not naturally on his level at being inspirational - at least, not any more, and there will be a great deal of fatigue by the end of her first term), and, even if the Ds don't duplicate the R custom of turning states with 60% blue voters into states with 60% red House seats, at least push through enough fair redistricting to right the ship.

The obvious way for this to happen would be for Mrs C to pledge to be a one-termer (any flashbacks to Mr Carvey's portrayals of Mr Bush pere?), and we all know the chances of that ever happening.

If you're going to start admonishing Bernie for not falling in line behind The Candidate you haven't been paying attention to him very much.

Bernie started this whole thing calling for a revolution. Endorsing Hilary and going with the status quo ain't much of a revolution, is it?
Here's what I hope... The Republicans use their new conscientious objector rule to deny Trump the nomination. He runs anyway as an Independent. Bernie says FU to the Dems and runs anyway. Now we have four candidates instead of two... and don't forget Gary Johnson as a now viable Libertarian candidate. Wouldn't it be great to vote based on who you want rather than who you fear?

@41- "... but I'm not the only one who thinks Bernie pissed away his chances."

No, there are a whole lot of people on that silly bandwagon.

@41, you're being myopic. This is about more than this election. The Dems are ignoring the 45% that Sanders won at their own peril. The 45% that makes up the next 50 years or so of their base. Capitulating to republicans as Clinton and so many other Dems have throughout their careers is going to leave them in the cold. Conservatives don't want them and they won't be able to appeal to that 45% as it grows and makes it mark on the country because they will remember how their earliest dalliances with politics bore no fruit because their leadership sold them and their children out.

You're talking about it like it's sport. "Sore losers"? Why would those of us always on the short end of the stick be anything but sore?

@44, that is one of the dumbest Bernie critiques out there. The man never did anything for his ego in his career. He held the correct position on topics well before it was safe to do so politically and now you think he's a careerist? Please.

@33 if you really feel that winning thanks to super delegates would be "insane" why don't you also call for getting rid of superdelegates rather than stop at criticizing Sanders for playing by the rules that Democrat elites have adopted for themselves? Are you posturing?

Dan tra-la-la's into irrelevance with my blessing.

@41 As of 3 weeks ago 44% of Democratrs wanted Bernie to make an independent run. It would be quite amazing if he lost that kind of following in 3 weeks, for which you are providing no evidence.

but otherwise they can go fuck themselves).

Now you are making stuff up. Sanders had made clear repeatedly that he would do everything he could to stop Trump and although you don't understand it, defeating Trump or the next demagogue will demand that progressives play a major role in setting policy.

@41, unless you do away with the Electoral College none of that matters. Either states will send D or R contingents to the EC, or else the election gets thrown into the House of Representatives, and gee, I wonder who'd win then? (Hint: it'd be a Republican.) Only two states have proportional representation in their EC contingent (ME and NE), so Johnson might get a vote or two, but that'd be it.

This place really is a refuge for the Sanders dead-enders. @45 is a particularly special example:

The Dems are ignoring the 45% that Sanders won at their own peril.

Acknowledging 55>45 is "ignoring" 45, for a certain kind of Sanders voters.

The 45% that makes up the next 50 years or so of their base.

Black people are by far the most reliable Democratic voters, but of course they're not "the base"--that term is reserved for people who like the right candidate.

@50 " Only two states have proportional representation in their EC contingent (ME and NE), "

ME and NE don't have proportional representation of their EC contingent--it's winner take all by congressional district. So if you get 51% across all the districts, you get 100% of the EC delegation.

Of course Sanders doesn't have to endorse Clinton. I just find it strange that he not only voted for her for Secretary of State but actually recommended her for the position:

"Sen. Clinton is one of the brightest people in Congress and she would be an excellent choice," Vermont's independent senator, Bernie Sanders, told Politico through a spokesman.
http://www.politico.com/story/2008/11/ca…

And I would expect him to at the very least verbalize the same half-hearted support he gave to Bill Clinton when voting for him in 1996:
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/left-…

Another old white male who wont get off the stage.

@47: Clinton wins with 60% of the total delegates. If we got rid of superdelegates, she'd win with 55% of the total delegates. Please explain how that constitutes "winning thanks to super delegates".
Lemme guess, you're going to try the same old swindle of "superdelegates count except when they support Hillary". That dog don't hunt.

#54: Yeah fuck all white males. White women and every other minority take to the stage. The substance of opinion no longer matters. Just the race and sex of the person who utters it, a kind of reverse Republicanism. Maybe think more about content of character, and less about the color of the skin.

#56: And yes, that applies to the Obama-hating angry white male contingent on the other side as well.

Don't you get it Dan? Sanders can do whatever he wants, because that's what principled politicians do. But everyone else, including you must tiptoe around him and his supporters because hearing boos make them have a sad.

@55 Pay attention, please. I responded to someone who said that the idea of Sanders winning thanks to superdelegates was insane but somehow stopped short of calling for eliminating superdelegates, which sounds suspiciously like posturing to me.

. Nuh. Just the White old men.
Bernie's number is up as the Demoncratic nominee. So what, now he is encouraged to split the vote from the left and run as an intependent. That would be a really smart move and see trump win.
So I'll adjust my post @54 and say,
Just another stupid old White man who won't get off the stage.

#58: What difference does it make if Sanders stays in the race? He's not "breaking the rules" or anything else. He's simply still present, which according to Dan is nothing to worry about. The Democrat rank and file and pragmatists have already moves to Clinton's camp, and most of Sanders supporters are now independents who wouldn't be engaged one way or another if Sanders wasn't in the race. Democrats are basically wetting their pants over the fact that Sanders said he was going to the convention and now is going to the convention. If you're so confident in your candidate, why do you care? It's like you're insulted that someone would dare use the Democratic Party to present a progressive platform.

I'm not delusional, and am well aware that Sanders is done for intents and purposes. But to act like he's breaking the unwritten laws of US political culture and represents some kind of petulant threat to the order is fucking ridiculous. Nothing he is doing is politically beyond the pale or breaking any rules.

@61 I don't know what you are responding to, other than some strawman you wanted to argue with. But Sanders is not beyond the pale, and neither is booing him and calling him out to his face. This is only a news story because Bernie and his remaining hardcores are sensitive little flowers who demand gentle treatment from the party that they despise.

And do you think Clinton supporters would like it if the House booed her? Do you really believe her supporters would act any differently if the roles were reversed? Yeah, people who are over-invested in politicians tend to take attacks on their guy or gal personally. So much of this campaign season has been little more than Clinton and Sanders supporters yelling at each other, getting their feelings hurt, condescending to one another and spewing out vitriol. And when the going gets tough, they cry about the establishment, the corrupt DNC, the racism and misogyny of Sanders supporters, and all the rest. The fact is, this whole campaign season has been petty as fuck. Clinton and Sanders have resisted personal attacks for the most part, but their surrogates have treated each other with a level of contempt you don't even see between the Democrats and Republicans.

Nice article. Slightly OT point to make. Can the Stranger come up with a comments section that allow people to directly reply to post in chains instead of this @25 bullshit?

64: that's in response to #62.

Where was all that booing during the years Sanders caucused with the timid, wincing Conservadems?

@51: "Acknowledging 55>45 is "ignoring" 45, for a certain kind of Sanders voters."

You are familiar with this concept known as "The Future", right? Clinton won old people. Bernie won young people. One base is dying and the other is trying to start families and careers and they see Clinton for the neo-liberal that she is. Victory this year will be short lived if the Dems don't heed that 45%. This is not a complicated concept.

""The 45% that makes up the next 50 years or so of their base."

Black people are by far the most reliable Democratic voters, but of course they're not "the base"--that term is reserved for people who like the right candidate. "

As above, Clinton won old POC. Bernie won young POC. They are part of the 45% I'm referring to. There's a bunch of women in that group too. Is it your contention that their interests are less relevant than older POC or older women? Bernie Sanders has fought for people living on the margins of society his entire life and yet you seem to think he would attract a bunch racist troglodytes? Why are you here playing on that obnoxious and discredited "Bernie Bro" trope?

I said the Democrats will be making a big mistake if they ignore the future of the party and you try to accuse me of racism. Pathetic. This is why the Democrats have repeatedly failed to seize the narrative despite a trail of Republican catastrophes. Too busy back biting instead of pushing forward on common goals.

@63

Bernie Sanders may have lost his bid to become the Democratic nominee for the White House, but party members don't want the U.S. senator from Vermont to step off the stage.

More than three-quarters of Democrats say Sanders should have a "major role" in shaping the party's positions, while nearly two thirds say Hillary Clinton - who beat him for the nomination - should pick him as her vice-presidential running mate, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.[...]The poll, conducted June 7-10 - right after Clinton sewed up the delegate majority to become the presumptive Democratic nominee - showed that while most Democrats want Sanders to line up behind Clinton, about 44 percent would like him to make an independent run for the White House. Some 47 percent said he should not.

As I said, the 44% of Democrats who wanted Sanders to make an independent run are unlikely to have dissipated into thin air after 3 weeks, which points to your unsubstantiated claim that he has lost his leverage as being bunk. Do you need a drawing with this?

@69 a link of course, Democrats want 'major role' for Sanders: Reuters/Ipsos poll

@54: That old white man is probably one of the staunchest, unflinching allies you'll ever have. Clinton is gonna sell you out in a fucking heart beat (Private prisons, payday lenders, TPP) and you and what's left of your exploited and fractured family will be wondering what happened to that nice old man that tried to change things for the better that one time.

@55: "@47: Clinton wins with 60% of the total delegates. If we got rid of superdelegates, she'd win with 55% of the total delegates. Please explain how that constitutes "winning thanks to super delegates".
Lemme guess, you're going to try the same old swindle of "superdelegates count except when they support Hillary". That dog don't hunt. "

Swing and a miss. Super delegates being continually reported as committed and unalterable votes poisoned the entire campaign. When AP calls primaries that haven't even voted based on that it poisons the campaign.

This should bother you too. If it doesn't then I have to wonder if YOU think super delegates count only when they support Hillary.

Bernie's peers booed him, because to those of us not wearing magic glasses, he is making a jackass of himself and weakening the push against trump by his behaviour.

@58 "Don't you get it Dan? Sanders can do whatever he wants, because that's what principled politicians do. But everyone else, including you must tiptoe around him and his supporters because hearing boos make them have a sad. "

It does give me a sad. The democrats just said "Fuck higher ideals, we're trying to win." and you're over there laughing about it like this is a game and you're the world's poorest sport.

If Clinton wins it will be one obstructed term and done. Then the Republicans get to go back to putting the screws to us. That or she'll lose because of this lackluster candidate who so clearly lacks the character and values we need right now, we'll get Trump and be set back another four years. That will be on you and every other smug Clinton supporter.

@73: Trump exists BECAUSE of spineless liberals like Clinton who never had the fortitude to hold their positions, popular or not. Those wimps aren't Bernie's peers and if they had any guts at all hanging on to the presidency and both houses of congress would be a walk in the park.

Forty years of republican failures from the mild to the catastrophic and Clinton and other Dems couldn't make their case to the public? Clinton can barely beat the R's unless their grossest caricature wins the nomination, but you think Bernie needs to get off the stage? If Trump wins it's on you for picking the lesser of two evils. One day liberals will learn that. Or not.

@74 it doesn't have to be that way if the energy of Bernie's supporters is used to find a credible nominee for four years time. A younger person with a similar vision to move America into being a more equitable country, and with less of a messiah ego.

"If Clinton wins it will be one obstructed term and done."

The notion that we have the knowledge now to say that a hypothetical president Clinton has lower re-election odds than a hypothetical president Sanders in 2020 is beyond absurd. There's no basis for any such knowledge claim. There's way too much we don't and can't know about 2020 to say this. The notion that a hypothetical Sanders presidency would be less obstructed than a Clinton one is even more absurd. They'll both be pretty much entirely obstructed, because that's what Republicans do.

It doesn't really matter whether you like Clinton or Sanders vision more, because neither of them are happening as long as we've got the congress we've got. The next democratic president is all about running the federal government competently and preventing the Republicans from enacting their agenda. Clinton and Sanders are both adequate for that task. There's a zero percent chance a bill will land on President Clinton's desk and she'll veto it because it's too progressive for her. The idea that there's anything significant at stake between them is foolish.

I caucused for Sanders, but now I can't even stand the guy. Enough already. He lost and we have a big fight ahead of us that we need everyones help to win. Including Sanders and his bros.

@77: Are you from a universe where Hillary Clinton hasn't been pilloried for all things great and small for the last twenty five years? Did you not see how Republicans treated Obama? You think Clinton is going to be treated better? She could barely win her party and was in a dead heat at best with the Republican field. What exactly is there about all this that makes you think this is so unknowable? What is it that makes you so confident?

@76 Did you just suggest that Bernie supporters primary a sitting president?

Are you mentally challenged? The DNC would never let that happen.

Besides, you think the Clinton supporters are butthurt by Sanders demanding higher ideals in a primary for an open seat, imagine the butthurt if they tried to launch a coup when Clinton is already sitting.

Clinton = 8 years of suck.

Trump = 4.

@72: "Super delegates being continually reported as committed and unalterable votes poisoned the entire campaign."
Maybe you didn't pay attention to anything other than Occupy Democrats during the primary, but practically every mention of the superdelegates came with the disclaimer that they can change whenever they want. But really, your argument is that the elections weren't fair because one candidate had the endorsement of party insiders? You are blowing smoke, as usual.
"When AP calls primaries that haven't even voted based on that it poisons the campaign."
Yeah, and let me know when the AP actually calls a state primary based on superdelegate totals. I won't hold my breath.

Just another example of Bernouts co-opting the Tea Partier refrain of "we lost an election, therefore it must have been rigged".
I will, however, cop to misreading anon1256's comment. My bad, bro.

@ 83: "Yeah, and let me know when the AP actually calls a state primary based on superdelegate totals. I won't hold my breath."

You were saying? Who's blowing smoke? You have the brass to talk about co-opting Tea Party strategy when you have Ignorance of Current Events cornered?

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-l…

LOL!!! Like you think Dan Savage or the other Clintonbots will ever claim responsibility for anything. Hilarious!! The great thing about neocons and the regressive left is that they really are the same type of person.

@81 People expressing support isn't equivalent to people actually voting. Young Sanders supporters are energized by Sanders' policy proposals, not Clinton's. Whether many of these people would show up on election day without Sanders' crucial ideas being given a prominent share is very doubtful.

Of course neoliberal Democrats don't want to compromise with progressives (given our goals are diametrically opposed) and they'll hold out as long as they can, hoping they won't need Sanders if the Trump campaign were to implode. Did you think it would be that easy? I have news for you: many establishment Dems would rather vote for a Republican than for Sanders and they had no more intention of compromising a month ago than they do now, which points to the importance of staying mobilized for Sanders supporters rather than folding without getting explicit concessions.

@77 "There's a zero percent chance a bill will land on President Clinton's desk and she'll veto it because it's too progressive for her"

Except that if we are playing defense we are going to need her to veto regressive bills that her corporate sponsors would love to see passed.

@80:

Are you from a universe where Hillary Clinton hasn't been pilloried for all things great and small for the last twenty five years?.

No.

Did you not see how Republicans treated Obama?

Yes. Please note that he comfortably won re-election, despite this treatment, because conditions in 2012 were on-balance favorable for a Democratic incumbent, and the Republican shit-flinging's effect was negligible on the actual outcome.

You think Clinton is going to be treated better?

No, of course not. But please see above.

She could barely win her party and was in a dead heat at best with the Republican field.

She won quite a bit more comfortably than Obama won (against a terrible candidate, according to you) in 2008, especially given how little she actually contested the last dozen or so states, as she (wisely) decided her resources would be better spent on the general election, given the size of her lead.

What exactly is there about all this that makes you think this is so unknowable? What is it that makes you so confident?

I can't fathom why you think I'm projecting "confidence" about what we can know about the 2020 election--I'm explicitly doing the opposite. Of course I'm not confident at all about what will happen in the 2020 election--because I'm not ignorant enough to be so foolish. This is because the outcome of elections largely turns on fundamentals such as the current state of the economy, and the direction economic performance is moving, and it'd be absurd to try to predict that 4-5 years out. Contra our idiotic media, candidate quality generally matters only at the margins (Trump may be an exception, obviously). This is a fairly robust finding from an extensive body of the political research on American presidential elections, and that research councils against predictions this far out. Clinton will have two moderate to large advantages in 2020--the general incumbency bump and an electorate/electoral college with a small but increasing Democratic demographic lean. The white percentage of the electorate goes down about 2% per election, and the Republican party seems intent on doubling down on white identity politics as its central electoral strategy, which will make the presidency an increasingly uphill climb for them. So if I had to bet today, I'd bet on a Clinton re-election (I'd make the same bet for a hypothetical president Sanders.) But there's far too much we don't know to have any confidence in such a wager.

@87: Exactly. The republicans won't work with her and I'm not interested in passing trash in the name of bipartisanship.

Boo! to you, Dan. Comparing Sanders to gun nuts is simplistic and unfair. Hillary is likely to be elected. And so we'll still have a huge heap of unsolved and unaddressed inequities on the table that Sanders wants to address. Let's not stop thinking because we're all scared to death of Trump. Plenty of us can vote for the lesser of two evils without a Sanders endorsement.

Can I just ask a question? If Clinton is the status quo, why is the Republican Party so afraid of her? Why have they spent millions of dollars and oceans of time trying to keep her out of the White House?
I mean think about it. They've been after her for 25 years. If she's going to support their wars and continue their economic policies and not keep any of her campaign promises, why are they trying to destroy her? As far as some of y'all have described her she's a better bet of maintaining the stability of current power structure than Trump.
So what is it they're afraid of?

@ Lavagirl, if you think Bernie's stupid or just another old white man, you haven't been paying attention. And if you (and Dan) think he should get out of Hilary's way just because you don't want Trump, you're basing your vote on the lesser of two evils, which is what's keeping us in this bullshit two-party system. Bernie's the only guy up there with integrity. We all know he's the best man for the job. He can't leave now. At least I pray he won't.

@84: Nice reading comprehension. Scroll back up and see why what the media did is different from what I said they didn't do and then get back to me.

So, let me get this straight: people who've been calling the presumptive Democratic nominee for President of The United States a "liar", a "cheat", a "warmonger", "no different than Trump", et al, for the past - what? - year or so (and who continue to do so even now) - are suddenly getting their boxer-briefs in a knot because some Democrats in the House had the temerity to boo their candidate, a life-long Independent who, instead of running AS an Independent elected instead to run as a Democrat, and who furthermore lost the Democratic Primary by some 4,000,000 votes, for not stepping forward and endorsing said nominee? And they're complaining because they think it's "disrespectful"?

Have I got that straight?

@94 Nope. People are reacting to Savage's trolling Sanders suporters, not to a handful of deluded Democrats who believe that winning elections is all you need to bring change.

@95:

So, re-posting the piece from Politico was just a clever ruse on Dan's part to lure unsuspecting Sanders supporters into taking some troll-bait and venting their spleens in response? Huh, guess some of them are even more credulous than I realized.

Also, how exactly DOES one "bring change" in this country WITHOUT engaging in the political process, a major component of which involves winning elections?

@96 Given that these regular trolling pieces are among the most commented, I suspect it is all about how many clicks they generate.

Sanders didn't say not to engage in the political process and since he has said the opposite many times, we can assume that is what he believes. i am sure he would agree that winning elections is important. Sanders only said that winning elections wasn't sufficient to bring about change (the goal), which seems like a pretty reasonable thing to say.

Hold the fucking phone, Dan: was ACT UP all about electoral politics? Are you seriously applauding elected officials for focusing on their career concerns over the wellbeing of the country, and contrary to your own activist history?

@97:

Democrats - like Republicans - understand the basic function of government is to either enact progressive change (liberal ideology), to maintain the status quo (conservative ideology). Neither can be accomplished without electing adherents of a given ideology to public office. So, if you want to change things, you really only have a couple of options: work within the existing governance structure, get enough of your side in positions to effect the kind of change you want, or else dismantle the structure completely and start anew, something that invariably entails a violent response - and counter-response. I don't think Sanders is advocating for violent revolution (a position more appropriate to those at the extreme ends of the political spectrum on both the Left and the Right), so that pretty much leaves you with working within the system that exists, as imperfect, incremental, and time-consuming as that may be.

The biggest problem with many Sanders supporters, as I see it, is they want everything they want to happen NOW, which, from a political, not to mention social, perspective is unrealistic and highly disruptive, especially given the way our system is designed. It is purposefully crafted so that change, if such there be, can really only occur slowly over some period of time, which is sensible when you think on it, given that abrupt, large-scale alteration of the existing paradigm is incredibly destabilizing, not just because of the stress it puts on our system of governance, but because of how it affects us socially, culturally, politically, and economically. People simply need time to acclimate to new ideas, new ways of doing things, even if they are intended to - and have the effect of - providing some tangible benefit to society.

And this doesn't even take into account the unabashed sense of entitlement and privilege I sense in many Sanders supporters. They think they deserve some sort of automatic bump to the head of the line as it were, that THEIR agenda, sometimes in accord with, but just as often at odds with the agendas of so many other constituencies that have been struggling for far longer to get a seat at the table, should come first. No wonder he garnered such tepid support from people of color, people who have been fighting for access to the system for more than 100 years, who have experienced not only intransigent resistance every step of the way, but who even now continue to bear the brunt of a system that, for many, appears to be actively moving them backwards. In Sanders they see just another White Liberal, of White Liberals, and for White Liberals, and it frustrates the hell out of his supporters, because they seem to assume THEIR agenda is the same, when in fact, it's not even remotely the same. Free college education doesn't mean squat if your child has a high chance of not living long enough to go to college. When Black Lives Matter activists disrupted his speech here last Fall, many of his supporters, rather than examining their own sense of entitlement, instead turned on the protesters for not being sufficiently acquiescent to their message; just one more example, of countless before it, where people of color have been told their agenda wasn't as important, or as pressing, or as relevant as those who were solidly behind the candidate. And then they scratched their collective heads and wondered why people of color didn't come flocking to their banner.

You mention ACT UP, and ask if that movement was "all about electoral politics"? I certainly wouldn't presume to speak for Dan, but from my perspective I think it's important to note that, while it was effective in terms of calling attention to the AIDS pandemic, as well as pressuring both pharmaceutical companies to develop treatments and the FDA to fast-track approve them, it was certainly by no means the be-all and end-all of activism in the LGBTQ community, and much of the forward movement for that community in the intervening 28 years since its formation has in fact occurred as a direct result of "electoral politics", as more open gays, lesbians & transgender people have entered the political arena, as laws have been passed granting protective status, as judges sympathetic to their plight have been elected and appointed, and as legislatures around the nation have recognized (sadly, with some actively denying) their fundamental human rights and status as equal under the law. This is a process, not of years, but of decades, and much of it would not have happened at all were it not for people engaging in electoral politics.

Drat, all that was meant for @98...

@99 The funniest part about that rant was when you said Sanders supporters are egotistical for wanting their agenda to be heard and attended to...but then go off on a tangent on how BLM is frustrated that they can't get a seat at the table.

Irony of ironies, every activist wants and demands to be heard now. Homeless activists demand it because their citizens are dying. LGBT activists demanded it because their citizens were dying. BLM demands it because their citizens are dying. Housing advocates demand it because their impoverished citizens are trying to not become homeless. Economic activists demand it because they see their brothers and sisters being crushed and/or dying.

Everybody thinks their issues are important. Well, except Hillary's supporters who can barely muster up the energy to rally around her actually not terrible college plan and merely embark on an "at least she's not Trump" and "Bernie sucks" mudslinging campaign to make their candidate look the least worst.

Sanders continues to so what he has always done. Why do people expect anything different? He's consistent, that kind of the point to him. That said, I wish he'd support Clinton.

@96

So, re-posting the piece from Politico was just a clever ruse on Dan's part to lure unsuspecting Sanders supporters into taking some troll-bait and venting their spleens in response?

My guess is yes, partially. My guess is that this article was posted solely to generate clicks. There's simply no other intellectual reason to post it. It's not news. It's just catty clickbait. Check out this article from the same site. This is the status quo business model of websites today. Every "media" site does it now. The Stranger is no different. Here's a relevant quote:

“The low point arrived when my editor G-chatted me with the observation that our traffic figures were lagging that day and ordered me to ‘publish something within the hour,’” Andrew Leonard, who left Salon in 2014, recalled in a post. “Which, translated into my new reality, meant ‘Go troll Twitter for something to get mad about — Uber, or Mark Zuckerberg, or Tea Party Republicans — and then produce a rant about it.’

And it works. You're here posting. I'm here posting. Dan's just a "victim of the future" like Leonard.

Plus, have you read Terry's twitter? If Dan didn't use his position at The Stranger to push a Clinton presidency, his home life would be unbearable.