Hillary supporters will soon be happy with Bernie.

[Funtatlaguy]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by mcar (a host of the General Discussion forum).

Here is what I think happens.
On June 8, the day after California primary, Bernie will hold a press conference where he will say that it is apparent that Hillary has won the nomination.
He will then congratulate her and give her a full throated endorsement stressing where they agree on most policy positions.
He will degrade The Donald and say that he has called Secretary Clinton and told her that he is willing to do whatever he can to help her win.

I know some of you on both sides right now don't see this happening.
But, it will.
We will be united in Philadelphia and beyond.
Hillary will win big in November.
We will reclaim the Senate and make big gains in the House.

Bernie will get to Chair the committee on the Environment with Dems in majority.
His new organization will then start raising money to try to get as many progressive candidates as possible to run in the midterms in 2018 and get back the House.

Happy Days are about to be here again!!!! Hang in there for just one more month and it's smooth sailing after that. Love does Trump hate!

[ViseGrip]

1. Now this is funny. Happily ever after....NAFTA AND MANY WARS. RIGHT.

[maxsolomon]

36. NAFTA was passed 22 years ago. Not by Hillary Clinton, who was not in Public Office at the time.

Surely you mean something else. Perhaps involving the word "Neoliberalism"?

The OP lays out a realistic scenario for the conclusion of the Primary contest. Get used to it.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

2. This part of your comment --Hillary will win big in November. --

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Stop saying that.

Drumpf wasnt supposed to win a single primary, remember?

We win ONLY if we ALL turn out the vote!

[pangaia]

3. Surely you jest.

[Bjornsdotter]

4. Don't quit your day job n/t

[Funtatlaguy]

7. I'm retired. But, please tell me

what you disagree with.

[Bjornsdotter]

30. I disagree with

....every post telling exactly how each detail will play out. We don't know how everything will happen or what will happen.

I have no idea and really neither do you or anyone else here. You would think with the number of people who can predict the future we would have a high number of lotto winners.

None of us know.

[lancer78]

40. Predicting a random sequence of numbers

is MUCH harder then predicting what happens after a contested primary as the last one just happened 8 years ago.

[Bjornsdotter]

41. Bottom line

Not one person here knows. Not one.

[lancer78]

43. I don't know

but I have a good idea.

[Funtatlaguy]

44. Good Lord

What are message boards for?
Of course, I can't read the future.
But,I'm old and have been around politics for a long time.
We Dems hold all the cards right now.
41 and 43, Romney and many others won't endorse or even go to the GOP convention.
Speaker of House who will be in charge of their convention won't endorse Trump yet.

Excuse me for the optimism that the Dems will win.
Yes, like you, I wanted Bernie.
But, Hillary is a helluva lot better than the Orange megolamanic sociopath.

[Canesfan]

5. I sure hope you are right

But I think he wil want something more.

[NightWatcher]

6. So we've given up using GDP?

[littlemissmartypants]

11. I think it could be mission creep. eom

[cali]

8. Happily predicting that Hillary will win big is foolish

That may be how it sugars off, but overestimating the collective wisdom of the American electorate is a grave mistake.

I believe you're correct about Bernie endorsing Clinton, but happy days? Hillary Clinton is dangerous. Honduras, her IWR vote, Libya and Syria demonstrate that. She's less dangerous than trump, but that's faint praise.

[malthaussen]

13. He has said he won't ask his supporters to back her.

Supposing him to be serious, an endorsement would still not contradict that, and would be advisable for some reasons. But I cannot see him being able to make an enthusiastic one. Something along the lines of "Let's stop Trump," but not "I love Hillary."

-- Mal

[malthaussen]

9. Have a nice smoke.

That's some good stuff you have there.

-- Mal

[Funtatlaguy]

10. Again, I ask,

what do you disagree with?

[malthaussen]

12. On just about all points.

Although I do think it is probable that Mrs Clinton will be the eventual nominee for the Democratic party. But any subsequent "unification" of the party will be grudging, at best, and a tidal wave of Progressives sweeping the land seems to me particularly improbable. Indeed, I believe it is most likely that at this time next year, this will all be seen as a dream (or possibly a nightmare), and have zero impact on the Party or its figurehead.

-- Mal

[Funtatlaguy]

14. Fair enuf.

My assertion is a little Mary Sunshiny, probably.
But, I think it is a best case scenario since Bernie can no longer realistically win the nom.
I'm hoping that he has scooted Hillary a little to the left and she stays there to bring in the younger, more liberal demographic.
I, of course, hope she then governs more to the left than the center especially on trade and military issues.

[malthaussen]

17. Not too Mary Sunshiny, exactly.

I think there's a root flaw. If sufficient seeds of a wave of Progressive change do exist to make the prediction possible, then shouldn't they have manifested already? If Mr Sanders cannot draw enough support for his vision to win the nomination, why would it manifest when a less Progressive nominee is chosen?

Now, we can ask if this close call by the Clinton forces will serve them as an object lesson, or as a confirmation of their tactics and policies. And on that question hinges just how much a Clinton presidency would reflect business as usual, and how much it might incorporate new material. But if she wins, is that not vindication? Especially for people for whom winning is the major measure of success? And if vindicated, why change?

Given the fact that the Clinton camp has employed tactics not terribly different from the ones that failed in 2008, what reason is there to believe they will learn from their mistakes? Especially, again, if winning is all that matters?

-- Mal

[hfojvt]

34. my prediction

which isn't worth a bucket of spit any more than anybody else's. Is that she will pick a Veep to try to conciliate progressives. Just like Carter did with Mondale. As I look at our team, it seems to me that the best choice is Sherrod Brown. A solid progressive and it puts Ohio in play.

[TheKentuckian]

38. I don't think we have spares to pull from the Senate again. I'm not sure how Ohio does succession

but it seems like a high risk of losing a seat situation to me.

I get the logic but I think it is thinking of a somewhat different era, I just don't believe a VP locks down their state. I'm not even sure a President does if their state is not already blue anyways, Gore didn't bring home Tennessee and Lloyd Benson sure didn't land Texas.

My impression is that for the most part all a VP can do is hurt a ticket if they are particularly weak or unpopular but actually only function as an accessory/hood ornament for the actual nominee.


I think that for the most part all the old popular wisdom regarding ticket balance is gone the way of the dodo.

Maybe a Hilda Solis would be decent fit as a dark horse candidate.

[hfojvt]

39. But Ohio is close

it's not a state like Kansas. Could lead to a Republican senator in Ohio, but the veep needs to be somebody with some experience, either a Senator or a Governor. I'd be sorta leery about an all-woman ticket. Kerry is experienced, but not so appealing to progressives.

I think with the Sanders challenge and the anti-Clinton sentiment that a very large bone needs to be thrown to progressives. Makes the bitter medicine easier to swallow. O'Malley is available, but I am not sure of his progressive cred either, and Maryland adds nothing.

Brown could tip Ohio. Schweitzer brings nothing. Who else is there? Mayors? Deblasio is popular

[Katashi_itto]

15. Meth is a terrible drug.

[apnu]

16. I'm not worried at all about Bernie

I take him on his word. He won't risk the country to an asshole like Trump. I believe what you say is correct. Bernie will bow out and be very gracious about it.

I hope he's given a spotlight at the DNC like Kusinich got in 2004. Maybe even be offered a cabinet space or some other important role. But I don't know if any of that would happen, we'll have to wait and see.

What bothers me is the intense negativity on DU over Bernie and Hillary. Its fine to disagree, but both camps of supporters here have been dicks to each other. I don't see the point of trolling fellow liberals and progressives. We're supposed to be the enlightened ones, the intelligent ones, the mature ones. But for months here, many have been acting very childish, snarky like a tween and throwing temper tantrums fueled by a mysterious paranoia and hype.

Its an embarrassment to liberalism and progress.

[malthaussen]

19. Ain't dat da trut.

It's difficult to see how such invective won't lead to hard feelings and cutting off the nose to spite the face. Not in voting for Mr Trump, which is absurd, but in refusing to participate, or writing in a vote to satisfy one's own sense of conscience or rightness. Those who find damage control unglamorous are not going to be happy to cast their vote solely "against" Mr Trump. But suggesting that voting one's conscience in a GE is unsound is subject to the impression of stealth advocacy for the nominee, because it appears that it is impossible for a measurable percentage of voters to see anything in terms other than personality and competition.

-- Mal

[apnu]

21. Right, when things collapse under Trump, all that conscience will be jack in the soup line.

If we have a soup line at all that is.

Seeing a lot of people saying it will be better if it all breaks down, then we can build a new. The naivete of that line of thinking is intense.

I think for the rift on the Left between Hillary and Bernie will be moot in November. Just like the 2008 PUMAs came home. If the voters are motivated enough to get to the polls (remember only 58% of Americans turned out in 2008), they'll bring all their fears and sense of urgency with them, look at the ballot, whomever is on that ballot, and they'll pick that which harms them the least.

I do agree that a selection of voters will vote on personality, and I think that is a sizable percentage of the American voter.

[malthaussen]

22. A certain portion will maintain the "burn down the house" mentality.

One would expect it to be more prevalent among the younger voters (or a few older ones who still embrace some of the more radical rhetoric of the '60s), which may be why I subjectively find the "blow it up and start over" attitude more often among the Sanders camp than the Clinton one. The latter tend to be more cynical overall, anyway, and the former more idealistic. That said, I do think the Clinton people have been especially effective in alienating the youth vote, presumably because their running of the numbers tells them they can get away with it. It's not unreasonable, since Mr Trump has nothing to offer them, either. I calculate that the support for Mr Trump will not be sufficient to overcome those willing to vote against him, but I don't see Mrs Clinton inspiring any wave of Progressive voters, either. Their camp is betting that the "lesser of two evils" argument will be good enough to prevail, and it is unfortunately likely that we will have to hope they're right.

-- Mal

[apnu]

23. I agree with your analysis and have observed the same thing.

Both campaigns could do with heeding Wil Wheaton's advice: "Don't be a dick"

While the youth of Sanders supporters may not have the experience to know that wisdom, Hillary's older supporters certainly have. It behooves the Hillary camp to make amends now, include and adapt with this wonderful youthful vigor Sanders' people have going. Will she do that, and not come off as pandering? We'll have to wait and see.

Absolutely there is a "lesser of two evils" vibe, however among the Hillary supporters I've talked to, they find her inspiring, capable and qualified. I think with progressives it will be a hard sell, but for everybody else it will be an easy sale.

I think, come November, we're going to see women, African Americans and Latinos riding to America's rescue from Trump. I think there will be a lot of progressives who will sit on the sidelines and pout.

I, for one, won't. I'll be there on November 8th, and I'll pull the lever for Hillary.

[malthaussen]

25. It bugs me from a tactical standpoint...

... why the Clinton camp have been so disregarding of the youth vote. It buys them nothing, and could cost them. I can only conclude that the McGovern fiasco still casts a very long shadow over the party establishment. It will be much better for the Democratic Party when they can finally shed that incubus.

-- Mal

[apnu]

29. Aye. (nt)

[L. Coyote]

18. You are so wrong about one thing.

We will win the House!



Otherwise, this isn't really a revolution at all.

[Funtatlaguy]

24. Wouldn't that be glorious.

Nt

[IamMab]

20. Washington DC votes last, though. nt

[onecaliberal]

26. It seems you have fallen, and bumped your head badly.

[Shadowflash]

27. ''Bernie will get to Chair the committee on the Environment with Dems in majority.''

Probably not. With the Dems in charge, something might get accomplished and the oil and energy companies have given WAY too much money to allow that to happen.

[Biaviians]

28. Happy wars!

[Victor_c3]

33. Yes, the fun and Hillary-ity just keeps on coming

I for one love the comedy of Iraq!



It, like freedom (and to quote Hillary) is the "ultimate gift one nation can bestow on another".

[joeybee12]

31. Not a Bernie fan, but the one place I think he would do well...

Is in Hillary's cabinet as Secretary of Labor.

[Victor_c3]

32. I don't see it happening

The Democratic Party that I support doesn't vote for bullshit wars on the ME and then take more than a decade to issue a halfassed apology.

If im delusional in expecting the Democratic Party to be anti war, then that means I'm not a democrat.

[hfojvt]

35. Are you talking about the war in Afghanistan?

Because a majority of Democrats in the House voted AGAINST the IWR, and the vote in the Senate was, I believe 29-22. So a) the Democratic Party did not all vote one way, and b) there was a majority in the house and a large minority in the senate that voted NO.

[Victor_c3]

37. What about their beholden presidential candidate? How'd she vote?

That's the one that matters as she is the one running for president

[mac56]

42. And oh god, as a Bernie supporter, there's nothing I want more

than making Hillary supporters happy with me.

I live for it.

[Funtatlaguy]

45. Wow, hi Bernie. Are you Bernie?

Bernie...they will be happy with Bernie..
You were not mentioned.

[mac56]

47. It's never wise to mock people who are on your own team.

[Funtatlaguy]

49. Nor is it to misread a post.

I didn't mention what I think Bernies supporters will or should do.

[roamer65]

46. It's a long way to November 8th. N/t

[GulfCoast66]

48. The best part

Will be watching the Bernie die-hards denouncing him as a sellout and wondering what the payoff was!!

He has already stated he will remain a Democrat after the election. And if he has fooled everyone and this is all about Bernie(which I think is nonsense) he knows that if he details Clinton, he will be relegated to the broom closet in the Senate.