Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MineralMan

(146,254 posts)
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:14 PM Jun 2016

There is no need for Sanders to concede.

Whether he does or not will change nothing, really. He has called for the defeat of Donald Trump. That means he is supporting voting for the Democratic nominee, since votes determine which of the two major party candidates wins.

He can concede or not. He can actively campaign for Hillary or not. He can come to the convention or not. He can do whatever it pleases him to do. As time passes, what he decides to do becomes less and less important, as the two presumptive nominees shift to campaign for the general election.

As time passes, Bernie Sanders becomes more and more irrelevant to the decisions voters will make in November. Already, we're seeing people making those decisions, as reflected in the polling. Senator Sanders no longer appears in those polls, nor is he appearing in daily media to the degree he once was. As time passes, he will drop out of notice by the media entirely.

So, he can do as he chooses. It will not materially affect the election. His voice, on a national level, will grow quieter and quieter, with the passing of each week leading up to the November election.

I hope he will concede and endorse Clinton at some point, but it's no longer really an essential thing. It's his choice, and I'm OK with whatever he decides. My focus from here on out is on:

Hillary 2016!

24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
There is no need for Sanders to concede. (Original Post) MineralMan Jun 2016 OP
He has to at least tell people to vote for the Democrats. He hasn't done that yet. CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #1
go to his page, then start speaking constructive truths swhisper1 Jun 2016 #4
Sorry, where he has told his followers to vote for Hillary? CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #19
Even if he "told" me to vote for her I wouldn't. I can make my own decisions. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2016 #20
his choice as to what kind of a recalcitrant or noble, statesmanly legacy he decides to leave behind Sheepshank Jun 2016 #2
I suppose that's true, but it's really irrelevant, too. MineralMan Jun 2016 #7
thats very big of you swhisper1 Jun 2016 #3
Is it? I thought it was just a comment on a political MineralMan Jun 2016 #10
This message was self-deleted by its author CountAllVotes Jun 2016 #11
He's as entitled to an opinion as YOU are--or are you trying to silence him because you don't share MADem Jun 2016 #18
He could raise a big stink at the convention ymetca Jun 2016 #5
That seems unlikely, really. MineralMan Jun 2016 #8
Of course he truly wants to see Trump defeated which is more than rhett o rick Jun 2016 #14
I have zero problems with continuing to work for change. MineralMan Jun 2016 #15
He can't do that at the convention because he wouldn't have a speaking slot. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #16
Is that a rule or an opinion? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2016 #21
It's a fact. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #22
You know that? How? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2016 #24
he's not relevant to the general election, which is just fine geek tragedy Jun 2016 #6
Once the convention is over, none of those food fights MineralMan Jun 2016 #9
Just calling for tRump to be defeated is NOT supporting the dem candidate, disagree with the premise uponit7771 Jun 2016 #12
See, for me, it is. I can think of no other way to defeat him MineralMan Jun 2016 #13
People are starting to turn away. Every former Sanders supporter I know has moved on. MADem Jun 2016 #17
Agreed. At this point it is better for Hillary if he stays in shows people that they made eastwestdem Jun 2016 #23
 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
2. his choice as to what kind of a recalcitrant or noble, statesmanly legacy he decides to leave behind
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:17 PM
Jun 2016

and it will not be forgotten...so there is that.

MineralMan

(146,254 posts)
7. I suppose that's true, but it's really irrelevant, too.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:23 PM
Jun 2016

He'll go back to being the junior Senator from Vermont, unless he becomes the senior Senator from Vermont at some point. If he runs for that seat again in two years, he'll probably get elected again.

As for being forgotten, I have no idea. I suppose that's an individual thing. Probably, some have forgotten him already. Most of those never heard of him before this primary season.

In the larger scheme, how he is remembered is of little consequence.

MineralMan

(146,254 posts)
10. Is it? I thought it was just a comment on a political
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:29 PM
Jun 2016

discussion forum. Not very big at all, just my opinion.

Response to swhisper1 (Reply #3)

MADem

(135,425 posts)
18. He's as entitled to an opinion as YOU are--or are you trying to silence him because you don't share
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 02:11 PM
Jun 2016

his POV?

Is that the way it is...huh?

ymetca

(1,182 posts)
5. He could raise a big stink at the convention
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:20 PM
Jun 2016

... and throw his support behind Jill Stein. That would be fun to see.

I wouldn't bet on it however.

MineralMan

(146,254 posts)
8. That seems unlikely, really.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:24 PM
Jun 2016

If he truly wants to see Trump defeated, clearly a third party vote works against that. However, Jill Stein will finish with only a percent or two of the vote nationally, and won't affect the election in any material way, either.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
14. Of course he truly wants to see Trump defeated which is more than
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:54 PM
Jun 2016

can be said for those that chose Clinton. But he should not bow and scrape as some are demanding his fealty.

We have a movement that we must keep alive. We need to fight for those among us that live in poverty while the Big Corporations divide us the spoils. We need to fight to get free and fair elections. Now we are rated worse that 23 other countries for Free and Fair elections. We must get big money out of politics. We may lose this battle but the war is still in full force.

MineralMan

(146,254 posts)
15. I have zero problems with continuing to work for change.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:57 PM
Jun 2016

In the meantime, though, we have an election coming up. That will create change, too, either way. Then, there will be more elections in future years. Each one is an opportunity for change. And so it has been throughout the history of this nation.

Lord Magus

(1,999 posts)
16. He can't do that at the convention because he wouldn't have a speaking slot.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 02:06 PM
Jun 2016

He only gets on the stage if he's conceded and endorsed the winner.

Lord Magus

(1,999 posts)
22. It's a fact.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 05:53 PM
Jun 2016

Hillary's campaign is running the convention, they're not going to give him a speaking slot unless he's endorsed.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
6. he's not relevant to the general election, which is just fine
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:21 PM
Jun 2016

he'll try to start some intramural food fights, but no one except for political junkies will pay attention.

MineralMan

(146,254 posts)
9. Once the convention is over, none of those food fights
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:28 PM
Jun 2016

will even make the news. Up to the convention, he might get some back page coverage or brief mentions on the teevee, but that's about it. The internet will talk about it, but in numbers that don't matter in terms of a national election.

Frankly, even his endorsement won't really change many minds. Voters are going to decide between the two major party candidates, based on whatever people base those decisions. Sanders' endorsement won't convince those who would not have decided on their own, I think.

MineralMan

(146,254 posts)
13. See, for me, it is. I can think of no other way to defeat him
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:42 PM
Jun 2016

other than voting for the Democratic candidate. Anything else is a waste of time, if that is your goal. I believe that most sensible people realize that.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
17. People are starting to turn away. Every former Sanders supporter I know has moved on.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 02:09 PM
Jun 2016

Granted, I don't know any of these rabid "Busters," but I do know a fair number of people who liked the Sanders candidacy and voted for him.

Some are expressing dismay at Sanders' churlishness and fear that he is pissing away his influence by acting like a poor sport.

Even the ones who got a bit bitter and nasty after the NY primary are coming around to reality. They're saying "It's OVER."

The fact that Sanders can't do that yet is just curious and a bit sad. It's almost as if he wants to fall on his sword. Thing is, if he does, no one will care. We've got some seriously big fish to fry and it's time to take on and defeat that nutty Trump. Sanders can try to be a distraction, but that's all he'll be--and he will destroy whatever legacy he wanted to craft if he keeps acting like a sore loser.

 

eastwestdem

(1,220 posts)
23. Agreed. At this point it is better for Hillary if he stays in shows people that they made
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 05:57 PM
Jun 2016

the right choice by going with her over the wacky old guy who refused to compromise and overstayed his welcome.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»There is no need for Sand...