Bernie Sanders won't commit to leaving the race if he fails to secure the Democratic nomination

[TomCADem]

If Bernie does not win the nomination outright, he is going to make his case to delegates on the convention floor. In the interest of beating Trump, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris should do what is best for the country, and pledge their support to Bernie.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/450530-bernie-sanders-wont-commit-to-leaving-the-race-if-he-fails-to-secure-the

White House hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) declined to commit to exit the presidential primary race before the Democratic convention if he fails to win the party’s nomination.

“I intend to be the Democratic nominee,” he said on MSNBC Wednesday.

“Some people say that if maybe that system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination and defeated Donald Trump. That’s what some people say. So I think we’re going to play it out,” he added. “So our goal right now is to win it, and by the way, as you may know, poll after poll shows what against Trump? It shows me beating Trump by 8, 9, or 10 points. We’re going to beat Trump, we’re going to win the Democratic nomination. “

* * *
Sanders has emerged as a top-tier candidate in the crowded 2020 primary field, though has consistently polled behind former Vice President Joe Biden, a centrist, and is facing a growing threat for the progressive mantle from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

[Thekaspervote]

1. Not surprised..

[brush]

33. Nothing but trouble again. So divisive and SELFISH. He won't come close to what...

he did last time and he still wants to cause division at the convention.

So selfish it makes me seethe.

[thesquanderer]

62. This article is debunked out-of-context nonsense.

It's been posted multiple times before (it's from June), and here's a good summary of why it's nonsense from the last time it was posted (and apparently alerted on). You can also click through to the video of the clip from the interview and see it isn't at all what the Hill article makes it out to be.

[Hav]

79. How is it debunked and out of context?

It's quoting him directly and the surrounding context for the question is clear. I agree that candidates don't want to discuss scenarios where they don't win but he still said what he said. He did in fact not commit to leaving the race should he lose because he didn't want to deal with that hypothetical.

Yes, the interviewer used the phrased "Some people say" first in some people say that he hurt Clinton. And as a rather angry and bitter counter to that he replied that some people say if the system wasn't ridgged, he would have won. He could have answered the first argument, that by itself wasn't strong, without bringing up the rigging the election nonsense

[thesquanderer]

94. re: "He did in fact not commit to leaving the race should he lose"

No, he did not commit to leaving the race before the convention, which is different.

If the same question were asked of any other candidate ("would you quit before the convention if you're not going to win&quot , nobody would be aghast at the most obvious answer any politician could give, "I intend to win."

Most if not all the candidates (and certainly Sanders) have already committed to fully supporting whoever is nominated at the convention. The headline here is a muckraking headline to make people think otherwise.

[floppyboo]

125. this thanks squanderer. More faux outrage. Bleh eom

[Gothmog]

86. I read the material and such post does not support your claim

[thesquanderer]

92. Since you didn't explain what was not supported, I'm not sure how to prove it, but...

Last edited Mon Aug 19, 2019, 09:25 AM - Edit history (1)

...maybe your doubts are addressed in my answer to a similar post, please see post #88.

[Gothmog]

96. LOL

Your posted material does not help your argument. Reposting the same material will not improve the argument .

[thesquanderer]

123. Since again you do not say exactly what it is I said that is not supported by...

...what I referenced, I am at a loss for how I can possibly clarify or better support it. If you can reference the specific point and why you think my posted response does not answer it, I can try to better address it.

[Gothmog]

127. The post you referenced contains amusing assumptions from another poster

There were no facts provided or real logic in these claims other than a weak attempt to explain away sanders actual words. The post you reference makes some weak assumptions and attempted explanations to try to negate what sanders is on tape stating.

You are entitled to believe these weak assumptions or explanations. I do not fin such weak assumptions to be persuasive I am a lawyer and a former college debater. That post was very weak in my opinion.

[thesquanderer]

133. Best to click through and watch the video and come to your own conclusions, but...

...I disagree that there were "amusing assumptions" or no "real logic" to the points the other poster raised which at their core were, in a nutshell, simply

* People in the thread were seeing this as a new reason to get worked up about Sanders, when it fact it was months old, which all the folks piling on seemed to either not notice or not care about. You would agree that this is not an assumption or illogical, right?

*The article's points were seen (at least by "some people" ) as being a slanted interpretation of what he actually said Also not disputable, right? He then summed up the article's "debunking" with the following points:

* Perhaps the most common standard politician answer to "what will you do if you don't win" is "we intend to win." Do you doubt that or consider that an unreasonable, illogical assumption? Because that's the answer Sanders gave here, multiple times, in a literal quote of his words.

* The attacks for his saying "some people say" ignore the fact that he was parroting back the phrasing of the questioner. This is not disputable or illogical, right? It gives his use of the phrase a significantly different context.

Where, in that post, are there assumptions or lack of logic?

Related, I see that I pointed you to another post of my own to clarify some things, and I messed up that link so it didn't work, sorry about that. The link I was asking you to see is this one:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287242764#post88

The subsequent followups to that further explain, i.e. the conversation between me and TomCADem (the four posts, Tom's #116, my #122, Tom's #124, my #129). I think you'll find lots of logic, and plenty of facts-not-assumptions as you proceed through that.

[Gothmog]

134. LOL

You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. The facts are that sanders made these statements and the attempts to explain away these statements are weak. Again, I live in the real world and the attempts to explain away sanders' actual words are not persuasive.

[thesquanderer]

135. Opinions vs. facts

You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

I listed many facts and few opinions. Which facts do you disagree with?

...that the article is months old?

...that the commenters were responding as if it was new info?

...that the article had been discussed and at least disputed before? (One could argue whether the dispute equals a debunk, I'll give you opinion on that one, since we disagree about the strength of the arguments.)

...that a very common politician answer to questions about what they will do if they lose is, "we intend to win"?

...that his use of "some people say" was not an argument out of the blue, but was a specific parroting back at the questioner's use of that phrase?

If I missed something that I presented as fact that you see as opinion (whether in that post or in one of my followups), please feel free to quote, and I will factually back it up if I can.

The facts are that sanders made these statements and the attempts to explain away these statements are weak.

Which exact "these statements" are you talking about? My post #88 transcribes the exact statements, which might help you locate exactly what it is you're referring to.

p.s. -- LOL is a rather dismissive way to treat a fellow DUer trying to have a constructive conversation. If you have a specific counterpoint to offer to something I said, make your point. So far, you have not.

[Gothmog]

136. Again, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts

The arguments that are advanced in this post are weak and are not persuasive. I amjured in Evidence (that means that I had the high grade in the class) way back in law school and the claims being made in the referenced post are not supported by evidence that would hold up in the real world.

I was a delegate to the National convention and I saw enough of sanders. I have real hopes that the sanders campaign will continue to all apart and that sanders will fail to get the 300 delegates necessary to put his name into nomination. I really doubt that sanders will be the nominee in that there are too many real Democrats who have long memories and who will not forgive or forget

[thesquanderer]

137. Again, you have presented not a single fact that counters anything I said.

Saying how great you did in law school would not be "evidence that would hold up in the real world" as something that would cast doubt on anything I said.

If you can quote anything I asserted as true and explain why you believe it is not, I'd be glad to address it if I can. So far you still have not.

[Gothmog]

147. When you have some actual facts to back up your claim, I would be happy to look at then

There is a difference in the real world between weak explanations and the actual words uttered by the candidate. Here sanders made the statements described in the OP and all you have are weak but amusing explanations as to why sanders did not mean what he stated.

The real world is a nice place. I like living in the real world where facts are facts and opinions are opinions.

[thesquanderer]

148. I listed facts in post 135 (and elsewhere) and asked you which...

...you thought were not actual facts. You have not yet disputed any of them.

I also transcribed the exchange (in post 88) with annotation, providing Sanders' exact words, and would ask you where I have "weak but amusing explanations as to why sanders did not mean what he stated."

All you do is put down what I say without so much as a single example of anything I said that you consider not to be factual, or even anything of questionable interpretation.

[Gothmog]

149. No one is buying what you are attemoting to sell

I am amused that you think that these so called facts help your arguement. Again an argument works if the argument is backed with facts or logic that support the argument. There are no real facts in these posts. Weak attempts to try to explain away sanders' actual statements are not facts and will convince no one as to the merits of your attempt at an argument

No one is buying your attrmpts to explain away sanders' actual statements.

[thesquanderer]

150. I suspect you're trying to troll me.

That's about a half dozen messages from you questioning my facts without listing a single point you disagree with. (I listed fact after fact in post 88--and elsewhere--and asked exactly which ones you disputed, and got crickets.) Maybe you just want to see how many times I'll answer your vacuous (devoid of meaningful content) posts. I'm done.

[Gothmog]

153. You have failed to present any real facts or a good argument on these threads

I live in the real world where facts are used to make arguments. Your posts have presented no facts or arguments that a reasonable person would believe support your claims. I am amused that you think that you have made a valid argument

Look at this thread. No one is buying what you are attempting to sell.

[Gothmog]

157. Again, you think that posting weak arguments will persuade anyone is amusing

The posts you have linked to have no facts and no one in the real world is buying what you are attempting to sell. Look at the posts. Do you see people who are buying your claims?

[Cha]

184. So you resort to insults?

[thesquanderer]

185. Nope. What insult? (n/t)

[ehrnst]

138. +1000.

[Gothmog]

145. The post referenced is simply not presausive

I read the material cited and I was not convinced or impressed with the arguments presented.

[mcar]

139. +1

[Cha]

160. Thanks Goth!

smh

[ehrnst]

142. You seem to be a fan of Hassin Bin Sober.

[Gothmog]

144. I noticed that also

[thesquanderer]

146. I did think s/he left a good post in that other thread.

I don't know anything else about him/her. I'm bad at remembering screen names, there are only a handful of people I recognize from having posted replies to them a lot. Is there something I should know?

[Cha]

163. Thank YOu!

[Gothmog]

166. Hey Cha

[Cha]

167. Heh, Goth

[trueblue2007]

112. he will do the same thing in 2020 that he did to wreck Hillary.

This whole thing has made me cry again.

[Cha]

165. ..

[Cha]

178. Yep.. no surprises there.

[rzemanfl]

2. Isn't "some people say" already copyrighted by the orange

guy and his followers?

[thesquanderer]

63. He said "some people say" because he was parroting what the interviewer said.

You have to hear it in context.

Also see my post #62.

[lillypaddle]

89. Bingo!

We have a winner!

[Cha]

186. Guess not.

[Cha]

3. Sorry, BS.. Many People say there are

much better candidates.. and they've chosen them as their preferred candidates.

[thesquanderer]

65. Please see my post #62

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287242764#post62

[Gothmog]

87. Again, the material cited does not support your claim

[Cha]

101. My post stands.

[TwilightZone]

4. "Some people say"

Bernie, don't go there. You should know by now that that's a loaded phrase.

"rigged against me"

Or there.

[thesquanderer]

64. He was parroting the interviewer. Please see post #63

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287242764#post63

[Gothmog]

98. Again the material cited do not support your argument

I am a lawyer and a former college debate. You are citing links to a prior post that has no support for your claims. The fact that you personally disagree with the material cited in the OP does not help your arguement

[Cha]

164. Truth will out!

[chillfactor]

5. Seems Bernie cannot take....

NO for an answer. I am really disgusted with his plan to disrupt the Democratic Convention.

[Control-Z]

25. Again. n/t

[thesquanderer]

66. Yup. This junk keeps getting reposted.

Or is this not what you meant by again?

See post #62

[Cha]

180. Yes.

[wasupaloopa]

6. I am so sick and tired of Bernie second only to trump. Like trump, when Bernie

comes on the screen I hit the mute button. He has the same stump speech he had 10 years ago.

[Thekaspervote]

27. Thank heavens for the mute button!!

[oasis]

7. Deja vu

[thesquanderer]

67. Yup. This junk keeps getting reposted.

Or is this not what you meant?

See post #62

[Cha]

91. Oh yeah. No matter what some

are trying to tell us otherwise.

[oasis]

95. When Bernie is solidly behind or against an issue, he tends

to be so vocal about it there can be no doubt on where he stands. I don't see Bernie being as "full throated" about this as we all know he could be. So sad.

[msongs]

8. if "someone" will not support the dems nominee mentioning him on DU will be a TOS violation nt

[TomCADem]

9. Bernie Sanders signs DNC loyalty pledge: 'I am a member of the Democratic Party'

Perhaps Bernie is just confused. For example, back in March, he signed a pledge stating , "I am a member of the Democratic Party," It also asserts that Sanders will serve as a Democrat if elected president and that the DNC can determine who is "a bonafide Democrat," but he then filed to run for reelection as a Senator in 2024, but as an independent...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/bernie-sanders-signs-dnc-loyalty-pledge-i-am-member-democratic-n979696

As the DNC prepared the rules for the 2020 nominating contest, it sought to clarify its membership requirements — over Sanders allies' vocal objections — by requiring every presidential candidate to sign the loyalty pledge.

The party sent all declared candidates the form last Wednesday and Thursday and they have one week to return it signed, according to a DNC spokesperson.

But even now, the depth and permanence of Sanders' commitment to the party remains murky.

On Monday, Sanders filed paperwork to run for reelection to the Senate in 2024 — but as an independent. That's the same affiliation he ran on last year when he won another six-year term representing Vermont.

[SergeStorms]

22. Bernie cares about Bernie.

Which is what always turned me off about him from the get-go. He is not a team player, and with a president like Chump in office being a team player is more important than ever.

[Cha]

23. ".. and with a president like Chump in office being a team player is more important than ever.."

Well said, Serge

[SergeStorms]

24. That's always been my biggest fear.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Bernie ran a third party candidacy and gave the finger to the democratic party. This is his last chance at running for president, and his ego is big enough to allow Trump to sneak into the White House on the sly again.

[Thekaspervote]

28. That worries me too, but I don't think he would sign on for a 3rd party run. He knows he can't

Win doing that. Where if he goes to the convention...2016 repeat, he somehow believes that delegates will magically come to their senses and nominate him. Sound pausible?

[VarryOn]

30. It wouldn't surprise me either, Serge...

In this Senate, his reputation is hardly one of a team player. I doubt he feels much loyalty to the Democratic Party. I think he could be talked into a 3rd party run.

[Eliot Rosewater]

104. And is notorious for not working well with others.

Here is what he has done in 29 years.


https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=400357#enacted_ex=on

[questionseverything]

111. the communitty clinics that the poorest of the poor rely on for healthcare..that money came from an

amendment sponsored by Bernie in the aca

Bernie teamed up with ron paul and got the fed audited for the only time in the history of the fed

amendments don't get the fanfare sponsoring a bill does but they are just as important

[thesquanderer]

69. He said nothing here to contradict the pledge.

Please see post #62 for elaboration.

[grantcart]

83. Well that just depends on the transactional strategy of Sanders

In August 2011 he said that Democrats should primary President Obama. Now he was only making a suggestion to help the Democrats and democracy because he was not a Democrat but an Independent who only caucused with Senate Democrats.

What I have found to be the most consistent tell is that he refers to Democrats in the third person (the Democrats should, they must, etc.) and virtually never in the first person plural ( We need to, our challenge as Democrats should be, etc )

[Cha]

181. Thanks for those important reminders,

grant.

[thesquanderer]

68. It's not what it seems. Please see post #62

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287242764#post62

[Green Line]

10. My god

He’s boring

[Cha]

12. Ain't that the truth.

[Skittles]

11. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

so predictable

[thesquanderer]

70. Old article and COMPLETELY misinterpreted.

Please see post #62.

[Eric J in MN]

13. Misleading headline.

The question is about dropping out before the convention.

Nobody will have the Democratic nomination until the middle of the convention.

I'm not aware of any of the candidates saying, "I promise to drop out before the convention unless I have the most Pledged Delegates."

[pnwmom]

15. If someone has the majority of pledged delegates before the convention, that person

effectively has the nomination -- whether it is Bernie, Biden, Warren, Harris, or anyone else.

I don't think Bernie is threatening a form of extortion, but no one should feel that they have to vote for him because of a perceived threat.

[JoeOtterbein]

16. Ohhhhh nooooooooossss....

A slap back! Watch out bro in MN!

(I tried my best to make the above rhyme, sorry it did not work out)

Have fun!

[TomCADem]

21. So, even if it is mathematically impossible for Bernie to win...

...he should not concede? Or, should a candidate not concede on the off chance that the DOJ might indict the leading candidate(s)?

[TwilightZone]

50. "Nobody will have the Democratic nomination "

Super Tuesday will thin out the field considerably, and the chances of a brokered convention are low. It's certainly not a foregone conclusion that one will take place.

Wishing for something doesn't make it a fact.

[LongtimeAZDem]

59. By the convention, it is too late to turn your supporters around.

Sanders is only interested in promoting Sanders; he is unwilling to step up to stop Trump.

[pnwmom]

14. No, HE should pledge his support to whomever is the winner of the primaries. That's the

same promise anyone should make.

[quickesst]

17. Bernie Sanders....

.... wears the label of Democrat like someone wears a coat. He slips it on when he needs to feel warm, and just as easily slips it off once it's no longer needed. He does not discard it, but keeps it hidden away until the next time when the sweater he usually wears is not enough.

[Thekaspervote]

29. Great analogy

[quickesst]

31. Thanks. I think a lot of people remember....

....the less than lukewarm support he showed Hillary Clinton once he lost. That's when I understood who he really was, and he has not shown me anything to suggest it will be any different toward the eventual nominee if it isn't him.

[gtar100]

37. Sure, 41 rallies in support of Clinton after he lost is lukewarm.

He should have done 42. Because that is the answer to everything.

[quickesst]

44. Yep....

.....and he resented every second of it. In my opinion, he only did it to preserve any integrity he had left with the Democratic Party.

snip:
"Sanders withheld his endorsement of Clinton until the middle of July, and his delegates to the convention devoted much of their energy to vigorously protesting the proceedings. The booing from the audience was so loud that speakers either struggled through their remarks or stopped to plead with the delegates."

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/bernie-sanders-2016-rigged-wont-pledge-support-winner.html

[questionseverything]

119. so did bernie tell you he resented every second of those 41 rallies he held on hc behalf?

or are you just slandering him?

[quickesst]

120. haha....

Again, I repeat:

"Sanders withheld his endorsement of Clinton until the middle of July, and his delegates to the convention devoted much of their energy to vigorously protesting the proceedings. The booing from the audience was so loud that speakers either struggled through their remarks or stopped to plead with the delegates."

This should adequately answer your question.

On the other hand, maybe he really didn't resent showing his support for her, and being an ass about it was just a misunderstanding.

[NanceGreggs]

34. Great analogy ...

I would only add one point, i.e. while he's wearing that Dem coat, he can't resist picking at the seams, unraveling stitches, poking holes in the fabric - all the while reminding people that although there's visible damage, he alone can fix it.

[quickesst]

42. good point....

....and I appreciate your input as I appreciate all of your contributions to Democratic Underground.

[Cha]

171. +1!

[Gothmog]

18. I am not surprised by this

[thesquanderer]

71. Old article, and COMPLETELY misinterpreting what he said.

Please see post #62.

[murielm99]

19. Some of us knew this would happen.

The party should never have let him run as a Democrat a second time.

[LongtimeAZDem]

60. +∞

[thesquanderer]

72. Old article, and COMPLETELY misinterpreting what he said.

Please see post #62

[Drunken Irishman]

20. "Some people say.."

Hm, where have I heard that before?!?

[NanceGreggs]

35. The same place you heard ...

... "No, I won't produce my tax returns," and, "I alone can fix everything".

[thesquanderer]

73. He said "some people say" because he was parroting what the interviewer said.

Please also see post #62

[grantcart]

80. "Washington Post is biased against me because of Jeff Bezos"

[NYMinute]

26. Big ego and a minority support of devoted automatons

Bad combination

[Steelrolled]

32. Means nothing. I don't care. NT.

[gtar100]

36. Keep trashing Bernie, lord knows the honest answers are so boring

Or better yet, let's have them ask every candidate the same question, including our beloved Joe. But seriously, in the middle of the race, what are you going to say if someone keeps asking you what you're going to do if you lose? If you're confident and wanting to win, you say so. Just like Bernie is saying.

Bernie has already committed to supporting whoever wins the Democratic primary. Keep calling him a liar if you prefer. It doesn't make your candidate of choice any better. And frankly, it's annoying. All you who are afraid of Bernie winning seem to want to demonize the guy and basically cling to bullshit like this interpretation of what he said. Question...if Bernie wins the Democratic primary, will *you* support him.

Please, keep it real. We have some great people to choose from on the Democratic side, and that includes Bernie Sanders. We are fortunate to be debating among ourselves who's ideas we like the best, unlike the republicans who are getting the shit-for-brains tRump shoved down their throat.

[Cha]

38. Those are BS' own words.. We're allowed to express

our opinion about them. Not everybody likes him or what he has to say.

[betsuni]

39. No one else who lost a primary has claimed it was because it was rigged.

Far as I know. Why does he think this?

[myohmy2]

43. Bernie's...

...just keeping his powder dry...taking the high road...playing his vest close to his cards...

" Or better yet, let's have them ask every candidate the same question, including our beloved Joe. "

...absolutely...

...this time, Bernie's either going to win it fairly or lose it fairly...

...there's a trump to beat...

...President Sanders and our country shall not be denied...

...

[Cha]

182. What? those are BS' own words.

[Lordquinton]

40. Again?

How many times will this misleading story be posted?

I suppose nothing new happened and this had to be reposted.

[FarPoint]

41. If this be true......

Then every thing he, Bernie Sanders says about tRump, identifying his as abusive, criminal and authoritarian rule is only lip service....if Bernie ran as an independent then he become a spoiler that favors tRump....

Every vote against tRump counts.....remember...there has been massive voter registration purging going on....so yes, every vote is needed.

[thesquanderer]

74. It's not true.

Please see post #62.

[jcgoldie]

45. "Some people say that if maybe that system was not rigged against me, I would have won..."

This is completely delusional. How about 'some people say that if Bernie had conceded when it became evident he could not win and given his full throated support to Hillary, then she would have beaten Trump and we could have avoided this fucking national nightmare.' Equally theoretical but seems much more likely to be true to me.

When I voted in the 2016 Illinois primary I debated with myself a lot about Bernie Sanders. I chose Clinton, but my wife voted for Sanders. We will both be voting for anyone else ahead of Sanders in 2020 despite sympathizing with much of his liberal message for precisely the reason above.

Elizabeth Warren please!

[George II]

46. Here we go with that "system is rigged against me" stuff again. If one thinks that...

...a system is rigged against him, why would he want to be part of that system?

[Vegas Roller]

47. BS is done - he should drop out now

His ego and anger that he is not being selected are what prevent him from getting out.

[NYMinute]

48. Trump tactics

Play the victim card.

[mcar]

49. This is satire, right?

Sanders and his supporters wouldn't dare do this - not after the 2016 convention and GE - would they? They couldn't possibly be this selfish and careless.

[thesquanderer]

75. Old article, and COMPLETELY misinterpreting what he said.

Please see post #62.

[TomCADem]

82. Perhaps Bernie Should Have Not Been Coy...

...and just said that he will abide by his pledge as a candidate and will support the Democratic nominee. He should just come out and said that. Instead, he decides to borrow a line from Fox and Friends.

Also, how do you know we are misinterpreting what Bernie has said. Has he clarified what he meant elsewhere? Please feel free to post any article where Bernie states that if it is mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination that he will support the presumptive Democratic nominee.

[thesquanderer]

88. I guess you did not click through to the info I provided,

how do you know we are misinterpreting what Bernie has said. Has he clarified what he meant elsewhere?

It didn't need to be clarified, what he said was fine in the first place.

It's really hard to communicate the exchange because of all the overlapping speech, but since people don't want to click and actually see and hear what he said (instead jumping to assume the worst), I'll try to capture it best I can:

Questioner: If it's clear that you're not going to be the Democratic nominee, will you leave the race before the convention?

Bernie (after facial expression and and gesture I'll leave to you to interpret): I intend to be the Democratic nominee.

Questioner: But if you're not.

Bernie: (unclear, but seeming to refute the premise)

Questioner: You stated (unclear). Some people say you hurt Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

Bernie: (unclear, but cutting her off): Well now "some people say" that if maybe that system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination and defeated Donald Trump. That's what some people say. So I think we're going to play it out, I think... I am excited...

{so his "some people say" was a turnaround on the use of that phrase by the questioner, essentially saying, you want to play some people say? I can play some people say too. Now let's get back to the point."}

Questioner (interrupting): You would take the risk, that you might {something} Donald Trump {something}

Bernie: Are you asking that of every candidate?

{Good question, who else is being asked whether they will drop out and support someone else BEFORE the convention happens? That ain't what anyone "pledged."}

Questioner: I'm saying if it's clear you are not going to win the nomination, will you concede?

Bernie: Well right now we are planning to win the Democratic nomination.

As the post I alluded to earlier said, this is typical political speech. Candidates are often asked what they will do if they lose, and the stock answer is, we're planning to win. This is all he was doing here. This is not controversial.

Perhaps Bernie Should Have Not Been Coy and just said that he will abide by his pledge as a candidate and will support the Democratic nominee.

He never said otherwise. As noted above, his pledge was to support the nominee, which is something that is officially determined at the convention. There is no existing pledge to support a candidate who is not yet the nominee.

he decides to borrow a line from Fox and Friends.

As indicated above, he was making a point by parroting the questioner. She was the one who borrowed the Fox line.

[TomCADem]

116. Thank you. But doesn't that make Bernie look bad?

The full context looks worse than the original story, because it is clear that Bernie is the one raising the idea that the DNC primary was rigged against him and that he would have beat Hillary and beat Trump. The questioner did not raise the subject of a rigged primary.

How does this not make Bernie look bad? It is one thing if Bernie were to insist on fighting for the nomination even if it was mathematically impossible for him to win. However, Bernie is once again introducing the idea that if does not win the nomination, its because everyone cheated. This is the height of ego that Bernie cannot seem to accept that people may not want him for President. How is this not like Trump insisting that he really did win the popular vote?

In addition, it strikes me how someone could hear Bernie and Trump say very similar things on rigged elections, trade, Federal Reserve interest rate cuts, immigration and open borders, Russia sanctions, etc., yet they will attack Trump but praise Bernie on a very similar policy proposal.

In this case, it is the delusion that the only way you may lose is because everyone cheated, because obviously in Bernie/Trump's mind they are the best option. After all, look at that crowd size.

Questioner: If it's clear that you're not going to be the Democratic nominee, will you leave the race before the convention?

Bernie (after facial expression and and gesture I'll leave to you to interpret): I intend to be the Democratic nominee.

Questioner: But if you're not.

Bernie: (unclear, but seeming to refute the premise)

Questioner: You stated (unclear). Some people say you hurt Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

Bernie: (unclear, but cutting her off): Well now "some people say" that if maybe that system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination and defeated Donald Trump. That's what some people say. So I think we're going to play it out, I think... I am excited...

{so his "some people say" was a turnaround on the use of that phrase by the questioner, essentially saying, you want to play some people say? I can play some people say too. Now let's get back to the point."}

Questioner (interrupting): You would take the risk, that you might {something} Donald Trump {something}

Bernie: Are you asking that of every candidate?

{Good question, who else is being asked whether they will drop out and support someone else BEFORE the convention happens? That ain't what anyone "pledged."}

Questioner: I'm saying if it's clear you are not going to win the nomination, will you concede?

Bernie: Well right now we are planning to win the Democratic nomination.

[Cha]

118. Thanks for the clarification, Tom..

It's a terrible look.. so what if the interviewer said .. ".. some people say.." first?!

[thesquanderer]

122. I think your interpretation is off. Try this...

The full context looks worse than the original story, because it is clear that Bernie is the one raising the idea that the DNC primary was rigged against him and that he would have beat Hillary and beat Trump. The questioner did not raise the subject of a rigged primary.

I think the full context does just the opposite, it shows he did not bring it up out of the blue. Try this rephrased interpretation:

Questioner: Some people say that your behavior hurt Hillary and helped Trump win.

Response: Seriously? Well some people say that the system/DNC favored Hillary, and hurt ME and therefore helped Trump win. So you can spin "some people say" either way.

(Remember that many polls at the time were saying that Sanders would be a stronger candidate against Trump than Hillary would be.)

So sure, he was the first to bring up a rigged system, but specifically as a related counterpoint to what he was being accused of.

[TomCADem]

124. There is nothing in the quotes you provided that reference the polling...

...you are now mentioning.

Also, how do you know that Bernie and the interviewer were even thinking about polling "at the time"? Also, does it matter, since Hillary beat Bernie by a wide margin.

Heck, I could probably take any bad Trump quote, add a bunch of speculative extrinsic information, that would seemingly justify the statement in the made-up context.

Again, I was just commenting on the information that you, yourself provided, and based on the info, it is Bernie that is introducing some conspiracy against him coupled with his insistence that he would have won, but for the election being rigged. To me, that sounds worse than simply holding out to the very end of the primaries and refusing to accept the results.

[thesquanderer]

129. Addressing your points...

There is nothing in the quotes you provided that reference the polling you are now mentioning.

Those polls were common knowledge among most who were following politics in 2016, but I mentioned it in the post for context in case you or anyone else following the conversation happen to have forgotten or was not following this stuff four years ago. Here's what the polls were looking like then, and it certainly was the topic of a lot of conversation here at the time:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

And here were Clinton's numbers vs. Trump for comparison (you'll have to scroll down to get to the same dates, since polling for Sanders stopped once Clinton was the nominee):

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Okay, that addresses half of his sentence, where he said "some say" he could have beaten Trump, what about the other half, where he said "some say" the process was rigged against him? Well, yeah, some people were saying that too.

DNC chair Debbie Wasserman resigned after email leaks showed the ostensibly neutral organization favoring Clinton over Sanders. See this article from The Guardian.

Her replacement, Donna Brazile, confirmed that the DNC had not been neutral in that contest, see this article from Vanity Fair.

Elizabeth Warren agreed, see this article from the BBC.

And there are numerous other ways people felt the process was rigged, some more valid than others, but you can get an idea from this article at Salon.

I suppose Sanders could have provided more context by prefacing his "some people say" by talking about all the reasons some people actually do say these things, but seriously, that would have been worse. All he wanted to do was point out that "some people say" works both ways, and then get back on topic. Anyone who followed 2016 already knew the rest, and this was not the time or place for a diatribe about past grievances.

[TomCADem]

154. Thank you again.

Last edited Tue Aug 20, 2019, 04:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Given all the additional extrinsic information you provide, it seems like you are not denying that Bernie is arguing that the primary election was "rigged", but you are offering justification for Bernie's thought process.

To me, that is a problem. If you are correct, and Bernie is questioning the fundamental legitimacy of the US electoral process, then how is that different from Trump?

If you are right, and Bernie was thinking about all that info when he answered, then that means both him and Trump are preoccupied with conspiracy theories about Hillary, the Washington Post, and how they were cheated.

[thesquanderer]

161. Addressing your points...

Given all the additional extrinsic information you provide, it seems like you are not denying that Bernie is arguing that the primary election was "rigged"

In trying not to go beyond what he actually said, no, at least in this exchange I would say he is not actually arguing that the primary was rigged. He is saying that "some people say" it was rigged... and I gave examples of some people saying just that (Donna Brazile, Elizabeth Warren, etc.). I'm sure he is aware of that stuff and I expect he believes it's true. But that's not what he was arguing (i.e. trying to convince anyone of) here. The point here was not to argue (to try to convince people) that anything was rigged, but rather to counter a specific accusation with an opposing interpretation of events. I don't think you need to read a whole lot into this exchange. It's basically this:

Interviewer: Some people say that what you did hurt Clinton's chance to beat Trump.

Response: Well, if you want to play that game, "some people say" that what Clinton and the DNC did hurt MY chance to beat Trump. Let's move on.

The further you get from that kind of simple exchange, the more you're getting into conjecture.

And no, I do not believe he was (in your words) "questioning the fundamental legitimacy of the US electoral process," whether in that exchange or at other times. He accepted Hillary's nomination and campaigned for her. One can believe there was an unlevel playing field, but still accept the final results as legitimate. Just as most of us accepted GW Bush as a legitimate president, despite a supreme court that did not allow a proper recount in 2000. Or Trump as a legitimate president despite Russian interference.

And no, I see no evidence in this exchange that he was (as you said) "preoccupied with conspiracy theories about Hillary, the Washington Post, and how {he was} cheated." I didn't see any evidence in belief in a "conspiracy theory" though there is certainly evidence that the DNC had its thumb on the scale for Clinton as referenced in the earlier post. And the fact that someone is aware of these things doesn't mean they're preoccupied with it.

[betsuni]

128. "She was the one who borrowed the Fox line."

Here is Bernie using a version of "some people say":

Sanders: "I don't wanna see the American people voting for the lesser of two evils. ... ."

Stephanopolous: "Is that how you would describe Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump -- as the lesser of two evils?"

Sanders: "Well if you look -- No, I wouldn't describe it, but that's what the American people are saying."

[thesquanderer]

130. Obviously not the same!

"that's what the American people are saying" is a different phrase. The meaning and the effect and the history are not the same.

Also, I never said he never, in his entire political life, ever used the phrase "some say" or "some people say" -- I don't know whether he did or not, and it doesn't matter. We're talking about this particular instance. It's also important to note that the phrase was not as "toxic" and infamously bad until people really started to become aware of how often Fox used it, and articles were written about how it is a dodge to lend fake credibility to something, to raise an accusation without taking personal responsibility for it. And that is decidedly NOT what Sanders was doing when he said "that's what the American people are saying."

[betsuni]

131. Same.

[mcar]

140. Some say clearly equals American people say

The meaning is entirely the same. Note that any time Moscow Mitch makes a statement about his obstructionist acts, he says "the American people want/don't want..."

It is politic speak. Clearly the same as "some say."

[thesquanderer]

141. The phrase "some say" or "some people say" is specifically loaded.

That doesn't mean one must be prohibited from ever speaking about what significant-sized groups of people are actually saying.

I agree that politicians always talk about what "the American people want/don't want..." but it's different.

"Some people say" is specifically used by pundits/interviewers to put forth an accusation without any evidence that there's any truth to it.

[True Dough]

52. This is disqualifying

Truly.

[greatauntoftriplets]

53. I'm sure that I've seen this movie before.

It wasn't very good that time, either.

[thesquanderer]

76. Yes, you've seen it before. It's an old article. And it's still wrong.

Please see post #62.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

107. It's The Hill!!!

The Hill specializes in sh*tstirring headlines to damage Dems. They’re owned by a Trumpian billionaire.

[thesquanderer]

155. According to chairman Finkelstein, The Hill is intentionally biased toward the middle.

That may sound like a strange thing to say, as we normally think of bias toward one extreme or the other, but even bias toward the center is a negative bias. For legitimate journalism, the goal should be to be biased toward the truth, not to any point along the left-right spectrum, not even the middle.

Here's Finkelstein's quote:

We were up in revenue in the second half of the year by 75 percent. We were up in traffic by about 20 percent. One of the reasons is we’re one of the few products in the market that is non-partisan. It has enormous benefits to us. We’re a very safe and good place to advertise. It gives us a tremendous advantage in gaining traffic because we’re as far right as left wants us to go and as far left as the right wants to go.

Note the underlined sentence. It tells us that, by design, they would be inclined to not look favorably on our left-most candidates.

And it does remind us, their primary goal is not to inform the public, but rather to create an advertising platform with centrist appeal.

So I'd say they're not the worst platform, but not the best. My guess is that Biden gets more favorable coverage there than Warren or Sanders do.

Source: https://digiday.com/podcast/the-hill-jimmy-finkelstein-decided-go-high-end-video-subscriptions/

[EndGOPPropaganda]

156. Finkelstein is a rightwing liar.

There’s a reason why fox called themselves “fair and balanced”.

Because lying about being centrist helps the propaganda be effective.

Please don’t be fooled. Finkelstein is a trumpist righrwing billionaire who uses The Hill to spread propaganda.

Please don’t believe his lies.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

158. More details on The Hill

In summary: oped pages have rightwing extremists and weak leftwing voices. News has lots of good journalists but chooses to publish sh*tstirring headlines to harm Dems. And Finkelstein hired Solomon to smear Hillary and it worked.

No Dem should read or cite the Hill unless you like being manipulated by a rightwing billionaire.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=239908

[Cha]

114. We have, greataunt.. no matter

how many tell us we haven't.

[LongtimeAZDem]

58. This. Exactly this.

[Mike Nelson]

55. This is very sad...

... he needs to move on from 2016. I don't think he's ever gotten over his loss... the caucuses favored a candidate like Bernie, so he had that advantage. After many years, his ideas really meant something as candidates and the party found it okay to be more progressive. He was a breath of fresh air... I thought he would grow... He needs to learn how to talk about Hillary and Obama... Warren is doing it correctly... maybe he thinks he can be the left's version of Trump? Let's hope he doesn't decide to run as an Independent... C'mon, Bernie, you can get it done correctly!

[Joe941]

56. Just another Bernnie hit piece.

[awesomerwb1]

57. They're his own quotes?

[thesquanderer]

77. Not exactly.

Please see post #62, and click through to the video to hear exactly what he said and he context in which he was saying it.

[TomCADem]

81. All Bernie Had To Say Was...

...I will abide my pledge as a candidate. That's it. Is that hard?

Instead, Bernie had to get all cute and Trump like with the "some people say..." Of course, it is everyone else's fault, not his, that it looks like he is playing coy regarding whether he will support the Democratic nominee.

[thesquanderer]

93. Answered in post #88

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287242764#post88

[R B Garr]

61. We didn't need this divisiveness then or now.

But it’s not surprising, unfortunately.

[DDySiegs]

78. There is Only One Person . . .

more narcissistic and more egotistical than Sanders seeking to win the presidency in 2020, and, like Sanders, he is not a Democrat.

[LongtimeAZDem]

84. +∞

[Cha]

168. ..

[Gothmog]

85. I have hopes that sanders will fail to reach the 300 delegate threshold

Recent polling have reinforce my hope that sanders will fail to get 300 national convention delegates necessary to put his name into nomination at the National Convention due to the 15% rule. I was a delegate to the Philadelphia convention and saw how the process works. One key item is that under the rules, a candidate cannot be put into nomination without 300 delegates. https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2020-Call-for-Convention-WITH-Attachments-2.26.19.pdf

Nomination of the Democratic Candidate for President: The Permanent Chair shall receive nominations from the floor for the Democratic candidate for the Office of President of the United
States in the following manner:

a. Requests to nominate a presidential candidate shall be in writing and shall have affixed thereto the written approval of the proposed nominee and the name of the individuals who shall be recognized to make the nominating and seconding speeches on behalf of a presidential candidate and shall be delivered to the Convention Secretary at a location as specified by the Secretary no later than 6:00 p.m. of the day preceding the day designated for the commencement of presidential nominations.

b. Each such request must be accompanied by a petition indicating support for the proposed nominee signed by delegates representing not less than 300 or more than 600 delegate votes, not more than 50 of which may come from one (1) delegation. A delegate may not sign more than one (1) nominating petition for president and for vice president. Pledged and automatic delegates may sign the petition.

If sanders is frozen out of getting delegates in enough states due to the 15% rule and remaining non-Biden delegates are split among several candidates, there is a chance that sanders may not reach 300 threshold Recent polling give me more hope that this is possible.

[comradebillyboy]

99. Wouldn't it be loverly.

[Gothmog]

105. I agree

It would be a peaceful convention

[Life_Long_Democrat]

97. Some people say?

What people?

[comradebillyboy]

100. The best people...

[Life_Long_Democrat]

115. Who are they?

[thesquanderer]

132. "who are they" is explained in...

my post #129.

where it is explained who was saying the system was rigged against him, and who was saying he could have beat Trump (though addressed in the opposite order).

[Beakybird]

102. I spurn the Bern.

[Eliot Rosewater]

103. Of course he wont. He said that if someone like him ran he wouldnt even run and then

Warren announced yet he still ran, weird that.

Just read everything I have ever said about him and you will be able to predict EXACTLY what he will do and when.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

106. The Hill running another sh*tstirring headline to harm Dems

When are we going to wake up and realize The Hill is run by a rightwing billionaire (Finkelstein) who was a Trump fundraiser?
The owner of the Hill uses it to divide and attack Dems.

Don’t post articles from the Hill.

[Bettie]

108. Oh FFS!

Seriously?

If he wins the nomination, fine, I'll support him.

If he doesn't he needs to back off and help our nominee win.

[BlueMTexpat]

109. He seems to have learned

nothing from 2016.

[Cha]

113. Zero, Zip, Nada, Zilch!

[betsuni]

110. ...

[Vegas Roller]

117. BS should drop out NOW

and save millions of people in America and around the world from Trump. If he drops out, no one will blame him for causing Trump to win.

[NurseJackie]

121. Yes. This. Thank you.

[democratisphere]

126. Here we f'ing go again with BS's BS.

What is with this guy?!

[Blue_Tires]

143. So much for "unity"

[Freethinker65]

151. That should be enough for people to throw support elsewhere if Bernie loses early primaries...

...if Bernie loses early primaries and does not modify this stance.

I can understand the in it to win it mentality. Every candidate, especially top tier, should be expected to answer the same way. If Bernie continues with this mindset, if he has dropped a few positions, I would hope voters would begin to peel off.

If Bernie ends up on top after the primaries, you can be pretty sure he would naturally assume he would be the nominee with no grandstanding from his opponents.

[BlueWI]

152. Stirring the pot like this helps the opposition.

I'm not sure what good it does.

[Cha]

170. His words are Not

helping him.

[helpisontheway]

159. Of course he won't leave...it is all about Bernie. Nt

[zackymilly]

162. History repeats itself? Bernie Bros? PUMA's? nt

[betsuni]

169. kick

[nini]

172. Fuck him sideways

If he can't support Democrats and their votes. he is NOT one of us.

Sick of this instigator.


Let's all take bets as to how long it'll take to get this alerted on.

[trueblue2007]

173. i agree with you & i don't think he has been one of us.

[nini]

174. It's so obvious to me

The fact others can't see this boggles my mind.

[Gothmog]

188. According to Norm Orenstein, sanders supporter elected trump

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

175. I suspect that sanders will stay in until the convention

[dawg day]

176. Some people say...

I really want to be open-minded, but THIS -
“Some people say that if maybe that system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination and defeated Donald Trump. That’s what some people say."
Sounds like no one but Trump.

Years later, and he's still talking about "rigged"?
Sigh.

[redstatebluegirl]

177. No surprise here!

I have had it with this man!

[dalton99a]

179. He'll do the same thing as last time.

[pnwmom]

183. "Some people say" is one of Trump's favorite phrases. I wish no one running as a Democrat

would use those weasel words.

[Gothmog]

187. Bernie Supporters did more to get Trump elected in 2016 than people realize

Link to tweet