2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFlashback: Hillary "took it to the convention" in 2008
As in, she did not release all of her pledged delegates, and she was formally nominated at the convention. That was one of the things she requested of the Obama campaign. I believe the way they did it - with her receiving some votes and then coming to the floor to propose nominating Obama by acclamation - was a compromise between the campaigns.
I liked the way it was done in 2008. In some ways, I would have liked it even better if they had done the full roll call. But the way it went down was also pretty exciting. It made the convention a lot more interesting than 2004, when everyone released their delegates beforehand and the Kerry campaign controlled everything (although they did introduce Obama to the world, so I guess they did a pretty good job).
I believe the prior practice of candidates releasing their delegates and letting the winning candidate control everything about the convention is relatively new. Conventions used to be contested and issues in the party platform used to be debated. From what i have heard conventions were a lot more interesting back then, and got more TV coverage. Now it is basically just an infomercial that the parties have to beg the networks to cover for an hour a night.
My point is, Bernie promising to "take it to the convention" does not mean that he won't endorse Hillary and that he will keep campaigning against her until the convention. He could mean that, but I think it is more likely that he intends to force a genuine debate about some of the issues in the party platform and maybe have his name placed into nomination. I think that would be good for the party, as it would make the convention more interesting, more democratic, and maybe get more media coverage.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)Worked her ass of for Obama all summer. Went to Colorado and in great fashion released all her delegates to Obama.
Bernie can do the same thing and be respected for doing so.
democrattotheend
(11,607 posts)My point is, his promise to "take it to the convention" does not necessarily mean he will not do that. He can support Hillary and "take it to the convention" as promised. I hope he does both.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)Turin_C3PO
(14,047 posts)I respect Bernie highly and always have, but if he keeps fighting this primary, I'll lose much respect for him. It'll make me sad lol.
democrattotheend
(11,607 posts)But that doesn't mean he will actively campaign until then. He may very well contest the convention in the same way Hillary did. Or maybe he will even insist on a full roll call and full participation in proportion to the delegates he won. I hope he does, for the reasons listed in my OP.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)democrattotheend
(11,607 posts)By being nominated on the floor, she made it a contested convention. And I was glad she did.
annavictorious
(934 posts)Hillary didn't end it because, had she done so; she wouldn't have been allowed to continue to raise funds to pay off campaign debt.
Hillary did not take a fight for the nomination to the convention. She released her delegates and then put Obama's name up for nomination by acclamation.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)Bernie's lost; he now has to decide whether his candidacy's legacy will be getting a greater place at the table for progressives or overturning the table in a fit of pique. If the former, a concession will help him earn that place, just as Hillary's did.
democrattotheend
(11,607 posts)Bernie may do the same thing, either after tomorrow or after the DC primary. My point is that his promise to "take it to the convention" should not be viewed as a promise not to concede or endorse her.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)democrattotheend
(11,607 posts)My point was that Bernie may concede, endorse Hillary, and still "take it to the convention." I don't know why her supporters are taking his promise to take it to the convention as a promise that he will keep campaigning against her all summer.