Sanders Claims 2016 Primary Was Rigged, Won't Commit to Supporting Winner

[George II]

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

NBC’s Kasie Hunt asked Bernie Sanders if he would commit to supporting the Democratic nominee before the convention if it’s clear it won’t be him. Sanders would not make any such commitment. Instead, he said, “some people say that maybe if the system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination.”

While Sanders is coyly hiding behind the “some people say” formulation, he is threatening to repeat the tactics he used in 2016, when he called the process “rigged” and withheld his support long after the outcome was decided.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the nomination as the clear preference of the majority of her party’s electorate. She won 55 percent of the primary vote, as opposed to just 43 percent for Sanders, which is not an especially narrow margin.

It is true that, in a very broad sense, Democratic Party leaders decided early on to support Clinton’s candidacy, and she received major endorsements from elected officials and interest groups. That, however, is not what most people understand by the term “rigged.” What’s more, the process probably benefited Sanders. By clearing the field for Clinton, Sanders was able to position himself as the catch-all candidate for a broad coalition of voters who opposed Clinton for various reasons: Voters who considered her too moderate, or too liberal, or too corrupt all voted for Sanders, who had the anti-Clinton field to himself.

(MUCH more.....)

[Iliyah]

2. Are we going thru this again.

ugh.

[wysi]

103. He really ought to stop saying stupid things...

I really don't want to have to go through that again.

[uponit7771]

247. +1, is this from 2016!?

[brush]

3. There's something wrong. He hasn't learned from 2016. He is now officially toast.

Way to cut your own throat, Bernie.

[still_one]

9. He had problems when he hired people to top positions in his campaign who voted for Jill Stein, and

encouraged others to do likewise

[Cha]

19. Yes, he did exactly the wrong thing hiring those

who advocated for jill stein as senior staff.

[still_one]

22. He effectively told those who supported Hillary that he doesn't their support, and that is what he

will get during the primaries

[Cha]

27. And, as "some people say".. he's

been losing ground ever since.

[still_one]

28. Sure looks that way

[brush]

120. It's like he's stuck in 2016 when it was just him and Hillary.

Sad. There are 20-some candidates, many of whom have progressive positions also and will take votes from him.

He doesn't seem to have moved on from his old, divisiveness.

[mcar]

36. None of them learned a damn thing in the last several years

[still_one]

59. agreed, and that is sad

[Cha]

4. Ha! Is this his way of attracting more voters?

[Cary]

155. Good question

None of them have learned.

[Cha]

189. Because they don't want to.

[Cary]

218. "Radical" is a synonym for "obnoxious"

If they stopped being obnoxious they could no longer be radical so as usual I agree with you Cha. They won't stop being obnoxious because they want to be obnoxious.

[aikoaiko]

5. I'm OK with Bernie staying in until the convention even if he cant win.

But maybe the presumptive nominee will do a better job of negotiating with Bernie.

[pnwmom]

7. I'm not. As soon as we have a mathematical winner, EVERYONE else should drop out

including Bernie.

He brought his followers to the convention last time and they were still protesting against Hillary. That did NOT help us unite.

I'll never forgive him for that.

[aikoaiko]

10. We can agree to disagree, then.

[Cha]

16. Yeah, BS is Wrong.

[LiberalLovinLug]

87. No, the Best Selection was not wrong to hang in there until the convention

Not for progressives. He got Hillary to adopt more progressive policies by that move. A victory for the people.

Its also highly disingenuous for the OP to imply that the Best Selection has the same attitude as Trump, that he'd not support the winner at all if he came in second again. Even though he did support the winner last time with over 50 rallies for Hillary after the convention. He was only asked if he'd wait until the convention to concede. Which is his right. He would, like last time, no doubt support whomever won the nomination. Also no where in that hit piece does it quote the Best Selection as even answering the question.

[Cha]

91. Yeah yeah yeah.. whatever. BS is Wrong.

[Eliot Rosewater]

94. Yeah but some of us know his agenda, have known for years, and are NOT only NOT

surprised by this but predicted it.

[NBachers]

105. Wait, - are you hilariously implying that Bernie Sanders' initials BS also stand for Best Selection?

I don't need to elucidate what the other implication of his initials represents.

[betsuni]

108. Sounds like a generic supermarket brand.

[ehrnst]

135. Did you read the OP? "Won't Commit to Supporting Winner"

You think that's a good thing?

He was only asked if he'd wait until the convention to concede.

By whom?

His team was planning the terms of his concession at least as early as June 5.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2997841-End-Game-2016.html

[LiberalLovinLug]

173. Yes but, unlike yourself, I read the whole sentence.

NBC’s Kasie Hunt asked Bernie Sanders if he would commit to supporting the Democratic nominee before the convention if it’s clear it won’t be him.

I think it worked out great last time. He was able to get Hillary to bend towards a quicker path to a $15 minimum wage in her platform for instance. I would have thought as a Warren supporter those things would have been valuable to you. Sanders and Warren share a lot of the same issues.

Who asked him? It looks like from the article, Kasie Hunt.

Fascinating historical documents. Thanks for posting. Looks like the Sanders team thought it out and had a plan.

[ehrnst]

175. That would be after he lost, would it not?

if it’s clear it won’t be him.

But yes, that was Kasie Hunt, thanks.

I'll give Hillary credit for getting him to bend towards social justice, and he certainly came around to her plan for funding college - after the election anyway. And conceding that even working toward getting a $10/hour Federal minimum wage wasn't a bad thing at all, after saying that less than $15/hour was unacceptable!

You're welcome for the historical document. Fascinating what the team already had decided was and wasn't possible at such an early point in time, so far in advance of the convention. I can see why they wouldn't have chosen it to go public, but when one leaves it on a table in a restaurant, that happens.

[LiberalLovinLug]

180. Yes of course

She was basically asking him if he'd do it again, if he was once again in second place.

And he declined to answer. But he didn't rule it out.

Which was the smart thing to do. Because it would depend who was in first place. If it was Warren, your choice, I doubt he'd have much to negotiate as they are on pretty much the same page. If it was Biden, I would bet he would stay in to do the same thing and squeeze out from him more progressive proposals. And the country, the potential of speeding up progress, would be a better place for it.

About him not getting what he ultimately wanted on $15 mw. Yes that's why they call it negotiating. That's all he wanted was a little movement. Which was not only good for working people, but it was the smart thing to do for Hillary AND Sanders supporters. It guaranteed Sanders would stump for hard for Hillary after the convention, which he did, and it would be smart for Hillary's camp because it would appease many former Sanders supporters to vote for Hillary.

[ehrnst]

140. Best Selection?

Hillary certainly pulled him to the left on social justice issues.

And he adopted her plan for financing free college, after the election.

And he finally decided that even a $10/hr federal minimum would be worth working for, rather than insisting that less than $15 was unacceptable.

His support of her didn't extend to speaking out about the Russian/Ukraine bot posts smearing HRC during the general election on his FB and Twitter pages that his supporters were liking and sharing all over social media.

"If you and your campaign knew there was Russian meddling and it was trying to sow division, why not take that directly to your supporters?” Sanders was asked.

He shot back that the "real question to be asked" was why didn't the Clinton campaign do something.
...............................................................................

Despite Sanders’s remarks in the public radio interview that his campaign had shared information with the Clinton campaign about suspected Russian anti-Clinton trolls on a campaign Facebook page, Weaver told Politico Sanders had no firsthand knowledge that this had happened.

Asked why Sanders would blame Clinton for not intervening, Weaver said, “Uh, I don’t know. They [Clinton's campaign] did have more information.”

A former Clinton campaign staffer told Politico it was nonsense that Sanders' campaign had reached out to Clinton's about potential Russian interference.

"No one from the Sanders campaign ever contacted us about this” — not in September, and not in “April and May,” the staffer told Politico.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/21/bernie-sanders-trump-russia-interference-420528

[George II]

185. He got Hillary to adopt nothing.

[LiberalLovinLug]

186. You really want to go there George?

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/1/12083494/bernie-sanders-democratic-party-concessions

Bernie Sanders has refused to endorse Hillary Clinton — though he’s already said he’d vote for her — unless the Democratic Party does more to reflect his positions on a range of policy issues.

It’s looking like that hard-line negotiating tactic is being rewarded.

On Friday afternoon, a draft of the Democratic National Committee's platform was published by multiple news outlets. As the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent points out, it shows Sanders winning on at least six signature issues that reflect long-held goals of his movement.

The platform just outlines the key "ideas and beliefs" of the party — it doesn’t bind any of its members to particular actions — but it’s supposed to represent a sort of blueprint for where the party is headed.

Sanders wants those goals to be as closely aligned to his as possible before throwing his full support behind Clinton’s presidential bid. From what we’ve seen so far, Clinton and the DNC have been largely willing to grant many, though not all, of his requests — perhaps because there’s no enforcement mechanism behind them, or perhaps because they remain concerned that some Sanders supporters won’t show up for Clinton in November.

Many commentators have slammed Sanders for not endorsing Clinton yet. But the shifting of the party’s platform at least suggests he’s winning policy fights via his obstinance.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/25/democrats-rules-superdelegates-sanders

Bernie Sanders has cleared the way for an endorsement of Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, and declared a successful end to his campaign to pull their party to the left during weekend negotiations over the Democratic policy platform.

“We have made enormous strides,” said Sanders in a statement issued after a meeting in Orlando that swung the party in his direction on the minimum wage, climate change and marijuana though failed to make headway on fracking and trade.

“Thanks to the millions of people across the country who got involved in the political process – many for the first time – we now have the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic party,” he sa

[George II]

192. Only confirms what I said.

[LiberalLovinLug]

232. Sure George

Whatever you say

[bluewater]

13. I absolutely agree but.....

But Sanders was asked is he would drop out when it was clear he was not going to be the nominee.

That is a different kettle of fish. It might be clear that Sanders can finish no better than, say, third, while no mathematical winner has been reached yet. He can't win, but no mathematical winner is settled yet.

As long as there is no mathematical winner, any candidate can stay in as long as they wish. Including taking part in the convention.

And for the record, Sanders should have dropped out as soon as a mathematical winner became clear.

[George II]

31. Different kettle of fish? One is smoked salmon, the other is lox. Look it up. Why....

....would a candidate not drop out when he/she knows he/she won't be the nominee? What's the point?

All candidates can still take part in the convention, most are either delegates or superdelegates anyway.

[bluewater]

40. To represent the concerns of their supporters for as long as possible?

Once there is a mathematical winner, everyone should drop out.

But until then, candidates might want to stay in to represent their supporters and their supporters concerns, even if they themselves are out of the running.

For example, a minority candidate might want to stay in to speak to the concerns of their community. They might feel other candidates are not adequately representing their values and needs. It's about drawing media coverage to their concerns.

[sheshe2]

131. Well

until then, candidates might want to stay in to represent their supporters and their supporters concerns, even if they themselves are out of the running.

Their concerns?

They might feel other candidates are not adequately representing their values and needs. It's about drawing media coverage to their concerns.

Their values and concerns? Oh they got media coverage alright. Sure didn't show them in the best light.

Some DNC delegates booed during speeches given by people of color. Here's what was going on.

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12279822/democratic-national-convention-boo-cummings-fudge-platform

snip

Yet the boos and disruptions of speakers of color also came at awkward times. Cummings, for instance, was giving a speech on his personal background and the importance of diversity in the Democratic Party — but his words on social and racial justice were completely drowned out by the protests.

Fudge pointedly asked for delegates to "respect" her after trying to talk over the boos — even during lines like, "Where we lift each other up and every person from every race, religion, and sexual orientation is respected."

snip

Some observers thought the optics were painfully bad for Sanders supporters.

This whole "screaming over black speakers" thing is not a good look.

— Jamelle Bouie (@jbouie) July 25, 2016

To some progressives, the moment was yet another frustrating reminder of the tense dynamics around identity politics and economic populism during the Democratic primary. Some activists feel that while the economic justice issues Sanders and his supporters push are important, there has often been such a laser focus on those issues that it actively excludes other issues like race and gender.

[ehrnst]

136. Mathematical winner - you mean when one gets the pledged delegates neccessary for the nomination?

They should start supporting the winner?

Unlike what the candidate in the OP is stating?

[ehrnst]

177. He can't represent the concerns of supporters unless he's a POTUS candidate opposing

the choice of Democrats to be our nominee?

I have to wonder what he thinks is "as long as possible."

[George II]

20. That's how it's done. Rally around the person who is going to be the nominee.

[trueblue2007]

133. t am with you 5000000% !!!!!!!!! he did NOT help us unite.

[George II]

8. Why should the presumptive nominee negotiate with him? For what?

[still_one]

11. +++++++++++++++

[aikoaiko]

12. You say that like you are you unfamiliar with primary politics?

Presumptive nominees can make deals with others to gain their support.

[George II]

14. I'm very familiar with primary politics. The presumptive candidate will be the candidate...

...at that point there is no need to "negotiate" to get the nomination. If you're talking about after the nomination, generally Democrats throw their support behind the nominee, it goes without saying.

Once again, a lot of what is being said around here is based on past performances. I hope we don't go through that again.

[aikoaiko]

29. No, you're not following.

I'm talking about negotiating to help someone concede earlier than they are inclined

[herding cats]

39. If a candidates ideas lost, why negotiate?

We need to win in 2020. Even I know it's not a time to play political games, but rather to beat Trump soundly.

[Cha]

54. Well said, herding!

[aikoaiko]

65. Sure, if someone loses so badly that the nominee can ignore the other candidate then do so.

But if they still have a lot of supporters and donations, then the presumptive winner might do well to help someone concede and gain their support earlier rather than later.

[herding cats]

116. I don't see a person in the final top tier with the right ideas being Pie in the Sky ones.

That's a recipe for failure if we cater to a candidate like that. Fortunately, I don't see that happening this cycle. So, I'm not worried in that area. We have a lot of really great, smart candidates out there to pick from this cycle. I'm seeing well fleshed out policy being proposed. I'm excited!

Back to the OP... I see Sanders as divisive and marginalized by his previous campaign. I've said that to you before and I still believe it to be true. I know it's a huge factor in my local Democratic Party meetings.

I live in Texas so it isn't something many people here might care about. However, we counted in the 2016 primary. Which people might want to consider? Democrats here tend to be active as hell, or mostly underground and only come out close to an election, or literally just to vote. For my group our meeting numbers have remained up since 2016 post the election, with a big spike for 2018 midterms. Which was followed by a slight drop off and we're now seeing another spike.

Right this moment the number one thing we speak of is not tearing down the candidates and beating Trump in 2020 (yes, Bernie gets mentioned in this regard). We manage to agree on all the important factors without ever being jerks to each other. The vast majority of us are focused on just ousting Trump and trying to stop this unmitigated horror taking place before our eyes. But again, it's Texas, so the migrants are front and center for us on a daily basis. Not just when the rest of the US decides to notice again. Tariffs with Mexico would destroy us since we're their largest trading partner in the US, NAFTA under Trump is a huge issue, climate change is destroying our state, etc. We're an example of all politics being local. Democrats are not a homogeneous group coast to coast. Which some seem to forget who live in microclimates of their own. I get that. I always try and remember we're vast and extremely diverse party.

But, I'm digressing and I apologize. I just hate seeing so much polarized opinion being tossed about as a Party fact and I apparently decided to vent here. I'm aware it's not specific to what we were discussing, but it's all over this topic. People wanting their favorite to be blameless, pure and unsullied. Sadly, I watch this same lunacy take place daily on social media which has zero to do with our political reality in this country.

[aikoaiko]

119. I welcome your comments.

[herding cats]

125. Hey, I really appreciate that.

I don't speak here often anymore. It's nice to not be beaten down because I snapped a bit tonight.

[ehrnst]

142. You mean if a candidate loses by say, 4 million? That kind of loss?

You're saying that the loser's supporters might not be expected support the Democratic nominee - unless their candidate got certain perks and benefits in order to concede and make a statement that they supported the actual winner?

Which is something that the article in the OP states that Sanders said he might refuse to do?

[Gore1FL]

75. Part of winning in November requires some of his voters.

I would think we would have learned telling people to fuck-off and that we don't need them was proven to be a failing strategy in 2016.

Building coalitions is how we win. We do that by listening.

[herding cats]

118. Warren has that covered.

And, for the record, I'm not the one ever telling anyone to fuck off or that it's my way or the highway.

[Gore1FL]

122. I replied to the wrong message. It was supposed to be directed at Post 14.

My apologies for my confusion and the confusion it caused.

[herding cats]

124. It's fine!

No need to apologize to me for a minor mistake.

[ehrnst]

137. The winner requires getting all of the Hillary voters. Saying the 2016 primary was "rigged"

doesn't win them over. It's not only a debunked smear of the Democratic Party, of which he seems to feel is adequate for his ambitions to the White House, it's an insult to the millions of us that voted for her, as though our votes are not actually valid.

Sour grapes is rather unbecoming.

[Gore1FL]

204. There is no doubt the DNC tried to make the 2016 process a coronation.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz was an incompetent hack when it came to pulling it off.

I'm not here to re-fight 2016. I submit we shouldn't make the same mistakes.

[ehrnst]

207. "No doubt?" That's certainly not backed up by facts. It's a debunked conspiracy theory.

About the 2016 Democratic primary... despite your protestations to the contrary.

[ehrnst]

210. What "debates on Sunday" prove that conspiracy theory about DWS and the DNC in 2016?

DWS is still a rep, BTW.

Care to explain how that happened if what you say is true?

[Gore1FL]

213. Few Sunday debates show here was little desire to have an audience.

DWS' elected position is not relevant to her DNC position. It also in not relevant to her competence. Louie Gohmert gets elected, for example.

Feel free to make the same mistakes as last election if it's that important to you.

[ehrnst]

214. The nominee that actually got the most votes got the nomination. That was a "coronation?"

That was a "mistake?"



She then got more votes in the GE than any candidate but Obama...

Do you think that Russian interference and GOP voter suppression was "our mistake?"

Few Sunday debates show here was little desire to have an audience.

What does that even mean?

[betsuni]

226. Conspiracy theories.

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

There were 72 million viewers for DNC-sponsored debates in 2016, 75 million viewers for DNC-sponsored and those sponsored by other organizations combined in 2008.

The myth of the all-powerful DNC. "The DNC, just like the Republican National Committee, is an impotent organization with very limited power. ... The argument that the DNC rigged the debates is, by any rational analysis, garbage."

They myth that Sanders would have won against Trump.

[Cha]

245. No, you're absolutely wrong.

[Me.]

246. That's Just Nina/Tad Talk

proven not to be credible as the votes simply weren't there

[ehrnst]

141. Why not simply concede when it's clear they have lost the nomination? (nt)

[Eliot Rosewater]

96. You answered your own question, let me help you even though I know you need no help

generally Democrats

[LiberalFighter]

79. You are right.

[smb]

178. What Would He Offer In This "Negotiation"?

"Give me the nomination and maybe I'll officially join the party"?

[Cha]

15. Why does BS need to be "negotiated with?

[LibFarmer]

67. Exactly

He is just one of 24+ candidates. Nothing more, nothing less.

He doesn't get any special status.

[Cha]

90. The opposite.

[Gothmog]

24. I was at the convention and saw what happened when sanders did this last time

[Eliot Rosewater]

97. Hell, a few months ago he said if someone representing his ideals ran he would not

BULLSHIT

Warren is running, so THAT was NOT TRUE

[ehrnst]

163. He was planning to run again the minute it was called for Trump.

I have not a doubt in my mind about this.

Those cheering crowds in venues near college campuses are some strong juju.

Unless he is on a gurney, he will be on the campaign trail whenever he can be, for as long as possible.

He knows that his time is limited, that he's nearing the end of his long career on Capitol Hill.

[George II]

168. Considering how he acted in 2012, I would not have been surprised if....

....he primaried Clinton next year if she won.

[ehrnst]

169. I believe that would have been criticizing her as POTUS from day one

loudly and publicly about anything that she even slightly differed from him on, and claiming credit for giving her the idea to do anything she did that he agreed with.

[wasupaloopa]

34. Why should anyone negotiate with him?

He should drop out now. He is not loyal to the Dem process

[aikoaiko]

38. How is he not loyal to the Dem process?

My point about negotiating is that if you want someone to drop out when they don't want to then you have to give them good reasons to do so.

[wasupaloopa]

84. He is a Dem when it is convenient and says

he may not recognize the Dem nominee.

The others are Dem 24/7 and will support the nominee.

[aikoaiko]

88. ... before the convention.

He's fine with supporting the Democratic nominee.

[ehrnst]

143. Even if a candidate loses, and knows that they have lost?

What positive motivations would a Democratic candidate have for continuing to oppose and attack the actual selected nominee of the Democrats after a loss?

It sounds more like sour grapes than an attempt to drive a conversation in a positive direction.

He doesn't need to be on the campaign trail to promote his ideas. Why do you think that?

[ehrnst]

176. After he were to lose, even?

Because there's no way for him to "get his message out" unless he's campaigning for POTUS?

[ehrnst]

144. Saying that the 2016 primary was rigged, after saying in 2016 that it wasn't rigged,

it was just "dumb."

I think that losing the actual election is a good enough reason for any candidate to concede. Continuing to oppose the winner after one loses isn't respecting the electoral process, which they they knew all about when they signed on as a candidate.

Don't you think?

And wasn't he crowing about being the first to sign the "unity pledge?" What happened to that?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-first-to-sign-pledge-to-rally-behind-whoever-wins-democratic-primary

[mcar]

37. Why?

If he loses, he loses. Why stay in until the convention? What is to be gained by that? Months (possibly) of the media declaring Dems in disarray? Months of division and uncertainty?

If he loses he should act like an adult, accept it and firmly support the nominee. Like a grown up who cares about the country.

[aikoaiko]

43. There is always the possibility of promoting ideas by staying in.

[mcar]

52. There also is the probability of dividing the party

as the good Senator did at the DNC.

He's not the only one with ideas.

[Eliot Rosewater]

98. Ding ding ding, give this man or woman a cigar

Now we're getting warm

[mcar]

129. Woman here

to you Eliot.

[ehrnst]

148. You seem to think that he can't 'promote his ideas" unless he's running for POTUS

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2019, 09:11 AM - Edit history (1)

or there's not "the possibility of promoting his ideas" if he's not actively running for POTUS. Why?

By staying if after he loses, he is promoting opposition to the person who was elected the Democratic nominee. That doesn't promote support for his ideas among the majority of those who voted for the winner.

Working with the elected nominee would be promoting ideas.

Continuing to oppose the winner looks more like sour grapes than actually trying to move the conversation in a positive way.

[Me.]

58. Months Of Kvetching

about the primary being rigged against him as he just said once again?

[mcar]

68. And months of "scandal!!11" about the platform

and other ridiculous insider intrigue. Instead, we could be focusing on what should be the real goal: defeating fascism!

[Me.]

57. Negotiating What?

He loses the primary, he's out just like every other candidate and has no power to negotiate with. He's no more special than the others.

[ehrnst]

139. +1000.

[Trumpocalypse]

89. So you want Trump to win

Because the longer Sanders stays in the more it damages the nominee.

[aikoaiko]

102. No, I do not want Trump to win.

It doesn't have to be a bad thing.
A good nominee will work with the other candidates and their supporters and the other candidates will work with the nominee.

lots of room for quid pro quo.

[Trumpocalypse]

126. It was last time

Why would it be different this time?

[aikoaiko]

127. I don't think Bernie was a problem last time.

Yes, he was critical, but ultimately he endorsed the Democratic Party and HRC. Without him, it might have been a bigger loss.

[Trumpocalypse]

128. Yes he was

Don’t deny reality

[ehrnst]

149. It wasn't a loss - she got more votes than anyone named Obama. The WH was stolen.

Just saying.

And why do you think that he remained silent and didn't call out his supporters for continuing to spread what he knew were smears against HRC posted by Russian/Ukraine bots on his FB pages after the convention? Does that seem like endorsement? Does that seem like it helped HRC?

"If you and your campaign knew there was Russian meddling and it was trying to sow division, why not take that directly to your supporters?” Sanders was asked.

He shot back that the "real question to be asked" was why didn't the Clinton campaign do something.
...............................................................................

Despite Sanders’s remarks in the public radio interview that his campaign had shared information with the Clinton campaign about suspected Russian anti-Clinton trolls on a campaign Facebook page, Weaver told Politico Sanders had no firsthand knowledge that this had happened.

Asked why Sanders would blame Clinton for not intervening, Weaver said, “Uh, I don’t know. They [Clinton's campaign] did have more information.”

A former Clinton campaign staffer told Politico it was nonsense that Sanders' campaign had reached out to Clinton's about potential Russian interference.

"No one from the Sanders campaign ever contacted us about this” — not in September, and not in “April and May,” the staffer told Politico.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/21/bernie-sanders-trump-russia-interference-420528

[aikoaiko]

223. I can't answer for all of Bernie's statements, but I am grateful he stayed in and put pressure...

... the party to listen to his ideas which many people supported.

Did he save HRC from the Russians? No.

[ehrnst]

224. Did he utter a single word to his supporters about the Russian propaganda that they were

sharing on his FB pages and on twitter in support of him during the General?

No. Could he have done so? Yes.

Or say anything at all about the Karl Rove dirty money PAC funded HRC smear ads that Rove ran to boost Bernie's chances in states where he wasn't doing well that his supporters were making viral?

No. Could he have done so? Yes.

Did Bernie make it a campaign brand being a candidate that would not accept that kind of dark PAC support for his campaign?

Yes.

Does any of that indicate support of the Democratic party or the nominee that the Democratic supporters chose by a wide margin?

Why don't you tell us?

[aikoaiko]

237. He doesn't have to have done those things to support the party.

I get it -- you wish Bernie saved HRC from the Russians. He didn't. That wasn't his job.

Not even President Obama could save HRC and Bernie had much less direct information.

[sheshe2]

219. I am a little confused here.

aikoaiko

127. I don't think Bernie was a problem last time.
Yes, he was critical, but ultimately he endorsed the Democratic Party and HRC.

First of all, yes he was.

Second. He "ultimately" endorsed the Democratic Party? Wasn't he running As a DEMOCRAT FOR the DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION as PRESIDENT? So, he never endorsed our party until after Hillary won? Funny. I thought he was running as a Democrat and endorsed our party at that time. See how confusing this is.

Also the fact is after he lost he left our party going back to being an Independent.

[aikoaiko]

222. Ok

He endorsed the party before the convention, but then he did both. Endorse the party and HRC even if he wouldn't stay a Democrat himself afterward.

I think a lot of true believers in the party have a hard time understanding Bernie and other independents who are willing to vote Democratic.

[ehrnst]

225. I have never heard that explained. (nt)

[ehrnst]

138. So you would support him if he was to still be attacking and opposing the elected Dem nominee

after he lost?

Why?

[SouthernProgressive]

156. Clintons mistake was negotiating with him in the first place.

They never should have done it. They weren't getting strong support from him either way. It's who he is. He operates off of fear tactics.

[LongtimeAZDem]

164. Absolutely right

[comradebillyboy]

170. Clinton's big mistake was not curb stomping Bernie

on day one.

[uponit7771]

249. +1

[LisaM]

179. Because it worked so well last time?

I swear, I think on some level, Bernie really believes the primaries were rigged against him, and really believes that he worked to get Hillary Clinton elected.

I don't know why he thinks that, but he seems to, and I think that means his judgement is a little flawed (his choice of advisors proves that anyway).

[uponit7771]

248. Yeah, that did America good last time

[helpisontheway]

6. GO AWAY BERNIE!!!nt

[comradebillyboy]

17. Bernie Sanders, making friends everywhere he goes.

Maybe the guy who did get help from the Russians ought to tone down the rigged whine.

[randr]

18. Some people?

Where have I heard that expression used?

[Gothmog]

21. I remember this part of the National Convention

This is from the article posted in the OP

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.

Sanders clearly resents being asked hypothetical questions that force him to entertain the prospect he might lose. But he faces these questions for the same reason Donald Trump was frequently asked if he would accept an unfavorable outcome: because he has a record of challenging the legitimacy of the outcome when he loses. Only Sanders gets asked this question because only Sanders has ever claimed to have been the victim of Democratic Party rigging, and only Sanders selected a slate of delegates who tried to disrupt their party’s convention.

[betsuni]

23. A campaign based on conspiracy theories.

[ehrnst]

159. Who else does that? Wait -

Trump frequently couches his most controversial comments this way, which allows him to share a controversial idea, piece of tabloid gossip or conspiracy theory without technically embracing it. If the comment turns out to be popular, Trump will often drop the distancing qualifier — “people think” or “some say.” If the opposite happens, Trump can claim that he never said the thing he is accused of saying, equating it to retweeting someone else’s thoughts on Twitter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-lot-of-people-are-saying-how-trump-spreads-conspiracies-and-innuendo/2016/06/13/b21e59de-317e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

[betsuni]

215. Exactly.

[NurseJackie]

25. Oh, good lord... I know... don't get me started!

[Eliot Rosewater]

100. How many BS folks will support his obvious attempt to divide the party so as to gain power?

[ehrnst]

161. On this thread alone..... (nt)

[Gothmog]

26. From my twitter feed

Link to tweet

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday did not commit to conceding the primary even if it became clear he would not be the nominee, a move that traces back to 2016 when the senator was facing down then-Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

In an afternoon interview, MSNBC's Kasie Hunt asked Sanders if he would leave the race before the national convention. His response? "I intend to be the Democratic nominee."

After a back-and-forth — "Are you asking that of every candidate?" — and further pressing, Sanders said he was proud of his grassroots campaigns, particularly in the key states of New Hampshire and Iowa, and his million volunteers. The Vermont senator is polling just behind frontrunner and former Vice President Joe Biden, with 19 percent of the expected vote as of June 23.

"Our goal right now is to win it. And by the way, as you you may know, poll after poll shows what against Trump? Shows me beating Trump by 8, 9 or 10 points. We're going to beat Trump, we're going to win the Democratic nomination."

[madaboutharry]

30. People don't change.

It would be a surprise if he gave a different answer.

[Mike Nelson]

32. He has got to...

… stop this... just say you're focused on winning and intend to be the nominee. That's all - then, follow it up with a policy statement... A variation of this question has been asked forever... it's not hard!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

44. That's exactly what he did. Then she pulled the "some people say" nonsense and he answered...

... with more “some people say” nonsense.

But here we go. The usuals on twitter will throw a tantrum.

[George II]

50. Kasie Hunt didn't bring up the worn out "the system was rigged", he did. He's not letting that go..

....and it's hurting him. No amount of animated gifs are going to change it.

[Cha]

93. Exactly right. It's time for BS to moveon.

[Eliot Rosewater]

101. Here we go... _ G _ i _

[ehrnst]

152. Not sure where Kasie Hunt was doing any "some people say..." nonsense. Can you point it out?

MSNBC: If it's clear you aren't going to be the nominee, will you concede before the convention?

SANDERS: I intend to be the Dem nominee

M: But if you're not. You stayed in last time

S: Some people say that maybe if the system wasn't rigged against me, I would've beat Trump

But I've heard that "some people say" nonsense from someone else... who was it? OH, right...

Trump frequently couches his most controversial comments this way, which allows him to share a controversial idea, piece of tabloid gossip or conspiracy theory without technically embracing it. If the comment turns out to be popular, Trump will often drop the distancing qualifier — “people think” or “some say.” If the opposite happens, Trump can claim that he never said the thing he is accused of saying, equating it to retweeting someone else’s thoughts on Twitter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-lot-of-people-are-saying-how-trump-spreads-conspiracies-and-innuendo/2016/06/13/b21e59de-317e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

[Hassin Bin Sober]

172. You need to listen to the actual clip. Not the edited for effect "transcripts" I've seen

“You stayed in last time and some people say you hurt...”

It’s clear as day in the clip in the op.

The original tweeter in the op even corrected and clarified



<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">To be clear Bernie repeated “some people say” after it was first said by the MSNBC interviewer, so he shouldn’t be criticized for using that phrase. <a href="https://t.co/Ki5GmrvkFG">pic.twitter.com/Ki5GmrvkFG</a></p>— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) <a href="

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 26, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[George II]

174. It was tough to hear because BS was doing his usual interrupting and waving his hand in her face.

[Skidmore]

184. The other

whi...

No learning curve.

[mcar]

33. This is unconscionable, George

How can anyone who claims to be liberal or progressive make this kind of selfish claim?

It is so childish and dangerous.

[tymorial]

35. Tone deaf as always.

Thankfully this is the last time we'll have to listen to this nonsense

[namahage]

41. What happened to the Bernie

who was the first to sign the "Unity Pledge"?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-first-to-sign-pledge-to-rally-behind-whoever-wins-democratic-primary

National progressive outfit Indivisible on Thursday launched a pledge compelling all 2020 Democratic presidential candidates to rally behind the eventual nominee. Bernie Sanders was the first to sign it, the group revealed.

The “We Are Indivisible” pledge asks for three commitments from him and any other prospective signers, as first reported by BuzzFeed News. First, Indivisible’s pledge requests that candidates “make the primary constructive” by outlining their visions while respecting their opponents.

“I’ll support the ultimate Democratic nominee, whoever it is—period," the pledge also reads. “No Monday morning quarterbacking. No third-party threats. Immediately after there’s a nominee, I’ll endorse.”

And the group also wants a commitment that every candidate will “do the work to beat Trump,” including a promise that “As soon as there is a nominee, I will put myself at the disposal of the campaign.”

[Andy823]

47. I think

He had his fingers crossed when he signed that!

We really don't need to go through this crap again. Bernie needs to get over his huge ego, and paranoia that he was the victim of a "rigged" election, and that he could have beat trump. He didn't stand a chance in 2016 of beating trump, and he doesn't now. He needs to get back to reality.

[herding cats]

42. Meh, I don't think Bernie is going to be the #2 this time.

So far this cycle I'm seeing him as increasingly marginalized by better choices.

I'd definitely vote for Warren without any reservation, FWIW.

[Cha]

46. Aloha, herding cats!

I see you have a Biden pic!

And, great point about BS not being #2.

[herding cats]

48. I picked Biden the day he announced, Cha!

It's a matter of winning in 2020 for me. My eye is on the prize. As all ours should be. You know I adore Mayor Pete, I've been one of his early supporters here since 2016, but I'm going for a winning candidate ATM.

So good to see you!

[Cha]

51. Good to see you!

Eyes on Prize!

[peggysue2]

45. If Senator Sanders follows this path, again?

He will go down in history not as a revolutionary but a spoiler. And a dangerous one at that considering we're taking on Donald Trump, someone who has proven himself unfit, mentally unstable and a true threat to the country and our national future.

For a man his age, Sanders is acting and sounding like a pouty child. Some of his followers may like the idea of burning it all down if they don't get their way. I do not and I wager the vast majority of Dems don't either.

[George II]

53. Reminiscent of H. Ross Perot or John Anderson.

[Hekate]

56. And Ralph Nader

[ehrnst]

208. More Nader than anyone...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/09/ralph-nader-and-the-tragedy-of-voter-as-consumer-politics.html

[ehrnst]

146. Indeed. Sour grapes aren't a good look.

Sounds like he's preparing to challenge a loss.

[MineralMan]

49. That will send some more people to other

candidates right now. There are many choices one can support. Bernie is making a mistake. There's no real "Bernie or Bust" sentiment out there.

[Hekate]

55. Bernie, go home. Ralph Nader phoned and left a message.

[ehrnst]

147. +1000. (nt)

[Vegas Roller]

60. Can you name the candidate?

-Says election was rigged
-University got shut down because of irregularities
-Paid campaign positions to family and friends
-Doesn't think Russian interference was a big deal
-Constantly speaks ill of Hillary Clinton
-Needs adoring crowds to feel validated



Hint - It is not Trump

[George II]

62. bwahahahahaha!!!!

[Gothmog]

117. LOL

[betsuni]

121. Yup.

[Gothmog]

194. From Josh at Talking Points Memorandum

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

203. +1

[uponit7771]

250. +1

[woodsprite]

61. Hmmmm. Indivisible says he signed.

Along with all the main Dem candidates.

https://pledge.indivisible.org/#lp-pom-text-108

[namahage]

63. Not just that, he signed FIRST.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-first-to-sign-pledge-to-rally-behind-whoever-wins-democratic-primary

National progressive outfit Indivisible on Thursday launched a pledge compelling all 2020 Democratic presidential candidates to rally behind the eventual nominee. Bernie Sanders was the first to sign it, the group revealed.

The “We Are Indivisible” pledge asks for three commitments from him and any other prospective signers, as first reported by BuzzFeed News. First, Indivisible’s pledge requests that candidates “make the primary constructive” by outlining their visions while respecting their opponents.

“I’ll support the ultimate Democratic nominee, whoever it is—period," the pledge also reads. “No Monday morning quarterbacking. No third-party threats. Immediately after there’s a nominee, I’ll endorse.”

And the group also wants a commitment that every candidate will “do the work to beat Trump,” including a promise that “As soon as there is a nominee, I will put myself at the disposal of the campaign.”

[George II]

66. And BRAGGED about it and cajoled others to sign it. Irony, right?

[NYMinute]

64. K&R

It is a very asinine way of approaching the primaries.

[LibFarmer]

69. Oh my lord nt

[Autumn]

70. Do you ever post anything positive about your candidate?

Asking for a friend.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

72. Bazinga!

[Vegas Roller]

73. Does it bother you when Senator BS's contempt for the Democratic party

is exposed?

(Also asking for a friend)

[George II]

74. All the time. I know you await my posts with bated breath, I'm sure you've seen them.

[Vegas Roller]

77. I have heard some people seem to

latch on to your pants like a dog would a mailman's pants.

[Autumn]

111. How sweet that you rush to the rescue.

[Vegas Roller]

114. hmmmm

some people reveal themselves by identifying with unnamed people in a post.

Brava!!

[George II]

104. .

[SixString]

80. BOOM!

Mahalo for the laugh.

[Voltaire2]

132. This.

[ehrnst]

145. The truth really stings sometimes, doesn't it?

Especially after all the crowing and cheering about Bernie being the very very very first to sign the Unity Pledge!!!!

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-first-to-sign-pledge-to-rally-behind-whoever-wins-democratic-primary



How sweet that you rush to the rescue, tho!

[Autumn]

153. The truth might sting if there were any truth in what you say. I rescued no one, however

you often rush to do what you condemn.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287104839#post23
your signature move.

[ehrnst]

154. I'm talking about Bernie, silly!

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2019, 10:29 AM - Edit history (1)

You always come to his rescue! Your signature move..... and signature emoji!!!



Tell us what part of Bernie signing the Unity Pledge is false? (Note the lack of whataboutery, here...)



What part of the OP was false about what Sanders said? Here's the video:

Link to tweet

[Susan Calvin]

71. That was a stupid thing to say. If he said it.

Edited after looking at some of the other posts, after I initially posted this as a knee-jerk reaction.

It may well be true, but it was a stupid thing to say. If he said it. Going to bed now I guess I'll do some research in the morning.

I don't blame him in 2016 for holding out as long as he did. And I maintain that it is not what sank Hilary.

But right now it is a stupid thing to say.

I wanted to give him a second chance for a while , but this, if true, and I am currently assuming it is since it came from a reputable source , is the nail in the coffin.

If nothing else, I object to people who do not understand that we are unfortunately living in a binary system, as far as elections are concerned.

I will admit that Ross Perot got Bill Clinton elected. I think Bernie as a third-party candidate would get Trump elected.

[ehrnst]

150. It's his refusal to say yes when asked if he would support the winner. Instead he took a passive

swipe at the Democratic Party, perpetuating a debunked conspiracy theory, “some people say that maybe if the system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination.”

There's someone else who does this:

Trump frequently couches his most controversial comments this way, which allows him to share a controversial idea, piece of tabloid gossip or conspiracy theory without technically embracing it. If the comment turns out to be popular, Trump will often drop the distancing qualifier — “people think” or “some say.” If the opposite happens, Trump can claim that he never said the thing he is accused of saying, equating it to retweeting someone else’s thoughts on Twitter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-lot-of-people-are-saying-how-trump-spreads-conspiracies-and-innuendo/2016/06/13/b21e59de-317e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

[Susan Calvin]

196. Yeah I think I've had it with him.

I'm grateful that he pushed a lot of people to left, but that doesn't mean I'll put up with anything.

[NoMoreRepugs]

76. BS Bernie.... you lost by 12%.

[sprinkleeninow]

78. I haven't said a word about him in a very long time, but

this rigging contention word? Again?

[Princetonian]

81. Hillary didn't concede to Barack until the convention so why should he?

This is another attempt by the mainstream media to divide and conquer. Bernie has said he will support the eventual Democratic nominee.

[betsuni]

83. Obama won nomination June 3, Clinton conceded June 7.

[StevieM]

187. And it was the next day, June 4, that she put out word that she would be suspending her campaign.

The official announcement came on June 7, but it was understood that she was exiting on June 4.

The media criticized her for that at the time, saying that it wasn't soon enough. These same people were just fine with Bernie staying in long after the race was over.

[betsuni]

211. And she said "I will work my heart out for the Democratic Party and the party's eventual nominee"

during her speeches before the primaries ended.

[George II]

85. Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7, 2008. The Convention opened on August 25....

That was 79 days before the convention. Google is your friend.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_2008_presidential_primary_campaign

On June 7, 2008, in a speech before her gathered supporters at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C., Clinton officially announced that she was suspending her campaign and was fully endorsing Barack Obama.

Clinton said:

The way to continue our fight now – to accomplish the goals for which we stand – is to take our energy, our passion, our strength and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama the next President of the United States. Today, as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary race he has run. I endorse him, and throw my full support behind him. And I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me.

Clinton also adopted Obama's signature slogan, "Yes We Can", in her concession speech.

Obama responded to the speech in a number of venues. Shortly after she gave it, Obama stated that he was "thrilled and honored" to be supported by Clinton. In North Carolina on June 9, 2008, Obama began his speech by praising Clinton. He stated:

Before we begin, I just want to take a minute to thank Senator Clinton for the kind and generous support she offered on Saturday [...] She ran an historic race, a historic campaign that shattered barriers on behalf of my daughters and women everywhere who know now that there are no limits to their dreams. What's more, she inspired millions of women and men with her strength, her courage, and her unyielding commitment to the causes that brought us here today – the hopes and aspirations of working Americans. Our party and our country are stronger because of the work that Hillary Rodham Clinton has done throughout her life, and I look forward to working with her ... to make sure we lay out the case for change and set a new course for this country.

[StevieM]

188. Good post. Check out my post to the reply right above yours. (eom)

[Cha]

95. Sorry, Princetonian.. you are wrong.

[NYMinute]

106. Hillary conceded in 3 days

AND

She actively campaigned for Obama including several joint appearances.

[MrsCoffee]

205. Bzzz. Wrong.

[Rebl2]

82. I fear

if he is not the nominee he will run as a third party candidate which will take away from Democrats.

[Baltimike]

86. and *HE* recieved help from RUSSIA. nt

[onetexan]

113. K&R - probable

[ehrnst]

160. And remained silent when his supporters spread the Bot propaganda about HRC in the General

"If you and your campaign knew there was Russian meddling and it was trying to sow division, why not take that directly to your supporters?” Sanders was asked.

He shot back that the "real question to be asked" was why didn't the Clinton campaign do something.
...............................................................................

Despite Sanders’s remarks in the public radio interview that his campaign had shared information with the Clinton campaign about suspected Russian anti-Clinton trolls on a campaign Facebook page, Weaver told Politico Sanders had no firsthand knowledge that this had happened.

Asked why Sanders would blame Clinton for not intervening, Weaver said, “Uh, I don’t know. They [Clinton's campaign] did have more information.”

A former Clinton campaign staffer told Politico it was nonsense that Sanders' campaign had reached out to Clinton's about potential Russian interference.

"No one from the Sanders campaign ever contacted us about this” — not in September, and not in “April and May,” the staffer told Politico.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/21/bernie-sanders-trump-russia-interference-420528

[Baltimike]

197. and is now, even as we speak, running for re election to the Senate NOT as a Democrat

I'll vote for him if he gets it, but doubt that's gonna happen.

[ehrnst]

206. He is only a Democrat when he is on the campaign trail, Independent when he's

voting and functioning as a Senator. Which is the vast majority of the time.

His office staffer told me this.

[Baltimike]

220. that's unreal. nt

[ehrnst]

221. It's totally real. They actually said that.

So he gets it both ways.

[betsuni]

234. But he is more of a Democrat than the Democrats!

[uponit7771]

251. This is a fact not in dispute

[Eliot Rosewater]

92. told ya

[Mickju]

99. He lost by getting fewer votes than Hillary.

This statement is very dishonest. I get very sick of this shit.

[ehrnst]

171. Promoting conspiracy theories is a bad look. (nt)

[RainCaster]

107. I will fight against any candidate who takes this stance

I am very impressed with all those in the debate tonight (Wednesday) as none of them are fighting against each other. We have others who have fought against the nominee in 2016 when the people choose Hillary.

[LiberalFighter]

109. It is beyond belief to think that the primary was rigged.

I haven't been able to figure out how the DNC rigged it as he claims when each state determines how their primaries are run. The only states where it may have been a problem would had been the caucuses. But he won most of those.

I would have to agree that Sanders got a special benefit when the pool of candidates running in the primary was low.

[Pepsidog]

110. I have liked Sanders for years. He pulls this shit and I'm done with him.

[onetexan]

112. apparently Bernie has taken a page from the Idiot's book. Bernie should have not been allowed to

usurp the Dem party again for his opportunistic attempts to prop himself up. He'll discard Dems like a sack of potatoes again after he loses the primaries.

[ehrnst]

162. In more ways than one

Trump frequently couches his most controversial comments this way, which allows him to share a controversial idea, piece of tabloid gossip or conspiracy theory without technically embracing it. If the comment turns out to be popular, Trump will often drop the distancing qualifier — “people think” or “some say.” If the opposite happens, Trump can claim that he never said the thing he is accused of saying, equating it to retweeting someone else’s thoughts on Twitter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-lot-of-people-are-saying-how-trump-spreads-conspiracies-and-innuendo/2016/06/13/b21e59de-317e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

[Nitram]

115. Obviously there were those in the DNC who favored Clinton, a lifetime Democrat and progressive.

However, the DNC thumb on the scale could not possibly have given Clinton the nomnation.

[ehrnst]

157. And there wasn't even a DNC thumb on the scale to begin with.

Perpetuating a conspiracy theory with passive language isn't a good look for a candidate.

Trump frequently couches his most controversial comments this way, which allows him to share a controversial idea, piece of tabloid gossip or conspiracy theory without technically embracing it. If the comment turns out to be popular, Trump will often drop the distancing qualifier — “people think” or “some say.” If the opposite happens, Trump can claim that he never said the thing he is accused of saying, equating it to retweeting someone else’s thoughts on Twitter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-lot-of-people-are-saying-how-trump-spreads-conspiracies-and-innuendo/2016/06/13/b21e59de-317e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

[BigDemVoter]

123. He needs to cut that shit out. It makes him look really whiny & awful.

[StevieM]

130. Remember when Ted Kennedy rigged the Massachusetts Primary by endorsing Obama?

Oh wait...nobody said that this constituted rigging the race. And Clinton beat Obama in MA by 15 points, in any event.

[ehrnst]

134. That position would not be tolerated on DU....

And apparently he has changed his public stance since stating it was not rigged, just "dumb."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-not-rigged-just-dumb/

[Throck]

151. No comment.

[hughee99]

165. I'm no Sanders fan, but I seem to recall him endorsing her at the convention,

And then, during the general election, he made more campaign appearances for Clinton than she made for herself. I must not be remembering that correctly.

[George II]

166. Yes, he did endorse her (grudgingly) at the convention, but your second point is incorrect.

He made his initial appearance after the convention on Labor Day, six weeks after it closed, and he made very few appearances after that.

[hughee99]

198. It took a little looking, but it appears Sanders did 39 rallies

In 13 states between Labor Day and the election (or about 2 months). At one time they had a schedule of all campaign events and who the speakers where, but I wasn’t able to find it. During roughly that same period of time (sept 1 to Election Day), Clinton made 70 campaign stops.

So based on what I was able to find, yes, Clinton made more stops, but it doesn’t sound like it’s accurate to call this “very few”.

[George II]

199. Many of those were brief stops a few miles apart within an hour of each other...

....not customary campaign "events".

[hughee99]

200. Like an old whistle stop tour?

I’m not sure why they don’t count. Surely a decent number of Clinton’s appearances were things like this as well, or “closed to the public” things like fundraisers that are also not “customary campaign events” either.

[BooScout]

167. So let me get this straight...

The 2016 DEMOCRATIC primary was rigged because DEMOCRATS nominated a DEMOCRAT to be their party's candidate in the General Election. Then the DEMOCRATIC candidate went on to win the popular vote by millions, but didn't become president because the Republicans have so gerrymandered the system that the Electoral College voted in someone who was not the first choice of a majority of Americans.

I'll just say that my idea of the definition of rigged and Sanders' definition are light years apart.

[hughee99]

201. Most of this is right, but I don't think you quite understand gerrymandering. Nt

[Hekate]

216. Pretty clear statement of facts, BooScout

[SouthernLiberal]

181. One more reason...

Not to vote for Bernie Sanders.

[Gothmog]

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

Link to tweet

Sanders faced widespread criticism from across the party after the 2016 race that his insistence on carrying out his campaign through the Democratic National Convention even after it became clear he had fallen short of the necessary delegates to win the nomination forced Hillary Clinton to continue battling an intraparty dispute and hurt her standing in the general contest against Donald Trump....

Sanders faced widespread criticism from across the party after the 2016 race that his insistence on carrying out his campaign through the Democratic National Convention even after it became clear he had fallen short of the necessary delegates to win the nomination forced Hillary Clinton to continue battling an intraparty dispute and hurt her standing in the general contest against Donald Trump.

[lunamagica]

183. What a sore loser...go away already

[Cha]

190. BS.. ".. some people say.."

[George II]

191. As ludicrous as the oft-used "it has been reported".

[Cha]

193. It doesn't fool anyone.

[Cha]

230. And, just who are those "..some people say.. "

anyway?! If "some people say" then he knows who they are.. we want to know!

[Gothmog]

195. From my twitter feed

Link to tweet

[Cha]

202. EXACTLY!

[Gothmog]

243. Other people notice sanders copying trump

Link to tweet

[Cha]

244. He can't just say "..some people say.. " We need

to know who there are.. to verify!

[ehrnst]

212. +10000.

[TheRealNorth]

217. Shit like this

Is why 10% of Bernie Sanders voters decided to vote for Donald Trump or Jill Stein.

Why are we still litigating the 2016 Primary?

I believe Bernie Sanders has already said he would support whoever the Democrats nominate in 2020.

Makes me question the original poster's intent because this type of shit doesn't make me want to vote for his/her preferred candidate in the primary. And it's not because I plan to support Bernie.

[lapucelle]

229. "Why is BS still litigating the 2016 primary?" is an excellent question.

He needs to accept the fact that he lost, learn from the experience, and move on. Amplifying one of Trump's favorite talking points plays right into his hands and damages Democrats.

[democratisphere]

227. Flush thrice.

[saidsimplesimon]

228. I will not waste my time on a canard.

To be clear, Senator Sanders, you will never be elected to the office of President.

I lied, I wasted words on a canard. Promise to reform

[RandySF]

231. I'm shocked.

[madville]

233. We all know the DNC put their thumb on the scale for Clinton

But I think she would have won regardless, even without people at the DNC working to make sure Bernie was not the nominee.

Having super delegates at all to me is rigging the system, they can essentially override the will of the voters if they choose to do so.

[betsuni]

235. The Myths Democrats Swallowed That Cost Them the Presidential Election

http://newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidental-election-521044

[madville]

236. Warren believes the 2016 primary was rigged

She has publicly stated as much:

"As news of Brazile’s remarks spread on social media and in the news, Sen. Elizabeth Warren made a 2 November 2017 appearance on CNN with host Jake Tapper. At approximately the 1:20 mark, Tapper asked if Warren agreed “with the notion that [the 2016 Democratic primary] was rigged.”

Warren simply replied “yes”


https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/11/03/donna-brazile-elizabeth-warren-rigged-2016-primary/

[betsuni]

238. Later she said that it wasn't rigged:

"I agree with what Donna Brazile has said over the last few days, that while there was some bias at the DNC, the overall 2016 primary process was fair and Hillary made history."

Brazile, when asked if the primary was rigged, said "I found no evidence, none, whatsoever,"

[madville]

239. Of course she had to walk it back

She answered the question honestly but then had go into damage control mode.

[betsuni]

241. She said it wasn't rigged.

If it was rigged she would do something about it, and she wouldn't lie.

The DNC mainly does fundraising, organizes the Democratic National Convention, and puts together the party platform. It has no power to rig anything. From the article: "This is why then-President Nixon reacted with incredulity when he heard that some of his people had ordered a break-in of the DNC offices at the Watergate; he couldn't figure out what information anyone would want out of such a toothless organization."

[Gothmog]

240. Warren corrected this claim

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

242. This conspiracy theory is NEVER going to go away.