He could have said “I’m not endorsing her, until she gives us <insert any number of highly-popular policies that the Dems keep fighting to keep away from their voters>”.
It’s political leverage. A lot of voters will follow Sanders’ lead. The threat of a lot of people not voting for Harris would have pulled her to the left, and made her give consessions. Instead, he signaled to the rest of the Democrats that he will vote for them, no matter how terrible they are.
I want him to be oppositional. I’m against the Democrats as long as they keep being the “lesser evil”.
Pretending to fight the greater evil, but then immediately caputulating and building out the tools that they use to be evil is enabling the greater evil. Calling the lesser evil out for pretending is not enabling the greater evil.
Yup, it’s not so much the compromise as it is which compromises. Compromising international rule of law by turning a blind eye to Israeli occupation and settlement is a different matter than compromising a hardline universal healthcare stance.
If Bernie didn’t do that it would have been a guarantee that Trump won. The DNC wasn’t going to run anyone else so that was the only thing he could do. I’m not saying I’d do it myself, personally, but I understand the position he found himself in.
No, but his polling that was better than Clinton in red state supports the belief that he would have won.
Also, it was rigged, Bernie sued the DNC arguing that it was. The DNC pretty much admitted it as their defence:
“…the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ as a mere political promise—political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts.”
The “DNC” doesn’t run anyone, they support the Democratic candidate once chosen.
I respect Bernie. It’s his right to run. When he’s lost, he’s always accepted it and endorsed the Democrat. He never claimed he was cheated or that the elections were rigged. He has integrity and understand that gradual improvement is better than straight regression.
Wish I could say the same for a chunk of his supporters though.
That’s funny, he also endorsed her candidacy.
The fuck else were his options?
He could have said “I’m not endorsing her, until she gives us <insert any number of highly-popular policies that the Dems keep fighting to keep away from their voters>”.
What would that have accomplished other than playing into him being controlled opposition?
It’s political leverage. A lot of voters will follow Sanders’ lead. The threat of a lot of people not voting for Harris would have pulled her to the left, and made her give consessions. Instead, he signaled to the rest of the Democrats that he will vote for them, no matter how terrible they are.
I want him to be oppositional. I’m against the Democrats as long as they keep being the “lesser evil”.
Then you’re enabling the greater evil.
Pretending to fight the greater evil, but then immediately caputulating and building out the tools that they use to be evil is enabling the greater evil. Calling the lesser evil out for pretending is not enabling the greater evil.
Can’t help but to see this view as naively idealistic.
If you like. I can’t help but see continued support for the lesser evil as naively defeatist.
I don’t know, let’s ask all his idiot fanboys that refused to vote.
It was that or trump lmao.
A bunch of his supporters seem to have wanted Trump then.
Huh, it’s almost as if he understands compromise/tactics/political game theory instead of being a hopeless idealogue. Imagine that.
Yup, it’s not so much the compromise as it is which compromises. Compromising international rule of law by turning a blind eye to Israeli occupation and settlement is a different matter than compromising a hardline universal healthcare stance.
If Bernie didn’t do that it would have been a guarantee that Trump won. The DNC wasn’t going to run anyone else so that was the only thing he could do. I’m not saying I’d do it myself, personally, but I understand the position he found himself in.
As usual, nuance/context is a thing.
Reminds me of the people saying that if he didn’t let the DNC rig the primary against him in 2016 then Trump would have won.
Good thing that decision resulted in Trump not winning, right?
Trump beating Clinton doesn’t mean Sanders would have won. What a baseless argument.
And nothing was “rigged”. Stop being blue MAGA.
No, but his polling that was better than Clinton in red state supports the belief that he would have won.
Also, it was rigged, Bernie sued the DNC arguing that it was. The DNC pretty much admitted it as their defence:
If you haven’t learned about this yet then now is the time
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/23/487179496/leaked-democratic-party-emails-show-members-tried-to-undercut-sanders
The “DNC” doesn’t run anyone, they support the Democratic candidate once chosen.
I respect Bernie. It’s his right to run. When he’s lost, he’s always accepted it and endorsed the Democrat. He never claimed he was cheated or that the elections were rigged. He has integrity and understand that gradual improvement is better than straight regression.
Wish I could say the same for a chunk of his supporters though.
You mean the same DNC that argued in court that they can support whatever candidate they want, despite what the voters say?