Vaporous wrote:Sanders fighting for a more progressive platform is reasonable, but I wish he hadn't completely undermined his bargaining position by saying he wouldn't run third party. Of course he shouldn't actually do it, but the threat of it would have given him something resembling actual leverage, which he doesn't have. As it stands he will be closed out of all the committees and defeated on the convention floor- the platform will contain vague sops to the left at best. The party will feel free to run to the center because they have every incentive to do so- they are running against an unpopular maniac.
Never make a threat you're not prepared to follow through on if you can avoid it. You might have your bluff called.
Also, don't open Pandora's box. If Sanders did as you say, he'd be encouraging the idea that not voting for Clinton is a good option, and his supporters might be less inclined to listen when he said to support her after all.
In any case, I expect the Clintonites would have dug their heels in anyway. And they could use it to even more push the idea that he's not a real Democrat, that he's in bed with the Right, etc. It would make him look like a third party fringe candidate trying to split the vote.
No, he made the right call. It may be unfair that his hands are tied like this, but that's the way it is. And he's smart enough to see that, and not use every weapon he could, because he's willing to sacrifice his own short-term advantage (if advantage it is) to keep Trump from winning.
Regardless, I think its too soon to write off any chance of achieving anything at the convention. Their will be pushback to shit like this from the Sanders campaign, and they'll have enough delegates at the convention to raise a major fuss (not that that's desirable for general election reasons). I mean, presuming they maintain a united front themselves, they'll only have to swing, what, about a tenth of Clinton's delegates to have half the delegates on their side on any given issue, right?
Though I do think an argument can actually be made for trying to reach out to the Centre and moderate conservatives, especially in this election. But not if it causes a sizeable chunk of the progressive wing to walk. Its a tricky balancing act for Clinton, made harder by the fact that she personally has basically no credibility with either group.
Still, I think she could legitimately say "I may not agree with you on everything, but I'm better for both of you than Donald Trump." And rare enough for Clinton, that would actually be true. The problem is, the tone is making it come off more as "Fuck you, Sanders supporters!", which obviously isn't helpful.
Its shit like this that makes me question Clinton's reputation for political competency and intelligence.
And yes, I know Debbie Wasserman Schultz is doing it, not Clinton personally. But she's a known Clinton partisan, and I very much doubt she'd be doing this without some indication of Clinton campaign approval.
