PORTSMOUTH, N.H. — After 14 months of policy clashes and moments of mutual disdain, Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination on Tuesday, clearing away the last major obstacle to a united Democratic front heading into the party's convention this month and the general election this fall.
Entering the high school gymnasium together and waving and shaking hands along the rope line and from the stage, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders stood before a giant American flag image flanked by Mrs. Clinton's motto, "Stronger Together." They appeared to chat briefly before Mr. Sanders spoke, and he patted her on the back — yet no hug — before Mr. Sanders stepped forward to cheers to "Unity!"
"Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nominating process," Mr. Sanders said, as cheers erupted and Mrs. Clinton broke into a wide smile. "And I congratulate her for that. She will be the Democratic nominee for president, and I intend to do everything I can to make certain that she will be the next president of the United States."
"I have come here to make it as clear as possible why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0)
Bernie should have endorsed Jill (or even Gary). Hillary couldn't be further from his beliefs. The platform claims to have adopted his policies, but does anyone believe they'll stick with it?
13% of Sanders voters are voting for Jill, and 10% are going to Gary:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/02/cnn-poll-13-of-sanders-supporters-are-ba
He has a better chance of seeing some of his policies come to be with Hillary than with either Trump or people who can't win.
Quote from: coredumped on August 03, 2016, 11:33:03 AM
Bernie should have endorsed Jill (or even Gary). Hillary couldn't be further from his beliefs. The platform claims to have adopted his policies, but does anyone believe they'll stick with it?
13% of Sanders voters are voting for Jill, and 10% are going to Gary:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/02/cnn-poll-13-of-sanders-supporters-are-ba
He endorsed Hillary to help ensure Trump doesn't get elected.
I still believe that 3rd party candidates are irrelevant due to the EC process that actually
appoints the POTUS.
And if you listen to Bernie, even though he's endorsing HRC, he's also telling you to elect more independents in government at the local & state level so that they can ascend to the national platforms and maybe one day there can be a serious conversation of a 3rd (or more) party that's actually relevant.
Quote from: coredumped on August 03, 2016, 11:33:03 AM
Bernie should have endorsed Jill (or even Gary). Hillary couldn't be further from his beliefs. The platform claims to have adopted his policies, but does anyone believe they'll stick with it?
13% of Sanders voters are voting for Jill, and 10% are going to Gary:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/02/cnn-poll-13-of-sanders-supporters-are-ba
The Green Party doesn't invest a dime into state infrastructure and siphons money from municipal races they could actually win, so they can run a candidate who'd rather try and get into the DNC and hold rallies under underpasses, than run a real campaign. I spent YEARS of my life trying to help get them established in a few states, in my professional capacity, but it always comes back to the fact that they do not want to invest in what it takes to build an actual party in the United States - like hiring professional staff, for example. It's a 20-30 year process and the more they push back actual party-building, the longer, and less likely it'll be, before they're able to stage a legit run for President. What's happening with the Libertarian Party is the culmination of a LOT of hard work on state and local levels. That's why he may actually end up in the debates, this time. But they still have at least another decade to go before electing people to federal office; Congress, President or otherwise.
In short, the Green Party has only themselves to blame for their predicament and I'm sick of them making a mockery of progressive ideals. They need to spend their cash on races they can win and to build out an infrastructure, so they can have a chance at running an actual campaign for President in 3-4 cycles, from now, the earliest.
Quote from: Tacachale on August 03, 2016, 12:14:38 PM
He has a better chance of seeing some of his policies come to be with Hillary than with either Trump or people who can't win.
If Bernie really cared about who can win or can't, he would have never ran in the first place. Did anyone think he really had a shot against the Clintons? The most powerful family in the country.
Quote from: coredumped on August 03, 2016, 04:01:53 PM
Did anyone think he really had a shot against the Clintons? The most powerful family in the country.
Well, based in the info that's been released, I'd say that the Clinton's and the DNC thought he stood a pretty good chance, otherwise they wouldn't have gone to such lengths.
Quote from: benmarcus on August 03, 2016, 01:56:46 PM
Quote from: coredumped on August 03, 2016, 11:33:03 AM
Bernie should have endorsed Jill (or even Gary). Hillary couldn't be further from his beliefs. The platform claims to have adopted his policies, but does anyone believe they'll stick with it?
13% of Sanders voters are voting for Jill, and 10% are going to Gary:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/02/cnn-poll-13-of-sanders-supporters-are-ba
The Green Party doesn't invest a dime into state infrastructure and siphons money from municipal races they could actually win, so they can run a candidate who'd rather try and get into the DNC and hold rallies under underpasses, than run a real campaign. I spent YEARS of my life trying to help get them established in a few states, in my professional capacity, but it always comes back to the fact that they do not want to invest in what it takes to build an actual party in the United States - like hiring professional staff, for example. It's a 20-30 year process and the more they push back actual party-building, the longer, and less likely it'll be, before they're able to stage a legit run for President. What's happening with the Libertarian Party is the culmination of a LOT of hard work on state and local levels. That's why he may actually end up in the debates, this time. But they still have at least another decade to go before electing people to federal office; Congress, President or otherwise.
In short, the Green Party has only themselves to blame for their predicament and I'm sick of them making a mockery of progressive ideals. They need to spend their cash on races they can win and to build out an infrastructure, so they can have a chance at running an actual campaign for President in 3-4 cycles, from now, the earliest.
Wait... are you saying you are a progressive and you support the Libertarian Party? That makes no sense.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 03, 2016, 04:08:05 PM
Quote from: coredumped on August 03, 2016, 04:01:53 PM
Did anyone think he really had a shot against the Clintons? The most powerful family in the country.
Well, based in the info that's been released, I'd say that the Clinton's and the DNC thought he stood a pretty good chance, otherwise they wouldn't have gone to such lengths.
I'm sure they eventually came around to that conclusion. But I doubt it if the DNC, Clinton or Sanders thought he had a snowball's chance in hell when he entered the race.
Quote from: Adam White on August 03, 2016, 04:08:43 PM
Wait... are you saying you are a progressive and you support the Libertarian Party? That makes no sense.
No I'm saying I'm a progressive, also a campaign/advocacy professional, who is sick of being told by Green Party leadership they aren't willing to spend money on building out state infrastructure. Recognizing the hard earned success of another isn't supporting them.
Quote from: Adam White on August 03, 2016, 04:09:30 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 03, 2016, 04:08:05 PM
Quote from: coredumped on August 03, 2016, 04:01:53 PM
Did anyone think he really had a shot against the Clintons? The most powerful family in the country.
Well, based in the info that's been released, I'd say that the Clinton's and the DNC thought he stood a pretty good chance, otherwise they wouldn't have gone to such lengths.
I'm sure they eventually came around to that conclusion. But I doubt it if the DNC, Clinton or Sanders thought he had a snowball's chance in hell when he entered the race.
And honestly I don't think they were ever in any real danger of Sander's getting the nomination. Wasserman basically said as much back in February-ish when asked about the reasoning behind the setup of the DNC with the Super-delegates. Couple that with a solid presumption that HRC already had a good amount of them already on her side before the election ever began.
I think what frightened them was the groundswell that his campaign managed and how it exposed more of the inner-workings of the party than many insiders probably liked.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 03, 2016, 04:17:40 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 03, 2016, 04:09:30 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 03, 2016, 04:08:05 PM
Quote from: coredumped on August 03, 2016, 04:01:53 PM
Did anyone think he really had a shot against the Clintons? The most powerful family in the country.
Well, based in the info that's been released, I'd say that the Clinton's and the DNC thought he stood a pretty good chance, otherwise they wouldn't have gone to such lengths.
I'm sure they eventually came around to that conclusion. But I doubt it if the DNC, Clinton or Sanders thought he had a snowball's chance in hell when he entered the race.
And honestly I don't think they were ever in any real danger of Sander's getting the nomination. Wasserman basically said as much back in February-ish when asked about the reasoning behind the setup of the DNC with the Super-delegates. Couple that with a solid presumption that HRC already had a good amount of them already on her side before the election ever began.
I think what frightened them was the groundswell that his campaign managed and how it exposed more of the inner-workings of the party than many insiders probably liked.
They were getting the pieces in place to stop Bernie's march, but his campaign dropped the ball too early. They snowballed too late and didn't have a lot of pieces in place till WAY too late.
Quote from: benmarcus on August 03, 2016, 04:14:40 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 03, 2016, 04:08:43 PM
Wait... are you saying you are a progressive and you support the Libertarian Party? That makes no sense.
No I'm saying I'm a progressive, also a campaign/advocacy professional, who is sick of being told by Green Party leadership they aren't willing to spend money on building out state infrastructure. Recognizing the hard earned success of another isn't supporting them.
Got it. Sorry for the confusion.
Apparently, they do have at least 130 GP members in elected positions throughout the US (they appear to be local offices - which is probably a bit of a disappointment after previously having elected members in state government).
Quote from: Adam White on August 03, 2016, 04:28:35 PM
Quote from: benmarcus on August 03, 2016, 04:14:40 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 03, 2016, 04:08:43 PM
Wait... are you saying you are a progressive and you support the Libertarian Party? That makes no sense.
No I'm saying I'm a progressive, also a campaign/advocacy professional, who is sick of being told by Green Party leadership they aren't willing to spend money on building out state infrastructure. Recognizing the hard earned success of another isn't supporting them.
Got it. Sorry for the confusion.
Apparently, they do have at least 130 GP members in elected positions throughout the US (they appear to be local offices - which is probably a bit of a disappointment after previously having elected members in state government).
No worries! GP can be, and has been, SO successful in municipal races. The problem is there's literally zero state infrastructure to build voting blocks candidates can use to move up to the next level. So you're basically stuck with small pockets of people and individuals in a political diaspora, when they don't have to be, in many states. It's beyond frustrating.
https://www.youtube.com/v/EzhgYGG3y2g