After Clinton's big wins: exactly why is the onus on the winner to placate the loser?

[bigtree]

Michael Tomasky ‏@mtomasky
New Column: After Clinton's big wins: exactly why is the onus on the winner to placate the loser?

It’s All Over but the Shouting: Hillary Clinton Crushed Bernie Sanders
It’s time for the guy with some of the Democratic vote to gracefully give way to the woman with much more of it.

Another handful of Clinton wins in big states, and the margins grow. I’m writing before the full pledged delegate count from tonight is known, but she led by 244 coming into tonight, not counting super delegates, and that may grow by another 30 to 40.

As for the popular vote, she led it by a lot coming into Tuesday night: 10.4 million to 7.7 million, a nearly 2.7 million-vote difference, or 57 to 43 percent, numbers that we call a landslide in a general election. She may have added a couple hundred thousand to that margin tonight. Depending on what happens in California and New Jersey, this could end up being close to 60-40.

So forgive me for being a little confused about why these margins give Bernie Sanders such “leverage” in what we presume to be his looming negotiations with Hillary Clinton over the future of the party of which he’s not a member. It is “incumbent” upon Clinton, he told Chris Hayes on Monday on MSNBC, “to tell millions of people who right now do not believe in establishment politics or establishment economics, who have serious misgivings about a candidate who has received millions of dollars from Wall Street and other special interests.”


...the signals from Sanders-world are mixed. One thing’s for sure: There is no expectation that Sanders will behave like Clinton did in 2008. It’s worth examining why.

On the one hand, it’s understandable. He’s not a Democrat, so party loyalty isn’t a thing here. And the main thing is that the ideological differences between Sanders and Clinton are greater than between Clinton and Obama, or John Edwards and John Kerry, or Bill Bradley and Al Gore. The people voting for Bernie are voting to reject Hillary’s politics in a more fundamental way than the people voting for Bradley were rejecting Gore.

On the other hand… the media’s expectations of these people hinges so greatly on the personality types they establish, and that the media just accept them. No one expects Sanders to be a team player because he’s a guy (emphasis on guy) who has always agitated outside the system. Whereas everyone expects Clinton to behave properly because she’s a woman (emphasis on woman) who has always been the type to do what’s expected of her.

If this were two men, the onus would clearly be on the one who’s behind to play ball and do the responsible thing. But I can’t help suspecting that the media are going to put the weight on her in these next few weeks: Will Hillary accept Bernie’s conditions?

She shouldn’t accept conditions. But she absolutely should take steps to mollify his voters. She’s going to have to. However, she should do it like someone who’s ahead 57-43 should do it. She should say: Sure, I’ll adopt a couple of your positions. But I have a couple of conditions of my own. If I hear the words “Goldman” and “Sachs” coming out of your mouth one more time, if I see any more fund-raising appeals that paint me as the harlot of Wall Street, the deal is dead, and I’ll call Chuck Schumer and make sure that you don’t chair the Budget Committee if we retake the Senate, but instead you have the post-office renaming subcommittee. And I may drop some of that oppo I have on you that I’ve never used. You know the stuff I mean.

Sanders should run to the end. He owes it to his backers in California and New Jersey to give them a chance to vote for him. I don’t know anyone who says otherwise. But it’s now time for him to think about his future, and the future of the influence his movement will have in the Democratic Party.

I want that movement to have influence. There are a lot of people like me, who think Clinton is the stronger candidate, but want Sanders to have some influence over her. And to us, it looks like it’s time for him to think less about revolution than evolution.


read more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/26/it-s-all-over-but-the-shouting-hillary-clinton-crushed-bernie-sanders.html?via=desktop&source=twitter

[Orsino]

1. "The winner" is a misleading phrase.

Looks like two candidates will be at the convention with two different numbers of delegates. The onus is on the candidates, the part leadership and the delegates to come up with a ticket and platform, plus any necessary side deals, that the greastest number of people (or dollars) can get behind.

No one has to bow to anyone else. The candidate with the most delegates or other relevant bargaining power will have to do the leadt "placating" (known in grown-up circles as compromising). Isn't that enough?

Winning and losing are absolute tetms that lise relevance the closer we get to the convention.

[bigtree]

4. most votes and most delegates

...and the argument Sanders and his operatives intend to use for superdelegates to overturn those results is based on general election polling which may show Sanders as more competitive against the republican nominee.

The hypocrisy in seeking party insiders to reverse the results of elections is stunning all by itself, but the expectation that they would choose the person who has not only been running against the party, but is actively involved in suing the party, is beyond delusional.

There's more behind their posturing that needs to be clarified. One of the most important issues I see is whether Sanders can bring himself to accept Hillary's agenda. I'm at a loss to understand why her supporters' interests should take a back seat to his.

[Orsino]

10. If it helps, just realize that attempts to flip delegates go on all the time.

Supers may indeed flip up to and during the convention, and I suspect that far more will be flipping the way you want. Depending on the tactics used, there's nothing wrong with wooing potential support.

[Demsrule86]

70. I consider it wrong when you are behind in all measures.

Especially for the Sander's campaign which is supposed to be about the will of the people...guess people does not include Hillary voters.

[Orsino]

91. Might as well have banned Sanders and O'Malley from campaigning at all, then...

...or very early on, as they were always behind.

[Demsrule86]

92. Early on

You have a chance to catch up. But now Bernie is too far behind to win. So his plan is to ask the Supers to overturn Hillary's win. He his ahead by no measure...and it is a sleazy thing to do.

[Orsino]

94. Primaries are still about so much more than declaring a single winner...

...as 2008's runner-up would remind you.

A candidate with an agenda needs to compete for as many delegates as possible up to and even during the convention. Delegates are leverage.

[HumanityExperiment]

17. Rules...

Does HRC have the required number of delegates to earn nomination now?

So until that time she nor Bernie have earned the nomination

Math, current trends on proportional allocation of delegates moving forward and into convention, the ONLY way HRC earns the nomination is through SDs

[CorporatistNation]

86. Hillary Is Going To Get Lambasted OUT WEST and Will "limp" into Philly Essentially TIED With Bernie!

Then the Supers Will be given the chance to cast their lot with a CERTAIN LOSER in Hillary or A CERTAIN WINNER in Bernie! We shall see how it goes!

[bigtree]

89. the revolution against the establishment

...looking to establishment insiders to overturn the will of the voters?



Really?

[asuhornets]

16. Blah Blah Blah

Hillary Clinton is the WINNER, and will be the leader of the Democratic Party..

[snowy owl]

27. That's fine with me. And if without my vote she loses, that's her choice.

If she wants my vote, she may have to compromise with Bernie. But, as the winner of the primary, she can tell me to go to hell. Up to her.

[asuhornets]

30. They both have similiar positions on every issue. n/t

[Duckhunter935]

48. After she temporarily evolved

To his positions, it will not last

[puffy socks]

52. Then there is literally nothing she can do to unite the party because

if she changes , it won't last , according to you.
Or she's just a flip flopper
Or she's just pandering as I have seen others post.
That means calls from Bernie's supporters to "earn" their votes are disingenuous because any effort is futile.

What is it you really want then?

[bettyellen]

79. "What is it you really want then? " to bitterly issue hollow threats?

And continue to insult people on FB and Twitter.

[Andy823]

63. So your vote

Means more than the millions that have already voted for her, and the millions that will vote for her in November? You really need to get a life.

[floriduck]

28. It's this sort of condescending attitude, exemplified by Hillary herself, that

makes fence mending a literal impossibility. But that's okay. The differences in priorities between the two candidates that will keep Bernie's supporters writing his name in if it comes to that.

And for all the Trump threats if he is elected, I say that should have been considered long before this. And that special SCOTUS threat will go nowhere either. I'd expect Clinton and Trump to nominate a justice nearly identical in ideology.

Good luck in the election.

[asuhornets]

34. How

could you not vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is. I'm a staunch Hillary supporter, but if Bernie wins I'll vote for him--what other choice would I have?

[asuhornets]

37. Your words:

"condescending attitude, exemplified by Hillary herself", that's how you feel about her personally, although you've never met her or had lunch with her.

[floriduck]

49. Your words.

"Hillary Clinton is the WINNER, and will be the leader of the Democratic Party." How can you say that? Have you met all the remaining voters in the remaining states? That's what I mean by condescending.

[asuhornets]

56. She has the most votes...eom

[lagomorph777]

64. Also, perhaps the "winner" doesn't want to risk becoming the "loser" in the GE.

The "winner" of the GE will be the one who more successfully gets their base out to the polls. So far Hillary has told the base of the Democratic party to pound sand. Not a great vote-getting strategy.

[TheBlackAdder]

2. She shouldn't! She should say, "Fuck those losers! It's either me or a GOPer in office! Your call!"

[whatchamacallit]

3. Bernie folks see her as less of a winner, and more of a disaster foist upon us by a corrupt system

If she wants our votes she should show it, if not, let the chips fall where they may.

[TheBlackAdder]

7. Politics is about compromise, while holding integrity. Rigidity is a RW trait, doesn't wear well!

[whatchamacallit]

8. Yep

[dawg]

5. Because millions of voters want to know that their voices have been heard.

Bernie voters didn't show up in large enough numbers to prove that they should carry the day on all of the issues, but they certainly came out large enough to have earned a prime seat at the table.

[RockaFowler]

14. What about the millions who voted for Hillary??

I guess we don't count . . .

[dawg]

15. You not only count .... you win.

Your candidate gets to be the nominee and set the overall tone of the campaign. But the Bernie supporters deserve to have a significant influence over that process.

It would be foolish to ignore the wishes of 40% of your own party.

[puffy socks]

35. Bernie is not a Democrat

What proportion of those 40% are Democrats and how many are Independents like Bernie?

[Duckhunter935]

50. You need more than democrats

To win the general election. A point some of you need to remember.

[puffy socks]

54. There's no evidence that demonstrates that a majority of Independednts won't vote for Hillary.

I believe Bernie's tiny fraction of bitter, vindictive supporters won't have that much of an effect on the GE.

[dawg]

59. I would hazard that most of Bernie's voters consider themselves Democrats.

I certainly do.

[LexVegas]

6. It's the double standard of sexism. nt

[TheBlackAdder]

12. I'm a Third-wave Feminist here, and that comment makes no sense other than dropping a term.

[seabeyond]

72. +1. In the history of our politics the loser never had the audacity to demand the winner adopt his

policy. I agree.

[B Calm]

9. I want her to adopt Bernie's position on marijuana.

[snowy owl]

29. His aspirations are higher than marijuana. He'll emphasize SS, income inequality, and US jobs-TPP

My opinion of course.

[puffy socks]

38. I seriously doubt she is going to stand in the way of the states legalizing marijuana. nt

[morningfog]

11. It is always, ALWAYS, the job of the candidate to form a winning coalition.

The candidate is responsible for bringing in supporters. The author is an idiot who apparently doesn't understand basic political science.

[Phlem]

51. +100

Thank You!

[leftofcool]

13. The onus is not on Hillary and Bernie knows it.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. It has to do with democracy and with the fact that 'winning' only happens in November

People who have been big Primary winners include Walter Mondale, Mitt Romney and Al Gore. All of them lost the actual prize after 'winning' the right to try for that prize. It's not so much 'onus' as it is a matter of common sense, if I defeat part of my own Party to get a nomination I simply need to get as many of them on my side as possible in order to be more like Obama than Mondale. It's because pride precedes a fall.

[TCJ70]

19. Because Bernie has garnered 40-45% of the votes in this primary...

...and to ignore that as "fringe" or an outlier is an extremely short-sighted thing to do.

[snowy owl]

31. That's a lot of votes. It's common sense.

I'm surprised at how few people seem to have it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. She shouldn't. Why should Bernie voters support someone who doesn't want their support?

[bigtree]

22. I think she'd welcome their support

...in defeating the republican nominee.

[puffy socks]

40. When did she say that? nt

[JoePhilly]

80. Never ... its a lie being told to ensure maximum outrage continues.

[beedle]

21. It's on her to convince Bernie's SUPPORTERS

... voters that she will need in the General Election .... to vote for her.

But fine, Hillary & 60% of registered Democrats are probably good enough to take on the 50+ million Republican voters who are going to be out in force to vote for 'anyone but Clinton' (yes, even with Trump as their nominee.)

[asuhornets]

57. I believe she will work to bring Bernie's supporters over to her..

I think some will vote for her and some will not. But how she does it, is up to her.

[frylock]

23. Good luck with that strategy.

[ThePhilosopher04]

24. Because she has zero chance of being the winner without Bernie supporters. She's made her own bed

[tokenlib]

45. That bed is already made..is there a sale on daisies??

Some of the comments here have that same arrogance Hillary shows..and that will be lethal. After twenty years the usual Third Way lesser of evils crap just isn't going to fly this time..

[bigtree]

67. what do Sanders supporters get by allowing a republican presidency?

...what happens to all of those fine ideals if they don't join with Democrats to defeat the republican nominee?

The idea that it's Clinton's responsibility to get them to do the right thing is ludicrous. Do Sanders supporters have any sense of responsibility at all in confronting and stopping republicans, or are all of their protestations just reserved for Democrats?

[azurnoir]

25. well Chelsea Mom's backers already said they do not want or need us

and we're taking their word for it by the millions

[Fresh_Start]

26. How about because its a big tent...

and we respect other peoples point of views.
we understand their concerns
we want the country to be better for everyone in need whether they are elderly, children, immigrant, unemployed/under employed.

We care about them because we care about people.

[puffy socks]

42. x10000 nt

[vi5]

32. Because in this situation...

Some would say that it's the foremost job of any candidate to convince as many people as possible to vote for them. Call me crazy though.

Just because someone has convinced a majority of a particular sub-set of voters does not mean they have convinced enough to win a full election.

And just a guess, I'm gonna say in this situation Hillary stands more of a chance of convincing Bernie supports to vote for her than Republicans or independents. But if she doesn't bother and doesn't try and just says "Fuck you, I won!" then she's not going to win the general election.

[HooptieWagon]

33. No reason, unless they want the votes.

Clinton and her supporters have stated they don't need votes from the left. Cool...we won't have to hold our noses and vote for her. 'Party loyalty' is a two-way street. For 30 years the RW of the party has offered the left nothing, so there is no reason for the left to continue supporting the corporatist Third Way.

[Demsrule86]

71. I am not convinced Bernie can deliver the votes

So why would Clinton risk alienating voters who do not like Bernies agenda...or parts of it?

[Lil Missy]

36. Here's the key paragraph:

"She shouldn’t accept conditions. But she absolutely should take steps to mollify his voters. She’s going to have to. However, she should do it like someone who’s ahead 57-43 should do it. She should say: Sure, I’ll adopt a couple of your positions. But I have a couple of conditions of my own. If I hear the words “Goldman” and “Sachs” coming out of your mouth one more time, if I see any more fund-raising appeals that paint me as the harlot of Wall Street, the deal is dead, and I’ll call Chuck Schumer and make sure that you don’t chair the Budget Committee if we retake the Senate, but instead you have the post-office renaming subcommittee. And I may drop some of that oppo I have on you that I’ve never used. You know the stuff I mean."

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. Clinton supporters misread Sanders... because they can't think any other way...

... than naked self interest. Sanders is only interested in personal position to the extent that it gives him a better lever to help people.

If Clinton wants to "mollify" his voters, she's gonna have to do it through policy, not patronage.

That said, she fucks with the Senator most popular among his constituents at her peril.

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. The underlying premise of entitlement comes through in every way, doesn't it?

Clinton supporters think this is about being friends, or being nice.

It's not - it's about winning. She's not going to win without significant support among the 44.6% of people who don't already hate her guts.

[seabeyond]

73. The underlying premise of entitlement comes through in every way, doesn't it?

Yes. Hence the loser demanding the winner to adopt his policies. All about privilege.

[ibegurpard]

41. tgat would actually make sense

If this was a fucking game... which it's not

[LanternWaste]

43. I honestly think the primary winner will in fact, rise above the petulance of supporters

I honestly think the primary winner (regardless of who it is) will in fact, rise above the petulance of many of their supporters and reconcile with their respective primary opponent. Both Sanders and Clinton seems far more mature and adult-like than the majority of their petulant supporters on DU. My guess is they will work together for the common good.

[snowy owl]

46. 60-40 a landslide? I Don't think so. If one in ten had voted for B, it would be 50-50.

And right now it isn't even 60-40 but 57-43. We toss about terms loosely these days. Had Bernie started earlier, had people known the rules for primaries in their states, it could easily be a different result. But it isn't. Still, I don't call it a landslide. And placating is an offensive word to all of us who did vote for Bernie. Forgive me, but I thought to run as a democrat, you had to be a member of the party.

No one expects Sanders to be a team player because he’s a guy (emphasis on guy) who has always agitated outside the system. Whereas everyone expects Clinton to behave properly because she’s a woman (emphasis on woman) who has always been the type to do what’s expected of her.

Does that make sense? Isn't that a sexist statement? I see no evidence for it. And all those threats for committee chairmanships. I know those happen in reality. But there's something unseemly for Tomasky to threaten such moves. Or maybe not. People who don't know may finally learn just how sick our government and politics really are. If she cares about leading with integrity, that's not something I expect to see her do. But then, this primary season has been all about integrity, hasn't it? Thanks to Bernie.

[gordianot]

47. Why not drag those losers through the street in chains behind your chariot.

...at the end of the day set up crucifix and slaughter your opponents. This was the ancient Roman model.

Or as Maxist terrorist imprisoned and brutalized your entire life when released you make reconciliation the central theme of your governance. This was the Nelson Mandela model.

Now the Roman model worked and Mandela who was not a Christian came far closer to the "Due unto others" meme than any Christian I am aware of. I know which model I prefer in leadership.

[nolawarlock]

53. It's the culture we live in today.

These days, everyone deserves a trophy just for showing up.

[riderinthestorm]

55. Shrug, she doesn't. Good luck with that strategy though nt

[Ron Green]

58. 2016 is a big test for American voters, and for the Democratic Party. We seem to have failed it.

That we've let the DNC and a corrupt media influence the vote up to this point and into the near future is indicative of the strength of the grip upon our electoral system by bought players.

Bernie Sanders, while not perfect, has been the best hope for a real change this year, when such a change is truly required. TPP, climate change, unified health care, and peace rather than war are at a tipping point that will be lost with even four years of Hillary Clinton.

To call her simply "the winner" and Sanders "the loser" is to buy into the media's sports-narrative method that keeps our politics in the cultural realm of entertainment, and prevents the kind of groundswell we've seen in this cycle from taking effect. For you and others on this "Democratic Underground" to be aware of the issues listed above and to still support Hillary Clinton is in my view corrupt and worthy of scorn.

[hollowdweller]

60. She won't and I don't expect her too. I expect war and sucking up to wealthy as usual.

Unless Trump pushes her way to the left economically I expect the Clinton admin to be full of guys who worked for the big banks, military industrial complex and more war.

I don't think Citizens United will be changed either.

I expect Hillary to not embrace any economic populism in reaction to Bernie. It will be like the Bush admin with more rights for gays and minorities and more gun control

[jeff47]

61. Ask Clinton. She demanded Obama placate her. (nt)

[bigtree]

65. that's pure fiction

"Did Clinton carry on about her campaign of the people? Did she say it was incumbent upon Obama to prove his worth to her voters? Did she put her forefinger on her cheek for weeks and make Obama twist in the wind? No, of course not.

Four days after the voting ended, she got out of the race, gave the famous 18 million-cracks-in-the-glass-ceiling speech, and 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. I have served in the Senate with him for four years. I have been in this campaign with him for 16 months. I have stood on the stage and gone toe-to-toe with him in 22 debates. I've had a front-row seat to his candidacy, and I have seen his strength and determination, his grace and his grit. In his own life, Barack Obama has lived the American dream...” and so on.

She laid it on thick, and gave a strong and gracious convention speech later."

[jeff47]

75. The detail you ignored was the race was over long before four days after voting

'cause Obama had already won enough pledged delegates to win the nomination before that.

The speech you tout was done after the placating, once she had been promised the SoS position.

This was only 8 years ago. You should have a memory that lasts at least that long.

[bigtree]

83. false

...she was offered the SoS position in December and actually declined a few times before accepting.

[d_legendary1]

62. Another thread calling for Sanders to quit

She's only ahead in delegates despite the vote flipping and disenfranchisement. She didn't crush anyone. If she did she'd have the delegates necessary to win the nomination early on. Its called a primary for a reason. Can't stop, won't stop! Another $20 for Bernie it is!

[bigtree]

66. you obviously didn't read the article

from the article:

"Sanders should run to the end. He owes it to his backers in California and New Jersey to give them a chance to vote for him. I don’t know anyone who says otherwise."

[pampango]

68. If Bernie were winning (I wish), I expect he would be willing to "placate" Hillary's supporters.

Don't you?

They have not treated each other like the republicans have done to each other in their spit-wad fights. That is true for a reason.

[seabeyond]

74. lol, ya, right.

[bettyellen]

82. I think his supporters would be outraged.

[vintx]

69. It isn't. She should stick to being herself and see how that works out.

She's been copying Bernie's positions to fool people and get support, it'll be great when she reverts to being herself. Can't wait to see how that plays out.

I love how he says she shouldn't accept conditions, she demanded them from Obama, but this is different!

"Sanders should run to the end. He owes it to his backers in California and New Jersey to give them a chance to vote for him. I don’t know anyone who says otherwise. "

Dude doesn't read much, does he?

[w4rma]

76. Hillary's surrogates are still calling me sexist. She has some really nasty people supporting her.

"If this were two men, the onus would clearly be on the one who’s behind to play ball and do the responsible thing. But I can’t help suspecting that the media are going to put the weight on her in these next few weeks: Will Hillary accept Bernie’s conditions?"

[oldandhappy]

77. she doesn't have to do anything she doesn't want to do

she had made it very clear she is winning...60-40 is possible

clinton fell in line with Obama because she knew she would run again. Bernie is not running again. He is going to be founding and nurturing a structure for his movement. Vastly different goals. The clinton camp manipulations have become so obvious that threats re Schumer have little impact. they are expected.

[quaker bill]

78. it isn't

If Hillary wins she can run the campaign anyway she wants. That said, Sanders supporters will have won 20 to 22 states, many by large margins.

Hillary can pick to run as the sole alternative to Trump and bet on getting the Sanders supporters out to the polls by default, or she can choose to do something that might inspire more of them. Bottom line however, it is her call. What she does or doesn't do to Bernie has no relevance, he is pretty much used to being out in front and on his own.

It is the millions of supporters, she will need to get back into the WH. She wins, she gets to pick the path forward, that is how it works. Arrogance is generally a poor choice.

[baldguy]

81. Well, when the losers supporters whine like 3 yr olds...

[musicblind]

84. I think the winner of a primary should always work with the other candidate's supporters.

I think the winner of a primary, regardless of who it is, should always work with the other candidate's supporters.

Look at it this way, the nominee represents everyone in the party whether they voted for them or not.

Presumably, if the primaries worked correctly, all of the people voting were democrats. Shouldn't we all have input into the policies of the parties platform? Shouldn't we all be working TOGETHER as welcoming and inclusive party?

If a third of us support policies X, Y, and Z shouldn't, at the very least, a third of our policies reflect X, Y and Z?

[cherokeeprogressive]

85. Grace

[hellofromreddit]

87. Because it's the candidate's goal to win the support of voters?

You don't do that by calling them losers.

[hz_xlnc]

88. because the winner is only winning because cheating

has been adopted long ago by her campaign as a legitimate strategy

[bigtree]

90. lol

Gus Establishment™ ‏@Gus_802 13h13 hours ago
Investigation finds Sanders camp DNC data breach to be true.
https://t.co/0dofDpJ0Hn

[randome]

93. Because they might make a scene in the restaurant?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[BootinUp]

95. Let me pray to Bernie and then get back to you. nt