Sanders campaign admits it wants to hurt Clinton, even if that means helping Trump

[SFnomad]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/19/1528489/-Sanders-campaign-admits-it-wants-to-hurt-Clinton-even-if-that-means-helping-Trump

Bernie Sanders has no plausible path to secure the Democratic nomination: To earn a majority of pledged delegates, he'd need to win 68 percent of those left outstanding, even though he’s only won less than 46 percent of available delegates to date. But instead of acknowledging this reality, Sanders’ campaign is now taking a scorched-earth approach toward its opponents—even if that means helping Donald Trump win the White House.

An alarming new report from the New York Times details Sanders' destructive ramp-up, explaining that the senator is now hoping to "inflict[...] a heavy blow on Hillary Clinton" and is "willing to do some harm to Mrs. Clinton" so that he might "arrive at the Philadelphia convention with maximum political power."

And the Sanders campaign is quite insistent that it doesn't care whether its attempt to seize this supposed fount of power jeopardizes Democrats' chances at holding the White House, as long as it keeps Sanders' non-existent hopes alive:

[oldandhappy]

1. This was never said. I have been looking.

[Chasstev365]

7. And the expect us to vote for Hillary in November?

[ucrdem]

16. It was a headline in yesterday's NYT... here's a screenshot tweeted earlier by Paul Krugman:

[Cal Carpenter]

18. No has said this but that headline writer

There is no direct quote or attribution of the word 'harm' in that NYT article.

Yet it is repeated and believed, over and over.

Someone here at DU started an OP with that headline yesterday and added quotes around "harm clinton", reinforcing the belief that someone in Sanders' campaign actually said it.

I've seen no evidence of that. None.

I'm pretty sure it is horseshit.

[scscholar]

2. It's part of the Bern it down strategy...

which seems to be working.

[nc4bo]

5. And in the right corner, we have Hillary's Scrotched Earth policy

There! Nothing left!

[kaleckim]

8. It's working

to alienate lots of people, and is insane given how horribly she's polling nationally and in key swing states. This propaganda (and that's all it is, who the hell will fall for this that isn't already lost to logic to begin with) is so short-sighted. I think that they just assume that they'll throw the kitchen sink at him and the left will just fall in line. Stupid decision, shouldn't be assumed for many reasons.

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. And she's ready to take on Trump?????????

She's still struggling with the Bern.

[scscholar]

19. He is a better candidate than tRump...

so I don't understand your point.

[TheCowsCameHome]

21. If she thinks Bern is playing hard, she

ain't seen nothin' yet.

Trump and the long knives are itching to carve her up.

What she's getting from Bern is patty-cake compared to what she'll be facing.

[juxtaposed]

3. The clintons have and will be the only ones that hurt themselves. trump nor Sanders can do any

harm to an already harmed package

[SusanCalvin]

4. Sound kinda desperate, don't they? nt

[HooptieWagon]

6. Clintons wounds are self-inflicted.

Sanders has run a clean campaign and gone easy on her. If she can't handle that, she's def unprepared to handle Trump in the GE, let alone Putin at the negotiating table. Maybe she should just wrap up her campaign now, and start preparing her criminal charges defense.

[TheCowsCameHome]

9. Another unsolicited contribution to the Onion.

[frylock]

11. Link to quote kplzthx

[Cal Carpenter]

12. No one said that but the NYT

They put it in the headline and repeated it in the article. But it was never in quotes or attributed to anyone.

That headline has been repeated and quoted continually since then and it gives the impression that it is a direct quote from the Sanders campaign.

It is so fucked up.

[kaleckim]

17. And obvious

are these people closet Jill Stein supporters? Might as well be.

[Scootaloo]

13. This is the third op-ed I've seen based on the NYT op-ed

Said op-ed from the NYT has no substantive basis for its claims. It's fifteen hundred words by three writers, of pure blathering nonsense, based on the premise that - jeeze oh pete - Sanders plans to go to the last primary. Everything past that statement is wild extrapolation and expression of editorial bias.

What I'm saying is that the NYT piece is pure shit. Not even bullshit, it's pig diarrhea. All the stacked-up op-eds that cite it, such as this one from Dkos, are just compounding hte liquid stench, and making ther authors and proponents look like dumbfucks.

[global1]

14. This Is Just Another Feeble Attempt To Demonize Bernie....

and the Hillary supporters are falling for it hook, line and sinkHer.

Bernie has stuck to the issues this whole campaign and intends to do so until California & D.C.

I can't fathom why - if the Hillary supporters know the math is against him and they know he can't win - why are they so afraid of him that they have to demonize him?

Do they actually have doubts about their candidate?

[RichVRichV]

15. Now there is some high level projection.

Considering only one campaign has said it wants to "disqualify" the other.


How dare another candidate be in the race to win it! We will have our coronation by god! All you peasants need stop interfering!


And here I thought she was this battle hardened candidate ready for anything thrown her way. Is she strong or is she weak? Would you pick a stance already.

[jillan]

20. No the Hillary camp is doing a fine job on their own. The lies they told about NV will NEVER

be forgotten.

They crossed the line this time.

You cannot attack other democrats for 2 days straight and think they will ever support her, ever.
The proverbial gauntlet has been thrown down.