If HRC gets nominated, she should accept the Sanders movement as equal partners for success.

[Ken Burch]

She's still ahead. It's still more likely than not that she will get nominated.

If she gets nominated, we need her to not just win, but win massively and create a flood tide of Democratic gains.

The best way to achieve that is for her and her supporters to regard the Sanders movement(not the 'bros, most of whom are NOT Sanders supporters)as an equal partner in the future.

This would involved accepting that, even if Bernie doesn't get nominated, his arguments on the nature of the country's problems are in large measure correct and that, while granting that she will have a different strategy to governance and politics than Bernie and those of us who support him have, that she seeks ultimately many of the same goals and welcomes the continued work of activists to achieve those goals(an acknowledgement that recognizes that it was wrong for the Obama administration's strategists to dismiss the Obama movement as a partner as soon as the votes were in). It would also mean acknowledging that the "realism" of the HRC campaign should be blended with the angry optimism that animates the Sanders movement at its best.

This would harm no one in the party, would require no one to lose anything, but would help create a deep spirit of unity and the chance to not just scrape through narrowly in the fall, but score a sweeping victory that might make the currently impossible possible.

[oldandhappy]

1. a well meant suggestion, put pie in the sky

[larkrake]

19. she is a part of a cabal, and Bernie is a pox to them

[JPnoodleman]

2. It won't happen, she is far too arrogant.

[insta8er]

3. The two are on the opposite sides of the spectrum, it will not work. She favors big $$ to much

and will listen to them first.

[hopemountain]

4. she should start NOW.

but highly unlikely. she feels she already has it in the bag and doesn't need us. july will be too late. too much water under the bridge.

[Ken Burch]

5. Earlier would clearly be better.

She needs to break from the usual frontrunner "winners rule...losers drool" attitude.

[immoderate]

6. She has promised to do nothing, because she could 'get it done!'

You want some 'over-achiever.'

--imm

[grasswire]

7. her vision for America and his are opposite.

She is status quo, he is change.

I don't see how this ends well if he does not win. The Millennials (the largest age group of all) will have no place to go.

[Tal Vez]

8. Everyone should have a voice, but not everyone can have a choice.

A successful national campaign requires some degree of consistent focus. A candidate should listen to all of his/her supporters, but in the last analysis, he/she must choose what to emphasize and what to avoid. A candidate who tries to speak for too many competing voices will project chaos. It seems to me that this year, the best argument against Trump is that HE is the candidate of chaos. He is erratic and undisciplined. We should be the opposite.

[joshcryer]

9. She will but no one will believe her.

So it's a moot point.

[Hoyt]

11. That's what I think too.

[joshcryer]

18. The day she leaves office...

...maybe a few people will walk up to her and say, "well damn, you meant it."

[hopemountain]

13. whatever happened to

"better than never" and "it's never too late"?

[joshcryer]

16. It got replaced with "camp weathervane" and...

..."crooked Hillary." Just the continuation of trashing her because she's a terrible politician. Just look at that negative ad comment she made. Obviously someone, somewhere, made a negative ad. Any politician would've said not many as opposed to not any. There, now she's an evil liar, worst person on the planet.

[wilt the stilt]

10. no

He may have some input but certainly not equal. Why should she accept many of his grandiose impossible plans. Free college will not happen. Many states will not accept the money because they will feel they now have to answer to the federal government. That is just the beginning of his unachievable plans.

[onehandle]

12. Was HRC a movement in 2008? Because she was far, far ahead of where Sanders is this year.

Maybe Bernie wants a gig in the Clinton administration.

[andym]

14. Interesting idea-- How do you think that would work?

I am still hopeful that Bernie takes California by a large margin, so this won't be necessary- but I too know the odds aren't great that he will catch her.

So how would this partnership work? Clinton is a pragmatist, so if she thought it would help her, she might go along. One of her problems is that she tends to not set trends, but rather follow pre-existing ones, which to me explains why she embraces so much of the 90's-based Democratic party policies that were too much influenced by Reaganism... At least I'm perfectly willing to believe that she is capable of triangulating leftwards, just as Bill triangulated rightwards. A lot of Du'ers don't seem to believe that.

[AtomicKitten]

15. Bernie would not participate in the New Democrats' agenda.

[wildeyed]

17. That is how it works IRW.

You get a passable politician elected. By that I mean the one you know can be pressured on your issues. And then you pressure them. You give them the votes and the cover they need to get it done. You make it so politically unpalatable for them NOT to act, they are forced to do what you want.

I am not cynical. That is clear-eyed realism on how you get principled things done for real in politics. Clinton CAN be pressured on issues most important to Sanders voters. She already HAS been pressured farther left, so you know that will work. Look at MLK and LBJ for a historical example of that type of relationship.

If the Sanders "Revolution" can get its shit together and figure out how to harness the energy, y'all could do important things too. I am not overly optimistic at this point, but perhaps some of you will splinter off and get this sorted out.

[riderinthestorm]

20. Hillary and Co are doing their damndest to sideline Bernie and his ideas

For example, their comments about not allowing him to speak at the Convention are designed to demonstrate their intent to viciously squash him and his supporters.

In 2008 Hillary used her excellent primary performance to leverage Obama. She negotiated as an equal and got a deal she could live with.

In 2016, Hillary and Co are making sure Bernie knows he'll be lucky to be allowed in Philadelphia at all. Forget any kind of deal making.

The Clintons are notoriously vindictive. They meant it when they said they wanted to destroy and disqualify him. Party unity? Maybe, and definitely the last consideration.

[WhiteTara]

21. He is already working on the platform

isn't that accepting the Sanders movement?

[Ino]

22. Her arrogance & refusal to do just that...

is the most honest thing about her.

IF she did what you suggest (equal partner, accepting, welcoming, acknowledging), you better believe she will kick all of that to the curb once she achieves her objective - First Woman President™ and a bought/bribed/bullied Dem Party to do her bidding.