I hope Bernie Sanders supporters will read this and take heart. In 1984, Jessie Jackson came to the convention in a situation much like Bernie’s position this time. He had a lot of fervent supporters but not enough to win. In return for his endorsement of the ticket, he wanted concessions of real value.
Jessie asked, among other things, for a change to the rules that would push the party in a more progressive direction. As a result of those negotiations, the Democrats agreed to proportional voting for future primaries — the system current in effect. (Jackson had 9% of the delegates after winning more than 20% of the vote.)
But for that change, Barack Obama would not have won in 2008. Hillary would have smoked him. She was winning the big states like Pennsylvania but because of proportional voting, this upstart candidate didn’t get shut out. He was able to make up the difference in other states, particularly caucus states.
Do you think Jessie was gratified upon the election of the first African-American candidate? I recall images of tears running down his face as he listened to Obama’s victory speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_IFzZkki44
That same rule change has also allowed Bernie to do as well as he has. Under the old rules, he would have been steamrolled. Like Obama, he had a real shot. He just couldn’t convince minorities; that’s why he’s losing and apparently not going to pull this out. But do not think that all is lost.
Sanders will insist on real concessions of his own in return for his support of the ticket. Some may be structural, like the one just described. He may insist Hillary adopt policy positions. He’ll get a lot I’m sure because, at the end of the day, his performance will have been far better than Jackson’s and Clinton will really want his people on board in the battle to come.
What he’s done is really impressive. Consider that Hillary froze out all the other highly-regarded candidates (e.g. Biden and Warren) because she seemed so overwhelmingly favored. Sanders hung in far longer than most anyone thought possible.
Negotiations will run for a while now, probably through the convention. Hopefully, like Jessie Jackson, Bernie will get concessions that on some fine day will leave him and his supporters in tears.
I appreciate your optimism, but Hillary Clinton made very clear at the last townhall event that she is going to give no concessions to win Sanders support or the support of those who voted for him.
https://youtu.be/W7wCK41gqMU
You’re reading her comments in too black and white a way. We’re at the beginning of a negotiation process, just as we were in 1984. Each of them has staked out their initial position but it’s ultimately in everyone’s interest to work together.
The discussions between the Mondale and Jackson camps were difficult, even painful, but they got there. I’d be really surprised if Clinton and Sanders didn’t get there too.
while I agree with everything you have written, I want to add,
Yes, we will see, and I believe Clinton will give on some things, but only around the edges, and only then if Sanders now aims at Trump, rather than the Democratic Party and / or Clinton. He simply does not have very much leverage, she has the minority vote, the female vote will flock to her over Trump, and she will pull more of the white vote than Obama did (let me think why). That Princeton poll certainly points that the 18-29 will also come around. The ‘Sanders or Bust’ group is actually pretty small, sort of like the ‘Clinton or Bust’ crowd became irrelevant once Nov. 7 came and it was time to vote. It turns out that most Sanders voters are Democrats, and will vote that way.
Clinton knows all this, and probably so does Sanders. They pay for the best polling.
.
I mostly agree. He doesn’t have as much leverage as some of his supporters thinks he does. But Hillary wants all of his supporters and wants them to be as enthusiastic as possible. Plus Sanders seems like a guy who will drive a hard bargain.
I guess it’s all relative. He’s not gonna be VP. He’s not gonna set the term’s agenda. But he’ll get more than Jessie Jackson got. He’ll get significant concessions. Perhaps Sanders will hold his coalition together and create a lasting movement.
I hear his email list is very much wanted. If he gives that up, he should get a lot for it. A LOT. He’s kind of stuck here, because if he wants big money out of politics, that list is the start. But IMO it loses value as soon as he gives it to the party. They will want the small donors AND the super large donors. That kind of turns that valuable list into just another list, if you know what I mean. If it was me, I would never give the list up.
Just my opinion, and I am sure to get attacked….but Clinton can ‘give’ a lot, because they really are not that far apart on many issues. So she can appear to concede something, when it’s where she wants to go anyway. A sort of FDR ‘make me, and I’ll do it’.
We’ll see. I’m curious. It’s time to see if he is what his fans believe, or what I believe.
Bernie, Play hard. You have nothing to lose. Sell the list at no price!
HRC appeared arrogant and derisive when Rachel Maddow asked her during the town hall about Bernie’s supporters. She made it clear she doesn’t need Bernie’s supporters. This Bernie supporter doesn’t need HRC. A good politician knows it’s a two-way street in politics.
There was less ideological distance between Dukakis and Jackson in ’88 (Hart and Mondale were the main competitors in ’84).
Jackson had far more leverage in ’88 than in ’84
“He may insist Hillary adopt policy positions.”
What use are promises from a liar? Once electe4d she will do what she wants. Or rather, what Goldman-Sachs and JPMorgan want. They paid good money for her and they are going to demand repayment, in YOUR family’s blood.
I get the hard line cynicism. Most politicians are deserving of nothing less. But Hillary knows she’s going to need progressive voters both now and in the future. One doesn’t get far by screwing one’s own. This isn’t 1992 or 1996 when the country was much further to the right and a Democrat had to play conservative. Remember, Bill tried to govern as a liberal before surrendering to the necessity to triangulate and Hillary was thought at the time to be the more liberal of the two.
Jesse Jackson could have the expectation of good faith bargaining on the part of the leaders of the Democratic Party.
This election cycle has so much chicanery in it that Sanders voters no longer have that expectation, especially on policy issues. Regardless of the origins of the chicanery, trust in the electoral system has been diminished once again by the “win at all costs” attitudes of the professional political class. This year there has been no attempt to hide the influence of money and the corrupt manipulation of the voting process.
And Clinton’s betting she can win with no support from Sanders voters.
Sanders voters should take heart and go vote in the remaining primaries, caucuses, and conventions. Its the power you arrive at the convention with that dictates the reality of the negotiations.
And the relative timing of the FBI shenanigans on the Clinton emails and Trump University frauds. A hell of a time to have Republican FBI director and kingmaker.
Sanders voters in CA and elsewhere should vote anyway. First to show that a campaign, albeit a losing campaign, CAN be run without PAC money. And, more importantly, to vote AGAINST the DWS DNC endorsed candidates. Vote down ticket for the most progressive candidates you can. But don’t be fooled by progressives that take the Queen’s Shilling.
iirc 1984 was when the Democratic Party instituted the addition of Super-Delegates to the nomination. IOW – one hand giveth and the other hand taketh.
To say that HRC would have wiped the floor with Obama under the old rules overlooks the fact that both of them would have been playing under those old rules. For example, HRC wouldn’t have been out there before Iowa touting her huge lead among Super-Delegates.
I doubt that would have made a difference. All the big money and connections were with her. Obama could have even wound up with more votes but less delegates. Like I said, Jackson had 20% of the vote but only 9% of the delegates. But I grant you we’ll never know for sure. That’s the nature of speculation. Still, I think the available evidence points to party insider dominance, which is why Jackson negotiated that specific concession.
Frankly, Bernie is a beaten man, and Hillary should give him an ultimatum, either you stand with me, or move aside, because I have better things to do than to listen to you try to hoodwink a party that you were never a part of in the first place. Sanders ran a fine campaign until he and his supporters started a scorched earth tactic. It backfired and now Sanders is left holding the bag. Hillary will welcome Bernie and his supporters back, but it should be on her terms, not his, just like Obama did with Hillary back in 2008. Sanders supporters have to make a decision, go with Hillary or Trump. If you support Trump, then that’s a decision you are going to have to live with.
This comment is over the top. Who are you to tell others what to do? Do you think that Hillary Clinton gives a shit about you even though you are evidently a supporter—a very small fly on the wall that she’ll squish with her hankie as soon as it suits her. Very unpleasant.
At least HRC fans are consistent — sore losers in ’08 and sore winners in ’16. And they haven’t a clue why others have no interest in associating with them.