.... there is also a great opportunity here to unite the party. From the day that Hillary concedes, there will be a number of centrists who will be deciding whether to stay home in November or to vote for Bernie, or a republican.

So, Hillary should just be sweet and give whatever money she has collected to Bernie's campaign, and then she should launch on her last campaign to make sure Bernie gets every Democratic vote!

Hillary will be no match for a united progressive front.

and won't stand up for what (I think) is right.
I worry that she'll give her voice to Hillary.

This is because I think Warren is a "gradualist", a true-believer in "the free market", and hasn't changed in that respect from her early Republican-oriented years except that she's become the voice of "regulation". Her voice, added to Hillary's team, would give unstoppable power to the idea that Hillary has "moved to the left". Even if it were untrue.

"Regulation" doesn't change the system, it adjusts it so it's more resilient. And politics can be played...

Bernie, on the other hand, is in several respects encouraging actual change. For example, I doubt that Bernie would have any objection to putting the machinery in place first to study how best to do it, then to actually build an universal single-payer health care system. An idea about fixing things by tweaking the ACA this way or that with different regulations isn't in the same ballpark. That's just one example.

He said they'd be running the same campaign. That's how I knew when Bernie threw his hat in the ring that Elizabeth was not going to run.

I cannot see Elizabeth endorsing Hillary. Granted most Democrats fear the Clintons because they keep score and practice petty revenge* against other Democrats that don't kowtow to them, but I don't think Elizabeth will be swayed by that.

I think Bernie was always the better candidate anyway, but Elizabeth gives a barnburner of a speech and would be an asset to his campaign.

* Example for the doubters: The Clintons had a hizzyfit when Bill Richardson endorsed Obama in 2008.
http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/07/18/bill-richardson-bill-clinton-still-mad-about-2008-obama-endorsement/

not absolutely! - but I'm glad you think this way.

... after the disappointment many Democrats feel toward Pres Obama after he campaigned left, was sworn in, and swerved center-right. One would think it's impossible to get anyone to trust a politician again after that, but Bernie's record is bang-on consistent. He tells the truth and is fearless. He's an unconventional candidate to be sure, but if Ireland can vote for marriage equality and if Nebraska can ban the death penalty, Bernie Sanders can win the presidency.

Cheers.

The question is will she first endorse Bernie. My guess is that she will wait until Bernie drops out before endorsing anyone, so as not to slight either one.

That's just because of the contradiction between their approaches to the politics of economics.

I don't know who she'd support, though - she hasn't said, and all the contenders aren't declared yet.

But I like how you push the meme "after Bernie drops out" -- attaching inevitability to a Hillary win.
I know, I know, you guys don't like others laughing at your insistence that Hillary is "the anointed one". You don't like being so easily mocked. So you deny that it's your meme. But the reality is different - and I like how you show it.

Stay tuned. A lot can happen between now and the primaries, and I'm not making any predictions.

we'd have not started this primary season where -they- left off.

But then if wishes were fishes we'd have at least solved world hunger.

upset with Hillary (and Bill) at the time. But it is really to her credit that she came out and strongly supported and campaigned for Obama, which went a long way towards mitigating the PUMA effect and getting Obama into office. She didn't have to do that -- obviously she had to endorse him, but she didn't have to be such a strong supporter, she could have just sort of gone with the flow.

I think that's another thing that carries over...the same is true for Sanders supporters relative to Bernie.

Which is why I don't judge her by DU posters and what they say.

but it would have been nice if they had been able to control themselves. Apparently that ship sailed and is still sloshing around.

As great as they looked on the internet, there was never a PUMA movement; Hillary's supporters came out in droves for Obama.

And despite the holier-than-thou chest-thumping here, Bernie's voters will come out in droves for Hillary.

I had not seen the post like this about what Hillary would do.

This is all so childish and unneeded but I feel like someone's old nasty grandma saying this.

So, whatever. I do know that it is on all sides and I am going to try my hardest to stay out of it all.

Just a response to this flamebait.

Yes, I took the bait =)

The mentality behind it clearly remains, though.

Political problems w.r.t. war, death, and a certain amorality that clusters in that realm.
People will talk about that, and it all can't be dismissed with a hair-on-fire icon and a quote "Bhengazi!!!"

Problems she might've had in '08 are compounded by e.g. her raking in $25M in one year from "speaking fees", in a sense eliminating the lobbyist middle-man and taking the money directly, in huge chunks.

I don't care how and why you say that's "OK" and "normal" and "ethical", and I'm sure you have never-ending arguments to that effect. It's a topic that a Clinton supporter most wants to avoid, for good reason.

It isn't an experience ANY "everyday American" except her family has ever enjoyed. I can't think of any politician, in any country, more brazen about putting a hand out for a payoff.

These are real problems and unless they're addressed and put to bed, and I don't see how that can be done, no, voters who care about those things won't come out in droves for Hillary. A "hope and change" momentum won't happen because that momentum depended on factors that don't exist for Hillary.

Show me where there's evidence that the average voter (not the people hanging out on a politics blog), care for a moment about speaking fees, emails, Benghazi or any of the other "new" issues.

Then you claim that HRC has no problems.

Then you ask me to provide you with some kind of proof that voters give a shit about war, corruption, graft,.....
Sigh. That's so mundane.

No - the discussion is ended because we've both said our piece.

Feel free to show where I'm wrong...or not.

jeez....

She's the one who turned us off.

I'll vote for her if I have to but I won't like it.

Having been around here for a while, I suspect that if he doesn't get the nomination and chooses to close Party ranks by campaigning for HRC (should she be the nominee) ... the loudest of his supporters here will shout "sell-out" from the top of their lungs.

I like and respect you 1StrongBlackMan and I don't want to argue with Hillary supporters who are legitimately criticizing other candidates.

My beef is with the op and his tactics.

it seemed framed as an opportunity (Bernie closing ranks and campaigning for HRC) versus a lost opportunity (Bernie not closing ranks and not campaigning for HRC) ... though I think the question might be moot, as I think Bernie will close ranks.

Some people are interested in honest debate and the op isn't one of them.

Way to keep it humble, huh? Nothing brings the party together more than "you've lost, deal with it" before a single primary vote has been cast.

I'm curious.

Last I looked the House was gerrymandered almost completely beyond any hope of returning to Dem control. Most estimates have somewhere between 30-50 House seats even being competitive; the Dems would have to virtually sweep the board to take it back. Not quite impossible, but close enough.

but my guess is the chances are something like 5%, maybe 10% at best.

our chances in the house are pretty fuckin' slim, too.

Those were epic primary fights, and the parties had legitimate fears about uniting. This match is set to make the Gore and Bradley race look exciting.

Sanders is not a significant enough figure to have the sort of impact on the race you describe, positive or negative.

If I have to vote for her, it will be done holding my nose.

Because I will therefore conclude that there's absolutely NO hope for the common citizen to have a voice in our political system, that you can't trust ANY politician, and that the best we will ever get is bullshit and broken promises. So why fucking bother?

Seriously, I can deal with having to vote for HRC if she's the eventual nominee, just to hold the Republicans at bay. But if I have to deal with Sanders campaigning for her, all bets are off. I think I will have to call in sick on voting day - because I will be literally sick.

And that's how it works.
And since we do need to unfuck the Supreme Court, I'm glad that's how it works. It's unrealistic to think he'd withhold support.

Since he is a gentleman, and the soul of diplomacy, I'm sure he would concede gracefully, graciously wish her the best, remind his supporters to vote for the nominee, and then quietly step out of the way.

If he were to start "actively campaigning" - that is, trying to convince the electorate that Hillary is all that and a bag of chips - I think I might want to just bang my head against a wall until I lose consciousness.

Sorry.

It's early days yet, and frankly, I resented the OP - which certainly colored my response. I'd prefer to simply let things play out however they play out, instead of wasting time on hypotheticals.

Oh great prognosticator.

Embrace Bernie's policies and principles? Will she announce she's now a Socialist? Will she offer him a spot on the ticket?

You don't honestly expect him to win the nomination...do you?

Not as Bad? Hold your noses? More commercials?

Hillary won't have to reach out. In this fascinatingly benign and rosy scenario, Bernie will gracefully concede and then throw his support to her. Then all his supporters will rally to her banner, no questions asked and no reaching out necessary.

All that's missing from this tale is "Once upon a Time" and "Happily ever After. The End."

(if she be the nominee) for reaching out to the "progressive left", as represented here on DU, would be to drive the busup to the corner of DU and Left, and open the door, for them to climb aboard and take a seat, or not; because there are more than a few progressive left DUers that have already declared there is nothing HRC could do or she to sway them.

Q. OK Bern, since you lost and it's a contest between Hillary and Jeb, equal candidates across the board as they're family friends, have equal family ties to the office of the President, are supported by the identical billionaire funders and each have approx. $2.5Billion to promote themselves, we're asking you which of these candidates do you personally endorse? Which of these two candidates will you put your name to -- and you HAVE TO DO IT, Bern. You have to say you endorse one against the other. If you don't, we'll call you all kinds of mean names, Bern. We'll give you the Kucinich treatment, the McGovern treatment, Bern. Only we'll modernize and update it. You want to know what we mean by that, Bern? Just read DU, read the posts by HRC supporters about what they think about Kucinish and McGovern and Carter and all the wimps, Bern. Those are the supporters of the WINNING/$$$$ Dem candidate, Bern -- and they should give you the idea.

but in terms of attitudes, not government programs.

adults here

But never mind the timing. Do you think what I said is incorrect?

How is that a bad thing? Oh, I think I'm getting something here: the notion is that Bernie couldn't beat a Jeb, or any of the others. All I have to say is the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. And may the citizens speak by electing Bernie!

Bernie Sanders could very well stay in the Democratic primaries longer than people are predicting. The longer he lasts, the better his chances of actually winning. He's a progressive, and the voters will turn to a progressive sooner or later. This could be the time. If, not "when," Sanders has to concede, I believe he will enthusiastically support Clinton.

This is silly. The primaries/caucuses are a long way off.

But even if Sanders does lose, he will obviously not work against the party.

Quit trying to denigrate the posters who support a different candidate by presuming that there's anything other than a statistically insignificant number who won't vote for the nominee, whether it's Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley or someone else.

This thread needs to be locked and moved to "Creative Speculation" even though it would not be the most likely speculation in there.

endorsed anyone and no one noticed.

But from what little I do remember, this feels a little different. First of all, the fact that there's basically nobody else there almost makes Bernie Sanders "the other guy" by default. Kucinich felt like the number 6 guy in a crowded field. It's not impossible that Bernie could get up to like 25 percent, which will make his support considerable in the GE.

Yeah, you made yourself irrelevant to me with your anti-SI Swimsuit edition post.

Keep appealing to your fan base.

SQUEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

would vote for her in a heartbeat.

I don't want a pony, I want the SI Swimsuit issue!

The minute she takes the oath of office, all teh sex scenes come out of Game of Thrones, too

Bernie has to run a very competitive campaign.

Otherwise, if he did not create a big-enough wave, Hillary could simply ignore his supporters, and like so many times in the past, point out that we need to get behind the nominee and offer nothing to the progressives in the Party.

However, if Bernie does well enough, he and his supporters cannot be ignored. They will have to be reckoned with. If the nominee could not support a more progressive agenda, then it could create some divisions within the Party.

I think Bernie will do very well.

Are secretly working for the other one.

I think this is a perfectly appropriate response.