Clinton dodged a question from Cuomo on whether she would choose Sanders as her running mate. “What brings us together is Donald Trump. I think that’s what brings us together,” she said, after remarking that would be a discussion for later. Assessing her chances against Trump, Clinton said the party would unify. “That doesn’t mean we won’t have some vigorous discussion and debate about issues, about the platform, about all of the process of a convention. I welcome that. I think that’s healthy. I think bringing people into the party giving them a voice at the end is going to help us in the fall. I think as I said I will certainly do my part and more to reach out and bring in Senator Sanders’ supporters and I have every reason to expect he’ll do the same,” she said.

The cynical view of these comments is that Clinton isn’t actually prepared to make any meaningful concessions towards Sanders and his supporters. Some press reports indicate that Democrats are increasingly fearful about turbulence at the Philadelphia convention, as loosely knit groups of Sanders backers appear to be hinting that something is afoot. Perhaps Clinton is preemptively trying to mollify Sanders and his angrier supporters without actually intending to give them anything. Meanwhile, from the other side, you’ll probably hear some pro-Clinton voices saying something like: Why should anyone make any concessions to the guy who lost??? Sanders and his supporters are out of control!!! Screw ’em!!!



AD

AD

So here’s a suggestion: It’s possible the Clinton camp might actually conclude it’s in her best interests to make some real concessions towards Sanders, which is to say, this wouldn’t be about giving away stuff to the undeserving, demanding loser that some Clinton supporters keep seeing in him. Meanwhile, he might conclude it’s in his interests not to ask for too much, in order to make resolution possible.

There’s a fair amount of angst out there among liberals today about this New York Times piece, which darkly warns that Sanders might be willing to “do some harm” to Clinton in the quest to win California on June 7th. The piece also says:

Advisers to Mr. Sanders said on Wednesday that he was newly resolved to remain in the race, seeing an aggressive campaign as his only chance to pressure Democrats into making fundamental changes to how presidential primaries and debates are held in the future.

This will irritate some pro-Clinton folks. But it’s actually not a crazy thing to push for. It is not as if the Democratic Party’s handling of the process has been perfect. The process in setting the debate schedule was flawed, which the DNC essentially conceded when it added more debates. Even if you don’t think the number of debates matters that much, or think claims of a rigged debate schedule are overblown, surely a more transparent, rational, confidence-inspiring process could be created for establishing their number and timing. Doing that would give Sanders the sort of moral and process victory he appears to want and benefit the party over the long term.

On primaries, it’s not that hard to imagine the two camps agreeing, among other things, to push to make it easier for people to register at the last minute as a Democrat, a compromise Sanders might accept in lieu of opening up primaries to independents. Yes, such reforms are hard to achieve, with a lot being determined on the state level, but the party could coalesce around broad principles and push for them. Yes, there could be lingering disagreement, since Sanders supports (and benefited from) caucuses, and many view them as undemocratic. But that doesn’t mean agreement in some areas is impossible. And besides, as Ed Kilgore says, there’s always the option of punting all this to a commission.

AD

AD

What’s more, as Kilgore also notes, it would not be all that hard for Clinton and Sanders to agree on some common policy ground, with Clinton making a meaningful commitment to prioritizing some of his issues without appearing to shift too dramatically or in a way that constrains her later. The point is that, if both sides want to compromise on these matters, and move past the “endless litigation over who wronged whom,” as Ryan Cooper puts it, the details become a whole lot easier.

As for suggestions that Sanders will still “do some harm” to Clinton, let’s see how much he spends on TV ads in the remaining contests, what those ads say, and what sort of rhetoric he employs before getting too carried away.

Look, things could always get very contentious. There’s no denying that. The key question ultimately is whether Sanders will do all he can to persuade his supporters that the outcome was legitimate. His campaign is playing coy on this question. For now. But still, all of this could still end up being consistent with a scenario in which Sanders does not burn the house down in the end. Things could look very different to Sanders once all the voting is over, he has made one last pitch to super delegates, and there is nothing left to do but get serious about using whatever leverage he has to win some actual concessions. He may decide that doing this, and channeling his and his supporters’ energy into defeating Trump, and then into trying to influence the Clinton presidency, is more likely to keep his movement and influence alive.