Split: Sanders impact on Abortion Laws

[TomC]

This is a rant. And a bit of a derail.
But I just can't help myself.

Back in 2016, I had a lot of conversation with people who disagreed with me. The most frustrating weren't with the conservative Christian Republicans. It was with the Sanders supporters.

A ton of people were convinced that Sanders was the only solution to the problems. So much so, that if they couldn't vote for him, they wouldn't vote or they'd vote third party or something. They were just too ideologically pure to soil their fingers with a Clinton vote.

I believe enough of them followed through to give Trump the win in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. By razor thin, but undeniable, margins. That gave Trump the win in the EC. That gave Trump the power to appoint SCOTUS judges.

And here we are.

I believe that Sanders and his supporters made decisions that might well result in overturning RvW.

The most charitable thing I can think of to say about that is "Don't believe that your vote doesn't count, it does."
Less charitable would be, "Hope you're happy, BernieBros!"

Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

This is a rant. And a bit of a derail.
But I just can't help myself.

Back in 2016, I had a lot of conversation with people who disagreed with me. The most frustrating weren't with the conservative Christian Republicans. It was with the Sanders supporters.

A ton of people were convinced that Sanders was the only solution to the problems. So much so, that if they couldn't vote for him, they wouldn't vote or they'd vote third party or something. They were just too ideologically pure to soil their fingers with a Clinton vote.

I believe enough of them followed through to give Trump the win in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. By razor thin, but undeniable, margins. That gave Trump the win in the EC. That gave Trump the power to appoint SCOTUS judges.

And here we are.

I believe that Sanders and his supporters made decisions that might well result in overturning RvW.

The most charitable thing I can think of to say about that is "Don't believe that your vote doesn't count, it does."
Less charitable would be, "Hope you're happy, BernieBros!"

Tom

Except few of the people you heatedly hated on Sanders and his supporters at actually voted for not-Hillary and not-Biden.

You are screaming at ghosts and phantoms.

Well, and anyone who voted for the Agent Orange or a write-in instead of Sanders. I think there were a couple here who went that route. Take it up with them, maybe?

 

[TomC]

This is a rant. And a bit of a derail.
But I just can't help myself.

Back in 2016, I had a lot of conversation with people who disagreed with me. The most frustrating weren't with the conservative Christian Republicans. It was with the Sanders supporters.

A ton of people were convinced that Sanders was the only solution to the problems. So much so, that if they couldn't vote for him, they wouldn't vote or they'd vote third party or something. They were just too ideologically pure to soil their fingers with a Clinton vote.

I believe enough of them followed through to give Trump the win in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. By razor thin, but undeniable, margins. That gave Trump the win in the EC. That gave Trump the power to appoint SCOTUS judges.

And here we are.

I believe that Sanders and his supporters made decisions that might well result in overturning RvW.

The most charitable thing I can think of to say about that is "Don't believe that your vote doesn't count, it does."
Less charitable would be, "Hope you're happy, BernieBros!"

Tom

Except few of the people you heatedly hated on Sanders and his supporters at actually voted for not-Hillary and not-Biden.

Could you clarify this sentence? As written, it doesn't make sense. I don't want to assume I understand what you're saying.

You are screaming at ghosts and phantoms.

Nope.
I was talking to people. Both in real life and mostly on other forums. I also read tons of posts on forums like DailyKos.

Well, and anyone who voted for the Agent Orange or a write-in instead of Sanders. I think there were a couple here who went that route. Take it up with them, maybe?

There were three choices in the 2016 election. Clinton, Trump, and "whoever wins". "Whoever wins" is the choice made by every non-voter or third party voter.
Like it or not, that's how our presidential system works at this time. Razor thin margins are enough to give all the state's EC votes to the winning candidate.
None of that is new.

I wasn't a member of TFT at the time. So I don't know. But given what I've read here, since last October, I could well imagine a bunch of Sanderistas having voted for Trump.
In the indirect way, staying home or voting third party. Either of which qualified as a vote for Trump since he won the EC.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump won in 2016 because he was deluded enough to think the Blue wall was penetrable.

He or whomever was in control, was right. Clinton was going for the knock out in the South instead of protecting the north, and she nominated a loaf of white bread for the VP that didn't provide anything by VA to the ticket.

There were likely some Sander supporters that were grumped out, but ultimately, Clinton won the popular vote, so clearly the nation liked her more. She (as well as many others) had no idea that Trump could win in the North... or in general, at all. 2016 was a surprise to everyone except Trump's deluded followers.

 

[TomC]

Trump won in 2016 because he was deluded enough to think the Blue wall was penetrable.

He or whomever was in control, was right. Clinton was going for the knock out in the South instead of protecting the north, and she nominated a loaf of white bread for the VP that didn't provide anything by VA to the ticket.

There were likely some Sander supporters that were grumped out, but ultimately, Clinton won the popular vote, so clearly the nation liked her more. She (as well as many others) had no idea that Trump could win in the North... or in general, at all. 2016 was a surprise to everyone except Trump's deluded followers.

I think I agree.
Clinton believed the polling numbers enough to spend too much effort trying to flip states like North Carolina to hold on to states like Wisconsin.
I've referred to that as overconfidence.

But the bottom line remains. Turnout amongst democrats was very low. Trump was better at running a rigged game. He won.

But everyone who didn't vote Clinton in 2016 helped create the SCOTUS that might well overturn RvW. Especially the ones in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. My vote didn't matter much, here in Indiana. Trump swept the primaries, despite all the efforts by the Republicans dominating the state's legislature and political system.

There was no contest here, and all the old school Republicans fell in line. Kiss Trump's Ass or get primaried.
But I voted.
Straight ticket Democrat, even though I don't much care for them.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, I voted for Lyndon Larouche. He'll always represent my needs.

*and we now return you back to our main topic... Roe v Wade*

 

[TomC]

Well, I voted for Lyndon Larouche. He'll always represent my needs.

*and we now return you back to our main topic... Roe v Wade*

If that was in 2016, it was a vote for Trump. If 2020, it was a vote for Biden.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Could you clarify this sentence? As written, it doesn't make sense. I don't want to assume I understand what you're saying.

You are screaming at ghosts and phantoms.

Nope.
I was talking to people. Both in real life and mostly on other forums. I also read tons of posts on forums like DailyKos.

Well, and anyone who voted for the Agent Orange or a write-in instead of Sanders. I think there were a couple here who went that route. Take it up with them, maybe?

There were three choices in the 2016 election. Clinton, Trump, and "whoever wins". "Whoever wins" is the choice made by every non-voter or third party voter.
Like it or not, that's how our presidential system works at this time. Razor thin margins are enough to give all the state's EC votes to the winning candidate.
None of that is new.

I wasn't a member of TFT at the time. So I don't know. But given what I've read here, since last October, I could well imagine a bunch of Sanderistas having voted for Trump.
In the indirect way, staying home or voting third party. Either of which qualified as a vote for Trump since he won the EC.
Tom

As written it makes perfect sense.

You, tom were here.

Your activity was to spew hate on Sanders and his supporters.

Few of those people here voted for, in either election, anyone who was not the democrat.

Not explicitly voting for Biden is voting for not-Biden. And so for not-Hillary.

 

[Derec]

Trump won in 2016 because he was deluded enough to think the Blue wall was penetrable.

There were likely some Sander supporters that were grumped out, but ultimately, Clinton won the popular vote, so clearly the nation liked her more.

Sanders!

And Hillary did not win the popular vote. She got a plurality, but not the majority. If our system was one where popular vote mattered, it would be likely similar to the French system where there is a runoff if nobody gets a majority the first time.

She (as well as many others) had no idea that Trump could win in the North... or in general, at all. 2016 was a surprise to everyone except Trump's deluded followers.

Delusion. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[prideandfall]

The most charitable thing I can think of to say about that is "Don't believe that your vote doesn't count, it does."
Less charitable would be, "Hope you're happy, BernieBros!"

Tom

here's the problem though with this line of thinking:
1. bernie supporters were NOT shy in the least during the primaries about screaming from the roof tops that they would outright refuse to vote for anyone but bernie.
2. the entirety of the democratic presidential platform in 2016 (and 2020 for that matter) was: "trump, amirite?" - the DNC doesn't have a platform anymore in any meaningful sense, it's just the party of neoliberal capitalist status quo.
3. in 2016 and 2020 the narrative was "you HAVE to vote for the democrat no matter what or else trump will win"

thus in conclusion, since a statistically not insignificant percentage of democratic voters said they would absolutely refuse to vote democrat except for this one guy, the problem is that the DNC didn't make bernie the nominee.
if your ONLY argument is "we must get as many votes as possible in order to beat trump" it is 100% your fault if your nominee is someone that a portion of your voting base has loudly sworn that they absolutely will not vote for.

2016 was a clear cut case of "the system" doing it wrong. all the people who were clutching pearls over the idea of trump should have immediately gotten behind bernie if they really wanted the largest voting body possible.
none of clinton's supporters were out on the streets declaring they wouldn't vote unless she was the nominee, and even if you make the argument that clinton has more broad "mainstream" appeal, it's not like people who vote democrat no matter what were going to NOT vote for sanders, and it's not like people who were scared of trump were NOT going to vote for sanders.

if bernie supporters had kept quiet about their intentions and then exit polling showed a big gap in expected democratic voter turnout you might have a point, but this wasn't a secret and it wasn't something the political machine was blind sided by.
after obama, the democrats have reverted to a voting strategy that consists of nothing more than "giving the next oldest member of the ass-kiss brigade their turn at running for president" instead of giving any shits whatsoever about actually winning, or even pretending to address the concerns of the wholly unrepresented in this country: the left.

 

[Swammerdami]

Miscellaneous points:

(1) PLEASE! Tennis matches are won by most sets, not most points. Those are the rules of tennis. Anyone who throws a tantrum ("I had more POINTS; I'm the Winner!") would be laughed at. Presidency is won by most electoral votes, not most popular votes. Same thing as tennis. Trump very seldom says anything intelligent or true, but he was correct when he said that a smart campaign would organize differently if the victory rules were different.

(2) In measuring public sentiment, 51-49 and 49-51 are essentially the SAME. (Assume the numbers reflect chocolate vs vanilla preference.) It is absurd to say "Americans prefer Chocolate" in the one case, and "Prefer Vanilla" in the other. Instead the message should be "Evenly split." This is true regardless of any "margin of error."

(3) In a close election, there will be MANY factors, any ONE of which can be blamed. Bill Clinton caused Gore to lose in 2000 because of his lust for, and lies about, Monica. Gore lost that election because of his stupid campaign decisions. Nader gave the election to Bush. If Rush Limbaugh had taken a month's vacation, Gore would have won. A "butterfly" ballot design in Florida swung the election. Those five statements are not contradictory: They are ALL true.

(3a) Similarly, there are several single-point failures that caused Hillary to lose in 2016. Hillary lost it herself, in several ways. Putin swung the election. The stupid DNC chairman with the hackable password lost it. FBI director Comey certainly lost it. The lackluster VP choice cost the election. These are all true statements. Maybe the Sanderistas lost it too; so what?

Trump won in 2016 because he was deluded enough to think the Blue wall was penetrable.

He or whomever was in control, was right. Clinton was going for the knock out in the South instead of protecting the north, and she nominated a loaf of white bread for the VP that didn't provide anything by VA to the ticket.

There were likely some Sander supporters that were grumped out, but ultimately, Clinton won the popular vote, so clearly the nation liked her more. She (as well as many others) had no idea that Trump could win in the North... or in general, at all. 2016 was a surprise to everyone except Trump's deluded followers.

"Clinton won the popular vote, so clearly the nation liked her more." Please re-read #2 and #3 above.

That the election would be decided by Pennsylvania and other Rust Belt states was obvious to anyone with common-sense about simple math who clicked to fivethirtyeight dot com and read about "tipping states." The website showed a graphic with Pennsylvania conspicuously placed at the fulcrum of a teeter-totter. That website could have been used as a blueprint for where to campaign. Instead Clinton surrounded herself with idiots.

I wasn't a member of TFT in 2016, but I was posting regularly at The.Other.Message.Board. Whenever I pointed out that Pennsylvania was indeed the Keystone for that election, I was met with derision and zero support. Come November I didn't bother with "Told you so;" there were too many other idiocies to whack at.

 

[Gospel]

If you read Swammerdami's post and you don't think it's fucking ridiculous what American's base their votes on, you are a part of America's problem.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Miscellaneous points:

(1) PLEASE! Tennis matches are won by most sets, not most points. Those are the rules of tennis. Anyone who throws a tantrum ("I had more POINTS; I'm the Winner!") would be laughed at. Presidency is won by most electoral votes, not most popular votes. Same thing as tennis. Trump very seldom says anything intelligent or true, but he was correct when he said that a smart campaign would organize differently if the victory rules were different.

I wish people would read comments and quotes in their context. The claim was Sanders voters cost Clinton the Presidency. My comment reflected that in winning the popular vote, it is hard to pinpoint on Sanders voters for her loss. Popular vote does also matter when gauging national and regional popular support. Clinton won some blue states heavy and lost some purple states by a very tight margin. Again, this is indicative of a candidate that didn't fuck up completely. Her loss was historical, only being beaten by 1876's masterful clusterfuck of voter intimidation and backroom politics.

 

[TomC]

The most charitable thing I can think of to say about that is "Don't believe that your vote doesn't count, it does."
Less charitable would be, "Hope you're happy, BernieBros!"

Tom

here's the problem though with this line of thinking:
1. bernie supporters were NOT shy in the least during the primaries about screaming from the roof tops that they would outright refuse to vote for anyone but bernie.
2. the entirety of the democratic presidential platform in 2016 (and 2020 for that matter) was: "trump, amirite?" - the DNC doesn't have a platform anymore in any meaningful sense, it's just the party of neoliberal capitalist status quo.
3. in 2016 and 2020 the narrative was "you HAVE to vote for the democrat no matter what or else trump will win"

thus in conclusion, since a statistically not insignificant percentage of democratic voters said they would absolutely refuse to vote democrat except for this one guy, the problem is that the DNC didn't make bernie the nominee.
if your ONLY argument is "we must get as many votes as possible in order to beat trump" it is 100% your fault if your nominee is someone that a portion of your voting base has loudly sworn that they absolutely will not vote for.

2016 was a clear cut case of "the system" doing it wrong. all the people who were clutching pearls over the idea of trump should have immediately gotten behind bernie if they really wanted the largest voting body possible.
none of clinton's supporters were out on the streets declaring they wouldn't vote unless she was the nominee, and even if you make the argument that clinton has more broad "mainstream" appeal, it's not like people who vote democrat no matter what were going to NOT vote for sanders, and it's not like people who were scared of trump were NOT going to vote for sanders.

if bernie supporters had kept quiet about their intentions and then exit polling showed a big gap in expected democratic voter turnout you might have a point, but this wasn't a secret and it wasn't something the political machine was blind sided by.
after obama, the democrats have reverted to a voting strategy that consists of nothing more than "giving the next oldest member of the ass-kiss brigade their turn at running for president" instead of giving any shits whatsoever about actually winning, or even pretending to address the concerns of the wholly unrepresented in this country: the left.

I do agree with your post here, particularly (3a).

The reason for my rant was a little different, though. I think the biggest single factor was overconfidence by the Clinton Campaign.
But none of those other factors involved people getting in my face like the Sanderistas did. Partly because I was seen as a bit of a traitor. My opinion of Clinton had changed radically through the Obama administration, I no longer despised her as vehemently as I did in 2008. I came to admire her in many ways. I am confident she could, and would, have accomplished more of Sanders' goals than Sanders could have managed.
She was vastly more electable and had vastly more clout on Capitol Hill.

Lots of people really hated hearing that.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That the election would be decided by Pennsylvania and other Rust Belt states was obvious to anyone with common-sense about simple math who clicked to fivethirtyeight dot com and read about "tipping states." The website showed a graphic with Pennsylvania conspicuously placed at the fulcrum of a teeter-totter. That website could have been used as a blueprint for where to campaign. Instead Clinton surrounded herself with idiots.

I wasn't a member of TFT in 2016, but I was posting regularly at The.Other.Message.Board. Whenever I pointed out that Pennsylvania was indeed the Keystone for that election, I was met with derision and zero support. Come November I didn't bother with "Told you so;" there were too many other idiocies to whack at.

You were right to be derided. Clinton was "winning" in the polls, but it turned out that "unknown" was actually Trump support. There was also a major wave of anti-establishment washing across the Western Hemisphere.

There were people like Moore who thought Trump would win, but the numbers didn't seem capable of lying. They did. Trump's influence on the world was unprecedented in our elections. The 'grab them by the pussy' would have Mondale'd any other candidate before 2016.

 

[Toni]

This is a rant. And a bit of a derail.
But I just can't help myself.

Back in 2016, I had a lot of conversation with people who disagreed with me. The most frustrating weren't with the conservative Christian Republicans. It was with the Sanders supporters.

A ton of people were convinced that Sanders was the only solution to the problems. So much so, that if they couldn't vote for him, they wouldn't vote or they'd vote third party or something. They were just too ideologically pure to soil their fingers with a Clinton vote.

I believe enough of them followed through to give Trump the win in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. By razor thin, but undeniable, margins. That gave Trump the win in the EC. That gave Trump the power to appoint SCOTUS judges.

And here we are.

I believe that Sanders and his supporters made decisions that might well result in overturning RvW.

The most charitable thing I can think of to say about that is "Don't believe that your vote doesn't count, it does."
Less charitable would be, "Hope you're happy, BernieBros!"

Tom

Except few of the people you heatedly hated on Sanders and his supporters at actually voted for not-Hillary and not-Biden.

You are screaming at ghosts and phantoms.

Well, and anyone who voted for the Agent Orange or a write-in instead of Sanders. I think there were a couple here who went that route. Take it up with them, maybe?

Maybe not 'few' but enough did that I know some who voted 3rd party rather than for Clinton.

With Clinton, I admit that I was both deeply divided about voting for her and extremely proud and grateful to finally be able to vote for a well qualified woman as POTUS. I have never been fond of either Clinton but I did admire and respect Hillary's achievements and the respect she garnered on the hill and overseas. I still do. Of course, Trump's candidacy pretty much guaranteed that I'd vote for whatever my dog left in the yard over Trump. I won't lie, though. I dressed up to go vote for Hillary and felt a tear or two of long denied pride as I did so.

In general, during the 2008 campaign, I noticed that Clinton devotees were very quick to call support for relatively unknown Obama as misogyny and Obama supporters were quick to call out support for Clinton as racism.

Both sides had good points. I would never have thought so but I read comments and discourse to believe both counts. During the primaries of 2016, the misogyny was very apparent from the Sanders' camp. And I believe that for some people, voting for Trump was voting for a white man over a black man, never mind that Obama couldn't run again. They had to endure 8 years of a black man in charge and by gawd they were going to have the whitest man they could possibly elect just to show Obama's supporters what a real leader looked like. I read some pretty ugly commentary about Melania when she was FLOTUS, much of it actually true. But it wasn't nearly as ugly as what I read about Michelle when she was FLOTUS---including commentary on NPR's news site. It was very very ugly. At least Melania's criticism was about what she actually did or did not do.

 

[TomC]

I have never been fond of either Clinton but I did admire and respect Hillary's achievements and the respect she garnered on the hill and overseas. I still do.

This!

One of the big realizations I had during the Obama administration was the value of clout. No matter how good the intentions or character of the president, without clout on Capitol Hill s/he's just going to stay mired in the muck. While the rest of the Swamp Denizens slither around and gulp down anything they want.

Godzillary had that kind of clout. She was one of the most fearsome predators in The Swamp. She didn't acquire that kind of power by always being nice and playing fair. But she did have it. She could have accomplished more of Sanders' platform than Sanders.
Tom

 

[Swammerdami]

That the election would be decided by Pennsylvania and other Rust Belt states was obvious to anyone with common-sense about simple math who clicked to fivethirtyeight dot com and read about "tipping states." The website showed a graphic with Pennsylvania conspicuously placed at the fulcrum of a teeter-totter. That website could have been used as a blueprint for where to campaign. Instead Clinton surrounded herself with idiots.

I wasn't a member of TFT in 2016, but I was posting regularly at The.Other.Message.Board. Whenever I pointed out that Pennsylvania was indeed the Keystone for that election, I was met with derision and zero support. Come November I didn't bother with "Told you so;" there were too many other idiocies to whack at.

You were right to be derided. Clinton was "winning" in the polls, but it turned out that "unknown" was actually Trump support. There was also a major wave of anti-establishment washing across the Western Hemisphere.

There were people like Moore who thought Trump would win, but the numbers didn't seem capable of lying. They did. Trump's influence on the world was unprecedented in our elections. The 'grab them by the pussy' would have Mondale'd any other candidate before 2016.

I think you completely missed the point. The issue was not whether Clinton's chance for victory was 90% or just 60%. (And anyone who assumed that chance was 99+% wasn't studying the polls.) Clinton should have operated to optimize her success probability regardless of whether that increased her chance from 90% to 92% or from 60% to 62%. Only the tipping states mattered. If those Rust Belt tipping states were really "in her pocket" that meant she was going to win easily, and it wouldn't matter where she campaigned.

When playing a game like contract bridge when success seems very likely, you identify what bad breaks are possible and play to cater for that scenario, however unlikely. Similarly the Clinton campaign should have taken the "safety play."

 

[Elixir]

That the election would be decided by Pennsylvania and other Rust Belt states was obvious to anyone with common-sense about simple math who clicked to fivethirtyeight dot com and read about "tipping states." The website showed a graphic with Pennsylvania conspicuously placed at the fulcrum of a teeter-totter. That website could have been used as a blueprint for where to campaign. Instead Clinton surrounded herself with idiots.

I wasn't a member of TFT in 2016, but I was posting regularly at The.Other.Message.Board. Whenever I pointed out that Pennsylvania was indeed the Keystone for that election, I was met with derision and zero support. Come November I didn't bother with "Told you so;" there were too many other idiocies to whack at.

You were right to be derided. Clinton was "winning" in the polls, but it turned out that "unknown" was actually Trump support. There was also a major wave of anti-establishment washing across the Western Hemisphere.

There were people like Moore who thought Trump would win, but the numbers didn't seem capable of lying. They did. Trump's influence on the world was unprecedented in our elections. The 'grab them by the pussy' would have Mondale'd any other candidate before 2016.

I think you completely missed the point. The issue was not whether Clinton's chance for victory was 90% or just 60%. (And anyone who assumed that chance was 99+% wasn't studying the polls.) Clinton should have operated to optimize her success probability regardless of whether that increased her chance from 90% to 92% or from 60% to 62%. Only the tipping states mattered. If those Rust Belt tipping states were really "in her pocket" that meant she was going to win easily, and it wouldn't matter where she campaigned.

When playing a game like contract bridge when success seems very likely, you identify what bad breaks are possible and play to cater for that scenario, however unlikely. Similarly the Clinton campaign should have taken the "safety play."

I caucused for Bernie in '16. At the caucus, Clinton took the most votes. But that wasn't what discouraged me. What really told me the cause was lost was that the caucus tables for Clinton were populated by suits, and heavily made-up, jewelry-wearing Karens. The Bernie tables featured lots of hair, beards and granny dresses. It was apparent right then that lots of the Bernies weren't going to EVER vote for Clinton, so when she won the nomination I was fairly certain it was over.

 

[TomC]

I think you completely missed the point. The issue was not whether Clinton's chance for victory was 90% or just 60%. (And anyone who assumed that chance was 99+% wasn't studying the polls.) Clinton should have operated to optimize her success probability regardless of whether that increased her chance from 90% to 92% or from 60% to 62%. Only the tipping states mattered. If those Rust Belt tipping states were really "in her pocket" that meant she was going to win easily, and it wouldn't matter where she campaigned.

When playing a game like contract bridge when success seems very likely, you identify what bad breaks are possible and play to cater for that scenario, however unlikely. Similarly the Clinton campaign should have taken the "safety play."

I caucused for Bernie in '16. At the caucus, Clinton took the most votes. But that wasn't what discouraged me. What really told me the cause was lost was that the caucus tables for Clinton were populated by suits, and heavily made-up, jewelry-wearing Karens. The Bernie tables featured lots of hair, beards and granny dresses. It was apparent right then that lots of the Bernies weren't going to EVER vote for Clinton, so when she won the nomination I was fairly certain it was over.

Do you ever wonder why the Clintons allowed Sanders to pretend to be a Democrat and run for the nomination?

And I do mean "allowed". They were clearly the reigning monarchs of the DNC. They didn't have to allow it.

I honestly believe that the Clintons chose Sanders because he was so leftist. He was far too leftist to be any real threat to her nomination. He couldn't possibly get enough support from real Democrats.

I believe that the Clintons picked him in large part to float trial balloons concerning policies. Let Sanders throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks. They could gauge popular support for radical ideas without actually taking responsibility for making the proposals. I think Hillary's plan was to "leave a Legacy", and Sanders would help her figure out what would actually get support.

That last part was speculative, obviously. The first part was just fact. Out of all the people she could have let run against her, why Bernie?
Tom