Democrats are used to being puzzled over the party's conduct. Some of those moments are more acute than others.
I have to admit this one is a head-scratcher: Alexander Bolton, How Senate Democrats are trying to deal with Sanders The Hill 05/19/2016. The story is about Senate Democrats trying to convince Bernie Sanders to drop out of the Democratic Presidential race and leave the field free for Hillary Clinton.
Clinton's campaign has been working on that goal basically since the primary season began.
But what's puzzling is that the effort described by The Hill coincides with the Clinton campaign's attempt to stigmatize Sanders and his supporters as violent rabble based on real and alleged events around last Saturday's Nevada state Democratic convention in Las Vegas. Along with Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Joe Biden on behalf of the Obama Administration, Clinton's campaign is trying to link Sanders to acts of assault said to have been committed by Sanders supporters at the convention and death threats to the Nevada Democratic Chair afterwards. The actual evidence for the assaults seems to be completely missing, as is any link in the public record at this point to an actual Sanders supporter on the latter.
But if the goal of Clinton and the Democratic Party establishment is to persuade Sanders to drop out, why would they decide to lay an anathema on Sanders and his supporters involving their allegedly complicity in felony crimes? At this point, if Sanders drops out, it could be taken as some kind of admission of responsibility for the acts in which the Clinton campaign is trying to hang around his neck.
It makes some kind of sense, I guess, if Clinton's goal is to made a pitch for the votes of conservative Republicans by talking up a tougher foreign policy than Obama's and her support for the death penalty and whatever.
But if the goal is persuade him to drop out now and support Clinton as the nominee, it does seem like a strange way to approach it.