April 21--REPORTING FROM PHILADELPHIA -- In the wake of Hillary Clinton's expansive win in the New York primary, both she and challenger Bernie Sanders face a freighted decision: whether, and how, to pull back on rhetoric that has grown sharper and nastier in recent weeks as they battle for the Democratic nomination.
The choices, whether to lay down arms or continue strafing, would seem to be simple. But the stakes are so high that the strategic imperatives are complicated.
Both candidates are seeking delegates in Pennsylvania and in four other states Tuesday. But neither wants to risk alienating voters by coming off as too negative. Both candidates -- particularly Clinton, the leader in delegates with a far better shot at the nomination -- are looking at the difficulties inherent in unifying a fractured party in November.
Part of the dilemma is that each blames the other for escalating the negativity in recent weeks -- and thus each is waiting for the other to take the first step to change the tone.
In her first post-New York appearance in Philadelphia, Clinton reminded a group assembled in a Baptist church of Sanders' vote to give legal immunity to gun makers and sellers in a shooting involving their weapon.
"That's one of the big differences between me and Sen. Sanders," she said, repeating in milder form one of the main thrusts of her New York campaign.
"There's been a lot of talk in this campaign and the primary campaign about the power of certain interests in this country," she said, referring to Sanders' criticism of her ties to Wall Street, "... but there is no more powerful lobby than the gun lobby, none."
Before she spoke, Sanders' chief strategist, Tad Devine, put responsibility for changing the race's tone on Clinton's campaign.
"Bernie always wanted to have just an up-or-down debate on the issues," he said. "If they want that, they can have it. If they're going to run the kind of campaign they ran in New York, there's going to be a tough response from Bernie. He's not just going to take it."
Sanders sequestered himself in Vermont on Wednesday to "recharge." When he arrived home Tuesday night he spoke optimistically about winning the next batch of states, where Clinton is generally ahead. In a fundraising pitch he circulated as New York's results came in, Sanders insisted that his campaign would go on.
"We still have a path to the nomination, and our plan is to win the pledged delegates in this primary. Next week, five states vote, and there are A LOT of delegates up for grabs," he said, adding later that "people should not underestimate us."
The Sanders campaign expected better results in New York, where Clinton won by 16 points. That big-state victory gave her a net gain of 33 delegates, nearly wiping out the 45 delegates Sanders won in his last five victories. That points to a persistent problem for Sanders: His losses in highly populated states, combined with the proportional way Democrats allocate delegates, have made it tough for him to close Clinton's advantage of far more than 200 delegates.
Sanders' campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said Tuesday night on MSNBC that Sanders would spend the period before the July convention attempting to flip superdelegates, party leaders who have pledged their support to Clinton. That would extend the campaign season beyond the last big primaries in June.
"At this point, yes, absolutely," Weaver said, implicitly acknowledging that Sanders will not have enough pledged delegates.
But Devine said that finishing with more pledged delegates remains the goal. He said the campaign was looking forward to "a brilliant winning streak through California and New Jersey," which both vote on June 7.
"We don't do this unless we win," he said. "We have to win next week, we have to consistently win in May and we have to have big wins in May."
Whether Sanders adjusts his approach will become apparent when he arrives in Pennsylvania on Thursday. In the meantime, prominent Sanders supporters were sharply divided Wednesday about how to navigate the course ahead.
All year long, exit polls have shown that Sanders supporters are less willing to consider voting for Clinton in November than her supporters are about voting for him. The tone of the New York campaign, if anything, heightened concerns about the willingness of all Democrats to rally around the eventual nominee.
Sanders outraged Clinton's side by declaring her unqualified for the presidency because of her vote for the Iraq war, her campaign fundraising and her links to Wall Street firms. Clinton outraged Sanders by hitting him hard on the gun immunity vote. And his side also was irritated by comparisons of Sanders and Ralph Nader, whose 2000 independent candidacy is blamed by some Democrats for party nominee Al Gore's loss that year. (Sanders' partisans noted that the Vermont senator is not running a third-party campaign, as Nader did.)
Robert Reich, a UC Berkeley professor who is a prominent Sanders backer and served as Bill Clinton's secretary of Labor, suggested Wednesday that both teams pull back.
"I want to urge Bernie supporters to tone down negative characterizations of Hillary and Hillary supporters to do the same with regard to Bernie," he wrote in a Facebook post. "I know both candidates personally. Both are thoughtful and dedicated people who care deeply about this nation. Either of them would be a thousand times better president than any of the Republican candidates."
"But we will need to join together to ensure that one of them becomes president. It's important that we not jeopardize that future joint effort through excessive divisiveness now."
But another key Sanders supporter offered language sure to inflame the Clinton team as she insisted that Sanders should power ahead.
Speaking of the New York loss, RoseAnn DeMoro, executive director of National Nurses United, a union that was an early Sanders endorser, said it "makes us far more determined because the election was essentially stolen."
She cited voting irregularities and the fact that only Democratic voters were allowed to take part in the primary. (The number of voters claiming irregularities is smaller than the nearly 300,000-vote advantage held by Clinton, and the rules for voting were well-known if more restrictive than some other states.)
"If the independents were able to vote in New York, Bernie would have won," she said. "Anywhere where the vote was fair, Bernie won. We are not going to be deterred by a stolen, corrupted system."
She characterized Sanders as behaving "like kid gloves" around Clinton and said "she is great at being the victim. She is one of the most aggressive females I've ever watched and she has a tendency to pose as a victim."
"We plan on beating Clinton," she added. "This isn't kumbaya time."
The immediate news isn't good for Sanders in Pennsylvania, the largest of the five states that will vote on Tuesday. A Monmouth University poll found Clinton leading the state, 52% to 39%. It fits the profile of places where Clinton has done well: diverse and bigger states where primaries are limited to Democrats.
How they choose to contrast one another's views will affect not only the primary campaign but also the general election -- particularly if Clinton, already suffering from high unfavorability ratings, chooses or is forced to campaign in a highly negative way to secure the nomination.
cathleen.decker@latimes.com
Times staff writers Mark Z. Barabak in New York and Noah Bierman in Philadelphia contributed to this report.
Follow me on Twitter @cathleendecker
For more on politics, go to latimes.com/decker
Live coverage from the campaign trail
