For example, what do you think of Bernie now arguing that the superdelegates should support him even if he doesn't have the pledged delegate or popular vote lead? Does that sound like he's flipping his position around to gain an advantage? That he's playing the political game? Do you agree with his new approach?
What you call "playing the political game" I would call "a tactical maneuver". If you want to win a contest sometimes you have to change your approach along the way. Convincing voters that the superdelegates who have expressed support for Clinton might not matter all that much strikes me as a solid tactic to motivate voters who might otherwise not bother to vote as they somehow see Clinton as the inevitable winner, based on how many supers have come out for her.
What matters to me is primarily why a candidate wants to win, what it is they hope to achieve by winning. That doesn't mean I think everything is fair in primaries or presidential elections. Personal attacks, inciting violence, advocating policies that are clearly against national or international law are hardly something I'd ignore, or excuse as legitimate tactics.
But when it comes to the Sanders vs. Clinton contest I see Sanders' goals as desireable and something worth fighting for. As long as that fight doesn't lead to blows below the belt line, as long as the fight remains civil and fair, let him act like a politician, because that is what he is - a politician. As for Clinton, I just don't know what she stands for. My impression is that she wants to win primarily to win, not to turn that win into something worthwhile. It's something I see in the list of phrases most often used by the candidates on Politifact.
Clinton may use strong, short phrases like "I have", "we will", "I do", but where are the issues? That's what I see Sanders talking about, hammering home every time and that is what I belief is important in a candidate - a focus on the issues. (And no, I did not form my opinion of Sanders based on just that chart. I linked to it because it nicely illustrates my point, nothing more.)
Okay, this post has run a bit longer now than I intended, but I perhaps it will be helpful to explain where at least some Sanders support comes from.
Now onward to the most recent Trump shenanigans:
I am not surprised. Except perhaps by how much he "corrected" his position and how quickly it happened. His usual modus operandi seems to be to double down when faced with any critique.
But the whole GOP field is anti-abortion. It's pretty much at the core of the party. They'd like nothing better than to see Roe v Wade overturned. Talk about possible punishment has no follow from that base idea. That's how laws usually work - declaring something illegal usually includes sanctions for those how engage in said illegal behaviour. It might not be something that many GOP candidates like to talk about, but the moment you outlaw abortions you'll have to define some punishments for those who do it. Trump may be the only one willing to shoot his big mouth of about it right now, but I find it difficult to believe that he's the only one in the GOP field - or the Republican party as a whole - who harbours such sentiments.