It occurs to me that Bernie Sanders is in a counterintuitive Catch-22 situation. His only actual chance to be the nominee is to convince a bunch of crooks (as he basically calls them) to switch their allegiance to him, and the only possible way to do that is to persuade them that Clinton can’t win. The only evidence he could ever produce to back up that claim are polls that show Clinton losing.
But a poll showing Clinton losing actually has the opposite effect of making everyone lose patience with him and really insist that he drop out and make nice.
Would two, three or four such polls continue the trend? We’ll see. And would it be a heavy lift to blame such an outcome entirely on Sanders’ campaign?
Not even close.
3.1 points at this stage of the game is TOO DAMN CLOSE
His unorthodox campaign style combined with her play it safe centrist style could lose it for her, if it remains this close. Especially with the the populist slant in this election cycle.
Trump has beat the spread up to now, she has not.
that this is not the first individual poll to show a Trump lead over Clinton in head-to-head polling. Not even close. Those go back at least to October, while remaining a small minority of all head-to-head polls. (I didn’t try to check, but would be interesting to know if the RCP rolling average of polls ever showed Trump up — I’d be very surprised.)
You’re right that that’s closer than could be expected/explained in a rational universe (which we clearly don’t inhabit).
I think it does also highlight Hillary’s limitations/weaknesses/baggage as presumed Dem nominee. (I will, of course, vote for her anyway if the choice I have in front of me in November is her, Trump, or some hopeless 3rd-party insurgent. That just seems a no-brainer to me.)
Also, his influence on the party platform vanishes the moment he concedes, but his reputation in the party suffers the longer he stays in.
“his reputation in the party suffers the longer he stays in”, but that happens while the reputation of THE PARTY ITSELF also suffers, and would suffer even more the more they try to force him out.
I also think it’s clear that there are people in the party who, though they support Hillary (for various reasons), really do respect Sanders, have similar goals and welcome his influence in the party. People like Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown, for example.
True, but I’m not sure why that’s relevant to the bind Sanders finds himself in. He wants to push for his agenda. (Even to the extent that he might offend certain delicate bloggers with his Lack of Civility and Pragmatism.) If he drops out, he loses all leverage. The Clinton campaign is apparently denying him any power at the convention, so he can’t drop out.
On the other hand, between Clinton supporters and Very Serious People who find all this passion quite disturbing, Sanders is losing support by staying in.
Sure, the party itself is also suffering–partly because it believes its own hogwash about Sanders being ‘unrealistic’ and ‘the opposite of pragmatic’. However, I suspect they’re willing to suffer a great deal more, if it means punching a hippie.
Yeah, they’re regular masochists.
It’s relevant because if you put it all together, it turns out Sanders isn’t in a bind at all. He’s in a very interesting, tricky, complicated situation, which he’s not only up to, he’s positively enjoying it.
He’s not going to drop out, and he never was going to drop out.
The bind isn’t, ‘does he or doesn’t he drop out?’ the bind is, ‘how does he secure his leverage?’
How does he do that if he (further) alienates the PTB in the Democratic Party? That is, he won’t get enough delegates to demand anything, right? So all he can do, right now, is look like he’s willing to burn the whole thing down unless they throw him a friggin’ bone, yes?
But the more burny he looks, the less throwy they’ll feel.
I don’t understand what you mean by “if he (further) alienates the PTB in the Democratic Party? That is, he won’t get enough delegates to demand anything, right?”
You don’t get super delegates from the PTB, you get them by convincing individual super delegates to change their preference. He’s certainly pissing off people like Barney Frank, but there are others who may think he’s right. Or not.
If you’re talking about pledged delegates, on the other hand, we know he doesn’t have enough of them to win, but he’s already got LOTS of delegates — more than any insurgent candidate in modern history; and the primaries aren’t even over yet.
Well, individual superdelegates are part of a herd; if everyone they know, and if the institution with which they’re closely associated, is loudly unhappy with Sanders, they’re even less likely to change. But I don’t think that matters. They aren’t going to change.
I meant, Sanders isn’t going to get enough delegates, super or otherwise. Not going to happen.
The only way, at this point, that he can have serious impact on the platform, and maybe even on the next administration, is if he wrings concessions from Dems. The only real bargaining chips he has, far as I can tell, are a) withdrawing soon and b) agreeing not to make a fuss at the convention. That’s all he’s got. After the convention, he’s completely spent, unless he forces the party to make binding concessions.
So at this point, he’s got to make the party believe that he will ruin the convention. Otherwise, they have no incentive to move a half-inch to the left. But the more they believe that, the less they want to make concessions (see: hippy punching, above). So, to me, that’s the Catch 22.
“… isn’t going to get enough delegates, super or otherwise.”
Enough for what? As Tarheel has already explained, the numbers are no longer about the nomination, they are about voice, loyalty, or exit.
“The only way, at this point, that he can have serious impact on the platform, and maybe even on the next administration, is if he wrings concessions from Dems.”
That much is true.
“The only real bargaining chips he has, far as I can tell, are a) withdrawing soon and b) agreeing not to make a fuss at the convention. That’s all he’s got. After the convention, he’s completely spent, unless he forces the party to make binding concessions.”
IMNO, this is wrong on every count. Neither (a) nor (b) are bargaining chips at all. The main bargaining chip is the sheer fact of the number of pledged delegates he represents. Which, although not a winning number, is a very large number. It is the largest number of delegates an insurgent candidate has ever come into a convention with in modern history.
In addition, a significant number of party members, including some influential ones, agree with Bernie on many issues even if they are technically supporting Hillary. These people are in a position to play a mediating role.
He doesn’t have to “ruin the convention.” Believe it or not, a convention is SUPPOSED to be the place where the party hammers things out. It’s just that Hillary, who successfully engineered her nomination before a single vote was cast, and her top supporters, make it seem as if this would ruin the coronation — er, convention– when it’s actually … democracy.
There is LOTS of incentive to move to the left. Because it will bring millions of young supporters into the party, who will stay with the party if their perfectly justified needs are met.
Some Hillary supporters, like Eizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, and others, already understand this perfectly well. But the kernel of truth in what you say is that although there is plenty of incentive, the hard-assed DNC types don’t want to admit it. So they will use the classic defense mechanisms — denial, projection, blame the victim, demonization, etc. — to convince themselves that they are in the right. However, they are not the entire party.
Bernie’ leverage is this: if the Debbie types crack down too hard, it’s bye bye millions of new Democratic voters and the future of the Democratic Party. Bernie’s movement will continue. It never depended on the Democratic Party, and it doesn’t really need them. They need it — whether they admit it or not.
Ah! I think I see where we disagree! You say, “The main bargaining chip is the sheer fact of the number of pledged delegates he represents.” I don’t see that as a chip at all. If he has 49%, who cares? As I understand the rules (which is … tenuously), that gives him no institutional power over the proceedings. It’s like if Romney went to Obama after the election and said, ‘Millions of Americans voted for me, so I want these things in your administration …” There’s just no way.
If Sanders can’t force the party to address his campaign’s concerns, they won’t. Why would they? He lost. And he represents a politics that threatens and frightens them. Also, they disagree that a modern convention is a place to hammer out disagreements: it’s a media platform from which to generate a polling bounce, that’s all.
Bringing millions of silly loony lefties who just voted against them into the party is the opposite of an incentive. You may be right that the party needs the Sanders supporters more than vice versa; but if they won’t admit it (and they won’t), it leaves Sanders with no leverage. (Other than threatening contention of some sort.) And the more the Sanders campaign gives the dem establishment reason to shudder in horror at the incivility of Americans who are so unseemly passionate about this stuff, the less willing they’ll be to admit it.
“It’s like if Romney went to Obama after the election and said, ‘Millions of Americans voted for me, so I want these things in your administration …” There’s just no way.”
Why Romney? He is a Republican. Why not Hillary? Because that is exactly what she did, as a matter of fact. One of the things she wanted was for him to pay her campaign debts, which he did. Another was to appoint her Secretary of State, which he did. And another, I suspect, was to help guarantee her the next nomination. Which, well, you get the idea.
With all respect, I think you are confusing the ATTITUDE of people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, with the party itself, which even now is a lot more diverse than you think.
Second of all, let’s say that is exactly what happens. You don’t see any negative consequences to the party from that? Believe me, there would be many. And if Hillary and her immediate entourage don’t see that, plenty of others do.
I’ll grant you, it’s quite possible she and her pals could railroad the whole thing and crush the Bernyites … AT THE CONVENTION. But if they do, there will be hell to pay down the line. Just look at what’s happened to the GOP.
Clinton was always part of the establishment. Even after she lost to Obama, she and her husband still wielded a great deal of insider power.
And I do see (long-term) negative consequences if they blow off Sanders supporters, yes. Many of them. But you may be right that I’m confusing the attitude of certain people with the party itself, I think you’re confusing the institution of the Democratic Party, which exists–as do all institutions–to perpetuate itself, with the purpose of the Democratic Party, which is more inclusive and responsible.
We’ll see. I hope you’re right.
Here’s the thing. Not making concessions to the very formidable Bernie forces would be a big mistake. It’s a mistake they have the power to make make, but it would be a big mistake. It’s one thing to have power, and it’s another thing to know how to wield it. This is one of the broadest criticisms of Hillary. People pick up that she does is greedy for power but has a tendency to abuse it.
it would be a mistake for the following reasons:
I’d like to make a comparison. The DNC’s attitude towards Bernie supporters is not unlike the GOP’s attitude towards Hispanics. They want them, of course,because they want the demographic and the votes that go with it. But not only don’t they do anything to attract them, they do everything to drive them away.
They talk the talk, but they don’t walk the walk.
concessions are reasonable and the Clinton people have signaled that they are willing to negotiate.
The problems are that some of the signals coming from Weaver are that the Clinton campaign needs to basically turn into the Sanders campaign to get any rapprochement, which doesn’t seem reasonable.
It seems reasonable to me at this point. It’s called negotiation.
Seriously, though, the Sanders forces have every reason to be wary of co-optation.
Thi is where people like Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown, whose “political capital” is very high, can play an important role. Because they are unquestionably important people in the party who share the goals of the Sanders people. I mention those two because they are among th ebest known, but they are a lot more. Now maybe you start to see why Warren did not endorse Sanders OR Hillary, and even why Brown did endorse Hillary.
It’s called negotiation.
AKA triangulation, practically invented by the Clintons, but it only goes one (turd) way.
If you don’t ask for the moon, you might not get anything. I would suggest, if the meeting becomes face to face (unlikely), that Sanders keeps his GD finger in his pocket. I have a feeling Clinton is good and tired of the waving right now.
.
Want to wager that we’d be seeing a lot less of the chest thumping “I won and Bernie needs to get in line” if that negotiated agreement for a May debate weren’t looming?
The Clintons seem to follow the tradition of UGS negotiations and agreements with native peoples or The Scorpion.
The people that 49% actually represents, and of course the eventual nominee if they hope to win in November, because that 49% plus her 51% is the base to build a winning coalition in November.
Exactly.
of all: endorsing and campaigning for Clinton; including convincingly faking enthusiasm/sincerity to whatever degree necessary (perhaps zero! But probably more & no, I don’t think Bernie’s too ‘pure’ for that if it’s the path to what, or at least some of what he’s fighting for).
I think this would be the biggest assist to Clinton over Trump he could offer, thus the biggest bargaining chip towards whatever ‘asks’ he wants to hold out for.
I hope he uses it, well and wisely!
Don’t the voters in California deserve a chance to vote?
They certainly do.
The drumbeats from the status quo Democratic pundits, bloggers, pols, etc. for Bernie to close up shop is fascinating. Also hypocritical considering that HRC had no chance in ’08 after February and she stayed in until the last primary.
I may have missed it but I didn’t see anywhere in Booman’s post saying Sanders should drop out or any of Booman’s posts for that matter. He seems insistent that Sanders stay in until the end.
Did I accuse Martin of saying that? Although his post is one of those “I never said …,” but it’s still what was once referred to as playing mind-fuck games.
It’s not really a mind-fuck. I don’t like either candidate and I am rapidly losing the good-will reservoir I had built up for Sanders’ supporters.
So, pretty soon, I’ll hate everyone, including myself for paying attention to this shitshow.
Would you mind saying who you, personally, would prefer? Not necessarily anyone running or had run, but if you could appoint a candidate by fiat, who would it be?
Obama.
I mean someone eligible. Or do you mean you would prefer a coup d’ etat?
Voice, Martin has told us his views on the Democratic primary campaign and the remaining candidates over and over and over again. Scroll back to recent weeks and months of the campaign if you wish.
Apparently he can’t read English. Deport him!
No. Voice is right here. And the observation is in sync with what Marie noted above about the ongoing mindfuck BooMan’s been doing since the beginning of this Democratic election cycle. (And it’s clear, to me at least, that he’s enjoying it and fuck ’em if we can’t take the joke, blah, blah, blah.) I’m not saying it’s wrong of him to have done so, just that it is precisely what he’s done by repeating again and again that he wishes Obama were running again. It’s pathetic, but these are pathetic times and this is a pretty pathetic election cycle. Worse than 2000 by a long shot, and that was the worst I can remember. 1996 was pretty bad, too. 1980, 84, and 88 were likewise shitty. In retrospect, 1992 was the suck, of course, right up there with 1976. So, maybe it’s a hard call, but this cycle seems to be so especially awful. Still, Voice is right.
This set of presumptive candidates have broken all records in voter’s distaste. Never seen such. Is this the future?
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating
I took “presumptive candidates” to mean Hillary and Trump. However, Cruz and Carson were worse than either.
What NealB appears to want:
Helluva set of overwrought views there.
Wouldn’t you agree there are a LOT of over wrought views here theses days. Lots and LOTS of links about non thrown chairs, as though is some critical issue that anybody here cares about. And Kentucky! OMG Kentucky. Someone supposedly committed multiple felonies there to gain Clinton ………. one delegate.
It’s quite amazing. Particularly when it’s all about a career back bencher with the racial sensitivity of a sun down town major. Oh wait….
.
For all the reams of verbiage you puke out here on a regular basis, I have no idea what you want, much less care. I’ve asked you to fuck off on at least one occasion in the past and ask you again, as nicely as I’m able:
karl?
Tar?
Here you go, an example for you to show how much you care about the tone at Booman. Except this is a Sanders supporter, so I suppose it will be all good.
.
Amusing since you’ve been saying for months that Sanders’ supporters aren’t realistic and practical.
A certain percentage of voters always want a third term for their guy. Can’t acknowledge the failings and shortcomings and overrate the performance. To satisfy such Democratic voters, Clinton has been working on getting that third term for the past sixteen years. Republicans have been pining for Reagan’s third term for almost three decades. If not for the exposure of Watergate, in 1976 Republicans would have wanted four more years of the tricky dick.
At least Sanders supporters got off their duffs and worked for a candidate that shared their values and was eligible to be POTUS instead of doing nothing but wishing for the virtually impossible. Only something unimaginably horrible could make your wish come true.
Sanders voters WEREN’T “wishing for the virtually impossible?”
Bernie Sanders — the choice of pragmatists!
At least he was eligible unlike Martin’s choice.
Did Sanders’ early supporters think he could take it this far into the the primary cycle? No — but we’re freaking optimists and believe that the right message and hard work can pay off because the alternatives are unacceptable.
HRC the choice of no we can’t.
I think optimism is absolutely necessary, and I’m glad that Bernie pushed Hillary to the left. The problem is that the vast majority of Sanders’ online supporters have no idea about the most basic aspects of the political system. That’s why you still see people suggest that he has a shot at the nomination, that vote fraud against Bernie is routine, that Hillary will be indicted or is really no different from Trump. Remember Steven D’s absolutely idiotic claim that Hillary had a mole running Bernie’s campaigns in Michigan and PA? That’s a story only a child would believe.
You can’t change the system if you have no idea how it works.
History suggests you can’t change the system by design if you have no idea how it works. The system can still be derailed, broken, hobbled or burned to ashes by large cohorts of people in common ignorance of civic and procedural nuance.
Basically having an ‘idea how the system works’ comes down to a subjective choice of whether it is treating one fairly or no; that seems an appropriate ask of participants in the process. Anything more seems gilding the lily in our new political context.
Democrats should consider themselves lucky to be filling stadiums.
That’s utterly meaningless. We have a two-party, representational democracy. If you don’t know how that works, you’ll change nothing.
Tell that to teh donald.
He ignored how the system worked and used his knowledge of celebrity TV to steam roll those playing by the system’s arcane rules this last year. His ignorance of the system actually helped him because he was not playing by their rules and they had no true defense against him.
He definitely changed the system, how much and for how long is of course anybody’s guess.
The GOPer powers that be that try to rebuild their system after t-rump has burned the 2016 version to the ground completely, might try to find their super-delegate idea to set in place new rules to prevent the next trump monster from stealing their grifttopia from them.
If he wins, he has written new rules for the system other will try to emulate.
Just like Dean showed Obama a way to win outside the DNC party machine, and Bernie tried with out any democratic party help, and came closer than anybody thought possible.
Remember the first rule of politics, rules were made to be broken if you know how.
Re-read the question I responded to. He gave me the choice to pick the next president. I don’t think there is anyone in the country who would be better than Obama. So, I’d pick Obama.
“I don’t think there is anyone in the country who would be better than Obama.”
That’s unsettling, but I can’t wrap my mind around exactly why.
Because you realize it’s true, probably.
Ha! Maybe.
I think you need to re-read the question. Unless now you are stating that appointing a candidate that cannot legally run is a good choice.
Once again, you mock and point at those who pursue the unlikely or near impossible to accomplish, but then go with a choice which is utterly impossible.
Dude, my patience with you is pretty close to exhausted.
Let me spell it out for you.
What’s impossible is that I (the blogger known as BooMan) will get to choose the next president.
Okay?
That’s the impossible part.
So, when someone asks me who I’d make the president if I had the power to make anyone the president, I can choose anyone I want.
In any case, it’s not technically impossible since it could be done if the country was unified enough on the matter to support an amendment to the Constitution.
In this case, I personally think that President Obama is uniquely well-constituted to be the president and make decisions that need to be made for our country. I am unaware of anyone better for the job right now, or at any time in the past going back to at least FDR.
I don’t think he’s perfect, but I think he is beyond excellent, and he has no peer right now in either party or among the universe of independents.
So, I’d love to see him get a third term and I am deeply concerned about all of his likely or even remotely possible successors who I predict with great confidence will be several flights of stairs lower in quality as our president, and who are all likely to fuck things up in a massive way.
I think people miss this about me. They don’t understand how worried I am and how pissed off I am about our choices.
Really? I’m hardly the most belligerent commenter on the site.
Let me show you where you went wrong. The question wasn’t which president you would choose, but which candidate you would choose. There is a huge difference. This invalidates the rest of your argument, so I won’t even bother addressing it.
And as long as we are wishing for impossible things, I would rather go with a resurrected FDR. Might as well dream big if you’re going to dream.
They don’t miss this because you don’t really show how worried or pissed off your are. You spend a great deal of time playing both sides of the fence when it comes to Sanders and Clinton, and then get bent out of shape when someone calls you on it.
There are times when you create really great posts and make excellent comments. And then are times when I just can’t understand why you wrote what you did.
This fails to address my point:
“could appoint a candidate”;
you do understand a candidate is not automatically the president, correct?
It’s because you are so aggressively stupid.
So, for example, I tell you that I dislike both candidates (not as people, just as potential presidents), and you insist that I am playing a double game.
Why can’t you understand something so basic as that I do not want either of them to be president?
Not understanding that basic fact, or refusing to accept me at my word, leads you to read everything I write with an eye for hidden bias.
It’s irritating to me, and I’m tired of it.
I’ll give it one more try.
I came to believe two years ago that Clinton would be the nominee and no force could stop it. I was unhappy. Despondent, even.
But I concluded that it would be:
At the same time, even though I like Bernie’s politics, I concluded that he would not be a good president or leader of the Democratic Party. This has to do with a variety of factors, many including him personally but many having to do with the condition of the country and the world at the moment. Agree with me, disagree with me, it doesn’t matter. I concluded that it would serve no purpose to share these concerns or to attack Sanders. In fact, I concluded that the best outcome would be if he ran well and got a lot of delegates.
Why?
Because a straight reversion to Clintonism 1.0 would be a horrible idea politically and on the merits, and would risk losing the election to a rabidly out of control right-wing movement, or (as it turns out) a National Front xenophobic clown. If she was going to win, at least let her reckon with the appetite for change on the left and in the country along the way.
So, did I really consider if I’d actually prefer Bernie to Hillary?
Pretty much, no, because it wasn’t something I needed to consider. But I definitely felt that she’d be more capable of doing the job, even if she did it wrong. If I could choose one of them myself, I’m still not sure who I would pick. I voted for Sanders because I wasn’t really voting for him. I was voting for Sanders delegates to represent me at the convention. I want progressives at the convention.
So, that’s where I stand.
And, with Clinton, I’m fairly comfortable on everything except foreign policy, where I am completely panicked.
The last refuge of a failed argument is insults.
I’ve understand where you’ve stood for a while Booman, which is why I have the issues I do with some of what you write. And why I challenge you when you write those type of posts.
Your last sentence, before the tagline, is exactly why I don’t believe you are progressive/liberal in any sense of the word. You come across as a DNC/centrist, despite what you claim. Furthermore, your unqualified support of Obama just bears this out.
And if this irritates you, I think you need to grow a thicker skin.
You are a patient, patient man, Martin.
Far more patient than I.
.
This, THIS is gold:
“Really? I’m hardly the most belligerent commenter on the site.
Let me show you where you went wrong.”
Some great comedy sketches have been constructed by depicting characters with this complete absence of humor and self-awareness.
If there comes a time when you have lost your way
Ill turn myself into a star to guide you through
thay mặt kính iphone 5s
That’s DWS. If a strategy loses, try try again.
Right. You’re now quoting Ms Wasserman Schulz with seeming approbation. Okayyyyy…..
That it was pointed out that Ms Wasserman Schulz can be observed arguing emphatically and persuasively any principle that currently helps make it rain for her. Not a bombshell, granted, but perhaps worth noting as a matter of public record in this instance; given the ‘thumb-on-scale’ controversies she’s already stirred.
Ms Schulz becoming the face of Hillary’s praetorians is probably something of a worry to Hillary’s campaign in their attempt to recast her image for the general. Ms Schulz might want to take a nose count among insiders and see who’s still with her.
It makes no sense for Bernie to close up shop and it isn’t going to happen until after the last primary and likely not till the convention. He needs to stay in till the convention so he can actually get something tangible for his supporters.
People just seem to be panicking about Trump and the drama in Nevada. Joe Biden has said to let Bernie run and he’s as status quo as it gets.
As to the topic, I do believe Sanders’ head to head against Trump has narrowed as well which would damage his case that he’d be the better general election candidate.
People seem to have a hard time understanding this: “He needs to stay in till the convention so he can actually (try to!) get something tangible for his supporters.”
I’m not sure why.
(Also, I suspect that if Clinton offered him a great tangible deal in exchange for dropping out early, he would …)
Et tu, Steggles?
He’s not dropping out.
Do you think that HRC would have gotten such a lavish deal from Obama if she’d dropped out early? It’s important to recognize the differences between ’08 and ’16.
’08 was a personality contest. Not much policy difference between Obama and Clinton, although Obama always hinted that he was a liberal progressive during the primary. For some is was a matter of temperament and which would be better in the general election and as President. For others it was a matter of race or gender. Both appreciated that they would need the support of his/her opponent in the general. And the price for that support was always going to be for the personal benefit of the losing candidate.
’16 is an issues/principles Democratic primary. The HRC folks can’t seem to wrap their brains around the fact that it’s not a personality contest. (Not that it would favor her any more than it did in ’08.) Bernie is not going to have over $22 million in campaign debts (he’s not the fiscally irresponsible) that he’d expect HRC to pay down. He’s not looking for a high profile sinecure to launch another presidential run in eight years. The line “He’s with US” will guide him in setting his price and his supporters expect that the price will be steep.
Have you looked at your candidate’s recent FEC filings. If I were you I’d keep quiet about Sanders and any mention of fiscal responsibility. His campaign is gonna crash and burn on its own fiscal mismanagement train wreck.
Plus I get really tired of the cloying sanctimony from Sanders’ supporters. He has been in congress 30 fucking years but has built zilch relationships with the very people he’s going to need to turn his stump speeches into policy wins. He doesn’t support party Party fundraising for down ballot races. How the hell is he going to get the majorities he will need to pass anything? GOP Controlled House is not going anywhere, so how are his budget preferences going to be realized in Appropriations bills.
The cultish smokescreen that Bernistas erect whenever hard questions are asked about exactly how Sanders plans to get anything done, is galling. He is a politician, not a messiah. He’ll have to get down with us impure electorate and lawmakers, else his movement is just a rehash of toothless Occupy Wall Street tantrum.
could not be more wrong.
Far from a “toothless . . . tantrum”, Occupy was a huge, unqualified (where it mattered most) success, dramatically accomplishing its core goal.
Remember, just before Occupy burst on the scene, the right wing was flogging a non-existent “debt crisis”, and the Corporate Media were all along for the ride, worshipping harmful nonsense like a Simpson-Bowles “commission report” that never existed either, etc., etc.
With breathtaking speed and efficiency, Occupy upended that national conversation (and with it, the idiotic Corporate Media’s pretense that the deficit was <gasp> the most desperate crisis confronting us [now, with equal idiocy, they think it’s terrorism], as opposed to the modest, long-term manageable ‘problem’ that it (arguably) is.
Besides that stunning success, numerous offshoots spawned by Occupy (StrikeDebt and a robust lobbying effort against weakening/gutting provisions of Dodd-Frank through the Federal rules-making process enacting the provisions of the legislation come to mind just off the top of my head) continue doing good work as I write this.
And, obviously, Bernie is running on the mantle of income-inequality in a direct continuation of the Occupy movement. Barring a miracle, he’s not going to be the nominee, but his unforeseen success will have further influence, which will continue Occupy’s success.
Occupy was, and continues to be, immensely influential and successful. Would be hard to overstate how wrong your sneering dismissal is.
formulation, which is now part of the vernacular, to very good effect, including as also employed by Bernie. A (brilliant) gift from Occupy.
Indeed. Rolling Jubilee has retired almost 32M in debt. (http://rollingjubilee.org/)
Yes,
it might take 20 years before you even know success from failure on things like Occupy. People in those crowds end up politically involved and running for office, and winning.
And I bet Sanders saw it and went ‘the mood is shifting’ and came to the realization his message might resonate.
.
Of course THAT led to Sanders supporters to start posting on the Internet and hilarity ensued.
Thanks, Occupy.
.
very much like that (not that I’m actually privy to Bernie’s inner musings): Occupy created the moment, Bernie recognized and seized it.
Maybe this will help you:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/19/bernie-sanders-establishment-democrats-stop-arg
uments-primaries
It’s possible that she might offer him something to drop out early but I think he’s dead set on having this play out, regardless. I’m ok with him taking it to the convention because I’m not really worried about party unity. I think those fears are overblown and that most Sanders supporters will see Clinton as the next best option.
Now, I do think he should at some point be realistic with his supporters about his chances and what he wants to get in exchange for his support and how it will benefit them.
Yes this,
In my eyes she is a bad choice,
However the alternative if simply horrible.
The only silver lining for me is in my state Horrible is out polling the bad, by double digits. My vote won’t count for much but a vote I can say was against the Horrible, not in favor of the bad.
That’s because he is a corrupt slug like her.
Did you bother to see if any of those pundits actually stated that Hillary should have stayed in the race in 2008? Of course not — if you’re going to make an off-topic comment, there’s no need for it to make sense.
I used to have a lot of respect for Bernie: I followed his career in Vermont and in Congress, and I was excited when he entered the race, since I knew he’d drag Hillary to the left. But now he’s a generic, narcisstic politician feeding half-assed conspiracy theories to his increasingly embarrassing supporters.
You’re projecting. Tsk, tsk.
Is that supposed to make sense?
“he’s a generic, narcisstic politician feeding half-assed conspiracy theories to his increasingly embarrassing supporters.”
Is that supposed to make sense? It’s just boiler-plate ad hominem bullshit. Sanders is a politician, true, but he’s neither generic nor narcissistic. He’s not feeding half-assed conspiracy theories, and his supporters are not embarrassed, let alone increasingly embarrassed.
Both candidates in the Dem primary have received plenty of criticism which has been “…boiler-plate ad hominem bullshit.”
s/he did say “embarrassing”, not “embarrassed”, which are not the same thing.
My favorite – the idea the Democratic Party would run someone against Bernie. Given Bernie has an 80% approval rating, it’s about as absurd idea as exists. I think some hope Howard would run against Bernie. Dean would get destroyed.
Steve M was floating this, I have seen it elsewhere.
This is all so overblown. Really a giant circle jerk if self-important bloggers blowing things out of proportion.
Clinton will give something on process. Sanders will endorse in a speech at the Convention. There will be a picture of Sanders and Clinton at the convention, because everyone is old enough to remember Carter chasing Kennedy in 1980.
Sanders has much more running room than people think. Most of his supporters can count. Most never thought he would win – very few really think he will.
Yeah, pretty much this.
Here is the simple fact. Bernie’s coming into the convention with more delegates than any insurgent in modern history.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/sanderss-successful-insurgency/477249/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/sanderss-successful-insurgency/477249/
So yeah, Booman, that really sucks, doesn’t it? You must have said 50 times that’s what you wanted to happen.
If Hillary thinks she’s going to solve that by stonewalling, she will do tremendous damage to the party before we even get to the coronation … I mean nomination.
But yeah, this is all Bernie’s fault. LOL.
volume of idiotic concern trolling of the Sanders campaign by people who were never for the Sanders Campaign borders on self parody.
I am not sure who is the target audience is for it.
But this is all so absurd. The absurd CT on Bernie sites that he won’t endorse. The idea that Bernie is doing something unprecedented, that he is conducting a “scorched earth” campaign.
A prediction – no one 5 days after the Democratic Convention will remember a bit of it. And when Clinton leaves that Convention with a lead of more than 10 all of this writing will look idiotic.
As it happens, Alber O. Hirschman covered that Catch-22 thoroughly in his Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, 1970, 176p PDF
(h/t nakedcapitalism)
See especially:
The Spatial Duopoly and the Dynamics of Two-Party Systems, p75 and most especially at p85 on the power of those who have nowhere to go.
The key point to observe is the assumption of a “linear market” for votes. In this election, we are seeing a planar market model for votes that divides the electorate into four constituencies: left establishment (1%), left disestablishment (99%), right establishment (1%), and right disestablishment (99%). And there might be a third dimension: libertarian–authoritarian.
Those roughly map to the three campaigns, but not exactly.
But American ideology shapes the way exit, voice, and loyalty are perceived. (p106)
Appendix E on the effects of the severity of initiation into dysfunction is relevant to the discussions of the effect of this election on millennials.
The current situation involves the CLinton and Sanders camps struggling to turn out the vote in California (Sanders) and demoralize the opposition by declaring that the obvious is that its over (Clinton) so as the raise the arguments for the endgame. And both are raising the anger of their supporters in the process, anger that is really anxiety over losing the general election either through (1) schism in the Democratic primary electorate or (2) failure to motivate enough people because of failure to address the deterioration of the Democratic Party.
I lost patience with him weeks ago. The only reason he’s staying in the race is so he can massage his massive ego, and try to convince himself that he is leading some kind of revolution. In essence, all that he is doing, is embarrassing himself, and taking what good will he ever had, and throwing it away.
Wag that finger some more Bernie!!
Too bad Booman warned me not to reply to you in kind.
Stop trolling people. It’s obnoxious.
That is like asking a cat not to stalk birds.
It’s in his nature, and it’s so easy.
.
Thanks for the many laughs you’ve provided.
How can you even laugh? His stuff has all the profundity of a horoscope.
Catch-22s rarely seem to care about anybody’s best-laid plans or clever hot takes.
That’s a Rasmussen poll.
We should be wise to these Faux News/Rasmussen tricks by now.
Their job is to keep the base thinking they can win so they contribute and stay active.
Then as we get closer to the election they start being more accurate.
How about Sanders bring out the high negative favorability for it is a serious issue to important to ignore.
New CBS poll has her up by 6% today.
Per the NYTimes, Bernie’s in a spot where he’s prepared to hit her hard to bring down her numbers in a last ditch effort to convince the corrupt super delegates to support him. How that actually benefits him, or the party, is beyond me.
So he should just give up and drop out of the race? Because Clinton is borderline incompetent when it comes to running a campaign?
Fuck that noise. If she can’t handle it, and if the Democrat party can’t handle it, then that is their fault, not Sanders.
Calling a POTUS candidates’ campaign “…borderline incompetent…” when that candidates’ campaign is winning and will win their Party’s nomination, and is polling well ahead of their opponent in the general is…exotic.
Hillary the one that’s in the Catch 22 situation, not Sanders. He may be losing the nomination, but with every additional delegate he gains influence in the party. If the Hillaries stonewall, which they probably will, it will hurt her severely. They will try to spin it against him, of course, but they won’t succeed, because he is viewed so much more favorably than she is — over the past year Sanders has steadily risen in national favorability from 8.8 to 51.9, as opposed to her fall from 46.9 to 41.4 over the same time period).
This is existential. The demographics show that Sanders represents a powerful revival of the Democratic party, while the Hillary forces are strangling the party and leading the country into the arms of a total dipshit like Trump.
Thus the real Catch-22 is that the Democratic Party needs Sanders far more than Sanders needs them. That is something very few of them can even grasp, let alone deal with.
The reason Clinton would do worse against Trump is no fault of Sanders. It is because she is a lousy candidate. The reason Sanders would do so much better against Trump is that he brings in a large number of new voters, most of whom have little or no interest in voting for Hillary.
I think Hillary knows this, and that is why she has been (on the surface) rather gentle with Sanders — but behind the scenes she has let Debbie WS do the dirty work.
There is this irony — that even if he doesn’t get the nomination, he will campaign MORE EFFECTIVELY AGAINST TRUMP than she will. But whatever happens after the election HIS MOVEMENT WILL CONTINUE. That’s why it’s absolutley NOT in his interest to kowtow to her, and he never will.
She’s in a bind, not because of Sanders, but because, holding every external advantage a candidate could possibly have (practically owning the party, unlimited access to $$$, backing of the oligarchy and its press, tremendous name recognition, plus Bill — none of which Bernie had), she’s barely ahead. Her national favorables are somewhat better than Trump’s, but still dismal (41.4, unfavorable 55.6), and have been on a steady march downward since late 2010, but particularly since she resigned as SoS (Feb. 2013).
I think this article says it all. Sanders beat the stuffing out of her in the most reliably Democratic county in America:
http://www.thenation.com/article/the-most-reliably-democratic-county-in-america-just-hillary-clinton
-a-signal/
How many people who aren’t Bernie supporters think he’d do better against Trump than Hillary?
The answer is approximately zero. That’s why conservatives have been hyping his candidacy, as the WSJ and Trump have.
The idea that a democratic socialist would do better in the general than in the Democratic primaries is so silly it barely deserves a response.
Show me a single poll, going back to when they started doing these polls, showing Hillary doing better against Trump than Sanders. You can’t. And it’s gotten worse since Trump wiped out his rivals. I has nothing to do with preference.
Yes, the polls say that. And Bernie has received zero — ZERO — negative ads.
But yeah, I’m sure there’s a huge, untapped desire for democratic socialism.
The Republicans understand the American public better than Bernie supporters, which is pathetic.
Sure, negative adds would probably drive up Sander’s negatives- but you know what, He’s got a lot of room before they reach the level that Hillary already has with independent voters. And, unfortunately, that is what makes Clinton such a bad candidate- independents, for probably a variety of reasons, both good & bad, just can’t stand her.
As for socialism- expanding social security and free college education seem to be polling pretty damn well right now. So yes, there really does to be some untapped desire for “democratic socialism”. You know, the times do change…
The Republicans understand the old white male American public better than Bernie supporters. Check out the numbers for people under 30. You should also check the polls that show wide support of Bernie’s positions:
63% of Americans want to raise the minimum wage
68% of Americans say the rich don’t pay enough taxes
65% of Americans say corporations don’t pay enough taxes
72% Americans back government investment in infrastructure
61% Americans back more funding for public schools
60% of likely American voters favor stricter banking regulations
77% Americans support path to citizenship or legal status
67% of Americans are unhappy with income inequality
By definition these are not radical ideas.
And what percent don’t want to pay any more taxes? Or think they are being taxed too much?
The good news for the prospects of both Hillary and Bernie is that they both support each of these well-polling proposals.
Unlike the Republican POTUS candidates and nominee, who essentially opposed/oppose all these proposals.
available data relevant to the question you asked (i.e., “Yes, the polls say that . . . “), which refutes your answer to your own question, which was (reviewing):
Odd approach, that.
Sigh. Does this really need saying?
Okay. Sanders is a nice new shiny object that the public knows very little about, but he seems so dedicated!
Hillary has been the victim of outright libel and slander for over 24 years. The Republicans have got an ad going that, inter alia, reminds everyone about Whitewater, Travelgate and Filegate, even though the Clintons were found to have done nothing wrong in any of those “gates”. Thus, they are repeating lies from 24 years ago for a whole new generation of the credulous who don’t know the Republicans gave us those outright lies in the first place. If someone had lied about you, on a daily basis, in the mass media for 24 years, what do you think everyone would think of you? Particularly if the media devoted a vanishingly small amount of time and space pointing out that these were, after all, lies?
The Republicans would love Bernie to run. All they would have to do is say “Democratic Socialist,” “Denmark,” and “58% personal income tax rate.” And that, my friend, would be that.
She’s been her own worst enemy. All the blame for her unfavorables cannot be placed on the backs of the Republicans.
This is soooo true. If I had to guess, it would that both Clinton’s believe they have been inoculated by the years and years of fake scandals. What they do (speeches, that Foundation) is all within the parameters of their social class, but Christ, show a little restraint.
.
Anything that falls into the slander and libel category is only fodder for the rightwing nutjobs and personally I don;t think any of it’s been as bad as what Obama has been subjected to.
That said, HRC’s campaign has accused Sanders of being a racist, misogynist, self-centered, attracting violent supporters that lie and cheat. All garbage and as ugly as the crap she and her team dished out against Obama in ’08.
I’ve tried and I’ve tried to tell people that this electability argument is so fucking stupid…but here we are anyway.
Clinton will beat Trump. How badly she beats him depends entirely on getting young people to vote for her — the people she and her campaign have been dismissing. Sanders’ youth support is entirely the reason why he polls better against Trump. If she had his youth numbers, she’d poll better against Trump than Sanders.
Now deal with that. You get them to vote, she wins in a landslide. Keep insulting us, and maybe she wins with ~280 EV.
That’s rich, DiTourno, last summer Ann Coulter (remember her?) said that the Republican Party should be more concerned about Bernie Sanders than Hillary Clinton, for he would present the most formidable challenge. By the time of the convention the Republican Party will be unified behind Donald Trump, which means that he automatically gets at least 40 % of the vote. You might find that repugnant, but that is the reality of the USA. Donald Trump is not an anomaly. He represents a good chunk of the US people. Try to wrap your head around that unpleasant reality In addition, your flippant quips are not very original…barely deserve a response, to go on in your vein.
The Democratic Party signed its own death warrant when they decided to rig the nomination process to prevent a challenge from the left as they transformed the Democratic Party into a moderate Republican Party with its main feature neoliberalism.
Things could have very different. First, Debbie WS should have stepped down the moment that Hillary announced her candidacy for the simple reason that she was a co-chair for Hillary’s 2008 Campaign. The decisions about the number of debates and timing should have been reached by consensus of the stake holders. The Super Delegate rules should have been changed so the Super Delegates would only have a vote in a somewhat evenly divided multiple candidate race. Fairness and a democratic process would be a top priority to encourage new people to participate because they would have a real voice in deciding the future direction of the Democratic Party. We could have had a fair exchange of ideas where the winner would be supported by all.
What I am talking about is a framework of self governance to choose our Party leaders for our representative form of actual government. This would light the fire of activism where the way to win would be to get the politics right, to truly express the will of the people who identify as Democrats, the only real purpose of any political party.
Reality was much harsher. Republicans and Democrats are divided only on social issues. When it comes to the issues that matter, such as inequality, we find both parties in full embrace of neoliberalism competing not for the voters but for favors from the oligarchy. Social issues were only the pretext while wealth for the top oligarchs was the real game.
What we found when we challenged neoliberalism was the door was not only shut but slammed in our faces by our own Party. Those people had clawed their way to power and they were not going to give it up, especially considering how much money and power was involved. What we found was the Democratic Party was already so corrupted by the money it simply could not be reformed. There was no longer any room for Progressives in the Democratic Party. It is as true today as it was so many years ago when FDR said to the conservative Democrats; you can’t have it both ways.
What the Democratic Establishment is now teaching us is that all they are interested in is consolidating the power they have gained to make sure that the next Bernie never gets a far as this one did.
Now the question becomes; do you want them stronger or weaker the next time we must take them on?
I lost any goodwill I had toward Bernie Sanders more than a month ago. I find him insufferable. His wife just received a 200K golden parachute (not atypical in academe) after bankrupting Burlington College. He can stay in as long as he likes, but he can stop attacking the very party from whom he wants support, a Party he joined 15 minutes ago so he could run for President. What started as a campaign to promote liberal policies has descended into delusion, complaining, and nonstop attacking. He’s not helping; he’s hurting.
Gee, his wife should have talked for hour at a Goldman-Sachs smoker.
srsly?
>>200K golden parachute
that’s not exactly golden, and by corporate standards doesn’t rate as even bronze. Carly Fiorina was paid $21M by HP to go away, that’s a golden parachute.
Have you considered the possibility that there might be just a slight difference in the resources available to a multimillion-dollar corporation and a small Vermont College, bankrupt and headed for extinction?
Needless to remind you, a party that has lost both houses of Congress, bunches of state governorships, and a significant number of state legislatures in the past 10 years.
Albert Hirschman’s Exit, Voice and Loyalty cited in my comment above deals specifically with dissent in failing corporations, organizations, and states.
Morevover, the impact of Occupy Wall Street was to call the establishment to own up to its own failures over the past three decades. When are the political and financial establishments going to stop digging the hole deeper?
Demand that Hillary Clinton talk about money, filthy lucre, that she, her husband and daughter know so much about getting their hands on. Then demand that she talks about the perverse financial difference between her, her family and friends and the bunch of high-profile money trees surrounding her. Demand that she talk turkey, an expression she would definitely understand from her 1950s midwestern upper middleclass days. Bernie Sanders doesn’t dare and that’s one of his greatest shortcomings: he is too respectful.
By the tone and substance of your post, I don’t believe you ever had any goodwill towards Sanders.
And if he is hurting the party, then what is Clinton doing?
It seems that Catch-22 has suddenly become a popular meme.
Exit, Voice, and Loyalty — How many popular votes has Sanders accumulated in the primary so far? What percentage of Sanders voters are in play between the Democratic Party and the Green Party? How concerned is the Clinton campaign about Sanders voters actually exiting?
Given the tone at dKos, apparently little concern at all. A huge comment thread on a front page article that seems to deliberately misconstrue a Sanders statement. Hilarity ensues.
If you look at the 18-29 vote, there is some evidence that about 10-20% are considering a third party. In NH it was 12%. I have seen it higher in some polls.
I doubt it lasts.
Here’s the math that is driving this shitstorm.
For the record, Jesse LaGreca has been messaging toward the Clinton supporter side.
I trust that this is accurate. It also explains the desperation of the Clinton camp to depress the Sanders vote in the remaining primary states through peeling off Sanders voters and causing others to be too depressed to vote. No doubt malevolent boards of elections in the remaining states have some of their games to play as well.
That’s incorrect. Those numbers will just give Bernie a lead in pledged delegates, and he would need massive wins to even get that. “If you include superdelegates, among whom Clinton has a big lead, Sanders needs to win more than 90 percent of the remaining pledged delegates to clinch the nomination. Which means, essentially, that he needs to win every delegate, since winning 85 percent of the vote in Democratic contests earns you 100 percent of the delegate total.”
“Clinton’s delegate lead continues to far exceed the lead Barack Obama had over her at the same point in 2008.”
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/18/bernie-sanderss-bad-delegate-math-just-kee
ps-getting-worse
Bernie’s done. He’s been all but done for some time. It’s embarrassing how few of his supporters don’t know that. This is basic math, FFS.
The math is not about being the nominee, it’s about the endgame and whether individual Sanders supporters feel they have a voice or decide to exit. How many Sanders supporters is the Clinton camp willing to risk shedding?
There are serious political issues beyond the personalities that will be decided in how the endgame is played out.
I have no idea what that means.
It means that we already know who the nominee is going to be, but we don’t know how many voters she’ll have left by the time she gets there.
Forgot to save that I love the casual assertions of vote fraud. With your misinformation and ridiculous conspiracy theories, you’re half a step away from voting Republican.
Electoral fraud. We have seen it increasing, and especially in Republican-controlled boards of elections and jurisdictions. Last minute voting place changes. Misallocation of voting places. Equipment failures that cause long lines. All the modern-day equivalents of the practices that Frank Kent documented 90 years ago in The Great Game of Politics.
It’s interesting the number of commenters who suddenly appear from nowhere.
If you had been familiar with my comments over the years, you would realize how ridiculous the charge that I would now ever vote Republican is.
Wait — you’re saying Republican election boards would work against Bernie?
That’s nonsensical.
What the hell is the Arizona lawsuit all about except just a situation?
Most primaries are operated by the same electoral system that operates the general election. Some of those systems are run by Republicans. And in 2000 and 2004, they did have the technology for stripping votes.
Item 2 is no longer a sure thing; the Cold War has been over for 25 years. Capitalism is in one of its periodic crises. (Those who are fat and happy might not realize that, but lots of voters do.)
http://www.inquisitr.com/3107235/card-reader-issues-in-kentucky-push-hillary-clinton-ahead-of-bernie
-sanders-pike-county-votes-erased/
Maybe it wasn’t fraud, maybe it was just “technical difficulties” — but somehow enough more than enough votes went missing to squeak Hillary into the lead in Kentucky.
Jesus, that source is pathetic, and you have to be wholly uninformed not to recognize that. The “election fraud” reports are nothing of the sort. Here’s the original source:
The calls came from 31 counties and included concerns about procedural and legal questions, voter assistance, voting machines, voter identification, residency, election officials, electioneering, poll disruption and vote buying.
The following counties in our region were on the list of possible issues:
Boyd County: Voting machine
Floyd County: (two calls) Special or absentee ballot and one electioneering within 100 feet of polls
Johnson County: Procedural question
Pike County: Election official
Rowan County: (two calls) Election official and procedural question
Must be Hillary!
Also, the guy who wrote the Inquisitr article claims “No one really thought that Hillary Clinton had a chance in Kentucky due to her long-standing issues with the coal industry.” In fact, Hillary was a slight favorite to win.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-to-expect-in-the-democratic-primaries-in-kentucky-and-orego
n/
Again, with your ignorance and contempt for facts, you guys are really no different from Republicans,
I beg your pardon, I didn’t say any of that. I just said somehow enough votes disappeared to put her over the top. And that’s a fact.
Fraud? Coincidence? You decide.
That’s the source you cited. It’s a joke, and it provides no evidence that any votes “disappeared.”
http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/votes-disappear-kentucky-primary-reassigned-fraud-what-happened-bernie
-sanders-roque-de-la-fuente/
Oh, Jesus — do you even read your sources? No, you don’t:
“On the Reddit megathread for the Kentucky primary, however, watchers later said he didn’t lose any votes in that particular county due to the machine error, because his votes caught up to where they were before the machine was fixed.”
Your own source contradicts you. Well played.
OMG, listen to yourself. AFTER the voting closed, the AP (which is not the actual Board of Elections, it is a news agaency) briefly erased it’s count of Pike County. So all the BernieBabies had a big SAD. Because Bernie would have been in the lead on their TV! That would have felt good! But instead mean old Hillary and DWS took that moment of joy away from them. Not a vote, NOT A SINGLE VOTE, was taken away from the One True Candidate. Zero. And here you are, bitching away about how it’s some kind of horrible thing.
And you snigger and say “Maybe it wasn’t fraud, maybe it was just ‘technical difficulties.'” Pathetic. Disgusting.
AFTER the voting closed …
Of course after the voting closed. They don’t post votes while the polls are still open.
Yes, AP, because the Board of Elections does not post the votes, they incrementally send their tallies to news agencies.
“Not a vote, NOT A SINGLE VOTE, was taken away from the One True Candidate. Zero.”
Actually, votes disappeared from both Sanders and Clinton. http://bradblog.com/?cat=675
“And you snigger and say “Maybe it wasn’t fraud, maybe it was just ‘technical difficulties.'”
Excuse me, I don’t recall making a single snigger.
“Pathetic. Disgusting.”
Can I bring you some smelling salts? Or maybe you’d prefer Roget’s Thesaurus ?
“Actually, votes disappeared from both Sanders and Clinton”
So you saying that the original, defective count was right? Because if it wasn’t, nothing disappeared.
“Can I bring you some smelling salts? Or maybe you’d prefer Roget’s Thesaurus ?”
I suppose that’s not sniggering either.
“So you saying that the original, defective count was right? Because if it wasn’t, nothing disappeared.”
No, I’m not saying the original, defective count was right. How could it be right if it was defective?
I’m saying that both Sanders and Clinton lost votes that they previously had. Or so it would seem.
I don’t know what happened. How could I? But something happened. Hopefully it will be investigated.
The fact is, Bernie won by a large margin in Pike County, but any discrepancy affects the statewide number. But it was virtually a tie anyway. They each walked away with 27 delegates.
Previous convictions of Kentucky people for vote tampering.
“For those who believe that election rigging is a baseless conspiracy, in 2011 a eight former Clay County, Kentucky officials were convicted on conspiracy charges, after it was discovered that they had rigged elections in 2002, 2004 and 2006. The guilty parties included a circuit court judge, a county magistrate, an election commissioner, a county clerk, a polling place officer, an election officer, a school superintendent. The conspiracy also included business owners who were receiving county and city contracts.” (http://addictinginfo.org/2015/11/08/analysis-of-kentucky-election-results-indicates-fraud-video/)
This is the sort of crap that Sanders’ supporters have had to put up with from HRC supporters (who seem to have taken their cues from rightwing talk radio and David Brock) for the past year.
Why would we ever want to have anything to do with people who just love denigrating and bullying others? Winning isn’t anything if one has to sink to such depraved communications.
Another choice presents itself: ignore the juvenile behavior and silly insults. You’re absolutely right, do not “sink to such depraved communications,” as you put it.
It’s all part of the idea of “first, do no harm.” You cannot choose that for others, but you can for yourself.
And not even pointlessly so, but actually counter-productively so.
Also a joke in Kentucky? (http://addictinginfo.org/2015/11/08/analysis-of-kentucky-election-results-indicates-fraud-video/)
Or, he could have persuaded them he was more electable by getting more votes and winning more pledged delegates. That might have worked.
Way WAY too logical.
Nobody will listen to you if you go all logical. You need to throw up some BS math, give a personal anecdote that is completely off topic, then throw in some history lesson tied to something that happened 38 years ago. Add a dash of sanctimony and you will have a winning comment.
.
I will now take a victory lap.
.
This is where some of us started many decades ago.
The man that got the most votes in the primary elections wasn’t even considered a contender. Going into the convention he was #3 with 258 delegates. The second highest in voters had 393 delegates. #6 in votes had 561 delegates. Reforms were demanded and slowly implemented but we seem to be right back where we started with the elites choosing the nominee and doing everything they can to shut out contenders. (Dem elites are much better at taking out the left wing than they are defeating Republicans.)
It’s all quite depressing.
That’s not where the state of play is right now. What is in play is whether Bernie’s supporters have a voice in the big tent of the Democratic Party. And how far left or independent can they remain and still be engaged in the party.
The mathematics is not all in on whether he has gained more pledged delegates. It is a monumental lift for a campaign, but it is not foreclosed. Superdelegates overturning the results of pledge delegates likely splits the Democratic primary constituency. Clinton’s claim of being the nominee still is in effect premature and meant to discourage Sanders voters in remaining primary states and has been since that line was first unleashed. Is is SOP for campaigns. It is also SOP for campaigns to keep going as long as the finances hold out until the last primary. Those are just standard practices in any competition in the US; trash talking and the final lean.
And even if Bernie Sanders against all odds gets that majority of pledged delegates, his campaign would have to accommodate the Clinton campaign sufficient to keep the establishment from sitting on its hands as it did with McGovern.
You won’t know for sure about it until the last primary is done. And this fight is communications strategies to motivate the vote in California, which is the big prize.
What is not going on that should be going on is negotiating what the “soul of the Democratic Party” is going into the general election. What exactly are the core principles that unite the Clinton wing and the Sanders wing of the flying donkey? Why are those not now being discussed instead of the incessant attacks on personality? What changes is the establishment willing to make in order to get a boost from Sanders supporters?
Given the nature of Trump’s campaign, one of them better be a rehabilitation of the word “socialist”. Without that, infrastructure disappears in false hopes of public-private partnership and privatization.
Given the nature of Sanders’s agenda, there better be platform planks for increasing Social Security benefits and single payer healthcare (which has a positive impact on the deficit/debt).
And some reining in of the blank check for national security spending while pleading austerity for needed internal improvements within the US.
And a common policy on banking that both wings of the party can endorse, even if it gives bankers heartburn. Surely Elizabeth Warren can figure out the technical details of what this would involve. And isn’t this the half a loaf compromise for both that “idealistic youth” are being hectored about. Does not the Clinton side get the message that they don’t get ponies either?
Where is the openness to figuring out the endgame? Or does the establishment think that it can roll over the Democratic progressives or democratic progressives once again without backlash?
“You have nowhere to go but us.” is exactly the dismissal of the loyal reformers, closing off everything but exit. What happens when folks take that exit? Yep, Trump. Just how serious are the Clinton campaign people about beating Trump? Serious enough to compromise to get as much of that currently 45% of the popular vote to be support in the general election?
Tarheel. You’re smart, as usual. The DNC, it’s reported, just expanded seat for Sanders people on the platform committee. My question to you is this: How much accommodation to Sanders will be enough for his supporters? As a Clinton supporter, I have always said that if Sanders wins, I’ll vote for him even though I think he’s too old, idealistic, and without practical solutions to the problems he, justifiably, points out. But I see, here and elsewhere, and in my town and county, many Sanders supporters who just can’t imagine themselves voting for Clinton. They have talked themselves into hating her and the “system.” They have even asked others to sign a pledge that they won’t ever vote for Clinton. Do you think this is an insignificant number of people?
The problem with Sanders’ supporters having a voice is that Sanders has chosen to run his campaign so as to give them no voice whatsoever once the convention is over. There’s been no effort to get downticket candidates or party positions. He didn’t even endorse John Fetterman after Fetterman endorsed him. The only position any of the Sanders supporters are going to get is convention delegate, and that’s an ephemeral position. Day after the convention there won’t be a single person in the entire Democratic party who got their position because of Sanders’ campaign or Sanders’ movement. And since most Americans don’t start paying attention to the campaign until the fall, by the time ordinary people tune in to the campaign, it will be like the whole Sanders phenomenon never happened.
I swear, I’m starting to feel like he’s a Manchurian candidate. You couldn’t design a better campaign to frustrate young socialists and drive them out of politics if you tried.
Near as I can figure, the following down-ticket candidates have all endorsed Bernie Sanders. (Note, many of these have not gone through their primary vote yet, but some are already candidates for November. I won’t go into whether a given candidate is likely to be viable or not, you can do your own research.
Note, this list does not include incumbents that endorse Sanders but are not up for reelection this November.
Jesse Smith, Alabama Vets for Bernie State Director (Alabama 3d Congr Dist), he is AA
Raul Grijalva (Arizona’s 3rd congressional district)
Wendy Reed (CA 23rd district)
Bao Nguyen (Mayor, Garden Grove, CA, now running for CA46), Vietnamese-American
Nils Palsson CA CD-5 (one of 3 challengers facing D incumbent Mike Thompson in June 7 primary)
William Ostrander CA CD-24
Lou Vince CA CD-25
Kenneth Mejia CA CD-34 vs Xavier Becerra
Erin Schrode CA CD-2
Joe Shammas (CA-9th CD)
Charles H. Norris Colorado CD-1
Misty Plowright Colorado CD-5
Alan Grayson FL CD-9
John (Juan) Xuna (FL CD-18)
Tim Canova FL-23 vs. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Alina Valdes, FL CD 25
Amanda Kondrat’yev Florida CD-1 (very conservative district)
Tulsi Gabbard HI CD-2
Javier Ocasio (HI CD-1)
Douglas Smith Michigan CD-3
Paul Clements (MI CD-6, Kalamazoo) vs. Fred Upton
Maria Chappelle-Nadal (MO CD-14, currently member of state senate) primary Aug 2 vs incumbent Wm Lacy Clay (she is AA)
Keith Ellison (5th CD, MN), a Bernie super delegate
Rick Nolan (8th CD, MN), a Bernie super delegate
Shawn O’Connor (1st CD, NH)
Alex Singer (Nevada CD-3)
Lucy Flores (Nevada, CD-4)
Rick Shepherd (Nevada CD-2) – northern nevada
Jesse Sbaih (Nevada CD-3)
Dan Rolle (Nevada CD-4)
Eric Beechwood (NJ CD-2)
Jim Keady (NJ CD-3)
Alex Law (NJ 1st CD) challenging Don Norcross
Peter Jacob (NJ, CD-7)
Eloy Delgado (NJ, CD-8)
Jonathan Clarke (NY CD-3, northern Queens & Nassau)
Ali Mirza (NY CD-5, Nassau & Queens)
Zephyr Teachout (NY, Dutchess County, CD-19)
Eric Kingson (NY, CD-24) vs John Katko, R – Syracuse area
Christian Cano NC CD-9
Janet Garrett (OHIO, CD-4)
Marcy Kaptur (OHIO, CD-9)
Keith Mundy (OHIO, CD-16)
Corey Foister (Ohio CD-8), D candidate for special election to fill the remainder of Boehner’s term
Tom Guild (Oklahoma, CD-5)
Dave McTeague (OREGON, 5th CD)
Kerith Strano Taylor (PA CD-4, Brookville, NW PA)
Dimitri Cherny (SC – CD 1) – Considered safe R district
Arik Bjorn (SC CD-2), primary June 14th to oppose Rep Joe Wilson
Bill Matta (TX CD-17) Austin
Tom Wakely (TX-21, San Antonio) will oppose 15-term incumbent Lamar Smith
Bill Bunch (VA 9th District)
Peter Welch (Vermont, at large CD, incumbent)
Angela Marx (Washington, 3d CD)
Pramila Jayapal (Washington, 7th Congressional District, Vancouver WA) – she is Indian-American
Mike Lapointe (WA CD-2)
David McDevitt (WA CD-3). Primary Aug.2.
Joe Pakootas (WA CD-5, from Colville Federated Tribes) vs. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Jennifer Gigi Ferguson (WA CD-10, Yelm) – she is AA
Mike Manypenny WV CD-1
Tom Breu, WISC CD-1 opposing Rep. Paul Ryan
Myron Buchholz WISC CD-3 vs Ron Kind (primary August 9th)
SENATE
Tom Fiegen, IOWA
Cori Bush MISSOURI (MO senate primary is Aug.2), Ferguson, Mo.
Misty Kathrine Snow UTAH
Jeff Merkley OREGON
Kevin Stine OREGON -defeated by Ron Wyden in primary
John Fetterman, PA – defeated in primary
Steve Stokes CALIFORNIA
Emory Rodgers CALIFORNIA (there are 6 or 7 D primary candidates for senate)
Phil Cornell WASHINGTON STATE
Axel Bello ARIZONA
Right, there are some Democrats who are sympathetic to Sanders and his goals. But he’s not helping them! They were around before him, and if they’re campaigning for or holding office after the convention it will be because of what they’ve done and not anything from him or his movement.
Worse, Sanders is now telling the socialists that the Democratic party is hopelessly corrupt (because candidates accept money needed for campaigns and help each other win). The result is that the socialists your list need to vote for them in primaries are effectively being encouraged to leave the party and/or not join it. Come 2018, if Sanders doesn’t change his tune, all the folks on your list will be worse off than if Sanders had never run.
It’s a bit unfair to compare Bernie, one man who has to raise all his own money from small individual contributions, to the entire DNC, which shovels in huge truckloads of cash and doles out only a very small fraction of it, and only on a strict quid-pro-quo basis.
Bernie has talked little about this, but I imagine it’s because he won’t know how much money he actually has until his own primary run in over.
The other thing you have to realize is that the very fact these candidates are endorsing Bernie has at least partially the effect of his endorsing them, in that it should help them in their campaigning and fundraising.
But the other thing is, he simply has no time to campaign for other candidates right now. He has been too busy running his 50-state, very personal campaign.
Finally, and probably most important of all, most of these candidacies are probably not viable. Not because of the candidate, and not because they endorse Bernie, but because they are running against a powerful incumbent, or they are a D in a very conservative R district.
This being said, Bernie is in fact raising funds for at least three candidates: New York’s Zephyr Teachout, Nevada’s Lucy Flores, and Washington state’s Pramila Jayapal I suppose because these are strong candidates with a real chance of winning.
But I think it would be a mistake to regard this as the end of it. It’s an ongoing situation, and I think he will help other down-ticket candidates, but not just yet.
The comparison isn’t to the DNC, it’s to successful candidates like Obama and Clinton (both) who support and raise money for dozens of downstream candidates as they run their own – successful – presidential campaigns. This creates supporters, and in addition helps the candidate and their ideas down the line even if they lose – as we’re seeing with Hillary right now. It should be even more of a priority for Sanders if he’s really running to make all the things he’s talking about happen. If he, or some protege, ever does become President they’ll need 218/51/5 to make almost any of this stuff happen and they’ll have – 3 – maybe. Not exactly promising.
Plus all the young socialists who might change the numbers in a decade or so are being told there’s no point in doing anything in the Democratic party.
Oh, and if Bernie doesn’t want to support candidates because they’re in strongly Republican districts, that would mean he’s not a supporter of the 50 state strategy, right?
Hillary’s system of down-ticket support is managed through the DNC. It’s called the “Hillary Victory Fund”.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5b30b97a7406469ca28cf04a14089a4e/eyeing-senate-clinton-directing-mone
y-2016-battlegrounds
The rest of the stuff you’re saying is theoretically true, but not possible at the moment, as I explained in my previous comment. Of course Bernie is a supporter of the 50-state strategy, but he personally does not have the $$$ to support a 50-state strategy. The candidates, for now, can do what he does, i.e. raise money from small contributions.
The absurdity of this line of argument is that you are comparing one man with an entire party apparatus. Then presumably you would go into the whole meme of how Bernie isn’t a real Democrat and why doesn’t he work within the party fundraising system. Which is based on collecting large amounts of money from oligarchical and unaccountable sources. And then. of course, Bernie refuses to do this because he is a “purist”, rather than because it is the fount of corruption of our whole political system. Next you will recommend that he start a slush fund, er, I mean foundation like the Clinton Foundation, and give speeches to Goldman Sachs, etc. That would definitely raise a lot of money for down-ticket campaigns.
BTW, I think your reading of the situation is very peculiar. Absolutely nobody is forcing or even pressuring these candidates to endorse Bernie. I’m sure they identify with the movement and will continue to do so.
Many of them are first-time candidates, including some who are in their 20s and 30s.
The ones who are already office holders have their own fundraising networks.
As a matter of fact, ActBlue has a fund that has so far raised over $46,000 for all of them collectively.
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/sandersdemocratsforushouse-ussenate
I agree with that assessment, but I think it’s a shame. I’d like to see that energy continue to shape the agenda. But I’m afraid that folks will just go away. Most will just because, well, “life.” Others will be disaffected. The few who remain can and should keep trying to mold the system. But that’s not “revolution,” but evolution.
I think both Trump’s and Clinton’s supporters would rather have each other’s candidate than Sanders.
Sanders’ supporters if denied victory may well vote Trump just to punish Hillary.
Or abstain…
Trump may be rogue elite, but he’s still ‘one of them’.
Which is exactly what a candidate called Barack Obama did in 2008 against the same opponent. Sanders fancied himself better than Prez Obama, but he forgot one hing. POTUS knows how to ORGANIZE and win. Never complained that the system was rigged. He simply out organized his opponent and won.
Realistically, what I think he should do is end the quixotic bid to win over superdelegates and focus exclusively on increasing his pledged delegate totals for leverage at the convention. He’s not going to win a majority of delegates (pledged or super), and so he’s not going to win the nomination – he should be looking at how to best mold his movement so that it survives beyond this election cycle. Crafting his message to the superdelegates is not useful in that regard.
He IS trying to maximize his pledged delegates. That’s called “campaigning”.
As for the super delegates, it’s not an either/or. Trying to get super delegates on your side is a completely different process than winning primary votes.
It’s true that campaigning and appealing to supers may be separate in a sense, but you appeal to the supers via campaigning to the voters. My point is that the more Bernie’s message to voters (and supers) focuses on his electability vs. Trump, the less his core ideas shine through and the less resonance those ideas may have after this election cycle is over.
IOW, for the Clinton campaign, “mission accomplished”
Attack him at his strengths–his tone and the absence of serious flaws in his record or the record of his integrity. Defense: he looks weak. Offense: he gets off message. Ignore: he gets repetition of the attacks, which fix it in the voters’ minds.
Exactly how swiftboating worked against Kerry, the American hero.
Or you set up a fund-raising scheme to “buy” their votes.
Sorta like The Hillary Victory Fund was set up to do.
Or you could raise money for them for 20+ years, campaign with them to get them elected, build relationships with their constituents over many years, and stay in contact and listen to them…..which is what she did.
That builds loyalty. I know this does not fit with your scenario, and you want to concentrate on something created over the last couple years. But the truth is that this is the culmination of multi-decades of hard work. If you deny that, and cannot acknowledge that that is what works, and what breeds success, then you lose. THAT is what builds ‘movements’ and ‘revolutions’. It’s why Booman believed Clinton was unbeatable. Sanders was not dead in the water one or two years ago, he was dead in the water TWENTY years ago when he made the decision to not raise money for anybody, not build relationships in congress. People who he has worked with do not like him.
Truth…….Obama won in 2008 because he had build more relationships in the senate than Sanders has since joining congress in 1992, which made it easy for super delegates to switch to his side. They liked and trusted him.
Right now you can see this facet of Sanders. He burned bridges over the last months that he now needs. Now he just looks like a hypocrite.
Because he is.
.
.
So more DNC centrist even though half of the voters in the democratic primaries, and when allowed multitudes of independents are sick of the centrist DNC neo-liberal campaign..
She might be able to win in the democratic primaries controlled by the DNC and centrists, but in the general she’s going to need a hell of a lot more, that so far I don’t see her or her handlers being open to.
This populist election cycle needs a lot more than has been offered from the same old same old DNC and Clinton machine.
It’s not the party insiders who have made their living off the tired old same old same old that is going to decide this election, and unless they wake up, Hillary is going to find out exactly how Jeb! felt back in February.
This election cycle could be what 1980 was for the republicans. Bernie doesn’t have to be the head of the ticket, but his ideas do need to be the focus of the ticket for that to happen. Some people don’t’ want to make that kind of change because how well they have done with how limited democratic victories have been.
If we miss this chance we might lose the option other forces. If left wing populism is blocked this time, right wing populism might be too powerful to resist in 2018 let alone 2020.
Ya, ya, ya,
I got that the first time someone posted it 9 months ago. Now it’s been posted hundreds of times. We got it…you and your cohort don’t like her. And you allow that to taint everything you post on a political blog. And when Booman does not do the same, or as someone said, show passion, many of the cohort call him a sell out.
We got it.
But she HAS won the nomination. Whatever you feel about her ethics and morality, you should try to get beyond your dislike and realize how she won, and why. Because it’s a blueprint.
.
.
NO YOU DON”T GET IT
same old same old is going to LOSE.
This election could have been our 1980.
Change the course of political dialogue and get more progressive less rich/wall street politicians in office.
But the DNC and Clinton machine didn’t have that in their script.
same old same old lost in the GOP primaries and almost lost to a democratic socialist in the democratic primaries.
You don’t have a clue how unhappy a very large section of the American electorate is.
If you did your posts wouldn’t be so dismissive.
Is double spacing proof of passion?
OK, let’s say I was to agree with you and same old, same old, is a loser.
Let’s say you get EVERYONE at Booman to agree with you.
Let’s say EVERYONE here started posting anti-Clinton screeds in double spacing (to emphasize our passion)
Let’s say they posted using MATH
Let’s say they posted using personal anecdotes, which are so popular with the cohort.
Let’s say Booman himself apologized, and using lots of double spacing to prove his passion, proceeded to call Sanders the second coming of FDR (which of course he is, if we are talking racial sensitivity)
If all that happened, Hillery Clinton is still going to be the nominee.
Sorry!
.
Total failure to actually address why so many people rejected the same old same old.
Might be interesting why you keep avoiding this simple but POWER fact.
As Booman said is his recent post;
Independents aren’t looking at the primary but who the media tell them they have to choose between.
You better hope those same independents hate the idea of Trump more than the tired same old same old.
Excellent comment.
“People who he has worked with do not like him.”
That is not an unusual accusation for a politician, who despite being independent, has gotten some significant things done in the Democratic caucus. I’m sure the members of Congress who did not want high medical cost ratios and community clinics that compete with for-profit and large non-profit medical systems do not like the fact that he bargained it into the ACA for his one vote.
Sanders was indeed dead in the water for higher office–because he was officially an independent who just caucused with the Democrats. If he really was going to go over the the Republicans, he cold have entered the clown car.
What made him not dead in the water this year is the failure of the Democratic establishment’s failure to take seriously the growing anger over its failure in power to deliver peace and prosperity. And its increasing reputation in state and local governments for serious corruption. What really upset them was Tom Daschle crossing over from supposedly helping with health care reform to be a health care industry lobbyist. Barney Frank crossing over from Dood-Frank to being a financial industry lobbyist for loopholes to sabotage Dodd-Frank. Chris Dodd becoming the chief lobbyist for the media industry trying to extend the copyright forever, eliminating public domain, and encouraging the end of public domain for government documents and media.
Bernie Sanders’s constituency asked him to run because he seemed the least untainted by the Democratic establishment.
There are some bridges that must be burned if the grassroots is to gain control of the government again. Bridges with big donors; bridges with lobbyists; bridges with corrupt businessmen; bridges with lobbyists for foreign nations.
Sanders has consistently argued that superdelegates are an undemocratic part of the Democratic Party. He has consistent argued that recruiting superdelegates in advance to foreclose a primary battle is an example of the undemocratic nature of superdelgates. It is an argument against the same “smoke-filled rooms” that screwed up the 1968 convention. But he has also said that he will abide by the current rules of the party and the state parties.
Those rules in some states allow county conventions to nullify county caucuses and state conventions to nullify county conventions in what amounts to a freewheeling negotiation among railroaded rules and hyped-up delegates. Typically, the chaos ends with a consensus. In Nevada, the chaos ended with cops and a forced adjournment. Not the best way to keep party unity.
He looks like a hypocrite because the Clinton communications machine have used all of their resources to make him look unattractive to the remaining, especially California, primary voters. And sponsoring violence, being a hypocrite, having sexist supporters, being a racist, being the “mayor of a sundown town”–all of that is fair game in political propaganda but it is still just propaganda and does not reflect either the candidate or Sanders campaign. Just like the putative responsibility that Hillary Clinton has for Bill Clinton’s personal behavior or the behavior of her non-surrogate supporters (like Ralston or media figures who have been putting their fingers on the scale) don’t reflect her or her campaign.
But Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, in a unique move this year, has taken it upon herself to act as a surrogate spokesperson for the CLinton campaign as well as stack the process. That is behavior that DNC chairs usually reserve for incumbent Presidents in their second-term campaign.
What BooMan has said is that President Obama and the DNC see the Clinton campaign exactly in such terms. You say this is their right because they have built the machines.
What the Sanders supporters are saying that is controversial is that those machines have failed to win three Congresses, have lost governors and state legislatures, and have been resistant to policy changes that would benefit their putative constituencies and bring in more independent (not “centrist”) voters in the general election. And they have been resistant to fundamental Party reforms that will cleanse the image of corruption that they have in too many states.
I doubt if Bernie Sanders ever considered running for President until at least after the debt default debacle and subsequent Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in the 2010 to 2012 period. And likely never took steps forward until after the Republican and Netanyahu’s attempt to sabotage the Iran Nuclear Agreement and the passivity and complicity of some members of the Democratic caucus who were being coddled by the leadership in the Republican plan. As best I can tell, those are the major events about the time that Sanders began his exploratory committee. It might be worth taking a look back to this period.
I know that this was a time at which I was saying that there needed to be some way of depriving the media of campaign funding bonanza and moving from a marketing-style campaign to a campaign of political discussion. Well Sanders did not do that, but he did create a grassroots funding model that has gotten him through almost all of the primaries. That has offset burning some of the bridges.
But as the primary comes to an end, it is not Sanders, but increasing Clinton who needs not to have burned some bridges herself.
For all the talk of winning, the pledged delegate in play are not in the bag, just improable for Sanders.
What an excellent piece of writing TarheelDem. Thank you!
This had NOTHING to do with the successful run of a one-term Senator for the nomination…https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/30/how-ted-kennedy-helped-change
-the-course-of-the-2008-election
Nor the fact that Obama is a true sui generis.
Sanders is riding a wave. He did not engender it–he just named it.
Hillary beats Sanders, Sanders beats Trump, Trump beats Hillary.
Clever, but wrong on 2 out of 3.
CBS poll has Clinton plus six.
MSNBC — Breaking News: At NJ Fundraiser, Trump Blames Terror for EgyptAir, Ribs Chris Christie Over Oreos. Complete with lots of pictures including Trump’s helicopter landing at the venue. As Billmon said, “They just can’t help themselves.”
Christie’s found himself in his own special hell.
The best part he did it to himself, and essentially has no where else to turn to.
I always knew that right wing folks loved hippie bashing and pissing off those on the left, but before the rise of Trump, I did not appreciate just how much they love generalized cruelty.
Then you haven’t paid very close attention to the right wing media, politicians and party functionaries the last 50 years or so.
There are many comments above that I’d like to say something about, but it’s difficult to make them as I read, so I have to go back to each one. Instead, I’ll just say this, which I think is true: How someone votes the first time they vote is likely to be how they continue to vote for years more. So we have a whole cohort of new, young voters. How will Bernie, who is mathematically unlikely to win the nomination, turn these voters into DEMOCRATIC voters? Is he even interested in that? Or doesn’t he care?
There is a feeling among some of us Democratic party people that the attacks on the party itself, on Wasserman Shultz, on the process, has a detrimental effect of creating a protest vote among these first-time voters. Green? Jill Stein has been busy tweeting. How about Libertarian with Gary Johnson. Want legal pot?
However warranted these attacks are, I think I question the methodology Sanders is pursuing. It seems difficult to rile folks up that “the system is rigged” and then ask them to participate in that very same system. If being an Independent (as he has been all his political life) is how to change the Democrats, then why ever vote for Democrats? Seems counter-intuitive and difficult. Perhaps a Catch-22.
A lot of Democratic voters, myself included, cannot overlook the Democratic establishment’s failures to seize important opportunities over the past 10 years. The losses in Congress, governorships, and state legislatures are evidence of malpractice by the paid political class of the Democratic Party. The same people now telling the people they want to support the Democratic Party to look the other way is really rich.
Especially to those of us who have held our nose and voted for some Democrats year after year who are responsible for the loss of confidence by voters.
The system is indeed rigged to the benefit of insiders and sclerotic and failing. If those in established positions don’t see it or are in fact trying to preserve it, those who Obama brought into the process and those who are local supporters of Democratic organizations do see it. Sanders is bringing in a new wave of potential energy for local Democratic organizations and the organizational officials are trying to prevent that in a time in which local Democratic organizations are disappearing for county after county, precinct after precinct. What OFA did in 2008 in organization not only is a lost opportunity, it was deliberately scuttled in the midst of the healthcare debate and before the 2010 election. There are some very active people in OFA that have not forgotten that.
The question is whether the Democratic Party can change so that it can win elections downticket in a significantly wider map than it has over the past two decades.
If the Republican Party is in disarray, why is the Democratic establishment being so hardnosed about widening the Democratic tent to Sanders, and what is it that it can offer them to stay?
So, does a system that benefits the insiders have to be sclerotic and failing? Is that a necessary part of a system? Here where I live we are thrilled that people are jazzed up (bad phrase, sorry). This is a very left-leaning place. Bernie will do well here. But in recent meetings, those of us eager to welcome Bernie supporters to the Democratic party have been rebuffed if we’re not on the same page as they are. At least it feels that way. How do we welcome those folks without just handing over the reins to folks who have never been engaged before? So, you’re right. It is “potential energy” and I guess I’m still wondering whether that potential will materialize. The party said to an Independent: “C’mon, run as a Democrat.” Wasn’t that enough? Do you think Sanders will continue to be a Democrat once this is over? And isn’t there some obligation he has to mend the Democratic divide? I’d guess you would say “no,” but I think “yes.” Both he and Clinton have a lot of work to do. We’ll see who works at it more.
As for OFA, I can’t agree with you more about the energy lost. I often say here that for me it’s a kind of proof that the energy dissipates giving the status quo ante time to regroup and reestablish itself. I expect the same with Sanders supporters after this election, though I hold out hope that I’m wrong. Locally, we would like that energy and commitment.
In politics it generally does because the whole notion of a general election is to argue that the party benefits the general public more than it benefits the insiders. And Parkinson’s Law is that when inside communications exceed communications an organization cannot accuracy read its environment and tends to fail.
So yes, getting absorbed with benefiting the officials of the party inevitably leads to sclerosis. It explains Trump and it explains the passion of the Sanders supporters. It also explains the antipathy of those who are most personally benefiting from the status quo.
Running as a Democrat is just a branding. At the moment in many places it is a failing brand. In 2014 the donkey as brand died at the hands of a lousy campaign.
Sanders has revitalized the brand in many places where it had failed. Clinton has used the networks that have survived after 2014 and where the brand survives despite surrounding hostility.
The negotiations are not going to come out with the Democratic Party where it is but with a realigned Democratic Party that incorporates a significant part of Sanders’s platform. This will require such things as an end to the lobbyist and post-political=career gravy train best represented by Barney Frank and Tom Daschle, whose supposed interest in progressive issues of banking and healthcare allowed them to walked their way into jobs lobbying for the banking industry and healthcare industry, respectively. Shutting down that lobbying industry is one place that you can get money out of politics before you can get enough states to ratify a Constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United.
Sanders will continue to be a Democrat if the party makes rooms for his views and sufficient institutional power within the party for his supporters. If the party merely seeks to co-opt the number of his supporters without real and substantial (“of substance”) changes, if their voice is tolerated but has no power, Sanders and each of his supporters will apply the two questions that Albert O. Hirschman decribes (my comment upthread).
Strange that you are putting this on Bernie. He is exactly the reason there are so many new young voters, and if they prefer his policies to Hillary’s, then the way to address that is for Hillary to adopt Bernie’s policies. To some limited extent she is already doing this, or at least pretending she is, but there is little reason to trust her.
That’s why we need the contested convention, which should not be considered abnormal or alarming under these circumstances. Because these issues have to be resolved, fairly, for the party. There have been insurgent campaigns in the past, and they have had important historical effects. The huge amount of support for Bernie’s ideas, even among some who prefer Hillary, means that it’s time for the rest of the party to step up to the plate.
Bernie has pledged to support Hillary if she is the nominee, but even he cannot force the new voters to vote for her. In fact, he is in danger of some of them considering him a sellout if he supports her.
Priscianus – If you are addressing me (and it’s always difficult to tell here on Booman with the way things are indented) — Bernie has not pledged to support Hillary. He has pledged to fight against Trump. At least I think that’s right.
And as for what policies the new voters want, I don’t think there are policies. Mostly I think there are identified problems without proposed solutions from the Sanders campaign. It’s a complaint campaign, not a policy campaign. And it has moved from complaining about income inequality to complaining about “the Democratic party system.” Even Weaver says “open the primaries to Independents” (like the Dems opened their primary to Bernie, I guess.) But then he won’t commit to “no caucuses”. Hmmmmm.
I’m opening myself up here to ugly comments, I guess. But I think Bernie is poisoning the well. He is turning young people into life-long Independents instead of Democrats.
On the other hand, I would also make the argument that his campaign is important and productive in a different way. Folks who cast votes in the House and Senate feel the Bern, but they aren’t scorched. They are political beasts and see the demographic writing on the wall. They want to be reelected and the smart ones will start to introduce and pass legislation that corresponds to some of the trends out there. But running for President is a different animal than representing a CD or a state. So I’m optimistic that some of Bernie’s aspirations will be nearly actualized over time if his supporters keep their reps and senators’ feet to the fire. If they disappear after voting, then the status quo most likely remains. But it requires working within the system to change it bit by bit, I believe.
Do you have a working relationship with your congress-person or Senators? Do you support them financially or with your energy? I think that’s the way to move our reps to the left. This is all too focused on the presidential race.
This is really good, and I think you pretty much nailed it. Some people rail about the current system, but Sanders campaign has shown how much the Democratic Party members (to a much lessor degree, the country) has moved left. And yes….Thanks, Obama. People forget that not very long ago it was not considered reasonable to suggest RAISING social security benefits (thanks Atrios), but now it’s near mainstream and will most likely happen.
But he lost. There is no path to victory, if ‘victory’ is the nomination. Now we get to see, finally, how good a politician Sanders is. Because a good politician gets what he can when he cannot get what he wants. Ted Kennedy was an incredibly flawed individual, but he was able to move the rock even when he lost, making him a great politician, and making even his loses valuable.
.
Isn’t this the distinction between “hard” support and “soft” support? We’ll see where each candidate stands in the coming weeks, but I have my guesses…
How coy, and what are those?
Bernie hasn’t been vetted. The GOP with their billion dollars would have a field day with him.
GMAFB. Team Clinton vetted Bernie every bit as much as they did Obama and anything her team could possibly use against Barack and Bernie has been used. Why do you think that by the time Obama got to the general election that there was nothing left for McCain/Palin to use that hadn’t been heard before and didn’t move anyone outside the rightwing nutter base?
The best part is when liberals like Michelle Goldberg then write articles that amount to, “Well if I were a right winger, I wouldn’t hesitate to attack like this, or this, or that…you know, not to give them any ideas or anything, we just have to be ready for what they’d do.”
It reminds me of this Daffy Duck cartoon when Daffy boxes Elmer Fudd. The ref (who is a duck) meanwhile says “None of this, or this, or that” as he punches Elmer, to which Daffy responds, “Oh, so you mean none of this, or that, or this” as he punches Elmer as well. All before the fighting even “started”.
When the oppo is focused on the spouse for something she in fact did not do (a bank ended a line of credit), The candidate has been thoroughly vetted and there’s nothing there.
The only place the GOP can go is with “commie, commie, commie” and made up shit just like they did with Obama.
At some point it becomes so silly that it becomes a liability for Trump’s campaign and down-ticket campaigns.
Markos jumped the shark today about Sanders personally. Same sort of whack-the-beehive logic that caused him grief with his women’s studies comment in the original pie fight.
If his post was coordinated with the Clinton campaign, they must be in desperation mode about the California primary (not that they likely will pull out a win).
There is a singular forcefulness that can only be read as wanting to so damage Bernie Sanders personally that they will not have to give up anything at the convention. LIkely that anxiety is the result of the experience in 2008.
Well, it looks like the HC camp tried very hard to manufacture their “Dean Scream” out there in NV for Sanders.
Scopes debunks.
http://www.snopes.com/did-sanders-supporters-throw-chairs-at-nevada-democratic-convention/
for some definitive (or as definitive as such things can be) fact-check of the “chair-throwing” and “violence” claims.
You provided it.
I heard the NPR report mentioned. I, too, was inclined to faith in Jon Ralston’s objectivity, based on his prior reporting that I had seen.
Boy, did his credibility take a hit from this!
And (again!) “corporate-sponsorship” NPR’s, not so much for initially treating Ralston as reliable, but for ombudsman’s response (crucially including re: “violence”) when it was proven that he wasn’t.
Without the video that can be run on a continuous loop by cable news, it’s like the “whitey tape.” Another effort by dirty tricksters for HRC.
Bill Curry on sclerotic politics in the DNC.
More Bill Curry:
Loyalty, Voice, and Exit
The framing that bosses do of “disgruntled employees”. Personalize, criticize performance, claim disloyalty.
It’s exactly why there are so few whistleblowers and change agents in failing organizations. The are marginalized to one possible action: “Love it or leave it.” Isn’t that the saying? The American ideology of exit that Hirschman discusses.
Corey Robin weighs in:
Corey Robin: Love Me, Love Me, Love Me, I’m a Leninist
Yes, the reality was hidden in who was considered a “democratic citizen”.
And Snopes weighs in:
Snopes.com: The Chair Thrown ‘Round the World: A Las Vegas reporter’s second-hand claim Bernie Sanders supporters threw chairs at a Nevada convention was widely reproduced by other news outlets.
Verdict: Unproven
Here you go.
Poll sourced from RealClearPolitics. Nonetheless likely accurate reporting of the poll.
Mission accomplished for HRC communications operatives.
Goes with depressing Sanders’s negotiating power within the party going forward. Or making sure the left wing of American politics stays amputated.
I’d say the chances of that last debate just went down, no?
Given the communications strategies, what’s to debate at this point. You know where the questions will go.
Did you stop at the graph? Or did you scroll down to the full polling history? Because that shows Clinton with a clear lead, pretty much within the same ranges, for months.
And these recent polls follow Sanders’ disastrous NY Daily News interview and his losses in the East Coast primaries. Do you wholly discount the effects of all that?
Further, if it’s legitimate for Sanders to attack Clinton, why is it wrong for her to attack him? Is her campaign supposed to meekly submit to being assailed without striking back?
Here is what’s remaining up for grabs. I don’t know all of the states left, but California is the big one, and the communication strategy right now is aimed at that primary.
Pointing out trend analysis only indicates how steep a hill Sanders must climb now to actually win the nomination. His winning is an improbability at the moment but not yet an impossibility.
It is perfectly legitimate for both candidates to attack each other. It is not conducive of party unity for those attacks to be taken personally or for them to spin out hyperbolically.
Of course, this is the endgame stage of a party insurgency that reached outside the party for a candidate. An insurgency that took to heart the practical wisdom that they should work within the system. Now that constituency that Sanders represents and has organized into a movement wants a seat at the table of power in the Democratic Party. In some ways, that’s something that Obama’s constituency only recently achieved or which has been held off except for certain identified issues. It has only been the attrition of Democrats in Congress that has caused some degree of party unity behind Obama in the Congress. So in a sense, the Democratic Party has not yet processed the Obama insurgency and certainly not completely come to terms with the issues affecting African Americans. Superdelegate Rahm Emanuel and his police department are the poster children of this reality. (Rahm is a superdelegate is he not?)
Once the nominee is clear (when Sanders taking 100% of the vote does not put him with a majority of the pledged delegates), the parties must get down to negotiating what party unity concretely looks like in terms of (1) a policy agenda, (2) the strategy and tactics of a unity campaign, (3) how to involve the Sanders constituency that might want to bolt, (4) how to involve GOP voters who are scared, disgusted, or offended by Trump. While Hispanic Republicans and African American Republicans are the first to come to mind, there are likely some white labor union or suburban Republicans who would split for a strongly unified party capable of winning (and might even add to a down-ticket margin to produce the desired wave election.) A wave election would give Clinton more running room in office to the left. Whether she would use that latitude is something that enough people are cynical about to cause caution without actual party unity.
The Clinton campaign should realize the danger they are in by brushing off the Sanders’s constituency’s demands for reform of the internal party operations top to bottom to include more people at the local and state level, reduce the influence of lobbyists, and safeguard against corruption, and party-destroying scandals.
The Clinton campaign should come to realize the precarious position the US economy is in with the continued dominance of a financial sector that thinks that it writing the rules is due diligence.
The Clinton campaign should come to realize that the neoconservative or liberal interventionist foreign policy that Clinton is comfortable with may not be the most prudent going forward for the US>
The Clinton campaign must have some concrete strategy for dealing with the consequences of global climate change as 30 years of diddling around has brought the reality of possible major catastrophe.
Taking policy criticisms as personal assaults is bad form for any campaign. But what people actually did is open game for criticism. What exactly was Clinton thinking when she was speaking for $200K a pop to the banking industry? Was it really, “Boy-oh, do I have them by the short and curlies now.” as BooMan maintains? That is not a personal attack but is easily construed as one.
Yes, Bernie’s analysis of his Southern losses were too telegraphic and easily construed as being racist, just as Clinton’s reality about the future of the coal industry in West Virginia and Kentucky.
What is real is that the African-American networks that supported Clinton and Obama held firm for Clinton and were difficult for Sanders to organize as a result. Sanders did pick up a substantial part of the Afican-American youth vote as part of the youth vote in general, even in the South. But in the South, a large part of the youth vote still went into the Republican primary. That analysis is not racist, but it was easily construed that way by Clinton surrogates and a more-than-willing media. Once engrained it became a frame on both sides for diverging views about the candidates. Of course that’s what professional communication consultants want to have happen in a primary–clarify the differences, by hyperbole if necessary.
It is significant at this point to notice that supporters on both sides do not realize how they have been played by an essentially marketing-oriented approach to political conversation within the frame of a military form, a “campaign”. That does not move political ideas toward consensus but toward divergence.
And then instead of arriving at a broad consensus, the typical manifestation of party unity is just another round of advertising. Maybe common visual themes, but often just campaign coordination of some kind or another to reduce costs just a tad.
The counter-question is whether the Sanders constituency is going to exiled to the political wilderness where a significant proportion of OFA activists found themselves with the replacement of Howard Dean at the DNC by Tim Kaine? Or worse, will their dissent be marginalized and security theater used to marginalize them as was done in Chicago in 1968 (actually it began at the Pentagon in 1967) or in the suppression of Occupy Wall Street?
The CLinton communications are already doubling down on the “Bernie Bros are violent” meme by reporting that four groups have filed for permits outside the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. The part they do not mention is that all four group are, according to The Hill, independent of the Sanders campaign. So,in what ways are they BernieBros, in contrast to independent groups that always demonstrate at Democratic Conventions?
It is not likely that this nonsense will stop before July. But if it does, and Democrats that they typical lull in August, only starting to campaign on Labor Day, they might find that not only have they lost party unity but the election as well.
The vision of Democrats blowing it with Trump as an opponent by being “practical” is what drive some Sanders supporters over the edge Trump as just as a repeat of Naderism 2000 drives some Clinton supporters over the edge.
It is now that the two side better be working on the beginning negotiations for party unity in good faith. Anything less kills the donkey for good.
Very fair assessment. I, too, hope security theater is not their answer to the political challenge. But they are not terribly imaginative…
Who is “they”? The Philadelphia Police Department or someone else?
Was 1968 all on Daley?
I do think so. It was Daley who was most exercised about the lack of patriotism of the anti-war protesters. They would have been targets just for that, regardless of how they behaved.
But then there were the Yippies in Grant Park Abbie Hoffman, Anita Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Nancy Kurshan, and Paul Krassner). The serious ones were Tom Hayden (Students for a Democratic Society), Bobby Seale (Black Panther Party), Rennie Davis (SDS), John Froines (a Goddard College chemistry professor), and Lee Wiener (a doctoral candidate and teaching assistant at Northwestern University). To the extent there was order in the direct action outside the hall, it was provided by the very people the police focused on and faced indictment as the Chicago 7.
David Dellinger must have seemed a key figure in the network:
Of course that was before the Department of Homeland Security and the Police Executives Research Forum (PERF) and their “best practices” on crowd control. And witnessed against Occupy Wall Street, the NoNATO march in Chicago and the #blacklivesmatter movement.
Daley’s plan was to discredit the antiwar movement with his base of blue-collar Chicago workers. He succeeded so well that they voted for Richard Nixon.
An interesting interview from the Seattle PC about the WTO riots of 1999 that in-part engendered the codified response of today…
http://www.thenation.com/article/paramilitary-policing-seattle-occupy-wall-street/
and DHS flooding local law enforcement with grants and surplus “free stuff” in the form of military gear up to and including literal tanks.
Carville-Greenberg DemocracyCorps assessment
Historic Moment for Progressives
I take this as a opening move on discussion of a unity agenda.
I would add, from Sanders agenda:
Single-payer healthcare
Up increase in minimum wage to $15
Legislative back up Obama’s overtime regulations
Increase in Social Security benefits
Full funding of HeadStart slots and normalization as preschool-for-all
Those are the bullet-points. Each needs a how-to-pay-for-it brief.
Tax fairness is likely the way to pay for it along with an complete audit of the national security establishment and eradication of non-performing programs.
Stop the privatization of public education.
Yep, that one too.
Here is the most important item for your list.
After the people of California have had their say with a significant win for Bernie along with additional polls showing Hillary is over her head and likely to lose against Trump, the professionals in the Democratic Party who have spent their lives supporting the real values of the Democratic Party, not the neoliberal corruption Hillary and the Clinton Machine represent, decide that Bernie Sanders is the best chance we have to beat Trump plus lead us through a much needed realignment of the Democratic Party.
If we cannot get that above crucial item, you can forget about every other item on that list because the oligarchs will never give any of them to you. Hillary is bought and she will stay bought.
On the other hand, without Bernie, we might get lucky. Maybe the Independents and Bernie supporters who realize that for any real progressive progress to occur, neoliberalism must be defeated; they will do the dirty work to deny the Presidency to Hillary.
It’s sort of the Iron Price forced upon us courtesy of the Democratic Establishment.
It’s the Congress and the legislatures that move that agenda.
As for the primary, it’s the California vote totals that sway the negotiations — thus the communications flame war. If Californians fail to turn out for Sanders in massive numbers because they think the primary season is over and Clinton has it in the bag, Sanders loses that much clout in the convention.
If the Clinton campaign persists in thinking they can win without any Sanders voters or that most all of Sanders voters will be trapped into voting for Clinton because the “have no choice but Trump”, the general election turnout will be depressed in more way than one.
Traditionally, it is up to the winner of the primary to unify the party. Democrats have lost when either a candidate or the establishment is too arrogant to unify the party or when the establishment has sandbagged the candidate.
Democrats have gotten unearned wins without fully unifying the party when a third party takes a major segment of the Republican constituency.
Insurgent movements within the party are calls for party unity in a new realignment else they go outside the party. The establishment is often the one wishing for ponies in these sorts of situations.
“It’s the Congress and the legislatures that move that agenda.”
Thank you for making that key point. The performance of the DLC inspired Clinton Machine during the entire Obama years has been more that a dismal failure by handing the Congress and legislatures to the Republicans. The reason for this is Third Way New Democrat politics have been and will continue to be rejected by the voters on both sides of the aisle. The result of the Clinton Machine remaining in power would mean even more power ceded to the Republicans. If that happens, you can kiss your list goodbye, probably for good.
“…Sanders loses that much clout in the convention.”
The only clout at the convention that counts is winning the nomination. The platform means less than nothing if the winning candidate does not believe in it. Hillary will never change what she believes as a concession to Bernie nor would I ever expect her to but she may very well try to tell you she has.
“…calls for party unity in a new realignment else they go outside the party.”
There is no question that Hillary’s nomination will deny that realignment. On the other hand, if nominated, Hillary embracing that realignment might be the only thing that would have any chance to unite the party considering all the damage the DNC has already done.
The first critical issue is even the thought of enduring another eight year Clinton administration. The issues we face are too serious for her incremental half measures lasting eight years. Hillary could announce she will only be a one term President. Even that might be a hard sell considering she is probably more likely to blow up the world than Trump.
The central issue for realignment concerns the corrosive effect of the capture of the Democratic Party by DLC style neoliberalism as expressed by the failure of the New Democrats. Hillary could announce that she had learned some profound lessons from the American people because of the near overwhelming resonance of a Democratic Socialist from a standing start in such a short period of time. That lesson was that it was essential that the Democratic Party return to its roots in the FDR tradition of being the Party of the People.
Hillary could continue to say that she agreed with FDR that you can’t have it both ways. You cannot accept money from the oligarchs if you expect to pursue a progressive agenda because that progressive agenda is in direct conflict with the oligarchs, that you can as Bernie has shown us, run an effective national campaign without dependence on Big Money.
Continuing in that same vein, Hillary does recognize that people under 45 attracted to the change Bernie has advocated is the future of the Democratic Party. We must tap into that energy and enthusiasm Bernie had generated if we expect to take back the Congress and legislatures lost to the Republicans because if we are to accomplish true progressive reforms, “it’s the Congress and the legislatures that move that agenda.”
In order to embrace the realignment called for by the insurgent movement within our own party, Hillary would ask Bernie Sanders to take over the DNC and related Democratic structures with the mandate to unrig the process allowing the doors to open for change from within the Democratic Party.
Why would a lifelong Democrat such as me ever consider voting for an obnoxious clown like Donald Trump? The answer is to weaken the Democratic Party enough to break the corrupt neoliberal domination of the Democratic Party. The only other alternative would be a new third party to leave the corrupt Democratic Party in a weakened and irrelevant state. Losing half their base, especially the young half would do just that. Bottom line here is that neoliberalism has to go, one way or another.
Probably the best chance is Sanders people working outside the DNC for more House members in their corner in 2018, eh? And please, please, state leges. DNC barely bothers with them.
The best chance depends on what happens next.
The very best option is that the Democratic professionals decide that Hillary and the DNC have gone too far and exercise their fail safe mechanism to nominate Bernie. The Democratic Party explodes with enthusiasm taking back the Senate and most if not a majority of the House then finishes the job in 2018 if needed. The success of the growth of the economy and a commitment from a Sanders administration to flip the State Houses would have a major impact. Bernie’s political revolution could dominate politics for at least the next 40 years because it would be by the people and for the people.
The most likely option is a Hillary nomination that would accompany a Hillary/DNC overreach so severe that a large portion of their base is so alienated that they not only just abstain but make it count double by voting for Trump. At that point the DNC and the Democratic Establishment would be choking on their own ashes for losing a winnable election to a lunatic like Donald Trump. By no means certain, this might be enough of a shock for them to beg for reform to rid themselves of neoliberalism and the Clinton Machine opening a window for reform from inside the Democratic Party.
By far, the worst outcome for progressives would be for Hillary to squeak out a victory then consolidate her neoliberal power. If that should happen, the best chance would be a new third party with the word `Progressive’ in its name. The target would be Red State Republicans where a true progressive could win and the most obnoxious sold-out Democrats who need to run against a real progressive in a three way general election (I’m talking to you, Chuck Schumer). When our candidate wins, the Democratic Party would be on its hands and knees begging our new congress person to caucus with them. My guess is they would try to lure our best candidates into their own primary system even supporting them, what we wanted in the first place. Sometimes you have to play hardball with these neoliberal idiots
So you believe ‘the very best option’ would be for the super delegates to overturn the majority of the voters and the majority of the pledged delegates and install the person who got the least amount of votes and delegates. And got a great many of his delegates from caucuses, which are the least representative process.
And if this does not happen, virtually all of the people who voted for Sanders will vote for Trump, because Trump will damage the country so throughly that eventually….democracy will prevail?
Add to that that Sanders has claimed that the voters opinions should be counted, above all else.
And then you expect to build a 40 year revolution based on this completely undemocratic start.
OK then.
You have a very vivid imagination. You should write fantasy books.
.
::insert ‘fuck off’ comment here::
I just wanted to save the Sanders supporters the trouble.
.
So Martin, are you ok with kind of troll behavior from nalbar, especially since he was not even involved in the exchange of ideas? centerfielddj posted the fuck off video comment earlier to someone else. Do you want to deal with this from these ‘gentlemen’ or should I do it?
Wow, at least I got you to do a post in under 200 words.
The ‘fuck off’ was aimed at myself, but go ahead…deal with it yourself.
.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you said.
It’s cool.
Ever since I hit ‘post’ I have regretted not writing ‘f–k off, nalbar’, it’s more precise.
.
We were discussing on this thread the best the best way to further progressive interests. Hillary’s entire political life is built on neoliberalism. Since neoliberalism furthers the interest of the oligarchy while being progressive furthers the interest of the people, of course nominating Bernie is the best choice for advancing progressive interests.
Like it or not, the Democratic Party set up a system to protect itself from the nomination of a candidate who they think might lose the general election for any reason whosoever. There is no moral argument here because they have actually nominated a candidate in the past who did not even participate in the primary process.
I know you think Hillary is the greatest thing since sliced bread but the Democratic Establishment faces the real risk that a Hillary nomination would result in the loss of an otherwise winnable election to a fire breathing nut case Republican. We all fear that.
The Democrats fall in love while Republicans fall in line. Trump already has his base and their leadership is getting in line because they smell the blood of the biggest prize of all, the continued domination of the Supreme Court.
Hillary wants this primary to be about personalities. It is not. This primary is about issues, the reason half of the democratic base is in a populist open revolt. There may be a large number of Bernie supporters where identity politics is enough to compel them to vote for whoever the nominee is just because it’s a Democrat, what Hillary supporters like you are counting on. That might work except the DNC is unnecessarily making the Bernie supporters angry and angrier by the day. It is a huge mistake for the DNC to turn such a large number of Democrats into Independents.
A couple a things about Independents we know are true. First, they are already the largest voting group by far, larger than the Republicans or the Democrats. They will decide the general election whether you like it or not. Second, Independents hate both parties; that’s why they’re Independents. These people are the dogs that refuse to eat the dog food from either party, not some centrist pool of voters. The Republican Establishment hates Trump and the Democratic Establishment hates Bernie. However, given the choice between Trump and Bernie, the Independents break heavily for Bernie; Hillary has little or no chance with these people. This is why so many national polls show Bernie wins against Trump often by double digits while Hillary either loses or is in the margin of error.
There are a couple other issues that are going to decide the general election that go way beyond identity politics for both parties. Those issues are trade and war. For purposes of discussion, let’s assume the choice is between Hillary and Trump for this next part.
There is no question that the anger or populist open revolt in both parties is being driven by the destruction of the middle class. The blame is squarely placed on our trade agreements. This is where neoliberalism has caused both parties to turn their backs on the American workers in favor of the oligarchs. Trump says its “stupid people making stupid deals…I’ll get your jobs back” while Hillary has always been the Queen of every trade deal in sight. They want their jobs back. Which side do you think wins this argument?
Which candidate is least likely to blow up the world is the probably most decisive issue of all. I think mostly because of the expense, Trump has been a long time critic of us being the policemen of the world. Trump wants others to pay or we pull back our military. Pulling back our military does not sound like a hawk. On the other hand, Hillary reminds me of George C. Scott playing the character Patton looking into mirror, after putting on his uniform, preparing to fight the 21st Panzer Division saying, “all my life I’ve wanted to lead a bunch of men in a desperate battle. Today, I get to do just that.” It’s almost certain that if elected Hillary will get us into another war. That issue alone is enough to put Trump over the top.
So the question is for you nalbar, same as the Democratic Establishment at the convention; would you be willing to give up Hillary to keep Trump out of the White House?
Good Christ, you need an editor.
Me? Pro-Clinton? I respect her hard work, like I respect all hard workers, even Sanders. But you won’t find one post by me defending Clinton.
Disparaging Sanders? Absolutely.
Christ, what is it about Sanders supporters and their 1000+ Word posts?
.
I have to hand it to you nalbar, you are probably the most misunderstood person writing here. Why is that? Is it that most of your comments are only hollow snarky jabs or is it that you have nothing to say?
I look at some of your performance just in this post and I ask myself; are you talking about Bernie?
“It’s quite amazing. Particularly when it’s all about a career back bencher with the racial sensitivity of a sun down town major. Oh wait….”
“If you don’t ask for the moon, you might not get anything. I would suggest, if the meeting becomes face to face (unlikely), that Sanders keeps his GD finger in his pocket. I have a feeling Clinton is good and tired of the waving right now.”
Then you said to me:
“So you believe ‘the very best option’ would be for the super delegates to overturn the majority of the voters and the majority of the pledged delegates and install the person who got the least amount of votes and delegates. And got a great many of his delegates from caucuses, which are the least representative process.”
After you said all that I’m supposed to assume you’re not pro-Hillary? Maybe you could benefit from a spell checker and a grammar guide but for some reason I doubt it.
I asked you a simple question: Would you be willing to give up Hillary to keep Trump out of the White House?
Even if you did have an answer to my question, I doubt you would be able to explain your answer in a coherent manner worth the time to read.
So I take it from your post that you did all that searching and could not find a post from me defending Clinton.
That was what you were looking for, right?
Look 👆 Under 100 words!
.
You made a giant defense of Hillary in your first post to me. I even repeated it for you.
Answer the question.
You need to reread it. I defended (in an oblique way) the nominating process, not the nominee. I never even mentioned Clintons name.
I understand your need to get away from that, because your post that I originally responded to was indefensible if you are a Sanders supporter, it being undemocratic, and him being the Saint of the Democratic Process. You would be a hypocrite if you really wanted the supers to over turn the will of the actual voters.
But I understand you avoiding my original question, because on the Internet there is no requirement to answer questions posed by others.
Oops, I have exceeded my word limit.
.
No, I don’t need to reread it; you just admitted you defended Hillary (in an oblique way). We’re at last making progress.
I ask you again, and it only takes a one word answer: would you be willing to give up Hillary to keep Trump out of the White House?
Not the headline you want to see after Nevada.
Democrats consider new rules to avoid convention chaos
In Nevada, it was railroaded new rules that caused the convention chaos.
Of course they do.
Not surprising as California primary approaches but Giordano has now jumped the shark.
Apparent racism is the new charge the Clintonistas are trying to stick to Sanders. I wonder what the cross-tabs of their California polling is telling them. Are the organizations they locked in in the beginning losing traction with the rank-and-file?
They deftly played the sexism charge and stirred up the misogyny on the internet, which they then ascribed to the Sanders campaign with “BernieBros” line of attack.
Interesting since it is the Clinton campaign that has been shy about asserting that black lives matter and that police violence has gone too far. So far, Clinton has been coasting on policy and using the network with African-American organizations she and Bill Clinton have created over 28 years to turn out voters. We know that in many places, these networks cannot dominate Republican turnout (2014 is a classic example). Yes, this is a Presidential year, which increases turnout enthusiasm.
What is most disturbing about the Clinton campaign for a lot of people is the blind assurance that Clinton will win without having to adapt her campaign. Especially after using dishonest arguments against Sanders and Sanders’s supporters. That is a very dangerous arrogance.
Heh. Should have known. “..sundown town mayor” showed up.