If the Clinton camp thinks she can make "common cause" with Sanders's supporters by adjusting her rhetoric, they are still missing the fundamental issues of Sanders's campaign. And setting themselves up for disaster. Because this pretty good line - is not aimed at the Clinton speechwriting team. It's aimed at some people who up to now have shown no sign of comprehension of it, and are in the process of undermining what they need to accomplish.
The Movement Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It is an unfortunate occasion; let us use it for something useful. • At various points in the Democratic contest, we have heard some supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders saying they would not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general. Some have been hardliners, others have implied that they don't like something the former Secretary of State and U.S. Senator said; still even others have argued that something a Clinton supporter said was the clincher. • What, then, do we say about the idea that a Bernie Sanders now finds himself charged for threatening to cut out a Congressman's tongue because he endorsed Hillary Clinton? SeattlePI.com↱ reports that Jasper Bell told police his threat "was appropriate because my voice was being silenced". The answer is that we shrug, say what we want about Mr. Bell being foolish, or idiotic, or an asshole, or whatever. And then we move on. Besides, Congressman McDermott is not unfamiliar with raving lunatics spewing threats: McDermott has received threats several times over his career, notably from a California man upset at McDermott's liberal politics. That man, a Palm Springs resident living on a trust fund, was sentenced to eight months in prison; at sentencing, U.S. District Judge James Robart remarked that “when you break the law, there are consequences that parents, trust funds and hired therapists cannot solve." McClatchy↱ reported earlier this month that as many as twenty-five percent of Sanders' supporters would not support Hillary Clinton in the general election. Just over two thirds responding to a McClatchy-Marist poll explicitly declared they would support her. Fourteen percent of respondents supporting Clinton said they would not support Sanders; seventy-nine percent declared they would. It's worth considering these holdout blocs. It is easy enough for any liberal to become distressed by a long record of a compromising Democrat if we forget the Democratic coalition↑ that finds its way into office. The Democratic Party is the "big tent" party right now, and for decades has relied on cobbling together diverse elements that don't always share common priorities other than the one or two they can agree on; nothing about "jobs and the environment" says Democrats keep those voters if the Party throws all-in on some other issue. And how the hell did Democrats end up with national security, an issue long ceded to conservatives because, let's face it, liberals aren't about to win the world peace fight. You know, in 1992, gays relied on Christians to fend off homophobia. It's not apparent in the discourse right now but we made a lot of promises along the way, and that's why the latest conservative push is so disappointing; what we said wouldn't happen actually isn't happening, yet look at the magnitude to the response as if it actually was. You know how we lost Christians in subsequent years? Some right-winger said something stupid; everyone crashed on him; the right-winger bawled about oppression of Christians, and a whole bunch of Christians threw in with that. Progressive coalitions are delicate. Everybody knows the Establishment has run out of time, say, to fix the banks and the financial system, but we lose that part of the big tent coalition if we do it blindly, as Bernie Sanders suggests. (No, seriously, how could he get this far in without studying the legal implications?) The jobs and economy crossovers and independents are a significant part of that Clinton-supporting fourteen percent. Democrats lose a big part of their national security crossovers and independents going Bernie's way. This is another significant part of that fourteen percent. These are often people the Democrats have picked up as castoffs from the GOP. Who here remembers "liberal Republicans"? These days it's astounding who we'll call a moderate. Most of the Clinton holdout bloc is that portion of the Party conservative enough that "socialism" by any name is a bridge too far. Say what one will about the Establishment, rail against the System; this is the reality. This is how Democrats do it, and, you know, sure, Rev. Jesse Jackson had the better platform in the eighties but market reality said otherwise. There's a reason why the Party took a rightward roll under Bill Clinton; it's how Democrats got back in the game after twelve years under Reagan and Bush, and a long decline in organization and morale since the McGovern disaster. And as the Republican Party continues its hardline consolidation, Democrats keep picking up a bunch of alienated GOP voters. It's one thing to fret about Hillary Clinton's hawkish record, but things are so bad in the GOP she's about to pick up the neocon vote. In the long run, that won't have much effect on her policy outlook; they're not really a bloc Democrats would want to leave as a wildcard, because given a choice between Sanders and Trump, many of them might gamble on the traditional influence of the defense industry to puppeteer him. Clinton can probably win with what share of them she would have gotten with, say, Rubio on the ticket, but between business and defense, those more conservative blocs will help nail a couple states in the blue column. Historically, the United States includes a leftist bloc that generally refuses participation; and while some come out to vote in support of human rights, environmental protection, and economic jsutice, the American left has long suffered a dearth of organization. Mr. Sanders has mobilized part of this bloc, and if they don't get what they want many will certainly skip the presidential vote altogether, or, as Conor Lynch suggests, back Jill Stein or write in Bernie Sanders, anyway. And, you know, as long as Clinton wins in November, their burned vote will be an exhibit of minor interest, a measure of what potentials Democrats might consider tapping. In its own right, that sounds perfectly safe; I wouldn't have voted off-ticket in 2000 if I thought Gore needed my vote. He didn't, so my vote for the nuclear physicist and his Vedic defense shield pretty much did exactly what it was supposed to, which was settle an old score I had suspended twice in order to see him to the vice-presidency. There is, of course, the slim prospect that these votes could cost Democrats the White House, in which case any pretense of a liberal revolution gets kicked out the door for another couple decades, but who else is in the Sanders holdout bloc? I have no problem speculating that at least half of them would end up casting a ballot for Hillary Clinton, anyway; that's also part of the political posturing at this point. But do leftist puritans really make up between an eighth and a quarter of the Sanders movement? That's a harder question to answer. Meanwhile, just how many liberal anti-Hillary conspiracy theory tinfoilers could there possibly be? And, you know, I can recall the female conservative labor Democrat from Iowa who said in 2007 that Hillary Clinton shouldn't be president because being president isn't a woman's job, but I just don't think that's a significant―or even measurable―bloc of Sanders' support. His labor vote won't be among those breaking from Clinton in November. The trade vote is an interesting question. One realistic goal Mr. Sanders might aim for is restoration of the social contract. In theory, they ought to vote for her, and then keep the heat up in order to hold her to certain promsies. The thing is that few people have faith in that manner of social contract anymore, and as pretty much anybody can figure out, these days, there is a reason for that. But there is a history to why Democrats support international trade agreements; that Trans-Pacific is one too many ought to be the signal, since Democrats are accustomed to losing elections over opposition to trade agreements. Let's face it, Trans-Pacific is going through, but what else is in the works? Step one: Compel President Clinton to cough up a list of ongoing trade agreement negotiations. Step two: Agitate to force those negotiations into public view. Step three: President Clinton ought to be smart enough to realize that means she needs a lot more chairs at the table. Run Clinton through the wringer a couple times on that sort of stuff and she'll figure it out. Good luck on that count with anyone else. We need not blame Mr. Sanders or his supporters for the actions of a basket case. But I would be remiss to not mention how much some of my Sanders-supporting neighbors in these United States sound like the guy. And that kind of rhetoric isn't going to be helpful, either in looking ahead to November, or in considering what happens beyond that. This rather quite impressive movement needs to stick around. Indeed, if it gets its shit together and stops inventing ammunition for Republicans, the Sanders movement can grow within reach of success. ____________________ Notes: Pulkkinen, Levi. "Threatened, Rep. Jim McDermott armed himself―with a shovel". SeattlePI. 28 April 2016. SeattlePI.com. 29 April 2016. http://bit.ly/26BPKjE Kumar, Anita. "Poll: 25 percent of Sanders voters would shun Clinton". McClatchyDC. 6 April 2016. McClatchyDC.com. 29 April 2016. http://bit.ly/1QFJ8oL Lynch, Conor. "It won't be so easy for Hillary: Why Clinton will have to do much more to win over Bernie supporters". Salon. 27 April 2016. Salon.com. 29 April 2016. http://bit.ly/26wcFgf
Nonsense. That's the Limbaugh version - this mob of "everyone" on the Left that "crashes" on every trivial misspeaking by some right-winger. You lost the fundies, or "Christians" as you call them (you never did lose other factions of Christians), because you made public demands and actual progress: rather than accept your status as sinners in need of Christian charity and forgiveness and grateful for kind treatment in your marginal life, you presented yourselves as people deserving of teaching jobs and marriage licenses and equal protection under the law. Evidence? The polls say otherwise - that those independents and GOP castoffs and national security folks are in the fraction of Bernie backers who say they won't back Hillary. Trump's not a hardliner. He has wide appeal. Meanwhile, the Republican consolidation finished up under Bill Clinton, and gave them the White House in 2000. It took the worst economic crash since 1929 and the biggest military blunder since Jefferson Davis to pry them out of it - even when they were running the likes of Sarah Palin. She may pick up neocon/neolib votes because her policies and theirs are closely aligned. They wouldn't need to have much effect. Happy days. But there aren't many such votes out there - those people will be found in her advisors, not her electoral base. According to the polls, a bunch of actual independents, new and non-voters, and disaffected Republicans - including a lot of current Republican primary voters. Remember that crossover vote you wanted? Tinfoilers, is it. "Puritans". And then this fantasy, from the self described realistic and certainly never tinfoil-adorned: How many? More than there were a couple of weeks ago. One of the characteristics of the Clinton camp is this amnesiac blinkering, this new-devised daydream of who this candidate is and what they can or would do based on nothing in their past and no current circumstances. It's something long remarked among the Republican voting base and most of the Bothsiderist media, for whom the events of the Reagan/Bush tenure and the W/Cheney tenure might as well never have happened, all of history that is bad started six months ago, and we need to look to the future only; but it's odd to see it in self-professed liberals and Democrats. The people who are saying the Republicans are going to fall apart, as a Party, because of Trump, are the same ones who had Marco Rubio picked out as the successor to Jeb Bush for frontrunner and presumptive nominee. The same ones who are calling Trump "Presidential" because he has started reading speeches from a teleprompter. The people who have been calling out the rise of the Donald for many months now, as an obviously strong Republican candidate in a very weak field, thought and think he has a decent shot at beating Clinton. That opinion predates Bernie.
Berning Futility Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and his legion celebrate their victory in Indiana, one might wonder what the win got them: If Sanders won each of the remaining primaries and caucuses by 30 points each―an improbable task, to be sure―he’d still come up short. That’s how significant his current deficit it. None of this, by the way, factors superdelegates into the equation. I’m referring only to pledged delegates, earned exclusively through nominating contests decided by rank-and-file voters. Unfortunately for his ardent fans, this equation includes Indiana, where he prevailed last night with a six-point victory, but where he needed a win that was vastly larger if he intends to catch up to the rival he trails. It may seem counter-intuitive, but a modest win in Indiana actually leaves Sanders worse off than he was 24 hours ago―it was not only too narrow a victory, it also shrinks the number of remaining opportunities he’ll have to close the gap. I suppose the obvious question is why Sanders and his supporters seemed so pleased last night if the results were actually discouraging. The answer, of course, is winning beats losing. A victory in Indiana will lead the Sanders campaign to once again return to his activist base for more fundraising, touting last night as a morale booster for the whole team. (Benen↱) More opportunities to give Sanders money. That's what it got them. Which, in turn, is the point. ____________________ Notes: Benen, Steve. "For Sanders campaign, Indiana offers good news and bad". msnbc. 4 May 2016. msnbc.com. 4 May 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/26SXlL0
Bernie Sanders was originally supposed to have been, just a practice partner for Hilary Clinton. Hilary was the chosen one, which is why the Democrats ran a small field of weak candidates. Bernie Sanders was far enough to the left, that he made Hilary looked like someone more in the center. These optics were expected to give her wider appeal in the general election. This was smart. What the the powers to be did not calculate was Bernie Sanders tapping into the general unrest of politics as usual; big money and cronyism which the Clintons are part of. This turned out not to be just a Republican frustration. The Democrat party's super delegates simply reinforced the rigged system theme of Sanders, based on the power brokers; money, behind the scenes gaming the system. Bernie's message and his rising popularity caused Hilary to change her centered pitch, causing her to become left wing again. This was needed to meet the unexpected challenge by Bernie. However, it will make it more difficult in the general election to get more than the 47%, who vote like their deaf, dumb and blind. One totally unexpected problem, the Hilary camp has to worry about, is the fact that Trump won, even before Hilary did. All along, all the so called experts, did not expect the Republicans to be done, until after a bitterly fought contested Convention, where their winner might be damaged. This is not going to happen. The problem with Trump ready too soon, is Hilary will still be to in-fighting with Bernie, while now having to take flack, from the outside, by Trump. All Trump has to do is support and parrot, some of Sanders concerns about Hilary. This would not only help Bernie linger longer, but it might even gain Trump favor with a significant portion of the Bernie supporters. The longer Bernie can stay in and Trump pound her positions, the faster she uses her war chest. The result will be more big money coming in, which will give Trump, even more Bernie supporters. In terms of excitement, Trump and Sanders rallies are the best. Without the Sanders rallies, the excitement will be over for Bernie supporters. Hilary is not a rockstar like Bill Clinton or President Obama. She can't generate that same excitement. Trump may well tap into the need of Bernie supporters for excitement, causing more Bernie supporters to jump ship. Trump is smart. He had to live and work among Democrats. He has learn their skill of division and will use that to divide the Democrats. Trump is already tapping into the white middle-class Democrats, who feel discontent. This demographics always supports the Democrats but they get nothing from the Democrats. Democrats tend to favor their crony rich, foreigners, the illegals, people of color, and the bizarre, but not the white middle class. The whites are responsible for all the ills and woes of America, so they are told. Many are getting tired of just taking it. Trump is already setting the stage by bringing up the Clinton trade agreements and immigration, and the loss of union jobs. This group of voters were called the Reagan Democrats. Obama did nothing for the middle class except let it decline and stagnate. Centralist Hilary could have head this off at the pass. But Leftist Hilary stands for more of the same, with the white middle class once again expected to grab their ankles and just take it; white guilt. This group is tired of the guilt and sacrifice. They want the America dream to come bake again, which means self reliance through good jobs, not handouts.
And the Clinton crowd courts the Sanders vote, in true Clinton fashion. Because they are the competent, reasonable ones, remember?
So That Happened Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well, shit. What ensued at the Paris Hotel the following day was anything but honest and dignified and everything but respectful and constructive as dozens of Sanders delegates exploded in anger at what they called an anti-democratic attempt to steal the convention from them. By the time hotel security shut down the event late Saturday evening, the Sanders delegates had hurled ugly epithets at Clinton surrogate Barbara Boxer, and used a sign to block her from being shown on big screens; screamed vulgarities at state Chairwoman Roberta Lange, who later received death threats after Sanders sympathizers posted her cell phone number and home address online; and threw chairs at the stage as they rushed forward to try to take control of a convention they had lost, just as Sanders was defeated at the Feb. 20 by Clinton in in a decisive result. The next day, a group of Sanders supporters protested at the state Democratic Party headquarters and scrawled messages ("Murdered democracy" and "You are scum" among them) on the outside walls and nearby sidewalks. Sanders, who had national campaign operatives on the floor at the Paris, has yet to comment on the near-riot his local operatives enabled as they poured gas on a fire that started with a lawsuit against the party and ignited after arguments about rules, voice votes and rejected delegates. Despite their social media frothing and self-righteous screeds, the facts reveal that the Sanders folks disregarded rules, then when shown the truth, attacked organizers and party officials as tools of a conspiracy to defraud the senator of what was never rightfully his in the first place. Instead of acknowledging they were out-organized by a Clinton campaign chastened by county convention results and reanimated to cement the caucus numbers at the Paris, the Sanders folks have decided to cry conflagration in a crowded building, without regard to what they burn down in the process. (Ralston↱) So, yeah, you know, look: The idea of a Sanders campaign, you know ... whatever. But the idea that the Democratic Party needs to go Trumptacular just to keep up with the times? The thing is that as this discussion has gone on today, nobody has done much to contest the assertions of fact from the Nevada Democratic Party↱. In short, Bernie Sanders had more delegate slots allocated but failed to fill them. Supporters complain because unqualified candidates for those slots weren't seated. And then Team Sanders appears to have aimed for incitement: The so-called "minority report" about these ineligible delegates was not written by the Credentials Committee — it was written by national Sanders campaign staff on site. A member of Sanders' National Delegate Operations Team drafted and arranged for a member of that committee to attempt to deliver an incendiary report that caused chaos and violence at the convention. It was inaccurate, misleading and subsequently discredited by the Credentials Committee. The Nevada Democratic Party has filed a formal complaint with the DNC; the state Party chairwoman is now living under death threat. The Party appears to have had enough of Bernie Sanders: Reid said he had spoken to Sanders for 10 minutes on Tuesday but in an interview with CNN called the release from the Sanders campaign a "silly statement" that "someone else prepared for him." "Bernie should say something―not have some silly statement," Reid said. "Bernie is better than that. ... I'm surprised by his statement. I thought he was going to do something different." ‡ Senate Democrats on Tuesday said things have gotten out of hand and made clear they see Sanders as primarily responsible. "When it breaks down to shouting matches, demonstrations and violence, it's unacceptable," said Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.). "Shouting down speakers and throwing chairs in hotel gatherings―those things aren't consistent with reasonable discourse." ‡ Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) was booed off the stage in Las Vegas when she appealed for Sanders backers calm down. She said she feared for her safety. Death threats and vulgar messages were left with Nevada Democratic Party Chairwoman Roberta Lange―and then were posted online by Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston. "I just wanted to let you know that I think people like you should be hung [sic] in a public execution to show this world that we won't stand for this sort of corruption," says the caller on one voicemail, who left his phone number. (Bolton↱) You know, at the outset, my concern was just that a bright and sunny liberal platform couldn't sell; it never has in my lifetime. And, yeah, we should always be wary of the people who say there is no difference between the parties. But, you know, Sen. Sanders has this reputation as a nice, honest guy, and watching him brush off reporters in Puerto Rico just doesn't help. Still, it's true, I didn't think he would actually take it this far. I didn't expect him to run a right-wing stereotype of leftism. The incident itself was stupid enough, but his piss poor handling of the aftermath pretty much makes clear that it's time to drop out. Bernie Sanders failed. And it's enough. Many have spent too many days pretending their way around what they have been seeing because it's really impolite to think of other people that way. This, though, is appalling. It is an affirmation of what a lot of Democratic supporters have been fretting about. Bernie Sanders passed on his chance to try to get a handle on this. He failed. This isn't the Party of Trump. And it is so disappointing. Mr. Sanders is now a danger to the American left. He needs to stop this rabble-rousing campaign. ____________________ Notes: Bolton, Alexander. "Tensions explode in Dem primary". The Hill. 17 May 2016. TheHill.com. 17 May 2016. http://bit.ly/1TXvU8R NV Dems. "The Facts about the Nevada Democratic State Convention on Saturday". Medium. 16 May 2016. Medium.com. 17 May 2016. http://bit.ly/22fQAPO Ralston, Jon. "The sour grapes revolution that rocked the Paris Hotel". Ralston Reports. 16 May 2016. RalstonReports.com. 17 May 2016. http://bit.ly/22fPPpN
The Bernie Bro's.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Just one of the tamer messages sent to Nevada Democratic Chairwoman, Roberta Lange. Ms Lange has been threatened and called every single name under the sun. She has received calls, with callers leaving similar messages. One, for example, calls her various names and others, demanded a public execution. Not only that, Sander's Bernie Bro's published her home address and phone numbers on social media. And why? Because Sander's lost and delegate's and supporters resorted to violence. At issue was an attempt by the Sanders campaign to try to change convention rules and seat additional delegates. When roughly 60 potential delegates were deemed ineligible because they had not registered as Democrats by the deadline, tempers flared. Then, the convention was forced to end abruptly around 10 p.m. because security staff said delegates couldn't stay any later. (For a more thorough breakdown of what happened, read Jon Ralston's take.) Sanders supporters blamed Lange for undermining their efforts, and they lashed out accordingly. Some of the reaction was reported Monday by The New York Times. But that was just the tip of the iceberg. What has followed has been a litany of threats and misogynistic abuse, aimed at Lange. Her home address and phone numbers, her place of employment were all released by Bernie's delegates and supporters who nearly rioted that night. Male callers and texter's were very distinct in the language used. Female callers in general, did not refer to her in those terms. But the male callers, well... The Democratic Party in Nevada have released screen shots of the texts and released many of the recordings left for Ms Lange by Sander's supporters. The level of misogynistic vitriol displayed has to be seen to be believed. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As Amanda Marcotte of Salon notes: Under the circumstances, it’s hard to really buy the argument that this eruption of anger is really about some kind of moral outrage in the face of injustice. This is made all the more apparent by the role that gender is playing in all this, and not just because words like “bitch” and “cunt” are so favored by Sanders supporters expressing their displeasure at losing. After all, it’s not just Lange that Sanders supporters are villainizing. Barbara Boxer’s presence at the convention seems to have caused a near-meltdown in the crowd there. Considering that the majority of Democratic leadership is still male, it’s hard to really buy that it’s just a remarkable coincidence that it’s female leaders who get the lion’s share of the hate from Sanders supporters. The concern of violence from Sander's more rabid supporters are real and valid. In convincing his delegates and supporters that the system is broken, he has paved the way for this sort of behaviour. This is what happens when you try to win an election by convincing people that the system is broken and that the election was stolen. They end up believing you. Sanders’ refusal to tamp down the violence is scarily akin to Donald Trump’s own refusal to help de-escalate his most extreme supporters. What Sanders’ delegates and supporters did to Roberta Lange is simply inhuman. The woman is now afraid for the safety of her kids. Sanders thinks this is how he’s going to still win the election. In fact, it’s how he’s losing any remaining shred of dignity he had left. The threats of violence and death and the misogynist slurs were not just left on Lange's phone and social media. Sander's supporters also started to contact her work and businesses and leaving threatening messages there too. The threats and constant calls were so bad, the phone had to be disconnected. Not content, they then started to issue threats and harass them on their social media media pages, which has resulted in their having to shut down their website and have Google classify the site as closed. The Nevada State Democratic Party filed a formal complaint with the DNC, on Monday, against the Bernie Sanders campaign and his supporters and rightfully so. The response from Sander's camp is, well, troubling, to say the least, not just for the length of time it took them to respond, but for the response itself. Lange and others were made to suffer these threats and harassment for days before Sander's campaign said anything. Disgusting is a better term. In a statement responding to the Nevada convention, for instance, the Sanders campaign said that while they don’t condone violence, they encourage the party “figure out a way to welcome people who have been energized and excited by his campaign into the party.” Sorry, but calling a woman at home to spew misogynistic vitriol at her isn’t being “energized and excited”. It’s being hateful and bigoted. The Democrats should prioritize making the party safe for women, not safe for men who like to yell “cunt” at them. Disturbingly, Sanders’s top aide, Jeff Weaver, couldn’t bring himself to issue a full-throated denunciation of these antics on CNN Tuesday, either. Instead, he played footsie with the conspiracy theorists, accusing the party of being run “undemocratically” and insinuating that it’s due to an “unwillingness on the part of the Nevada Democratic Party to bring in all of the new people that Bernie Sanders has brought into the process.” It is worth remembering at this point that Clinton won the Nevada caucus and that the Sanders folks were able to manipulate the system to get him more delegate seats at the convention, which would have netted them more delegates if Sanders people had bothered to show up. It’s true that the system is a disaster, but it’s also true that the claims that it’s “undemocratic” were not coming from Sanders supporters when they thought they had a chance at chipping away at the victory that actual voters gave Clinton earlier this year. Sanders himself had a perfect opportunity to put a kibosh on all the craziness on Tuesday, when asked about it by NBC News. He could have played the role of the conciliator, telling his supporters they fought the good fight but you can’t win them all — Clinton’s concession speech to Barack Obama from 2008 is a good model — Sanders simply walked away. This is irresponsible of Sanders and his campaign. They know full well that they have lost this campaign and that Clinton has millions of more votes than he does. Sanders needs to issue a full-throated denunciation of not just the violence, but of the misogyny and the conspiracy theories. The refusal to do so, even when directly offered an opportunity, speaks volumes. Not only are the Bernie Bro's not being told that this sort of misogynistic, threatening and violent behaviour and rhetoric is not acceptable, Sander's has since released a statement. In it, he 'belittle's' the misogyny and threats of violence and instead, makes excuses by blaming Lange and the Party itself. And the threats towards Lange continue.
Unfortunately, Bernie and his supporters are becoming the left wing version of Trump. I don't know why, but it appears to me whenever the American right goes off the deep end, someone on the left decides they have to do it too and the so called "liberals" wind up shooting themselves in the foot. They never learn.
I was reading this article last night that discussed the rising level of negativity in his campaign. It was written by a supporter of his, who was calling for the threats and violence to end. Not to mention the fact that he was reminding Sanders that this sort of crap is not what so many of his staff and volunteers signed on for. Most disturbingly, he was discussing how he did not sign on to be asked to pay the bail of Sanders supporters, which he is now being asked to do by the campaign, because the supporters are planning to riot if they lose the nomination. But he comments on the rising misogyny in the campaign itself. I will find the link to it when I get home as I am on my phone at the moment, and just browsing as I wait in a boring waiting room in the hospital for Dad to finish his scans. But if the call from the campaign now is violence and if they are not doing anything to combat it, then it is safe to say his movement deserves to die. The treatment of Lange and Sanders refusal to address it properly is disqualifying. Or it should be.
Bernie and his campaign officials have condemned the violence, but that condemnation is always followed with a "but". But the individuals involved were justified because of "x". And they have done precious little to prevent episodes of violence. So at best, it's a halfhearted condemnation. Not surprisingly, Trump is edging Bernie's supporters on.
It is broken. Is it ok to say so? The system is broken, some visible part of the primary voting has been in a sense "stolen", and the machinations by the Party officials in Nevada were yet another example of this. \ That's no excuse for violence, neither is violence any excuse for denial of reality. Of course not. Sanders is not encouraging violence, or benefitting from it. Trump is. There's a difference. You seem to think Sanders is managing this crap and is responsible for squelching it by command. ? You should remember that all this demagoguery talk and equivalence between Trump and Sanders is from you guys in the first place - Sanders has never been running a Trump style campaign, and is not fomenting this stuff. Also: I'd like to have a few names on some of the more spectacular manifestations - the death threats and so forth. As the actual spokesman for the Sanders campaign put it, the actual campaign staff and volunteers and so forth "didn't sign on for this". That's just Fox News talking again. No such pattern exists. Bullshit. Read the thing - he does nothing of the kind.
Here was the article I was reading and unable to link from my phone earlier: "The Sanders Revolution Is What We Make It. Let's Not Make It Disappointing." Over the last few weeks, though, many of the revolutionary ideals of direct change in our districts — ideas that we’ve pushed in the states I work with — are often overshadowed by conspiracies, online information that is wrong or just… well, crazy, and in some cases advice that runs counter to the goal of what I view as a real revolution. In the fight for a real race (not in Kansas or Missouri), I had asked a state senate candidate to embrace a solid Bernie organizer in hopes that he could help change the turnout model in a rough for Democratic district and maybe move the needle a bit. Two weeks ago, I received the first phone call that made me worry: my bet on someone to work with a local candidate hadn’t worked out; which happens. Why? Because they basically recruited their volunteers to continue phone banking for Bernie into other states. I thanked him, said, let's see if we can make this work. We had a call and we all talked. I explained: it's important we try to get Candidate A elected. You were very interested in this, we put a lot of faith in you, if this is something you are committed to, let me know.. beating his opponent would be great for this state.. and it would help many. The organizers response was the first time I ever felt honestly bad about a recommendation like that, when in a phone call “none of this matters if that b*(& Hillary gets the nomination.” My heart sank. I knew that the candidate he was working for was likely a Hillary supporter. But more importantly, the candidate he was supposed to be working for opposed a Republican who had been a major mover on bathroom bills, promoted anti-women legislation, and was a complete ass. If there was a remote chance to take out this candidate, the state would benefit. For the young organizer, that didn’t matter. Fortunately, most — I say about 90% — of the Bernie people I work with in the real world listen to rational information and take it seriously. They know I don’t support Bernie because I ‘hate Hillary’, I never have. They know that I worked hard for Bernie, as they can see the endorsement and the work with his volunteers I’ve done. But for that other 10%, none of that matters.. not at all. In the last two weeks, since that night, the following has occurred: * Since being cited as a national committee person (Super Delegate.. but not until 2020, though they don't get that), I’ve had more than a few choice emails.. and assumptive ones that automatically assume where I would stand. Others have forwarded a few to me as well. I never figured out how someone telling me I was a “tool” or curse at me was supposed to influence me if I had a vote (which I don't) * Working with others, we are trying to help delegates find housing and travel means to the convention. In the last two weeks, a new ask has been added: people asking to fundraise for bail money in advance of the convention, because they plan to get arrested. The moment I was drawn into a conversation about if I would pay someone’s bail at the convention I thought: what is this? How does this build a revolution? As Chris Reeves notes, the message from the campaign has changed and the hard work he and others who came to his campaign with ideals Sanders first espoused, is now being rerouted to a message that if Bernie does not win, then they must burn the whole house down. And he's right. This isn't what a lot of them signed on for. Speaking out against this sort of behaviour results in harassment for them. Some have likened the Sander's campaign response to all the violence and threats of violence and Sander's failure to address it properly, as being a form of entitlement. And it has that horrendous vibe. That if they can't win it, then no one else should be able to win it and if they have to win it through harassment, threats and violence, then so be it. As for Sander's statement. There should never have been a "but". At all. Iceaura: You quoted me as saying this: I did not actually say this. Actually he does. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked. Emphasis mine.. Note the giant "But" at the start of that sentence. In other words, he belittles the violence in Nevada, not to mention the threats and harassment that his supporters are laying on with a trowel. He condemns the violence, "but" it's not really as bad as what he faced in the past. To wit, the statement itself is disingenuous. In saying it as he is, he is inferring the shots and the violence against his campaign office and residence for his staff, was somehow committed by Clinton's supporters. When nothing could be further from the truth. Firstly, there is no proof that Clinton's campaign was involved in those incidents. Secondly, he is attempting to justify the death threats, threats against Lange and her family and children, not to mention her work place, and the misogyny, by saying that his campaign also faced violence. How is that not belittling to what is happening to Lange and others in Nevada at present? How is that not belittling to the women who are currently being called "cunts", "bitch" and facing death threats? He can't just say that what these people are doing is not acceptable and that he condemns it unequivocally? He has to put in the giant fat "but" and declare that when "we speak of violence", my campaign faced violence and then goes on a spiel about what he deems to be the failure of the Democratic Party because he lost? I notice he isn't saying that in regards to the States where he won Caucuses, for example. So the rules there are fine, but the rules in States where he ends up losing ends up with his campaign coming out with the equivalent of 'we wuz robbed!' and then spreading conspiracy theories? Oh please! What machinations? That his delegates failed to show up so he then tried to have people not even registered as Democrats fill in those slots? Really? I take it it wasn't stolen when he won elsewhere? Sanders needs to come out and actually tell his supporters that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated in his campaign. You know, actually tell them that it's not acceptable. Without a "but".
Well, that's the message Bernie is telling his followers. But that doesn't make it so, nor does it justify the violence. Well, as you have been told many times before, in a democracy, the person who wins the most votes wins. Hillary has received the most votes and she is winning. That doesn't sound like a broken democratic system to me. That's how it is suppose to work. * Additionally, you have falsely attributed material to me which is your custom.
Errant misattribution fixed, and my sincere apologies for misidentifying that poster's output as yours. What? How are you reading "belittles" into that? No, he condemns violence, and notes that it has not been universally condemned or even noticed in the past. No, he isn't. Excellent point. Now review the current Dem Party establishment's PR employment of those death threat phone calls - or your own. Compare. No. You are apparently getting your news feed from CNN or the like. Here's Politifact's version: http://www.politifact.com/nevada/st...tions-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/ This is as favorable a view of the behavior of the officials there as the facts allow. Note the circumstances: that the Las Vegas security folks did not shut it down because of violence, for example (nobody hurt, no property damage, nothing being thrown at the stage or other people - - - ) but because it was running several hours over its allotted time and their security teams were about to go off shift. It's clear the Dem officials had a problem, and they handled it badly (at one point, omitted by Politifact, after about 12 hours in that room (with a full service alcohol bar open the whole time) the chair simply gave up trying to evaluate a voice vote in that auditorium and started declaring that the chair itself - her - would simply rule on the issues). 1) It's not in his campaign. 2) And he has. If a Sanders campaign staffer were to assault someone, they'd be fired and everyone knows that. He has never encouraged or abetted violence from the stage. Nothing like that. Tell whom? Sanders doesn't accept it. Never has. His supporters know this. His pacifism is kind of famous, actually. Edit in - found this: http://theslot.jezebel.com/we-called-up-bernie-fans-who-threatened-nevada-dem-stat-1777177985
Last night Angie Morelli, a Sanders floor organizer, blamed the violence on Democratic Party leaders because party leaders hadn't fed convention delegates and had 3 liquor bars outside the convention hall. Wow, that's a damn good excuse, another freaking conspiracy. Bernie and his supports are looking more and more like The Donald by the minute.
And the Clinton backers continue to court and coopt the Sanders backers, bringing them on board in that adult, responsible, politically competent fashion for which they are becoming increasingly well known.
its nice to know the slander and libel of sanders by clinton supporters continues unabated. to bad none of them have the maturity to look at how your actions have played in this mess.
