Bernie Sanders the alternative to Hillary C.

[joepistole]

Breaking Bitch

​

Actually, I think the big problem is the craven pursuit of Clinton as quarry. To wit, when the question involves superdelegates and press, the natural inclination is to blame Hillary Clinton.

While it is true that blaming the opponent for everything is standard political fare, we should bear two points in mind: (1) Sanders supporters can't deal with accurate criticism of their candidate, and (2) the bigotry is just getting sickening:

In colloquial terms, a woman has to be twice as good to be taken half as seriously. Which is why Sanders'sbehavior in recent weeks is so troubling. Clinton has won, fair and square. She has more votes. She has more pledged delegates. She has more superdelegates. She has more voters. Even if you tweaked the rules, she is the winner. Every "what if" scenario — what if we got rid of the superdelegates? what if the Democrats used Republican rules? what if there were more open primaries? — Clinton still wins. There is no rational reason for Sanders and his supporters to act like he is somehow more deserving of this than Clinton.

And yet, Sanders is carrying on as if it's obvious that he deserves to win, and just a little more pressure will cause everyone to finally see it and give him what he clearly believes is his due. Thus all the chatter about how the system is "rigged."

Whatever is in his heart, Sanders is coasting on male privilege right now, namely the male privilege of being assumed to be more competent and more worthy than a female competitor, even if she has demonstrated her value by all objective measures.

This problem isn't unique to Sanders. On the contrary, it's common as dirt. When a woman or person of color has shown great success, people in the dominant group often argue that they can't have done this on their own, but had to have gotten there by cheating. You see that every time conservatives gripe about "affirmative action," assuming that people of color who get into college somehow are edging out more deserving white people by doing so. You see it with Donald Trump arguing that Clinton is only winning by playing the "woman card," a blatant expression of the belief that women can only win by cheating ....

.... If Clinton was a man, the notion that it's self-evident that Sanders is somehow the "true" winner would be a much harder sell. It would make him a laughingstock, in fact. But the notion that a woman who does so well must be an imposter has a lot of emotional salience in our culture. Whether it's enough to help boost Sanders to a convention fight even after Clinton gains a clean majority of pledged delegates, however, remains to be seen.​

Here's a conundrum: Amanda Marcotte↱ spent sixteen paragraphs on an article; thirteen could go into the above quote. That bit about "even if you tweaked the rules", for instance, would eat up three or four paragraphs, and there are two more about sexism specifically setting up the citation, and there are two clarifying paragraphs struck under the ellipsis.

This is one of those extraordinary cycles in which we're supposed to believe every striking coincidence is mere accident. And it's kind of like the bit with AP's delegate count and superdelegate commitments; as I wrote elsewhere↱:

This really can work out to an accident of circumstance; indeed, that would be the strongest presumption. Nonetheless, there really is a reason why this prickles. That is to say, Really? On the eve of American history itself, we find a way to bungle this up with a cloud of controversy?​

Or, as Marcotte puts it:

While it's currently hip to sneer at every suggestion that sexism might be playing a role in the stubbornness of the Sanders camp, the contradictory, grasping nature of Sanders' arguments sure makes it harder to pull off the "no sexism to see here" shenanigans.​

Sanders' weak responses to controversial behavior in his larger movement has been building, leading up to what seems the turning point, the Nevada convention. To a certain degree the press has had it, but the Democratic Party is, in that once-upon-a-time political tradition, mincing around in order to not tell Mr. Sanders, straight up, to go fuck himself.

But early among those weak responses was the question of the #BernieBros, and I can remember essentially two points from that: First is that Bernie Sanders cannot be held responsible for other people's actions; second is that someone in Hillary's camp said something a Bernie supporter didn't like, so the supporter didn't want to back Hillary in the general. In other words, the #BernieBros question just kept simmering, unaddressed.

Mr. Sanders has also spent a good amount of effort aiming to delegitimize Hillary Clinton's success, attacking black voters along the way and telling women to stop moaning about misogyny. Some of his supporters have even slipped into the myth of wishing Bernie was a woman so he could enjoy all the unfair advantages they have.

But in the context of "no sexism to see here", we find ourselves again saying, sure, this can be an accident of circumstnace, but come on, at some point we question the boundaries of what describes an accident. It's the sort of "accident" I could claim in my twenties; you know, I'm not trying to be misogynist, just, you know, attending the traditional expectations of my society. That is, there comes a point where accident of circumstance simply means one is unable to recognize they are doing anything wrong.

So let's take a moment to entertain a Sanders supporter's petulant fantasy↱ about the FBI arresting Hillary Clinton. And let us pretend this happened last year. And so Martin O'Malley starts racking up votes among Democrats more attuned to supportable policy platforms, and by this time Bernie Sanders is left trying to delegitimize black voters, legitimize misogyny, and complain that his three million vote deficit something, something, convoluted logic, superdelegates should overturn the will of voters now that it's what Bernie neeeds, &c., ad nauseam.

Marcotte proposes, "If Clinton was a man, the notion that it's self-evident that Sanders is somehow the 'true' winner would be a much harder sell. It would make him a laughingstock, in fact."

And it seems rather quite hard to argue against that point.

Within that framework? Yes, it absolutely makes sense: If the question involves superdelegates and press, then the natural inclination is to blame Hillary Clinton.

But run the obvious objection to earth: Why would the campaign want this?

Blaming Clinton and her campaign for decisions of superdelegates and Associated Press is pathetic. Here's the logic we're required to believe: On the eve of winning at the ballot box enough votes to push Hillary Clinton over the pledged threshold, thus making her the apparent first female presidential nominee from a major political party in the United States of America, the campaign coordinates or colludes with superdelegates and a press agency to give her that bump a day early in such a fashion as to surely move Sanders supporters to delegitimize her victory.

This is how stupid we need to believe that evil bitch really is.

But think about it. In the end it fits well enough with what I've been hearing from the Sanders movement: After all, if Hillary Clinton has survived the challenges of the American political arena, it can only be because she is corrupt and enjoys too many advantages traditionally given to women.

Because nobody who is so stupid as to behave as the logic we are required to believe in order to blame Hillary Clinton for the latest superdelegates to announce and the AP's coverage thereof can actually navigate these shark-infested, tumultuous waters and survive on their own merit.

We can believe this all comes together by accident; it's not a particularly extraordinary proposition. To the other, though, that accident would describe a larger problem. Furthermore, the pattern is possibly reflected again in the general tenor of the Democratic campaign. This is a cycle in which a traditional outlook on Democratic civil rights prizes are as near to grasp as I have witnessed; naturally, the thing to do is walk away from those goals in order to pursue a platform, and it turns out the chief advocate just hasn't given it a whole lot of thought. That is, I easily could have suggested, at the outset, that society would do everything short of outright saying, "No, because you're a woman!" in order to challenge the rise of our first female president. To the other, these months later, while it is easy enough hem and haw, part of the problem is the continued appearance.

The Associated Press rains on Hillary Clinton's parade simply by not holding a headline on the latest delegate count after some undeclared superdelegates declare, and we are supposed to blame Hillary Clinton.

We can't get much more straightforward than that.

Something about a harder sell goes here. And a laughingstock.

That's all so true. The irony and hypocrisy here is overwhelming.

When Obama endorses Hillary, this will all come to an end for Bernie whither he likes it or not. I expect 70% or more of his voters will wake up to reality when that happens. Bernie's only decision now is whither he wants to go out with whatever grace and dignity he can muster or to go out in complete disgrace and betray the very principals to which he claims to revere.

 

[Tiassa]

Marcotte on Political Theory

​

A note on history and political theory, from Amanda Marcotte↱ of Salon:

The Sanders campaign was, above all other things, a test of a popular political theory that's been banging around for a long time, really gaining traction with Thomas Frank's 2004 bestseller "What's the Matter with Kansas?" The idea behind this theory is that Republicans are only able to get to white working class and middle-class voters with racist and sexist appeals because the Democrats don't counter with a strong message of economic justice. If Democrats embraced economic populism, offering things like single payer health care and free college that appealed to the self-interest of these voters, they could convince these voters to abandon their crusade to ban abortion and kick all the Mexicans out.

It's a really appealing theory, in no small part because the Democrats used to have broad appeal to white voters in the old days, and if they could win back voters that defected to the Republicans decades ago while keeping the majority of non-white voters, they'd have an unstoppable coalition.

Sanders himself is a huge proponent of this theory. In 2014, he told NPR that the reason Democrats lost the white vote is because "if you are in the working class, you are struggling to keep your heads above water." He suggested the way to win them back is for Democrats to suggest "a massive federal jobs program."

Critics of this theory, including myself, have suggested that, as nice as it would be to believe that it's all about economics, the likelier reason is that white people who vote Republican simply put a priority on maintaining racial and gender hierarchies over economic justice, and that won't change no matter how many goodies you offer them.

You can delve into the lengthy historical evidence of this―for instance, the turn dates back to the 60s, long before "neoliberalism" was an idea―but it's no matter, since Sanders offered the country a neat little experiment: Would running a candidate who campaigned as a bold economic populist who offered a platform built on soaking the rich and drastically expanding social spending be enough to woo independents and even Republicans over to the Democrats? It was a perfect experiment, especially since his primary opponent was exactly the kind of center-left candidate that proponents of this theory blame for losing white voters.

The answer is a resounding no. Sanders' promise that his message of economic populism would awaken the masses turned out to be a giant whiff. He didn't raise voter turnout or woo Republicans over. He didn't even woo independents over. He couldn't even get the majority of Democrats, even though they are the group most open to the idea of boldly remaking the economy into a more socialist state.​

It's an important article, or so says me; the history it recalls is familiar. The Democratic Party it recolls is familiar, not some masochistic fantasy of monstrous corruption. For Marcotte, the question arises largely because Sen. Sanders and his supporters find themselves reduced to a vague, misogyny-laced "sore winner" argument that ignores reality. "But this grousing," Marcotte asserts, "is also an attempt to silence anyone who might continue to criticize Sanders".

The ultimate criticism is the ahistoricity of the Sanders narrative and the powerful implications thereof:

Right now, he’s pushing this idea that the only reason he lost is because the system was rigged against him, rather than admitting that his bold plan to win white working class voters back into the Democratic fold failed. If he’s permitted to do this without pushback, he might convince some gullible Democrats to keep wasting time and energy on trying to win over white voters with economic populism, rather than committing to the winning strategy of building up the Democratic coalition through old-fashioned liberalism. Which, ironically, would end up undermining the long term goal of building a progressive majority.​

Sometimes I mutter something about "sinister or stupid"; and on occasion I go so far as to joke that some days there really is no difference, since the sinister generally requires some manner of ignorance applied with such magnitude as to create sinister outcomes.

It's not an easy template with Bernie Sanders, and that's fine; the point is to illustrate a certain problem. That is, it is hard to understand what Mr. Sanders' truculent take on history misses, since we get so little of the detail. Within those missing details we would, by the juxtaposition, find some corresponding to the "stupid" or "ignorance applied" aspect simply on the grounds that this or that facet of the historical outlook is factually and functionally incorrect. I confess these details are potentially fascinating, because it seems impossible for Mr. Sanders to be unaware of notions like what Marcotte describes, that historically, "Democrats do better by focusing on core constituencies, like women and people of color, rather than continuing to chase the elusive white working class male vote".

The sinister-appearing result is not that Mr. Sanders cares nothing about possibly wrecking the Democratic Party in a time of looming conservative threat, but, rather, that he would want to because that collapse would hasten his glorious revolution.

In the end there is a whiff of absolutism about Bernie Sanders' appeal. In considering the Democratic coalition versus trolling for "elusive white working clas male" voters with firebrand economic populism, Marcotte reminds, "That doesn’t mean giving up on economic justice, of course". The fact of that disclaimer is an important point; it has never been either/or with Democrats: "Appealing to core constituencies," Marcotte reminds, "is done best by meeting their economic needs". For Sen. Sanders, the question seems to be a matter of priorities; the Democratic establishment and its supporting voters have not thrown down hard enough for what Mr. Sanders thinks should be the top priority, and therefore are corrupt.

Bernie Sanders is not actually sinister.

This is an article of faith, however; we presuppose that people are not, generally speaking, inherently evil. Better-defined affirmative markers would help greatly; as long as the movement rides on ahistorical accusation and condemnation, Mr. Sanders really does risk "undermining the long term goal of building a progressive majority".
____________________

Notes:

Marcotte, Amanda. "It’s time to look in the mirror, Bernie: Now, more than ever, Sanders needs to be criticized for his failed political theories". Salon. 28 May 2016. Salon.com. 7 June 2016. http://bit.ly/1Pg91fJ

 

[Tiassa]

One of Those Moments

​

Ever have one of those moments when everybody in the room seems to notice something, and you all sort of look at each other for just a moment, and then go on as if nothing happened?

Hang on to that thought. We'll come back to it.

Meanwhile, Steve Benen↱:

Eight years ago this week, Sanders endorsed then-Sen. Barack Obama's candidacy after the Illinois Democrat clinched a majority thanks to a combination of pledged delegates and commitments from party super-delegates.

It didn't matter, Sanders said at the time, that super-delegates wouldn't literally vote until the convention―because the outcome was obvious and the results were clear. Obama, Sanders said eight years ago, had won fair and square.

Why was this the right standard in 2008, but the wrong standard in 2016? Rachel asked Michael Briggs, a Sanders campaign spokesperson, about this on the show last night. For those who can't watch clips online, here's the transcript (with various “umms” removed):​

MADDOW: I have to ask you about when you would consider it to be over because in 2008 Senator Sanders stayed out of the race, stayed out of the primary between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama until the very end. He told the Free Press in Burlington in 2008 that he had held off supporting either of the Democratic candidates because he had made it a custom not to support any Democrat for the presidential nomination until the party had chosen its nominee. But then he endorsed Barack Obama when Barack Obama was at the position that Hillary Clinton is right now. Not when he had secured the nomination with pledged delegates alone, not even actually, Senator Sanders didn't wait for Hillary Clinton to get out of the race in 2008. He endorsed Barack Obama saying the race was over between Obama and Clinton once Obama had the right number of delegates with both pledged delegates and super delegates combined. So if that standard ended the race for him fair and square in 2008 why wouldn't that end the race for him fair and square tonight?

BRIGGS: Well, it's because, there are differences between then and now, he's led a dramatic revolutionary insurgency in the party and we are trying our darndest to give those people the voice that they have earned and deserved in the Democratic Party process.​

It's clearly an awkward defense, and I don't blame Briggs for not being sure how best to handle this. Sanders publicly declared what he considered clinching the nomination―pledged delegates plus commitments from super-delegates―and now he doesn't want this standard applied to his own campaign.​

Everyone in the room heard Briggs' answer, and everyone hitched just slightly. Maddow asked a painstaking question, outlining similar circumstances, and Briggs' answer was to claim "there are differences between then and now", and as he stuttered through it, what he explained was the "dramatic revolutionary insurgency in the party".

In other words, the difference is that Bernie Sanders is special.

But it was the weirdest thing. Even my daughter noticed. She pretends general disinterest, asks questions now and then to fill out her sketch of what politics are and how they work in our society, and occasionally delves into a detail because something comes up, like the boy in her class who went all Trump and started smack-talking hispanics and Muslims. But she absorbs a lot; she's grown up listening to NPR, and is within earshot of msnbc on a regular basis; additionally, she's my daughter, so she hears about history, philosophy, and politics a lot.

And part of the problem was the fact that Briggs stumbled through the answer. Benen noted the "umms", and if you sit through the nearly eight minutes of video attached to the article (5:30, or so, but there's no advance function in my browser, so good luck), listen to Briggs' pace and confidence at the outset. Listen to how he almost falls over trying to answer question about 2008. The delivery really did make the phrase "there are differences between then and now" stand out.

One of my favorite bits of living humor is the idea of the fourth frame or panel of a comic strip; Doonesbury was always really good at it. It's an, "I heard that", or, "I saw that", moment, a strange witness. In the old days, Trudeau would draw some characters without mouths, hardly uncommon in that daily cartooning period, through the first three, and in the fourth, when the punch line is delivered, that character in the background is smiling.

I don't know about humor, per se, but there was definitely a moment of strange witness.

And, you know, I keep coming back to the point that this manner of gaffe is, ordinarily, no big deal. It really is weak tea as far as potential answers to the question go. He would have been better off to say, "Well, because it is us. I mean, come on, Rachel, you're aware we've been talking about the process the whole time, and yes, we think the Party is deliberately trying to stop us, and yes, we're a little bit pissed, so no, we don't really feel like playing along with a ritual suicide pact in which we give over to a bunch of people who want us out of the picture, anyway, and give nothing in return. That is what is different, this time."

He wouldn't even have to invoke the metaphor about how presidents get into office and find their outlook quickly reoriented to reality. Of course, that's probably for the best, since it would be another strange and fascinating contradiction. Executive reorientation to reality undermines the "corruption" message at least a little.

But the thing about Bernie Sanders being just another politician is that he went out of his way to bill himself as special, as being above all that, and his supporters have clung to this proposition of integrity and decency that separates him from all the corrupt, normal politicians.

And it's already an ugly farce at this point.

The Southern Excuse, Moaning About Misogyny, hasn't studied, doesn't have a policy paper in front of him; you know, that latter reminds of the occasional juxtapositions to Donald Trump. While I might disdain the equivalence between dissatisfaction over progress delayed, to the one, and progress not being delayed, to the other, which really do seem different things, we might as well add one more commonality to the pile: It would seem Mr. Sanders, like Mr. Trump, requires exemption from ritual electoral politics.

You know, everybody wants to be special; everybody wants an exemption, some manner of getting their way because, you know, if we just do this and this and that, then everything will be alright, better, or even great. It is an impulse we might describe as exactly human. It should not be an indictment, except for the stupid risk any politician takes by setting himself up in such a fashion that it is.

Once upon a time, I simply said I wouldn't hop on the first revolutionary bandwagon until I saw the platform. It was a nice platform but I've never been able to figure out how to pitch it. The discourse on these points has been a disaster; the movement doesn't know what it's doing or talking about, and it turns out neither does the candidate. Along the way Bernie Sanders has managed to alienate black voters, women, and the center of the Democratic bell curve. He now has the appearance of trying to damage the Party, and we can only speculate at the reasons why he would. In the end the hand-waving, shushing, Great Clueless Hope has shown himself to be a conservative dream, a stereotype of vapid, arrogant, presumptuous liberalism.

'Tis a striking plummet.

But that's the thing; Bernie Sanders is not clueless. Two aspects stand out as striking; one is the caricature he has achieved. And the other is that clumsy caricature in the context of being just another politician―and badly―when the whole point was to pitch oneself as above such vulgarities.

He knows the history. He made certain political calculations about that history and now the subsequent decisions look like an oil train wreck.

The only remaining questions are what damage Bernie Sanders is willing to do and why.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Democrats find a surprise at the primary finish line". msnbc. 7 June 2016. msnbc.com. 7 June 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/2159x6v

 

[iceaura]

Actually, I think the big problem is the craven pursuit of Clinton as quarry. To wit, when the question involves superdelegates and press, the natural inclination is to blame Hillary Clinton.

Well, you could accuse people of "blaming" Clinton when they point to some fairly obvious patterns in the press coverage and offer the hypothesis that they have one of the obvious explanations,

and spend the rest of your "analysis" in unsupported insult and outright idiotic cluelessness, a la our pal Joey,

or you could avoid that descent into what was formerly Fox intellectual response territory, and simply nod.

Your choice.

But run the obvious objection to earth: Why would the campaign want this?

Yeah, that is the question. You bet. Not why would an AP news feed crew with a Clinton crush or a campaign rush, being helpful, do something like that again as so often before, or

not why would a bunch of Party wankers who have been doing things like that for months now, even involving those selfsame delegates and news crews, do something like that yet again,

but why - meaning exactly how - would a sane and competent and masterful campaign full of clued in professionals do that, or allow it to happen, or get caught by surprise when it does happen.

You keep focusing on that question. Because these masterful campaigners are going into the big show with a track record that frankly worries some of us out here.

And it will keep you from this kind of rank meandering:

In other words, the difference is that Bernie Sanders is special.

That's Maddow's implication. She's been on board for a while now.

There are other differences available.

One difference is that Sanders is the candidate. Not the guy contemplating endorsement.

Another difference is that Clinton is not the high payoff possibility that Obama was in 2008. She's a great risk with little prospect of high payoff. One bets long shots against taking such risks - that's prudent. It's also prudent - and diplomatically courteous, politically astute, etc - to not say that on TV when Clinton is likely to be your only hope against Trump.

And so forth. Hello?

Along the way Bernie Sanders has managed to alienate black voters, women, and the center of the Democratic bell curve. He now has the appearance of trying to damage the Party, and we can only speculate at the reasons why he would. In the end the hand-waving, shushing, Great Clueless Hope has shown himself to be a conservative dream, a stereotype of vapid, arrogant, presumptuous liberalism.

You have already forgotten the actual arc of the campaign, the events as they happened, we see. You lost track of who did what, in the process - the supposed alienation of black voters who haven't had a chance to become alienated, for example, or the current ascription of misogyny to criticism of Clinton's various failures and incompetencies created by folding in actual misogyny from others to a caricature of what you need Sanders to be.

You have also rewritten the conservative stereotype to suit your description of Sanders, and continue to do that in that face of correction, its original closer fit to the reality of Clinton being a disturbing aspect apparently best left unobserved. Because nobody will notice?

Trump will.

If Sanders campaign, run as it is being run, is actually describable as an attempt to damage the Democratic Party, that Party is toast.

 

[Tiassa]

Glass ceiling... every ZIP code ... the return to the Village.

It's not quite a Greatest Hits speech; this is serious political execution.

It's true; I'll actually say the word. I adore Hillary Clinton when she is at this valence. There is nothing quite like watching this caliber of political execution.

O! the Pivot!

 

[Bells]

But the thing about Bernie Sanders being just another politician is that he went out of his way to bill himself as special, as being above all that, and his supporters have clung to this proposition of integrity and decency that separates him from all the corrupt, normal politicians.

He's not special. He's just another politician..

The very notion that Bernie and his surrogates continue to behave as if the superdelegates are still in play is the beginning of the end of Bernie’s reputation, even with some of his supporters, including online journalists who are disavowing their support.

There was a time when we could look to Bernie as the conscience of the left. Today, however, his moral high ground position is rapidly evaporating. Among other reasons, Bernie and his people have been deliberately swindling the public about delegate math and the alleged fluidity of superdelegates for weeks now and, in the past several days, the deception has grown thicker than ever. (Bernie told the National Press Club, for example, that a majority of pledged delegates is 2,383, even though it’s actually 2,026.) The Bernie campaign is telling us that somehow the superdelegates, who have affirmed their support to networks and publications of record, will, for the first time ever, inexplicably abandon the winner of a majority of pledged delegates and the winner of the popular vote for a relatively untested democratic-socialist because… why? California? May polling for the November election? Rally attendance?

This is like cajoling a homeowner to sell a house to a buyer who doesn’t have the money, but who just really, really, really wants it, and all their friends say they deserve to own it. Indeed, suggesting that supers don’t count because they haven’t officially voted at the convention is like announcing that you haven’t eaten lunch until you’ve fully digested it. It’s like hearing from contrarian wonks who wait for the electoral college to hold its ceremonial votes in December before acknowledging the obvious winner of the November election.

The very act of trying to flip immovable superdelegates in defiance of reality is, to repeat, enough to crash Bernie’s reputation with voters and party leaders alike, especially with the senators he’ll need to further his legislative agenda when he returns to the upper chamber of Congress.

Here’s a man who’s entire brand is about being a man-of-the-people, and he’s hinting today that he’s okay with begging superdelegates — participants in an allegedly undemocratic system he claims to despise — to entirely overrule the people’s choice. In other words, Bernie wants to exploit the evil establishment system he’s been attempting to destroy, using $208 million in individual donations, in order to defy the clear choice of Democratic voters. Because Rasmussen in May?​

Note, this article was written before Clinton won enough support of the delegates and before Sander's speech, vowing to fight on to the Convention.. Which begs the question.. Does he still believe he can win the nomination by taking the delegate votes from her? Or is he looking to go independent? Because short of going independent, he cannot win the nomination.

Worse still, Sanders has complained about the superdelegates for months. And now he is courting them and counting on them to switch their support and votes to him? I was shocked when I heard him declare he was vowing to fight on today. Bow out gracefully with dignity intact. But it's not about that. This is about Bernie and frankly, that speech he gave today was insane and the booing to Clinton when she was mentioned... Absolutely insane. History was made today in the US and he chose to ignore that and make it about Bernie!..

 

[iceaura]

It's true; I'll actually say the word. I adore Hillary Clinton when she is at this valence.

Yeah, we noticed. And from this kind of swooning comes the accusation of personal adoration behind the Sanders support - the invective, the insulting bs about Sanders supporters mental states and incapabilities, the need for Sanders to be "special", was projection. Spittle.

Look: keep it simple: She's a bad politician, from a liberal or left point of view. She's on the wrong side and always has been. She has cast cowardly votes, done bad and foolish things, screwed up critical negotiations, failed at the good and succeeded at the bad, cuddled with the bad guys and rejected the good guys,

and on top of the lot demonstrated a real weakness at the major hope a liberal or lefty has right now, which is that the Democratic candidate this year prove a top flight campaigner.

Until you recognize that, you will never post sense about Sanders or the major fraction of Sanders's supporters.

Worse still, Sanders has complained about the superdelegates for months. And now he is courting them and counting on them to switch their support and votes to him? I was shocked when I heard him declare he was vowing to fight on today. Bow out gracefully with dignity intact.

You guys are really, badly, confused about the superdelegate issue.

Regardless of what you think about Sanders or Clinton, there is absolutely no hypocrisy in Sanders courting the votes of superdelegates. None. You are in error, here. That entire take is campaign bs.

The problem with the superdelegates has been their role in the Clinton campaign. That is Sanders's complaint - that their role of being ostensibly committed (in public, in all the media) to Clinton, before the nomination process had even fairly begun and continuing throughout, was illegitimate, deceptive, and ultimately damaging - and not only to the Sanders campaign.

If that role can be undermined or subverted somehow, even at this late date, that would be a good thing. Not a bad thing, not a hypocritical thing, a good thing. The Clinton folks are sleepwalking here.

 

[joepistole]

It's all over but for Bernie's crying.

Only one primary remains, and that is the District of Columbia. There aren't enough votes there to help Bernie, even if he won every vote in the district. Bernie has lost the popular vote pure and simple. Ironically and hypocritically, after months of deriding super delegates as rigged Bernie is now trying to convince those same super delegates to over ride the popular vote. That has never happened in the history of the Democratic Party, yet Bernie and his supporters are asking super delegates to do so. Convincing Democratic super delegates to override the will of Democratic voters is Bernie's only hope. It's a hope borne of desperation and ego.

Democratic super delegates are not going to override the will of Democratic voters just to appease Bernie, a guy who wasn't even a Democrat a year ago. It's time, it's way past time, for Bernie to bow out and adhere to the causes and principals he claims to uphold and to the pledges he has made.

 

[joepistole]

Regardless of what you think about Sanders or Clinton, there is absolutely no hypocrisy in Sanders courting the votes of superdelegates. None. You are in error, here. That entire take is campaign bs.

The problem with the superdelegates has been their role in the Clinton campaign. That is Sanders's complaint - that their role of being ostensibly committed (in public, in all the media) to Clinton, before the nomination process had even fairly begun and continuing throughout, was illegitimate, deceptive, and ultimately damaging - and not only to the Sanders campaign.

If that role can be undermined or subverted somehow, even at this late date, that would be a good thing. Not a bad thing, not a hypocritical thing, a good thing. The Clinton folks are sleepwalking here.

So, it's only hypocritical if someone else does it. That explains it.

 

[Tiassa]

¿The Trouble with Bernie?

​

History was made today in the US and he chose to ignore that and make it about Bernie!..

It's always about Bernie.

And while it's not quite rats and sinking ships, the Politico article from Edward-Isaac Dovere and Gabriel Debenedetti↱ that posted last night does include a curious willingness to talk; Tad Devine and Jeff Weaver are already pointing at Bernie Sanders:

There’s no strategist pulling the strings, and no collection of burn-it-all-down aides egging him on. At the heart of the rage against Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, the campaign aides closest to him say, is Bernie Sanders.​

From that lede the Politico article proceeds to recite a scorching list: Rewriting Weaver's brief statement about Nevada violence, hounding and denouncing DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the "knife fight" when he called Hillary Clinton unqualified, "which aides blame for pulling the bottom out of any hopes they had of winning in New York and their last real chance of turning a losing primary run around", and then the Trump debate episode:

And when Jimmy Kimmel’s producers asked Sanders’ campaign for a question to ask Donald Trump, Sanders himself wrote the one challenging the Republican nominee to a debate.​

"Sanders is himself filled with resentment," Politico explains, "on edge, feeling like he gets no respect". This proposition persists throughout; we might here project the first prominent theme of the Sanders campaign postmortem even though it still, technically, has a pulse―angry, arrogant socialist.

Couldn't see that one coming, could we?

Campaign manager Jeff Weaver, who’s been enjoying himself in near constant TV appearances, and the candidate’s wife Jane Sanders, are fully on board. But convinced since his surprise Michigan win that he could actually win the nomination, Sanders has been on email and the phone, directing elements of the campaign right down to his city-by-city schedule in California. He wants it. He thinks it should be his.

“Bernie’s been at the helm of this campaign from the beginning,” said Weaver, “and the overall message of this campaign and the direction of the campaign and the strategy, has been driven by Bernie.”

Convinced as Sanders is that he’s realizing his lifelong dream of being the catalyst for remaking American politics—aides say he takes credit for a Harvard Kennedy School study in April showing young people getting more liberal, and he takes personal offense every time Clinton just dismisses the possibility of picking him as her running mate—his guiding principle under attack has basically boiled down to a feeling that multiple aides sum up as: “Screw me? No, screw you.”

Take the combative statement after the Nevada showdown.

“I don’t know who advised him that this was the right route to take, but we are now actively destroying what Bernie worked so hard to build over the last year just to pick up two fucking delegates in a state he lost,” rapid response director Mike Casca complained to Weaver in an internal campaign email obtained by POLITICO.

“Thank you for your views. I’ll relay them to the senator, as he is driving this train,” Weaver wrote back.​

And this really does set the tone. The paragraphs above are followed by a vague description of a California question about "how much to modulate the tone" of surrogate pitches to superdelegates, leading to a reminder:

This isn’t about what’s good for the Democratic Party in his mind, but about what he thinks is good for advancing the agenda that he’s been pushing since before he got elected mayor of Burlington.

Sanders owns nearly every major decision, right down to the bills. A conversation with former Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin about getting left in personal debt from his own 1992 presidential campaign has stayed at the top of Sanders’ mind.

He demanded that the campaign bank account never go under $10 million, even when that’s meant decisions Weaver and campaign architect Tad Devine have protested―like making the call in the final days before Kentucky to go with digital director Kenneth Pennington’s plan to focus on data and field, instead of $300,000 to match Clinton on TV.

Sanders ultimately lost there by just 1,924 votes.​

Here's an interesting contrast; like I said, it's not quite rats and sinking ships. To the one:

Since he finished approving the ads for California not long after the Kentucky strategy spat, Devine has been back home in Rhode Island, noticeably missing from cable news as a surrogate but still regularly in touch with Sanders. Devine, who’s been more anxious about what an endgame looks like, says he hasn’t heard anything from the senator that suggests he would alter his plans because of the Clinton campaign’s eagerness to have President Barack Obama endorse her and declare the primaries done.​

It is an interesting paragraph, and easy enough to read some dark implication into it; more likely, it's a matter of expenses keeping Devine off the road. Because, to the other, everybody still seems to be onboard; they're just pointing at Bernie in the moment.

Sanders and aides laugh at the idea that he’s damaging the party and hurting Clinton. They think they don’t get enough gratitude for how much they held back, from not targeting more Democratic members of the House and Senate who opposed him to not making more of an issue out of Clinton’s email server investigation and Bill Clinton’s sex scandals, all of which they discussed as possible lines of attack in the fall. They blame Clinton going after him on gun control for goading him into letting loose on her Goldman Sachs speeches.​

And there is the other theme. Sure, Bernie called all the shots. Sure, a bunch of them were exactly wrong. But it's all Hillary's fault.

Aides say Sanders thinks that progressives who picked Clinton are cynical, power-chasing chickens — like Sen. Sherrod Brown, one of his most consistent allies in the Senate before endorsing Clinton and campaigning hard for her ahead of the Ohio primary. Sanders is so bitter about it that he’d be ready to nix Brown as an acceptable VP choice, if Clinton ever asked his advice on who’d be a good progressive champion.​

Oh, and angry, bitter socialist.

We see how this goes. Politico explains, "Every time Sanders got into a knife fight, aides say, they ended up losing. But they could never stop Sanders when he got his back up."

Coming off walloping Clinton in the Wisconsin primary in April, the first internal numbers from campaign pollster Ben Tulchin showed Sanders within range in New York’s pivotal contest two weeks later. Though some senior aides say they realize now the dynamics of the state and the closed primary meant they never really had a shot, they also blame coverage of his New York Daily News interview and the blowup over calling Clinton “not qualified” for taking New York off the table.​

Okay, blame the press, too. But let's face it, that was an awful interview, possibly the worst I can recall on the Democratic side.

But we also have a moment to address another question; it's a weird quirk of living where I do.

There is a collection of talking points orbiting Hillary Clinton's popular vote totals, and the fact that Bernie Sanders wins more caucus states. There is also the question of demanding Democrats open their primary to everyone, such as we see in the New York question.

In the state of Washington we held a Democratic caucus in March; Bernie Sanders won that easily, 73-27 with 26,299 votes tallied. The caucus is how the Democratic Party decides who wins the state; Bernie Sanders has won Washington.

But in the Evergreen State, the law requires primaries; the Secretary of State cannot simply cancel these elections simply because the parties decides to caucus. I wasn't paying enough attention before, say, 2004, but we've done this at least since then.

Thus it was that late last month we held the Washington State Democratic Presidential Primary.

In this election, voters were given a ballot with both, Democratic and Republican primaries; Ben Carson, apparently because of deadlines, was still on the ballot for the GOP. The voter declares at the time of voting which primary they wish to vote in. Any registered voter can participate in the Democratic Primary.

This is as good of a laboratory as we're going to get.

Hillary Clinton won the state of Washington 53-47, with 719,043 votes tallied.

Under no circumstances would Bernie Sanders have won his superdelegate argument in Washington state. It's a moot point, now that Hillary Clinton has a majority of pledged delegates, but it's as good of a survey of the caucus/primary and open/closed questions as we might find.

The Politico article, however, continues its sad tale from New York to Pennsylvania, and then Indiana, essentially riding the Bernie's-call theme of the article to describe a debacle dealing with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and having to do with endorsing and supporting other Democratic candidates. And from there Dovere and Debenedetti just pile on. Poor communications, unreliability, payback, hubris.

Sanders knows the ride is about to stop—but he’s going to push it as far as he can before it does.​

 

[Tiassa]

Notes for #290 Above

Dovere, Edward-Isaac and Gabriel Debenedetti. "Inside the bitter last days of Bernie's revolution". Politico. 7 June 2016. Politico.com. 8 June 2016. http://politi.co/1Odi9H1

NBC News. "Washington Primary Results: 2016 Election". 25 May 2016. NBCNews.com. 8 June 2016. http://nbcnews.to/1RXddAW

 

[iceaura]

Okay, blame the press, too. But let's face it, that was an awful interview, possibly the worst I can recall on the Democratic side.

Uh, no, it wasn't. You are confusing your - and the press - misparaphrasing, for the interview itself.

From that lede the Politico article proceeds to recite a scorching list: Rewriting Weaver's brief statement about Nevada violence, hounding and denouncing DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the "knife fight" when he called Hillary Clinton unqualified, "which aides blame for pulling the bottom out of any hopes they had of winning in New York and their last real chance of turning a losing primary run around", and then the Trump debate episode:

You do remember the actual circumstances around Schulz, right? You do recall that Sanders did not just declare, out of nowhere, that Clinton was unqualified - that the word "if" appeared, dead center, and why?

You haven't actually lost track of the events themselves? They weren't that long ago.

At the heart of the rage against Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, the campaign aides closest to him say, is Bernie Sanders.

The rage against Clinton and the "Democratic Party"? Raging, we are now.

And later - "angry, bitter socialist". Really.

The Politico article, however, continues its sad tale from New York to Pennsylvania, and then Indiana, essentially riding the Bernie's-call theme of the article to describe a debacle dealing with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and having to do with endorsing and supporting other Democratic candidates. And from there Dovere and Debenedetti just pile on. Poor communications, unreliability, payback, hubris.

You are quoting and paraphrasing - uncritically - an article in Politico. About something involving Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and "socialism".

You used to know better than that.

Let's say Sanders is, personally, exactly as described by some people well known for no such accuracy of description and in spite of their dodgy relations with remembered event. Lets's say your interpolations were accurate rather than symptomatic. What exactly is your point? Do you see this as a personality driven, leader following, cultish movement, this backing of Sanders? That it's all about Bernie is not just you trying to find foothold for celebration, but the actual situation the rest of us are in?

 

[joepistole]

Uh, no, it wasn't. You are confusing your - and the press - misparaphrasing, for the interview itself.
You do remember the actual circumstances around Schulz, right? You do recall that Sanders did not just declare, out of nowhere, that Clinton was unqualified - that the word "if" appeared, dead center, and why?

You haven't actually lost track of the events themselves? They weren't that long ago.
The rage against Clinton and the "Democratic Party"? Raging, we are now.

And later - "angry, bitter socialist". Really.
You are quoting and paraphrasing - uncritically - an article in Politico. About something involving Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and "socialism".

You used to know better than that.

Let's say Sanders is, personally, exactly as described by some people well known for no such accuracy of description and in spite of their dodgy relations with remembered event. Lets's say your interpolations were accurate rather than symptomatic. What exactly is your point? Do you see this as a personality driven, leader following, cultish movement, this backing of Sanders? That it's all about Bernie is not just you trying to find foothold for celebration, but the actual situation the rest of us are in?

Do you ever read what you write?

 

[joepistole]

Bernie spoke today after meeting with Obama. Bernie isn't yet willing to give up his newly acquired rock star life style. Now he is meeting with members of congress. Let's see what happens now. Bernie has a choice. He can either sacrifice his rock star life style, give up the Secret Service Agents, the chauffeurs, the cameras, and the groupies, or advance the causes he claims to support. I think Bernie has become addicted to the life style and I don't think it's only Bernie who is addicted. I think his wife is as well. You can see it in her eyes and in her face, she is loving every minute in the spotlight.

 

[Bells]

The inevitable..

When news broke that Elizabeth Warren was going to endorse Clinton (which she has now done), some Bernie fans took to her Facebook page to voice their.. ermm.. disgust. Some of the messages on her Facebook page as quoted (with accompanying commentary on the whole issue) on DailyKOS:

“Elizabeth Warren, you are a total fake. Your endorsement means nothing. You have destroyed your career by supporting Clinton. We will never ever trust you again.. EVER!!”

-------------------------------------

“Thanks for being a sellout!”

-------------------------------------

“TRAITOR!!!!!!!”​

------------------------------------

Yep, the woman who created and fought heart and soul for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the woman who really didn’t want to run for office but did in order to protect the CFPB and to fight for economic justice, the woman who has been pummeling Trump and the GOP, is now an establishment sell out of the first order.

Apparently these people never paid attention to Hillary’s and Elizabeth’s working relationship when Hillary was still in the Senate. Nor did they seem to notice that Elizabeth was one of the Senators who signed a letter asking Hillary to run. Reality. It matters.

I’m waiting for the reaction when Elizabeth and Bernie are out campaigning for Hillary. The mind boggles.​

Mother Jones posted a screen grab of some of the lunacy from some of Sander's supporters when it was posted on someone's twitter:

Personally, I want to know where the guillotines are!

But jokes aside, Warren has done a great deal for Americans and to have this sort of vitriol from supporters of a candidate of her own party is obscene. And I hate to imagine what they will do if and when Sanders endorses Clinton or helps her campaign against Trump. Not to mention the racism of one person who now believes she's now down a shill for Muslims. This is absurd as it is offensive.

It's no wonder that Trump has commented on welcoming some of these people with open arms after Clinton became the presumptive nominee. These individuals are cut from the same cloth as Trump's supporters.

More worryingly, Sanders has done nothing to stop this sort of vitriol against Warren. A quick look at what is publicly available on her Facebook page (I don't have an account with Facebook, so I'm not sure if members can see more) shows people literally ripping strips from her for what they view as a betrayal of Bernie. Many of these comments are from people who still believe that Sanders can win the nomination and they feel that Warren has betrayed Bernie and them in endorsing Clinton. It is clear that Sanders needs to address this sort of vitriol and he needs to state his intentions about this election clearly and sooner rather than later. Because some of his supporters have been pushed so far in their zeal for Sanders, that they are literally sounding like conspiratorial Bernie fanatics and lunatics.

 

[joepistole]

I think Senator Warren would be a great VP pick for Hillary.

Bernie and his supporters need to face reality. The gigs up. Bernie is going to have to leave his rock star life style behind. It's no longer an option for him. As much as he doesn't want it to be so, it ends at the convention. He lost the popular vote, and the super delegates aren't willing to override the popular vote.

 

[iceaura]

So in the wake of the California primary analysis, the question once again: are those tactics - the provisional ballot misinformation "accident", the deregistration of younger voters, and the the by now standard voting machine oddities, on top of the media oddities going in and so forth (none of it as yet quantified, but in the neighborhood of seven figures)
questionable source but apparently the basic facts appear: http://yournewswire.com/lawsuit-filed-as-bernie-sanders-wins-california-by-landslide/
example of one problem: http://www.snopes.com/uncounted-california-ballots/
apparently the subject of a lawsuit (by the people who were successful in Ohio in 2012, btw) http://thefreethoughtproject.com/el...ging-dnc-primaries-derail-clinton-nomination/

going to work against Trump? Presuming the corporate guys involved line up behind the Republican as they have in every election since 1980, that is.

 

[joepistole]

So in the wake of the California primary analysis, the question once again: are those tactics - the provisional ballot misinformation "accident", the deregistration of younger voters, and the the by now standard voting machine oddities, on top of the media oddities going in and so forth (none of it as yet quantified, but in the neighborhood of seven figures)
questionable source but apparently the basic facts appear: http://yournewswire.com/lawsuit-filed-as-bernie-sanders-wins-california-by-landslide/
example of one problem: http://www.snopes.com/uncounted-california-ballots/
apparently the subject of a lawsuit (by the people who were successful in Ohio in 2012, btw) http://thefreethoughtproject.com/el...ging-dnc-primaries-derail-clinton-nomination/

going to work against Trump? Presuming the corporate guys involved line up behind the Republican as they have in every election since 1980, that is.

Instead of advancing specious conspiracies to explain past failures, perhaps Bernie supporters should move on.

 

[iceaura]

Instead of advancing specious conspiracies to explain past failures, perhaps Bernie supporters should move on.

That was the direction of the post you quoted, yes. Perhaps you will join me?

Given that Clinton is going to survive all of these pesky little legal troubles (even the lead lawyer in the group filing the voting machine lawsuit in the eleven primaries for which the evidence is clear has stated in public that he regards Clinton as personally innocent) and receive the nomination in July,

we turn to consideration of how her campaign methods visible so far will fare against someone with Trump's voting base, resources, and connections. Will the accomplished voter suppression via registration hassles work in her favor, for example, in California in November? Will the voting machine oddities universally break her way, or side with Trump?

 

[joepistole]

Bernie said he will be voting for Hilary, but he's keeping his Secret Service protection for as long as possible.