It’s All Over But the Crying

I honestly don’t give a shit if Bernie debates Donald Trump- it’s his god damned reputation he’s ruining. This is over, and this Molly Ball piece nails it:

But in the world Sanders’s supporters inhabit, this is all so much media manipulation. “Do you trust the media?” asked one of his introducers, the television host Cenk Uygur. “No!” yelled the crowd. “Do you believe they’ve treated Bernie Sanders fairly?” “Fuck the media!” yelled someone standing near the press riser. (Sanders was also introduced by two actors, Dick Van Dyke and Rosario Dawson.)

Sanders and his people have their own sets of rules. All you have to do is unskew the delegate counts, they explain, take out the superdelegates, imagine they all vote for Sanders, imagine certain primaries had been conducted according to different rules. Angry memes about missing votes and stolen precincts ricochet around social media. Did you see what happened in Nevada, when the party, Sanders’s supporters claim, changed the rules to keep them from getting more delegates at the state convention? The game is rigged!

The Sanders movement has become impervious to reality. Some have even called into question the nature of reality itself: “Bernie Sanders’ ‘political revolution’ is political only inasmuch as thought is political,” a self-described “metamodernist creative writer” named Seth Abramson wrote in the Huffington Post a few days ago. “By the very nature of things—we might call it perceptual entropy—the impossible, once perceived, enters a chain of causation whose natural conclusion is realization.” By this logic, Abramson reasons, Sanders is actually winning. It’s, like, the Matrix, man, or something.

The Abramson piece is priceless and a must read for Sokol fans. This was my reaction the other day when I read it:

Ball continues:

The question is what it will take for Sanders to be satisfied with some sort of moral victory short of the nomination. This week, he was given five slots on the Democratic platform committee, which will allow him to influence what the party stands for—presumably an important goal. Sanders is also thought to be interested in reforms to the nominating process that he has derided as “rigged.”

But while his aides have occasionally alluded to these sorts of goals, Sanders continues to behave like a candidate who still believes he can win. On Monday, he criticized Clinton for turning down one last debate; on Tuesday, he sought to wring an additional delegate out of Kentucky by challenging the vote count in one district. His speeches give about as much critical time to both Clinton and Trump, and his crowds boo both with equal vehemence.

Is Sanders—the onetime liberal gadfly whose views few of his colleagues heeded—simply enjoying the spotlight’s validating glow for as long as it lasts? Or is he as delusional as some of his dead-ender fans? It’s impossible to tell.

Alternate working theory- he’s just a cranky old asshole and we’re finally seeing the Bernie Sanders that his colleagues have been putting up with for decades. That’s why all the Super Delegates went with Hitlery.






253 replies
  1. 1

    I buy your theory. People far too often suspect strategy, when the actors are just being who they are. They can find excuses to justify what they feel like doing.

  2. 2
    Mike J says:

    As stupid as the Abramson piece is, I thought it a real hoot when Josh Barro, who has an undergrad degree in psych, said this is the kind of stuff you can always expect from people in the humanities.

  3. 3
    negative 1 says:

    Well if he got 5 slots on the platform committee after it’s been numerically impossible (or at least extraordinarily unlikely) for him to win it’s kind of hard to argue his strategy isn’t working, isn’t it?

    Like I said in a different thread, if he does stuff like this:

    http://www.esquire.com/news-po.....n-schultz/

    he can stay in for as long as he wants as far as I’m concerned.

  4. 4

    That Abramson piece is hilarious! I hate that guy. I can’t believe how many of my otherwise intelligent friends were sharing his crap on the book of faces. Politics is stupid.

    By the very nature of things — we might call it perceptual entropy — the impossible, once perceived, enters a chain of causation whose natural conclusion is realization.

    It’s hard to believe that no one’s noticed yet that Sanders’ entire political agenda is a thought experiment — an instance of long-term ideation rather than immediate satisfaction.

    Cynical subjectivities, palimpsestic ironies, deconstructive framings, the jailbreak of iterability, so much fragmentation, cries of unavoidable degradation — these hallmarks of the postmodern no longer gesture at anything; the gesture itself has, for a great many of us, swallowed whatever it was that was worth looking at (or for) in the first place.

    So, uh, vote Sanders, or something?

    @Frankensteinbeck: Hanlon’s Razor, never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

  5. 5
    Chat Noir says:

    “By the very nature of things—we might call it perceptual entropy—the impossible, once perceived, enters a chain of causation whose natural conclusion is realization.”

    I’ve read this sentence five times and I still don’t know what it means.

  6. 6

    @negative 1:

    Well if he got 5 slots on the nominating committee after it’s been numerical impossible (or at least extraordinarily unlikely) for him to win it’s kind of hard to argue his strategy isn’t working, isn’t it?

    If his strategy is to get meaningless, symbolic concessions, yes.

    @Chat Noir: I understand it. Your problem is that the sentence is stupid, not incoherent. It’s as dumb as it sounds. Remember when he started talking about the multiverse? Once something is imagined, it has to be happening in some dimension.

  7. 7

    By the very nature of things — we might call it perceptual entropy — the impossible, once perceived, enters a chain of causation whose natural conclusion is realization.

    WTF is this? If you don’t understand physics don’t use physics terms.

  8. 8
    Robin G. says:

    I’m not pro-debate, but I don’t think it would hurt Hillary at all. I think Trump would a) get Sanders to implicitly agree with a bunch of his vile misogynistic statements, and b) beat him like a piñata with “Old Crazy Communist Jew” lines. There would be a certain pleasure in watching Sanders’ numbers tank afterwards and putting that “Only Bernie can beat Donald” meme to rest.

    But that would only be a perk. I’d much rather the cranky fart just knock it off and start guiding his followers back to reality.

  9. 9
    bystander says:

    They remind me of the Occupy Wall Street mentality. As much as I loved the sentiment and the theatrical rituals (remember the human microphone?) the magic thinking stuff gets thin very quickly.

  10. 10

    @bystander: Their problem wasn’t magical thinking, it was the fact that they were anarchists. They had the spotlight. They squandered it.

  11. 11
    Greenergood says:

    I agree with everything here about Bernie and intransigence and stubbornness. But the MSM is still a disgusting pool of slime gatherers and promoters of lies and even worse, half-lies. Don’t need to feel any Bernie-burn to say that.

  12. 12

    @Major Major Major Major:
    I personally tack on ‘Never attribute to greed what can be adequately explained by malice.’

  13. 13
  14. 14
    Citizen Alan says:

    @Major Major Major Major:

    Once something is imagined, it has to be happening in some dimension.

    I commented recently that I wish I could see into a parallel dimension where Bernie wins the primary and goes on to win the general, just so I could see how long it took for his supporters to turn on him and denounce him as a corporatist sellout just because geopolitical and socioeconomic realities forced him to do something that he thought was in the national interest but which the Berniesheviks were opposed to. I’d give it until the summer of 2017 at the latest, followed by an impeachment in 2019.

  15. 15
    negative 1 says:

    @Major Major Major Major: So according to the commentariat, if you work within the party it’s a meaningless concession — but a couple of weeks ago his supporters weren’t serious because they weren’t willing to try and work within the party because they just want to burn it all down.

    This presidential campaign is beyond help. Welcome to the era of bad feelings. If you disagree with the priorities of those whom you share 85% or so of your beliefs with, obviously you’re stupid, you’re not a grown up, etc. And this is just the primary.

  16. 16
    Chat Noir says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: OK, good, so it’s not just me.

  17. 17
    Brachiator says:

    Alternate working theory- he’s just a cranky old asshole and we’re finally seeing the Bernie Sanders that his colleagues have been putting up with for decades. That’s why all the Super Delegates went with Hitlery.

    Leave Bernie alone. Let him run the race he wants.

    Yeah, he’s lost. But Hillary tried to pull all kinds of last minute shit until the very end, and had her surrogates “VP whisper” Obama back in 2008.

    And other politicians, Democrat and Republican, have tried to play for advantage up to and through the convention.

    Hillary is not a delicate flower that needs to be put in a bell jar. And the Democratic Party will survive Sanders’ last stand. And did you notice that Sanders has some of his people on the platform committee? This guarantees more fighting and bloodletting. And if Berniebros take to the streets and riot? Yeah, that would be messy and distracting, and hopefully will not happen.

    But even if it does, fergitaboutit. Keep your eyes on the real prize. Get out the vote and take Trump down in November.

  18. 18
    Gian says:

    Baylor Football, coach fired, Ken Starr, yes that Ken Starr, who went nuts over Lewinsky is removed as college president, over his support of (and here I think the phrase fits) the rape culture at Baylor.

    As for this site, I can’t wait until November and the daily two minute hate of Bernie can end. He can’t win, you’re just giving him attention he doesn’t deserve anymore.

    F-N Ken Starr.

  19. 19
    GOVCHRIS1988 says:

    @Chat Noir: We need William Shatner for that.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpbSwSlP4Yc

  20. 20
    singfoom says:

    @bystander:

    As much as I loved the sentiment and the theatrical rituals (remember the human microphone?)

    A quibble:

    The human microphone wasn’t a theatrical ritual (though it did feel culty), it was a people power solution to the fact that the NYPD took away their bullhorns.

    I also thought it made you consider the words more than just listening to a person.

  21. 21
    Bostondreams says:

    @negative 1:

    American elections have been like this since at least 1800. At least no one has called anyone a wh*remonger yet. But then, the election season is still young.

  22. 22
    ruemara says:

    I went from tacit support with qualified enthusiasm to full on grift rage. I’m just happy to ignore dumb shenanigans. I wish people would stop trying g to make themselves feel better about supporting him by attempting to parse his actions. He ain’t evil, but he ain’t the salvation of leftism either. He’s complicated, flawed, has the base of many positive ideas, but very wrong in his application of thoughts.

  23. 23

    @negative 1: Working to change the nomination process would be meaningful. Maybe encouraging his followers to get involved at the county level, that sort of thing would eventually move the apparatus to the left. Lobby to get rid of superdelegates! Or failing that, get his followers in at the ground level so they can become superdelegates. Isn’t the chair voted on by party leaders? Those leaders don’t spring fully formed from the head of Zeus.

    Politics is harrrrrrrd and slowwwwww. The slow boring of hard wood.

    Lots of things you can do to work within the party that aren’t appointing people to the platform committee. The platform is meaningless. Sheesh.

  24. 24
    negative 1 says:

    @Bostondreams: I have hope. It’s still just the primaries.

  25. 25
    John Cole says:

    @Brachiator: Didn’t have patience for Hillary’s 2008 bullshit, don’t have time for Bernie’s now. If nothing else, I’m consistent.

  26. 26

    @John Cole:

    If nothing else, I’m consistent.

    *snort*

  27. 27
    negative 1 says:

    @Major Major Major Major: Right now he’s lobbying to get rid of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. He is actively supporting a progressive challenger to her seat, and he’s lobbying to have her removed as head of the DNC. That’s change we can all get behind.

    If the platform of a party is meaningless, what exactly do they stand for?

  28. 28
    John Cole says:

    @Major Major Major Major: I don’t understand what is so awful about the nominating process. Seems pretty fair and open to me. I mean, a guy who wasn’t even a Democrat until recently came pretty close to getting it. How much more open does it need to be?

  29. 29
    MattF says:

    I think it comes down to a question of behavioral repertoire. When Bernie is under pressure or feels threatened he hunkers down and denies reality. As a matter of fact, lots of people do that– although one hopes that our future President, whoever she may be, has a more functional set of behaviors.

  30. 30
    negative 1 says:

    @John Cole: I’m genuinely curious, do you have a different opinion of Hillary now than you did in 2008? Before I get called Bernie Bro for the next 2 days, I liked her then (liked Obama more) and like her now (like Sanders more) but would have and will vote for her in the general.

    I’ve heard the view that you espouse more than once, and I have to say — I just don’t think she’s changed that much. I don’t know of a single view of hers that she changed between 2008 and now.

  31. 31
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Chat Noir: I think he’s trying to say, “if you dream it, it will come.” But damned if I know for sure, really.

  32. 32
    Mike in DC says:

    If he wins California, he will be insufferable for a few weeks longer.

  33. 33
    Ocotillo says:

    Dick Van Dyke is still alive?

  34. 34
    CONGRATULATIONS! says:

    By the very nature of things — we might call it perceptual entropy — the impossible, once perceived, enters a chain of causation whose natural conclusion is realization.

    Where have I heard this before?

    That’s not the way the world really works anymore.” He continued “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

    Oh yeah. Karl Rove.

  35. 35
    Amir Khalid says:

    @negative 1:
    It was explained to me yesterday that the party platform committee is of no real significance. The platform it produces will be largely ignored by the party’s candidates and the voting public. Bernie was invited to name five committee members as a courtesy, no more than that. (Hillary got to name six.)

  36. 36
    Gian says:

    @Ocotillo:
    all that dancing must have been good for his health. he’s something of a villain in the first “night at the museum” flick

  37. 37

    @John Cole: Well I’m a Hilldo, but I don’t think that’s coloring my opinion–caucuses are stupid. Get rid of them. Open/closed primaries, I say closed. It’s a political party, fucking join.

    There are funding issues there though in the primary/caucus debate. Ideally you’d have a well-funded national party administering it.

    But it was a fair enough process this time around. No rule change would have changed the winner.

    Getting rid of DWS is kind of silly given a) her district and b) she’s retiring, so a spite primary isn’t going to solve much. Not that I like her. I’d rather have somebody like Dean back.

    @negative 1: Modern platforms are meaningless. The party sorta stands for what they say, I guess, but it’s mostly about giving a sop to people to make them feel important. The broad strokes are what matters and those have already been established.

  38. 38
    ruemara says:

    @John Cole: he needed to win, with or without Democratic party membership support. That’s what’s going on. The view that it was unfair he didn’t win.

    I’d take dropping caucuses for closed primaries & no more than a 2 week lockout before the primaries.

  39. 39
    negative 1 says:

    @Amir Khalid: Funny, when I mentioned that political parties were fundraising organizations it was thrown at me that I was ignoring that the party picked their candidates based on adherence to their platforms.

  40. 40

    @Chat Noir:

    Think of it as an early script draft for a post apocalyptic sci-fi movie in development which may star Keanu Reaves or Donald Trump.

  41. 41

    Utterly, thoroughly, shamefully off topic, but I’d just like to say here that this is my father’s 100th birthday. I bet it would be a lot more fun if he were a little less dead, though. He only made it to 91 and a half…

  42. 42
    Hoodie says:

    @John Cole: Of course. Bernie doesn’t want to do any of that reform; he would have been a lifelong Dem if he did. He’s just way too emotionally invested and looking for a way to feel vindicated, especially seeing how surprisingly close he got. Losing sucks donkey balls, but moral victories don’t taste much better. Like it really matters who’s head of the DNC or on the platform committee.

  43. 43
    negative 1 says:

    @Major Major Major Major: I like that as a bumpersticker. Vote Party X — we sorta stand for what we say in our platform!

  44. 44
    Mike J says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    Bernie was invited to name five committee members as a courtesy, no more than that. (Hillary got to name six.)

    And DSW got four. So a two thirds majority if her delegates and Clinton’s hang together.

  45. 45

    @negative 1: Party X–At Least It’s Not Party Y’s Platform!

  46. 46

    @Chat Noir: Its my pet peeve, how journalists and pundit class use physics terms like optics, momentum, chaos and now entropy.

    Bernie has momentum, although Hillary is winning.

    What kind of momentum, linear or angular? Is it conserved?
    They think it makes them sound hip. To me it sounds like they failed physics for pundits.

  47. 47
    Aimai says:

    @negative 1: she has run an entirely different campaign–focused on the needs of the obama coalition. In addition since 2008 she has served as secretary of state. A major fucking job. Her “opinions” are not what we are electing. We are electing a string progressive with enormous talent, drive, experience and administrative skill. To continue democratic policies begun by president obama.

  48. 48
    CONGRATULATIONS! says:

    If he wins California, he will be insufferable for a few weeks longer.

    @Mike in DC: He’s cratering in CA. Looking like a 20-point blowout, minimum.

    Dick Van Dyke is still alive?

    @Ocotillo: Sure is. Doing something right, he’s well into his nineties.

  49. 49
    Citizen_X says:

    @srv: Hah hah, Cole already beat you to the punch at #26.

  50. 50
    Keith G says:

    @ruemara: That rings true and seems to be a very thoughtful analysis.

  51. 51
    singfoom says:

    I expect Bernie will throw in the towel come June 7th. If he doesn’t throw in the towel before the convention then I really do question his commitment to defeating Trump.

    As for DWS as DNC chair, honestly, I can’t remember where I read it recently, but the point was made that “DWS is a symbol of mistrust regardless of whether she tilted or didn’t tilt anything in HRC’s favor (I don’t think she did) and the party would be better served without her as the DNC chair”

    I don’t disagree with that point. So honestly, if I were in charge or had the ear of those who were in charge, I’d throw DWS under the bus just to gain some goodwill with the Bernie supporters who think she murdered his campaign (she didn’t) and find someone who would run an aggressive 50 state strategy.

    Cheers

  52. 52
    SteveinSC says:

    Well, Cole, anyone who was spot on about Iraq like you is just the one to listen to about Bernie. Flamer.

  53. 53
    Eric U. says:

    I would love to pretend we’re getting rid of DWS to make the Berinistas happy. I feel like she hasn’t done a good job anyway, and it’s time for her to go.

  54. 54
    gindy51 says:

    @Chat Noir: Lead turns into gold if you think about it long enough…

  55. 55
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Aimai:

    We are electing a string progressive with enormous talent, drive, experience and administrative skill. To continue democratic policies begun by president obama.

    Oh, yeah, but what does that matter compared to my FEELINGS about her? I just don’t trust her! I don’t know why! Don’t ask me why! At least Trump will be shaking up the status quo!

  56. 56

    @negative 1:
    You are incorrectly conflating ‘platform’, as in philosophy, with ‘platform’, as in formal document created at conventions. In this case, the party, both as officials and as voters, chooses a candidate who match the ‘platform’ of what the party generally wants. Sanders has been allowed to submit a one-third minority of delegates to a committee that writes a ‘platform’ document that hopes to express what the party wants, but for practical purposes is almost always ignored. Thus the argument that as far as him getting concessions, this is token at best.

  57. 57
    Mike J says:

    @Mike in DC:

    If he wins California, he will be insufferable for a few weeks longer.

    It will just as over either way. NJ has 142 delegates and sits in between NY(Clinton +16) and PA(Clinton +12). With 40 from PR, 80 from NJ, Hillary will need ~20% in CA.

  58. 58
    MattF says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: Alas, poor Entropy, I knew it well. There haven’t been a lot of recent mis-usages– but now, maybe, that’ll change. Another reason to go into hibernation until November.

  59. 59
    Alain the site fixer says:

    @Amir Khalid: Amir is correct. The platform is words and little more. It was a cruel realization after I worked so hard as the chair of our county platform committee to learn how meaningless it ends up being. It’s a great way to get passionate people distracted and involved.

  60. 60
    p.a. says:

    If the BernieBots are turning their anger towards the media, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Transference from HilsHate, right? Or are they so far gone they think the media supports Hillary/Democrats?

  61. 61
    D58826 says:

    @Chat Noir: That’s the point. But I’ll bet Sarah Palin can understand it

  62. 62

    @MattF: but the recent polling, which is both accurate and precise, has shown that the campaign’s entropy has momentum that favors trump!

  63. 63
    Mike in DC says:

    @Mike J:
    Perhaps, but if he wins CA, Sanders will feel empowered to pursue his hail-Mary super delegate “strategy”, which involves him arguing semi-publicly for the weeks leading up to the election that Clinton is nearly unelectable, and they’re making a mistake. I would hope that the establishment has a plan to knock that off quickly.

  64. 64
    Amir Khalid says:

    @CONGRATULATIONS!:

    By the very nature of things — we might call it perceptual entropy — the impossible, once perceived, enters a chain of causation whose natural conclusion is realization.

    This sentence seems to be saying, “If we wish for something really really hard, we can make it so.”

  65. 65
    Matt says:

    He’s been in the Senate his whole life. Of course he’s a narcissistic asshole with no redeeming qualities.

  66. 66
    D58826 says:

    @singfoom: And would get the story off of the news cycle.

  67. 67

    @p.a.:
    Sanders voters have been pushing ‘the media is trying to suppress him’ as part of their conspiracy theories since day one. Trust me, I have to listen to it.

    EDIT – @Amir Khalid:
    Correct. That is exactly what it is saying.

  68. 68

    @MattF: We knew poor Entropy’s days were numbered when Ben Carson invoked it.

  69. 69
    Thoughtful David says:

    @John Cole:
    I’m a Democrat, and I’d like to see the primaries less open: closed primaries, no caucuses.
    If you want to determine who the Democratic candidate will be, join the party. If you’re not willing to do that, why should you have a say? Why should some random person (open primaries) have any say at all who the Democratic candidate is?

  70. 70
    Splitting Image says:

    @Chat Noir:

    “By the very nature of things—we might call it perceptual entropy—the impossible, once perceived, enters a chain of causation whose natural conclusion is realization.”

    I’ve read this sentence five times and I still don’t know what it means.

    He means that the Overton window moves when a political leader uses the bully pulpit.

    Not that the Overton window can move, mind you, but that the Overton window necessarily does move.

    So if Bernie Sanders began talking about faster-than-light travel, then by the very nature of things – we might call it perceptual entropy – it would enter a chain of causation whose natural conclusion would be the invention of teleportation. Single-payer health care would presumably work the same way.

  71. 71
    Amir Khalid says:

    @Mike J:

    And DSW got four. So a two thirds majority if her delegates and Clinton’s hang together.

    Well, they did have to make it seem to be worth something.

  72. 72
    dm says:

    I’m glad to see Bernie using his mailing list to raise funds for a bunch of congressional candidates (the endorsement of DWS’s primary opponent was just the start), and today’s mail brings a Bernie-mediated appeal for funds for Russ Feingold. It’s about time he started doing that.

    I’ll probably follow his endorsements with Act Blue donations, but I don’t really want to send his campaign any more money.

  73. 73
    My Truth Hurts says:

    If it’s so over for Sanders the fuck do any of you Hillary supporters care what he does? I know authoritarian types can’t handle someone not following their directions but he has every right to stay in it until it’s over. What a bunch of crybaby arrogant assholes so many of you are. You are the reason people like me don’t give a fuck about the Democratic party. You are why the voters won’t come out to support your candidate in 2016 or your party in 2018.

    Yeah yeah we are nothing childish selfish tantrum throwing idiots. Yeah, sure ok. But that’s how people think. If you can’t get our votes it doesn’t matter how “childish” we are. You won’t win.

    It’s way past time for progressives to give up on the Democratic party.

  74. 74
    Keith G says:

    @Major Major Major Major: I am among those who do not see the need for much change in the process. This has been a weird year, but it is one data point. I would not want the Party to overreact.

    For me, even the super delegates are a feature and not a bug. That makes me a small ‘r’ republican. I like check valves to political emotions.

    The value to open primaries is that it bring more people in to participate. Some will disappear, but some will stay. That will help keep the Party fresh and less likely to be a safe place for stagnate ideas.

  75. 75
    dmsilev says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: Someone should try to pick a random bit of science jargon out of a hat, and then try to inject it into the political discourse. ‘Valence’, perhaps. Let’s start describing political polarization in terms of valence.

  76. 76
    Gian says:

    @My Truth Hurts:
    I read this in June 2008, Party Unity Your Ass!

  77. 77
    MattF says:

    @dmsilev: Or, vice versa, for that matter.

  78. 78
    Russ says:

    All in all I have to applaud Bernie, he started with his announcement at the waterfront park in Burlington and will end this in California sometime next month. Went much further than I thought he would and changed the thoughts on our side a little and it will all be just a foot note on the election campaign of 2016. it is very easy to sit at your keyboard and opine on this and that regarding his campaign and it’s another to actually be someone like Jeff weaver, who I worked with years ago, trying his best to get the nomination for his friend Bernie. Emotions run high and neither of them have done anything like this before and I give them both a lot of credit. They’re both “Vermont Strong”.

  79. 79

    Re getting rid of DWS, I have no strong feelings one way or the other, but her term is up in January so the only relevant question is would someone new be a better leader for the GE. Maybe Bernistas would come around more easily? The new person would have to come up to speed quickly. I assume plans for the GE campaign are already underway.

  80. 80
    Yellowdog says:

    @negative 1: Her DNC term is up by the time the new Congress will be seated and she has already said she isn’t running for DNC chair again. Once again his support for her opponent is more tilting at windmills.

  81. 81

    @dmsilev: Dark matter and dark energy. Trump’s campaign is fueled by dark energy while Hillary’s by dark matter. So no one knows what will happen, so we are in uncharted waters right now.

    Reporting live from the box that stupid Schrodinger put me in.

  82. 82
    p.a. says:

    @My Truth Hurts:

    It’s way past time for progressives to give up on the Democratic party.

    Well you’ve certainly convinced me. Draft Ralph!

  83. 83
    dmsilev says:

    @MattF: “That sodium ion is overly conservative compared to the liberal chlorine in the salt crystal”. Could work. Let me go find a chemist and ask them.

  84. 84

    @Yellowdog: I think the opponent he’s supporting is for her seat in the House, not the DNC chairmanship.

  85. 85
    dmsilev says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    Reporting live from the box that stupid Schrodinger put me in.

    Certainly preferable to reporting dead from the box.

  86. 86
    Betty Cracker says:

    @p.a.:

    Or are they so far gone they think the media supports Hillary/Democrats?

    Yes, they do think that. They really, really do.

  87. 87
    Gian says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:
    How do I know you’re alive in that box? Did you disable the poison device?

  88. 88
    starscream says:

    @Thoughtful David: Why did they even let Bernie run? He’s proud to have never been part of the party! And if it’s so corrupt, why did he suddenly want to be part of it?

  89. 89
    Chat Noir says:

    @Thoughtful David: I agree with you.

  90. 90
    singfoom says:

    @My Truth Hurts: The binary thinking of Hillary supporters = bad authoritarians and Bernie supporters = real true political revolutionaries is just as fucking stupid as the Hillary supporters = pragmatic technocrats and Bernie supporters = naive college students.

    Some of us here like me even supported Bernie initially and voted for him in my state primary until he made errors I thought made him less viable as a candidate in the general. If the goal is to move the country forward, you might want to consider that your staying home and not voting in the general does exactly one thing: Makes sure you have no voice in the entire thing.

    I doubt that the views of people on Balloon Juice are driving voter turnout. You’re the reason that people like you don’t give a fuck about the Democratic party. It’s a big tent, come on in. They even let an asshole like me in.

  91. 91
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Iowa Old Lady: I think this talk of getting rid of DWS at this point in the game is nothing but distraction. Potentially dangerous distraction. Seriously, get rid of the DNC chairman just *before* the Presidential election? No, that’s not damaging *at all*. Jeezuz.

  92. 92
    Cacti says:

    @Mike J:

    It will just as over either way. NJ has 142 delegates and sits in between NY(Clinton +16) and PA(Clinton +12). With 40 from PR, 80 from NJ, Hillary will need ~20% in CA.

    With more of the supers coming off the sidelines in recent days, Clinton needs only 74 more delegates to hit 2,383. She’ll likely get around 45 of those just from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, much less the large slate of states on the following weekend.

    To get an outright majority of the pledged delegates for the cycle, she needs only 256 of 781 delegates left in the remaining contests.

  93. 93
    starscream says:

    @My Truth Hurts: “Yeah yeah we are nothing childish selfish tantrum throwing idiots. Yeah, sure ok. But that’s how people think.”

    Holy shit! They admit it!

  94. 94
    Aqualad08 says:

    @negative 1:

    I’m genuinely curious, do you have a different opinion of Hillary now than you did in 2008?

    I won’t pretend to speak for John, but I do have a higher opinion of her now then I did during the 2008 campaign. IMO, she put party ahead of herself and showed a humility I didn’t think she was capable of at the time. I’ve supported her the primary not as a matter of real excitement but general competence. I really wanted to like Bernie, especially early on, but I kept running into this nagging feeling that calling for a “revolution” after seven years of a successful Democratic presidency was poor timing and wishful thinking. His belligerence since losing Ohio has not instilled in me any confidence that he could either win the general nor competently meet the demands of the office.

    But again, that’s just me. He had a shot at winning me over. It didn’t take. Now he’s just pissing me off.

  95. 95
    GOVCHRIS1988 says:

    @My Truth Hurts: Hmmm, yeah you just posted a tittybaby GBCW post on how the Hillary supporters are mean to you and are running around saying that progressives won’t vote Democrat, possibly putting progressives in a deeper hole than they were in, but we’re the “crybaby arrogant assholes”? Thats cute.

  96. 96
    Mnemosyne says:

    @negative 1:

    If you disagree with the priorities of those whom you share 85% or so of your beliefs with, obviously you’re stupid, you’re not a grown up, etc.

    Welcome to 2009, when the lack of a public option or single payer in PPACA meant we needed to KILL THE BILL! And people are still so pissed off about that to this day that it’s a major reason why they say they support Bernie over Hillary.

    This is liberal politics. This is what always happens. I don’t like it much, but it ain’t like all of the fire is coming from one side.

  97. 97
    singfoom says:

    @Miss Bianca: If you consider DWS a distraction and a not that good DNC chair, what’s the problem with the idea?

    You kill two birds with one stone, first, you give the Berners their pound of flesh. Second, you replace her with someone less divisive (regardless of whether she deserves that label) and more effective.

  98. 98
    Keith G says:

    @My Truth Hurts:

    You are the reason people like me don’t give a fuck about the Democratic party.

    I do not judge most of what Sanders is about by the disconcerting things said by silly people. You need to do the same re most Democrats and the silliness here.
    Nonetheless:

    If you can’t get our votes it doesn’t matter how “childish” we are. You won’t win.

    I think that this is not true. The marginal votes of those putting short term temper ahead of their long term good will be rather small. They will not be a cause of Hillary’s demise.

  99. 99
    starscream says:

    I didn’t like Hillary at all 8 years ago, but I was an arrogant little shit still in college. I started off totally neutral this time and believe I am on the record here doing so, but St. Bernard lost me over his hypocritical purity tests (guns? Hillary’s fundraising for him in 2006? tax returns????) and how stupid he revealed himself to be in the NYDN interview.

  100. 100
    Mike J says:

    @Cacti: Yeah, I was calculating with 2026 (no supers) as the target. Supers will vote for whoever hits 2026 in pledged. PR & NJ get her halfway home,

  101. 101

    @singfoom: Not MB, but I don’t want to give BS his symbolic bs victories.

  102. 102
    Jeffro says:

    @Chat Noir:

    I’ve read this sentence five times and I still don’t know what it means.

    If you set it to a nice Disney melody, it translates as “If You Wish Upon A Star…”

  103. 103
    Pangloss says:

    So wait… Gingrich, Livingston, Hastert AND Ken Starr all brought down by sex-related crimes and scandals? Maybe there is something to this Multiverse you speak of.

  104. 104
    FIBark says:

    but we’re the “crybaby arrogant assholes”
    New tagline for BJ.

  105. 105
    GOVCHRIS1988 says:

    @starscream: Because he wanted to win. Bernie knows what every clod that votes third party knows deep down, they can’t win anything if they aren’t in the major two parties. The two parties currently are way to powerful to supplant at this point, so running in them is more of a grifting operation for making big money than actually changing anything. I mean, seriously, Jill Stein runs just to get coin, not to actually do anything. Sure, she will say the right shit, but anyone can say the right shit. The power is in actually planning and working to make that shit work. They don’t have that capacity. Bernie and his ilk have never been this close to the White House and it shows by their actions. They wouldn’t get this with Jill Stein or Gary Johnson.

  106. 106
    MattF says:

    @Pangloss: The Initial State of the Multiverse had an excitation.

  107. 107
    JPL says:

    Who’s to say, that there won’t be a Trump/Sanders ticket.. just sayin
    By agreeing to a debate, he’s obviously willing to drag Clinton through the mud.

  108. 108
    singfoom says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: I don’t give a crap about Bernie Sander’s symbolic victories. We need party unity. DWS is a symbol of that discord. Therefore removing her from the DNC chair increases unity / lowers discord.

    I’m thinking of it from the angle of the good of the party, the good of winning the general. If Sanders gets a frisson from her removal, let him relish the moment. If it serves the purposes of winning the general, I’m for it.

  109. 109
    Psych1 says:

    Not over till its over. I happen to be very good at math and still think there is a good chance Hillary will not be the nominee.

  110. 110

    @singfoom: Right now its Bernie Sanders and his supporters that are spreading the discord. The man is not even a Democrat and now he is making demands on how the party should be run? Presumptuous.

  111. 111
    Robin G. says:

    @My Truth Hurts:

    If you can’t get our votes it doesn’t matter how “childish” we are. You won’t win.

    “Nice country you have there. Shame if something happened to it.”

  112. 112
    GOVCHRIS1988 says:

    @Psych1: Your math must be this, because barring a lightening strike or a video tape of her sacrificing a newborn baby to satan worshipers, she is it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHS-K7OuLAc&feature=youtu.be

  113. 113
    Snarkworth, short-fingered Bulgarian says:

    @dmsilev: Valence? Let’s not bring curtains into this.

  114. 114
    singfoom says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: Here, let me try this. I don’t disagree that Bernie and his supporters are spreading discord, but again, it’s part of how the game is played. You pick a team and you support that team.

    I don’t fault them for that. I don’t get the sense that DWS is beloved by the Democratic party. She’s not someone that others would sacrifice for. Whether or not it’s presumptuous, if it makes the Democratic victory in November more likely, wouldn’t it make sense?

    Fuck, they can spin it how ever they want. Bernie can say he made the party better by getting rid of that hack DWS. HRC can say she found common ground with the supporters of her primary opponent by agreeing on a new DNC chair. Everybody wins. That’s my thinking anyway, I don’t care who it reflects on or who gets a jimmy over it, I just want us to win in November.

    Cheers

  115. 115
    JMG says:

    The cute thing about the Internet debate club faction of Sanders’ supporters is that they assume they speak for all the other Sanders supporters. I seriously doubt this, I know many Sanders voters, and they have nothing in common with the nutbar who wrote that Salon piece. I think it was a grad student who snapped after having to grade too many papers on sub-minimum wage..

  116. 116
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    His speeches give about as much critical time to both Clinton and Trump, and his crowds boo both with equal vehemence.

    remember when Obama supporters would boo McCain or Palin and Obama would say “don’t boo get out and vote!”

    Does St Bernard ever attempt to tone down the anger at his rallies?

  117. 117
    Cat48 says:

    You shouldn’t worry about DWS bc the Dem Congress is arm wrestling over it. Leader Pelosi doesn’t think she should go anywhere & says she’s always done her job’. Bernie is the one who wants her gone bc she hurt his fee fees when she told everyone he was downloading Hillarys Lists, etc.

    They will work it out. I don’t think the Prez will fire here before the convention though.

  118. 118
    GOVCHRIS1988 says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Hell, if Bernie encouraged that earlier, maybe he would be in a better place votewise. Instead of saying everything is rigged because he’s behind, he could have eaten into Clinton’s pop vote and delegate lead.

  119. 119
    Archon says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    The public option debate was when I stopped going on Daily Kos and when I realized that a chunk of the left isn’t fundamentally different then the Tea Party in their disdain for incremental progress in a polarized electorate.

  120. 120
    msdc says:

    “Bernie Sanders’ ‘political revolution’ is political only inasmuch as thought is political,”

    To be fair, this is true inasmuch as the campaign is built around Facebook shares and magical thinking.

    @negative 1:

    Well if he got 5 slots on the platform committee after it’s been numerically impossible (or at least extraordinarily unlikely) for him to win it’s kind of hard to argue his strategy isn’t working, isn’t it?

    See what I mean?

  121. 121
    D58826 says:

    @negative 1:

    I was ignoring that the party picked their candidates based on adherence to their platforms

    he he he what a quaint notion. haven’t heard that one since the campaign for the 6th grade class president.

  122. 122
    Betty Cracker says:

    @singfoom: One thing that bothers me about offering to oust DWS or change the primary rules is that it’s a tacit admission that Sanders was cheated, which he was not. Now, the platform writing committee slots are a more reasonable concession since, theoretically, that could effect the party’s direction / ideology, which is what the “revolution” was supposedly about, right? Folks are saying up-thread the platform slots are meaningless. I don’t know enough about how it works to know if that’s true or not.

  123. 123

    @Betty Cracker: Agreed. I also don’t like the misogyny emanating from that demand.

  124. 124
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @negative 1: I’ve heard the view that you espouse more than once, and I have to say — I just don’t think she’s changed that much. I don’t know of a single view of hers that she changed between 2008 and now.

    “view”? I don’t know, but one change is that in ’08 she ran a shitty, mostly negative campaign, couldn’t control her surrogates and allowed herself to get caught up in the anger of her most bitter supporters? remind you of anyone this time around?

    another difference between now and ’08: there was a better candidate available

  125. 125
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @CONGRATULATIONS!:
    Beat me to it!

  126. 126
    Miss Bianca says:

    @singfoom: Replace DWS with *whom*?

    Six months – hell, less than six months – before the Presidential election? I mean, it’s not like the DNC has anything *else* going on right now, Heaven knows.

    And, SERIOUSLY? Who’s going to jump up to take that job? Hm? Who’s on the short list of candidates? How many Democrats do you know who’d say, “oh sure, the current DNC chair just got shivved – AWESOME! Sign me up for THAT job!”

    I personally think – no matter what anyone thinks of DWS – that saying “oh, wow, Bernie Sanders has a point about her and maybe – maybe it will make him happy and he can have his symbolic victory and maybe then we can count on him to work nicely with us” – is not thinking clearly. First of all, it’s not going to satisfy him – he’s going to look for what he can trash next. Second, the optics of that are just plain ugly. Let’s just get rid of any woman we can? No, thanks. Third, no matter how poorly you think she’s doing, there’s no guarantee that you could recruit a better candidate and again JFC it’s less than six months till the Presidential election.

    Horses, mid-stream…how does that adage go again?

  127. 127
    D58826 says:

    @GOVCHRIS1988: Five thirty eight had a piece that the process is rigged but in Bernie’s favor. He has certain advantages in the caucus states where he picked up most of his votes and delegates. They did some modeling and if you converted the caucus states to primaries Hillary would pick up 500k popular votes and would have clinched the nomination by now. She won the non-binding beauty contests in Washington and Nebraska after losing each caucus. Haven’t heard if Bernie is going to give those extra delegates back in order to honor the will of the people.

    They also project that she will go over the top in New Jersey.

  128. 128
    singfoom says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    One thing that bothers me about offering to oust DWS or change the primary rules is that it’s a tacit admission that Sanders was cheated, which he was not.

    I agree with you, he was not cheated. I don’t know about platforms either but I’ll go along with the concept that they’re more like guidelines.

    That said, I think DWS ouster would be a rorschach test. Sure, the Bernie supporters who felt he was cheated would feel like they got their pound of flesh. The flesh they really want is HRC but DWS would serve a a fine surrogate for a party insider / establishment person going down.

    The HRC campaign can point to it as an oilve branch offered to the Bernie supporters. Or hell, if they did it right, DWS herself could quit, say she wants to concentrate on something else. Whether or not she’s actually a source of discord, the perception is that she is and nobody is thrilled with her performance….sure Pelosi has said she’s fine with her staying there, but that’s what everyone will say until she’s gone.

    Depending on who you replace her with, you could show an ideological tack change. It’s all bloviating anyways, we’ll see what happens.

  129. 129
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Miss Bianca: @singfoom: Replace DWS with *whom*?

    Paul Begala and Elizabeth Warren, him (or an experienced hack like him) behind the scenes, her in front of the cameras. One of my beefs with DWS is she’s a really shitty surrogate. But that’s a fantasy.
    I think you have a point about mid-stream. Also i had MSNBC on in the car and caught the tail end of an hour, the last three minutes or so were the anchor basically stepping all over David Corn whenever Corn tried to make the point that the Democrats in disarray thing was being overstated. Also, one point made by Josh Marshall, who knows people, is that nobody wants the fukcing job.

  130. 130
    GOVCHRIS1988 says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Its pretty obvious that after 2008, that some of her operatives have probably researched David Plouffe’s book on the 08 campaign and of course grabbed some of his former campaign people for this go round. Its why she’s ahead now. They are more tight on the money being spent, they are no longer wasting it like they were back in 08. Its obvious some former Obama people like Joel Beneson are directing some of those changes and having whip smart mid thirties Robby Mook as her campaign manager is a shade different then having old time Mark Penn.

  131. 131
    Mike J says:

    @Betty Cracker: I’ve been curious. If Sanders does the impossible and wins 528 out of the remaining 781 delegates, what’s he willing to do to appease Clinton supporters?

  132. 132
    singfoom says:

    @Miss Bianca: I understand the concern changing chairs right before an election. I get it. Standard fucking logic. I’m thinking clearly. I don’t think this is a normal election and crazier things have happened.

    Who knows, maybe she won’t be replaced and she’ll do a bang up job between now and the general. In that case great. It’s also plausible that she could be replaced by someone (and no, I don’t have a short list or anything like that) that would be more effective.

    Like I said to Betty, it’s all just bloviating, we’ll see what happens. I hope we win the general regardless of who is the chair.

    Cheers.

  133. 133
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: That’s the point. NOBODY WANTS THAT JOB. Nobody wants to take that job, particularly if the party shows that it’s willing to throw you under the bus. All this talk of replacing DWS when she’s due to *resign* two months after the election is just one more shining example of how willing – even eager – Democrats are to shoot themselves in the foot. Hell, they’re worse than musicians in that regard.

  134. 134
    D58826 says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Gay marriage/dadt. In 2008 she said Obama was nuts to try and engage with Iran. She worked to get the diplomacy going. She admits that in hindsight the 1994 crime bill was badly flawed. Has Bernie changed any of HIS views since 2008. He is still pushing single payer in spite of all evidence to the contary that it is politically dead. He still wants to break up the big banks, even if there are better ways to prevent a future meltdown. By the time you reach 68/74 your core ideas are pretty well cast in stone. As long as those ideas don’t revolve around going back to the gold standard or repealing the 13th amendment you just have to accept that what you see is what your going to get. And it looks like more voters are willing to go with Hillary than Bernie.

  135. 135
    Jack the Second says:

    @singfoom: As much as I try to avoid giving two shits about DWS, I in general find it immoral to give into public cries for a scapegoat. We shouldn’t remove DWS from her position just because Sanders’ supporters imagine a conspiracy against him any more than we should fire the head of the IRS because right-wing nut-jobs imagine the IRS is conspiring against them. We don’t fire people just because it is easier than dealing with someone’s imagined grievance.

    I have a real problem with the crowd carrying pitchforks against DWS just because it seems to be the opposite of the Great Man Theory, the Terrible Woman Conspiracy. Instead of postulating that history is a series of deeds by great men, and if only we can rally behind a great man, everything will be good and wonderful, the anti-DWS crowd has postulated that the real problem is that there is a terrible woman somewhere who is making everything awful (rigging the primary against Bernie Sanders, tricking the Democrats into losing the House and Senate), and if only they can vanquish her, then everything will be wonderful. Bernie Sanders will be crowned the nominee, and the Democrats will magically retake Congress.

    Grow up. DWS isn’t some dictator who snuck in from the fringe, assassinated the previous head of the DNC in a bloody coup, and now rules the entire party, state & county committees included, with an iron fist. She is the chairperson of an, erm, democratic committee, selected by Obama and confirmed by the committee as chairperson because its members feel she is a fair representative of them and a capable leader. She wields modest, limited power as the chairperson.

    If DWS were removed now, she would be replaced by someone who is, well, about the same, because the new head would again be selected by Barack Obama (who is still the sitting Democratic President) and confirmed by the committee which again would only confirm someone they felt was both a fair representative of the body and a capable leader. At the end of her second term next year, if Hillary Clinton is president she will select a new chairperson to be confirmed by the DNC. If Trump is president, the DNC committee choses on their own.

  136. 136
    Aqualad08 says:

    @Psych1:

    Not over till its over. I happen to be very good at math and still think there is a good chance Hillary will not be the nominee.

    When Yogi Berra allegedly made that comment, the 1973 Mets were only 7 1/2 games back with 40% of the season left to play against a mediocre Eastern Division.

    To put in in baseball terms, Bernie is 20 games back with 30 games left to play against a formidable opponent. “Good chance” is not mathematically viable on this plane of reality. Most teams in positions like that would be trading their stars for prospects.

  137. 137
    D58826 says:

    @Miss Bianca: Maybe Howard Dean would give up his lucrative consulting gigs to act as interim chair till next Jan. He knows the job. Of course it doesn’t pay as well as what he is doing now and the Bernie Bros would label him a corporate shill and sell out. Which truth be told by now he probably is .

  138. 138
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Miss Bianca: DWS got the job because Jennifer Granholm, who was pretty much everybody’s first choice IIRC, turned it down for reasons that were never made quite clear, or at least that I couldn’t find after five minutes of googling and clicking a few weeks back

    ETA: and anyone who says HRC is unapproachable, I have emptied no less than five dinner invitations from my junk mail box today alone!

  139. 139

    @singfoom:

    We need party unity. DWS is a symbol of that discord. Therefore removing her from the DNC chair increases unity / lowers discord.

    It also produces organizational dysfunction at a bad time. Replacing the head of the DNC means reorganizing things as the people brought in by DWS either leave with her or have to work with someone who got the job explicitly because they opposed the person who brought them in. It means a new person, or a bunch of them, having to learn the ropes of the job in the middle of a presidential election. It means having to rebuild relationships with donors and vendors on the fly.

    Replacing the head of an organization is never as easy as people think it should be, so it’s not something you do in the middle of your most critical period in a four year cycle if there is any way to avoid it.

  140. 140
    D58826 says:

    @singfoom: Doesn’t DWS have family members she wants to spend more time with? It’s a distraction get it behind us and then we can move on to the next distraction. n

  141. 141
    Burnspbesq says:

    @negative 1:

    Well, there are 15 people on the platform committee, and five is less than eight. So according to the laws of arithmetic, which remain in effect despite being inherently unfair to Bernie, he got bubkes.

  142. 142
    D58826 says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: I got my invite

  143. 143
    Mike in DC says:

    Let the 50 state chairs pick a replacement by consensus.

  144. 144
    Thoughtful David says:

    @starscream:
    Hellifino. Wait: I do. It’s because he wanted to take advantage of a party structure he had made no effort ever to build.

    Trump delenda est.

  145. 145
    p.a. says:

    @D58826:

    @Doesn’t DWS have family members payday lender lobbyist money she wants to spend more time with?

    fixt

  146. 146
    jeannedalbret says:

    @Mike in DC: If he wins Califonia it means he will have received more votes than his opponent.

  147. 147
    Mike J says:

    @Mike in DC:

    Let the 50 state chairs pick a replacement by consensus.

    They and the other 150 members of the DNC are the people who vote on the chair. So yeah, that’s close to the way it already works.

  148. 148
    GOVCHRIS1988 says:

    @jeannedalbret: Only if he were to win 3 million more votes than her in California. In 2008, she won 2,608,184 votes while President Obama won 2,186,662 votes. I mean, maybe thats true in California if he were to win, but he would still be short of Clinton’s popular vote.

  149. 149
    ruemara says:

    @Russ: lol. Yeah, thanks.

  150. 150
    Brachiator says:

    @John Cole:

    Didn’t have patience for Hillary’s 2008 bullshit, don’t have time for Bernie’s now. If nothing else, I’m consistent.

    I Yeah, I hear you, and I had similar complaints in 2008.

    But there is nothing here that is unusual for hotly fought primary campaigns. And there is nothing going on here that will derail Clinton when she finally takes on Trump.

  151. 151
    D58826 says:

    @p.a.: thanks

  152. 152
    GOVCHRIS1988 says:

    @Tissue Thin Pseudonym: You just listed the largest reason why for good or bad DWS stays on for the rest of the year.

  153. 153
    Aqualad08 says:

    @jeannedalbret:

    If he wins Califonia (sic) it means he will have received more votes than his opponent.

    In California, sure. Overall, he’d have to win it 82 -18 to make up the the 3 million vote difference he currently suffers from based on 2008 turnout. Good luck with that…

  154. 154
    ruemara says:

    @singfoom: the only team to support is yourself. If you are placing such blind faith loyalty to people who don’t know you, and you can’t even deduce if your choice has a sense of the contest they are in, you get out. Because they can’t help you secure what you need. Period. And consider in this duality of teams, one has to go compete against another team where the stakes higher and more permanent, tactically, you don’t weaken your divergent ally more than you must. To excuse current activities as loyalty to teams shows a very limited idea on how to play a game.

  155. 155
    JMG says:

    In 1864, facing a possible third-party bid from John C. Fremont, President Lincoln forced the resignation of Postmaster General Montgomery Blair, whom the radical Republicans hated. Blair’s reaction was to spend the next two months campaigning for Lincoln. Some people see their responsibilities and others don’t.

  156. 156
    Jonathan Holland Becnel says:

    The only crying I hear is from John Cole and Betty Cracker.

    New polls show Sanders beating Trump in Georgia, tied in Cali, and Bernie winning the General Election while Clinton flops around.

    Why does she run such horrible campaigns? She should’ve had this Nomination on lock a long time ago, what with all those premature Superdelegates!!!

    Don’t Worry, Cole, the election will be over soon enough and you can go back to your Pearl-Clutching with all those Very Serious People.

  157. 157
    Prometheus Shrugged says:

    I had a long discussion/argument with a Bernie or Buster today. I was wondering who these people were, and now I know (I know plenty of Bernie supporters, but hadn’t run into any Busters until today). He had convinced himself that 4 more years of Obama-style liberalism would be worse than a Trump presidency. His logic was that the left would revolt against Trump, whereas it would be dulled into insouciance by Hillary. I countered with the the realities of American politics (and the vast history of successful leftist revolts….) And I ran down the list of real progressive victories under Obama, coupled with the fact that any future change toward progressive values would be more efficient with an court of Sotomayors, as opposed to a court of Scalias. Not even the slightest acknowledgement–he had been fully indoctrinated by Cornell West’s rhetoric.

    So there are these types in the Sanders deadender coalition. He was fully committed to going to the Democratic convention to raise hell outside. I asked him “to what effect”, and he said “I don’t know.” I was tempted to be a jerk and say “It seems that’s our problem, right there…” but I just walked away instead.

  158. 158
    Jack the Second says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: In what way were the super-delegates “premature”?

  159. 159
    Jonathan Holland Becnel says:

    @JMG:

    I think it was a grad student who snapped after having to grade too many papers on sub-minimum wage..

    lol Clinton 2016 cuz we dgaf about poor people since 1992!

  160. 160
    singfoom says:

    @ruemara:

    If you are placing such blind faith loyalty to people who don’t know you, and you can’t even deduce if your choice has a sense of the contest they are in, you get out…To excuse current activities as loyalty to teams shows a very limited idea on how to play a game..

    I don’t disagree. I think a lot of Sanders supporters do actually buy the “we were robbed” narrative. If you accept that narrative though, then your deduction is flawed and Sanders still has a chance of winning by “fighting” at the convention somehow.

  161. 161
    GOVCHRIS1988 says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: If she were running a horrible campaign, Jonathan, why is he not the Democratic frontrunner? And don’t give me that rigged talk, eight years ago, a man that had been U.S. Senator for under four years was able to wrest the nomination away from her using the same rules today. Surely, a 25 year veteran of Congress could have done the same thing. If her campaign is horrible, then President Obama’s must have been abysmal in 2008, seeing as how it was even closer then, than it is now between Clinton and Sanders. Come on dude, I get you want him to win, but the cards you’ve been dealt don’t have the straight flush you need.

  162. 162
    Brachiator says:

    @Prometheus Shrugged:

    His logic was that the left would revolt against Trump, whereas it would be dulled into insouciance by Hillary.

    There are always morons who claim that we need to let political chaos rule so that the disgruntled masses can finally bring the revolution.

    Of course, you can point out that actual revolutions rarely occur this way, certainly not so neatly.

    I also ask them, “Why are you so sure that you will survive the revolutionary purge when it comes?”

  163. 163
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    BERNIE IS UNBEATABLE!

    as long as no one ever runs against him or brings up his past

    can’t fail

    @jeannedalbret: more Bernie! math

  164. 164
    Jonathan Holland Becnel says:

    @Jack the Second:

    Premature

    I’m referring to the 400 Superdelegates who pledged to Clinton wayyyy back before the race even began.

    Deciding ur support before ur state votes is shady as fuck.

  165. 165
    Cacti says:

    @Tissue Thin Pseudonym:

    It also produces organizational dysfunction at a bad time. Replacing the head of the DNC means reorganizing things as the people brought in by DWS either leave with her or have to work with someone who got the job explicitly because they opposed the person who brought them in. It means a new person, or a bunch of them, having to learn the ropes of the job in the middle of a presidential election. It means having to rebuild relationships with donors and vendors on the fly.

    Replacing the head of an organization is never as easy as people think it should be, so it’s not something you do in the middle of your most critical period in a four year cycle if there is any way to avoid it.

    This.

    Regardless of one’s feelings about the merits of DWS as DNC chair, replacing her in that position in the middle of a presidential campaign cycle is a stone terrible idea. Even a terrific long-term choice would be a short-term liability in the 4-5 months between now and election day.

  166. 166
    oldgold says:

    Cole had the best analogy. It is a 7 game championship series. Clinton has won 4 games and BS wants to play game 7.

  167. 167
    Brachiator says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel:

    New polls show Sanders beating Trump in Georgia, tied in Cali, and Bernie winning the General Election while Clinton flops around.

    Oh God! An early poll! We must do …. something.

    Why does she run such horrible campaigns? She should’ve had this Nomination on lock a long time ago, what with all those premature Superdelegates!!!

    There ain’t no such thing as “should.” If there were, one might say that Bernie should have run a better campaign and sealed the deal with blacks and Latinos.

    Oh, well.

  168. 168
    lwestsd says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    They think it makes them sound hip.

    Worse, they think it makes them sound smart.

  169. 169
    Jonathan Holland Becnel says:

    @GOVCHRIS1988:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: If she were running a horrible campaign, Jonathan, why is he not the Democratic frontrunner?

    No one knew who Sanders was before this year.

    Clinton got a 400+ Superdelegate lead right from the start.

    And Hippie Punching. I can’t fucking stand it when Democrats throw the left under the bus.

    What did she do the day after Trump clinched the Nomination?

    She called republican donors. I want someone who fights for the working class.

    Let’s see what scraps she throws next year to the dregs.

  170. 170
    GOVCHRIS1988 says:

    @Prometheus Shrugged: This is the problem with hardcore ideologues, they never let facts, truth, and history get in the way of their vision for America. For the right, its stomping down on dissent and forcing America to adopt its ideals, for the left, its burning down current America and starting over with them in charge, doing virtually the same thing from the left. They are wedded to it. Both sides of the hardcore ideologue spectrum. They sneer at pragmatists because they believe it has to be an all or nothing proposition.It is deemed weakness and thus a cave in to the opposition. Any half measures aren’t good enough, no matter how much further along those measures move to progress on the issues.

  171. 171
    geg6 says:

    @Thoughtful David:

    This. I am totally against open primaries. I don’t let strangers decide on my family’s matters. In politics, the Dems are my family and I resent anyone who isn’t willing to join the family having any say so in who gets to head the family.

  172. 172
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: What is the rule that says that super delegates must vote as their state votes?

  173. 173
    Linnaeus says:

    @Mike J:

    Frankly, with respect to that comment, Barro can go to hell.

  174. 174
    Jack the Second says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: Why is it shady? Firstly, super-delegates have always existed parallel to the pledged state delegations. There has never been any obligation for the unpledged state delegates to support the same candidates as the pledged state delegates.

    Secondly, the unpledged state delegates … are unpledged. They haven’t voted yet, they do that at the convention. All they’ve done so far is — as public figures — endorsed one candidate or the other and state their voting preference. The endorsement is non-binding. Do you imagine public political figures have some obligation to remain silent about their political preferences and opinions?

  175. 175
    Cacti says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel:

    And Hippie Punching. I can’t fucking stand it when Democrats throw the left under the bus.

    As I’ve said in the past…

    People wanting to punch you doesn’t make you a hippie. It just means they want to punch you.

    If you find that lots of them want to punch you, maybe the problem isn’t everyone else.

    Just a thought.

  176. 176
    Jonathan Holland Becnel says:

    Did I mention she’s tied/losing to Trump in the polls?

    Her unfavorability numbers are through the roof!

    How is this a good thing??

  177. 177

    The only one it’s over for is Hillary.

    She’s toast.

  178. 178
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: And Hippie Punching. I can’t fucking stand it when Democrats throw the left under the bus.

    you’re not a hippie, just a willfully ignorant, self-righteous and immature dolt. And no one punched you (at least not here), just mocked you. And if you’ve ever seen the underside of a bus, I’m betting alcohol was involved.

  179. 179
    Jonathan Holland Becnel says:

    @Cacti:

    If you find that lots of them want to punch you, maybe the problem isn’t everyone else.

    Such hatred, Cacti! And loathing too.

    So she hasn’t thrown the left under the bus right? Or is ur only response that u want to punch me? Maybe beat me up a little?

    Didn’t know you were into BDSM, Cacti!

  180. 180
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: It’s May, dude.

  181. 181
    Jonathan Holland Becnel says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    And if you’ve ever seen the underside of a bus, I’m betting alcohol was involved.

    All too often, my friend!

    Addiction is a hellava thing.

  182. 182
    Jack the Second says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: As the saying goes, “vote your heart in the primary, your head in the general”. In the primary, we’re supposed to pick the best candidate we can, the person we think can do the job best and best espouses Democratic principles, without regards to electability in the general. Why do you want us to pick an inferior candidate just because he polls better in the general?

  183. 183
    Jonathan Holland Becnel says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Don’t you find that the least bit interesting? The fact that a democrat could win Georgia?

  184. 184
    Cacti says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel:

    Such hatred, Cacti! And loathing too.

    I don’t hate you, pumpkin. Or want to punch you in the literal sense.

    And I’m going to guess that when you complain about “hippie punching,” you’re not referring to anyone actually throwing a clenched fist in your direction. And if you’re not old enough to have participated in the Vietnam antiwar movement, you aren’t really a hippie anyway.

  185. 185
    Bobby Thomson says:

    Alternate working theory- he’s just a cranky old asshole and we’re finally seeing the Bernie Sanders that his colleagues have been putting up with for decades dumbass.

    Sanders’ understanding of policy is wafer thin, and about the same as that of someone hitting the bong at 3AM while working on a term paper. He plays to people’s prejudices as much as Trump does – they’re just different prejudices. Playing to prejudice can take you far in politics.

  186. 186
    Jack the Second says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: Why is it that when Hillary Clinton won the Georgia Democratic primary by 40 points, it was because Georgia was a worthless hellhole of backwards thought, but when Bernie Sanders polls marginally well in the general suddenly it’s a cause for celebration, a sign of Bernie’s true progressiveness?

  187. 187
    GOVCHRIS1988 says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: Bull. Bernie Sanders had been in Congress for 25 years and has been on National TV news programs and liberal talk shows since pretty much he became a senator in 2006. He might have not been as well known as Hillary Rodham Clinton, but its a stretch to say he was universally unknown. And Clinton got a superdelegate start like that back in 2007 when she first ran. When Barack Obama got the lead in pledged delegates, it changed. As for hippie punching, well welcome to debating issues within the Democratic Party. You want your feelings to be preserved, go to Ms. Mamie’s Debutante Tea Rooms, not bustling in politics. With Citizen United out there, she needs money. I won’t say her going to Republican donors doesn’t disturb me, but I’d rather have that money going toward bashing Trump than bashing her as the Democratic nominee, plus Bernie’s stance on Superpacs is kind of pie in the sky given that the Republicans are going to have billions to run against her and she would need to nearly match that to avoid being swamped.

    The only way we’re going to have someone fight for the working class is if all cylinders are turning in the car, meaning we need the U.S. Presidency, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and most importantly, the majority in the U.S. Supreme Court. You want Citizen’s United re-litigated and overturned, you need one less conservative on that court to do it. With us being at 4-4, you should know those Republican superpacs are revving up to get the White House and keep the senate. We have to look long term here.

  188. 188
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: It’s May, dude. I don’t plan to worry or get excited about anything in polls until at least after both conventions.

  189. 189
    Jonathan Holland Becnel says:

    @Jack the Second:

    Why do you want us to pick an inferior candidate just because he polls better in the general?

    Why is he inferior?

  190. 190
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: And has anyone told Marcy Kaptur, Alan Grayson, or Raul Grijalva?

  191. 191
    GOVCHRIS1988 says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: Its May. In 2008, Barack Obama was losing 46-44 to McCain. In 2012, same with Romney. In 1988, Governor Dukakis was winning by 10 to H.W. Polls don’t mean jack now. I get why its the Bernie camps security blanket, but Democrats know this history and probably won’t be swayed by it.

  192. 192
    Cacti says:

    Sanders’ understanding of policy is wafer thin, and about the same as that of someone hitting the bong at 3AM while working on a term paper. He plays to people’s prejudices as much as Trump does – they’re just different prejudices. Playing to prejudice can take you far in politics.

    The NYDN interview pretty much laid bare that Bernie is a total lightweight on policy. It was painful to read.

  193. 193
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @Brachiator: I don’t know why people expect violent revolution in America to result in anything but rule by Bundys.

    Oh, wait, yes I do. It’s because they’re fucking stupid.

  194. 194
    Jack the Second says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: His political career is quite long yet noticeably light on accomplishments and demonstrations of leadership or even an ability to work with his colleagues in Congress. All of the wonderful things I hear about him are mainly about what a good follower he is, voting for and against the right things. Most of his plans, while laudable in their ends, are pie-in-the-sky that rely on the sort of fuzzy math we make fun of Paul Ryan for to work.

    Those superdelegates? Over two hundred of them are his fellow Congressmen. He’s gotten like 10 endorsements from them. Of two hundred people who have worked with him for up to twenty years, maybe a dozen can stand him enough to endorse him over Clinton or just staying silent. That makes him sound like he’s the sort of asshole to work with that we all laughed at Ted Cruz for being. That doesn’t give me any confidence that he has what it takes to build bridges within the Democratic coalition, let alone arm wrestle or cajole or trick the Republicans into doing anything.

    Overall, I just see no reason to think he’d make a good President, and this isn’t really a fringe opinion, since millions of Democratic voters have chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.

  195. 195
    Jonathan Holland Becnel says:

    @GOVCHRIS1988:

    The only way we’re going to have someone fight for the working class is if all cylinders are turning in the car, meaning we need the U.S. Presidency, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and most importantly, the majority in the U.S. Supreme Court. You want Citizen’s United re-litigated and overturned, you need one less conservative on that court to do it. With us being at 4-4, you should know those Republican superpacs are revving up to get the White House and keep the senate. We have to look long term here.

    Clinton is NOT on the side of working class families. Those corporations didn’t give her 150 mil$ for nothing. Democrats have done jack shit, if not the bare minimum, for poor people in the last 30 years.

    This is why Bernie went from 0 to 50 in less than a year.

    Ugh

    Why did Obama nominate a republican for the Supreme Court?

    Eleventy dimensional chess?

  196. 196
    Jonathan Holland Becnel says:

    @Jack the Second:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: His political career is quite long yet noticeably light on accomplishments and demonstrations of leadership or even an ability to work with his colleagues in Congress.

    Sorry, I thought you were talking about Clinton there for a second.

    Iraq, Afghan, Libya, Syria, Honduras, Wall St, Goldman Sachs, Patriot Act…

    Tell me again what Clintons accomplished?

  197. 197
    Bob In Portland says:

    Cole:

    I honestly don’t give a shit if Bernie debates Donald Trump

    Look, if you don’t give a shit about Sanders why do you have to start two or three threads every day insulting him?

    Are you being passive-aggressive or do you merely misunderstand your own actions? Or are you being cute?

    Cole, you are not cute.

    Me, I’d love to watch Sanders debate Trump. I’d actually love to see a three-way debate.

  198. 198
    geg6 says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel:

    He is inferior because he’s completely clueless about most policy. He knows nothing about how to reach minorities and women, he’s shouty and rude and he is terrible at being a gracious winner and even worse at avoiding being a sore loser. There are more reasons I could come up with if I took the time to think about it, but, frankly, it’s not worth the effort. Bernie could have gotten my vote but he threw that away pretty early on when voting began. I wish he’d just go away. He’s done.

  199. 199
    gwangung says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: Great thing if You’re a troll. Which you are.

  200. 200
    Jonathan Holland Becnel says:

    @Cacti:

    The NYDN interview pretty much laid bare that Bernie is a total lightweight on policy. It was painful to read.

    Totally, I mean that really should’ve knocked him out of the election it was so bad.

  201. 201
    the Conster, la Citoyenne says:

    @Cacti:

    Someone on twitter posted a Sanders speech from the 70s – I’d link to it but I don’t know what the source was. He was saying the same thing then, with just a few minor changes as he is now, including the millionaires and billionaires line. He’s stuck in the 60s and is just simply a lazy thinking holdover from his campus radical days when he formed his identity, and being from whitest white Vermont where no one cares, he hasn’t been pushed to justify his thinking in any real sense. Being unchallenged as a big fish in a small pond with a reputation for “independence” has kept him coddled and stale, and that NYDN interview was his pantsing. He has no idea how anything really works, and hasn’t had to care, because that crusty old anti-establishment shtick has worked for him for 40 years His colleagues all have his number.

  202. 202
    Cat48 says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel:
    Poll out today has Hillary 7 points ahead of Trump in the Rust Belt, OH, PA, MI

  203. 203
    Bob In Portland says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: Wait a minute. H. Clinton got two post offices in New York State renamed. Just think of the hundreds of millions that the ultra-wealthy donated to her just to get those names changed.

  204. 204
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel:

    Why did Obama nominate a republican for the Supreme Court?

    Citation needed.

  205. 205
  206. 206
    redshirt says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: So you think Obama is a Republican?

  207. 207
    GOVCHRIS1988 says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: Well, except for Healthcare, Family Medical Leave Act, American Disabilities Act, S-Chip,Dodd-Frank, DADT Repeal, Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Pigford Settlement, etc, I guess you would be right. Since probably last September, this race has been a two person race, so it isn’t surprising Bernie went from 0-50, being he’s the ONLY alternative to Clinton in the Democratic Primary. Merrick Garland was appointed by Clinton and worked under the Attorney General in the Carter administration. He may not be Bernie Sanders:Chief Judge, but he’s no Scalia. Same goes for Sotomayor and Kagan, who have always been on the 4 side in many of those 5-4 conservative decisions.

  208. 208
    Jonathan Holland Becnel says:

    Angry Bear:

    I’m assuming that Clinton’s aides have considered also pointing out that, on policy proposal after policy proposal after policy proposal, Trump has now adopted an extreme version of the Paul Ryan supply-side fiscal-policy as stated in the Ryan budget plans, including the current one that passed the House. I’m assuming they’ve considered illustrating that Trump, rather than having coopted the Republican Party and its elite-dictated establishment policies, has been cooped by the elite, the establishment as their puppet.

    Romney promised to reduce upper-income taxes only by 20% initially, with a promise to cut further later and then cut some more after that. (See, e.g., Romney’s speech to the Detroit Economic Club shortly before the 2012 Michigan primary.) Trump ups Romney’s ante.

    But, I assume, since the above quote implies it, that Clinton’s aides have rejected mentioning any of this. And—just an educated guess here—that that is because they will be saying instead that Trump’s ideas, temperament and moves to marginalize people by race, gender and creed make him simply unacceptable as commander in chief.

    This should suffice, because, I mean, don’t identity politics always suffice? And because these messages are mutually exclusive. You can’t argue identity politics and fiscal policy; you have to choose one or the other—and the power of identity politics trumps elite-establishment-dictated fiscal policy whose very purpose is to dramatically increase wealth and income inequality and of course consequently political power that will be used to further increase wealth and income inequality.

    Always. Even when the driving themes of the election cycle are anti-elitism, anti-establishment, anti-wealth inequality and anti-donor-and lobbyist-dictated government policy.

    Which I guess explains why the very first thing Clinton did after winning all those northeastern primaries earlier this month and virtually ensuring her the nomination—literally, the very first thing she did, beginning the very next day—was to phone some of Jeb Bush’s donors and ask them for donations.

    Just sayin’.

    Clinton continues to run a really awful campaign. And I’m betting that that’s not entirely her top campaign staff’s fault. They do play a role in this, obviously; not the sole role, though.

    Not the sole role, though.

    Tags: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Philips Rucker Comments (34) | Digg Facebook Twitter | SHARE

    – See more at: http://angrybearblog.com/2016/.....html#.dpuf

  209. 209
    Jonathan Holland Becnel says:

    Et Tu, NYT???

    For more than a year, Hillary Clinton has traveled the country talking to voters about her policy plans. She vowed to improve infrastructure in her first 100 days in office, promised to increase funding for Alzheimer’s research and proposed a $10 billion plan to combat drug and alcohol addiction.

    But as the Democratic primary contest comes to a close, any hopes Mrs. Clinton had of running a high-minded, policy-focused campaign have collided with a more visceral problem.

    Voters just don’t trust her.

    The Clinton campaign had hoped to use the coming weeks to do everything they could to shed that image and convince voters that Mrs. Clinton can be trusted. Instead, they must contend with a damaging new report by the State Department’s inspector general that Mrs. Clinton had not sought or received approval to use a private email server while she was secretary of state.

    It is not just that the inspector general found fault with her email practices. The report speaks directly to a wounding perception that Mrs. Clinton is not forthright or transparent.

  210. 210
    Jonathan Holland Becnel says:

    @GOVCHRIS1988:

    Family Medical Leave Act, American Disabilities Act, S-Chip

    That’s it? 8 years of bombing and killing innocent civilians around the world and deporting millions back to Mexico and that’s what the working class gets?

    But you’re right, better than Republicans.

    Democrats are sick and tired of being sick and tired.
    Time for a shakeup!

    And I agree about the Kagan and Sotamayor picks. They are good judges.

  211. 211
    Jonathan Holland Becnel says:

    @redshirt:

    If drone killing thousands, war in the Middle East, and deporting millions are Republican policies, then, yes, Obama is a republican.

  212. 212
    redshirt says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: Do you think Sanders still has a chance of winning the nomination?

  213. 213
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel:

    Democrats are sick and tired of being sick and tired.
    Time for a shakeup!

    If this was true, Sanders would be winning. Sanders in not winning.

  214. 214
    redshirt says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: What war in the middle east?

  215. 215
    Jonathan Holland Becnel says:

    @the Conster, la Citoyenne:

    Someone on twitter posted a Sanders speech from the 70s – I’d link to it but I don’t know what the source was. He was saying the same thing then, with just a few minor changes as he is now, including the millionaires and billionaires line. He’s stuck in the 60s and is just simply a lazy thinking holdover from his campus radical days when he formed his identity, and being from whitest white Vermont where no one cares, he hasn’t been pushed to justify his thinking in any real sense. Being unchallenged as a big fish in a small pond with a reputation for “independence” has kept him coddled and stale, and that NYDN interview was his pantsing. He has no idea how anything really works, and hasn’t had to care, because that crusty old anti-establishment shtick has worked for him for 40 years His colleagues all have his number.

    His crusty old anti-establishment schtick is pulling in MILLIONS OF YOUNG PEOPLE.

    Lmao! And he’s stuck in the Stone Age???!

    There’s a reason old people support Clinton.

  216. 216
    Cacti says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel:

    One of the cutest things about you is that you think the NYT is a friend of the Clintons.

  217. 217
    GOVCHRIS1988 says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: You did see that etc. I put there, meaning there probably is more off the top of my head. Here is a larger list that gives credence to the claim, “Most productive administration since Lyndon Johnson.

    http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

    The majority of Democrats aren’t sick and tired, they seem to want to press forward.

  218. 218
    JWR says:

    @GOVCHRIS1988:

    I get why its the Bernie camps security blanket, but Democrats know this history and probably won’t be swayed by it.

    Did anybody catch Sanders on The Tavis Smiley Show this past Tuesday? (Link) These GE polls are what Bernie!’s basing his entire plea to the super delegates to switch:

    Sanders: Well, this is what the polls are saying and you’re quite right. We’re at a moment right now where the polls are saying–virtually every national poll and almost all statewide polls–are saying that Bernie Sanders is a much stronger candidate against Donald Trump than is Hillary Clinton.

    Pretty weak tea there, Senator Sanders. Or so one would think.

  219. 219
    My Truth Hurts says:

    Keith G is the only one who understood the point of my post, even though he doesn’t take it as seriously as I think he/she should. The rest of you who responded to me are unthinking myopic sheep.

    Your short term thinking will cause you to lose in the long run. It has already caused you to lose intermittently for the past 40 years. HRC in 2016 at the cost of large groups of younger voters being turned into life long Democrats for the future. Brilliant strategy you guys. Your party should DEFINITELY be in charge of the US government.

    John’s original post and position is to say fuck you to people like me. I have thick skin and have been on the internet a long time so it’s not possible for morons like you to personally insult me. You can call me all the names you want it wouldn’t make a difference one way or the other to how I will vote. Younger, less experienced, less secure voters will not necessarily have the same reaction. They see the sentiment expressed here and pretty much everywhere else left of the dial by Hillary supporters as insulting and condescending. It will have long term consequences.

    I’ll check back in here after the election and see how many of you are ready to apologize to me once my prediction of electoral losses comes true.

  220. 220
    El Caganer says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: Despite the Times’ and Post’s hand-wringing about the emails, I’m still not sure there’s much substance to this story. I’ll admit I was initially somewhat taken aback when I read this: http://www.globalresearch.ca/u.....ce/5526858. But then I read the names of the signatories, and my Way-Back Machine started squeaking out, “Whitey Tape! Whitey Tape!”

  221. 221
    Cacti says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    If this was true, Sanders would be winning. Sanders in not winning.

    Quite the contrary. He’s getting thumped by about a 14 point margin nationally.

    Sounds like an enthusiastic supporter is confusing their “is” with their “ought”, and Hume is proven correct once again.

  222. 222
    Betty Cracker says:

    @GOVCHRIS1988:

    The majority of Democrats aren’t sick and tired, they seem to want to press forward.

    Exactly right. President Obama orchestrated the largest downward transfer of wealth in American history via the ACA. Anyone who calls him a Republican or Wall Street stooge is a crackpot.

  223. 223
    Betty Cracker says:

    @My Truth Hurts:

    I’ll check back in here after the election and see how many of you are ready to apologize to me once my prediction of electoral losses comes true.

    Promise? Even if it means you have to choke down a big platter of crow? Good. See ya then!

  224. 224
    My Truth Hurts says:

    By the way, off topic, but I want to share this with the world. The greatest metal music video of all time

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev5t0mgfSnk

  225. 225
  226. 226
    GOVCHRIS1988 says:

    @My Truth Hurts: Could it be the fact that what Hillary supporters are saying isn’t intended to be condescending or insulting, but that what they are saying is stuff that you don’t want to hear? That this stuff is being said by folks who thought just like you at a young age, had your idealism, but then the reality of life came through and realized that its really hard to change America using the means you wanted to use. Here’s the thing, the “youth” vote, which is 18-29 years old generally, changes every four years. You pretty much have three election cycles before you age out of it. If we get another Republican, we will have a new crop of young folks who have lived under a Republican and will know that a Dem is preferable to a Republican, just like in 08. Now, were under a Democrat, and the youth who grew up under a Democrat believe we can go further than we did with him. Of course, to older youth voters, and middle age to older voters know its a little tougher than being stated by the ultra left candidate. Sure its inspiring, but we know once that person got in, that the opposition would be in full force to stop him and could very well do that, disappointing the inspired he inflated with high hopes and ideals. Throughout history, it happens, the wide eyed youth in the nation go full bore for a person, then when he or she gets in, he or she may have to compromise, and it ends up deflating the youth. The process is hard.

  227. 227
    The Thin Black Duke says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: Young people do political theater, all sound and fury signifying nothing. Old people vote.

  228. 228
    My Truth Hurts says:

    @Betty Cracker: Oh, I wish I was wrong about President Trump, I really do, but so far in my adult life I have never been wrong about either party or any Presidential election. Democrats are going the way of the Whigs and I kind of think they deserve it.

    I have to admit though, I admire anyone who can laugh in the face of defeat. There’s something dashing about that. Tragic, sad, and hopeless, but still somewhat charming and romantic.

    I’ve been coming to this blog for a long time. Until this election cycle most of the front pagers and posters have been sane, practical and logical and not particularly partisan except in their opposition to Republicans, which is where I am coming from although I also oppose DLC style Democratic candidates like Gore and Liberman and Clinton and Gore and Obama and Biden and Mrs Clinton and whichever centrist bloodless asshole she chooses for her kamikazi white house run. I have never voted for a Democrat for President except for Kerry and that was out of defensive desperation and more of a waste of my vote than any other year. I keep posting and arguing because I care and I am just heartbroken by your willful ignorance. One of the few political blogs I could tolerate because it seemed to be coming from a position of informed reason has gone completely batshit insane and totally in the tank for an identity politics candidate, a candidate the GOP has waged a war on for 24 years and would continue to wage war on if she were to win, which she won’t, because she is a weak candidate.

    It’s like you’re my friend I have known for a long time who suddenly has a heroin habit they can’t or won’t kick. I try, and I cry and I plead but you just keep pushing me away in favor of your fix. I can’t help you anymore, you refuse to help yourselves. I have to go my own way and I hope someday you will get healthy again.

  229. 229
    The Thin Black Duke says:

    @My Truth Hurts: White male privilege is a hell of a drug. Isn’t there a twelve-step program you could sign up for?

  230. 230
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @The Thin Black Duke: Young people do political theater, all sound and fury signifying nothing.

    and those who wish they were….

  231. 231
    redshirt says:

    @My Truth Hurts: Wow. You’re like crystalline.

    So tell us: Who wins this next election? And what are the consequences?

  232. 232
    Betty Cracker says:

    @My Truth Hurts: Damn you, Doug! You had me going for a minute there!

  233. 233
    My Truth Hurts says:

    @GOVCHRIS1988: I am not a young person. I am 43. I am jaded and cynical. I think the system is broken. I don’t get to decide things, I have to vote for people who are influenced by other people and their money to maybe, hopefully, but probably not represent me in government.

    The Democratic party and Hillary do not represent me or my values and never have, but I am even less represented by the Republican party. So no I do not want some idealized Robin Hood super hero to come in and save the day, Bernie isn’t even a very good progressive in my opinion, but he’s closer to me and my values than Hillary. I also think gridlock and deadlock is built into the system and is an ok thing. As far as getting anything done with a GOP congress neither of them will have much luck, but it seems to me they hate her just slightly more than they dislike him. It’s a small margin but I believe Bernie’s has a slightly better chance at getting shit accomplished than any margin Hillary will.

    I am concerned about turning those people younger than me into progressive voters. If they don’t come to the same conclusions that I did that at least the Democrats are not as horrible as the Republicans, then they won’t come out to vote. If they don’t come out to vote the Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves and their behavior towards people they should be wooing, not turning off for good. The Democrats are not entitled to votes, they need to be earning them. I don’t see Hilary or her campaign trying to earn anything.

    Good luck! You will need it.

  234. 234
    GOVCHRIS1988 says:

    @My Truth Hurts: Dude, this is an election. This ain’t intervention. Were not crack addicts, were just making a choice about who would be the best out of the candidates with a plausible shot of winning the presidency. Wow, some folks really need a coke and a smile.

  235. 235
    My Truth Hurts says:

    @The Thin Black Duke: Hahahahhahaahahahahahahaha. Yeah, ok, pal.

  236. 236
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @the Conster, la Citoyenne: My question is, who’s going to break the news to Bernie that The Beatles broke up.

  237. 237
    My Truth Hurts says:

    @GOVCHRIS1988: Dude it was a silly metaphor, lighten the fuck up. Maybe shoot some dope…

  238. 238
    My Truth Hurts says:

    @redshirt: Trump wins. The world burns. Any other questions?

  239. 239
    amk says:

    Only half a Tbogg?

    Come on, bs bots. You’re slipping.

  240. 240
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @amk: Too many paragraphs per comment.

  241. 241
    Temporarily Max McGee (Soon Enough to Be Andy K Again) says:

    @gwangung:

    Such hatred, Cacti! And loathing too.

    That there’s the proof that he ain’t just a troll, but a ratfucking Republican troll- the only type who use that obviously disingenuous concern trolling when they sense they’re getting their asses busted.

  242. 242
    RandomMonster says:

    Alternate working theory- he’s just a cranky old asshole

    The Larry David satire is coming to life. Or life begins to imitate art.

  243. 243
    Jack the Second says:

    @My Truth Hurts:

    @Betty Cracker: Oh, I wish I was wrong about President Trump, I really do, but so far in my adult life I have never been wrong about either party or any Presidential election.

    Picking completely at random between two parties six times, you have a 1 in 64 chance of being correct. That does not exactly clear the JREF standards for psychics.

  244. 244
    Elie says:

    @geg6:

    He is corrupt. He has not shared his tax returns, his wife is highly implicated with missing funds in the closing of a respected local college, and the FEC is investigating contributors who have way exceeded their limits plus foreign donations. His is the only campaign with this level of issues…. And he is NOT a Democrat, running as a Trojan horse to destroy the party, not lead it. Anyone who is convinced differently after this Trump debate bull is just not paying attention —

  245. 245
    Jack the Second says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel:

    Sorry, I thought you were talking about Clinton there for a second.

    Honestly, as much as some people on the internet like to pretend that Hillary Clinton both invented war and instigated the conflict in the Middle East, I was very impressed with her accomplishments as Secretary of State.

    As State, Hillary was handed the geopolitical equivalent of the state the economy was in in ’08/’09. America had just invaded two countries, one semi-justified and one unprovoked. And she successfully rehabilitated America’s status on the international stage to the point that we can do things like negotiate with Iran [not to try to steal the achievement from Kerry, under whom the deal closed]. We can now act as part of a coalition again, and with levels of force and engagement below “invasion”.

    She has also demonstrated an ability to actually lead. As First Lady — with no official power! — she brought us things like S-CHIP, which (prior to the ACA) was the biggest government healthcare program since Johnson created Medicaid. Between all three parts of her time on the national stage — First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State — she has shown that she is able to work with her colleagues in Congress, which is why she has received endorsements from most of them.

    And her policy proposals are both realistic and progressive. The math behind them works out; they can be accomplished with a simple Democratic majority in Congress, and not after primarying and replacing all of the Blue Dogs and Conservadems with card carrying socialists. I don’t want someone to promise me the moon and the stars. I want someone to give me real improvements.

  246. 246
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Jack the Second: I must say, I like the cut of your jib, sir.

  247. 247
    FIBark says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: –It’s called cronyism I believe.

  248. 248
    Tripod says:

    @My Truth Hurts:

    I feel your pain.

  249. 249
    nutella says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    If we wish for something really really hard, we can make it so.

    No, you have to clap too. That worked for Tinkerbell but not for Jeb!

  250. 250
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @nutella: To be fair, nothing worked for Jeb.

  251. 251
    AnotherBruce says:

    @My Truth Hurts: Thanks for that diatribe My Ass Hurts. Excuse me while I reach for my tissue.

  252. 252
    twostraws says:

    If Bernie and his menagerie fuck this up for the rest of us, just remember that Vermont is a state that makes most of its income off of tourists. There are plenty of other places to do your leaf peeping, hiking, camping and skiing. There are several states that make maple syrup and cheese that are as good or better than Vermont’s. Let both of the Sanders go down in history as the selfish old fucks who helped destroy the economy of a state.

  253. 253
    Cleos says:

    “By the very nature of things—we might call it perceptual entropy—the impossible, once perceived, enters a chain of causation whose natural conclusion is realization.”

    If that won’t enable an individual to win a very large lottery, it has little use other than padding for a last-minute term paper.

Comments are closed.