Late Night Bern-Off Open Thread: Go AWAY, Bernie

bernie granpa in the war toles

(Tom Toles via GoComics.com)
.

Unlike the Blogmaster, I was not impressed by Senator Sanders’ My dream will never die, screw the rest of you” non-concession speech this evening. Of course, I am a Hillbot, and more important, have been a Democrat all my life, good times (and candidates) and bad. So, yes, I am biased against the old crank who shows up at the block party without an invite, doesn’t bring so much as a bag of store-brand chips to share, harangues everyone he can corner, pisses off the people who’ve been doing the grunt work for years and encourages the malcontents and youngbloods to pull stupid stunts. If I wanted to listen to a cranky old alte kacker yarp on about how he was the only pure operative in the entire world, I could’ve stayed in the Bronx — and he could’ve stayed in Brooklyn. Okay, he’s “excited a new generation” and “moved the discussion leftward” (for some tightly defined values of excitement and leftward). At this point, he’s just leaching attention away from our real enemies, who happen to be in charge of the Republican party.

Before Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) headed to the floor yesterday to begin a marathon gun safety speech, his office reached out to members of the 46-member Democratic caucus. By the end of it, early Thursday morning, Murphy announced that the Democrats would get votes on Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s legislation to prevent people on the terror watch list from buying guns, and his own legislation to expand background checks. Thirty-eight of his fellow senators joined the filibuster, allowing Murphy to rest, reading comments from the Internet or describing mass shootings in their own states.

Not among them: Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The runner-up in the Democratic presidential primaries was in Burlington, Vt., ahead of a simulcast speech to supporters today. (He is not expected to concede.) He’d been in Washington the night before the filibuster began, for the Democratic luncheon and a meeting with Hillary Clinton, but he was not able to return to the city…

Sanders, who opposed the Brady Bill that expanded background checks and waiting periods, has since come into sync with the Democratic caucus… On Wednesday, he tweeted in support of the filibuster…

He sent a tweet — what more do you expect? One thing Bernie does have in common with Donald Trump, apart from their mutual unwillingness to release tax returns: He can’t be arsed to do anything that doesn’t immediately redound to the greater glory of His Own Magnificent Personage.


I swear, it’s heading towards the point where the most useful thing Sanders could do for his personal hobbyhorse the “progressive cause” would be martyrdom at the hands of a crazed Trump supporter (assuming there are Trump supporters who aren’t crazed) to disappear for the next six weeks, until after the RNC convention. [Edited, because I respect the people who protested my phrasing.] No living mortal could bear up under the weight of the political fantasies he’s encouraged among the BernieBros — certainly no elderly isolate whose only political experience is in a tiny, poor, uncharacteristically white state. Maybe by 2018, he can persuade the Free State anarcho-libertarians to shift their grift from New Hampshire, cuz right now those seem to be the people with whom he shares his political tactics.






195 replies
  1. 1
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    I am biased against the old crank who shows up at the block party without an invite, doesn’t bring so much as a bag of store-brand chips to share, harangues everyone he can corner, pisses off the people who’ve been doing the grunt work for years and encourages the malcontents and youngbloods to pull stupid stunts

    That made me laugh. And good for Ari Berman, it wasn’t ridged, and it wasn’t close.

  2. 2
    seaboogie says:

    Awesome rant, Ann(i)e!

  3. 3
    Douglas W Wieboldt says:

    Too rich. He’s done a great service to the Democratic team. He really needs now to get behind Clinton and get her elected. The other option is total madness…

  4. 4
    Thoroughly Pizzled says:

    At this point I’ve forgiven most Bernie supporters for whatever nonsense there was. They’ve been given incredibly poor guidance, and Bernie should be ashamed for squandering so much potential.

  5. 5

    I hope they hold the nomination vote on the first night.

  6. 6
    PsiFighter37 says:

    Bernie (or perhaps more accurately Jeff Weaver) are desperately trying to find ways to stay relevant. By not conceding early, his supporters are just going to become uninterested.

    If he keeps this up, I hope the Clintons give him a late morning / early afternoon spot and tell him to leave the DNC as soon as he’s done.

  7. 7
    Bobby Thomson says:

    I don’t know why Sanders is getting so much flak for not participating in yesterday’s filibuster for gun reform. I mean, he sent his thoughts and prayers a tweet.

  8. 8
    burnspbesq says:

    I hope that Clinton wins big, and that her coattails are long enough to flip the Senate by more than 51-49. I look forward to the first meeting of the Democratic caucus in the new Senate, when Sen. Reid, in his final act as Minority Leader before Sen. X (I’d prefer Warren, but accept that it’s more likely to be Durbin or Schumer) takes over as Majority Leader, politely asks Sanders to leave the room, because the meeting is only for Democrats.

  9. 9
    Elie says:

    He is a classless, ungracious, narcissistic opportunist that did not deserve this good fortune. In a year no one will remember or care about him and Jane may be wearing an orange jumpsuit.

  10. 10
    🚸 Martin says:

    I’m sympathetic to a few of Sanders positions, but I don’t exactly feel as though he got there out of principle, unfortunately.

    Caucuses need to go, and he’s not pushing for that. Following that, primaries should be open. Superdelegates should only come into play after at least the first ballot, maybe after the 2nd. They shouldn’t be part of the first ballot.

    I think they should push for automatic voter registration, open voting by mail – basically anything that makes voting easier.

    Why Sanders is leaving some of these off the table is beyond me.

  11. 11
    seaboogie says:

    @Bobby Thomson: Meh. He’s been running for president. If he did show up, he’d likely be accused of grandstanding. If ye be looking for poutrage, ye shall surely find it. Better that he considers conceding to Clinton and getting behind her, and let the other 99 senators do their job (well, at least the 44 Demo ones…)

  12. 12
    🚸 Martin says:

    @burnspbesq: I think there’s a real shot of exactly that happening. Trump is an unmitigated disaster for the GOP. It’s not that he doesn’t have coattails, he sucks all of the political oxygen out of the room. How does any other Republican even get heard out there?

    I think they’re going to get wrecked this cycle.

  13. 13
    burnspbesq says:

    @🚸 Martin:

    primaries should be open.

    Why?

  14. 14
    PsiFighter37 says:

    @🚸 Martin: The only things that need to go are the things that led to Bernie not winning. That’s pretty much how his logic has operated, from what I can tell.

    Caucuses do need to go, but you never hear Bernie say boo about them. Why? Because they helped him out.

  15. 15
    gwangung says:

    @Elie:

    He is a classless, ungracious, narcissistic opportunist that did not deserve this good fortune.

    He was an opportunist who didn’t know what to do with his opportunity. He kept shooting himself in the foot with unforced error after unforced error.

  16. 16
    Cacti says:

    Bernie’s Brocialism was rejected by the real base of the 21st century Democratic Party:

    Women and people of color.

    The “What’s The Matter With Kansas” hypothesis was also soundly rebutted. Sucking up to working class white males at the expense of all others isn’t the future on which a Democratic majority is built.

    So, Bern, if you can’t be a team player, then sit your old ass down and get the hell out of the way. We Democrats have work to do.

  17. 17
    🚸 Martin says:

    @burnspbesq: Because the state should not be in the business of either maintaining party registries or running their elections for them. Either this is the activity of a private group, in which take the whole fucking thing out of government and run it the way the Elks club does, or if you want to rely on taxpayers to fund these efforts, then everyone is included. You don’t get to have it both way. You don’t get state enforcement of a two party system and exclusion of voters from the process.

  18. 18
    Elie says:

    @🚸 Martin:
    Nope. Primaries should be closed. They are for selecting a Democratic nominee not some queered or rtfkd hybrid. No rationale exists to make open work for our party. I am surprised you think that being so analytical and all

  19. 19
    seaboogie says:

    @🚸 Martin: No, primaries should NOT be open. At all. You want a bunch of conniving, gerrymandering Republicans acting as spoilers on equal footing with loyal dems? I DO NOT FUCKING THINK SO!

    And I say this as someone who is currently registered as an independent, because when I moved back to this country 17 years ago, I was feeling “oh so high-minded” – even though I always vote D, and preferably female D when that is an option. But I am not whining about my voice not being heard, and if I want it to be, I will register under (D) to choose our party’s candidate.

  20. 20
    seaboogie says:

    @shomi: Can you please just stuff this “wrong way Cole” stuff up your ass where it belongs? Then you can shit it out and flush it and finally be done with it. It’s just so fucking lame that I can’t even….

  21. 21
    🚸 Martin says:

    @seaboogie:

    No, primaries should NOT be open. At all. You want a bunch of conniving, gerrymandering Republicans acting as spoilers on equal footing with loyal dems? I DO NOT FUCKING THINK SO!

    Fine, then the state doesn’t pay for them any longer. The parties have to pay for their own primary elections, and they need to handle their own registration. No bullshit with the state legislature fucking with this.

    I don’t know why everyone is so keen to turn over how and when primary voting happens to an obviously partisan state legislature and executive but is afraid of actual voters participating. That makes no sense. You want the party to have control, then take control – all of it. Don’t dump it on the taxpayer and then say ‘sorry, you don’t get to play even though you paid for this’.

  22. 22
    PatrickG says:

    AL, I posted this in Cole’s thread, but given your comic here…

    I’m not a fan of Birdie Sanders. I’ve been on the record sporadically as a semi-lurker. But come on, did you even read the transcript of the speech? Yes, he spouted his usual drivel about the Demoncrats Establishment, but he also said this:

    This campaign is about defeating Donald Trump, the Republican candidate for president. After centuries of racism, sexism and discrimination of all forms in our country we do not need a major party candidate who makes bigotry the cornerstone of his campaign. We cannot have a president who insults Mexicans and Latinos, Muslims, women and African-Americans. We cannot have a president who, in the midst of so much income and wealth inequality, wants to give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the very rich. We cannot have a president who, despite all of the scientific evidence, believes that climate change is a hoax.
    The major political task that we face in the next five months is to make certain that Donald Trump is defeated and defeated badly. And I personally intend to begin my role in that process in a very short period of time.

    Honestly, it sounds to me like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, et al. are pushing Bernie Sanders towards sanity. He’s still in broken record mode, but at least it ‘s sounding better. No more “take it to the convention”. A lot more “take it to your school board”.

    What’s that phrase about “taking a yes”?

  23. 23
    eemom says:

    Well, AL, the time has come when you and I are of one mind.

    Anyone remember the sappy old Osmonds song from the early 70s? “Go away, little Bern……”

  24. 24
    PatrickG says:

    An addendum to my comment because I don’t have permissions to edit it for some reason:

    I really, really want Sanders to go away. He’s a distraction, and he’s more or less irrelevant at this point. I thought this speech was the best that could be hoped for (certainly better than I did hope for), but if he wants to redirect some of the dead-enders to local races, that is a positive thing. One of the recurring themes of this campaign season has been how Sanders simply can’t actually deliver a lot of voters from rallies — but he delivers some! Leverage that, practicality, etc.

    If that’s the message he wants to deliver at the DNC (Vote! Run for Local DogCatcher! We need you!), then let him do it. He can stay important in his own eyes and deliver an important message. Seems pretty win-win in the short term, after which Birdie will become truly irrelevant. Somehow, I don’t see him sticking around for the movement building.

  25. 25
    gwangung says:

    @PatrickG: To a certain extent, that’s fair, but it’s plopped down in a sea of self-serving, ego-soaked pronouncements.

    Politics is a team game. Is it really helpful to take a “yes” from someone who’s essentially Carmelo Anthony, but with less talent?

  26. 26
    seaboogie says:

    @🚸 Martin: Your argument got me curious, and I found this: http://ivn.us/2015/07/30/story.....primaries/ So the current system seems like the best outcome v. party boss thuggery and “citizens united”…so it’s basically become public within the party system, and once the candidates are chosen, it becomes general election level of public.

  27. 27
    burnspbesq says:

    @🚸 Martin:

    That’s obtuse, absurd, liber-bro twaddle. Party members should select party nominees. No one else. If that’s not blindingly apparent after this primary season …

  28. 28
    magurakurin says:

    @CathiefromCanada:

    I hope they hold the nomination vote on the first night.

    That’s almost certainly what will happen. Barney Frank has already said that the schedule might need changing.

  29. 29
    Anne Laurie says:

    @PatrickG:

    The major political task that we face in the next five months is to make certain that Donald Trump is defeated and defeated badly. And I personally intend to begin my role in that process in a very short period of time.

    “… as soon as you give me the comfiest chair on the platform, and the best tv slot for my convention speech, and a stipend for flying to Rome now that my personal supporters can’t do that. Plus whatever other demands me & Jeff Weaver can come up with, over the next few weeks….”, is how I hear it.

    You wanna step up and be a Democrat, now, Bernie? Or at least keep Hair Fuhrer out of the White House? Show, don’t tell.

  30. 30
    Brent says:

    @burnspbesq: Well if Reid didn’t do that to Lieberman when he straight up campaigned for the opposition party, he certainly won’t do it to Sanders.

  31. 31
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @srv: If by “reform” you mean “trash”, well, yes, Teh Donald is well on his way.

  32. 32

    @🚸 Martin: Except that anybody who wants to can vote, they just have to check a box on a piece of paper in a timely fashion.

  33. 33
    🚸 Martin says:

    @burnspbesq: I’m fine with that provided that we stop pretending that party selection is in the interest of the state. Why should non-partisan voters pay for the state to track party registration, pay to provide a mechanism to change registration, and pay for primaries?

    All I ask is that we pick a side here – either this is a public election, in the state’s interest and open to all or it’s a private activity, run and paid for privately and can be exclusive to members only. You don’t get to cherry pick the best of both worlds.

  34. 34
    cbear says:

    Anne Laurie…..the most useful thing Sanders could do for his personal hobbyhorse the “progressive cause” would be martyrdom at the hands of a crazed Trump supporter (assuming there are Trump supporters who aren’t crazed).

    Wow. That is unbelievable, AL.
    Regardless of your opinion of Sanders, in what possible context is that even remotely appropriate?
    Think about it.

  35. 35
    burnspbesq says:

    @🚸 Martin:

    Fine, then the state doesn’t pay for them any longer

    If a democratically elected legislature chooses to pay for them, then you get to sit down and shut up, or work to elect a new legislature. That’s especially true in California where, as you are conveniently forgetting, primary election ballots also commonly include initiatives and referenda, judicial retention elections, school board elections, etc. Should the citizenry not pay for those?

    Taking your hiding like a man and never utter this nonsense again when there are people in the room smart emough to see through.

  36. 36

    @cbear: Yeah that kinda skeeved me out too.

  37. 37
    seaboogie says:

    @🚸 Martin:

    You don’t get to cherry pick the best of both worlds.

    Actually, we do. It’s an imperfect and yet wonderful thing. I think it’s about local voice having an influence. But if you are all up on your high horse, maybe you want to speak to each state having 2 senators, population be damned. I’m in Californy, and wouldn’t mind having a discussion about “representation” with the good folks of ND and RI.

    Block quotes went kind of wonky…but also unusually purty…heh.

  38. 38
    Anne Laurie says:

    @🚸 Martin:

    Caucuses need to go, and he’s not pushing for that. Following that, primaries should be open.

    With the first part, I think all of us who are not Bernie Sanders (or Ted Cruz, that guy also did very well at caucuses!) agree.

    As for the vexing ‘closed primary’ issue: You know why NY has extremely closed primaries? Because Karl Rove’s political heroes during the First Gilded Age made a killing taking over little third-party coalitions, or setting up their own shell parties, to demand full party privileges for their second- and fifth-tier candidates in every local office. Or, when they couldn’t do that, to at least peel off votes that would otherwise have gone to the Democrats.

    Were “open primaries” instituted today, we’d have Candidates Clinton, Trump, Cruz, Sanders, Johnson, Rubio, and JEB! (of the Silver Spoon Party) all demanding equal debate time & federal dollars. And our only hope of salvation would be that Cruz/Rubio/JEB! would be as faithless to their Repub handlers as they are to the innocents who voted them into Congress.

  39. 39
    burnspbesq says:

    @eemom:

    Your (relative lack of) age is showing. That song was a number ! hit for Steve Lawrence in 1962. That’s the version us old folks wish we could forget.

  40. 40
    dogwood says:

    @Brent:
    Democrats should welcome Bernie back to the Senate and move on. He’s shown that he has a tendency toward petty vendettas, so why bother pissing him off? Punishing Leiberman would have felt good in the moment, but would have made passing some critical legislation even harder. He did a lot of work on repealing DADT, and that’s way more important than political payback.

  41. 41
    Cat48 says:

    Good post, AL. John’s post, not so much.

  42. 42
    Anne Laurie says:

    @cbear: @Major Major Major Major: Okay, I changed that bit, because I respect you guys.

    Can I still wish the Free Staters upon him?

  43. 43
    🚸 Martin says:

    @burnspbesq:

    If a democratically elected legislature chooses to pay for them, then you get to sit down and shut up, or work to elect a new legislature. That’s especially true in California where, as you are conveniently forgetting, primary election ballots also commonly include initiatives and referenda, judicial retention elections, school board elections, etc. Should the citizenry not pay for those?

    I don’t know – am I barred from voting on the initiatives and referenda based on which party I’m in? No, I’m not, and that argument should be enough to carry.

    I don’t see how the state staying that I can’t vote in a primary election is any different than Kobach saying that a college student can’t vote in a general election. Either elections are open to all or they aren’t. It should not be the role of the state to prevent me from voting on a ballot because some 3rd party doesn’t want me to. Thats unbelievably undemocratic. Take that shit out of government and do it on your own dime, or open the process and let everyone participate. And why should the people being barred form voting be obligated to pay for the parties to do this?

    Remember, it’s not just that other things happen on the primary ballot, the state has to prepare multiple ballots, send out all of the candidate information, run the registration and change systems. It’s hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to the parties, just in California.

  44. 44
  45. 45
    Jonathan Holland Becnel says:

    lol, your hate for Bernie is just oozing on this post.

    For fucks sake, Sanders got 45% of the vote! And you want him to castrate himself at the altar of the DNC? Because he was out on the campaign trail?

    Geez, only a month and a half left. No sweat!

    So much for unifying the party…

  46. 46
    🚸 Martin says:

    @seaboogie:

    Actually, we do. It’s an imperfect and yet wonderful thing. I think it’s about local voice having an influence. But if you are all up on your high horse, maybe you want to speak to each state having 2 senators, population be damned. I’m in Californy, and wouldn’t mind having a discussion about “representation” with the good folks of ND and RI.

    A lot of people don’t think it’s so wonderful.

    Why each state has two senators was quite clearly thought out. We have representation – in the House. The Senate is to ensure that large population states don’t get to run roughshod over other states on key issues, such as water rights and the like.

    Our problems aren’t due to underrepresentation in the Senate. It’s due to intransigence in the House due to gerrymandering. CA dominates House dems but can’t get any traction because the GOP has locked out any sort of proportionate representation from red states.

  47. 47
    eemom says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Your (relative lack of) age is showing. That song was a number ! hit for Steve Lawrence in 1962. That’s the version us old folks wish we could forget.

    Fer realz? And here I thought Donnie Osmond wrote it.

    Thanks for the lack of age thing though…..it’s hard to come by these days, now that people YOUNGER than my daughter can purchase alcohol.

  48. 48
    magurakurin says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel:

    conceding and endorsing the clear winner of the primary in your own party

    not equal to

    castrate himself at the altar of the DNC

    whatever, chief. You’re as lost as your dear leader. We’ll leave the light on for you out back if you ever decide to come back in. Otherwise you and Bernie can stay out all night in the tree house if you like.

  49. 49
    seaboogie says:

    @🚸 Martin: The primaries are about positioning and framing the questions that will be ultimately decided. You are not barred from voting. Pick a party and get in the game. Pick Green if you want, just know that your voice and your vote are – for now – very limited and carry very little weight.

    I understand why Cole is so frustrated. Primaries are NOT the general. And primaries are part of the process and there is no good reason why they should not receive full funding in the voting process.

  50. 50
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @srv: How desperate do you have to be to ask the deserting coward to campaign for you?

  51. 51
    PatrickG says:

    @gwangung:

    Is it really helpful to take a “yes” from someone who’s essentially Carmelo Anthony, but with less talent?

    Based on my anecdata, yes. There are still people I’m close with who haven’t passed the Anger stage, and tonight’s speech helped a lot for them. Gave them a path forward, validated their feelings, and all that. Some of them were a bit miffed that Bernie didn’t hit the Democratic Party harder. But this was Bernie saying it, so they have to listen, because kool-aid.

    So yeah, I’ll take that short-term yes, while gritting my teeth. Sanders will be yesterday’s news soon enough.

    P.S. I have some non-politically astute friends. I know that because they register Green and got upset they couldn’t cast a vote in the Democratic primary. Good people, but terribly uninformed. If only someone on a stage had told them how things work… /eyeroll

  52. 52
    Calouste says:

    Sanders has been an important figure in Vermont politics for more than three decades, first as major of its largest city, then as Representative and senator. If he really cared about electing people to lower offices, he’s had ample opportunity to show that, and he hasn’t. In three decades, he could have built a party that is a serious force in that state, he didn’t choose to do that.

  53. 53
    PatrickG says:

    @Anne Laurie:

    Show, don’t tell.

    In case I wasn’t clear (I usually am not!), I’m optimistic that this was Bernie’s initial steps towards showing. If I’m wrong (I usually am!), well, then, fuck it all. :)

    By the way, I appreciate your changing the language. I also appreciate the fact that you’re owning the words with strike tags instead of vanishing it. If that sounds snarky, it’s not meant to at all — I’m on the edge of bed.

    G’nite!

  54. 54
    seaboogie says:

    @🚸 Martin: Well, Martin – you go figure it all out, make it perfectly fair and reasonable and fund it just so, so nobody anywhere would ever object to your Platonic ideals, and – more importantly – get THAT resolution passed and sealed into our election process and get right back to us. More perfect union is in your court now….

  55. 55
    PatrickG says:

    I say again: G’nite!

    JHB has shown up, which means this thread will be a clusterfuck. Sweet dreams, y’all!

  56. 56
    dogwood says:

    @🚸 Martin:
    Getting rid of caucuses all together will have some unintended consequences. In Idaho the republicans have a closed primary and the democrats a caucus system. In a legislature where democrats can caucus in a phone booth, there would be no way the legislature would facilitate a primary system for Dems. in states like Washinton, however caucuses need to go. Only 6% of democratic voters showed up in that great Bernie victory, yet Hillary easily won the mail-in-counts-for-nothing primary that expressed the will of tens of thousands more voters. That’s nuts.

  57. 57
    Cacti says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel:

    For fucks sake, Sanders got 45% of the vote!

    I agree. He lost by double digits.

  58. 58

    @PatrickG: Night! Don’t let the bed bugs bite! (Not implying you have bed bugs)

  59. 59
    Anne Laurie says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel:

    lol, your hate for Bernie is just oozing on this post.

    That’s not hate, ya little putz, that’s contempt.

    Bernie’s a self-aggrandizing jagoff who needs to shut up, if he isn’t willing to help anybody who isn’t Bernie Sanders.

    And if you believe his tall tales about Saint Birdie of the Mountain Fastness… since you’ve said you’re over 21, you’ve no longer naive, you’re just thick as two short planks.

    lulz.

  60. 60
    cbear says:

    @Anne Laurie: Why not just delete that particular sentence? You made a mistake, we all make mistakes, but it’s incredibly offensive and beneath you as a writer and as a person. You’re better than that, AL.

  61. 61
    Anne Laurie says:

    @PatrickG: I stand by my choices, even the crappy ones. But I’m old enough to be persuaded to change my mind, when it’s someone I respect asking me to reconsider.

  62. 62
    seaboogie says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: Not sure what your real name is, but in my mind – whenever I see your nym – “Piss Off!” pops up in my mind right away, and I don’t read your posts. It’s like an autonomic pie filter. Don’t even need cleek’s thang. Didn’t read what you wrote. I’m guessing its something about kittens and puppies riding a gay rainbow unicorn, but I’ll never know….

  63. 63
    Anne Laurie says:

    @cbear: See comment above. I can reconsider, but I have too much pride to pretend I didn’t say it — mostly because that stunt never works, on these here internets!

    I am a repentant sinner, not a fake saint.

  64. 64
    🚸 Martin says:

    @seaboogie:

    The primaries are about positioning and framing the questions that will be ultimately decided.

    There are other ways of doing that. Many countries don’t even have primaries.

    You are not barred from voting. Pick a party and get in the game. Pick Green if you want, just know that your voice and your vote are – for now – very limited and carry very little weight.

    I am barred from voting if there are closed primaries. Party affiliation should not be mandatory. That’s not in the state’s interest either and its not enforceable. That is voter suppression. It’s the only acceptable situation to the left when a citizen and resident shows up to vote and is told no, and Democrats only hold that position when it is convenient to their interests. If elections are supposed to be open, then make them open, or don’t make the nominee choice an election. I’m fine with that, with them being closed. But if they are closed, then you don’t get to ask the people you exclude to pay for your internal process. I’m fine with either.

  65. 65

    @cbear: I believe the blog ‘standard’ is to cross out corrections (should we convene the ethics panel?)

  66. 66
    cckids says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: I can only speak for myself, but no, we don’t “hate” Bernie. He makes us tired. He couldn’t be bothered to join the party until it had something he wanted; and he’s been classless and boorish. He continually craps on the people doing the work of running the party he supposedly wants to lead.

    It’s like having your daughter’s new boyfriend show up for Christmas & tell you all your traditions aren’t cool & that you’re cooking the turkey wrong. Just rubs people the wrong way.

  67. 67
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @Brent: Ol’ Harry has no fucks left.

  68. 68
    Amir Khalid says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel:
    The 12 million votes that Bernie got count for less than Hilary’s 15.8 million. He has lost. It’s done . For that reason alone, he should admit reality and concede. If he can’t or won’t bring his supporters on board, he is irrelevant to what happens next: the fight to elect a Democratic president and keep Trump out of the White House. If he won’t endorse Hillary, that’s his right; but it also ensures his irrelevance to the fight before the Democratic party.

    If Bernie wants to continue his revolution, he’s got to learn to work with and within the Democratic party which he evidently believes is a better way to achieve change than going it alone as an independent. (That’s why he joined them, right?) Of course, he could choose to leave the party and carry on the fight as an independent. But then people will understand that he only ever joined to make himself seem more credible as a presidential candidate — to take advantage of the party’s good name. And what will such an understanding of him do to his revolution’s chances of success?

  69. 69
    dogwood says:

    @Cacti:
    Hey, at least he said 45%; they were referring to themselves as half of the Democratic Party. Clinton and Sanders voters combined might make up half of the party.

  70. 70
    Cacti says:

    @🚸 Martin:

    I am barred from voting if there are closed primaries.

    The remedy: check a box on voter registration form.

    If that’s too great a burden to bear, go piss up a rope.

    Your entitled whining about voter suppression cheapens the struggle of Americans who face legitimate obstacles to the ballot box.

  71. 71
    seaboogie says:

    @🚸 Martin:

    I am barred from voting if there are closed primaries. Party affiliation should not be mandatory

    . IT’S THE FUCKING PRIMARIES!!! WE ARE PUTTING UP OUR CANDIDATES!!! WE ARE TAKING POSITIONS! YES, I AM SHOUTING!!! Your passive shit is fucking riduculous, and that you make it about monetary issues is the pettiest, poutiest thing, evarrr…did you lose your damn blankie – is that what you are upset about?

  72. 72
    Cacti says:

    @dogwood:

    Hey, at least he said 45%; they were referring to themselves as half of the Democratic Party. Clinton and Sanders voters combined might make up half of the party.

    He’s even wrong about that.

    Bernie got 42.8% of the vote and 45% of the pledged delegates. But despite earning more than his proportional share of delegates, the process was somehow unfair to him because…

    Black people weren’t forced to vote last?

    Non-Bernie votes got counted?

    Southern states got to participate in the primary?

    It’s hard to keep track of who all shouldn’t count for the sake of the revolution.

  73. 73
    🚸 Martin says:

    @dogwood:

    Getting rid of caucuses all together will have some unintended consequences. In Idaho the republicans have a closed primary and the democrats a caucus system. In a legislature where democrats can caucus in a phone booth, there would be no way the legislature would facilitate a primary system for Dems. in states like Washinton, however caucuses need to go. Only 6% of democratic voters showed up in that great Bernie victory, yet Hillary easily won the mail-in-counts-for-nothing primary that expressed the will of tens of thousands more voters. That’s nuts.

    For fucks sake people. The DNC can set up a website and a database and register voters. They can already align it with the state voter rolls – I’ve used those datasets before. They can then easily set up an online ballot, one for every state or county or whatever they need and have people vote online, on their phones, whatever. And if the GOP and Dems are worried about cross-pollution of voters, create a pact to allow each party to validate registrants against the other party – don’t accept a Dem until they renounce their GOP registration. Both parties are motivated equally on this – it’ll hold. It’s fucking 2016 – you don’t need to run this like it’s 1850. There are plenty of ways to ensure that you don’t get overvoting. You can run the elections on whatever schedule the party wants, with windows as open or closed as you want. Allow mail-in voting. Allow phone voting. Because the government isn’t running your shit, go nuts. If someone does something you don’t like, you can kick them out because there is no semi-governmental protection in place. You can validate or invalidate ballots however you want, count however you want. Let illegals vote, let 15 year olds vote, let felons vote, do it all.

    Clear away all of these issues from the primary process so that voting rights can distill down to what it ought to be – one person, one vote, as a right – and push hard to make sure that happens in the general election everywhere.

  74. 74
    dogwood says:

    @🚸 Martin:
    It doesn’t sound like anyone is really barred from voting in the California system. What it sounds like is people bar themselves out of stubbornness or ignorance. That’s on them.

  75. 75
    Damien says:

    I wish we could be clear that those supporting Sanders are fine; support whoever you want as long as there’s a race on, but how have we reached this point with Bernie?

    He lost spectacularly and thoroughly, by a margin wider than that by which Obama thumped Romney, so why isn’t Romney getting consulted on matters of the presidency? Why didn’t we consult the feelings of Clinton’s supporters in 2008, and let Hillary stay in until the convention, since she actually had a winning coalition of dedicated voters?

    I remember 2008, working for Obama, in a race where the insurgent candidate ACTUALLY DID bring in a ton more young voters (have you seen the turnout numbers from back then? This race ain’t even close), where he won the delegate race by the skin of his teeth comparatively, and yet he took over the party. He endorsed and campaigned for down-ticket races, and despite being in the Senate for less than a full term, he knew his policy details back to front like an obsessed fan with the Zeppelin catalogue. He was charismatic, dedicated and organized, and he won with that. Clinton lost, and she did so relatively gracefully.

    Bernie. Jesus fuck, I’ve never seen a more apropos, non-physical definition of “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” because he has been and continues to be an unbelievably terrible candidate, and someone who would make the presidency into a joke. His plans never made any fiscal sense, they never made any practical sense (tell us how we should fight automation to bring back low-skill jobs!), and he couldn’t even articulate the plans regarding the central plank of his entire platform.

    He endorsed candidates way too late, after being hounded about it, and they lost; he couldn’t turn out his “revolution” to keep a lunatic judge out of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, to vote for Lucy Flores, or to even vote in the Washington and Nebraska primaries, where the local politicians got elected.

    He has monkeyshined and whined and poisoned the well about the Democratic Party, as though anyone disagrees with his ideas about battling climate change, lowering the cost of education and fighting dark money. Because he’s promised such unattainable things (at least at the speed he says is possible), the reality of politics will never be enough for his most hardcore supporters.

    I could go on, but seriously: I am proud that democrats didn’t fall for his horseshit promises, and since his supporters are coming back into the fold in droves, I don’t think Bernie should get a single goddamn thing until he concedes the election like a grown-ass man who lost. The bankrupt Monopoly player doesn’t get to keep going around the board after his money, property and leverage are gone.

    Until he does concede, I guess he’s in the race and it’s open shitting-on season.

  76. 76
    AxelFoley says:

    @Cacti:

    Bernie’s Brocialism was rejected by the real base of the 21st century Democratic Party:

    Women and people of color.

    The “What’s The Matter With Kansas” hypothesis was also soundly rebutted. Sucking up to working class white males at the expense of all others isn’t the future on which a Democratic majority is built.

    So, Bern, if you can’t be a team player, then sit your old ass down and get the hell out of the way. We Democrats have work to do.

    BOOM

  77. 77
    r€nato says:

    @🚸 Martin: in Arizona’s GOP primary (the one forgotten about, mostly, thanks to how our one-party GOP state and county government fucked up the Democratic presidential preference primary in Maricopa County), Trump handily won the primary. I think he had roughly twice as many votes as the 2nd place finisher, Ted Cruz.

    But when it came time for the party to pick who actually filled those nominally Trump delegate slots… it was mostly Cruz loyalists. So why the fuck did we taxpayers foot the bill for that election anyway, when it was treated as merely a suggestion?

  78. 78
    🚸 Martin says:

    @seaboogie:

    . IT’S THE FUCKING PRIMARIES!!! WE ARE PUTTING UP OUR CANDIDATES!!! WE ARE TAKING POSITIONS! YES, I AM SHOUTING!!! Your passive shit is fucking riduculous, and that you make it about monetary issues is the pettiest, poutiest thing, evarrr…did you lose your damn blankie – is that what you are upset about?

    Then put up your candidate in your own activity. The caucuses aren’t run by the government. Clearly both parties are okay with ditching the state run election when it suits them. All I’m asking is that you pick a system, and if you want the state to run it (which I’m fine with) and ask all taxpayer to pay for it, then you invite all taxpayers to participate.

    Once you are fine defending saying ‘No, you don’t get to vote’, then you lose credibility telling the GOP that they don’t get to say ‘No, you don’t get to vote’. If the government does something which is seen as a right, it does it for everyone. Gay people get marriage. Black people get votes and housing. People with disabilities get access. Poor people get assistance. The accused get justice. That is the very thing that Democrats stand for, right up until the moment that someone might fuck with your process. Okay, I get that. I really do. So create a process that can’t be fucked with – I’ll even help, but step back from government when you do it. That’s the trade-off – if you want to discriminate, then government is out. Period.

  79. 79
    Origuy says:

    Will 2016 take another one? Singer Meat Loaf collapsed on stage during a performance in Edmonton, Canada. He’d previously cancelled two other shows on his Canadian tour.

  80. 80
    eclare says:

    @🚸 Martin: I used to think open primaries were a good thing, because that is what we have here. There is no registration, you just point at which ballot you want. But you have made really good arguments, and now I want closed primaries in my state. How do I help that?

  81. 81
    🚸 Martin says:

    @r€nato:

    But when it came time for the party to pick who actually filled those nominally Trump delegate slots… it was mostly Cruz loyalists. So why the fuck did we taxpayers foot the bill for that election anyway, when it was treated as merely a suggestion?

    I didn’t even want to dig that far down into my objection to the primary system, but that’s exactly right. If you are going to run these like elections, then they should be run as elections with proportionate representation. And it’s not like there aren’t states where things are almost as bonkers on the Democratic side.

    It’s infuriating that we call for government competency and then tolerate this Calvinball shit. It makes government look incompetent (because they’re backing the whole exercise) and then we all rush in and say ‘hey, but we like it that way!’

    One reason why the electorate is so mad is that so many basic social structures – employment, wages, access to education, voting, etc. are so wildly unpredictable. A lot of people can handle earning less, or having their candidate lose, but it drives them to fucking rage when those things happen and they can’t see it coming, they can’t predict the outcome. Women should be able to predict their salary based on what a man earns. Black people should be able to predict their likelihood of getting a job based on the qualifications of white people. Trump voters should have been able to predict that a given vote margin would result in a given number of delegates, and so on. Everyone invests incredible amounts of energy in making their own lives predictable, yet we keep backing these mechanisms that make everyone else life unpredictable simply because we see some local advantage in a set of complex rules. It’s astounding.

  82. 82
    Damien says:

    @🚸 Martin: What a waste of resources you’re talking about. First, since double-voting is a felony, the state has to keep track of people on the voting rolls as is; why does it make sense to you to that those efforts should be doubled up by both parties instead of in a centralized database?
    Second, you don’t have to register to vote, but you don’t get to go pull the level anyway; you don’t have to join a political party, but you don’t get to have a say in the slate of their candidates; why is this so hard?
    Third, allowing anyone to vote for by party and THEN by candidate seems kinda like Parliament. Maybe I’m crazy, but you’re essentially describing an insanely inefficient corollary system.

    Why are you okay with wasted resources when the easiest solution is simply to get rid of all public input and switch back to letting party insiders select whoever they want?

  83. 83
    🚸 Martin says:

    @dogwood:

    It doesn’t sound like anyone is really barred from voting in the California system.

    If parties had closed primaries than NPP voters would be barred. We would be paying for a lot of party registration and voting infrastructure that we would be excluded from.

    And to be clear, I’m a reliable Democratic voter but I don’t join the party because I find the overarching mechanism of the primary race and party registration to be exclusionary to 3rd parties. Those mechanics are designed to muscle out smaller parties that can’t get visibility during primary season (unless their candidates strip at the convention) and to marginalize other voices. Financing is another component of this. I appreciate that there are other structural problems with how we vote that force a 2-party system (that I would also like to see changed) but I find this binary system that we have created for ourselves to be quite damaging.

  84. 84
    dogwood says:

    @Damien:
    Comparing Obama’s ability to speak about and understand policy to Bernie’s is really stunning. Your comment reminded me of an interview with Dick Luger I saw on CSPAN not long after Obama announced in 08. Luger was pretty open about his disappointment that Obama was running because he said Barack came to the Foreign Relations Committee with a deeper understanding of the issues surrounding nuclear non-proliferatation than Senators who had been there for decades. In Obama he saw a young Senator in a safe seat who would carry on after he was gone. I used to laugh when the Clinton folks would say Obama wasn’t in her league when it came to wonkery.

  85. 85
    Cacti says:

    @🚸 Martin:

    And to be clear, I’m a reliable Democratic voter but I don’t join the party because I find the overarching mechanism of the primary race and party registration to be exclusionary to 3rd parties.

    Fap fap fap

  86. 86
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @🚸 Martin:

    I’m a reliable Democratic voter but I don’t join the party because I find the overarching mechanism of the primary race and party registration to be exclusionary to 3rd parties.

    Isn’t that special.

  87. 87

    @Cacti: @BillinGlendaleCA: Damn, you beat me to it. I guess I’ll go back to pretending to be an elf now.

  88. 88
    r€nato says:

    @🚸 Martin: my answer to that would have been, if the state is going to foot the bill for presidential preference primaries, then you vote for a slate of delegates put forward by the campaign. By having the government run the election just like an ordinary election (a subsidy for the two major parties…), with the laws and procedures and voting machines and all the appearances of it being a “legitimate” election, but then allowing the parties the possibility to monkey with the results… it creates distrust and cynicism of the entire electoral process.

    Or, get the government entirely out of the presidential preference primary process entirely and let the parties figure it out. They won’t just resort to the smoke-filled room because that looks bad to the people they want to vote for them in the general election.

    As for open vs closed primaries… I can think of perfectly valid arguments for both approaches, whether or not the gov’t is running the election.

  89. 89
    Damien says:

    @🚸 Martin: You know what else is unfair? Having to pay for all that NASA infrastructure, and I’ve never even been to space! I’ve been paying tons for all of these nuclear submarines, and yet here I stand, a land lubber through and though.

    I wish I could automatically participate in a space mission just by checking a little box on a form.

  90. 90
    seaboogie says:

    @🚸 Martin: The states and the individual parties within the states get to decide how their election process works to pick their candidates for their national conventions. It’s inconsistent across states, and also respresentative of the local decision making process. Folks in Iowa get to go stand in various corners of a gymmasium and have early influence – fine Iowa – that’s how you want to do it, then knock yourselves out. Maybe y’all like to hang in HS gyms. Other states want voting in person or mail-in for primaries – because of geography or they just can’t be arsed to go stand around in a sweaty gym opposing a neighbor that they didn’t like much anyway.

    This is very local government, and how they decide to make their choices, and even if I find it odd – I really don’t care. If I do care about who is chosen to be my candidate, I will figure out how to make my voice heard in my local primaries. And if I don’t participate by registering and voting (which I didn’t, because I live in dark blue NorCal and trust my fellow citizens), I am not going to bitch and whine about the process in general. If I care deeply, I will get involved in the process. And if I fail to do that, I will not complain that my rights are being stripped of me in a primary.

    FYI – the first time I ever voted in my whole life – after I returned to the US, having moved to Canada as a child and lived there for 25 years – was for John Kerry in ’04. And I took that very first vote seriously enough to volunteer as a local poll-worker. Took a day off work for the training and another day off for the vote*. Went out to the local stationery shop on my lunch break to buy a pencil sharpener so that we could more effectively cross off voters who had voted.

    *And I was working retail, so I lost income necessary to my survival in performing that function

  91. 91
    Hkedi [Kang T. Q.] says:

    Found this piece of nightmare fuel on the internet. SFW, but definitely not safe for sanity. It’s an Onion-like, fake, Japanese cute video for trump. The Japanese do have a corner on WTF weird, but this guy probably topped them. Do not watch if you don’t have a large bucket of brain bleach handy…

    You have been warned!!!

  92. 92
    seaboogie says:

    @BillinGlendaleCA: Heh…continued my rant below.

  93. 93
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @Cacti: We’re not worthy, Cacti.

  94. 94
    Botsplainer, Neoliberal Corporate Shill says:

    @🚸 Martin:

    I am barred from voting if there are closed primaries. Party affiliation should not be mandatory. That’s not in the state’s interest either and its not enforceable. That is voter suppression. It’s the only acceptable situation to the left when a citizen and resident shows up to vote and is told no, and Democrats only hold that position when it is convenient to their interests. If elections are supposed to be open, then make them open, or don’t make the nominee choice an election. I’m fine with that, with them being closed. But if they are closed, then you don’t get to ask the people you exclude to pay for your internal process. I’m fine with either.

    Guess you missed that whole “constitutional rights to free association” day in civics class. Being in a voluntary group means that the group gets to have such rules as it sees fit.

    In Europe, you actually pay dues to belong to parties.

  95. 95
    seaboogie says:

    @🚸 Martin: Word to the (un)wise…when you have a number of “beloved/respected/dedicated” commenters rebutting you and you feel the need to still tilt at those windmills, you are not winning the game. Just my observation. And I’m fairly certain I’m in the “occasional-bhqwatvs” commenter category…

  96. 96
    🚸 Martin says:

    @Damien: You know, there a concept called ‘in the public interest’. There are many things in the public interest that I don’t personally, directly benefit from, but I could benefit, and I may not even get a say in the matter. So, lest you think this is some kind of libertarian argument, it’s really not.

    But nobody can make an argument that primaries that explicitly exclude non-partisan voters is in the public interest. And as I’ve been very clear above: I’m fine with the position that primaries are in the public interest, but they need to be open to the public. I’m okay with closed and private, or open and public. Either one works. I have the same attitude toward marriage – if we want the state to recognize it and provide tax benefits and HIPAA and survival rights and all of that, then it has to be open to all consenting adults unless they can demonstrate situations that are in the public interest. We would never tolerate a religion coming in and telling the government to only provide those rights and benefits if the married couple were of the same religion, even though we accept that religions get to determine who they will recognize as being married. That is, there’s a clear separation between how religions document and recognize marriage and how the state needs to do it, and the public interest takes priority. Isn’t that what Obergfell was about? Why do we have a different standard when we talk about political parties? Why do they get the right to dictate participation in a government run activity, paid for by the citizenry?

  97. 97
    Botsplainer, Neoliberal Corporate Shill says:

    @Cacti:

    I do have something to thank Bernie for – validating every negative thought I ever held about the work ethic, basic intelligence and level of pragmatism among the purest progressives, and making me feel positive about my strong support of the conservatively progressive approach of people like Hillary and Barack.

    Oh, and I’ll say this about the vaunted youth vote that Bernie brought to the party – you can tell that he did bring in significant youth support by the extent of the no shows on primary voting days that contributed to his loss…

  98. 98
    Botsplainer, Neoliberal Corporate Shill says:

    @🚸 Martin:

    But nobody can make an argument that primaries that explicitly exclude non-partisan voters is in the public interest.

    Bullshit. It is a party primary. If you’re not in the party, your oh-so-pure-and-nonpartisan (because corporations and sell outs, man) hippie ass doesn’t get to take it over.

  99. 99
    seaboogie says:

    @🚸 Martin: And why – oh why – do we not all have a pony? Not just one pony that we all share, but a personal pony for each and every one of us.

  100. 100
    🚸 Martin says:

    @Botsplainer, Neoliberal Corporate Shill:

    Guess you missed that whole “constitutional rights to free association” day in civics class. Being in a voluntary group means that the group gets to have such rules as it sees fit.

    In Europe, you actually pay dues to belong to parties.

    I didn’t miss it. But I also recall that the government doesn’t confer specific benefits to those associations. We have free association in religion but we don’t fund the Catholic church or organize their membership rolls. We don’t do that for any other private organization either. I’m totally cool with being or not being part of a party. I’m fine with them coordinating among themselves for exclusivity so nobody can be members of more than one. I’m cool with coordinating with the state-run voter registration to ensure that member are allowed to vote.

    I’m just not cool with the state enforcing my free association. When did the state ever tell you that you couldn’t participate in a private group activity? When I go to the polls, an official of the state government is the one telling me I can’t choose a given ballot. I’m sorry but that’s wrong.

  101. 101
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @🚸 Martin: Martin, no one is forcing you to be NPP. If CA decides to have a closed Dem primary, just re-register and check the fucking box, I was able to do this when I was 18 and still in high school.

  102. 102
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @🚸 Martin: Here’s an idea, have a NPP ballot; all the candidates from all the parties are on it. Of course the political parties can just disregard the results.

  103. 103
    seaboogie says:

    @BillinGlendaleCA: But Bill…Ideals! You’re just not seeing the big picture, Man….

  104. 104
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @seaboogie: I’ve been using telephoto lens too much, I guess.

  105. 105

    @seaboogie: Okay, the Thomas Friedman comparison is pretty apt right now :)

    @BillinGlendaleCA: Aren’t those fun? I used to have a very nice view two evictions ago and sometimes I’d set it up on a tripod in the living room to see what I could find. It… looked creepy.

  106. 106
    🚸 Martin says:

    @seaboogie:

    Word to the (un)wise…when you have a number of “beloved/respected/dedicated” commenters rebutting you and you feel the need to still tilt at those windmills, you are not winning the game. Just my observation. And I’m fairly certain I’m in the “occasional-bhqwatvs” commenter category…

    I know I’m not winning. I don’t have a lot of hard ideologies like this, but I’m a bit of a purist on how government serves the citizenry – in part because I’m part of the government. People would be fucking outraged if I implemented policies like this. I know we’ve been doing things this way for a long time. They’re actually better than they used to be. But I don’t much go for tradition, either. Just because we have done things this way is no reason they should continue to be done this way – that’s in line with how conservatives defend discriminating against gays or minorities or women. And considering that voting rights is a an increasing plank for Democrats, and one which Sanders is inconsistently putting more weight behind, I would simply like to point out that Democrats are being hypocritical on this point. And you don’t need to just take my word for it, voter rights experts like Rick Hasen support the idea as well – along with the elimination of caucuses. If you truly want voter participation, get rid of caucuses, and open the primaries. If you want a closed process – then go off and have a closed process, but be careful about how you present voter rights arguments.

    But let’s also note that I’m not exactly a newcomer here (came here before Coles conversion), and I don’t exactly have a reputation for trolling. I think I’ve earned a few moments on the soapbox.

  107. 107
    seaboogie says:

    @BillinGlendaleCA: Heh. Nighty-night….

  108. 108
    Botsplainer, Neoliberal Corporate Shill says:

    @🚸 Martin:

    I’m just not cool with the state enforcing my free association. When did the state ever tell you that you couldn’t participate in a private group activity? When I go to the polls, an official of the state government is the one telling me I can’t choose a given ballot. I’m sorry but that’s wrong.

    Sign, sign, everywhere a sign, blockin’ out the scenery, breaking my mind. Do this, don’t do that, can’t you read the sign…

    The state enforces all kinds of private rights. Try squatting, for instance. See how fast the state says “you can’t be here” (as the Bundy Klan learned).

  109. 109
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @Botsplainer, Neoliberal Corporate Shill: Try practicing Law or Medicine without a licence.

  110. 110

    @🚸 Martin: The problem that I have, and I think most of the others here, is that in CA we aren’t talking about a NY-type situation where you have to register fairly far in advance and NPP people (or whatever it is there) can’t request a Dem ballot. You just… you just have to ask. It’s such a low bar. And even if you do join you can just leave immediately after you vote. SO MANY of the people whining about this are just so far into “i would not belong to a club that would have me as a member” territory that OMG STFU ALREADY.

    So you’re getting heat from that.

    Intellectually, things like

    When did the state ever tell you that you couldn’t participate in a private group activity?

    are very interesting. The Big Two parties are quasi-governmental entities so it’s muddled! But practically OMG STFU ALREADY

  111. 111
    dogwood says:

    @🚸 Martin:
    Your argument hasn’t changed my mind, but you’ve definitely earned your time on the soapbox.

  112. 112

    @BillinGlendaleCA: Political parties are basically clubs, right? I can start an Ancient Mystic Society of No Homers and refuse to let in more than one person named Homer, but the state can’t keep Homer #2 out, except to say that the No Homers have the right to their own rules.

  113. 113
  114. 114
    Botsplainer, Neoliberal Corporate Shill says:

    @BillinGlendaleCA:

    What he doesn’t get is that the state isn’t enforcing his free association – it is enforcing the free association of the parties in terms of their rules.

    Try crashing an Elks Lodge meeting because you just want to go to one.

  115. 115
    seaboogie says:

    @Major Major Major Major: Oh right – am I supposed to just let that dog lie there – you are not a kind man…. ;-)

  116. 116
    🚸 Martin says:

    @Botsplainer, Neoliberal Corporate Shill:

    Bullshit. It is a party primary. If you’re not in the party, your oh-so-pure-and-nonpartisan (because corporations and sell outs, man) hippie ass doesn’t get to take it over.

    What is the states interest in protecting the party in this way? I get that the party has that interest. I even get that the state has an interest in orderly elections. But I don’t see why the party’s preference should supersede my rights as a voter and I don’t see a state interest in that arrangement. If someone can make that case, I’m open to it. So far nobody has even attempted it.

    @BillinGlendaleCA:

    Here’s an idea, have a NPP ballot; all the candidates from all the parties are on it. Of course the political parties can just disregard the results.

    That almost works. However the party shouldn’t get to overrule the election. That goes hand-in-hand with having Arizona taxpayers paying for a primarily election that is effectively pointless because the party created a second set of rules, incompatible with one-person-one-vote, that rendered the entire process moot.

    Put another way, are we all okay with the party picking a candidate without involving the voters? If this is indeed a party activity, democracy need not apply (as it apparently doesn’t in Arizona for the GOP or for anyone in caucus states). In that case, why burden the taxpayers to run a show that doesn’t actually respect the citizenry? From the outside, it mostly just looks like a big show that gets free TV time which the 3rd parties can’t compete with, shutting them out of the overall process, while internally they sometimes just do whatever they want regardless of the voting outcome. And I get that there are local decisions here, but the party speaks with a single voice that it routinely violates across those local decisions. If voting rights is indeed a democratic principle, than it should be applied uniformly.

  117. 117

    @seaboogie: You can do whatever you want to, as long as you aren’t trying to join my club and named Homer. We already have a Homer Glumplich.

    EDIT: And you can’t have a barber shop without a license. I forgot that. No Homers in my club, and no unlicensed barbers.

  118. 118
    🚸 Martin says:

    @Botsplainer, Neoliberal Corporate Shill:

    The state enforces all kinds of private rights. Try squatting, for instance. See how fast the state says “you can’t be here” (as the Bundy Klan learned).

    Squatting applies only in the context of a private space. The state will not (or should not) allow a homeowner to dictate who stands no the public sidewalk in front of their house. Primary elections are public events, not private ones, and are run by the government, not the party. Like I said many times, if the parties want to have a private activity to pick the candidate I’m okay with that. I’m also okay with the state coordinating the voting rolls with the party to ensure that only suitable voters can participate. The state does that in many other types of situations. I’m not trying to corrupt the process, just make it consistent with the role of government.

  119. 119
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @🚸 Martin:

    However the party shouldn’t get to overrule the election.

    Why not, the parties as private(or quasi public) organizations shouldn’t be compelled to accept the votes of non-party members if they don’t want to. You’re not being disenfranchised by the state(you get a vote) but by a private party(the political party).

  120. 120
    seaboogie says:

    @Major Major Major Major: Help please. I haz a confused.

  121. 121

    @seaboogie: I’m as confused as you are, I assure you.

  122. 122
    seaboogie says:

    @Major Major Major Major: The barber thing?

  123. 123

    @seaboogie: California rather infamously has a licensure requirement to open a barber’s shop. Libertarians like to cite it as a silly regulation. Personally I think it’s because barbers are allowed to play with straight razors on your neck, but YMMV. It’s become sort of a rent-seeking issue TBH though.

  124. 124
    seaboogie says:

    @Major Major Major Major: Headed to bed and eventual bed-head M4 – best to you…

  125. 125

    @seaboogie: But I answered you! :P

    Goodnight, sweet prince(ss?)

  126. 126
    🚸 Martin says:

    @Damien:

    What a waste of resources you’re talking about. First, since double-voting is a felony, the state has to keep track of people on the voting rolls as is; why does it make sense to you to that those efforts should be doubled up by both parties instead of in a centralized database?
    Second, you don’t have to register to vote, but you don’t get to go pull the level anyway; you don’t have to join a political party, but you don’t get to have a say in the slate of their candidates; why is this so hard?
    Third, allowing anyone to vote for by party and THEN by candidate seems kinda like Parliament. Maybe I’m crazy, but you’re essentially describing an insanely inefficient corollary system.

    Why are you okay with wasted resources when the easiest solution is simply to get rid of all public input and switch back to letting party insiders select whoever they want?

    Missed this one…

    1) It’s not a waste of resources. Having the parties coordinate with each other and with the state is pretty trivial in an age of virtually free data and networking. You don’t need to maintain giant paper registries in some central government office. AWS would handle this for a pretty paltry sum. The state would still maintain the voter rolls, and the parties would maintain the registrations. The state would not have to manage party switching. Once you are on the roll, you are on. That would likely help keep the voting rolls cleaner by making them more stable, which should be a desirable thing. And since the parties need to have that registration data local to the party anyway, its really more of a resource saving because you are sparing the government having to track it as well. Right now you’re doing it twice.

    2) I’m not demanding that everyone get to participate in the party selection. I’m saying that if you ask the public to pay for the selection process, then everyone gets a say. If you want to pay for it privately, that’s when you get to exclude people. Private parties can censor speech, the government cannot. Private parties can refuse service (and we even argue that those which provide public accommodations cannot – which is why we think its wrong that bakeries refuse to serve gay couples), public ones cannot. We trot these lessons out to others constantly, yet we fail to internalize them ourselves when it comes to this issue.

    3) I’m not suggesting any change that isn’t already reflected in the caucus system. Democrats appear to be fine with caucuses.

    Consider how many resources wouldn’t be wasted if you had (exclusive or not, either way) online voting in 50 states. You’d have increased participation, particularly among young people, less need to drive people to polls, in bad weather, dealing with lines, bad instructions, and all of those volunteers and energy could instead be directed to fighting Republicans instead of managing a massive internal process ($400M spent so far between the two parties – a decent bit of which was spent just on getting people to the polls).

  127. 127
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @Major Major Major Major: I think it may date back to when barbers were pseudo-medical professionals.

  128. 128
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @🚸 Martin: On #2, NPP’s are CHOOSING to NOT have a say.

    On #3: Democrats are fine with caucuses? That’s not the opinion I’ve gleaned from this here website.

  129. 129

    @BillinGlendaleCA: I believe so, yes. Nowadays it’s mostly the cosmetology board artificially depressing supply.

  130. 130
    Botsplainer, Neoliberal Corporate Shill says:

    @🚸 Martin:

    What is the states interest in protecting the party in this way? I get that the party has that interest. I even get that the state has an interest in orderly elections. But I don’t see why the party’s preference should supersede my rights as a voter and I don’t see a state interest in that arrangement. If someone can make that case, I’m open to it. So far nobody has even attempted it.

    Oh. I made the mistake of thinking that you weren’t being deliberately obtuse.

    Never mind.

    Put another way, are we all okay with the party picking a candidate without involving the voters? If this is indeed a party activity, democracy need not apply (as it apparently doesn’t in Arizona for the GOP or for anyone in caucus states).

    Absolutely. American primaries are purely local affairs, the processes of which tend to be organic to regions. I’m OK with that, as it has relegated third party shithead cranks who are out of the mainstream into deserved irrelevance.

    The eyes of the lonely nation are never tirning to Dr Saint President Jill Stein of the homeowners association….

  131. 131
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @Major Major Major Major:

    Nowadays it’s mostly the cosmetology board artificially depressing supply.

    A charge that has also been leveled at the AMA.

  132. 132

    @BillinGlendaleCA: And not without reason. I know several doctors who take that stance. But in the barber case though it’s pretty cut and dried.

  133. 133
    Botsplainer, Neoliberal Corporate Shill says:

    @🚸 Martin:

    …young people…

    If The Bern’s white youngs (kids like mine, with passports, working vehicles and free time) can’t be bothered to turn out for their Personal Lord and Savior Bernie Sanders(Peace Be Unto Him), then perhaps their preferences and voices are fucking worthless in the selection process.

  134. 134
    🚸 Martin says:

    @Major Major Major Major:

    The problem that I have, and I think most of the others here, is that in CA we aren’t talking about a NY-type situation where you have to register fairly far in advance and NPP people (or whatever it is there) can’t request a Dem ballot. You just… you just have to ask. It’s such a low bar. And even if you do join you can just leave immediately after you vote. SO MANY of the people whining about this are just so far into “i would not belong to a club that would have me as a member” territory that OMG STFU ALREADY.

    Yes, I’m not complaining about my personal situation – it’s pretty good here. But I think it’s pretty clear that there are serious problems all around the country, of varying types and of varying degrees. And if CA went to all closed primaries here (as many here are advocating), then I would take serious issue as I would be shut out of part of an election or be forced to join a party. I don’t think government should be forcing that situation on voters.

    As for registering Dem, it is easy here, and I don’t do it for other reasons. And that’s also why I don’t take a particularly strong stand on how Dems run their process, because I’ve excluded myself from that opinion. I just note that the process should be compatible with the role of government (which I often think it’s not) and if Dems truly believe in voting rights, then they should show it and not just say it. Outside of that, I don’t take any particular objection to delegates, superdelegates, and so on. If I do join the party, I’ll speak up. But I think superdelegates as implemented now don’t hold to small-d democratic principles, and I’d like to see the Dem party fight more consistently for those principles. I think for tiebreakers they’re a pretty good system – better than USSC.

    So you’re getting heat from that.

    I’m trying hard to not ask for things to which I have no right. Perhaps I’m failing there.

    Intellectually, things like
    When did the state ever tell you that you couldn’t participate in a private group activity?
    are very interesting. The Big Two parties are quasi-governmental entities so it’s muddled! But practically OMG STFU ALREADY

    That they are quasi-governmental is problematic. That’s part of why primaries are so dangerous – you have partisan elected officials with real authority over the other party’s process. One of my ‘rules’ for ballot initiatives here is to vote ‘no’ for anything that the legislature doesn’t have a conflict of interest in. That is, anything meta to government – how elections are run, how elected officials are paid, or reprimanded, term limits, districting, that kind of stuff – that’s where direct democracy is necessary. It’s like a tiny little constitutional convention every election day. But anything outside of how government is run – taxes, bonds, whether pot should be legal or not, unless there is a constitutional requirement that it go to the voters (rarely is) then I vote no and ask the legislature to do it (I write to my reps and tell them how I want them to vote). That’s why we elect them. Primaries also run into that same kind of conflict of interest, which is why voting rights is so fucked up right now. The parties are using the power of government to tilt the playing field in their favor. Granted that’s a vastly worse problem on the GOP side – no both sides do it argument from me here – but Dems aren’t completely immune to it, and they’ve been getting steadily better about it. (Watching MA rewrite their rules for appointing replacements every time the governor switches parties is a bit infuriating). So from that vantage point, I think either primaries should be run straight-up like general elections so there’s less fucking with them by the other party in power, or they should be divorced from government so that just not possible.

    But I take your point. Thank you all for my soapbox time. I didn’t think that minds would be changed, but I thought them important points to raise, and think that Dems would be better off by taking a more principled stance toward voting rights. I’m off to bed now. I’ll return shortly with anecdotes from Uber drivers regarding the productivity-pay gap and why free trade isn’t why your dog looks sad when you leave for work.

    Night all. Thanks for the conversation. Do me a favor and catch CS up. I feel like he missed a good opportunity to pile on. I hope he doesn’t take it too hard (he’s very sensitive).

  135. 135
    OzarkHillbilly says:

    @🚸 Martin:

    But nobody can make an argument that primaries that explicitly exclude non-partisan voters is in the public interest

    I can. I can make several very good arguments to that exact effect. But why bother? You are not open to evidence, or reason, because your mind is already made up.

  136. 136
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @🚸 Martin:

    I don’t think government should be forcing that situation on voters.

    NO, it’s a choice the voter makes(including you); it’s checking or not checking a box. Choices have consequences. The alternative is allow ratfucking, and that is too great a risk.

  137. 137
    Applejinx says:

    @cbear: I’m glad she didn’t delete that sentence, specifically because it is NOT beneath her: it’s ‘Hilbot commentariat’ all over, and I take it as a grumpy weary LITERAL statement. She wants the guy I worked for, dead. She’s not going to DO anything toward that end but I don’t see that as snark, that’s the reality.

    This is pretty much why the Berniecrat dead-enders I know have been so stubborn. They know who they’re against and they don’t see a difference between this crowd and the Trump crowd, and as a ‘persuadable’ I wish I could go join Hillary’s forces somewhere that Anne Laurie isn’t.

    But that’s politics: I only get two sides and I gotta line up with ‘may the Trump maniacs martyr the old bastard’ and with Henry fucking Kissinger, because there are only two sides to the coin as it’s flipped. Hope plenty of my compatriots are able to do likewise, no thanks to ‘bring me the head of Saint Francis Of Burlington’ here.

  138. 138
    seejanerun says:

    I finally understand why this is so hard for Bernie and his bros – it’s because admitting that they lost to a girl is the same as being castrated!

  139. 139
    Yellowdog says:

    @Brent: Lieberman was a Democrat so he got some slack. Bernie, not so much.

  140. 140
    SciNY says:

    @Applejinx: I think you may not comprehend the difference between “literally” and “figuratively” (hyperbole, snark, call it what you will). It seemed pretty obviously the latter, and in any case was worded as descriptive rather than normative (that x would be the best outcome, not that AL was literally wishing for x). I wouldn’t have made the statement, and I am glad it was struck out. But that doesn’t mean I have to play dumb and pretend AL is literally inciting violence. If I did a call to the Secret Service would be in order. If you believe this, I think you’re morally obligated to act. If not, I don’t think you believe what you’re saying.

  141. 141
    Kay says:

    Sanders tried to drop CT Gov Malloy from convention leadership bc Malloy criticized him on gun policy.

    That sounds petty and small if it’s true, but it is also true is Malloy is a really unpopular governor. His approval in his own state is something like 30%. Rahm Emanuel is not a good mayor. My son and daughter in law voted for him twice and they’re ready to ship him back to DC. They think he’s incompetent.

    These people the leadership in the Democratic Party are promoting are not really good at governing, ideological differences aside. That’s a bit of a problem for a Party who hope to win back some states.

  142. 142
    Applejinx says:

    @SciNY: She’s not gonna do anything about it. Thankfully. The underlying sentiment is some cold-ass shit, and I thoroughly disagree with that sentiment.

  143. 143
    Aimai says:

    @seaboogie: who would care about an accusation of gradstanding? Bernie??? Grandstanding grandmaster bernie??

  144. 144
    Aimai says:

    @Kay: but it has nothing to do with the rules comittee. And how popular is cornell west, anyway? Bernie is gunnining for malloy snd frank out of personal pique. He has said as much.

  145. 145
    Aimai says:

    @Major Major Major Major: no–hairdressers,barbers, and other professions like that are a potential public health hazard: unclean knives and combs can quickly spread hair and skin infections through the population. Nail salons, for example, need to be more strictly monitored than they are for health and safety.

  146. 146
    Kay says:

    @Aimai:

    Bernie is “dead to me” for not conceding. That sucks. It’s a deal-breaker for me as far as character.

    But why should the Democratic Party promote Malloy or someone like Rahm Emanuel? Their own voters aren’t happy with their work.

    Rahm Emanuel can’t even get state funding for his own schools. They don’t even send him out as an advocate for Chicago. He’s fucking useless. He has no credibility on anything- they don’t trust him on schools or policing or a whole host of issues that are his job.

  147. 147
    Kay says:

    @Aimai:

    Arguably, Malloy should stay out of gun safety advocacy. He’s not popular. They don’t like him in his state.

  148. 148
    Just One More Canuck says:

    @eemom: There’s an ear worm I don’t need. Thanks a lot!

  149. 149
    Anne Laurie says:

    @Applejinx:

    She wants the guy I worked for, dead.

    No, I want Bernie alive for at least four more years, hopefully so he can watch Hillary Clinton accomplish all the things he said she wouldn’t do. I want him to slide ever deeper into irrelevancy, and it wouldn’t hurt my feelings at all if he lost his Senate seat to a Democrat in 2018.

    I just wish he’d shut the fuck up for now, if he’s too petty to help the Democrats keep Trump (or whatever replacement the GOP horks up when Trump flames out) out of the Oval Office. President Obama has done a really, really good job of improving this country over the last eight years, and not fucking that progress up is important.

  150. 150
    Chyron HR says:

    @Applejinx:

    I take it as a grumpy weary LITERAL statement. She wants the guy I worked for, dead.

    For somebody who plays the autism card so frequently, you sure are confident in your ability to tell what people REALLY mean by their blog comments.

  151. 151

    Clinton supporters to Sanders supporters: PUMA.

    You-folk sure you want to win this?

  152. 152
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    So if Sanders is there for the cause, why isn’t he there for cause when the cause needs him? Delegate reform is small potatoes next gun control, or is someone looking for their next NRA donation?

  153. 153
    Gelfling545 says:

    @seaboogie: Thank you.

  154. 154
    low-tech cyclist says:

    1) It’s time for Bernie to STFU and maybe go join an ashram somewhere.

    2) There really needs to be a way to drum Rahm Emmanuel out of the Democratic Party. He’s not as worthless an asshole as the average Republican, because that’s a higher bar to hurdle every day, but the problem is, he’s still our worthless asshole. There should be a way to make him choose between discrediting the other party, or forming a Liebermanesque ‘Illinois for Rahm’ party.

  155. 155
    DCF says:

    Balloon Juice – a bastion for Third Way DINOs:
    Burying the White Working Class

    Liberal condescension towards white workers is code for a broader anti-working class agenda.

    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/white-workers-bernie-sanders-clinton-primary-racism/

    How did we get here? How did we get to the point at which universalist, social-democratic politics — the antithesis of Reagan’s welfare queen and the very set of policies we’ve long been told white workers would never support out of racist spite — have become the last gasp of white supremacy? Where a working-class program — that would disproportionately help women and people of color — is the new white flight?

  156. 156
    tweedstereo says:

    @cbear: @seejanerun: …yeah. Like, literally.

  157. 157
    Paul in KY says:

    @burnspbesq: There should probably be some kind of same day registration (to be a Democratic Party member) & then the person can vote in the primary.

    Certainly, only registered Democrats should be able to pick the party’s nominee.

  158. 158
    Paul in KY says:

    @seaboogie: Please go change your registration to Democratic.

  159. 159
    Paul in KY says:

    @🚸 Martin: God, what a ‘libertarian’ viewpoint.

  160. 160
    Paul in KY says:

    @dogwood: I do want him inside the tent pissing out.

  161. 161
    Paul in KY says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: He needs to genuflect before his conqueror. That is Mrs. Clinton. That’s also pretty much a rule in both the Democratic & Republican Parties.

    That act has been done for millennia. It’s not like we are asking for some novel form of humiliation.

  162. 162
    dr. bloor says:

    If I wanted to listen to a cranky old alte kacker yarp on about how he was the only pure operative in the entire world, I could’ve stayed in the Bronx — and he could’ve stayed in Brooklyn.

    I had no idea you knew my wife’s uncle.

  163. 163
    Paul in KY says:

    @dogwood: Republican Dick Lugar had a sad because he could see that Sen. Obama was going to win the Presidency. So fuck Dick Lugar.

  164. 164
    Paul in KY says:

    @Damien: Well played!

  165. 165
    Paul in KY says:

    @Hkedi [Kang T. Q.]: Would think that Kyary Pamyu Pamyu could sue on that one.

  166. 166
    tweedstereo says:

    Ahhh yes…the conniving opportunist Bernie Sanders hatched his plan some thirty years ago when deciding to run for Mayor of Burlington. He laid in wait – becoming a member of the House of Representatives in 1990 and co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus, knowing that some 26 years later he would have his chance. After caucusing with Democrats and pushing for progressive causes in his years in government, one day he knew his REAL plan would be laid bare!

    Jeez Louise…

  167. 167
    tweedstereo says:

    @Raven Onthill: for all the bashing on Sanders as being all about progressive “purity” it’s kind of interesting how party “purity” seems to be all the rage here. Principles or ideas? Who cares! Are you wearing the correctly colored uniform?

  168. 168
    Paul in KY says:

    @tweedstereo: He truly is that diabolical! Glad the scales have been lifted from your eyes.

  169. 169
    C.S. says:

    @🚸 Martin:

    And if CA went to all closed primaries …then I would take serious issue as I would be shut out of part of an election or be forced to join a party. I don’t think government should be forcing that situation on voters.

    Boo.
    Frikken.
    Hoo.

    Hey, you know what? There are some real neato local propositions on the ballot in Helena, Montana. I sure wish I could vote for them. Or against them. Or something. But I can’t — and all because I don’t live in Helena, Montana. Can you imagine? And I sure wish I coulda voted for that dreamy Trudeau fella up in Canada. But you know what? They wouldn’t let me! And just because I’m “from California” and “not a Canadian citizen” according to the “policeman” in “Toronto.” Why should my right to vote for handsome politicians be held hostage to the prosaic realities of my citizenship?

    Of course, I like being an American citizen. And I like living in California. And I don’t want to go through the real and actual problem of selling my house and establishing residency or citizenship in Helena or Canada. You know what would be great? If I could just check one goddam box on one goddam form, that’s what. And then check the same goddam box on the same goddam form if I wanted to be a Californian again. That’d be sooo cool, so of course the eeeeevil gummint is standing in my way.

    Oh, and Martin? You’ve got it easy, the state isn’t forcing you to do anything other than respect the rights of other people to associate freely, and STFU.

  170. 170
    maryQ says:

    I keep coming back to this. I’m nearly certain that Hilary’s strategists are pouring over polling data and thinking very hard. She can court Bernie’s Kids and make symbolic progressive statements (they seem to confuse that for policy, so they will eat it up) that might alienate moderates. It looks like she can win if disaffected moderate Republicans just stay home.
    BUT, if she actually got the disaffected moderate Republicans to vote for her, maybe even with some enthusiasm, and got a few moderate GOP pols to endorse her (as she seems to be doing), she may be able to govern more effectively, with some sort of mandate.

    In other words, she may not need him. She may not need him.

  171. 171
    No One You Know says:

    Sea lions. I could do without sea lions.

  172. 173
    Barbara says:

    @tweedstereo: I don’t think anyone would disagree that Sanders has been a reliable progressive ally of Democrats in Congress on most issues. But he has also been an intentional outsider — which is his choice and one that never bothered me much. But it’s just a bridge too far to be an intentional outsider and then, when it no longer seems advantageous, to assume insider status with the right to direct the party’s apparatus even as he still refuses to endorse the party’s candidate. What this speech shows is that he is still too openly conflicted to claim that authority. In the case of a voluntary organization like a political party, credibility is the result of some amount of reciprocal loyalty, which, even now, he is refusing to show. My disdain at this point is not personal to Bernie Sanders or his wife, or his supporters, it’s his apparent unwillingness to truly be part of the organization he wants to direct.

  173. 174
    maryQ says:

    @C.S.: I swear. This is what happens when you raise a whole bunch of people to simply take for granted that they can just download any MP3 they want, and ONLY the ones they want, or stream their customized Spotify station, without ever having to commit to an album-and every album (except Belly-King and Fleetwood Mac-Rumors) has at least one crappy song-or having to sit tight for 3:45 while the radio station plays someone else’s favorite song.

    Just effin’ register. You can always unregister. The Parties are NOT the government (donations are not tax deductible, they have .org websites, not .gov), and they are voluntary organizations. You don’t have to join the club, but you can’t use the pool unless you do. And it is a free club.

  174. 175
    Paul in KY says:

    @maryQ: IMO, she could win 60 – 40 over the Combover Caligula, take Utah, etc. & the Repubs would still not concede shit.

    Hope to see that in Nov, though!

  175. 176
    No One You Know says:

    I am moderated, for sea lions as a verb. Sad!

  176. 177
    Spacekakes says:

    @seaboogie: As a resident of the District of Columbia, I would love to talk about representation.

  177. 178
    Shell says:

    Its simple. For Bernie t o insist on ‘staying in the race’, when there IS no longer any race is just ridiculous.

  178. 179
    tweedstereo says:

    @Barbara: Good point – I can understand the frustration, and I also appreciate this:

    My disdain at this point is not personal to Bernie Sanders or his wife, or his supporters, it’s his apparent unwillingness to truly be part of the organization he wants to direct.

    The personal invective from both camps is pretty ridiculous and overall is counterproductive.

    But hey, what do I know? I’m just a life long Democrat who voted for Gore, Kerry, and Obama twice who happens to live in the “white, poor and small” state of Vermont. It was nice to see Cole take the pedal off the metal with his earlier post but then there’s this thread…I’d love to say I can’t wait for November, but then I’d deprive myself of the 6 weeks of summer we enjoy up here!

  179. 180
    Uncle Ebeneezer says:

    I have an idea, let’s have a Nader/Sanders debate on which non-Democrat should really be at the center of the Democratic Universe.

    Just go away already Bernie. Time to go back to being an irrelevant, Independent Senator for a small, White state.

  180. 181
    tweedstereo says:

    @Uncle Ebeneezer:

    Time to go back to being an irrelevant, Independent Senator for a small, White state.

    You forgot to mention that no women live here. Also, why is white capitalized? Are you from somewwhere Big and Important? Probably never even tasted real maple syrup…

  181. 182
    J R in WV says:

    @🚸 Martin:

    Usually I think your comments are helpful, but not today.

    I think you are so wrong about “open primaries” which is a synonym for “primaries in which Republicans are free to rat-fuck the Democratic party”.

    Fuck open primaries! Why on Earth should Democrats allow people who are not Democrats help select Democratic candidates? No reason can be found that makes any sense for the Democratic party. Allow people who aren’t Democratic party members to help pick someone crazy as the party’s candidate for Governor of CA?

    NO!

    Allow people who aren’t Democratic party members to help pick someone evil as the party’s candidate for President?

    NO!

  182. 183
    Marjowil says:

    Main problem I had with his boring speech was that he stated he and Hillary are still “far apart” on many issues and closer on some. Is there more air bet. Bernie and Hillary than between either of them and Trump? No. No, there’s not. He should not be painting her as the enemy.

  183. 184
    Marjowil says:

    And btw, his 50-state strategy won’t help us if he is backing anti-choice people to Congress, which he is. Bernie, stop helping.

  184. 185
    Ruckus says:

    Too tired last night to get involved in this whatever. It got weirder.
    Martin, first, we are the government. The government is not some far away entity that tells us what to do with no representation, we hire those people, the people we chose to run it so we don’t have to day by day, because we want to do something else. We hire the group of people who make decisions and we do that by voting for them. It’s called POLITICS. It is in our interest to make sure that elections are fair, and real. A primary is an election, nothing more nothing less. But it is one political party, deciding who will represent the party in a final election, it’s a run off for the final, so that we don’t have 34 people running in said final. How is that not in our interest? How is anything the “government” does not in our interest?
    There are 4 things the government should always run. Elections, education, infrastructure, law creation/enforcement. There may be more. Otherwise how can we control and ensure the fairness and legality of the processes? Now that of course doesn’t mean the people we hire to do these things are worth a shit, see Kansas, see GWB. But at least we have the option of review and redress with the government doing the work. That’s why privatization works so well, at least for those getting the money. Not so much for those paying.

  185. 186
    J R in WV says:

    @🚸 Martin:

    When I go to the polls, an official of the state government is the one telling me I can’t choose a given ballot. I’m sorry but that’s wrong.

    But what you’re fighting and going to war over isn’t that you can’t choose a given ballot. You’re arguing over when you get to choose a ballot, whether you pick on Monday or Tuesday !!!

    Or in some states, last month or this month. And arguing over when you have to pick one party or the other is just downright silly~!!

  186. 187
    les says:

    @tweedstereo:

    But hey, what do I know? I’m just a life long Democrat who voted for Gore, Kerry, and Obama twice who happens to live in the “white, poor and small” state of Vermont. It was nice to see Cole take the pedal off the metal with his earlier post but then there’s this thread…I’d love to say I can’t wait for November, but then I’d deprive myself of the 6 weeks of summer we enjoy up here!

    Look, tweedy, if any of that is true, nobody has a problem with you. Why you and the raven come in, pose as all reasonable, and then launch into major butthurt over comments that, unless you’re lying, have nothing to do with you is passing strange. Unless you really believe Bern is a pure saint, every Bern supporter is real and sane and will bring The Revolution by believing, and that bashing the Dem party and candidate is the way forward, so any negative comment about Bern or any Bern supporter is an attack on you, why all the pissing and moaning?

  187. 188
    Damien says:

    Having had my coffee and now tilting my head just so, I think I can see what Martin is talking about. He doesn’t object to the private process, but having it funded by the government. Similar to how we wouldn’t be comfortable with government funding of Boy Scouts when they rejected gays, or government funding the Johnathan Club in Los Angeles; it’s private, you get to pick your membership and participation, but the government shouldn’t fund it.

    I think that is incredibly silly. There are real benefits to allowing the public greater say in who each party puts up as their nominee, but it is still important that the people doing the saying are a part of the party. Unlike a general election, there is real and significant potential damage that a dedicated rtfk could do, since it’s not about choosing the winner but instead the slate of choices available. Donald Trump had this thing wrapped up far earlier than the Democrats (de jure, Clinton has been the de facto nominee since March, just with some gum on her shoe), should the Republicans have been allowed to instead shift over and bump the Progressive Disaster-in-Waiting to victory?

    NO!

    If they want to shift over and vote for Clinton in the general, they are more than welcome. I would say that if you’re a new voter, you should be able to vote in whichever party you want, then you are a member of that party; you can change your registration status by affirmatively choosing to do so, but otherwise you’re only able to vote in primary of the party you last voted for. Independents can vote in the American Independent Party’s primary, but they don’t get to hold themselves aloof as being above the fray.

  188. 189
    Elie says:

    @Barbara:

    This. Presented with a flawless, well stated argument…

  189. 190
    Paul in KY says:

    @Marjowil: Will say that if we can elect an anti-choice Democrat who will vote for Nancy as speaker, etc., that is better than having a Republican, who will be even anti-choicerer & will not vote for Nancy.

  190. 191
    Fuzel says:

    @Jonathan Holland Becnel: Agreed 100%. This is still a democratic process. Bernie Sanders won enough votes to go to the convention. Hillary did the exact same thing in 2008. You know what’s worse than Bernie Bros? Sore Hillarybot Winners.

  191. 192
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Marjowil: If you are talking about Marcy Kaptur, you may want to look a her full record.

  192. 193
    Feckless says:

    Where would your website be without your 15 minutes of hate?

    You deride Sanders for supposedly dividing the party and possibly electing Trump.

    How does your derision help unite the party?

    Maybe Sanders needs his guns to fend off Hillary’s “super-predators”?

    Or all the guns her husband let spread across the globe (cough Rwanda, cough Congo) in the 1990’s?

    This kind of crap makes me question why I come here to read a bunch of former Republicans tell me how to be a democrat.
    Tell me why you were wrong to stifle protest and back the invasion of Iraq, but now your right?

    Maybe Hillary will decide that she backs another constitutional amendment banning flag burning?
    How much money did Hillary get from being on the board of Walmart, while that corporation helped flood the USA with guns?

    Two can play the purity game.

    And having states that don’t help win the presidency (the confederacy) determine who the president will be is stupid. Don’t even get me started on the graft in Iowa. The democratic party is not democratic, it is bought and paid for. Who gets access to president Hillary? Goldman Sachs or real people.

    Has Hillary ever seen a war she didn’t like?

  193. 194
    Nerull says:

    @Botsplainer, Neoliberal Corporate Shill: I find it difficult to believe you are actually this stupid.

    That is one of the dumbest legal arguments I’ve ever seen. Are you trolling?

  194. 195
    Nerull says:

    I’m not sure why people are shocked to see AL wishing people dead. Has everyone forgotten her racist tirade against ABL?

Comments are closed.