As an early morning chew toy, consider the following excerpts from a New York Times editorial board op-ed published today, which serves as a counterpoint to Cole’s “Pissing It All Away” post from last night:
Bernie Sanders’s Gift to His Party
The Democratic Party and Mrs. Clinton are better off for Mr. Sanders’s presence in this race. His criticism, as Winston Churchill might say, was not agreeable. But it called necessary attention to unhealthy developments in the Democratic Party, including its at times obliviousness to the lingering economic pain of the middle class and the young, and its drift toward political caution over aspiration.
[snip]Mr. Sanders’s unwillingness to compromise has contributed to a thin record of accomplishment over his decades in Congress. While Mrs. Clinton outflanks him on both knowledge and practice of foreign policy, on domestic policy he has forced her to address the impact of trade deals and globalization, spell out her stances on clean energy and oil and gas exploration, and put more meat on her plans for college affordability. He’s exposed her failure to support $15 an hour as a federal minimum wage, and rightly called her out on the Wall Street speeches that earned her millions and her refusal to make the transcripts public.
Mr. Sanders has exposed a broad vein of discontent that Democrats cannot ignore. Predictions that Mr. Sanders’s supporters could migrate to Donald Trump in the fall are overstated, despite Mr. Trump’s cynical efforts to woo them. It’s more likely that some simply won’t vote. Mrs. Clinton is betting that many Democrats will be motivated to get to the polls if Mr. Trump is the Republican nominee. But to truly unify the party, Mrs. Clinton and party leaders must work to incorporate Mr. Sanders and what he stands for in the party’s approach to the general election. It would also help to acknowledge that the party has strayed at times from its more aspirational path.
Unlike the voices on the Republican side, Mr. Sanders’s has elevated this campaign. The Democratic Party should listen.
So who is right about the Sanders effect, Cole or the NYT editorial board? That depends on how this all winds down.
I still have a Pollyanna-ish hope that it will end well — that BernieBros and Hilldebeasts will join forces to crush Trump, restock Congress with sane people and continue President Obama’s work of dragging this nation out of the cold, dead clutches of Reaganism.
Discuss this or anything else — open thread!
Baud
On matters concerning Clinton, the NYT is always wrong, even when they are right.
cleek
boilerplate pro-Sanders blather smoothed out to comply the NYT’s style guide.
Tokyokie
I voted for Bernie in the primary, mainly for a number of the factors The Times piece cites, and I will wholeheartedly support Hillary in the general. I can’t say that I speak for the Berniebros, though. Can’t even say I speak TO them.
FlipYrWhig
Did the NYT in 2008 implore Barack Obama to “work to incorporate Ms. Clinton and what she stands for in the party’s approach to the general election”?
This is all fine, issue-oriented, tonal in a salutary way. But the aggravating thing about the way Bernie Sanders has conducted himself and the campaign for the past several months is all the corruption/cheating/suppression stuff. That dampens the idea that he’s so “aspirational.” It makes him cynical and jaundiced. Obama ’08 was aspirational. Sanders ’16 is mostly exasperated. He took the discussion from “it’s a rigged game against you and me,” a la Elizabeth Warren, and made it “it’s a rigged game against me, Bernie Sanders, the lovable rascal.” He talks about his not having a Super PAC and his average dollar donation. Who cares? Take all that stuff out and talk about what ordinary people need that they don’t get.
OzarkHillbilly
I will never trust anything the NYT says when it comes to all things Clinton. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, fuhgedaboudit. Never mind the 1,237th time.
aimai
A diarist over at dkos had a nice thing up today about doorknocking for Hillary in Indiana. He has been very politically active for a long time and has experience in doorknocking before. It sounds like it can be scary in Indiana because you might end up at a Republican door and eveyrone there is armed. He said he pretty much uniformly had great interactions with the Bernie people, whether other canvassers like himself or people at the door. Everyone was very nice and everyone said they would vote for Hillary if she got the nomination. His conclusion: online people are nuts and real world Bernie supporters (or Hillary supporters) are much nicer and more like a “family” than the online world would imply.
Keith G
It will end well, or maybe I should note the likelihood of it ending well enough but not perfectly. The problem with Cole’s (or any other) contemporary commentary is that in the age of the Internet, hundreds if not thousands of people are able to obsess about their inner, tribal demons without any significant braking action. So there have been countless pixels killed as people obsess about their emotional connection to either Barack, or Hillary, or Bernie, or some combination of all three.
In the meantime deep drinks into important policy choices that are needed to right the Ship of State tend to be underserved as it probably is a lot more fun to enjoy the adrenaline-like high of being either a Chicken Little or a Mean Girl.
[email protected]OzarkHillbilly: Actually in all fairness, the Times have been putting out some rather interesting and accurate articles about Hillary Clinton. I understand your point of view, but I think it also depends on who’s buying you are reading.
dslak
@Tokyokie: But we were counting on you to act as interpreter!
aimai
@OzarkHillbilly: This is true. If the New York Times cared that much about all of Bernie’s supposed important insights into globalization and the 15 dollar minimum wage why doesn’t the NYT champion these things with its columnists and in its non news pages. Hell–why doesn’t it give these policies a fair shot by honest coverage of crime/business/politics when it has the chance?
Marc
The Clinton team needs Sanders supporters, because she’s won the primaries and nothing that the Sanders campaign can do will change that. Treating those supporters with contempt, like the posters here regularly do, is stupid politics at this stage. I hear all the time that people should check their emotions and make the logical choice to pull the D lever in the autumn. This includes checking the impulse to be abusive to people whose votes you need in the autumn. I hear, and understand, that the autumn election isn’t about me. At this point, it’s also not about getting that high from righteous trashing of supporters of a primary opponent.
MattF
I guess I’m in the ‘politics ain’t beanbag’ school. The process of getting a Presidential nomination is ugly and sometimes brutal, but it’s also often effective and informative. We now know more about Bernie Sanders than many of us really ever wanted to know. Not fun, but probably a good thing. As for the rest, we shall see.
dslak
@Marc: See, here’s the thing. I have no problem with most Sanders supporters. It’s just the most vocal ones one sees online are also the ones most likely to be untethered from reality, or to expect Clinton or her supporters to offer them prolonged emotional therapy in exchange for their vote, who irk me.
I don’t mind Sanders supporters who just think he’s the better choice (though I seriously disagree), but there’s only so much emo nuttiness I can stand.
Bobby Thomson
Sanders has been a complete demagogue. Putting his 24-7 ad hominem aside, his bumper sticker approach to issues is naive at best and toxic at worst.
Betty Cracker
@aimai: That tracks with my real-life experience with the Sanders supporters in my family.
@Keith G: True. But interspersed among the Chicken Little and Mean Girl comments, I’ve seen discussions about trade, college tuition and labor movements that were pretty illuminating, at least for me. So it’s not all soap opera!
NotMax
Said the creator of the op-ed page, Herbert Bayard Swope of the New York Evening World, back in the 1920s, “It occurred to me that nothing is more interesting than opinion when opinion is interesting, so I devised a method of cleaning off the page opposite the editorial, which became the most important in America … and thereon I decided to print opinions, ignoring facts.”
donnah
My husband is a diehard Bernie fan and will stick by him til the bitter end. I like Bernie and I think he’s been a useful force in the race, but I will vote for Hillary in the end. There is no sane excuse in the universe to vote for Trump, period.
Keith G
@Keith G: Up above, my vocal recognition thingy heard “buying” instead of “byline”.
Bobby Thomson
@aimai: red state Democrats can’t afford to be purity ponies.
J.D. Rhoades
@Marc:
Amen.
OzarkHillbilly
@Keith G: I don’t often read the NYT (krugman and the odd article are about it) so I really can’t say, but the # of times they have had to retract anonymously sourced articles about her, troubles me deeply, not least because nobody remembers the retractions. It reinforces the impression in many minds about the “evil CORRUPT Clintons (did I say CORRUPT?)”. It gets tiresome.
rikyrah
Good Morning, Everyone :)
Patricia Kayden
@Marc: Yes, Secretary Clinton needs as many votes as she can get, including from former Senator Sanders’ supporters. No doubt about that. I just hope that Bernie Bros aren’t expecting Secretary Clinton to grovel at their feet and confess all of her sins to them. And it would be nice if Bernie Bros spent less time demonizing Secretary Clinton and the Democratic party as a whole.
J.D. Rhoades
@donnah:
The problem is not going to be Sanders supporters voting for Trump, just as in 2008 the problem wasn’t going to be Hillary supporters voting for McCain. Some probably did, but not in significant numbers.
The problem is going to be alienated millennials and progressives just leaving the process altogether, not just in this election, but forevermore, because it was more important to punch hippies and “Bernie Bros” than to try and bring them in.
JPL
@OzarkHillbilly: this.. Krugman writes opinion pieces that are pro-Clinton, but the NYTimes news stories, are poorly sourced and often corrected. Normally you see the opposite with opinion articles poorly sourced.
Cermet
How can Sanders not help Hillary!? He is getting more people involved (whether this leads to immediate voter gains is not critical) but more importantly has forced Hillary to address issues that matter to the vast majority of middle class/lower middle class voters. This can only help turn out in this vital demographic that does tend to turn out.
The Democratic party needs more Sanders pushing these issues. When Hillary gets the nomination, most Sander supporters will also support Hillary; those that support tRump are well worth loosing; those are not people that either belong nor should be encouraged to be democrats.
Patricia Kayden
@donnah: Nor is there any sane excuse to not vote at all because Secretary Clinton is not your Democratic candidate of choice. As John said in a recent post, we’re not voting for a Pope or spouse so we can put aside our personal feelings about Secretary Clinton and do the right thing.
Partisancheese
A lot of Clinton’s (and Obama’s) platform would have been considered as a moderate republican stance 30 years ago. Cole, as a former republican before they went off the deep end, of course supports Clinton as she echoes what republicans used to be. It is no surprise that he bristles at Sanders, who pushes progressive new deal type policies, as these would be too extreme for him, and have never been his thing. It’s only because republicans are so crazy that he has joined the democratic party, as democrats now have come to define right-leaning centrist policies. But true progressive policies are considered purity, pie-in-the-sky unrealistic hippie fluff, which is what turned him on to the republicans in the first place. Hence the Sanders hostility.
Keith G
@Betty Cracker: Correct you are. That is why Kevin Drum and VOX are on my bookmark bar and why I listen to some long form, policy oriented, political podcasts. To that end, allow me to recommend “No Jargon” podcast produced by the Scholars Strategy Network.
J.D. Rhoades
@Patricia Kayden: And people just love being preached to like that. I’m sure that’ll bring people running.
D58826
@Marc: It really is to early in the morning to have to refute this one more time. Most Hillary supporters on BJ have said 1. they will support Bernie if he wins; 2. they have issues with his policies; 3. they are concerned that if Bernie takes his marbles and goes home in a huff it will give the WH to the GOP 4. they are concerned that given his being a long time independent socialist his commitment to party loyalty is skin deep, and 5. he may really mean it when he talks about burning down the party establishment in order to build a more perfect party.
Those are all legitimate issues/concerns. It has nothing to do with
And the party would be committing an act of ultimate stupidity to simply dismiss the pool of voters that Bernie has attracted.
To follow up on Betty’s comment
Bernie could help lay the foundation for a strong progressive block, among many others, in the party. That block would certainly have a seat at the head table when discussing the party’s future. Of course the party should be doing that anyway regardless of how Bernie winds down his campaign but a gracious exit will make it a lot easier to call this new voting block ‘Bernie democrats’. He might not get what he wants in 2016 but 50 years from now his name could be mentioned along with other reformers like La Follette and Teddy Roosevelt. It really is his choice
JPL
IMO, Sander’s correct that the wealthy have benefited in our country for decades, but he doesn’t appear to offer viable solutions. He has the same problem as Trump. Words are not going to fix things.
DCF
@Marc:
When a Democratic presidential primary season morphs from a ‘coronation’ (isn’t that a Republican approach, as in ‘…it’s his/her turn’?) to a contest, sparks will fly and the embers will ignite both smoke and fire….
Like it or not, the Democratic party must respond to the breadth (and depth) of its historical constituency – not simply the white-collar, professional class (the top 10%).
Despite the best efforts of DWS and her minions:
Debbie Wasserman Schultz Would Exclude Independents from Voting in Primaries
http://usuncut.com/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-primaries/
I sincerely hope that the HRC cohort(s) take – and employ – this advice, as not to do so will make November 2016 far more ‘interesting’ than any of us here wish it to be….
The NYT has a gift for (diplomatic) understatement.
cleek
@Cermet:
until he stops attacking her and Democratic Party, he’s not helping her.
Chris
@aimai:
I’m a Hillary voter and I’ve been saying it for months. It’s what my anecdotal non-data says, and more importantly it’s what all the polling data says (that most Dems are fine with both of them). It’s why I’m fucking exhausted of reading about the entire Sanders phenomenon as nothing but “The Berniebros.”
cleek
@Partisancheese:
here’s the 1988 GOP platform.
see if it sounds anything like Clinton.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25846
NotMax
Just as candidates transition from primary mode to general election mode, so too does the electorate (millions of whom pay scant attention and won’t until after the Summer Olympics).
Methinks the flagellation and wadding of panties is premature, so long as whomever comes out behind at the D convention makes a gracious and rousing concession address.
J.D. Rhoades
@cleek:
Nor was Hillary ‘helping” Obama at this point in 2008.
Patricia Kayden
@srv: You’re planning to vote for Donald “She’s bleeding from her whatever” Trump and you have the nerve to talk about “liberal misogyny”? Get the hell out of here!
You’re not fooling anyone here. You need to stick with your brethren at Stormfront or KKK.org.
MomSense
The only person in my family who is a Sanders supporter is my mom. Throughout her career and political life she was always a stickler for details. On Sunday my kids were trying to find out why she supports Sanders and her only answer was that she likes him. They asked her about the NYDN interview and she said she hadn’t read it, didn’t really care about it. They tried to find out which policies she likes and she just repeated the slogans without any explanation. She shushed them when they asked about his votes on guns. My kids were completely shocked at this incredible change in my Mom.
I really don’t think he has pushed Clinton or anyone to the left. He certainly hasn’t educated us about why he has the opinions he has. The NYDN interview demonstrated how superficial his knowledge of his core issues is. That wasn’t even a gotcha interview. They didn’t even ask any tough questions. He should have aced that interview but he was incapable of answering simple questions about why or how something would work.
In the absence of substance on trade, finance, banking, etc we are getting mostly charges of corruption and attacks that are personal in nature. This is not helpful going into a must win election with a divided electorate and a Republican biased news media.
J.D. Rhoades
@Chris:
You and me both, Chris.
dslak
@J.D. Rhoades: Nope. Just because your fee-fees are hurt doesn’t mean there’s danger of millennials not voting. You’ll need to find another reason for us to think your feelings are the most important consideration here.
D58826
@JPL: Saying that the wealthy have benefited for decades is like saying the sun comes up in the east. I suspect the 99% would be quite happy to go back to the income distribution of the 1950’s (assuming it included POC, etc)
To cite a number George Romney made 60 times what his assembly line workers made. Today that ratio is 300 to 1. Going back to 60 to 1 still leaves the wealthy more than comfortable and certainly helps everyone else. And no the 1950s were not perfect.
MattF
@OzarkHillbilly: You’d think that the NYT (and the WaPo) would learn that right-wing sources just want to get their stories out on the front page– truth isn’t even a consideration. The recent WaPo fiasco about the number of FBI agents on Hillary’s case (‘over 150’ becomes ‘well, less than 50’ becomes ‘less than 10’) is only the most recent case. It’s a problem.
rikyrah
I’m a Rock, You’re Water
by BooMan
Mon May 2nd, 2016 at 06:17:42 PM EST
Right-wing polling of Florida paints the bleakest of pictures for Donald Trump in November, and it’s probably accurate, at least for now. Naturally, the candidates have to have their conventions, pick their running mates, run the gauntlet of a campaign that will last for about 120 days, and see what they can do by why of inspiring organizers to get out in the field to work for them. Things will happen both here at home and in the wider world that could change how the public views their choices.
But…
Donald Trump currently doesn’t stand a chance in Florida and it’s just as likely to get worse for him than it is to get better.
A couple of things are really working against Trump. The first is that Hillary Clinton already has net negative numbers in the Sunshine State, and yet she’s still absolutely crushing him. It’s pretty unlikely that Trump can drive her negatives a whole lot higher, so he’s got to do something first and foremost with his gonorrhea-like popularity with key Florida voting blocs.
The second thing is that she’s disciplined and he’s not. When you combine this with the comparative immutability of her approve/disapprove numbers, it’s clear that Trump is both more likely to make mistakes and more likely to pay a substantial price for them.
Now, it’s true that Trump could still win without Florida, but that would require an acrobatic feat like somehow winning Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, and Colorado. That would give him the near-bare minimum of 271 Electoral College votes.
And, let’s face it, some of the reasons that Trump is doing so poorly in Florida would also screw him in other states. His abysmal rating with Latinos would certainly hamper his ability to win in Colorado, and probably Virginia as well. His crap numbers with suburban women would cause big problems not only in Virginia, but also in Ohio. And I just think New Hampshire is a lost cause for him even if he somehow manages to find some other winning combination.
aimai
@Marc: Where is this trashing supposed to be happening? In relaity Hillary Clinton has specifically reached out to Bernie supporters to ask them politely to join her. In reality you don’t know (and I sincerely doubt) that Hillary contacts with Bernie supporters have been other than polite and respectful–viz: the doornocking diary I referenced above. In reality people talking shit on the internet has nothing to do with people’s real life experiences of candidates or voting. If some internet bernie people would make it less all about their feelings of grief it would be very, very, nice. A primary election is simply no place for this level of hysterical identification with the candidate. Its a vote, not a wedding. And if you do treat it as a marriage then you are, of course, going to get your feelings hurt when other people say they aren’t celebrating it the way you want them to.
J.D. Rhoades
@dslak:
And, there it is.
Good luck with the outreach. Taking millennials and progressives for granted is the path to eventual irrelevancy. You’re eating the seed corn.
Bobby Thomson
@Marc: I don’t treat Sanders’ supporters writ large with contempt. I treat specific Sanders supporters who are assholes with contempt, just as I did the PUMAs. Because they are assholes.
dslak
@J.D. Rhoades: This may come to a shock to one as wrapped up in their feelings as yourself, but outreach does not begin and end with self-obsessed whiners. Just because you feel sorry for yourself does not mean anyone else should feel sorry for you, as well.
KC from the DMV
@Marc: Mrs Clinton should give a modicum of respect to all Americans. But what besides her stated policy positions should she do to get your vote. Hillary Clinton been around forever, if you don’t trust her she there’s very little she can do from a distance to change your mind.
And as far as random people on blogs being nice to you. How and why is it a good thing to admit in public, that if someone isn’t nice on the Internet, I’m going to change my vote?
Betty Cracker
@DCF: You frame it as if it’s prima facie evidence of political malfeasance, but the question of whether or not Democrats should have open primaries is a legitimate one, IMO. I can see both sides of that question, i.e., on the nay side, why should an organization cede its right to select its leader to non-members? And on the yay side, open primaries might bring more people into the party. What’s the basis for your opinion that closed primaries are automatically a bad thing?
rikyrah
Republicans’ voter-ID laws ‘work’ as intended
05/03/16 08:00 AM
By Steve Benen
In recent weeks, we’ve seen some high-profile examples of Republicans accidentally telling the truth about voter-ID laws. Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.), a far-right freshman congressman, admitted a month ago, for example, that these laws are likely to make a difference boosting Republicans in the 2016 elections.
Former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), now the head of the Heritage Foundation, added last week that Republicans have kept up the crusade in support of this policy “because in the states where they do have voter ID laws you’ve seen, actually, elections begin to change towards more conservative candidates.”
But what sometimes goes overlooked is the fact that anti-voting policymakers aren’t just spinning their wheels, pushing an idea that may or may not have some effects on the margins. As the New York Times reported yesterday, Republicans are championing voter-ID laws precisely because they have the intended effect.
Since their inception a decade ago, voter identification laws have been the focus of fierce political and social debate. Proponents, largely Republican, argue that the regulations are essential tools to combat election fraud, while critics contend that they are mainly intended to suppress turnout of Democratic-leaning constituencies like minorities and students.
As the general election nears – in which new or strengthened voter ID laws will be in place in Texas and 14 other states for the first time in a presidential election – recent academic research indicates that the requirements restrict turnout and disproportionately affect voting by minorities.
The Times highlighted a study published by Zoltan Hajnal, a UC San Diego political science professor, whose research found that “strict voter ID laws double or triple the gap in turnout between whites and nonwhites.”
None of this is accidental. It’s a feature, not a bug, of a deliberate assault on democracy. Republicans, frustrated by a series of defeats, had a choice: change and adapt in order to appeal to a larger group of American voters, or take steps to rig the game in order to give GOP candidates a built-in advantage.
In recent years, the party has preferred the latter, finding it vastly easier than actually earning more public support.
Cermet
@DCF: When you say “Debbie Wasserman Schultz Would Exclude Independents from Voting in Primaries” so fucking what? That is a very, very good thing. AS an independent I do not support any party during the primaries and most certainly do not have a “right” to vote in a primary only poll. Also, many independents (really, most) are very aligned and frankly, many (far too many) thugs have drifted to independent and these are not the type that should be deciding who the democratic nominee will be.
If Sanders feels that all primaries should be open, please. That is just a stupid policy; yes, a State party can decide such but to claim this should be required is dumb – why have parties at all? Wait, is that what he wants? Then say so but to attack someone in your own party (for now – sure he will leave it very soon) is not dumb but stupid. A party hack will of course want a closed primary – duh. Nothing wrong with that unless you want thugs to determine your party choice … wait, that just might be what Sanders really wants? Then he is stupid.
Bobby Thomson
@J.D. Rhoades: and she was wrong. Shove your Tu quoque up your ass.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@KC from the DMV: Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to you newsletter.
Remember when Bernie was asked to name an instance of Hillary’s corruption, and he couldn’t, and the next week he released an ad that doubled down on his message about the Witch of Wall St and her speaking fees? so elevating, so aspirational, so coalition building.
aimai
@MomSense: Your mother chooses who she votes for–at least this time around–the same way most people do. They choose the candidate or the brand that resonates with them and they then simply ignore disconfirming information. They “weren’t paying attention” or they “didn’t read that article” or they “don’t like the way the newscaster talks so they don’t watch his show” or they are “sure it was just a misstatement” or they “know they heard a totally different story from someone else” or “everyone has off days” or whatever.
This is why there is no point arguing with someone about their vote–for the most part they have already made up their minds and if they are going to switch it is giong to be for other reasons, possibly at the last moent, secretely while at the ballot. Conversely, they may say they are going to switch to please close friends and neighbors but then go through with thei roriginal choice.
I’m not really worried about most Sanders voters because I am pretty sure they will learn to love the Hillz when she is the only person standing between them and Trump. At tha tpoint we will hear a lot less about “she needs to earn my vote (i.e. I hate her and she won’t ever get my vote because she doesn’t deserve it” and a lot more about “saaaaaave me Hill! Saaaaave me!”
Right now (or earlier in the primary) a lot of people who feel powerless felt like their vote was a kind of prize, a sign of their importance. Like Iowans who are routinely pampered with attention early in the race they loved the feelng that people were vying for their vote and their attention. They becoe like a toddler, clutching at this magical talisman that, for a few brief months, makes them feel special. Later in the race a lot of people settle down and realize that the vote is not, in fact, a sign of their personal importance but a tool they use to get something that they want–a slightly better president than the Republicans will give them.
rikyrah
This is a damn shame.
This is MEDICAID funds, people. They should investigate to see if someone got kickbacks from the Nursing Homes that these people were funnelled into….uh huh
………………
South Dakota Wrongly Puts Thousands in Nursing Homes, Government Says
By MATT APUZZO
MAY 2, 2016
WASHINGTON — When patients in South Dakota seek help for serious but manageable disabilities such as severe diabetes, blindness or mental illness, the answer is often the same: With few alternatives available, they end up in nursing homes or long-term care facilities, whether they need such care or not.
In a scathing rebuke of the state’s health care system, the Justice Department said on Monday that thousands of patients were being held unnecessarily in sterile, highly restrictive group homes. That is discrimination, it said, making South Dakota the latest target of a federal effort to protect the civil rights of people with disabilities and mental illnesses, outlined in a Supreme Court decision 17 years ago.
The Obama administration has opened more than 50 such investigations and reached settlements with eight states. One investigation, into Florida’s treatment of children with disabilities, ended in a lawsuit over policies that placed those children in nursing homes. With its report Monday, the Justice Department signaled that it might also sue South Dakota.
While the administration has received widespread attention for investigating police abuses and supporting the rights of gay and transgender people, the Justice Department has also steadily made these cases part of its civil rights agenda. The government says that those efforts have allowed more than 53,000 Americans with disabilities to leave institutions or avoid them altogether. It is a small number compared with the 250,000 working-age people who are estimated to be needlessly living in nursing homes, but advocates say the federal campaign has had significant effects.
Marc
@KC from the DMV: My point is one of tactics. You treat people that you want to persuade differently from the way that you treat political opponents. The NYTimes editorial is actually a nice illustration of how to execute this pivot. Yes, Clinton won; yes, Sanders had a point; yes, those concerns are legit. Now let’s go ahead together.
There is just nothing to be gained by picking at scabs over and over again. Keeping your eyes on the prize means supporting the Dem in the autumn and it means resisting the urge to rub salt in the wounds of people whose preferred candidate just lost. Even if they’re acting out and being upset and emotional, because those are pretty normal human responses at this point in the cycle.
aimai
@J.D. Rhoades: No one is taking anyone for granted. Climb off the cross we need the wood. This continued whining is just pathetic. During the general election we will call for “all hands on deck” and therefore we will be calling for, and working with, everyone who wants a better future than Trump is offering. Millenials and self described progressives (not the real ones who are already on board) will either work for everyone’s common good or they won’t. It won’t be for lack of asking or because people “take them for granted” whatever that stupid phrase means.
Cermet
@rikyrah: All excellent points that bear repeating here from time to time for the faint hearted …
aimai
@srv: You do realize that this just means that the average Indiana white male republican is just more confirmed in his racism and misogyny than his female counterpart. Right? And that Hillary can afford to lose pretty much allllllllll the white men and still win handily? Or do you, like the Republican analytic group, think that women’s votes don’t count?
NotMax
@rikyrah
Isn’t that the state motto of South Dakota?
(George McGovern being an exception to the rule.)
rikyrah
UH HUH
UH HUH
Michigan Governor Backtracks, Seeking to Meet Obama in Flint
By JULIE BOSMAN and SCOTT ATKINSON
MAY 2, 2016
FLINT, Mich. — Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan has a question for President Obama: Want to get together?
In a rare overture by a Republican governor to the Democratic leader, Mr. Snyder said on Monday that he had made a formal request for a meeting with the president, hoping to sit down with Mr. Obama during his visit to Flint planned for Wednesday.
Mr. Snyder’s comments reversed a statement he made last week during a trip to Europe when he was asked whether he would meet with Mr. Obama. In response, the governor appeared to give the president the brushoff.
“I’ve got a pretty full schedule next week,” Mr. Snyder told The Detroit News by telephone from Zurich, adding that he did not plan on being in Flint on Wednesday.
On Monday, Mr. Snyder seemed eager to amend those remarks, saying that he had made a request to Karen Weaver, the mayor of Flint, to meet with her and Mr. Obama.
Cermet
@srv:This proves that you don’t have the slightest idea of what you post means (whoops – might go for me too – ed.)- exactly what is a tRump supporter but stupid and racist. So, a negative ad is supposed to change their minds and this somehow related to Hillary or Liberals? What a joke your logic turns out to be. Not just stupid but clueless as well. LOL
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Talking about Hillary’s negatives reminds me of a scene from The Sopranos where the mob wives are having lunch and her name comes up, and they all voice disgust until Rosalie Aprile– who but for the patriarchy of Their Thing would’ve been running North Jersey and probably New York– explains to them that she should be a role model– “she took her husband’s shit, and spun it into gold’. People have been told for almost thirty years that they shouldn’t like her, but when challenged to explain why they– like Bernie!– come up short.
John D
@Partisancheese:
Oh, FFS.
Can we stop with this? Please? It’s 100% bullshit.
30 years ago was 1986. Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority fucking RULED the GOP. There is absolutely nothing in Obama’s or Clinton’s positions that would have been anything but anathema to the GOP at that time.
bemused
@rikyrah:
Lying, cheating skunks and their “family values” consciences aren’t bothered at all. They’re proud lying, cheating skunks.
rikyrah
Because, this is who they are.
………………
House Republican proposal would make it harder for poor schools to feed their students
By Jared Bernstein and Ben Spielberg
May 2
………………………….
[A] new proposal by congressional conservatives would restrict community eligibility, substantially increasing administrative burdens in more than 7,000 schools and threatening 3.4 million students’ access to school meals. For no good reason that we can see, lawmakers from the Education and the Workforce Committee may vote soon to raise the ISP threshold from 40 percent to 60 percent. Because [Identified Student Percentage] numbers don’t capture low-income students who must typically apply for free or reduced-price meals, this threshold would render all but the highest-poverty schools (generally those in which more than 90 percent of students qualify for free or reduced-price meals) ineligible for community eligibility.
Raising the threshold would save a little bit of money, as fewer students would qualify for free school meals, but the overall savings of about $1.6 billion over 10 years wouldn’t come close to offsetting the administrative burden, increased social stigma for low-income students, and negative health and academic effects it could create.
D58826
@Betty Cracker: You beat me to it. I would add that DCF, dollered and a few others are why most of the Hillary commenters get frustrated.
Closed primaries have been around for a long time. Bernie know that NY was a closed primary when he entered the race. They are not a device designed just to cheat Bernie out of the nomination. The issue of open vs closed primaries is a valid one but you don’t get to change the rules in mid-stream. Work within the party and get the rules changed.
And speaking of unfair and anti-democratic – what about those caucuses. Seems like they are set up in a way that only folks with a lot of free time can attend. They are a much more time intensive process then just voting. Since Bernie’s voters seem to skew more upscale it gives him an advantage in the caucuses. A lot of voters just can’t get the time off to attend a caucus as apposed to a day long election . Now why aren’t the Bernie folks complaining about THAT. It would not have anything to do with the caucus system breaking in Bernie’s favor. Nah, he would never let a crass thought like that affect his revolution.
And yes Bernie folks that is a shot. So save your keystrokes for something else
aimai
@rikyrah: We have such failures, up and down the scale, with people with disabilities and difficult health care situations. I know of several such families on my street and without the full time care of an adult like a parent or a sibling lots of people would have to go to nursing homes–if nursing homes were even available. Its brutal out there. We should absolutely do everythign we can, as a society, to help people avoid being placed in nursing homes but, honestly, the family safety net is so threadbare that lots of people just don’t have anyone to help with the daily tasks needed for autonomous living.
Chyron HR
@J.D. Rhoades:
Well, I’m sure everyone here will see things your way now. After all, people love being preached to like that.
Marc
@aimai: Read the goddamn comments on this blog. I thought that the choice between Sanders and Clinton was tough, but I voted for him in the end – because I’ve always been a liberal and I agree with him on the issue more. No problem in pulling the lever for Clinton at all in the autumn for me., of course – I’m a Democrat. It isn’t the first time my preferred candidate didn’t win.
However, when I come here there is a casual, continuous level of hostility and contempt towards Sanders and his supporters. Many, many of them have repeatedly noted this. It’s made a community that I’ve been part of for many years seem actively unpleasant to me, and I’m not alone. We saw a lot of online communities fracture in the 2008 season and it’d be a shame to repeat that knowing what we know now.
So, yeah, if a big group of people who basically agree with you on almost everything say that they’re being treated poorly, listen. I think that Betty sets a good tone, for what it’s worth.
Princess
By the end of this process, Sanders is going to be so deeply in debt he is going to have to support Hillary, and support her vocally and often for her to retire his debt. That’s the trap Hillary found herself in in 08, and Sanders is falling right into the same one.
Fair Economist
@Partisancheese:
Bzzt, sorry, no. None of these positions were ever supported by a substantial portion of elected Republicans in the past half-century at least, and often ever:
Higher taxes targeted at the wealthy
Major increases in the minimum wage
Equal pay for women
Governmental support for unionization
Major expansions to Medicaid
Restrictions on Wall Street significant enough to break up one of the world’s largest companies
Medical Marijuana
Equal Marriage
It’s a simple fact that both Obama and Hillary are distinctly to the left of any substantial faction in the Republican party, ever.
John D
@DCF:
The “historical constituency” of the Democrats post-Dixiecrat defection is minorities, women, and labor. Clinton is crushing Sanders in the “historical constituency”.
aimai
@rikyrah: Rikyrah, I want you to be a front page poster. You always pull up the best stuff for discussion. John Cole????Are you listening???
Linnaeus
@rikyrah:
Snyder just keeps stepping in it.
aimai
@John D: This a thousand times. I just can’t believe the egotism of these people when they start in with this “historical constituency” or “the wave of the future” stuff. This country is going to be majority minority pretty soon–white college kids are not the wave of the future (sorry to break it to my daughters but its true).
The Other Chuck
I think you’re both right. Cole is pissed at Sanders because the party does need his message, but Sanders is pissing it away whining about process. That’s my take anyway.
rikyrah
As a Hamilton Fanatic- YEAHHHHHH!!!
Eyewitness News ✔ @ABC7NY
BREAKING: Megahit musical “Hamilton” has grabbed a record-breaking 16 Tony Award nominations.
D58826
Since the thread has a number of topics from Huffington –
first of all these people are sick. Second what she is proposing is probably illegal. And third who is she going to recruit to do this. What self respecting man, other than a pervert, would do this just to prove some political point –
O. Felix Culpa
Mnem alert: “Hamilton” just nominated for a record 16 Tony awards!
MattF
@John D: Well, he didn’t mean literally 30 years ago. In the actualized part of the space-time continuum that we occupy, 30 years ago was during the reign of St. Reagan. He means, like, ‘thirty years ago = infinity’.
p.a.
On a ‘macro’ level Bernie is ideologically correct about his ONE BIG IDEA ™: changes in the world economic system have had a marginal negative effect on the US middle & working class(es). The big hit has come because of social, financial, and taxation legislation enacted at all levels of US government, often with Democrats acting as fellow travellers, not as resistance.. As often stated, if you only give people a choice between fake Republicans and real Republicans, they’ll chose real every time. Others will just stay home.
“B-b-but things would have been worse without Dem input…” How much worse? Slow poison or rapid, you’re still poisoned.
Pointing this out, day after day, (that’s what it is taking to cause any change in the sclerotic national party) is his one big positive.
Tactically, he and his team are stupid whiners, but I think/hope these things are ephemeral in the political process.
Miss Bianca
@Betty Cracker:
Word.
aimai
@Marc: I’m really sorry for you. You seem to be taking things said directly to DCF, Dollared, SRV and others personally. You don’t have to. Thats a choice you are making. And just because you don’t see your position as hostile to Hillary, and you don’t see that you have ever said anything hurtful or agressively unpleasant to people on this blog doesn’t mean that they haven’t received some pretty vile attacks online elsewhere. Because I can assure you that as a Hillary supporter I have been personally and savagely attacked by Bernie supporters over and over again. As has my candidate. And those attacks continue to this day while you are preaching some kind of kumbaya.
You are sad because Balloon Juice turns out to have a cadre of vocal Clinton supporters who are tired of taking other people’s shit? This turns out to be one of the few places that I and (I daresay) flipyrwhig, the Conster, and others have been able to find other likeminded Hillary supporters to stand up for us when we (or Hillary) are attacked as war mongering, corrupt, corporate whores and republican lite dead enders. That is personally and directly attacked.
Your experience of hostility is not my experience and my experience is not your experience but I can assure you that if you would step outside your bubble you would recognize that other people’s experiences are just as valid as yours. Before Bernie was losing we were all told to play nice and tip toe around Bernie voter’s feelings because they were so vicious and agressive online and in person. Now we are being told to tip toe around because any moment they might realize that the big enemy is Trump and stop lashing out at Hillary. I’m tired of waiting. Just shut up about your feelings already. Bernie and his voters were intolerable while winning and they are just as bad while whining.
DCF
@Betty Cracker:
The ‘closed’ primaries approach substantiates the ‘tribalism’ trend pioneered by the Republican party, where compartmentalization of the ‘Democratic’ constituency is lauded while (constructive) criticisms are regarded as disruptive and/or ‘disloyal’. Independents are America’s largest bloc of voters. Does the Democratic establishment so fear their political orientation(s) that it ‘reacts’ to – rather than reflects upon – their inclusion in our primary process? Furthermore, does it wish to cede that voting bloc – in whole or part – to the Republicans (i.e., Reagan Democrats)?
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@John D:
Be careful now – that will hurt the feelings of our progressive betters who, for some reason only a psychiatrist could unravel, need to come here to whine about how mean we are for not supporting their need to be told how extraordinarily special they and their little vote is in every way.
aimai
@p.a.: “If you give people a choice between a fake Republican and a real Republican” they will choose the Republican every time is kind of misleading. Because its far from obvious that if you give people a choice between a real progressive and a real republican that some very large portion of the American people won’t choose the god damned Republican every time. The way taxes were rolled back on the 1 percent has been very slow, very clever, and largely paid for by the billions spent by just a few big families. They have the time and energy and know how to do it. Clinton built up a huge surpus and Bush simply gave it away with a sundown clause that was then used to nearly destroy Obama as he tried to put it back up. This stuff is complicated. And the fact of the matter is that the American voter–the average voter–has preferred Republican lies to progressive or Democratic truth telling for years.
John D
@Marc:
Stop with the martyrdom. I’ve been pushing back on Sanders’ supporters in THIS VERY THREAD because they is saying stupid shit. Not because they support Sanders. But because they are claiming things that are factually incorrect. This in turn gets reported as “Hillary supporters are mean!”.
Fuck. That. Noise.
I do not hold Sanders in contempt. I do not hold his supporters in contempt. I hold people saying stupid shit like “Clinton and Obama would be Republicans 30 years ago” in contempt, because they are expressing contemptible thoughts. If the Sanders supporters mistake irritation for contempt, I can see why the online exchanges here are hurting their feelings. I’m very, very tired of being told that I have to soothe those feelings or they’ll withhold their vote. No, I don’t. My mantra is “Do your goddamn civic duty, vote for your preferred candidate, and deal with the consequences like an adult”. It is not my job to encourage them. I’ve stated dozens of times why I came around to viewing Clinton as the better candidate after voting for Sanders in the primary. If they disagree, that is totally fine, and how the process is supposed to work. Vote for whoever they want, but vote.
But they need to stop threatening to not vote because of ME. I hold no responsibility for them and their abrogation of their duty. Nobody does but them .
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@aimai:
The night Sanders won several state caucuses had some of the vilest racist and sexist shit I’ve ever seen, from Bernie’s camp. If you look through Joan Walsh’s or Goldie Taylor’s or Joy Reid’s twitter timelines and read the stuff they’ve left there for posterity, it’s pretty shocking – and from so-called “progressives”. They’re worse when they win, and that’s saying something.
Vote for Hillary, don’t vote for Hillary – I don’t care, just stop whining that it’s up to someone here on BJ to stroke you into it. Grow up. Or not.
DCF
@John D:
The Democratic party abandoned the labor movement in the 1970s. Since that time, it has also shifted focus away from the middle and working (the ‘poors’) classes. Why, you may ask?…well, those groups are not where the monies are….
Linnaeus
@srv:
That’s among registered Republican voters.
Kay
@aimai:
I just don’t think this is 100% solid- there’s a lot of info out there that runs counter to it:
Obviously Clinton has much more AA support and she’s always been strong w/Latinos but there IS a younger/older thing going on that crosses.
I tend to think it’s that they just don’t identify as Democrats and they really don’t have a history w/the Clintons. Obviously they can read about it- they don’t have to experience something directly to understand it- but what I heard again and again from Democrats about Clinton in ’08 was they “know” her. That’s important.
rikyrah
The implosion of Ted Cruz
By Dana Milbank Opinion writer May 2 at 4:19 PM
……………………………..
But if Fiorina picked investments the way she picked her candidate, you can see why HP stopped requiring her services. She bought Cruz at the peak, when polls showed him close in Indiana. But an NBC-Wall Street Journal poll Sunday found Trump up 15 points.
And now Cruz and Fiorina have to explain all those things she used to say about him: that “Cruz is just like any other politician”; that “there’s no honor in charging a hill that you know you can’t take, only casualties, although Ted Cruz maybe got name recognition and money”; and that it was “odd that Senator Ted Cruz did not renounce his dual Canadian citizenship until 2014.”
Cruz now also has to defend Fiorina’s record at HP, where she let go thousands and sent jobs to India and China. “Will the Cruz-Fiorina team do the same thing to Indiana that she did to Hewlett-Packard?” Fox News’s Chris Wallace asked Cruz on Sunday.
The treatment didn’t improve for Cruz when he took questions from reporters Monday morning in Indiana: How can he possibly beat Trump in California? Is there a path to victory if he doesn’t win in Indiana? Would he drop out of the race before the convention in July?
“I am competing to the end,” said Cruz, reminding all of his endorsement from Pence — and his running mate. “I am so proud this week to be standing shoulder to shoulder with my vice-presidential nominee, Carly Fiorina.”
But Fiorina was not standing at his shoulder later Monday, when he waded bravely into a group of Trump supporters outside his event. Cruz bravely tried to engage them in calm discussion. “Donald Trump is deceiving you. He is playing you for a chump,” Cruz said.
The Trump supporters taunted Cruz: “Do the math. . . . Time to drop out. . . . You are the problem, politician. . . . Where’s your Goldman Sachs jacket? . . . Lyin’ like you always do. . . . Are you Canadian?” America, one said, would be a better country “without you.”
bemused
@rikyrah:
It doesn’t matter what lame justifications they dream up. Millions of children will be even more hungry than they are now. I hate these people. I swear if they came upon children begging for food in our streets, they’d avert their eyes and walk on by.
aimai
@DCF: Independents are not progressives. They are Repubilcans who don’t affiliate with the Republican party for emotional reasons or Democrats who for one reason or another don’t affiliate (don’t want the news published in red states for example). Opening up primaries creates a situation in which you are, potentially, allowing the dixiecrats back in the tent.
I have said this elsewhere but the Bernie people are acting like racism doesn’t split the white working class from the non white working class, and the white working class from progressives and (gasp) marxists. It always has and it certainly is still doing so. Trump’s success is basically based on this obvious fact. Bernie and (some) of his supporters keep appealing to this mythical “independent” voter by whom they seem to mean whiteethnicworkingclassreagandemocrats (you have to run it together because it is so badly conceptualized). These people either don’t exist or are really happy where they are: voting for Trump because he is offering them the heaping doses of misogyny and racism that they really like. The Democrats are never going to go back to offering them that-ergo those voters aren’t going to become democrats and shouldn’t be invited into the primary to ratfuck us and our base voters.
Emma
@John D: Thank you. Saved me a lot of typing.
John D
@DCF:
Stop being an idiot.
The #1 — by far — most reliable voting bloc for Democrats is … minority women. I’ll let you explain how that group controls all the money.
dr. bloor
@DCF: Independents are, and always have been, free to join or leave the Democratic party as they choose. Even if they just want to be a part of it for the primary season, like Sanders. No one is afraid of anyone’s political orientation, or has any desire to shut it out of the party process. Just check the fucking box.
dslak
Sanders supporters better show more respect for my feelings, or else I won’t vote for Bernie after he wins a contested convention.
ruemara
I celebrate your Pollyannaish tendencies, but no, this is not so. However, I fear that this is a divide that requires a serious amount of outside experience to see why I’m saying that. Perhaps we can leave off on “Bernie, Progressive Thought Leader & Saint or just Sainted Leader?”, maybe we look at a state by state candidate list so we know who to vote for? Bernie will be in
griftingcampaigning for at least another month or so. I’m sure he’ll say or do something worthy of actual discussion in the time remaining.Amir Khalid
S counterpoint to te New York Times, from Jonathan Chait.
aimai
@Kay: OK, you’ve said this before several times, do you think this is really a new thing? I mean–in every election there is a rising cohort of new voters. Do you think they are always registered with one party or another? I mean–if their parents don’t take them down and register them? Do you think that the fact that people are, right now, registered as independent/unenrolled/decline to state is proof positive that they won’t prefer the Democrat in most elections on purely policy grounds?
We no longer have a Democratic machine handing out goodies so I wouldn’t really expect younger people to affiliate directly. But that doesn’t change the fact that more or less the Democratic party fulfills more of what progressives and younger people are looking for than the Republican party. Bernie’s voters aren’t going anywhere–unless they give up voting almost before they start and perhaps that is a real danger.
But this is actually more like some iteration of game theory than a zero sum game. People can and should prefer choice B over choice A when those are the two choices on offer, and then go on and happilly pick choice A over choice Z. This just isn’t that big a deal if choice B doesn’t spend all his time talking about how A and Z are identical.
I’m not saying that Bernie (it) or something like Bernie isn’t going to be the mood of the voter going forward. I’d celebrate it if I thought it were true. But that has nothing to do with this election. Bernie is not the choice of the majority of Dems this time around and hopefully his voters will realize that by the time the general comes around. That’s no disrespect to Bernie, actually, or his voters. I think the millenials and self described progressives can figure out how to bail a leaky boat before we all drown arguing over who should hold the scoop.
gene108
@Marc:
If Sanders supporters would quit flooding Facebook, for example, with anti-Clinton memes that drudge up 20+ years of right wing lies about the Clintons, a lot of us would find it easier to bury the hatchet.
I understand the feeling we need radical change, and if we could transition to a Bernie-utopia, I’d be O.K. with it.
I am not O.K. with people repeating right-wings lies about how the Clintons murdered, stole, etc in their rise to power or how the Clinton Foundation is some sort of personal slush fund for them.
Formerly disgruntled Clinton supporter
Voted over the weekend, mail-in for Oregon’s upcoming primary. Spousal unit, Mrs. Disgruntled, voted Bernie. Gotta make that statement!
I think I have the only Hillary bumper sticker in my liberal town of 50k.
ruemara
@Kay: when we say “know them” this doesn’t mean media coverage. The Clinton’s have a record of work on things their whole life that have affected our lives in good & bad ways. Sanders has arrest records from college and a very negative statement from minority groups in VT. He also has a bad habit of saying some very benign stereotypes as if they were fact. Both of those combined with rhetoric over results has given him minuscule support amount the AAs that actually vote, which is not the 17-29 yr olds.
Poopyman
@John D: A-fucking-men!
aimai
@Formerly disgruntled Clinton supporter: You won’t know who voted for Clinton until the votes are counted. I don’t have a bumpersticker on my car for her–almost no one I know does–its Bernie everywhere here. I was afraid of the real world hostility to any display of support for her. But she won by three percent. That’s not a lot but it means that more than half of us were voting for her largely without displaying any signage.
Kay
@aimai:
I don’t think she has to panic and run around courting young people, but pretending it’s just white college students ignores a lot of information.
Under 30. They’re not all 21.
Something’s going on with that. Democrats would be nuts to ignore it. It isn’t about “preferring” one group or another or measuring loyalty (except as that relates to turnout, which it does) it’s that it’s true and they should look at it.
aimai
@Kay: I clicked on that link and found myself reading another “#Berniemademewhite” article that leads off with Hawaii–Hawaii was another caucus state. The caucus skewed white even while the voting population doesn’t. And how Bernie was supposed to be favored by non white Hawaiians while he has personally attacked President Obama, the first and only Hawaiian born President, is beyond me.
Redshift
@DCF:
Oh, get a grip. Closed primaries that have been around for a century are not part of the “tribalism” trend. The fact that Republicans have created a media bubble for themselves does not retroactively make them bad for all the many years they did not contribute to the tribalism trend.
And if you think the purpose (or effect) of closed primaries is to keep out dissenting opinions and criticism, you’ve clearly never been to a Democratic Party event – the old Jewish joke about if you ask two of them a question, you’ll get at least three opinions applies equally well to Democrats. If Dems were trying to keep out dissent and disloyalty, why is the barrier so low that saying you’re a Democrat is literally the only thing you have to do to participate?
DCF
@John D:
I chose to respond to your particular (dismissive) response because it is emblematic of the smug, conventional and fearful perspective of so many HRC (hive) supporters on this blog commentariat. If you wish to willfully ignore the role(s) of Mammon in politics – and the priorities and policies arising from it – then do so…or, you could actually read and/or listen to perspectives not absolutely congruent with your own, and potentially entertain (dare I say it?) a certain measure of cognitive dissonance with respect to the future of the Democratic party….
I’m deeply grateful to Sanders for having the moxy to shake up a heretofore (increasingly) ideologically cloistered Democratic party. The result(s) can only benefit the party – and more importantly, the country….
aimai
@Kay: No one is ignoring it! I don’t get why you think this is a winning strategy to cassandra around like this about it. Some voters are always going to like some candidates. Voting is a very social moment and people vote like the people around them. Its not revolutionary and its not a big deal. I, frankly, would expect younger voters to group together because younger voters, like church going voters, are very networked in and very sensitive to group think. Thats not good or bad, its just a fact. But in any event no one is ignoring younger voters. This is a complete red herring. People are fighting an election–they will work hard to mobilize everyone because they always do and because there is no other choice. Younger voters (seeing that 30 is the new 21) can get off their asses and work within the party to elect new and better democrats to seats where they can. No one is stopping them.
Marc
@aimai: I can recognize that the flip side of my experiences holds too. I have dear old high school friends (and that was a long time ago) saying stupid things about Clinton on Facebook too. I can see how that would be exasperating. My take-away from all of this is to be more empathetic to others, rather than finding a place where I get to lash out. YMMV.
Betty Cracker
@DCF: I’m not sure there’s any evidence to support your claim that closed primaries stifle dissent and increase tribalism — the parties themselves are open to any eligible voter, and on the local level, I’ve seen first hand that it’s easy to get involved in district and county-level party business; you just have to show up!
Now, it’s true that like any large organization, parties are hard to change. People and opinions become entrenched. But if sufficient numbers of people push, change happens. If anything, this might be an argument for forcing more people into the party system than letting them participate as unaffiliated voters. It’s easy to show up every four years and vote in one election. It’s harder to get involved.
Re: ceding independent voters to Republicans — is there any evidence that’s happening? Do Republicans have more open primaries than Democrats? Honest question — I have no idea. Like I said, I think the best argument for open primaries is that it gets independents to cast a vote (hopefully for a Democrat, from my perspective) and thus gives them a stake in the general.
Just One More Canuck
@aimai: reminds me of a line from the Big Bang Theory:
“He’s a poor loser, isn’t he?”
“To be honest, he’s a pretty unpleasant winner, too.”
Marc
@aimai: There is a fairly straightforward calculus here: are your tactics effective? If your target audience is telling you that what you’re doing isn’t working, re-calibrate. I’m interested in having a D in the White House in 2017, and I want to choose an approach that makes this more likely. Even if it’d be more satisfying to unload on people who don’t see the light.
rikyrah
@srv:
BUT BUT BUT……
remember when we were lectured that Trump only appealed to a ‘sliver’ of the GOP?
remember those days?
Cermet
@srv:This does clarify, I believe, your point. OK, then.
AS for Trumps followers, they are stupid because they are blaming democrats when, in fact, this is the only party that can help them. Worse, they vote against their own interest for people/party that not only looks down on them, but are determined to see to it that they starve, get no healthcare nor education for their children. But at least they can cling to their guns (for now), funny/twisted religious beliefs, and racist hatred. Its all they will soon have if Trump gets into power.
WaterGirl
@aimai: I doubt that they would even avert their eyes, they would just look right through the children as if they didn’t exist. Poor children are unworthy; if they ignore them, maybe they will go away.
aimai
@Marc: Oh. This is me being empathetic. This is me feeling at home here at Balloon Juice with my peeps responding to specific issues in an ongoing election. The specific issue at hand is: how will Bernie handle the convention and can Bernie voters be counted on as Democratic voters. Or are they something else? The information we have to go on is a mix of Bernie’s speeches and behavior, his follower’s behavior online, real world experience, and polling and conjecture. Most of us are just talking about these and related issues. I’m not “doing politics” in the sense that I’m not out working the polls or canvassing–that happens later, in the general. I’m watching politics and talking about it with some friends.
BR
@Formerly disgruntled Clinton supporter:
Add a Sanders sticker to your car. It’ll represent your significant other’s position, and also send a party unity message to have both stickers.
I tried to make a case for putting both stickers on our car, but my O-bot spouse wouldn’t ave any of it — neither will do.
CONGRATULATIONS!
@Formerly disgruntled Clinton supporter: Took my wife’s off her car, I don’t need her windows smashed in or worse.
Around here more likely to be a Trump supporter than a Berniebro, but either way I can’t afford the bill.
Linnaeus
@Amir Khalid:
Funny thing that Chait argues that because he was conjuring up the Red Menace about a month and a half ago. This passage from the piece you linked caught my eye:
Here’s what Chait wrote in March:
Note the shift. In March, the lesson of Goldwater conservatives shows us that it’s never too early to stifle creeping Marxism in the Democratic Party. Now, the lesson of Goldwater conservatives is that we don’t need to take seriously creeping Marxism in the Democratic Party.
Just One More Canuck
@srv: did you read the article – that’s 56% of republicans – Hillary leads Trump 43 to 37
aimai
@Marc: You are not my target audience. The general election is an entirely different beast from the primary. Most people are going to reset at that point if Bernie lets them. It is Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, and Hillary Clinton’s job to soothe Bernie’s ruffled feathers. It is the Hillary Delegate’s job to hold Bernie Delegate’s hands and dry their tears and promise them cookies before bedtime. Its not mine. And I doubt very much that anyone online will have their vote affected by the fact that somewhere, sometime, online, Aimai didn’t believe Bernie was all that and a bag of chips. Or that Bernie was going to be as gracious as Hillary was in ’08.
Marc
@Betty Cracker: I think that clear rules help the losing team accept the legitimacy of the process. If all that being a Democrat entails is checking a box at the DMV, for example, I honestly don’t see what the gain is in making people check that box months in advance. I don’t see what we gain from having some obscure process for selecting delegates after we have elections either. The fringe will always go for the convenient conspiracy theory. But you want normal people to think that they got a fair shake.
John D
@DCF:
Dismissive?
Jesus Christ. You made a claim regarding the “historical constituency” of the Democrats. That claim was fucking WRONG, OK? It was not factual.
You keep trying to assert that this is about money and white voters, and yet what facts we DO have regarding reliable Democratic voters shows that they skew towards the poorer and minority ends of the spectrum.
Your thesis is incorrect. Fix it.
KC from the DMV
@Marc: I get that there’s emotions involved and I respect that. But at the end of all this we must remember what moving the window means.
I would imagine most of the people here support liberal causes. We all know what we face in opposition. As someone who voted and turned a few people on to the early Sanders’ campaign, I feel it was important to mainstream an unabashed liberal. But it’s over and liberals should find the issues they can work with Hillary on.
Tl:Dr: its not our fee-fee’s that important.
Kay
@aimai:
Because you continue to say it’s limited to college students. They’ve been writing about this since March. It goes from 17 to 29, or 18 to 30. It was never just college students and there was always plenty of info that indicated it crossed over (to some extent) w/AA and Latinos. The reason it matters more than the flights of fancy of Sanders supporters is because she won.
If Bernie Sanders had won we’d be saying he had to persuade AA’s and voters older than 30.
Amir Khalid
@Linnaeus:
That sort of thing is why, as a former journo myself, I know better than to expect that political pundits still believe anything they write after its publication date. (ETA:) If you can’t contradict yourself, you won’t stay interesting.
Redshift
@gene108:
Hear, hear. My most fervent Bernie-supporting friend started off her activism by posting a list of all the “reasons” she couldn’t trust Clinton, and it was a comprehensive list of all the bullshit Republican scandal-mongering, including gems like “Travelgate” and winding up with Benghazi and emails. Now she’s posting “Bernie 4Ever” memes.
Since she hasn’t been involved in politics before that i know if, I’m just avoiding discussing it and figuring the fever will break at some point.
aimai
@Marc: Normal people? Normal people are supposed to be able to get out and vote for a candidate in the primary and not have that candidate and his team foment the idea that the party is out to get him, that the election is being stolen, or that the delegate format his own campaign manager helped devise 30 years ago is a mysterious danger to the voter. The fact that the Bernie team is rife with conspiracy theories is half human nature and half directly down to Bernie’s closing message.
Paul in KY
@J.D. Rhoades: If you’re a millionaire, there are ‘valid’ tax reasons to vote GOP. Self-interested reasons, for sure, but probably ‘sane’ if maximizing your loot is all you care about.
Cermet
I far prefer Sander’s ideas and policies to Hillary. That said, he will lose to Hillary. As such, I will vote for Hillary because there is no alternative except to give the election to Trump. I don’t care that more blacks vote Hillary and somehow that is “unfair”. That is stupid. Hillary is wining and whether I like or dislike many of her hawkishness/neocon policy/nature is not a make or break issue; healthcare, SS, and the inferior court nominee are three critical issues that only a democrat can be trusted to handle. So, if she wins I WILL SUPPORT AND VOTE FOR HER. End of point.
Linnaeus
@Amir Khalid:
Wise words.
Paul in KY
@Partisancheese: I think John is most pissed that Bernie is echoing various Repub BS attacks.
Paul in KY
@MomSense: Obviously (to me) it must be personal animus against Hillary. Doesn’t want to admit it, though. Ask her how much of that Republican BS against Hillary she believes.
Marc
@Paul in KY: I certainly agree that dredging up 90’s era stuff is swallowing GOP propaganda. However, I also see this line applied to virtually every critique of Clinton – for example, her closeness to the finance sector or her relative hawkishness. Lumping them all together is unhelpful.
oldgold
The Bern to BS has become the equivalent of the ring to Sméagol. I once admired BS, but have become disillusioned as he has transformed into Gollum
Paul in KY
@MattF: They know that and enable it.
aimai
@Kay:
I’m not sure what argument we are having. I think that Hillary has to appeal to all of Bernie’s voters–from the youngest to the oldest. I think if the positions were reversed Bernie believes that he would be guaranteed the votes of Hillary’s AA and older Democratic supporters. And I think he’d be right. Because Hillary’s voters are, by and large, the permanent voting block of serious Democratic voters and Bernie’s voters are fragile, new, quasi independent voters. But the people who vote in primaries are a fraction of the total voting population. A fraction. There are a millon reasons why people don’t bother to vote in primaries including figuring that someone else will do he work for them. I don’t think that, for the most part, Bernie drove up total primary participation numbers as much as he insists that he did. I don’t think the polls showed that but you are welcome to prove me wrong. I don’t think he was bringing “new people” to the party–not only because the numbers don’t back htat up but because he is basically insisitng that he didn’t bring them into the party. He brought them to vote for him. So I’m not sure what lesson I’m supposed to draw from this.
Should the democratic party swing left? Yes, I’ve always thought that. Because I’m an actual progressive. Should the next candidate for President be someone other than Hillary Clinton? Well, maybe not four years from now but certainly eight years from now.
But I am satisfied with trying to ground our forward motion on the work President Obama accomplished. I think its important to create brand loyalty for the Democratic party so that office holders can stop grubbing around for money to fight their seats every four years and just do the jobs we hire them for. I think its important not to change horses in midstream. I am looking to create a more educated voting populace, as well as a more educated office holder. Without doing that–without creating a more informed younger voter–we are doomed. Because if people got excited by Bernie but drop out of the race because they are no longer excited everyone’s work goes in the crapper and younger people will suffer. If Bernie hasn’t made that obvious to his voters then that is ALL ON BERNIE. Sorry for the caps but we wouldn’t even be having this discussion if Bernie hadn’t spent as much time attacking the Democratic Party and HIllary Clinton as he did laying out his vision for the country.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
i don’t know why this is so hard for people to understand. Bernie is an asshole, Mrs Bernie is an asshole, Tad Devine, Jeff Weaver, Susan Sarandon, Cornel West, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Dr Whores…. Assholes from top to bottom. Maybe all the finger-waggers worried about tone on a fucking blog could direct some of their wags at their idol and the people he surrounds himself with? Just a thought.
BR
Something to remind Bernie supporters who are thinking Trump is a viable alternative — Bernie says he wants to end racism and speak for the downtrodden. Consider the case of Ferguson, MO. Corrupt police force and city government that was happy to crush its minority population. When that got exposed, what did the Obama admin do? They started examining every detail of Ferguson and brought down the hammer (still ongoing). Imagine a Trump admin — given his authoritarian bent and minority hatred, he would have more likely fanned the flames and supported the corrupt city forces.
Paul in KY
@D58826: Would be funny if some of their plants got an ass whupping from fathers/wives assuming they were some kind of pervert.
cleek
@aimai:
indeed.
in the states where Sanders did the best, the caucus states, turnout averaged less than 10%. that’s his base.
primary states were above 30%.
Paul in KY
@p.a.: I do like many of his positions, just bummed by the amateurism & refusal to see the jig is up & he needs to start ensuring we don’t have President Trump & that Hillary is the only way we don’t have President Trump.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
Good for Bernie for being a dogged opponent for HRC for the nomination. I had visions of O’Malley being that guy, but he flamed out very early (for fair and unfair reasons).
But these memes that “Bernie pushed Hillary to the left” or that “Bernie tapped into broad discontent the way that Hillary didn’t” really doesn’t have much meat behind it, it seems to me. Her announcement video from April 13 laid it all out pretty well:
It’s all right there, from the beginning.
Cheers,
Scott.
aimai
@Marc: But they do get all lumped together because of the notion propounded among bernie voters that each one builds on the other. I would draw your attention to Daniel Davie’s essay (but I can’t find a link) on “fibber’s forecasts.” When someone lies to you about something you basically have to throw out all the rest of what they are arguing because you can no longer figure out which premises are reliable. Over at Kos “the speeches” stands in for everything else. If you challenge the accusation that a woman being paid to give speeches is inherently corrupt they will jump to something else as an accusation and then demand you disprove that. When they accuse her of being pro banker and you point out she was the Junior Senator from New York, where banking is huge business, they will ignore that despite the fact that they have all forgiven Joe Biden for being the Senator from MBNA. There’s no there there with these accusations that start so far back. They are just used to muddy the water.
Shell
God, I envy them. But how do they escape?
Paul in KY
@DCF: Although I think many of our Democratic politicians seem to not be very good at taking the money, drinking the liquor, screwing the rentboys/girls & then voting against those that gave it, the electorate seems to have gotten more conservative in last 30 years & you have to get the votes to win.
D58826
@Redshift: Well if we are going to invoke the past maybe a bit of Bernie’s ‘past’ should be rehashed. He lost his first election when his opponent was backed by the NRA. After making up to the NRA they have backed him ever since. He has repaid the favor by voting pro-nra in congress even to the point of giving gun makers legal immunity. There was the honeymoon in the USSR. Who knew that Moscow was such a vacation mecca. His vocal support for the Castro’s and Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas. And while criticizing Bill’s crime bill that he voted for.Or maybe Jane’s somewhat mysterious departure from her college presidents job. I could go on and if he were the nominee you can bet your last pink unicorn that the GOP and Trump will do just that.
But what does it all prove. All politicians have skeletons in their closet, including Hillary. Hillary’s problem is that for 30 years the right has been generating ghosts. They have been repeated so often and in so many places that the term ‘clinton scandals’ has become a cliche. If the progressive wing of the party and the newly energized independents want to criticize Hillary on her position on the minimum wage, fine that’s politics. But to start parroting the right wing echo chamber and the ‘scandals’ that even Ken Star was forced to admit in testimony before Congress in Nov. of 1996 (conveniently after the election) were nothing but hot air. Remember after 6 years and 100 million dollars all he found was a semen stained blue dress and a blow job
scav
It would be nice if people could disconnect this issues from the individuals. While I’ve always been close to the socialist end of the spectrum (Euro-style, including semi-nationalized infrastructure companies) I don’t see the theory as being a cure-all for all that ails society. And certainly not flapping its wings with the bulk of the neighbors. But I’m really not impressed by Bernie as politician during this cycle (have generally pleasant memories from earlier years and different contexts). And I’ve seen far too many academics with grand theories bend everything to the same and pound away at nothing but nails which is all they see around them. Pragmatically, I think there are more likely ways to advance the agenda. While not wild about all of Hillery’s positions, past or present (horrors! just like evry other person on the planet!) at least she seems to learn, present a rational argumentation for things and hasn’t completely left planet sanity. I’m not quite up for the nation being taken for a messianic joyride. Spent all my life under presidents I didn’t completely (often far less than completely) agree with. Prefer that to the cliff plummet.
wmd
FWIW, I asked the local Bernie campaign office to find 3-5 people under 40 that worked on the campaign to be submitted to the Indiana Democratic party’s leadership development program. 50 people will take part, and the Sanders campaign is likely to supply a plurality of them.
But hey, he’s only in this for the grift. Giving inspiration and basic political training to 1000s of millennials doesn’t count, because they care about policy differences between candidates.
D58826
@Paul in KY: Or spent some time courtesy of the local sheriff in the hooschowl
Paul in KY
@aimai: Excellent explanation.
Cacti
@srv:
While I omitted the remaining garbage you posted, this part is actually on the mark.
Anyone who doubts it can wander over to the Primaries forum at DU(mb) and see it firsthand.
Paul in KY
@aimai: We do need those young’uns to show up & vote in early November. If they all stay home, we probably lose.
D58826
@wmd: No I don’t think he is in it for the grift. I think he started out as a protest candidate and has been as surprised as any one at how far he has gone. He just hasn’t handled the fame as well as he could have. If he wants to leave a positive legacy he has to end his campaign on a positive note. He doesn’t want to become Ralph Nader Jr who destroyed his reputation/legacy in 2000 and has not been taken seriously ever since.
Keith G
@DCF: Tribalism is not in and of itself always a negative behavioral motivation. Human beings are tribal and it has helped us survive. It also has provided obstacles to rational thinking and to better outcomes.
In the United States, political parties are not public entities they are private organizations of the citizens who are banding together to achieve desired political outcomes. As often as not, these preferred outcomes are more beneficial to one group (a tribe of sorts) than they are another. Successful political parties need to be as open and as easily accessible as possible with the necessary barriers in place that allowed their leadership choice not to be rat-fucked by outsiders.
During election seasons, it has not been uncommon for me to hear even virtuous Democrats say how they are thinking about voting in a Republican primary in order to skew the results that the Republicans end up achieving. I would like my political party to make that as unlikely a successful event as is practical.
MattF
@aimai: Here‘s the Davies post.
Gin & Tonic
@Marc:
Gain or no gain, the party registration rules in effect in NYS have been in effect in NYS *forever.* I fail to see how they were not clear. You may not like them, but they were crystal-clear in 2016, as in 2012, as in 2008. One of the necessary grown-up parts of engaging in politics is knowing the rules of engagement.
negative 1
@wmd: It doesn’t count if they’re bros, remember.
negative 1
@Keith G: Yes, tribalism is always bad. Citing conditions during pre-civilization times when being isolated was a death sentence has no real bearing on today’s political opinion.
Ella in New Mexico
@aimai:
The lack of insight from Hilary supporters here is often quite amazing, given that they are awfully damn smart people. But projection is a defense mechanism that hits us all, regardless of IQ. ;-)
This is what the frightened, rigid, tired old guard of any organization says when it wants to resist change. And yes, there will be plenty of young people who do get involved with the Party over the next few years, and yes, you will have to get used to the differences between your generation and theirs. That’s life.
But–Just like every single voter who supports Hilary Clinton right now does not have to go down to their local Democratic Party headquarters and get involved in it’s inner workings, neither does every single young or otherwise “unhappy with the current state of Party afffairs” voter have to do so.
Their votes ARE their voices. And as angry and myopic and unwilling to give one single bit of cred to his ideas or his movement or this supporters as some folks here are, those votes are currently making and will continue to make big changes in the status quo in our Party.
So, to paraphrase what someone wise once said to me when i was being a complete whining, petulant child about a change at work that ended up being good for all of us in the long run: “Oh for Christ’s sake get the fuck over yourself and move on.”
;-)
Paul in KY
@Marc: She is close to the financial sector. No doubt about it. Pres. Obama would also have to be counted in this bucket too.
She’s also more ready to use military (it appears) than I would prefer & says good things about the current Israel. Not perfect, but she’s our candidate now & we must win in November. Else the deluge.
The Thin Black Duke
@Ella in New Mexico: Thanks for not being rude, sunshine.
Cacti
I’ll believe in the revolutionary spirit of the Bernie kids if they show up again to vote in 2018, rather than go back to Xbox and bong hits.
Until then, I’m skeptical.
D58826
@srv: Ah it was trump who started the playing woman’s card meme. Hillary was just cashing in on it and turning into a joke aimed back at Trump. Lets keep the chronology straight here
And speaking of der Trumpster and lying Ted – Trump is claiming that Cruz’s father was part of the JKF assassination conspiracy and Ted claims Trump is divorced from reality for say he (Ted) is a liar for saying Tyson was a rapist.
Having read the Federalist Papers and the level of intelligent writing contained in them, the founders are not rolling in their graves but have gotten up and moved back to England.
Betty Cracker
@negative 1: Well, ask the BLM people, the families of the soldiers who died in W’s ill-fated Iraqi adventure (plus the hundred thousand-plus dead Iraqis), women who don’t want to die in a back alley abortion, etc., how “pre-civilization” those threats are. We often treat politics as a parlor game, but in reality, it’s frequently a life or death struggle that requires us to band together for survival.
D58826
@Gin & Tonic: I read somewhere that some go back to 1911 and were intended to PREVENT the two majority parties from crushing the smaller independent parties. It may not have worked out that way but I doubt a bunch of old white guys in 1911 sat around in a smoke filled room trying to plot a way to screw Bernie in 2016.
MattF
@D58826: I hadn’t considered the possibility that Der Trump might veer into Alex Jones territory… Someone should work on calibrating his medications better.
Keith G
@negative 1: Does that not depend on how you define tride/tribal? As is often the case in the writing about American politics, I am using a more informal definition than might be in a textbook discussing prehistoric humans.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@D58826: The kind of enthusiasm that doesn’t get headlines
John D
@Ella in New Mexico:
You seem to think this is some kind of deep insight, but you are actually wrong. Very, very wrong.
Want to change the party? Join it. Work to make the change you want to see happen happen. It is exactly that simple. And that fucking HARD.
The pushback you are getting isn’t from “Clinton supporters”. It’s from “Democrats”. It’s from the very ones who put forth all the blood, sweat, and tears to make the party what it is. It is the very height of arrogance for a newcomer to waltz in and demand that things be done their way, with no sense of history, nor willingness to work, nor willingness to understand the path and the reasons for that path. It is their very lack of grasping that all the “Establishment” were once EXACTLY FUCKING LIKE THEM that is so goddamned irritating.
So if you or anyone else are unhappy with the current state of affairs, do something about it. Something, in this case, means get the fuck off your computer or phone and get to work. Otherwise, shut the fuck up, get the fuck over yourself, and get out of the way. We have an election to win.
We need GOTV. We need registration drives. We need phonebanking. We need donations. We need boots on the ground, pounding the pavement one mile at a time.
We don’t need whining. We don’t need complaining. We don’t need demands. We don’t need GOP talking points.
Trump must lose.
Calouste
@Marc:
Sanders is a lying, ignorant bullshit-artist who thinks his supporters can be easily fooled by lies the level of “the dog ate my homework”. There is the not releasing the tax returns, and lying about why. There is the calling Clinton corrupt and unqualified. There is the NYDN interview that showed that he couldn’t explain how he would turn his slogans into policies. What else does he deserve but contempt?
jl
@D58826:
” the founders are not rolling in their graves but have gotten up and moved back to England. ”
Except for the Caribbean bastard fortune deigned to pick out obscurity, almost all of the Founders were born here. They can’t ‘go back’. Maybe they’ve headed to Canada. Make some nice episodes for Ghost Hunters, or Chasers, if that program is still on. I only have seen turned on the TV in hotels. But, if they are still around could try to track Jefferson’s ghost up to Canada. He thought it easily be brought in to the Union, anyway.
D58826
@John D: correction – the GOP must lose. Otherwise I agree. I suspect what gripes the democratic establishment is that Bernie just walks in and makes demands without having done anything to build the infrastructure that has allowed him to get this far.
BR
@Betty Cracker:
This.
As I mentioned above, I add the people of Ferguson, MO and cities like it to your list.
redshirt
I SOOOOO can’t wait till we can go back to bitching about Republicans on the reg. It feels so much more wholesome.
D58826
@jl: Yes I know they were born here. was meant as a joke . And they would have a lot of company in Canada since that is where the loyalists fled after the revolutionary war ended. Seems some of the founding generation were not especially gracious in victory
Uncle Ebeneezer
@Bobby Thomson: Bingo. Why is it so hard for some people to understand the simple logic of “if this doesn’t apply to you, then it doesn’t apply to you!“
BR
@redshirt:
Let’s start now. I think a full airing of how clueless and disastrous Trump is/would be is something we can all agree on.
geg6
@Marc:
I spent a bit of time hitting the sidewalks for Hillary during our primary here in PA and, I have to say, that real world Bernie Sanders supporters are nothing like the ones I encounter online. I didn’t run into a single one that had anything really bad to say about Hillary and every single one I ran into was perfectly willing to vote for Hilz in the fall. Not a single complaint or side eye sent my way. Can’t say the same about the Bernistas online. In fact, it’s pretty much been the opposite. My theory is that the people I ran into a couple of weeks ago while canvassing don’t have their entire identities wrapped up in feeling the Bern. They work, have families, have busy lives and just want to vote for someone who will help them out, whether it’s Bernie or Hillary. Oh, and they are all registered Dems (or they wouldn’t have been on my list). Online, you find a lot more people who are more heavily invested and engaged in this election and often, if not always, aren’t actually registered Democrats or only recently became so.
Cacti
Harvard Institute of Politics poll shows millennials overall favor Clinton 61-25 over Trump.
Broken down further, it’s 76-5 for African American millennials, and 71-9 for Hispanic millennials.
The dire warnings about the youngs not voting for anyone sound like they might be just a bit overblown.
Ella in New Mexico
@the Conster, la Citoyenne:
To paraphrase you “Waaaa waaaa waaa! Sander’s supporters hurt my fee-fees!!”
I’ve noticed after seeing your comments here over the past few months that you like to insult Sanders supporters as a whole as “needing to see a psychiatrist”. Well, you and your “gang” here reminds me of how the miserable Martha and George attempt to psychologically dismember Honey and Nick in “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf”. Like them, this obsession with Clinton vs. Sanders is almost a sickness for some of you, and it’s so frigging, transparently obvious that if you’re NOT a paid shill that you people have no lives and want to inflict the misery of that fact on others.
Maybe if you didn’t spend so much time trolling every single web site and Twitter feed looking for Sander’s supporters to insult and demean, you might actually find people don’t respond in kind to you. Maybe if you didn’t twist people’s words and hurl personal insults and play disgusting mind games with perfectly nice people here it would help. Maybe if you engaged them respectfully and in good faith, you’d find the common ground we share.
But, sadly, since it’s apparently your miserable job to sit in front of a computer screen all day and into the wee hours of the morning so that you can obsess over every single God-damned comment not in favor of Clinton on every single political commentary URL, that’s just not an option. I hope you stop being a victim and get a life someday. Try camping–nature is good for the soul, in my experience.
redshirt
@geg6: There’s a lot of freaks online. I’m sure the vast majority of Bernie supporters are good people and good liberals; but online, I think we’re selecting from a group that has a high correlation to other internet movements like Mens Rights Activisits, GamerGate hacks, My Pretty Pony/Furry fans, and other weird internet phenomena. Also, RONPAUL.
Iowa Old Lady
@geg6: Also people posting online say things they’d never say in real life. It seems to be the nature of the internet.
dslak
@Cacti: You mean how millennials vote in November won’t be affected by how much we coddle the whiniest Bernie supporters on the Internet? That’s the worst news they’ve heard since they learned how math works!
redshirt
@BR: It won’t work. This blog is powered by the Passion now.
MomSense
@aimai:
We didn’t argue with her at all. It was just sooo strange because this is such a departure from her normal decision making process.
Ella in New Mexico
@John D:
Oh my God, the drama. Martyrdom much?
And can I remind all the Drama Queen Party Insiders that there are other things in the world besides volunteering and phone banking at the Democratic Headquarters? Like running Emergency Rooms and teaching kids to read and building bridges and arresting criminals and putting out forest fires and coaching soccer and….
dslak
@Iowa Old Lady: This is true. In real life, I say things like “Bernie is a fraud” or “Bernie has no record of doing a God damned thing.” Here, I just play with people who have persecution complexes.
D58826
@Ella in New Mexico: @the Conster, la Citoyenne:
Enough already. We are trying to elect the first citizen not the first saint. Neither side has a lock on virtue. To paraphrase Franklin ‘we either all hang together or Trump will hang all of us’
DCF
@John D:
My ‘thesis’ is, in point of fact, correct…’reliable Democratic voters’ (‘poorer and minority ends of the spectrum’) have nowhere else to go given the (Republican) alternative(s). This is about money and (professional/creative class) white voters, who constitute the primary policy focus of the current Democratic party: Silicon Valley, Big Pharma, Wall Street, and the doctors/lawyers/accountants et al who in the 1950s and 60s were ‘reliable Republican voters’….
Sanders has proven that non-corporate political funding is a viable (and reliable) monetary source. HRC, on the other hand, is content to follow the old school, pay-for-play mercenary model. No one forced her to do so – she chose that approach. Why did she do so? I would venture that those ‘traditional’ sources recognize that she will do little – if anything – to disrupt the socioeconomic and fiscal status quo, thus preserving both the power and influence they now wield….
On that note, I’ll leave you with something ‘completely different’ for the day – a drop the ‘kerchief’ moment ;?) Enjoy….
Prince Whole Lotta Love Live
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6kMwqmanK0
John D
@Ella in New Mexico: What drama? Did you miss that it was formulated along the lines of your final line?
*I* am not playing the martyr. I am telling you the absolute minimum you have to do to effect change in the Democratic Party. Get off your computer/phone and get to work. All of the bitching online means precisely dick in the real world, and will never cause any sort of lasting change in the process.
If you are not interested in making the changes that you claim to support, then get out of my way. All you are at that point is an impediment to winning the election in November, and in that case, I have less than zero interest in wasting time on you.
gwangung
@Ella in New Mexico: This is not a very substantive response to the comment.
It’s quite true if you want your political organizations to be responsive to you, you have to interact and be involved with them. Those organizations will naturally be more responsive to groups that put more effort into them than individuals who dont.
Ella in New Mexico
@Cacti: My daughter is voting for Sanders. She is a 3.8 GPA honor student double majoring in Chemical Engineering and Biology. She neither owns an X box nor does bong hits.
She actually built her own gaming computer from the chassis up, and her current gaming passion is Deux Ex. And since she turned 21, she’s into ciders and brew-pub micros, never marijuana.
So, I quite lovingly say “fuck you” to the reverse ageism, once again here.
negative 1
@Betty Cracker: Isn’t tribalism the cause of most wars and racism?
D58826
@John D: On January 20th 1961 in snow bound Washington JFK said among other things that the ‘torch had been passed to a new generation’. I suspect the old guard was scared spit-less. By the end of the decade the baby boomer radical generation reform the world generation was scaring JFK’s old guard generation. And today the baby boomers are the old guard and the millennials are scaring them spit-less. And I hate to say this but in a few years when the old guard baby boomers pass from the scene, as they surely will, the millennials will discover that they are the OLD guard and that governing is hard. They will also look across the dinning room table and see their younin’s rebelling and they to will be scared spit-less. All of which is a long way of saying what Ecclesiastes said several millennium ago – to all things there is a season. .
Ella in New Mexico
@John D:
I do not know what the fuck that statement means. But I seriously wonder if folks like you will even accept the people who want to work to change the Party to a more progressive, populist organization, or if you’ll just bull them out of “your way”.
negative 1
@Ella in New Mexico: +1
scav
@negative 1: Well, in the same way that people and cognition and respiration are causal. Unless you define tribalism as only encompassing the outcomes you disagree with of the functionally same behavior.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
like when I asked you to back up some statements you were making based on your authority as an A student in Poli Sci and you started flinging poo about “lube’ and my personal hygiene (which I’ll have you know is excellent)?
BR
I find it a bit amusing to see Clinton and Sanders supporters duke it out given how they’re both relatively lousy candidates in their own ways. Once we acknowledge that, and also acknowledge how they are light years better than Trump, I think there’s a certain calm that can take hold.
nellcote
@DCF:
If that were true, he wouldn’t need the Democratic Party structure.
negative 1
@Keith G: Perhaps. I still can’t come up with a ‘good’ that tribalism accomplishes, however, under any definition.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
@Ella in New Mexico: And yet when the Trump and Cruz fans say the exact same things, it’s OK to call them on it?
Or is the Vile Old Party just hurting my feefees, too?
When Bernie and/or his posse are repeating Breitbart and Alex Jones smears, they should be called on it. Full stop. Just added someone to my troll filter on another site because he was spewing Breitbartisms. I lost all patience for that crap a long time ago.
Ella in New Mexico
@D58826:
I would suggest that it’s not that “Bernie just walks in and thinks he owns the place”. It’s that voters who like what he has to say have come to support him because he’s the candidate, in their eyes, who’s hitting the issues they care about hard. He’s representing thousands of Democrats, not just himself. I could see the same folks preferring an Elizabeth Warren or Al Franken candidacy had they chosen to run.
So when you claim Sanders is an illegitimate carpet bagger to the Democratic Party, you’re really saying all those voter’s are illegitimate carpet baggers. And they’re not.
negative 1
@scav: I’m not sure I understand, but I’ll try:
Racism is specifically tribalism. By tautology — it’s one tribe composed of a skin color suppressing another tribe composed of skin color.
I think wars are tribal because of how we start them. I agree there may be reasons to fight that are not (economic or resource driven) but we frame the justifications in tribal ways (fighting against those mooslums).
Ella in New Mexico
@Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism: I don’t know if it’s possible for you do differentiate between anonymous internet trolls and the Actual Candidate Bernie Sanders, but please try to do so.
Iowa Old Lady
A friend of mine once said that religion and nationalism (ie, tribalism writ large) created most of the problems in this world. I was young and remember being shocked by the observation, which in old age I think is mostly true.
D58826
@nellcote: I think he has expanded on Obama’s footsteps in using the Internet to raise money from smaller donors. Until Citizens United is overturned and there is some kind of campaign funding reform it will not replace the other forms. The Kochs can match every dime that Bernie has raised from the loose change they find in the cushions of their couch. That is the funding that the democrats have to match whither by corp. contribution, Gerorge Clooney fund raisers, bake sales or internet giving
Ella in New Mexico
@D58826: Sorry. THAT ONE just needs a thwack now and then. ;-)
negative 1
@Cacti: Of course they’re overblown. Just like the supposed ‘fight’ between Bernie’s supporters and HRC’s is overblown. The race was never that competitive and was never that nasty by real standards — their comments about each other were milquetoast compared to the GOP primary or even some state level elections. But the media needs ratings so…
catclub
I was amused by this:
at WaMonthly
Cacti
@Ella in New Mexico:
Yes, yes, you and everyone in your family are amazing exceptional people who blah blah blah.
Poor little Bernie martyr.
amk
berniebots’ ragegasm here is fun to watch.
dollared
@aimai: Thanks for posting. I think this is the truth, which is why I get frustrated with the demonization and rigidity on this blog. In my experience here in the Northwestern Kingdom of Bernie, everybody has already turned the page and will work for Hillary.
scav
@negative 1: They’re also just a byproduct of communal solidarity. Defining communal interests damn near always requires the defintion of those others — in practice at least. People geneally aspire to and discuss universal humanity but act in smaller units defined in opposition to others.
Ella in New Mexico
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
If I remember correctly, that particular conversation was getting pretty ugly all the way around. Everyone involved degraded to poo-flinging. It didn’t help you tried to fling poo yourself, so I flung it back. And yes, I did double major in “Poli-Sci” at William and Mary because in 1980 that’s what we called it and I’m old now. ;-)
Cacti
@srv:
17 times 0 is still 0, pumpkin.
geg6
@Betty Cracker:
This. Personally, I don’t want to go without my tribe. My liberal, civic minded, always voting tribe. The tribe that cares about all those people you cited and not so much about comfortably white male feefees.
John D
@Ella in New Mexico:
I thought it was perfectly clear. “Change the Party” means exactly WHAT? You are currently standing outside the party demanding change. My prescription for you is JOIN. Become a member. Strive for the changes you want to become a reality by working within the party itself.
If you are not willing to do that, then you are NEVER going to get the changes you want. And you are then signaling that you are not serious about those changes, and that leads directly into the quote you just responded to. You are either serious about wanting those changes, in which case my prescription stands, or you are not, in which case you are just throwing bombs for the fun of it and I want you out of the way of all the effort that is going into beating the GOP in November.
If you want real change — by which I mean a progressive, populist movement — join the Democratic Party and get elected locally on that platform. Or get a candidate locally elected on that platform. Go get 10, or a hundred, or a thousand voters registered. Go GOTV. What you are doing now is just bullshit. It’s meaningless. It’s counterproductive.
Activists inspire, organizers build. Only one of those has a lasting effect, historically.
Is that clear enough for you now?
dslak
@Cacti: They’re not called “high-information voters” for nothing!
dollared
@D58826: Well put.
geg6
@John D:
This, this, this. X1000.
Ella in New Mexico
@Cacti:
ICYMI–No, actually I’m quite happy to be supporting Hilary at this point. My vote in our June primary is not gonna matter here in NM where he’s at something like 35% anyway, and I’ll work hard to get all my idealistic and hopeful family members heads out of the oven in the fall so they can see the sky is not falling and that they need to get to the early voting booths the first day they open and vote for her.
:-D
Kay
@D58826:
What infrastructure? Polling locations? A national Party primary? It doesn’t really belong to anyone – he won’t wear it out or anything.
Redshift
@Ella in New Mexico:
Speaking from my own experience getting involved in my local party after the Dean campaign, yes, they/we absolutely will. If you’re enthusiastic and you’re willing to work, you will be welcomed. The old guard didn’t know how to respond to us at first, but now a significant chunk of the leadership are Deanics.
You will also be challenged, and there will be things that won’t change no matter how much you think they should because you can’t convince enough people to agree with you. And sometimes they’re wrong, and it’s frustrating, and sometimes they’re right because they have experience that you don’t and aren’t just being pigheaded. But it’s all worth it when you can look back and say you really changed things.
And also, please do it because a lot of “us” really do want a lot of the same things you do, even if we disagree right now on the best way to get them done.
scav
@Cacti: Come come. That AAA farm team totally wiped the floor with the Evanston T-ball league.
D58826
@Ella in New Mexico: Call him what you will but until he announced he was running for president he was not a democrat. He was an independent who caucused with the democrats in Congress . Facts are hard things. This doesn’t mean that Bernie or his supporters should be drummed out of the party. Warren, Franken, Hillary, Obama. O’Malley have been democrats all of their active political lives (yes I know in the long ago and far away Hillary was a Goldwater girl.). They have spent a life time building the structure that Bernie wants to lead. If Bernie was the nominee they would actively support him. They just think that Bernie should return the favor. Will he? I don’t know since one day he says yes and the next he seems to say no. Many of the folks who support him are loyal democrats and many others are independents who the democrats should be working really really hard to get to work for all democratic candidates not just Bernie.
Calouste
@srv: If with “institutional” you mean “people who belong in an institution”, then yes.
Ella in New Mexico
@D58826: Love it. :-)
Cacti
@Ella in New Mexico:
Will that require you to climb down from your cross, or will you have your exceptional children carry you into the polling place while you’re still nailed to it?
nastybrutishntall
@J.D. Rhoades: Hilarious. Bernie or bust is a real thing, bro. Us Hillbots are pissed off at self-righteous rumor-mongers trying to push low-info voters toward Hillary-hate. The vast majority of us have nothing but sympathy for regular Bernie voters. And we respect Bernie’s platform, though we happen to think it’s not the most practical of the two choices offered.
Compare this with the rabid hatred of Hillary. There’s no contest.
Brachiator
Jeez, the Times Editorial Board makes this sound as stupid as Artisanal Gluten-Free Beer.
Nor has Sanders single-handedly “exposed a broad vein of discontent that Democrats cannot ignore.” The discontent has been there for a long time, and it has been exacerbated by GOP obstructionism, which has stymied the Democrats’ efforts to get things done. And yes, there are aspects of this which overlap, but are not the same as, the GOP discontent whipped into a frenzy by Trump and Cruz.
I have noted before that I am not totally thrilled by Clinton, but I am increasingly repulsed by Sanders. I don’t find either his definition of domestic problems, nor his solutions to be coherent or viable. If his supporters want to come on over, that’s fine, but I don’t care whether Sander’s agenda gets folded into the Democratic platform.
BTW, I had the same view in 2008. I decided that Obama was my guy after considering, and rejecting, Clinton’s domestic and foreign policy views. Once I decided that Obama was the superior candidate, I assumed that Mrs Clinton, and her husband, would work to get Democrats elected, because now it was Democrats vs Republicans.
I expect no more and no less from Sanders.
D58826
@Kay: Of course he won’t, unless his plan is to burn it to the ground. Which given the democrats recent history of losing elections might not be a bad thing. I just think the party regulars might react the same way a baseball team reacts after playing 161 games to get to the playoff-s and the pitcher that wins game 162 claims all of the credit.
negative 1
@scav: So there’s no hope for progress, just hoping someone else get screwed by ‘community solidarity’? I mean, a bunch of redneck crackers burning crosses on an African American lawn are actually practicing ‘community solidarity’. Their community is white people, they are in solidarity trying to exclude an ‘other’.
I guess my point is that ‘community solidarity’ is by its nature exclusive, you can join the community but on their standards. That actually seems to be the election platform of conservatives.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
@Ella in New Mexico: Bless your heart, I’m not talking about the anonymous trolls. He’s descended into conspiracy theory more than once, and the people surrounding him are even worse.
But you just keep right on thinking I’m stupid.
geg6
@Ella in New Mexico:
I manage to do my job, take care of my home and yard, have a social and family life, volunteer at the local animal shelter and work within my local Democratic party. A decade or so ago, I did all of that plus grad school. A couple of decades before that, I worked two jobs (one full-time), went to school full-time, had an active social life and spent time with my family while volunteering for the party. That’s what you do if want to have a say so in what happens in the party. It takes time, work and dedication. If you and your cohort aren’t willing to do what I and many others here did, then quit your whining about the “party insiders.” They are only the insiders because people like you are too lazy to do the work but want to have all the say so. Sorry, that isn’t how life works.
negative 1
@geg6: Why isn’t this the same as ‘I’m afraid of people who are different than me?’
nastybrutishntall
@J.D. Rhoades: Posting comments on Balloon-Juice and youth outreach are totes the same, bro. We’re totes fucking our chances by saying you’re delusional about who’s trying to divide the Democratic party. Totes.
Mnemosyne
@rikyrah:
@O. Felix Culpa:
I’m doing a quick login from work to go YAAAAAAAYYYYY!!!
/crazy waving Kermit arms
More later. Maybe TaMara will be kind enough to give us our very own thread to rave on so as not to disturb the non-cultists?
;-)
Paul in KY
@Ella in New Mexico: Maybe if she smoked a little doob she might come around to the dark…err I mean Hillary side.
Worth a shot.
Redshift
One interesting historical note on open/closed primaries. I don’t have documentation to back this up (I really should research it and find some), but I was told by an older Dem activist here in Virginia that the reason we have open primaries and no party registration dates back to segregation, because white people wouldn’t join a party with black people (but on a secret ballot, they didn’t have to know they were voting with them.)
Like I said, I don’t know if it’s true, but most strange things in Virginia politics and government are relics of segregation, so it wouldn’t surprise me. And it does show there are different angles on what’s more democratic/open/progressive. Nothing is as simple as it seems.
geg6
@negative 1:
Um, because I’m not afraid of people who aren’t like me?
negative 1
@geg6: People whine about ‘party insiders’ because they don’t have to do all of the time-consuming sh!t you did in order to get heard — they just have to write a check.
Real life is actually that any political party, as they are private fundraising organizations by definition, will care for its donors way before it cares for its volunteers. You think Sheldon Adelson ever did anything for a candidate other than write a check and go to lunch? The Koch Brothers?
D58826
@Redshift: Have to keep our eye on the prize 1. the WH and Senate in 2016. 2. retain the Senate and start winning back the state governments in 2018. 3. retain the WH/Senate and win enough of the remaining state governments so the districts drawn from the 2020 census are done by democrats. 4. starting in 2022 take back the house. THEN we can go full out on the progressive agenda, whither it is Bernie’s or Chelsea’s or Michelle s. Malia/Sasha are still to young but their time will come
negative 1
@geg6: OK, you just don’t want to ‘go without’ people who are the same as you. Maybe not fear, but not exactly inclusive.
Ella in New Mexico
@Keith G:
Maybe this fact is something that we as a nation need to talk about changing, given that something like 60% of the electorate calls itself independent and doesn’t like either party at this time.
Unions are dealing with this issue when they fail to actually represent their members well, instead tell them “they know what’s best for them”, occasionally do corrupt things and as a result piss off half their membership. I’m pro-union to the core, but I blame some of the most recent resurgence of bullshit “Right to Work” legislation passing in the states on the bad behavior of some unions. Republicans, always looking for a way to divide and conquer, have successfully pounced on these dissatisfied, disenfranchised union members. Problem is, if all the employees in the workplace were happy with their union representation, they’d crawling over each other to sign up as members.
The way I see, the Democratic party in too many locales has become like the worse-performing unions. It’s running on it’s historical achievements more than it’s potential ones. it is we have to make our “decline to state’ folks feel better represented by the Democratic Party, not close the ranks and circle the wagons and tell them to fuck off because the insiders are all so overburdened they ain’t got time for them.
Brachiator
@rikyrah:
This “Hamilton” thing. Is it popular?
Ella in New Mexico
@D58826:
Unless, of course, they’re too busy playing X-box and taking bong hits. ;-)
CONGRATULATIONS!
California’s primary system is a joke. The GOP demanded we open all other primaries save theirs as a condition for them signing off on Arnold’s last budget. Now they no longer have that power, but it’s too late for the primary process. So the GOP primary is closed, but everyone else is free to ratfuck the Dem primary as much as they’d like.
It’s been a disaster. The state needs to go back to closed primaries.
D58826
@Ella in New Mexico: To borrow a quote from I think LBJ, I would rather the independents be on the inside of the tent pissing out than on the outside pissing in.
Cacti
@Ella in New Mexico:
They’re not Sanders voters, are they?
D58826
@Ella in New Mexico: :-) They will outgrow it. We all did and they were raised right
raven
@D58826: Fuck LBJ
Ella in New Mexico
@Paul in KY:
Why fix what ain’t broke? Besides, I’m all too happy to let her enjoy a successful young adulthood that results in a job and health insurance, even if it means she votes for a losing candidate. God knows she’ll need it now that Universal Health Care and Free College won’t be an option for a while… ;-)
Betty Cracker
@negative 1: It’s the election platform of any group that has a distinct set of goals, the formulation of which involves making choices. What are you suggesting as an alternative? No Labels?
les
@Partisancheese:
I know it’s late, but this is fucking tiresome bullshit. As always, citation needed. Are you 12? Who was a moderate Republican 30 years ago? What Republican of any influence from the Reagan administration supported anything Obama tried to do? The ignorance and intellectual dishonesty of these arguments are staggering.
scav
@negative 1: Clam down. identifying a commonality in structural underpinnings in no way throwing up one’s hands at any future change. I’d think that knowing the upsides and downsides of fire — and both its beneficial and dangerous qualities — would fascilitate better control of and benefit from it in future. Understanding there’s a similarity has already pulled out the importance of permeabilty in within and without the groups boundaries — add that to the decline in economic mobility in the US, but also the increase in multiracial families. All sorts of things and complexifications open up. Think also the fear underlying transgender bathrooms and immigration. It’s common in times of stress to strenthen within group cohesion and that means emphacising within-group similarity and between-group differences, how do you maintrain controll of that? (It’s not going well in this and similar threads). It’s easier to miss the interconnections if one insists they’re utterly different phenomena.
cleek
@srv:
why it’s almost as if proportional vs winner-take-all delegate allocation leads to a different kind of race!
ALERT THE MEDIA!
negative 1
@Betty Cracker: No, I’m suggesting that the idea of supporting a cause or series of policies you believe in is more important than ‘rah-rah go team!’
I gather from your posts that you live in Florida, where I’m sure it’s easy to say Dem = liberal. But where I am in the northeast the Democratic primary is basically the general, and there are plenty of retrograde conservative a$$hole Democrats. Sadly, sometimes the party at large will back them over a liberal Democrat because of favors owed (read: good fundraising).
The idea of party ideological homogeneity is somewhat recent and not necessarily bound to hold. I don’t consider myself to have anything in common with so-called Blue Dogs, for instance.
les
@Chris:
I don’t know where you’re reading that. Maybe you shouldn’t go there. Unless this is another “somebody at BJ disagreed with me, wah wah.” I don’t see anybody here say “entire Sanders phenomenon” anything. Which makes your comment sound whiny, inaccurate and ineffectual. Which, I guess, means I hurt your fee fees and you’re going to pout.
Gin & Tonic
@Ella in New Mexico:
Citation needed. Has anybody in this discussion (I won’t re-read all 268+ comments) said “fuck off”? I think the prevailing view is “come on over and help us make some phone calls/GOTV.”
Brachiator
@Redshift:
I wouldn’t doubt that open primaries have been used for exclusionary purposes in the South and other places, but here is some of the larger historical background of the evolution of primaries:
Kay
@D58826:
I genuinely don’t get this. Prior to Bernie we were all bitching about our falling apart “infrastructure”. Now it’s this well-oiled winning machine he’s mooching off of. He took nothing! It’s just a bunch of lists! We were having a primary anyway!
les
@J.D. Rhoades:
At least Chicken Little comes with nice pictures. You got nuthin.
cleek
@cleek:
for example:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clintons-delegate-lead-would-triple-under-gop-rules/
cleek
@Kay:
which he wouldn’t have been a part of. he would have had exactly zero televised debates, if he didn’t join the Dems. and he would have received exactly zero press coverage.
Paul in KY
@Ella in New Mexico: Touche.
Aimai
@Ella in New Mexico: christ! My daughter is a sophmore in college who teaches classical indian dance, studies voice, tutors in math and is a physics major. She likes long walks and ethnic food. She is voting for hillary. No one is insulting college kids or the youth. On behslf of college kids and millenials Bernie sanders supporters online are insisting that the youth vote is lost if they dont get their first pick of bernie. Everyone else is simply arguing that this is highly unlikely in the majority if cases and where you do bump into a person, of whatever age, who wont vote for the democratic nominee you ate free to criticize them for lack of commitment to progressive causes, laziness, flatulence or whatever else. Bernies voters are probably not the sore losers they play online. But the ones who are deserve all the contempt they get.
pamelabrown53
@aimai:
I agree, aimai. Rikyrah consistently shares important links with the community. I always look forward to her “Good Morning” check-in.
Miss Bianca
@Keith G: Well, this proud Democrat is planning to do just that – switch to Republican to vote in the Republican primary for our local County Commissioners race – because no independent – and certainly no Democrat – can run in this county and win. And we have some “moderate Republican” challengers who actually believe in governance, and hard-core good-old-boy Republican incumbents who believe in nothing but the paycheck they are getting to block any sort of government assistance or business development they don’t agree with from happening in our county.
I don’t buy the “Obama and Clinton are moderate Republicans of 30 years ago.” theory. Here, however – this’ll kill ya – we have a situation where “moderate Republicans” in our county are actually…Democrats. Or would be Democrats if we had anything but one-party rule in my county. And yeah…I am finding the prospect of switching over strangely distasteful, even if it is temporary. Maybe there is something to this “tribalism” theory, after all.
les
@negative 1:
So your point is that the community should just do what you want, because reasons?
singfoom
Jesus Fucking Titty Christ. This shit again? Really?
How many times is this going to go around? All the fucking adults in the commentariat know the score. Hillary needs Bernie and his supporters to get behind her.
The adults amongst those supporters, regardless of chronological age will do so. The ones that aren’t fucking adults, regardless of chronological age, will need to pout and cry, maybe they’ll take their ball home.
It is within the self-interest of the Democratic party and the liberal/progressives all over to make sure the number that takes their ball home is minimized. That doesn’t mean stroking their fee fees, but it does mean recognizing they exist and they have valid concerns. I’m sure Clinton and her campaign get this, though obviously some here don’t.
But guess what? NOBODY GIVES A FUCK WHO SAID WHAT ON TWITTER OR YOUR FACEBOOK FEED, REGARDLESS OF WHICH CANDIDATE YOU SUPPORT!!! THIS IS NOT FACEBOOK, THIS IS NOT TWITTER. Members of the BJ commentariat aren’t responsible for the other shitty social media streams you participate in, jesus fucking christ. Also, your social media streams ARE NOT THE FUCKING CONTEST, ITS A SELF REINFORCING ECHO CHAMBER OF AWFULNESS, KEEP IT THERE, STOP IT LEAKING INTO THE REAL WORLD.
So don’t say “X said vile shit about Sanders on Twitter” or “I saw someone call HRC a sexist insult on Facebook”
NOBODY FUCKING CARES! But let’s continue to have a measuring contest of our outrage at something someone NOT IN THIS FUCKING COMMENT THREAD SAID and how that’s indicative of X side’s supporters.
Now back to your regularly scheduled pissing contest, round #435.
Fuck I want this primary season to be over.
ETA: I just can’t fucking wait, really can’t wait for someone to tell me, “Well, Xs supporters are worse than Ys supporters.” NO THEY’RE NOT, STFU!
dslak
@Aimai: Bernie folk insist on pretending they own the youth vote, like kids don’t have their own minds.
negative 1
@scav: I’m not upset, I’d much rather have this conversation than iteration 1,000 of ‘you’re a BernieBro! You’re a HilBot’.
Anyhow, I don’t disagree with the usefulness but I guess my final rejoinder is that given a ‘tribal’ group over enough time they will attempt to oppress their ‘other’. Every time. That’s why civil liberties were such a radical idea and such a good one 300 or so years ago. It’s a good metaphor you had , the upsides and downsides of fire, because it brings to mind the old adage: play with fire, end up burned.
Kay
@cleek:
Yeah, I’m sorry but the POINT of a political Party is “join the Dems”. Not him. No one cares about him. His voters.
There is just no political Party on earth that turns down voters. This is a radically new idea you-all have come up with.
Miss Bianca
@pamelabrown53: Me three.
negative 1
@les: Refer to comment 213 to see what it is I’m debating, or conversely, try reading something before you join in.
D58826
@les:
I agree 30 years ago, no way. I’m not sure that the 2008/2016 democratic platform would qualify even 60 years ago in the time of Ike, Rockefeller, etc. On the other hand I suspect that there was a bit over overlap between the two party platforms then that does not exist today. Gopers in Congress could vote for a democratic proposal and it wasn’t considered treason. And the democrats voted for GOP proposals.
For example after much horse trrading the intersate highway bill was passed
in the house On April 27, the Federal Highway Act of 1956 passed the House by a vote of 388 to 19
in the senate – On June 26, 1956, the Senate approved the bill by a vote of 89 to 1.
REading the article a lot of famaliar names – Albert Gore Sr., Prescott Bush, Hale Boggs,
Harry Flood Byrd, retired Gen. Lucius D. Clay. and in a sign of how things never change, the original bill was defeated because
D58826
@singfoom: but you didn’t mention ‘a’ supporters :-) :-)
Kay
@cleek:
And what would those have been like, cleek? There’s only so much Martin O’Malley a person can bear. Jim Webb? Remember him? The metric system man, what’s his name (who I liked, BTW, as a person).
That was our bench. The fruits of this elaborate infrastructure-these bridges and tunnels and superhighways you-all have invented.
I have bigger fish to fry anyway. No one here has been contacted by the Clinton campaign. They need to put people on the ground.
Ella in New Mexico
@Gin & Tonic:
OMGReally? REALLY? /sigh/
@John D:
@geg6:
I’ll do your homework for you this one time…;-)
Bostondreams
@Marc:
Just want to say that it does work both ways, and based on my own social media feed, ‘contempt’ doesn’t even begin to describe how some Sanders supporters talk to and about Clintonites. The vitriol goes both ways, and it’s only natural that Clinton folks might give as good as they get.
Mike J
@Miss Bianca:
I’ve always found this a particularly dumb argument. 100 years ago I would have probably been a Republican because the “solid south” was solidly Democratic and solidly racist. The Democratic party isn’t like that any more, and most of our worst wound up in the Republican party.
There used to be such a thing as a liberal Republican and a conservative Democrat. And the part that will be really hard form some people to believe, not everybody who was a conservative was necessarily 100% evil on every topic. The great sorting, where all the so called conservatives went to the Republicans and all the liberals went to the Democrats didn’t really finish until well into the 21st century. Saying that somebody would have been a Republican 50 years ago doesn’t actually mean anything, except that the speaker doesn’t understand the history of political parties in the US.
D58826
@Kay:
Well the communists just shot their Bernie/Hillary types. :-). just joking
cleek
@Kay:
who is turning down voters?
i don’t really know.
but Sanders wouldn’t have been there. and we wouldn’t be talking about him now.
D58826
@Mike J:
Sen. Dirkson of Ill. and Rep Jerry Ford of Michigan both leaned right but certainly weren’t evil, even by today’s standards.
Amir Khalid
@singfoom:
And again, and again, past Election Day and even unto February 2017. Mark my words.
Paul in KY
@Aimai: I’m a 35 years out of college programmer who loves Indian food, cannot dance, likes long walks, mentors nobody & I’m voting for Hillary!
Kay
@cleek:
It would have been more boring (or boring and clownish, if Webb had stayed in) and no one would watch.
Mike J
@D58826: I know plenty of people who will tell you how evil Ford was because he didn’t do a Nguyen Ngoc Loan on Nixon in the Rose Garden.
Betty Cracker
@negative 1: I’m a Democrat because the Democratic Party is the one of only two relevant parties that promotes the issues I care about, not because I think the little Circle D logo is cute. “Rah-rah” doesn’t enter my calculations. As for Blue Dogs, I’ll take them over Republican shitheads anytime I can help get one elected in a state where a hardcore progressive can’t win statewide. Not because “rah-rah, Go Donks!” but because they’ll provide the margin of victory for legislation like the ACA.
Paul in KY
@Miss Bianca: No problem, Miss Bianca. Sounds like a good strategic decision, to me.
Ella in New Mexico
@Aimai:
Yes, here at BJ they do. It’s the schtick, the short hand for “people we could care less about cuz they don’t vote for our candidate”. (And I’m only referring to commenters here–because, unlike some other apparently traumatized Clinton supporters here DO, I don’t hold people here accountable for what some other, random Clinton supporters say on some, other, random fricking web sites or Twitter feeds)
My comment was in response to that kind of insult towards young people. Not a brag on my kid. It was to explain that every single young person who supports Sanders is not a fucking pot-smoking loser. If you want to jump into the middle of a conversation, you really need to backtrack the comment stream before you attack.
D58826
@Mike J: Yea he could have handled the whole pardon thing a bit better. Get Nixon to admit some degree of guilt. Might have saved his bacon in 1976 and certainly would have avoided a lot of Nixon revisionism later on
cleek
@Kay:
one was enough for me. i watched most of the first debate (for both D and R). and that seemed like more than enough to judge how each candidate carries himself/herself. specific policies i can look up.
Kay
@D58826:
I actually think it will be fine (or as “fine” as Democrats get). Their numbers are pretty good all along the line- Party ID, favorablity. Clinton is w/in 5 of Trump in OH but it will never be a blow out in OH. Five is plenty. Obama rode along w/in 5 for 6 months in 2012. It never really changed.
I think a big event could change it because squishy Trump voters will bolt if there’s some serious President’in needed- they’ll get more risk averse- and Clinton will be good in that “strong leader” role.
Mike J
@Paul in KY: We’re practically twins! I could dance really well in college, but science has shown that as men age they just can’t dance any more. Even if they can pull off the same moves, they just look sillier than when a 25 year old does it.
I, of course, am not including professionals, and am speaking in generalities. This being the internet, I fully expect somebody to produce their 113 year old grandfather who does the nae nae better than anybody. Rare exceptions do not invalidate my point.
Paul in KY
@Kay: Gee, that’s scary (the no one has been contacted by Clinton campaign). Seems strange, to me.
Ella in New Mexico
@singfoom:
I love you singfoom. Thank you for this. :-)
John D
@Ella in New Mexico: Ella, this is very important.
Go look up “conditional statement”.
When someone says “If X, then Y. If not X, then ‘get out of the way'”, you are not being told “fuck off”. You are being told that if you aren’t willing to do the work required to reach your goals, you should get out of the way, because you are fucking useless. A cyst on the body politic.
Now, if X happens to be true, then you are not being told to “get out of the way”. You are being encouraged to join, and strive for your goals.
See how logic works?
For misrepresenting me and logic itself, NOW you are being told to fuck off.
Mike J
@D58826: Completely agree. Ford didn’t handle it well, but I don’t think it was because he was evil.
D58826
@Ella in New Mexico: I think the concern is that in off-year elections democratic turnout in all groups drops. It would be great if the young Bernie voters broke that pattern and turned out in large numbers in 2018. Even many of the young Obots stayed home in 2010 and 2014 so it isn’t a criticism of just Bernie’s supporters. Hillary’s supporters better not slack off in 2018 either. The democrats have to solve that problem or they will remain the WH party with an occasional Senate majority
Paul in KY
@Mike J: I probably would have been a Teddy Roosevelt Republican myself. Like to think that, but I had grown up in old-timey KY, might have been a Democrat.
EBT
Me and all the other California Bernie people I know are just ready for this to be over so we can vote for Hillary / against trump as the case may be.
scav
@negative 1: It is more interesting. Civil rights are at heart an attempt to widen the definition of within group to my eyes. Hasn’t quite taken hold enough it the minds and hearts yet, but getting it down explicitly in code was important — on multiple fronts. And I’d also say that given the context (which can be variable and sometimes seemingly illogical), most any group of people will attempt to oppress others. Mean kids in high school. Siblings. Knitters vs. crocheters. Stakes aren’t always as high, but being crap to others is not just “tribal”. Feeling part of the crowd, especially the in-crowd (however defined) has some sort of serotonin hit. As does, oddly enough, defining oneself axiomatically against a collective of choice.
negative 1
@Betty Cracker: Even when you don’t agree with them?
Paul in KY
@Mike J: Cool, Mike! You must be a great dude, if you’re like me ;-)
D58826
@Kay: Will Rodger’s I don’t belong to an organized political party I’m a democrat. It’s a bit like football, other than the real purists, most people only remember who won the super bowl not how they got there. So whither it is by 1 vote or a million as long as the check mark is by Hillary’s name in November no one else (other than the Goopers) will remember 6 months later. I realize on an ongoing basis the party folks do need those numbers or we will see 2010/2014 over and over again.
dslak
@Ella in New Mexico: Nope. Try again. Start with, “As a Bernie supporter, I represent all college kids because . . .”
Then I’ll buy this story that all these middle aged Berniebots speak for them.
Paul in KY
@John D: John, I’m pretty sure Spock would never say something like that!
Ella in New Mexico
@Kay:
This really ties into my point that if the Democratic Party doesn’t embrace Progressives, Dem-leaning independents/DTS’ers, these types of candidates are all we’re gonna get.
I’m seeing this right now in my state with a House of Rep. Congressman named Steve Pearce, who is on of the top 50 biggest RWNJ’s out there, but has got a safely guarded seat due to the way our Congressional district lines are drawn to include rural areas in the eastern part of our state (BIG gas and oil and ranchers voters).
Our local Democratic party simply cannot get their heads out of their asses and recruit decent candidates to beat him because they are such a closed, insular group, and people don’t feel welcomed there who come from a left-of-center Progressive point of view. “New Mexico is a conservative Democrat state” is what we hear, and it’s gonna stay that way until the Elders and the Baby-Boomer Party insiders die off, apparently.
Kay
@Paul in KY:
Me too. No Ted Strickland contact either- Senate. I know I rave about Sherrod Brown all the time but it’s only because he’s so much better at this than other people. We had already met with his campaign director by this time in ’12. It was March or April and that was a re-elect against the loathsome Josh Mandel.
I read that the state Party hired 50 organizers with the Clinton cash. There are 88 counties and this one is not a priority, but it bugs me because organizers are cheap. They pay them the equivalent of about 30k a year if they worked a whole year which they don’t.
D58826
@Mike J: No I think he really thought that the best thing to do was lance the boil and end it in one move. If he had tried to get some admission of guilt from Nixon the lawyers would still be negotiating, admittedly over a long distance phone line since I doubt Nixon is residing in the same place Ford is. Ford did have a bit of a hang up on Justice Douglas however.
Ella in New Mexico
@John D: Don’t be obtuse and ignore the fact that “fuck off” was a figurative generalization. Don’t be a petty, petty asshole. It’s a waste of all our time.
Go look up the definition of “literal vs. figurative statements” if you need help here.
Paul in KY
@Kay: I know she knows how important Ohio is to her dreams. I expect you’ll hear from some soon (probably once the Bernie is mathematically eliminated).
Ella in New Mexico
@D58826:
Yes, agreed. Wouldn’t it be awesome if we started–right now–seeing a national advertising campaign coming out of the Democratic Party recruiting these very same voters? Not candidate focused, Party focused–“here’s how and why we represent you” and “here’s what’s at stake when you stay home” stuff that helps sway people into realizing their votes ARE important and getting them to the voting booth?
glory b
@DCF: And what are the African American Dems who support the party by 75% to 70% margins?
Wow, you disappeared us pretty quickly, considering that Sanders says he’s doing this, in large measure, for us.
Brachiator
@D58826:
Mid term election turnout has been lower than the turnout for the general election since 1840.
1840.
This is more than a trend; more like a political fact of life. Election years when there is not a presidential election at stake are just not as exciting. I don’t know. Maybe if you put free drugs on the ballot in 2018 you might boost turnout.
D58826
@Ella in New Mexico: To put it bluntly, I don’t care if the democrats pick a progressive, a liberal, a blue dog or Chewbackka for that seat. I want to see them pick someone who agrees in general with the broad values of the party (i.e. KKK and ted cruz need not apply) AND CAN WIN in that district. Would I like to see a progressive win that seat if I lived there, sure but I’ll take a blue dog if it helps put the gavel back in Nancy’s hand.
The problem is that for many reasons in many places the democrats could not convince people to get off the Titanic. The GOP has rigged the districts since 2010, but they won big with the old districts and before voter-id in 2010
Gin & Tonic
@Ella in New Mexico: Had to step away, but neither John D nor geg6 were saying “fuck off”, they were saying “roll up your sleeves and give us a hand.” That’s the way I read their comments, anyway.
But thanks for doing my homework and getting me an “F” on the assignment. I guess that means I’ll have to go for extra credit on the mid-term.
Seth
Milquetoast “liberal” Democratic hacks will let the world literally and figuratively burn before they even consider letting Reaganomics die a final death. They’ve revealed themselves as the most truly-conservative coalition in American politics.
Aimai
@Ella in New Mexico: no one is stopping you frim self nominating. Money is tight. The local fems dont necessarily have the money to back someone, let alone find the perfect candidate you imagine is out there. Low level–state level candidates are generally the farm team. Is there someone you adore who could be coaxed to run but has been turned down by the party? This is exsctly why people are encouraging you to join your ward, volunteer at your polls, attend local dem events and be the change you want to see. Otherwise its sll “lets you and him fight” followed by ” i totally would have won if you had fought harder.”
glory b
@DCF: what’s wrong with Dems deciding who will be their candidate?
What would stop mischief making republicans from coming in and voting for someone who isn’t our choice?
I’m not really that active, but why should some random person who strolls by get the same say as someone who is committed to the party?
D58826
@Brachiator: I don’t know I remember trudging 10 miles up hill both ways in the snow to vote in 1840 :-)
Miss Bianca
Meanwhile, there’s this from Barbra Streisand – sort of the “anti-Susan Sarandon”
Gee, if she keeps it up like this I’m really going to feel badly about laughing so hard at one of my favorite Onion stories…
Aimai
@Brachiator: ive been brooding about this and we really need something to lick in that vote. Like a cultural movement “vote twice!” Have people sign up to be texted a reminder, just like for a physical. Connect with voters in advance of the midterms and make the midterms not a referendum on Clinton but on republican intransigence. One of the reasons im so sick of the bernie people is their intense, visceral, hatred and suspicion of hillary. The whole “we will watch her and keep her honest” is the same thread of pouty purity which kept some progressives at home in 2010. They wanted to show obama they didnt approve of this or that. American governsnce just isnt possible znymore without a huge margin of democratic votes. We cant run the country in two year bursts.
Paul in KY
@Ella in New Mexico: Sounds like a great idea, Ella.
John D
@Ella in New Mexico:
Your “figurative generalization” was not what I was saying at all, and even a cursory reading of my statement shows that.
I was saying that you have precisely one path to a populist, progressive Democratic Party. Join it, work with it, and effect the changes you want to see from within. NOTHING you are doing here is helping. It’s far easier to sit online and complain about how awfully you are treated, and how insulting those horrible Clinton supporters are, but that does NOTHING to attain the goal that you, yourself, claim to support.
So I am challenging you to get off your ass and to DO IT. That is not telling you to “fuck off”. That is telling you to shut up and get to work.
Mnemosyne
@scav:
To be fair, crocheters really are evil, with their devilish single hooks.
;-p
Betty Cracker
@negative 1: When I disagree with whom? The Democrats? The Blue Dog on offer in any given election? I suspect like most people, I don’t agree with any party 100% of the time nor find a 100% match in any candidate, so I make the calculation that will advance the issues I care about most effectively. So far, that has me voting for Democrats 100% of the time in a general election. In primaries, I’m more strategic, but the goal is always to advance the issues I care about rather than voting for the party for its own sake. That’s the point I was trying to make: The purpose of the party is to give a diverse bunch of individuals a way to band together to move their issues forward.
John D
@Mnemosyne: Crotchety old farts vs. knitwits. Go.
(I don’t have a dog in this hunt, we do both in our household.)
gwangung
@Betty Cracker: Seems to me that some Sanders fans know how to deal with ideological opponents….but aren’t varying their approach with ideological rivals. The two aren’t the same, as you can work with rivals and not with opponents.
Ella in New Mexico
@John D:
One more time, just to put this to rest.
This…
…FIGURATIVELY means “do it the way I do it or fuck off” to pretty much everyone who does not have the time or energy to work at Party Headquarters but who is voting for Sanders and we all want to vote for Hilary in the fall.
geg6
@negative 1:
I have no idea what world you live in, but my political party is not the entirety of my life. I suppose I have several “tribes,” if you must use that nomenclature. So, I’m not quite sure why you think all “tribal” associations are bad. They aren’t and I would think that someone who so admires a socialist candidate would understand that so-called tribes are what get collective action to happen. Unless you’re somehow sure that socialism doesn’t require collective action. In which case, I think we’re done here.
Elie
I am honestly happy to have avoided this morning’s conflagration….
I agree with @Betty Cracker: Parties are the only way to organize diverse populations into some sort of policy goals. There is nothing dirty about being political and I am sorry that some have gotten that impression. Compromise and negotiation are inherent in any system that has to accommodate this much diversity. I have no idea why people want to have it just their way without any adjustments.
Hooray — I made it to the WA State Democratic Convention in June as a Hillary delegate. That ought to be interesting. Hillary has relatively few delegates compared to Bernie and at our County Convention they didn’t really seem up for any kind of compromise though many were sociable once they were done making their points loudly and aggressively including having placards with “never Hillary”. I am hoping things settle down. The NY times editorial was stupid and condescending to both candidates. I have never seen the Times as particularly friendly to Hillary. Whatever, I hope she is psychologically, spiritually and physically getting herself ready to do the battle ahead — both to get through the primaries and convention and then to face the horror candidate that most likely will be Trump. I think she will surprise people with her strength.
John D
@Ella in New Mexico:
OK, I’ll bite.
How will you change the Democratic Party without joining? Step by step, please.
This is not “Do it the way I do it”. I mean, I’m giving you good advice here. This is how change is effected in a political party. They have ZERO reason to listen to you on the outside — you are not a member, so why should they care what you think?
You really do not seem to understand how this works, and interpreting my advice as “fuck off” means you don’t seem to have any interest in understanding it. Have fun raging against the system that ignores you because you are too busy to get involved. I predict you will beat your head against that wall to no avail, but maybe you’ll break through. Best of luck.
Paul in KY
@Mnemosyne: My sister has a coffee mug that says ‘I knit because I’m smarter than you’.
Marc
@gwangung: Sadly, I think that this applies across the entire liberal online spectrum. I think that stressing the considerable common ground between Sanders & Clinton is well worth doing, followed by the importance of not having the current Republican party in uncontested charge, followed by the unique problems with Trump.
Paul in KY
@Elie: Please try not to be smug ;-)
Paul in KY
@John D: I’m guessing then that Ella is not registered as a Democrat?
D58826
Not to put to fine a point on it but the areas of disagreement in this thread pale into insignificance in comparison to
Any questions class?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-north-patterson/closing-polls-and-slammin_b_9273844.html
aimai
@Ella in New Mexico: I have read your posts very much more closely than they, perhaps, deserved. You are the one getting your panties in a twist because you think some random internet commenters are not sufficiently worshipful of your children or the other Bernie sanders supporters you think they represent. I am perfectly familiar with idealistic students–I have one, I was one, and I will technically be one again in the fall when I begin my MSW. So when I criticize hypothetical student voters who vote for their ideal candidate in the primary but won’t show up for the general, or for the midterms, I am speaking of specific people, actual people, who are not sufficiently political or sufficiently energetic to turn out to vote when their pendulum isn’t being jiddled with excitement. If the shoe doesn’t fit your child she isn’t being asked to wear it. The youth don’t need you defending them because no one is attacking them.
aimai
@Ella in New Mexico: It really doesn’t. You have to stop pretending that it does. Its literally “welcome to the struggle” not “fuck off.”
gwangung
@Marc: I shouldn’t limit this to just Sanders, actually. It’s a common tendency we all have to fight against. And it’s a bit more pernicious for folks who are in power, since they have more oomph to break things with.
But, yeah. We got lots in common. We can critique each other, but don’t forget we have the potential to work together.
aimai
@gwangung: Ideological rivals vs. ideological opponents is a great way to look at it. As is allies vs. enemies. But for precisely this reason people have talked about the “narcissism of small differences” being the issue. And of course thats perfectly normal during a primary–Obama had to stake out a hard line on health care IIRC (no mandate) to distinguish himself from her and then had to flip and use the mandate because the math really required it. I’ve always assumed that Hillary and Bernie would govern exactly as far to the left as their rightmost voter in their own party in the Senate and the House would let them. They are both good people and would, more or less, try to do good things in office. Naturally they have to distinguish themselves in order to get the voters to choose them so naturally they exaggerate their differences. But they just really aren’t that different. Despite the Bernie cries that she is “republican lite.”
geg6
@Ella in New Mexico:
“Fuck off” is not the same as “quit your whining.” If I wanted to tell you to fuck off, I have no problem doing just that. But that’s not what I wanted to say. I wanted you to understand that you are acting like a young child that has to be told to stop whining. That’s it. I’m perfectly willing to work hand in hand with you but if all you are going to do is whine about the meanie party “insiders” like me, feel free to sit out party activism and just go and vote in November and I’ll be happy.
Paul in KY
We’re beginning to stall out, people. I so wanted Betty to get her own TBogg unit (sigh).
Maybe one day, Betty! One day! (shakes fist at PC).
D58826
Not in thge lexicon but I’ve seen it before. Pre _internet English translation please?
Elie
@Paul in KY:
I hope I am not coming across that way but I have had a great morning learning about being a delegate and also getting a new job interview… I am just happy today and truly hope we can get past the negative stuff soon… its very wearing. I will say that I was immensely proud of being a Democrat yesterday. It was really cool to see a gymnasium filled with all of us and all of us advocating for many of the same values and dedicated enough to show up on a Sunday for a day of hard but good work. Whenever I get negative I will try to remember that…
Brachiator
@Aimai:
I agree with you. This may not be the entire answer, but it surely has to be part of it. And the Democrats will have to fight the nonsense which always tries to ascribe GOP intransigence to “both sides do it” and failure to compromise.
Some of this will be up to Hillary. Many of her opponents, including some posters here, seem to be certain that they know exactly who she is, what she will do, and who she has sold out to.
Some of these people, like Obama haters, will see what they want to see, no matter what. But hopefully others will be more reasonabale.
FlipYrWhig
@Ella in New Mexico:
Or, alternatively, maybe they’re right, and a left of center progressive candidate would be instant roadkill because there aren’t enough left of center progressive voters to put her (or him) ahead in that district. Because that’s also a possibility.
FlipYrWhig
@D58826: 500-comment thread, like those that used to happen at the old TBogg blog in its heyday.
Paul in KY
@D58826: A unit of 500 comments. A great blogger named TBogg used to get them a lot (I think, as I did not frequent where TBogg did his/her stuff).
Miss Bianca
@Elie: Congratulations, if you are still reading!
D58826
What seems to be the official democratic/Clinton party line on Sanders. It doesn’t seem disrespectful or condescending even if they are a bit frustrated that he doesn’t turn his campaign in a more anti-gop direction
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-allies-fume-over-sanderss-vow-to-fight-on/ar-BBsxOF4?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
catclub
@D58826: 300+ comment post. I think.
glory b
@John D: Thank you.
And, the Dems didn’t turn their backs on unions, white people did.
Someone did historical research that showed that anytime something was seen as benefiting black people, whites turned against it.
The 70’s was when unions finally lost the discrimination battle. almost right after, it was easy for Reagan and the republicans to kill them with a thousand cuts.
Google PATCO if you don’t believe me.
Paul in KY
@Elie: Just figured (from some of my reading here) that the majority of Bernie delegates might be a bit pissy that their candidate is out of it (no matter what Washington delegates do). You, being a Hillary person, should try & be conciliatory, as some of them can be a bit delicate (it appears).
We need them to vote for Hillary & also talk her up.
D58826
@Paul in KY: ah. I thought that might be it from the context in this thread and last nights Bernie/Hillary BARN BURNING (and no I don’t mean barn burner)
Paul in KY
@FlipYrWhig: The candidate has to sell it. They have to get out there & campaign & tell the voters how the progressive/liberal policies will help them & their kids.
Ella in New Mexico
@FlipYrWhig: From what I’ve seen, many independents and even some Republicans around here are sick of this guy and might go for a someone a little more progressive and less a part of our old- school Democratic regime. Lots of them like Sanders, for example, just not Hilary.
Aimai
@Paul in KY: this line makes me think of when you ate getting out of the car znd your kid brother shouts “made you do it!” As you shut the door. There is no greater sign of political immaturity in a voter thsn this kind of attitude. If you think that a) hrc isnt going to ask for every vote or that b) if she fails to give a blow job znd s bag of gold to lifelong green party members she ought to lose the election I just dont know what to say. You have a stunningly wrird view of both voters and politicians.
Elie
@Miss Bianca:
I am Miss B! I stayed on the sidelines for most of this thread — just didn’t have the heart for it today but its always good to see you (your comments) — and many others here — even when we fight…
Aimai
@Elie: you go girl!! Hope you have a blast at the convention!
glory b
@Kay: I’m an Obama girl through and through, but I remember that in 2008, it was up to Hillary to get her supporters to vote for Obama because she lost.
Now, it’s up to Hillary to cajole Sanders supporters to vote for her because she won.
How’s that work??
Elie
@Paul in KY:
Oh don’t worry — I totally know that. Our side’s speech was all conciliation and highlighting our core values in common. I would not put out my eye to spite my face by being rude to any Bernsters at a convention . I am a pragmatist. We have to make peace and that is only done through respectful language and treatment — even if I don’t receive it. Obama is my model…
FlipYrWhig
@glory b: Why it’s almost like a lot of people trust the lady to be the mature and self-sacrificing one! (At the office we have had this discussion many, many times.)
Ella in New Mexico
@John D:
I’m registered as a Democrat. I vote in every single election. I give money to the state party and the specific candidates I support.
I sign petitions for candidates, put signs in my yard, bumper stickers on my car, and promote factual, content-based progressive ideas on social media. I have even been known to engage people one-on-one in order learn more about what they care about, how they decide who to vote for, and to let them know why I think a given candidate or idea is a good one.
I work for other causes that are not just associated with the Party but do great Progressive stuff by, again, donations or volunteer time. I often find myself contacting each and every one of my local, state and Federal representatives about things that are important to me as a Progressive voter.
I harass every single person I know who claims to be indifferent or uninterested in politics to pay attention, register and vote for issues that effect them. I live like I think a person of my political persuasion should live as an example of why my Republican friends and acquaintances shouldn’t demonize “liberals”.
I used to be a part of an organization that required me to do a lot of in person”lobbying” our elected officials for change, so I know what it’s all about. But at this point in my life, I think I do enough.
Paul in KY
@Aimai: I’m talking about a hypothetical ‘progressive’ candidate in New Mexico running for state whatever, not Hillary! Jeezus, step away from the keyboard. Take a long walk…
Miss Bianca
@Elie: Hey, same here! Yeah, I’m trying not to add gasoline to any flame wars today – got my own job interview to look to, (thanks for your advice, btw, the prison library job interview is a happenin’ thing!) and I’m mostly just wanting us all to pull together at this point.
@glory b: Said it before, I’ll say it again: Ladies running for President are supposed to be gracious, deferential, and not show ambition. Oh, and not get paid as much for speeches as Donald Trump. ; )
FlipYrWhig
@Paul in KY: So, you know, it’s also possible to make a stirring case for liberalism that loses very badly if there aren’t enough liberals around. I can make a stirring case that the Yankees suck, believe me, but I have a feeling that I’m going to do less well with that message in the Bronx.
Paul in KY
@Elie: I know you’ll do a fine job.
Paul in KY
@FlipYrWhig: Agree, but the candidate has to define themselves (by meeting the voters), rather than letting them be defined by the opposition. They may still get whupped, but they got out there & did their best.
D58826
@Miss Bianca: and especially not raise their voice!!!!!!
Elie
@Aimai:
Just to clarify its the State Convention in lovely Tacoma…. We pay our own way plus registration fee. Getting to the “big dance” in Philly will be tough since I would be competing with all the folks from my Congressional District and not a few will be elected officials and people with a lot more familiarity than I. Still, I will give it a shot and its a great time to schmooze and get to know more fellow Democrats.
On another up note, I volunteered to go out with a Health Dept mobile medical/dental clinic for migrant workers. THAT is very near and dear to my heart. My mother and father will be smiling at me from up there in heaven… this was who they were….both social workers and just fine folks….
Elie
@Ella in New Mexico:
YAY for your good work! We need every Democrat out this fall and going forward… We have our work cut out for us…
Elie
@Miss Bianca:
Best of luck to you, Lady B! Mine is with a local clinic….
jeannedalbret
@Marc:
For those who would like another reasoned, articulate response to surprisingly vicious contempt being dumped on Sanders supporters on “liberal” blogs, <see http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/tpm-readers-on-sanders-3 published earlier today.
My sentiments ezackly.
Ella in New Mexico
@aimai:
There is a consistent pattern in the pro-Hilary commentariat here of denigration of the youth voting block as being a bunch of narcissistic, spoiled, foolish, deluded or only subject to whimsy voters that is made by not just you but many others. I not only think it’s wrong, but short-sighted and is contributing to the very problem you complain about. When I tell you about my kid it’s because I want you to know that for every “hypothetical” there is a real world example of someone who won’t do that.
I don’t know how we’re going to get people to believe that the system is not rigged or an insider’s club if people just mock them, that’s all.
Ella in New Mexico
@jeannedalbret:
That’s a great link-thanks for posting it. Speaks to my issues and concerns EXACTLY.
D58826
@FlipYrWhig: I think this is a big problem with the Bernie/progressive revolution. There are not enough progressives, outside of places like Mass, San Francisco, etc to win a national election. In spite of the belly aching on the right there are not enough pure conservatives to win national elections either. That is why both republicans and democrats play to the base in the primary and pivot in one degree or another to the center in the general. Like everything else 2016 on the GOP side may not follow this rule but I suspect Hillary will. And they do it for a simple reason – the center is where most of the votes are. Of course the center is not a static entity. The center leaned more left in the post-war, pre-Reagan era. Reagan titled it to the right for a generation. Obama may have helped tilt it back to the left. Even with those swings the center is certainly more liberal today than say 1916. It doesn’t mean that progressives give up. After the Goldwater drubbing in 1964, who would have predicted that a washed up third rate actor would win the WH in 1980 and define a political generation The right went to work building an infrastructure of think tanks, newspapers, faux news after Goldwater lost and it all came together in 1980./ We still have the right wing echo chamber today. The left has to do something similar if they want long term electoral succerss at all levels of government. Hopefully the left will build its infrastructure on facts and a big tent rather than the fact free rhino/purity pony echo chamber of the right.
Ella in New Mexico
@Elie:
Thank you! I’ll do what I can do.
And congrats to you on being chosen to be a delegate. Thank you for doing what a lot of us can’t do! Good luck! :-)
John D
@Ella in New Mexico: I’m not asking for a list of progressive bona fides (though good on you for doing all you do!). I’m asking how you plan to reshape the Democratic Party into a more populist, progressive organization, which is what you claim to want. Saying “their votes are their voices” is trite and meaningless. The Party is shaped by the members showing up and making their voices heard at the party meetings, building networks within the party, and pushing for the things you value to the forefront. If you think you are doing enough, fine. You will be ignored. That is the reality of a political party. I’m not defending that, but I am stating, flat out, that you will be ignored.
And with that, I’m done. We are just talking past each other at this point.
glory b
@Ella in New Mexico: Yep, and I think probably none of us are living off inherited fortunes and have jobs too.
Miss Bianca
@D58826: WOT????!!!
@Elie: Best of luck to you, too!
glory b
@Cacti: I know, aren’t we all dazzled by the blinding light of purity, goodness and tech savy emanating from Ella and her amazing family?
By the way, my dog is about to defend his post doc thesis. We couldn’t be prouder.
D58826
@Miss Bianca: Not sure what ‘wot’ means. It was a riff on the criticism in the media couple of weeks ago that Hillary talked to loud. Or to put it differently Ginger did everything that Fred did only backwards, in high heels and a dress in order to get the same recognition. .
Cacti
@glory b:
And if/when, the little turds don’t show up for another midterm in 2018, maybe she’ll pop in to remind us how her sprog is the 3rd alternate 8th chair violinist in the all district youth orchestra.
D58826
@Cacti: Enough already. A simple ‘we agree to disagree’ is sufficient. Your validating her point that Bernie supporters and the young are being dumped on unfairly.
dollared
@D58826: Nope, never said a thing about closed primaries. Don’t care. But there you are, putting words in my mouth.
D58826
@dollared: It was meant as a general comment about the nature of the various primary systems and how various Bernie supporters have been somewhat selective in which type of primary is fair and which one is not. If I unfairly lumped you in with others I apologize.
dollared
@Ella in New Mexico: Thanks for putting in the work today. Seriously, what a bunch of counterproductive assholes. You’ve been incredibly patient with them.
Cacti
@dollared:
Come to regale us with more tales of “legal money laundering”?
D58826
@dollared: And enough from your side of the fence. You just validate Cacti’s point. And if you are going to respond with a phrase that would have gotten my mouth washed out with soap by my Mom, save your energy and keystrokes.
Keep this up and we will begin to sound like a Trump/Cruz debate. What next a discussion of the size of our hands or whither some one is related to the Zodiac killer? On an earlier thread Kay, myself and a couple of other had a long discusion about the definition of the working class. No insults, no profanity and I assume no hard feeling s. At least none on my side and it had the added benefit of my leaning something new. d
Miss Bianca
@D58826: Sorry, making a silly joke re “not raising your voice”. I think I’d better go back to lurk mode on this thread…
D58826
@Miss Bianca: Np. As I said it was a riff on the media, mostly faux, complaints that Hillary talks to loud. One more thing a male politician can do and a woman get unfairly called out on just like the cost of Hillary’s haircut. Trump must pay a small fortune to keep that raccoon glued to his head
dollared
@Cacti: I can’t help you learn English, or common business language. I have to go do some of that now, for somebody who pays well and appreciates the knowledge.
And yes, you are a leading counterproductive asshole. How many potential Democratic voters can you piss off today?
dollared
@D58826: If you might recall, I started that discussion about the working class. Reread the thread. And Kay is more civil than I – she has responsibilities here. But if you read her comments, she has agreed that the behavior of the self righteous HRC fans here is counterproductive.
There is plenty of room for civilized give and take. I enter each thread trying to stay in that zone. But I will respond to contempt with contempt, and I will not countenance ignorance and dishonesty. You are not typically one of those people, but there are plenty in that group on this blog and I should not have to put up with it.
And I’ll say it again: It is counterproductive to attack people who are likely to vote for your candidate. Such tactics are thoughtless and self indulgent and do not deserve respect. We all will benefit from the biggest possible Democratic Party victory, on all levels. I’m sure you get that – I’m not so sure about Memn or Cacti, but there it is.
Ella in New Mexico
@dollared:
Well, to be honest, it’s my “five 12’s in seven days straight” week at the hospital and this is my only day off. (three on, one off, three on). I’m gonna earn some good tuition money for the kiddos with all the overtime, but when I do it It’s usually a complete bust when it comes to getting anything really productive done–my feet hurt like hell and I’m tired and sitting on a lawn chair, listening to music and sipping tea while bothering people is the only activity I can tolerate. But I do appreciate your support. :-D
@dollared:
I agree. When I do stray to the ugly zone, that’s usually what pushes my buttons, too.
Ella in New Mexico
@Paul in KY:
And you’d be guessing wrong. :-)
aimai
@John D: You did a great job, though. I agreed with pretty much all of your posts.
Ella in New Mexico
@John D:
First of all, you’re wrong about being ignored unless I’m fucking licking envelopes and making cold calls at the Democratic Party office! THE WHOLE POINT OF WHAT THEY DO IS TO GET PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR THEIR CANDIDATES AND CARE ABOUT THEIR CAUSES. From what I’m seeing in the news, the Party, at least on a national level, IS starting to care about people like me and others even less engaged.
And as for “being done” that’s cool because I agree that the communication isn’t happening, because I don’t think you are seriously trying to understand what I’m saying, which is my vote and those things I listed above that I do to help the party get things done ARE the way I’m changing the party platform.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
@dollared:
I doubt it was very many. The general population here skews older and more politically experienced.
As a general thing, I’m thinking that the bulk of our hard-core Bernfeelers landed here after being kicked out of GOS and were unreachable anyway.
I’m feeling a lot like Foghorn Leghorn right now. I think I’ll wander off and enjoy celebrating the Tony noms and Chuck Tingle.
(Chuck Tingle very much NSFW and won’t make much sense unless you know about the latest Hugo kerpupple. But the WorldNetDaily heir being trolled right back is just so much fun.)
aimai
@Ella in New Mexico: Again–you simply are willfully misunderstanding me in order to continue to pretend to be offended, or maybe you are offended. But its your choice. Most Americans don’t vote. Most students don’t vote. Most students who do vote in primaries or general elections during presidential contests will not show up to vote during midterms. The Bernie people have just spent months explaining to us that their voters are young/students and will not turn out to vote for an ordinary politician like Hillary Clinton or, if they do vote for her in the general, will continue to regard her with suspicion or boredom or rage and refuse to turn out to vote for her in the midterms because she will, of course, have betrayed their ideals. This isn’t my assertion its a straight up paraphrase of things that are said every day at daily kos and (I’d argue) by implication are said by you adn Kay when you wring your hands over the youth vote and how it is Bernie centric.
Of course polls show that politically active youths on the center/left are planning to vote for the Democratic nominee by record numbers even if its not Bernie, so that whole “Bernie or no one” rage a thon is just childish extortion talk by some Bernie supporters. In reality most serious political people will vote for the Democrat in the nomination regardless of who it is and regardless of any angry conversations they may have had, personally, or thought they heard about sixth hand from someone’s mommy posting on the internet.
But many younger people are at best unreliable voters. I don’t think thats because they are bad people, I think its because voting is sporadic, takes up time, doesn’t come with a national holiday, and is difficult to do when you are mobile. I have run the polls at my local voting place and every four years we have younger voters come dashing in expecting to vote without having bothered to register. They have a number of fascinating reasons why they were expecting same day registration, which we don’t have, or why they forgot, or didn’t know, or whatever. But nevertheless younger and more mobile people (renters as opposed to owners, for example) have a tendnecy to drop off the voter rolls and forget to get back on except for high profile elections.
THATS NOT AN INSULT and you can stop pretending that it is. Its just a fact. Or was Bernie Sanders insulting poor people as a class when he observed, correctly, that poor people often don’t vote?
Ella in New Mexico
@glory b:
Aww, how adorable. Sycophantic Snide-Attack me with Cacti in order gain a little street cred with the Gang.
You don’t know a thing about me or political background or my family or apparently, how to win friends and influence people. Some of these long-timers here I engage with actually do. So please don’t go there.
DCF
@nellcote:
What?!?…Sanders ‘needs’ the ‘Democratic party structure’ because – as history has repeatedly shown – third-party candidates do not do well in American presidential contests. This fact is entirely distinct from the issue of campaign finance. But since we’re on the issue of political funding….
Clinton Leaves Little For Other Democrats
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIV9NhBS4LA
BUSTED: Hillary Clinton Caught Hoarding 99 Percent of Funds Raised for State Parties
http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-bilking-state-democrats/
D58826
@dollared:
I have found that responding to contempt with contempt only raises the contempt threshold. As far as ignorance again it just gets the other person’s anger up. And as in the case of the definition of the working class yesterday, I guess you can say I was ignorant. It was something I wasn’t an expert on and didn’t think all the way thru. After the discussion I guess I’m a little less ignorant on the subject. A week or so ago there was an interesting thread on pricing models and how that determines whither jobs will be in the Us or somewhere else. I don’t consider a person ignorant just because he is not an expert or may be misinformed. If he doesn’t want to listen and maybe learn that is his problem and life is to short for me to worry about it. And as to dishonesty, yes I agree that it should not be tolerated but I find it difficult to determine when a person is being dishonest when all I know about that person is from this blog.
When I was young and wet behind the ears I used to have very spirited (angry?) arguments with my 19th century grandfather. He was, no two ways about it a racist, but he was the product of his time. As often as not I would offer an argument and he would respond with ‘well that’s your opinion but the facts are’. and a bit later I would find myself using the EXACT SAME WORDS BACK AT HIM. What I realized is we all have our facts and your opinions so I have tried to take that lesson and listen a bit harder in an argument, assume until proven other wise the honesty of that person and realize I do not know everything and his experience may have give him a different slant on like. I have also learned from reading history that no matter how big the book on an event it is still a selective edit, hopefully honest, of a much large universe of facts about that event. a different writer will select a different subset of those facts and write a totally different book. A book written by an american on the US troops in England prior to D-Day will talk about how we came to help the Brits defeat the Nazis. A British writer will look at the same troops and think ‘over-paid, over-sexed and over here’. And from each prospective they are probably correct. SO who is ignorant or dishonest?
DCF
@glory b:
The general election is, by definition, composed of the entire spectrum of voters; ‘independents’ are presently the largest voting bloc in the country. While holding ‘closed’ primaries can guarantee the Democratic stamp of approval for a given candidate, they ignore – and in fact diminish – the electoral perspective(s) of independents. HRC is not, at present, well-positioned to do well with this group. Sanders, OTOH, has done remarkably well with the ‘swing’ voters who do not swear allegiance to either party.
There may well be some ‘…mischief making republicans coming in and voting for someone who isn’t our choice?’…I don’t know whether it would be enough of an influence to ‘tip the balance’ in a primary…I suspect not, but I’d be intrigued to know more about the significance of this issue….
With regard to ‘…some random person who strolls by…’, all i can say is that all citizens are potential voters, and we (as a Party) need to gather (and include) all those who resonate to the tenets of the our collective beliefs.
Ella in New Mexico
@aimai:
Projection is not truth, it’s a defense mechanism. This is beginning to feel like a conversation we had a while back in which you got so intense over perceived wrongs I uttered. you basically told me you despise me. Which was pretty silly, given that we hardly know each other and that I actually try to be pretty decent with you.
I’m not sure what is the deal, but you read WAAAAY too much into things I write. Sometimes you react like they are only pertaining to you. Then you over-interpret my responses kind of inaccurately. I read back through the thread and the thing that pops out at me is my initial comment was not to YOU, it was to Cacti mocking young voters playing X-box and taking bong hits instead of staying involved in politics. You then proceeded to jump in and defend the sentiment with your own version of basically the same thing she said. I really think that it’s time to chill out and take a vacay from all the beating of the dead horses and singing to the choir all day long, girl. ;-)
And I’m not offended. I’m trying to express that we start finding ways to engage people who don’t vote, and in this particular conversation, young people. That when people generalize or stereotype the Sander’s voters, it’s non-productive. We have a lot of other people who don’t vote, too. Poor people, undereducated people, people with mental illnesses, minorities, etc. Lots of constituencies that are disconnected. How do we get inside their heads and find out WHY they don’t get involved in electing the people who make the decisions that effect their lives? Not by making sweeping statements about what we think is going on with them–but by talking to them and asking them and finding ways to address that in how we engage them in the electoral process.
Even though I do think some of them are never going to care, much less volunteer for campaign activities, I found in my past work with the homeless and domestic violence victims that some of the reason for that is that they really are overwhelmed by the a lack of knowledge about the processes of getting involved, and even more serious, are intimidated by the people who ARE engaged and involved. We had the “ACORN”-types come into our program and try to register people and get them to come volunteer themselves, and hardly anyone was up for it. They were too distracted by their immediate circumstances for one thing. But they also said that it was “for other people” to do. They see lots of people on TV and out there on the street who don’t look or live or act like they do. They often don’t feel that they “belong there”.
I just think that It’s important that we are sensitive to that, be welcoming to all potential voters by not having a clique, but instead a dynamic, responsive Party.
D58826
@dollared: Now to drill down a bit into the discussion we had yesterday on money laundering to illustrate what I’m trying to get at.
I am not a lawyer. If you are then we all have to defer to your area of expertise. As an average citizen every time I have seen the term used, until yesterday, it was in reference to illegal activities. I suspect that is what most Americans think. I also work at a bank. Every year we have to take a course on the anti-money laundering law and how to protect the bank from some one trying to launder money thru an account. The course never mentioned any legal use of money laundering. I realize it was not meant to be an in depth treatise on the subject and it was designed to just give us non-lawyers an over view of the of the subject. When you serve on a jury part of the judges instruction is to tell the jurors to use their common sense and life experience in rendering a verdict. For me and I suspect most people their common sense and life experience tells them that money laundering is a crime.
I’d have to go back and look at what kicked this off in the thread whither it was you just bring up an aspect of Hillary’s campaign financing or whither it was something that Bernie’s campaign said. For the sake of the argument lets assume it was something that Bernie said. Given the commonly understood meaning of money laundering Bernie can say Hillary is using money laundering techniques to fund her campaign. When Hillary cries foul and says you are accusing me of being a crook, Bernie can say in all honesty that he never called her a crook and the techniques he is referring to are legal, if obscure. But he did use a phrase that conjures up dishonesty in the minds of most laypersons. Maybe its a subtle point or arguing about angels on the head of a pin but I think Hillary’s people would be right to complain even if your explanation of money laundering is correct. A political campaign is not the place to start teaching law 101. It is a back handed way of calling her dishonest give the common understanding of the phrase.
And as I said earlier about the arguing and hard feelings on this and other treads it makes no sense to alienate our allies. To paraphrase Franklin ‘we all must hang together or Trump/Cruz will surely hang us separately, even if only metaphorically’
MY BIL is a very outspoken his way or the highway conservative (he could have same view as a liberal) so it makes it very difficult to be around him. I had no problems early in my sister’s marriage talking politics with him. As a southerner I got a different point of view on the civil war and reconstruction. When he told me I was anti-semitic then that ended it.
And that is where I am coming from on this entire issue.
opiejeanne
@glory b: Hi! Welcome to the dog pile (they’ll be here any moment).
I like your nym a lot.
My contribution toward the T-Bogg unit.
D58826
gotta hurt
@Ella in New Mexico: @aimai: As I read your back and forth why do I get the feeling that one of you is taking the left fork and the other the right fork on two roads that get to the same bloody place.
FlipYrWhig
@Paul in KY:
But there are no moral victories in politics, are there? Is there any value in running as an out-and-proud liberal and then losing 70-30? I’m not surprised that the New Mexico Democratic Party (or whoever) thinks that their energy is better spent recruiting moderates who they think can eke out 50.1-49.9 victories. The only solution to this, it seems to me, is for “insurgent” candidates to run AND THEN WIN, knowing that the establishment is going to say mean things about them, and that the money tap isn’t going to flow as freely. And until liberal/progressive insurgents win and keep winning, officers of the party are going to keep taking refuge in moderates and people with money, not radicals and people with a wing and a prayer. This is my bone to pick with the Bernie Sanders phenomenon: hundreds or thousands of mini-Bernies should be running just about everywhere, _right in the face_ of the people who tell them it’s a stupid idea and that they’ll surely lose. If it didn’t happen this time, it had damn well better happen next time. Turn Berniacs into winning candidates and suddenly there’s a whole new playbook for the Democratic Party. Grumping and grousing about how it’s so hard isn’t going to get that done. Longing for the party to change its spots isn’t going to change them. Show the way and prove the progressive pudding by eating the damn thing.
FlipYrWhig
@DCF:
I’ve got it! What if there were an additional round of elections that independents could vote in? Why don’t we do that for the past 200 years?
different-church-lady
Having not read the editorial yet, I’m going to play the odds and go with the NYT editorial board.
Cacti
@dollared:
The cure for ignorance is knowledge. Willful stupidity can’t be helped, and you crossed that line to catapult the propaganda of your personality cult guru.
But really, tell us some more about “legal money laundering”. We’re laughing with you, not at you. ;-)
D58826
@FlipYrWhig: Right and in about 10 years and the power of the grime reaper they will be, dare I say it, the establishment! And human nature being what it is members of the establishment will fall all over themselves to claim credit for having discovered this diamond in the rough.
D58826
Trump has been called the winner in Indiana
different-church-lady
@D58826: My one and only contribution to all internet traditions.
D58826
@different-church-lady: :-)
D58826
Keep hoping we will wake up and Trump will just be the same bad piece of potato that generated Marley’;s ghost. However Erik son of Erik just announce that with Trumps win tonight, Hillary will be the next President.
DCF
@FlipYrWhig:
Absolutely!…and why don’t we also continue to ignore the ‘bottom 90%’ as well…the Republican party adheres to the meme of ‘the prosperity gospel’, so why should the Democratic party not also share in that self-promoting ideology? Why in seven hells would we exclude a voting bloc that is a likely ally?
terry chay
False dichotomy. It assumes that for you can’t have both a better party and a selfish campaign. Both are right.
Sanders running has elevated the Democratic Party (polls show this). The way Sanders is running undermines both the (downticket) party, and his stated goals (no surprise, with Sanders it’s all about his sanctimony).
dollared
@Cacti: Thanks. Legal money laundering paid for my first house. And it’s paying for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. And it paid for her expenses as a trustee of the Clinton Foundation. And if you think that is libel, please, send me your email address and I’ll send you my home address. You can sue me. I’ll accept service. And I’ll collect about $100k from you under Federal Rule No 11.
Please. Just ask me. Make it happen. I could use a vacation home.
dollared
@D58826: Thanks for the detailed explanation. I do understand where you are coming from. I appreciate the honest effort you make to communicate about these things.
Paul in KY
@glory b: My cat already has his doctorate in Sleepology. Got it 5 years ago. Harumph!
Paul in KY
@Cacti: Now you shouldn’t gig someone for justifiably being proud/happy at their child’s accomplishments. There are other nits to pick.
Paul in KY
@Ella in New Mexico: Great to hear! A lot of people seemed to be thinking you were a Green Party person or a dreaded ‘independent’.
Paul in KY
@FlipYrWhig: I was just saying that a ‘progressive’ has to get out there with the electorate & sell/explain their positions. More so (IMO) than a ‘conservative’ might/would have to.