The hope that it will pay off provides motivation for the candidate, for the senior staff, for the field organizers and for the volunteers. Election results are a clue by four towards reality. Re-adjusting to the actual reality instead of the hoped for reality takes time and at least for me, one or two stupid statements.
Today is a recovery day for Senator Sanders and his campaign. Tomorrow is a reassessment day with a meeting between Senator Sanders and President Obama who can gently deliver any needed clue by fours and provide credible guarantees towards policy/platform enforcement mechanisms. I would be totally happy for Senator Sanders and his campaign to finish out the string in Washington DC next weekend and then start a wind-down with a concession by the middle of the following week. It takes time to mourn a loss and organize a wake, so fellow Clinton supporters, give the Sanders supporters that time please.
And now:
Sanders campaign statement on Tuesday's NH event pic.twitter.com/dvPhS4JMUJ
— Jennifer Epstein (@jeneps) July 11, 2016
It took a couple weeks longer than I thought it really needed to, but the Clinton campaign has been busy hiring a lot of good Sanders staffers since three days after California so the reconciliation and unity building blocks had started to be assembled early on.
So let’s just chill.
LanceThruster
#NeverHillary
rikyrah
Let’s see how it goes. Here’s to thinking positive thoughts
Baud
Hillary handled this well. Good for her.
rikyrah
@LanceThruster:
You’re still here?
MattF
There will always be some dead-enders. The time to beat Trump is now.
Punchy
Chill? The old crank is about 6 weeks late. Fuck him and his oversized ego and overstated influence. Endorse your vanquisher and go back to building your flux capacitor, Sando.
rikyrah
Would Republicans accept a pro-choice VP candidate?
07/11/16 08:40 AM
By Steve Benen
When putting together a list of possible running mates for Donald Trump, it’s not hard to rattle off the names of assorted governors and members of Congress. But the Washington Post threw the political world a curve-ball over the weekend, reporting that the presumptive Republican nominee is “slightly bored” with the usual suspects and is “increasingly intrigued by the idea of tapping retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn” for his ticket.
And while this article came as something of a surprise, it’s easy to see why the GOP candidate would be enamored with the retired general. Remember, the one person in the world who most impresses Donald J. Trump is, of course, Donald J. Trump. Mike Flynn has a record of military service the presumptive nominee can’t match, but Flynn is also a political amateur with literally no experience in elected office, a prominent anti-Muslim voice, a fierce critic of President Obama, and someone who’s a little too cozy with Vladimir Putin.
aimai
Man, the soft bigotry of low expectations for cranky old white men strikes again–I will chill out when Sanders manages to grciously concede and endorse, and not one moment sooner. I am gobsmacked by the way so many people are willing to hand out gold stars and first prize for losing before the guy has even set foot on the platform to concede.
If Sanders manages to behave like a grown up and do the thing handsomely, I’ll forgive him. But I’ll never forget how stupid ugly his loss was or the way he tried to poison the voters against Hillary. And I doubt very much that he will do much to clean up the mess he is leaving.
rikyrah
Conservatives Just Lost the War to Privatize the VA
by Paul Glastris
July 8, 2016
Two years ago, in the wake of a VA scandal involving employees at some VHA hospitals fudging data over long wait times, Congress passed legislation that attempted to reform the system. It did so in two main ways.
First, it created a so-called “Choice Program,” whereby vets who live more than 40 miles from a VA facility or had to wait more than 30 days for an appointment would be eligible to receive care from private doctors outside the VA system. This was widely seen as a trial run at outsourcing most or all VA health care
Second, the law empaneled an independent Commission on Care to study the VA and recommend sweeping reforms, with privatization very much on the agenda. Indeed, representatives from two Koch brothers-allied pro-privatization groups were given seats on the commission, as were several executives from major medical centers that stand to profit from outsourcing VA care. The fix, it seemed, was in.
Neither the Choice Program’s implementation nor the Commission on Care’s deliberations has gotten much coverage in the mainstream media. But as regular Washington Monthly readers know, we’ve been watching both very closely indeed.
Among other things, we reported that research commissioned by Congress and ratified by the Commission concluded that while the VA has major problems, such as severe shortages of some doctors, VA health care nevertheless performs as well or better than the private sector on nearly every metric of quality, including average wait times to see doctors.
Meanwhile, the presidential candidates also took positions on the VA issue. Donald Trump’s campaign backed aggressive privatization. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, announced her opposition to privatization but support for expanding existing “purchased care” programs wherein the VA contracts with outside providers to alleviate care shortages but maintains tight oversight to guarantee information-sharing, care integration, and quality and cost controls.
On Wednesday, the Commission released its final report. To the surprise of most observers, the commission rejected privatization as the solution. While detailing a host of serious failings with the VA, the report notes that “care delivered by VA is in many ways comparable or better in clinical quality to that generally available in the private sector.” It concludes that the new Choice Program was “flawed” in both its design and execution, adding that “the program has aggravated wait times and frustrated veterans, private-sector health care providers participating in networks, and V.H.A. alike.” Rather than wholesale outsourcing, the report recommends addressing issues of access by “standing up integrated veteran-centric, community-based delivery networks,” a plan roughly similar to the one Hillary Clinton had called for.
Dolly Llama
This will be a “magic bullet” for Hillary’s campaign the same way saying the magic words “Islamic terrorism” is a “magic bullet” in the campaign against terrorism. When Bernie endorses her, it seems like some believe the heavens will split open, a chorus of angels will sing, and Trump will concede the election. I’m finding it as hard to get worked up about his endorsement as I found it hard to get worked up about his non-endorsement. The people who absolutely, positively won’t vote for Clinton won’t do so regardless of who the old coot endorses or doesn’t.
dmsilev
@aimai: Yeah, this. Let’s not forget that in 2008, a much closer and arguably uglier race than this one, it took Hillary _two days_ to announce that she was going to concede and endorse Obama. I’m glad Senator Sanders has finally come around, but this is literally the least he could do.
rikyrah
An Opportunity for #NeverTrump Republicans to Save Face
by D.R. Tucker
July 10, 2016 3:30 PM
Let’s face it: the #NeverTrump movement is an admission of embarrassment on the part of veteran Republicans, an acknowledgment that the Southern Strategy was suicidal, a concession that as a result of fifty years of playing to ignorant fears, the GOP base is largely comprised of people who think the term “animal husbandry” refers to bestiality. You can’t blame these veteran Republicans for wanting to wash their hands of their creation–and you can’t blame them for seeking alternate political routes:
For some Massachusetts Republicans, the return of Bill Weld — the law-and-order Yankee who charmed his way into two terms as governor of a liberal state — is nothing short of face-saving.
Finally, they have a reason to show up on Election Day.
“I think for a lot of Republicans, especially in a state like Massachusetts, it gives us an option,” said Virginia Buckingham, a Republican who once worked as Weld’s chief of staff, and will vote for him this fall. “We were kind of in a difficult position facing voting for Donald Trump.”
Weld’s reemergence as a vice presidential candidate on the Libertarian ticket with former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson has been viewed largely as another curiosity in a crazy election cycle in which, it seems, anything might happen…
Stacy
OT: There’s the horrible #whiteinventions on Twitter right now with the usual racists coming out of the woodwork to add their pithy responses. Donald Trump Jr. added “The United States of America.”
Reggie Mantle
@MattF:
No doubt. Just as there’ll be some Bernie bashers who’ll continue to rail at him even after he’s done what they’ve been demanding. They’l pick and parse and flat misrepresent what Sanders says to “prove” he has insufficient dedication to Hillary.
EDIT: I see it’s already started.
Bill
I predict there will be no chilling at BJ on the Clinton/Sanders issue.
(But I agree with your call for chillness.)
dmsilev
@LanceThruster: Your choices at this point are Hillary or Trump. One of those two will be President in January; which one do you prefer? “None of the above” is not a valid answer.
rikyrah
How Black Lives Matter and the Police Can Unite
They can take on the most anti-law enforcement group in America: the NRA.
by Steven Waldman
July 11, 2016 8:51 AM
Over the weekend, more and more voices responded to the killings in Dallas, Baton Rouge and Minneapolis to urge empathy. Both police and African Americans feel under siege, it was noted that a better “conversation” must occur.
But improved relations usually come from working together on a mutual endeavor, not just talking. Ironically, the issue that can best unite these communities is one of the most divisive: gun control.
The most anti-police organization in America is not Black Lives Matter – it’s the NRA. In the past, they responded to the proposal to ban semi-automatic weapons by attacking the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as “jack-booted government thugs.” For years, the NRA has fought restrictions on “cop killer” bullets that pierce the protective armor worn by law enforcement officers. They’ve opposed most gun control measures requested by police.
Not only do they make the police’s job harder, they peddle the lie that America’s police are so ineffective – anarchy already reigns — that regular people must arm themselves. That’s at the heart of the increasingly dominant notion — the most noxious “new idea” of the last thirty years — that the only way to stop a bad guy with a guy is a good civilian guy with a gun. Think about it: the answer used to be that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a policeman with a gun. No more. The NRA’s big message: the police are not the answer.
rikyrah
Trump backer says he’s running ‘as a racial healer’
07/11/16 08:00 AM—UPDATED 07/11/16 08:49 AM
By Steve Benen
Donald Trump has been called all sorts of things over the course of his controversial presidential campaign, but yesterday was probably the first time anyone, anywhere, said he’s positioned to play the role of “racial healer.”
CNN’s Jake Tapper interviewed Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R), a vice presidential contender, and the host noted that he’s heard from “a number of Latino-Americans, Muslim-Americans, Native-Americans, Jewish-Americans, African-Americans, all expressing concerns about some of the things Donald Trump has said.” The Republican governor insisted most Americans have the same security concerns, regardless of who wins the election.
It led to this amazing exchange.
In case you’re curious, the governor said this with a straight face.
MattF
@rikyrah: That competes for ‘the weirdest thing I’ve ever heard’. It’s like… she’s discovered a new dimension in dishonesty-space.
RobertDSC-iPhone 6
I have no interest other than hoping this is the last we hear from the shouty old man. Get the fuck off the stage.
El Caganer
@rikyrah: Of course he is. It’s just that there’s only one race he’s concerned about healing.
satby
@rikyrah: That lady needs serious anti-psychotics.
Schlemazel Khan
@LanceThruster:
OK, the judges would also have accepted “I am a stupid dumbass and you can ignore anything I might say” but your short answer serves the same purpose.
@Punchy:
It takes some people longer to grieve, let it go as everyone with a functioning brain stem knows what Sanders did so it does not need to be rehashed. FOrgive, don’t forget but don’t pick at the scab as it isn’t helpful.
Brachiator
The official Sanders campaign statement is some weak ass crap that makes it sound as though he will be there to talk about how Hillary has embraced his positions.
Anything less than a full and hearty endorsement will not cut it. It will be interesting to see whether Sanders understands that he is a day away from becoming a political irrelevancy.
RSP
@Reggie Mantle:
And of course you have to be here to defend him. Bernie doesn’t need you to defend him from Internet commenters. Get a life loser.
Edit: That said, I am glad Sanders has come around.
Schlemazel Khan
@dmsilev:
He wants Drumpf because that will teach us all a good lesson and we will never fail to go further left next time. For example see: Nader 2000
hellslittlestangel
Well, I’m glad. I was getting sick of being sick of Bernie.
satby
@hellslittlestangel: Based on historical evidence, he’ll give people another reason fairly quickly.
Schlemazel Khan
@RSP:
And that comment is helpful how?
Look, I get that there is a lot of bitterness here & things have been said by both side (YES, in this case both sides do it) that were petty and vindictive and personal for not good reason. “He started it!” is an excuse I wouldn’t accept from my kids a 5 years old. Let it fucking go. If you can’t ignore them than at least don’t add fuel to the fire with pointless personal attacks.
NotMax
Sanders has a bright future touring the clubs doing Larry David impressions.
RSP
@LanceThruster:
So how well did #NeverTrump work out for the Repukes?
Not very well in case you can’t figure it out. Hillary like Trump is popular with the Democratic base whether you want to admit it or not. Your “principled” stand is bullshit. A real facist is at the gates and you want to wait for Jesus to come save us all. Get real.
RSP
@Schlemazel Khan:
Sorry. I just really don’t like him and a couple other commenters like him. They’re very annoying. That’s the last time I’ll engage him.
rikyrah
How Bernie Sanders lost black voters
Bernie Sanders lost the Democratic primary in large part because he failed to win the hearts of black progressives.
It didn’t have to be that way. But his campaign never explained how black people fit into his vision of a radically changed America. And, according to a series of Fusion interviews with former staff members, campaign leadership didn’t really see the point in trying.
Those former staffers described a campaign that failed to give its black outreach teams the resources they needed, that never figured out how to connect to black audiences, and that marginalized black media.
In the process, the campaign missed a chance to capitalize on a revolutionary message that otherwise might have appealed to black voters frustrated with the current political order.
Instead, Sanders was clobbered by Hillary Clinton among black voters in state after state after state, including some where Sanders either won white voters or lost them narrowly. The gap made it all but impossible for him to win the nomination.
negative 1
@Schlemazel Khan: I’ll never forgive that time when someone else thought a candidate’s marginally different approach to certain economic issues was something worth voting for. I need to swear revenge and post a million times how any time that happens we should insult everyone who ever had a different idea than me!
I do love this place.
LanceThruster
Bernie himself said regardless of his endorsement, Hillary would have to earn the votes of his supporters.
It’s sad to me that the possible ‘history being made’ of the first female US President is so lacking integrity.
Crazy or Republican-lite is no choice. She will have to win without me, but since she’s got it in the bag with her scary awesome qualifications, that should be no problem.
rikyrah
What We Can Learn from History About the Advancement of Civil Rights
by Nancy LeTourneau
July 11, 2016 9:19 AM
t probably isn’t a coincidence that, after the events of last week, I found solace in the words of Robert Kennedy the day after Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination in 1968. One of the reasons his words resonate so well is that there are some strong parallels between what was happening then and now. I’m not the only one to notice. Comparing/contrasting our current situation to what was going on that year is a topic that has been covered by Jonathan Chait, Josh Marshall, Ross Douthat and Julian Zelizer.
Marshall points out one thing that is important to keep in mind about the lead-up to that year.
It’s also worth remembering that just two months after Kennedy talked about the Mindless Menace of Violence in this country, he himself was assassinated. In addition to his brother JFK, national figures like Malcolm X, and Medgar Evers met the same end. Marshall goes on to sum things up.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@NotMax: I saw a thing in the ‘tubes a couple weeks ago that David was thinking of another season of Curb. Maybe being dragged out to play Bernie! gave him the bug again, in which case I will join Greg Sargent et al in saying the Revolution! has accomplished something valuable.
(would a Veep-Curb crossover with David as a cranky old coot of a Senator from a mostly empty, mostly white state with a huge grudge against Selena Meyer be too much to hope for? Or just too much)
If the old coot (the real one) starts campaigning, even emailing, for more than one Senate candidate, I’ll start believing he did something to shift politics.
patrick II
No one mentions Clinton’s possible indictment as a reason for Bernie holding back his endorsement, and maybe that is because everyone thought there was no chance of it happening. I thought there was like a 1% chance of Clinton being indicted and thought that it was reasonable that Bernie waited to find out. I don’t think it is totally a coincidence that stories concerning Bernie’s endorsement started about a day or two after Comey’s report.
I have not read this anywhere else so I may be way off base, and I have been known to be totally wrong about politics among other things before, but there you go.
OzarkHillbilly
@hellslittlestangel: This. And sick of all the Bernie bashing and the NeverHillary stupidity.
Cat48
Sorry, I don’t feel like chilling. Even Ted Cruz admitted he lost. This is BS, petting him bc he’s male. He should be put in a freezer until after the election in November. It’s not co-winners, it’s one winner. If she were not female, he would have conceded long ago.
D58826
Long piece by Ezra Klein at Vox on Hillary. Will not try to summarize
Ben Cisco
@LanceThruster: Time for some pie.
D58826
@D58826: @D58826:
where did the link go?
D58826
sigh in moderation again
rikyrah
Clinton, Dems embrace a progressive vision with little resistance
07/11/16 09:20 AM
By Steve Benen
Bernie Sanders won’t be the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate this year, but his impact on Democratic politics is hard to miss. The Washington Post reported yesterday on the party’s new national platform.
If party platforms matter – and the jury is out on that – what happened this weekend in a sweltering Hilton conference room was remarkable. The Democratic Party shifted further to the left in one election than perhaps since 1972, embracing once-unthinkable stances on carbon pricing, police reform, abortion rights, the minimum wage and the war on drugs. It did so with very little ideological resistance and a lot of comity between the supporters of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
“We have produced by far the most progressive platform that this party has seen in multiple generations,” said Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy (D), co-chairman of the platform committee.
It’s worth pausing to appreciate the irony: it wasn’t long ago that Sanders’ campaign team demanded Malloy’s ouster, considering him too moderate and too supportive of Clinton to oversee the platform process fairly. And yet, there was the governor, announcing the progressives’ victory.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Frostilicus!
GOVCHRIS1988
Can I say that at this point, Bernie Sanders endorsement is akin to getting an endorsement from Rep. Paul Tsongas 3rd cousin. A self righteous, pious in is beliefs ineffective pol that has been talking nearly 30 years in Congress while letting others do the grunt work of legislating then swooping in to take some credit like many of our self professed “progressives” do. I mean, come on the important people of the party,the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the Democratic Leaders of the U.S. House and Senate, the majority of Democratic Governors, U.S. Representatives, U.S. Senators, state House and state Senators, Alderman, Delegates, the majority of Democratic Mayors, City Council members, Town Executives, County Commissioners, etc have endorsed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, including most of the Bernie Sanders backers that aren’t insane loonnuts who believe that Trump would “transform us from the status quo.” (Believing this shit is like believing that being fucked in the ass raw with a cactus is better than being done with astroglide and a dildo.) The only people that Bernie has left in his support stable are either the same self righteous assholes you wouldn’t want backing you up in a schoolyard brawl, because they would bitch that you punched with your right cross first instead of petting him softly on the head and whispering the real enemy is the oligarchy or those gamergate loons that women are lying when they say they were raped. Typically, people you really don’t give a flying fuck whether or not they support you because who wants them around. This is more for Bernie than for Hillary because Bernie is on alot of Democrats in the Senate and House’s shit list right now and these are the people he has to work with for two more years.
Agrippa
@LanceThruster:
Do whatever you want.
negative 1
@rikyrah: Did anyone ever do any exit polling on that? All I’ve ever seen are articles like that — they cite raw count statistics and use a crystal ball to determine what voters thought. You’d think with voters being able to be sliced and diced 100 different ways someone would’ve thought to, ya know, ask someone why they voted a certain way. Yet I still have yet to see it.
negative 1
@GOVCHRIS1988: You could actually just blanket make that statement about any politician, really. Has anyone ever voted for a politician just because a different politician said to? Nothing is as useless as an endorsement.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@rikyrah:
You beat me to posting that article. It’s just gobsmacking how tone deaf and clueless that whole campaign was from top to bottom. The flip side of the same coin was reading through Sanders subreddits back in early March, where his bros were virtually screaming for Weaver, or anyone from that campaign, to pay attention to them and give them money to organize the GOTV/registration with NY and California looming. They were all ready to lay down in traffic for the fucking guy (for some reason that I will never ever understand), and they couldn’t get any response. They knew better than the campaign did about the kinds of problems that were going to arise, and that’s where I learned that BS had only one field office in the entire state of CA. Makes you wonder where all that money went, doesn’t it? Hahaha, no it doesn’t.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@GOVCHRIS1988:
Hello there! Where have you been all my life? Come slide over here and sit next to me.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@negative 1: I think they mattered when things were more machine-like, or at least more localized. I think they matter today somewhat in terms of email lists (hard to believe they matter, but damn people in politics obsess over them) and ground game and campaign infrastructure. I think Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama was huge, and Trump could have benefited somewhat from endorsements if he were capable of message discipline while they were rolling in.
Agrippa
I have doubts about how much of an effect a Sanders endorsement may have. He may be doing it to preserve what influence he has remaining. He is a Senator after all.
If the Platform does not matter all that much, giving Sanders most of what he wanted was smart politics.
MattF
The ‘Reply’ button seems to be broken, so I can’t reference D58826, but Ezra Klein’s Vox piece on Hilz is really good.
Tilda Swinton's Bald Cap
@Reggie Mantle: I knew you’d show up for this thread. Never seen you in any others unless BS is mentioned. You’re so transparent. Like, yesterday when John posted up the photo of the young lady about to be tackled by the cops. I guess the old swollen prostate from Vermont is the only thing you care about. You’re pathetic.
LanceThruster
https://img.pandawhale.com/post-37426-sometimes-I-doubt-your-commitm-FRW0.gif
Agrippa
@GOVCHRIS1988:
Got it in one
dmsilev
@the Conster, la Citoyenne:
Those big rallies are really really expensive, especially if you’re doing dozens of them. It’s not clear how effective they were at swaying votes; great for keeping the already-enthusiastic engaged, but as a persuasive tool for those who weren’t yet convinced?
gvg
@MattF: that isn’t weird. It’s a lie. the person quoted whom I have never heard of before, is proven to be a racist by that cold blooded lie. Quite a few still want to pretend that they aren’t, and if they have enough friends who agree they can pretend but I am not fooled. Racist. Liar. Racist. Liar.
Not particularly weird yet. Hopefully in the future.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@dmsilev:
You know what else was really expensive? Tad Devine’s salary and media buys that most savvy campaign people believe Jane did and got a commission for.
negative 1
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I’m calling that support. That’s a little different — when we (a union) endorse someone, we are throwing money and volunteers behind it, making phone calls, etc. Ditto for other large group endorsements. But when Chris Christie said “you should vote for Trump” did anyone beyond Fox and CNN care? Did any voter ever make up their mind based on that? I suppose a better example is — does anyone remember who Martin O’Malley endorsed? C’mon, no cheating with the Google…
negative 1
@the Conster, la Citoyenne: That’s any campaign, ever. They all run through a lot of cash quickly
ruemara
The very progressive, purer than thou left runs a candidate that eschews “identity politics” (stuff that doesn’t focus on white male voters), insults voters of color, attempts to open the party nomination system to people who’d happily ratfuck us over to being as electorily viable as the Green Party, whines about voter suppression to cover for the fact they simply were too lazy to do the hefty job of registering to vote and went hog wild in spreading as much neocon propaganda if it confirmed their biases and delighted in attacking real civil rights heroes. No, Mayhew, I will not chill. This primary showed many people seem to think getting actual free stuff from PseudoSocialism Santa was far more important than actual progress on POC rights. It wasn’t a good look. What sort of allies are people like this? This isn’t kumbaya for a lot black progressives, it’s just eyeroll and keep working because the problems ahead won’t be solved by not just accepting Sanders back into the fold. But, chill? Nah.
danielx
Trump backer says he’s running ‘as a racial healer
And pigs might have wings, too.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@patrick II:
There would be no way Bernie would get a nod before Joe Biden if Clinton wasn’t able to proceed towards the election. There is no good will for Bernie at all among Democrats at this point.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I’m gonna guess Clinton because otherwise the usual suspects would be waving it around like…. something waved around by someone annoying.
maurinsky
I have a couple of Facebook friends I’m going to have to unfollow for a couple of days, because they are going to ratchet their anti-Hillary rage up to 11 following tomorrow’s endorsement.
MattF
Progressive Caucus and Progressive PAC are about to endorse Hilz– which seems to me a bigger deal than Sanders’ endorsement. Sanders’ endorsement may resolve ego issues for some individuals, the institutional endorsements come with real benefits. It’s the money, the data, and the people that matter now.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Looking for something else I find this
If nothing else, it’ll be interesting to see if the populist movement has had any effect on how Senator Simpson-Bowles campaigns.
Shell
Over at Kos, a poster puts up a daily, huuuge Sanders diary. Today has the title ” How Bernie ended the Cold War in 2016.”
Ummm..okay.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@dmsilev:
Also, interviews with rally goers in New York turned up an interesting fact that half the people interviewed weren’t registered to vote. The rallies probably conveyed a sense of visible enthusiasm that probably led to complacency – “look at all the people like me fired up and ready to go so it probably doesn’t matter if I don’t vote”. Tad Devine sure did get paid a lot of money for relying on a notoriously unreliable voting bloc, ignoring outreach to groups who are reliable voters, and overspending on rallies instead of on staff. IOW, he should be sued for political malpractice. It seems like it was never really taken seriously until all the money started rolling in.
Mnemosyne
@LanceThruster:
So, you’re voting for Trump, then.
We have a two party system. If you’re not voting for Hillary, you’re voting in favor of the actual fascist regardless of whose name you mark.
It’s kind of amazing how conspiracy theorists can get so caught up in their own bullshit that they can’t see an actual danger right in front of their faces.
gvg
Well for the record one reason I could not prefer Sanders was his dismissal of the non economic problems POC face. The anti Obama backlash dumb spite both in Congress and among that small part of the population has been eye opening. So have many things I have read here from black commenters. I was not willing to abandon them even if I thought Sanders could improve my white economic lot.
Another reason is that I trust competence and knowledge more than good intentions.
So any other new politician who comes along and wants to do something about the economics, which I agree need a lot of fixing, better take that into account and run a better campaign and demonstrate loyalty to all not just a few.
Which brings up another point. Sanders isn’t loyal. However I honestly don’t think that will be much of an issue with other possible spokespeople for these economics.
Sanders is no longer that important but thinking about how someone else could help us is worth talking about.
schrodinger's cat
@danielx: Well he is uniting sane people of all races against him, so he is racial uniter of sorts!
MomSense
@Mnemosyne:
Truth.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@Shell:
So, delusional is still the operating paradigm over there, I see.
aimai
@rikyrah: Rikyrah, I want again to say that I wish you were a front pager. You always have the most interesting things to say and the broadest read on things. I learn so much from following your links. Thank you.
D58826
@the Conster, la Citoyenne:
Among the young’ins maybe it was just something to do on a Friday night? One or two might have cared but the rest of the group went along for the ‘happening’. Speculation of course.
Donut
@LanceThruster:
Bye, Felicia.
different-church-lady
“Long piece by Ezra Klein at Vox on Hillary” is all the summary that’s required.
hovercraft
@Brachiator:
If that is how he frames his concession, oops I mean endorsement then I will have no compunction branding him as a sore loser who never should be anywhere near any lever of power. Running for public office is supposed to be about wanting to do good for the public, everything I have seen over the last two months has shown a man who may have started off with lofty goals, morphed into an exercise of ego. Sanders developed a messiah complex whereby any and everything was acceptable to achieve the one goal of installing him and only him as America’s savior, his signature issues became secondary to that goal. If he reverts to the candidate he purported to be at the beginning then and only then will I stop giving him the stank eye.
GOVCHRIS1988
@the Conster, la Citoyenne: Keep in mind that most of his voters were of people who had been political independents for years, thus have either NEVER voted in a primary or haven’t voted in one for many years. Then, pull up the fact that many young people he had never voted before or only voted in the general elections the last two times, and you get the same concoction of hubris that burned Mitt Romney November 6th at 11:15 EST>
aimai
@rikyrah: I know this is in the article but this is the Bernie-thing in a nutshell:
Bernie and his team had absolutely no compunction in trying to attack and smear Malloy, like they attacked Clinton herself. And then after Clinton, or Malloy, behave with perfect progressive propriety and push their own agenda Bernie et al take all the credit for it.
Shell
Wow, she’s even more kiss-ass than Newt.!
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@gvg:
Me too – amazingly, looking back to last fall, I was really glad Sanders was in it, and thought he had a real shot and would have supported him. Until the Berniebros all showed up online and it started getting clearer and clearer what his appeal was. Mr. Conster started becoming one, and dismissing all the arguments of mine about the structural issues Sanders would have, and started repeating all the FB posts about how the superdelegates were so undemocratic and unfair, etc. I told him one thing since I’m the politics freak – if Sanders beat Hillary in the South, he had his coalition and then we’d both know where it was all going. I told him the likelihood of that happening was approaching zero the closer we got to Super Tuesday, but still, let’s wait. When Sanders got crushed, we both knew (because I did) it was over and that the Sanders window closed. Of course, the very first thing that happened after that was all the dismissiveness and goal post moving, and the Berniebro delusional math challenged phenomenon really set in. My contempt for Sanders really augured in after that. I had never witnessed such dismissiveness by a politician in my life.
Immanentize
@gvg: Elizabeth Warren was always the progressive Plan A. When she decided not to run, Bernie, a much less talented politician (not to mention a much less skilled and engaged Democrat) took over her waiting supporters. There has always been a Bernie alternative and she is solidly behind Hillary. Which is why. IMHO, the Bernie supporters have so quickly switched to Hillary (compared to the PUMA dead-Enders). They know who they really want to carry forward their economic change platform and it was’t Senator Sanders
Immanentize
@aimai: I agree! And she is always cheery in the morning. A total plus!
rikyrah
@ruemara:
Accurate summary.
Cermet
@aimai: Agreed
rikyrah
@aimai:
Thanks for the compliment. But, they’ve got great FrontPagers.
I do, however, miss Kay :(
Matt McIrvin
Sanders’ endorsement of Clinton, at this point, is not going to give her a giant boost, but every marginal bit helps.
There are still a lot of people reporting “undecided” in the polls, far more than at this point in the last couple of election cycles. The real dead-enders are the equivalent of ’08 Hillary PUMAs (strangely, a few of them are actually the same people) and are not going to come over. But the Sanders supporters who were already resigned to voting for Clinton will feel a little better about it and be that much more likely to turn out, and the people with vague misgivings of the form “I can’t vote for Trump, but there’s something I don’t like about Hillary; I can’t put my finger on it” might be a little more likely to commit.
Like most presidential elections after the 1980s, this is going to be a game of inches. It shouldn’t be given the spectacular awfulness of this year’s Republican candidate, but this is where we are.
Quinerly
@aimai:
Agree 100% with you.
Mr. Mack
My FB feed is clogged with former Sanders people flocking to Gary Johnson. Have they even READ about him? SMH.
dogwood
Mr negative1: (reply button doesn’t work)
The point isn’t that all campaigns run through money quickly, so they’re all the same. The the point is that Bernie ran through money quickly by allocating resources in questionable ways. In Feb. alone either Weaver or Devine (can’t remember which) made around $800,000. Robbie Mook will make less than half that amount in 18 months working for Clinton. Obama was the first democrat to put the ad men on salary rather than paying a percentage of the buy. He got more bang for the buck against Clinton in ’08 for that reason. She followed his example this time around. Bernie’s “progressive” campaign followed the old formula of making consultants rich first. Thus you end up with 1 field office in Ca., and his voters, who have no clue how their money is being spent, yelling “fraud”. Why that’s ok with you is beyond me.
Bobby Thomson
@Cat48: this. Fuck that guy. He’s forfeited any claim to legitimacy or respect.
Quinerly
@Cat48:
Agree 100%
dmsilev
@different-church-lady: It’s actually worth reading.
dmsilev
@the Conster, la Citoyenne: I read somewhere (can’t remember where) that a substantial chunk of the attendees at Sanders’ rallies were the political equivalents of DeadHeads, following the campaign around the country and going to as many rallies as they could. From the perspective of expanding Sanders’ appeal to as broad an audience as possible, those people aren’t particularly helpful and just serve to pad the rally attendance numbers.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@dogwood:
Obama has given us the blueprint for how to win elections in this demographically changing country. Hillary learned, and followed it. Sanders refused to learn anything and lost, and even now refuses to acknowledge the reason why. He thought he knew better than Obama, and refuses to accept the fact that he’s just another mediocre petty old white guy.
CONGRATULATIONS!
@ruemara: The left’s version of FYIGM can be really nasty. Although I’m beginning to realize something I should have realized a lot sooner; everybody’s getting desperate. Hunger Games played in real life, but not with food (yet), just with college.
Course nowadays, doesn’t matter if you get a college education or not, you’re still gonna be fuckin’ poor unless you were born rich. But the word on that scam is still not widespread.
patrick II
@the Conster, la Citoyenne:
Bernie might not agree.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@dmsilev:
So many of Sanders followers HAVE MEMORIZED HIS STUMP SPEECH. That’s just fucking weird. That’s your clue right there that they’re not political, they’re looking for the next Jerry Garcia and can’t be taken seriously. Next cycle it will be someone else.
Matt McIrvin
@Mr. Mack: Possibly they have.
At this point I think Gary Johnson is going to get many more of these people than Jill Stein, because they’re not actually purer-than-thou leftists: they’re purer-than-thou, but not terribly left.
What the really dead-end Bernie people tend to be, in my experience, is not so much economic leftists as the Greenwald/Snowden wing: passionate about anti-imperialist foreign-policy positions, and opposition to the NSA, security culture and the drone war; not actually very interested in domestic issues apart from spying, privacy and crypto stuff, which they regard as superseding everything else. They became “left” mostly as a result of George W. Bush’s military screwups and atrocities, and the Obama administration has been nothing but a disappointment to them because he hasn’t fully undone all that stuff. Bernie Sanders isn’t actually all that great on these issues–but they’re convinced that Hillary Clinton is terrible, and she’s tainted by being part of the Obama administration.
They tend to be white male tech nerds, and they’re immersed in the libertarian-ish culture associated with that, so even if they identify as progressives, they’ve got some “government=bad” attitudes and a tendency to de-prioritize liberal domestic policy. So they might well regard the libertarianism of someone like Gary Johnson as an acceptable compromise.
I am broadly sympathetic to many of their causes, and I agree that Obama hasn’t gone as far as I’d like. I also recognize the political realities behind this, and I’m not a single-issue voter about it. But these people are.
Miss Bianca
@gvg:
Gasp! What kind of monster ARE you??!
Bobby Thomson
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
1. Evan Bayh is an asshole.
2. Indiana is an incredibly racist backwater. It’s not full of closet Marxists waiting for the right come on to get into their pants.
3. We could maybe to better than Evsn Bsyh, but not much. The state elected Mike Pence twice.
4. I doubt Bayh will change his marketing or votes much at all.
5. As long as he stays off the news channels, I don’t give a shit.
El Caganer
@the Conster, la Citoyenne: Sounds more like they’re looking for the next Jesus.
negative 1
@dogwood: What I resent is when people say ‘you spent money on politics therefore it must be crooked’ which is the insinuation of the original comment. Obviously Clinton spent money more wisely; for starters she won. However whether or not Bernie’s spends, or amounts, were stupid I take seriously any accusations of fraud. For starters, political nihilism (“they’re all crooks”) benefits conservatives by delegitimizing government. Additionally, I hate the unspoken implication that high salaries are somehow only legitimate in the for-profit world. Presidential campaigns are Fortune 500 level money — expected to be set up and successful in less time that it takes most banks to change software platforms. They should be paid well. Even if you hate every one of Bernie’s policies that still doesn’t give anyone the right to blanket accuse anyone working for him of fraud with no backup.
What I find troubling about any of these threads is the amount of people that are basically just doing what conservatives do, except for TEAM D! and somehow that’s supposed to make it OK.
dogwood
@Mr. Mack:
Quite a few of the Sanders voters I knew (not dead enders), knew very little about Sanders. They were just Hillary haters or Hillary-weary. So it’s not a surprise that the die-hards will jump to Johnson without knowing anything about him. If Bernie had to run against a democrat who hadn’t been smeared by the right wing for decades, his “revolution” would have been pretty small.
AnotherBruce
@Mnemosyne: He doesn’t have enough guts to admit it though. Notice he hasn’t said who he is supporting.
Miss Bianca
@ruemara:
This times nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
eleventy ‘n’, says Pancho Kitten.
negative 1
@ruemara: Free stuff? Man, someone’s been reading their O’Reilly…
Miss Bianca
@Matt McIrvin: I’d say this summary is pretty right-on.
Chyron HR
@negative 1:
Whereas refusing to vote for Clinton because of the e-mails and the Clinton Foundation and where there’s smoke there’s fire is completely different from what a Republican does, because shut up that’s why.
Bobby Thomson
@Mr. Mack: he has a penls.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@El Caganer:
Birdie was their Jesus, or at least their Starman. No wonder Sanders is having such a hard time accepting his loser status, although as a grown ass man it’s really embarrassing to watch.
Immanentize
@Miss Bianca: ?
negative 1
@Chyron HR: Why would you think that would be OK with me? That’s my point exactly — it’s a conservative tactic, and a horrible one. That’s specifically why I think it’s sh!tty. To Bernie, to HRC, I hate to say it but even to Ted Cruz. Just because I don’t like a person’s ideas doesn’t mean I think that irresponsible gossip is above board.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@negative 1:
If Bernie and Jane had released their tax returns and their personal financial disclosures maybe those questions wouldn’t even be raised? Burlington College is a bit of a red flag, isn’t it? They’re hiding something.
dogwood
@negative 1:
I didn’t say there was anything fraudulent about how he spent his money. It’s all up front in the reporting. It was the Sanders campaign and his voters who call “fraud” on Clinton every time she won a primary. But you really show your hypocrisy here. Sanders railed against banks and corporations non-stop. The 1% are ripping us off. But your’re ok with paying $800,000 A MONTH to a political consultant because campaigns are like Fortune 500 companies, and you have to pay top dollar to get the best talent. Goldman Sachs just might have some openings for paid speaking engagements that you could fill. That’s the party line of all the fat cats.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@dogwood:
Exactly. It feels like Bernie’s hiding his hypocrisy in those tax returns and financial disclosures which isn’t illegal, it would just prove he’s not St. Bernard.
Mr. Mack
@Bobby Thomson: I’m sure that comes into play…but these are mostly millennials so I’m not sure if they are as moored to the old sexist norms.
negative 1
@dogwood: Doesn’t that make him a hypocrite, not me? I work for a non-profit, where if I get above minimum wage I’m basically a crook or it’s a fraud. I personally have nothing against anyone making money. The thing is his $800,000 month is also his annual salary. Do I think that’s too much? Maybe, but I work with campaigns on the state level and those guys work 24/7 while they go. It’s disruptive as sh!t to their lives and their families. I think it’s too much, but not criminally so.
The thing is we can have this conversation because political consultant salaries need to be disclosed to the public, whereas even if you own stock in Goldman Sachs (and hence are a part-owner of the company) you won’t know how much their folks make. So I do think that society has a natural bias towards treating for-profit work as ‘real work’ and anything political as some kind of grift.
LanceThruster
@Mnemosyne:
https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/FALSE-Not-Voting-For-Hillary-is-a-Vote-For-Trump
dogwood
@the Conster, la Citoyenne:
I’m calling negative1 a hypocrite. As far as Bernie being a hypocrite for paying those salaries, I actually think he’s more clueless than anything else. He knew nothing about national campaigns; he had to settle for second rate consultants. They ran a retro campaign and he probably went along with it because he’s not interested in details. Bernie seems to sincerely believe that anything outside of the general message he delivers is a distraction. He’s like a one-issue voter. I’m not sure it makes him a hypocrite, but I’m pretty sure it makes him temperamentally unsuited for the Oval Office.
Bobby Thomson
@Mr. Mack: polling shows white millennials are as fucked up as older whites.
@negative 1: oh really?
Barb2
@ruemara: Yes! What she says.
Bernie is another flavor of narcissism. He and his ego are members of only one party the Bernie first party.
And he hasn’t released his tax returns.
He can go back to his very own party, where he thinks he is far too pure to be bothered by mere mortals.
For some reason I can’t stand his wife. She at times displays a strange smile and her body language is off. Her smile when Bernie had his first post primary meeting with Clinton, then another time when she was standing behind Bernie giggling when he was making one of his nothing announcements. She a power behind the throne and she is strange. Bernie and Jane are a team in a strange way.
Yes I am also sick of being sick of Bernie, the self righteous liar.
Paul in KY
@El Caganer: I’m sure that’s what he’s actually thinking when he says those words.
Barb2
@dogwood:
I’m developing a theory that Jane is the driving force behind Bernie’s run for the white house. She knows his weaknesses and she wants to be the ruling power behind the throne. Sort of like Nancy Raygun.
Left on his own he would have continued being the bare footed prophet (figuratively). Jane has grandiose visions of herself. Her giggling behavior gave the game away.
dogwood
@negative 1:
No. You’re the one making the hypocritical claim that you’re not bothered by the high salaries. If Bernie said what you said then, yes, I’d call him a hypocrite, but I haven’t heard him say that. Where I might call Bernie a hypocrite is in the area of process. He entered the campaign with no real delegate strategy, gotv strategy and no financial plan. That doesn’t surprise me because ideologues hate process. It was only when his ignorance about the process started to hurt him, that he became fixated on it. Bernie ended up with top campaign staff that knew one way to run a campaign. It appears to be an outdated model, but it chugged along pretty well.
burnspbesq
@rikyrah:
You’re being far more gracious can I could be about the Sanders supporters’ attempt to insert a platform plank opposing ” racial gerrymandering”.
It amazed me that it had to be explained to Sanders supporters that they were voitng in favor of disenfranchising prople of color.
dogwood
@Barb2:
I’m not into these theories. If you just watch and listen to candidates without projecting, you can get a pretty good sense of who they are and how they might perform in office. Creating fantasy theories is fun but not necessary. Jane wasn’t a particularly appealing surrogate for her husband, but I admit I didn’t watch her closely enough to get a read on what she’s about so I wouldn’t speculate.
negative 1
@dogwood: I’m not sure how what I said makes me a hypocrite, and I’m not sure how being ignorant of process makes Sanders a hypocrite. Because he said others should enter a campaign with better strategies? Or did I say that only non-profits should make high salaries? I’m confused about your argument.
@Bobby Thomson: and yet for my union I had to report every. single. person. that we paid — staff and the board. It’s a double standard.
negative 1
@burnspbesq: Eh. Republicans have used that nasty little trick to make sure that every minority votes in one district in areas in the south for years, so that though whites are outnumbered in terms of votes they somehow make up the majority of say, 3 districts while the majority black areas only get 1. I can understand why people would think it’s bad, so I’m not against having to explain why it is good.
dogwood
@burnspbesq:
If your candidate doesn’t understand or talk about these issues then it’s hard to expect supporters to understand. Stop someone on the street and ask them if they support racial gerrymandering and see what they say. Hell, I saw a survey several months ago where the majority of African Americans preferred the phrase “All lives matter” over “Black lives matter.”. That didn’t surprise me all that much either.
My Truth Hurts
Stein 2016!
Tripod
@Barb2:
It was that picture of them entering the Correspondents’ Dinner. She was six paces ahead of him and loving the spotlight. If he dies in office, she will make a naked play for the seat. I expect BC will be her downfall.
dogwood
@negative 1:
What the hell is this crap about nonprofits? A Sanders supporter who talks about corporate greed but is perfectly fine with a socialist campaign that operates like a Fortune 500 company where inflated salaries at the top are are the price you have to pay for “talent” is pretty ridiculous. I don’t care how Bernie spent his money; I didn’t donate to his campaign.
jeannedalbret
@burnspbesq: IMO, your sarcasm is uncalled for.
Can’t a case be made that by gerrymandering minorities into “their own” districts, legislatures succeed in minimizing minority voices?
http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/05/gerrymandering-rigged-2014-elections-republican-advantage/
Mnemosyne
@LanceThruster:
Wow, that guy is a moron. Hello, electoral college? Ever heard of it? Nope, so let’s just compare nationwide numbers as if they mean anything.
If that’s the quality of website you’re reading, no wonder you’re so clueless.
burnspbesq
@jeannedalbret:
That wasn’t sarcasm, and the answer to your question is “no.” In the South, and especially in Texas, understanding the data at a granular level and pushing the envelope as far as it can legally be pushed to create minority-majority districts is the only way to get minority representatives into the House. If you don’t play those games, Republicans will engineer maps that ensure that only whites get elected.
The phenomenon isn’t confined to the South. Here in OC, massaging the map was the only way to create a district in which a Dem or a POC could win. Loretta Sanchez and five slices of Wonder Bread is better than six slices of Wonder Bread.
philadelphialawyer
@aimai: I will never forgive him. He should, without reservation, and wholeheartedly, concede, congratulate and endorse. That will prevent further damage. But he cannot undue the damage he has already caused, by not having done so already, and by his un-walkbackable, preposterous and self serving claims about “the process.”
He is a fraud. A full of shit sore loser asshole entitled, smug, self satisfied, self righteous, rude, finger waving, ranting, ill-informed, moronic, sexist, racist pig. The Dems should primary his ass.
Fuck him.
philadelphialawyer
@rikyrah: The platform doesn’t mean shit. And there was no reason why Sanders could not have fought his pointless platform fight after conceding, congratulating and endorsing.
LanceThruster
@Mnemosyne:
If ‘clueless’ means not supporting a disingenuous neo-lib, so be it.
Miss Bianca
@patrick II: Plenty of people have mentioned “Hillary’s email indictment!” as a reason for Bernie’s foot-dragging, as I recall, but if he thought there was any chance of its actually happening he was as delusional as Trey Gowdy.
Uncle Cosmo
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: And you would be correct:
E-mail from the O’Malley campaign to supporters, 10 June 2016.
(Disclaimer, for anyone new here: Martin has been a friend for nearly 30 years. He was a solid progressive Mayor of Baltimore and Governor of MD & would’ve made a damn fine President IMHO. He certainly didn’t deserve the ridicule & abuse he got from Democrats who ought to have known better.
But hey, that’s politics. Deal with it & go forward. MOM already has.)
J R in WV
@LanceThruster:
No one could possibly have more integrity that Secretary Clinton: she has been investigated by multiple attorneys general, special prosecutors, the FBI, repeatedly, and has never been indicted.
In a world where any competent prosecutor can “indict a ham sandwich, if necessary” the fact that Hillary Clinton has never seriously been successfully accused of any crime after 30 years in public life, longer counting Arkansas, where politics is a no-holds-barred contact sport.
Think of it, 30 or 35 years of public political life with no holds barred enemies doing their best to dig up something, anything that would provide an indictment of either Clinton on any cause whatsoever, and nearly total failure, excepting Bill telling a falsehood about a semi-affair, as much to protect Hillary as for any other reason. For which male gallantry I for one admire him.
gwangung
@LanceThruster: No, cluesless as in “not knowing what the hell they’re talking about.”
You seem quite proud of that.
Miss Bianca
@Uncle Cosmo: I’ve kind of wondered why MOM doesn’t seem to have been seriously considered as a VP pick…
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Uncle Cosmo: Interesting. FTR, I don’t think I ridiculed and abused– thought I thought and think he was a very poor surrogate for Obama in 2012. I was mostly shocked he didn’t do better, on paper he should’ve been the golden boy of D-Kos
ETA: I will plead joyously guilty of mocking and abusing Bernie! and his supporters. And I am unrepentant and unreformed.
LanceThruster
@gwangung:
All the Hillary Bund has is abuse. That is an endearing trait in a democracy.
She’s a horrible (presumptive) nominee. The one time the DNC could have back someone with broad support, they steer the primary towards her.
They will reap what they’ve sown
Good luck with that.