So at this point it's basically just fingers crossing that the convention is halfway civil and that the inroads the Progressives made in showing they're a viable chunk of the coalition aren't completely destroyed right?
Because seriously...for most of the primaries Bernie, if nothing else, has shown that the progressive platform holds a lot of viability with a large chunk of likely Democratic voters. I really don't want to see all of that forgotten because of the last few miles of the primary race.
Nah. The progressives are pulling an OWS again already. They're refusing to actually form coalitions and work, so their goals are going to be sidelined.
What is this I don't even.
+6
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Is it possible that ignoring Bernie and focusing on the general, while the morally right thing to do, was an election flaw?
Bernie hasn't been attacked at all. It seems, in retrospect, that Clinton's team should've vetted him early on and completely eviscerated him with attack ads. It'd be a waste of resources for someone who would ultimately not be a threat to the primary, but since his main focus seems to be damaging the Democratic brand in the primary it might've been the right choice in the long run.
I think primarily, the Democratic establishment is loathe to run negatively against a fellow Democrat. They even had difficulty doing it to Lieberman even after he was clearly an enemy. This seems to be a central ethic Hillary seems to share.
There was also, I'm sure, strategic concern that running negative would alienate Bernie and cause him to attack in kind (or even run third-party). Secondarily, this could lead to alienating Bernie's supporters and losing them as potential Democrats.
I don't think Hillary or really anyone in the Dem establishment expected Bernie to end up running a campaign riven with such wounded grievance and negativity. Though, I suppose, in retrospect it makes sense given his career in politics.
I've never thought a long hard primary helps the party (including in 08). I don't think its what led to Obama winning in 08 and I think it took hard work to get the Clinton supporters into the Obama camp. To her credit, Hillary put in that hard work once she conceded, but I think Obama's campaigning, coalition/demographic groups and the legacy of the Bush administration led to him winning, and her efforts just mostly offset the damage from a bruising primary. No one was saying "Oh man, that bitter drawn out Republican primary is really going to help them" either this cycle or last.
If Sanders was willing to put in unifying efforts I would have been less worried but nothing in his history, rhetoric or temperament suggested to me he would be, and I think there's even more evidence supporting that now.
Hopefully it won't lead to a Trump Presidency, but he has been underestimated at every stage so far and complacency is how Democrats lose.
So at this point it's basically just fingers crossing that the convention is halfway civil and that the inroads the Progressives made in showing they're a viable chunk of the coalition aren't completely destroyed right?
Because seriously...for most of the primaries Bernie, if nothing else, has shown that the progressive platform holds a lot of viability with a large chunk of likely Democratic voters. I really don't want to see all of that forgotten because of the last few miles of the primary race.
Nah. The progressives are pulling an OWS again already. They're refusing to actually form coalitions and work, so their goals are going to be sidelined.
There was a great example of this in Vegas - because of the intransigence of the Sanders faction, the campaign finance reform plank got voted down.
Yes, that's right - they stripped their signature issue out of the state party platform.
Man, I miss the days when I was a crack pot for saying this shit was going to happen. Seeing various articles starting to agree with me isn't really doing anything to assuage my fears.
Sucks to be right sometimes.
We were told, in this and previous threads, about how no harm was being done, that primary would just make democrats, and Hillary, stronger, and Bernie would totally do the right thing.
Wonder if any of the people making such statements have changed their minds post Nevada convention.
To be fair, back then, no harm was being done. It's the refusal to play by the rules or tone down the negative rhetoric that's fueling this. This divide wouldn't be growing under early-campaign Bernie, but that candidate seems to have dropped out and been replaced by an angry old man yelling at establishments.
We were still being told they were harmless when Weaver and Sanders started talking of fliping super delegates.
Signs of him not being an issue candidate and starting to get toxic were pretty clear for quite sometime before Nevada.
Still, i would like to hear if anyone has changed their minds, or not, and in both cases, why?
Wow, that's every bit as damning as it sounds in the tweet.
I am rapidly moving from "Bernie I like you even though you often annoy me" into straight out dislike of Bernie Sanders
When you spend months irresponsibly telling your followers that your opponent is corrupt and illegitimate you don't get to be surprised at something like this happening.
And when you don't then have either the guts or the moral fiber to condemn it...
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Watching the video, I'm wondering what he's doing there. Does he just not want to answer off the cuff? Does he want to ignore the issue? Is he just annoyed at the whole thing but isn't sure what to do about it yet? Does he not want to damped his supporters enthusiasm? Is he just irritated it's another question that's not about his platform?
I really wonder what's going on there. Mostly he just looks tired.
Watching the video, I'm wondering what he's doing there. Does he just not want to answer off the cuff? Does he want to ignore the issue? Is he just annoyed at the whole thing but isn't sure what to do about it yet? Does he not want to damped his supporters enthusiasm? Is he just irritated it's another question that's not about his platform?
I really wonder what's going on there. Mostly he just looks tired.
Wow, that's every bit as damning as it sounds in the tweet.
I am rapidly moving from "Bernie I like you even though you often annoy me" into straight out dislike of Bernie Sanders
When you spend months irresponsibly telling your followers that your opponent is corrupt and illegitimate you don't get to be surprised at something like this happening.
And when you don't then have either the guts or the moral fiber to condemn it...
Well, once you get here fully, i welcome you to the group.
The thing that pisses me of the most is how wrong i was about Sanders, i used to think he was somewhere between great and ok guy.
When he started running i was happy about it and sad because i thought he had no change.
it seems to me like passing a voice vote when it's obviously close is pretty objectionable
why is that not a problem
Well A) just because some grouped up Bernie supporters only heard people vocally supporting their side does not actually make a voice vote close
and because even if it was objectionable throwing shit and threatening people is far more so.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
it seems to me like passing a voice vote when it's obviously close is pretty objectionable
why is that not a problem
Because the two voice votes were on whether or not to adopt the rules agreed to by both campaigns and whether to adjourn when the near rioting Sanders delegates got them kicked out of the casino. The actual platform, national delegates and party official elections were done by actual count. And the voice votes from neutral (news primarily) sources say the voice votes weren't that close, they just sound that way from video shot from the middle of a group of Sanders delegates. And given there were more Clinton delegates and not all Sanders delegates were acting like WTO rioters there isn't much doubt
Wow, that's every bit as damning as it sounds in the tweet.
I am rapidly moving from "Bernie I like you even though you often annoy me" into straight out dislike of Bernie Sanders
When you spend months irresponsibly telling your followers that your opponent is corrupt and illegitimate you don't get to be surprised at something like this happening.
And when you don't then have either the guts or the moral fiber to condemn it...
I really liked his commitment to running on the issues and candor earlier on (I remember one interview where he straight up said "We got creamed!"), but I don't see any of that same guy anymore. The tipping point for me was a month ago with the Clooney stuff. You've got members of the 1% convinced that things are fucked up. By your own admission, they have the power to help enact the change you want. Work with them, you assholes. Don't turn up your nose because you're innately pure and they're innately evil because of their privilege.
I was always on the fence though because I really don't like any mindset that sets up the other entity you're trying to work with and/or change as THE ENEMY that needs to have everything wrested away from them, or any kind of "it's us vs them" framing of the problem. It just creates contention and divisiveness while both sides dig in their heels, nothing gets done, and the shitty situation continues because any kind of compromise is a win for the evil "them."
It should also be noted that disruptive behavior was grounds for expelling delegates, so its not like the chair was being draconian. She could have tossed dozens or hundreds of Sanders delegates and their votes would have been forfeit
it seems to me like passing a voice vote when it's obviously close is pretty objectionable
why is that not a problem
Because the two voice votes were on whether or not to adopt the rules agreed to by both campaigns and whether to adjourn when the near rioting Sanders delegates got them kicked out of the casino. The actual platform, national delegates and party official elections were done by actual count. And the voice votes from neutral (news primarily) sources say the voice votes weren't that close, they just sound that way from video shot from the middle of a group of Sanders delegates. And given there were more Clinton delegates and not all Sanders delegates were acting like WTO rioters there isn't much doubt
ah, alright
this seems like a fault of the system then, since your own voice group is almost always going to sound louder
seems like that's probably not something they should even be doing
I don't know if anyone here was even around for my very first post on these forums in late spring of 2008, but for some reason I feel the need to pay tribute to it, only with a different target.
it seems to me like passing a voice vote when it's obviously close is pretty objectionable
why is that not a problem
These were the rules that both sides agreed to weeks before the convention. Both sides agreed that to adopt the temporary rules as permanent all it would take is a majority voice vote and that the chair would be the one to determine the results.
And since something like 20% of Sanders delegates didn't even come to the convention and Hillary had a majority it was pretty safe to assume that the rules would be adopted.
The vote was close (depending on the reports you listen to) but all it takes is 51% to pass. Again, these were the rules that everyone agreed to play by.
it seems to me like passing a voice vote when it's obviously close is pretty objectionable
why is that not a problem
Because the two voice votes were on whether or not to adopt the rules agreed to by both campaigns and whether to adjourn when the near rioting Sanders delegates got them kicked out of the casino. The actual platform, national delegates and party official elections were done by actual count. And the voice votes from neutral (news primarily) sources say the voice votes weren't that close, they just sound that way from video shot from the middle of a group of Sanders delegates. And given there were more Clinton delegates and not all Sanders delegates were acting like WTO rioters there isn't much doubt
ah, alright
this seems like a fault of the system then, since your own voice group is almost always going to sound louder
seems like that's probably not something they should even be doing
This is how its normally done and has been for literally hundreds of years. The problem wasn't the system it was the Sanders delegates acting like spoiled Trump assholes
it seems to me like passing a voice vote when it's obviously close is pretty objectionable
why is that not a problem
Because the two voice votes were on whether or not to adopt the rules agreed to by both campaigns and whether to adjourn when the near rioting Sanders delegates got them kicked out of the casino. The actual platform, national delegates and party official elections were done by actual count. And the voice votes from neutral (news primarily) sources say the voice votes weren't that close, they just sound that way from video shot from the middle of a group of Sanders delegates. And given there were more Clinton delegates and not all Sanders delegates were acting like WTO rioters there isn't much doubt
ah, alright
this seems like a fault of the system then, since your own voice group is almost always going to sound louder
seems like that's probably not something they should even be doing
This is how its normally done and has been for literally hundreds of years. The problem wasn't the system it was the Sanders delegates acting like spoiled Trump assholes
it seems to me like passing a voice vote when it's obviously close is pretty objectionable
why is that not a problem
Because the two voice votes were on whether or not to adopt the rules agreed to by both campaigns and whether to adjourn when the near rioting Sanders delegates got them kicked out of the casino. The actual platform, national delegates and party official elections were done by actual count. And the voice votes from neutral (news primarily) sources say the voice votes weren't that close, they just sound that way from video shot from the middle of a group of Sanders delegates. And given there were more Clinton delegates and not all Sanders delegates were acting like WTO rioters there isn't much doubt
ah, alright
this seems like a fault of the system then, since your own voice group is almost always going to sound louder
seems like that's probably not something they should even be doing
This is how its normally done and has been for literally hundreds of years. The problem wasn't the system it was the Sanders delegates acting like spoiled Trump assholes
that is a ferociously bad reason to do something
When one side is throwing chairs and screaming obscenities from minute 1, the system isn't the problem.
it seems to me like passing a voice vote when it's obviously close is pretty objectionable
why is that not a problem
Because the two voice votes were on whether or not to adopt the rules agreed to by both campaigns and whether to adjourn when the near rioting Sanders delegates got them kicked out of the casino. The actual platform, national delegates and party official elections were done by actual count. And the voice votes from neutral (news primarily) sources say the voice votes weren't that close, they just sound that way from video shot from the middle of a group of Sanders delegates. And given there were more Clinton delegates and not all Sanders delegates were acting like WTO rioters there isn't much doubt
ah, alright
this seems like a fault of the system then, since your own voice group is almost always going to sound louder
seems like that's probably not something they should even be doing
This is how its normally done and has been for literally hundreds of years. The problem wasn't the system it was the Sanders delegates acting like spoiled Trump assholes
that is a ferociously bad reason to do something
When one side is throwing chairs and screaming obscenities from minute 1, the system isn't the problem.
....no, when you get large groups of people rioting or near-rioting, there definitely is a systemic problem of some kind
you can place the blame where you like, of course, but ascribing it to some inherent feature of Bernie supporters does not seem productive
it seems to me like passing a voice vote when it's obviously close is pretty objectionable
why is that not a problem
Because the two voice votes were on whether or not to adopt the rules agreed to by both campaigns and whether to adjourn when the near rioting Sanders delegates got them kicked out of the casino. The actual platform, national delegates and party official elections were done by actual count. And the voice votes from neutral (news primarily) sources say the voice votes weren't that close, they just sound that way from video shot from the middle of a group of Sanders delegates. And given there were more Clinton delegates and not all Sanders delegates were acting like WTO rioters there isn't much doubt
ah, alright
this seems like a fault of the system then, since your own voice group is almost always going to sound louder
seems like that's probably not something they should even be doing
This is how its normally done and has been for literally hundreds of years. The problem wasn't the system it was the Sanders delegates acting like spoiled Trump assholes
that is a ferociously bad reason to do something
When one side is throwing chairs and screaming obscenities from minute 1, the system isn't the problem.
....no, when you get large groups of people rioting or near-rioting, there definitely is a systemic problem of some kind
you can place the blame where you like, of course, but ascribing it to some inherent feature of Bernie supporters does not seem productive
These state conventions go on in every state and territory every year. The system works fine when you have responsible adults. And when you have bad actors, the system doesn't matter its not going to work
it seems to me like passing a voice vote when it's obviously close is pretty objectionable
why is that not a problem
Because the two voice votes were on whether or not to adopt the rules agreed to by both campaigns and whether to adjourn when the near rioting Sanders delegates got them kicked out of the casino. The actual platform, national delegates and party official elections were done by actual count. And the voice votes from neutral (news primarily) sources say the voice votes weren't that close, they just sound that way from video shot from the middle of a group of Sanders delegates. And given there were more Clinton delegates and not all Sanders delegates were acting like WTO rioters there isn't much doubt
ah, alright
this seems like a fault of the system then, since your own voice group is almost always going to sound louder
seems like that's probably not something they should even be doing
This is how its normally done and has been for literally hundreds of years. The problem wasn't the system it was the Sanders delegates acting like spoiled Trump assholes
that is a ferociously bad reason to do something
When one side is throwing chairs and screaming obscenities from minute 1, the system isn't the problem.
....no, when you get large groups of people rioting or near-rioting, there definitely is a systemic problem of some kind
you can place the blame where you like, of course, but ascribing it to some inherent feature of Bernie supporters does not seem productive
And the systemic problem is that one side has been getting told, over and over, that the system is illegitimate and corrupt.
Posts
After California is when you'll really be able to tell imo.
Nah. The progressives are pulling an OWS again already. They're refusing to actually form coalitions and work, so their goals are going to be sidelined.
I think primarily, the Democratic establishment is loathe to run negatively against a fellow Democrat. They even had difficulty doing it to Lieberman even after he was clearly an enemy. This seems to be a central ethic Hillary seems to share.
There was also, I'm sure, strategic concern that running negative would alienate Bernie and cause him to attack in kind (or even run third-party). Secondarily, this could lead to alienating Bernie's supporters and losing them as potential Democrats.
I don't think Hillary or really anyone in the Dem establishment expected Bernie to end up running a campaign riven with such wounded grievance and negativity. Though, I suppose, in retrospect it makes sense given his career in politics.
Seriously, people - do you really think that this makes your side look good?
If Sanders was willing to put in unifying efforts I would have been less worried but nothing in his history, rhetoric or temperament suggested to me he would be, and I think there's even more evidence supporting that now.
Hopefully it won't lead to a Trump Presidency, but he has been underestimated at every stage so far and complacency is how Democrats lose.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
There was a great example of this in Vegas - because of the intransigence of the Sanders faction, the campaign finance reform plank got voted down.
Yes, that's right - they stripped their signature issue out of the state party platform.
Signs of him not being an issue candidate and starting to get toxic were pretty clear for quite sometime before Nevada.
Still, i would like to hear if anyone has changed their minds, or not, and in both cases, why?
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/sanders-dodges-question-about-convention-disturbance-687328835563
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yes.
I don't like his current behavior, but I suspect that the party is going to pressure him strongly to concede and endorse after California.
and everyone's gonna feel a lot better come September/October when we start seeing hilldawg campaign against trump
Chaos.
Sandersjoker.jpg
Edit: And really, that's what happens when you almost nominate an independent as the Democratic nominee.
I am rapidly moving from "Bernie I like you even though you often annoy me" into straight out dislike of Bernie Sanders
When you spend months irresponsibly telling your followers that your opponent is corrupt and illegitimate you don't get to be surprised at something like this happening.
And when you don't then have either the guts or the moral fiber to condemn it...
I really wonder what's going on there. Mostly he just looks tired.
Fuck him
edit more legible
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
he seems kind of at a loss, yeah
The thing that pisses me of the most is how wrong i was about Sanders, i used to think he was somewhere between great and ok guy.
When he started running i was happy about it and sad because i thought he had no change.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Fuuuuuuuuck this guy.
That's enough. Time for the party at large to stop with the notion that it's totally fine for him to run this to the convention.
why is that not a problem
Well A) just because some grouped up Bernie supporters only heard people vocally supporting their side does not actually make a voice vote close
and
Because the two voice votes were on whether or not to adopt the rules agreed to by both campaigns and whether to adjourn when the near rioting Sanders delegates got them kicked out of the casino. The actual platform, national delegates and party official elections were done by actual count. And the voice votes from neutral (news primarily) sources say the voice votes weren't that close, they just sound that way from video shot from the middle of a group of Sanders delegates. And given there were more Clinton delegates and not all Sanders delegates were acting like WTO rioters there isn't much doubt
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I really liked his commitment to running on the issues and candor earlier on (I remember one interview where he straight up said "We got creamed!"), but I don't see any of that same guy anymore. The tipping point for me was a month ago with the Clooney stuff. You've got members of the 1% convinced that things are fucked up. By your own admission, they have the power to help enact the change you want. Work with them, you assholes. Don't turn up your nose because you're innately pure and they're innately evil because of their privilege.
I was always on the fence though because I really don't like any mindset that sets up the other entity you're trying to work with and/or change as THE ENEMY that needs to have everything wrested away from them, or any kind of "it's us vs them" framing of the problem. It just creates contention and divisiveness while both sides dig in their heels, nothing gets done, and the shitty situation continues because any kind of compromise is a win for the evil "them."
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
ah, alright
this seems like a fault of the system then, since your own voice group is almost always going to sound louder
seems like that's probably not something they should even be doing
Sorry Bernie. Anyone but Trump, and you're not helping in that direction.
These were the rules that both sides agreed to weeks before the convention. Both sides agreed that to adopt the temporary rules as permanent all it would take is a majority voice vote and that the chair would be the one to determine the results.
And since something like 20% of Sanders delegates didn't even come to the convention and Hillary had a majority it was pretty safe to assume that the rules would be adopted.
The vote was close (depending on the reports you listen to) but all it takes is 51% to pass. Again, these were the rules that everyone agreed to play by.
This is how its normally done and has been for literally hundreds of years. The problem wasn't the system it was the Sanders delegates acting like spoiled Trump assholes
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
So, uh, good for them?
that is a ferociously bad reason to do something
When one side is throwing chairs and screaming obscenities from minute 1, the system isn't the problem.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
...my even drive exploded attempting to even this.
....no, when you get large groups of people rioting or near-rioting, there definitely is a systemic problem of some kind
you can place the blame where you like, of course, but ascribing it to some inherent feature of Bernie supporters does not seem productive
Really? "High-crime areas"?
These state conventions go on in every state and territory every year. The system works fine when you have responsible adults. And when you have bad actors, the system doesn't matter its not going to work
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
...some of my best friends are high rates of crime?
And the systemic problem is that one side has been getting told, over and over, that the system is illegitimate and corrupt.