Support NeoGAF

[Gotchaye]

Probably the most charitable reading of Sanders actions here is that he thinks he's brought in a bunch of people who weren't previously part of the party (not even as independents reliably voting Democrat), that he brought these people in because they basically agree with him on policy, and that they won't be fooled or swayed by Sanders endorsing Clinton in the absence of substantive concessions. If this is a pure hostage-taking bluff like Republicans with the debt ceiling then being annoyed at him is pretty reasonable, I think.

 

[Wafflecakes]

Clinton has 3 and a half months between the convention and the presidential. If she can't beat Trump in that time with 2 former presidents and Sanders campaigning for her, God help us all. There's literally no urgent need for Sanders to drop out now to start campaigning against Trump, other than the fact he rubs y'all up the wrong way.

IF Sanders does so.

He has been such an egomaniac of late that I am starting to doubt it.

 

[bananas]

So Politico has a story about how Trump's favourability with Asian American voters is worse than Romney's percent of that vote in 2012, that Bernie and Hillary are viewed favourably by Asian American voters 48% and 62% respectively and identification with the Democratic Party has jumped 35% in 2012 to 47% now.

Nice job GOP.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-asian-american-223502

So literally white men over the age of 30 is all they have going for them.

 

[thefro]

NYT: Kenneth Starr, Who Tried to Bury Bill Clinton, Now Only Praises Him

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Probably the most charitable reading of Sanders actions here is that he thinks he's brought in a bunch of people who weren't previously part of the party (not even as independents reliably voting Democrat), that he brought these people in because they basically agree with him on policy, and that they won't be fooled or swayed by Sanders endorsing Clinton in the absence of substantive concessions. If this is a pure hostage-taking bluff like Republicans with the debt ceiling then being annoyed at him is pretty reasonable, I think.

I think the debt ceiling analogy isn't quite right. That had immediate impacts in the here and now, by raising the risk premium, for example. Sanders' grand-standing is unlikely to have any lasting effects on Clinton's campaign, by contrast - three and a half months is a long time in politics.

 

[Wilsongt]

Probably the most charitable reading of Sanders actions here is that he thinks he's brought in a bunch of people who weren't previously part of the party (not even as independents reliably voting Democrat), that he brought these people in because they basically agree with him on policy, and that they won't be fooled or swayed by Sanders endorsing Clinton in the absence of substantive concessions. If this is a pure hostage-taking bluff like Republicans with the debt ceiling then being annoyed at him is pretty reasonable, I think.

The biggest problem with that idea, though, is that all that had happened is these new people have become angry and won't care about poliics again after Sander is officially eliminated. He didn't bring new people into the political fold. He just became the latest trend for young people to follow and rally behind for the time being.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Probably the most charitable reading of Sanders actions here is that he thinks he's brought in a bunch of people who weren't previously part of the party (not even as independents reliably voting Democrat), that he brought these people in because they basically agree with him on policy, and that they won't be fooled or swayed by Sanders endorsing Clinton in the absence of substantive concessions. If this is a pure hostage-taking bluff like Republicans with the debt ceiling then being annoyed at him is pretty reasonable, I think.

There's no substance that he's brought in any significant amount of new people. Clinton is hovering give or take near her and Obama's numbers in 08 whereas Sanders us significantly behind.

The biggest problem with that idea, though, is that all that had happened is these new people have become angry and won't care about poliics again after Sander is officially eliminated. He didn't bring new people into the political fold. He just became the latest trend for young people to follow and rally behind for the time being.

And he's the one who made them angry by acting like the election is being stolen from him.

I wonder if actually rather than bringing new Democrats in he's turned some Democrats into angry Independents via his bullshit rhetoric of fraud and theft.

 

[gutter_trash]

So Politico has a story about how Trump's favourability with Asian American voters is worse than Romney's percent of that vote in 2012, that Bernie and Hillary are viewed favourably by Asian American voters 48% and 62% respectively and identification with the Democratic Party has jumped 35% in 2012 to 47% now.

Nice job GOP.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-asian-american-223502

Trump will invent and think up a conspiracy that all Asian-Americans are plants by the Chinese government to take over America, LOL
.

 

[Souldriver]

Sam Bee on the NV Dem convention fuckery

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrGlaUo4JEE

Yeah she isn't having any of it. The comments are a graveyard.

She's the best. She gives no fucks and is absolutely ruthless in her commentary. Added bonus is that I think she's hilarious.


"I'm sorry, which part isn't fair? That a lot of people showed up at a convention? Or, that it started at... a time?

 

[Maledict]

Trump will invent and think up a conspiracy that all Asian-Americans are plants by the Chinese government to take over America, LOL
.

Oh gods he will bring up internment camps as a good idea won't he? I can honestly see him doing that in that stupid, hand waving non-specific way he does.

'Look, I'm not saying they were great, but we had to do something. We didn't know who these people were or why they hated us, we were at WAR! You can't pussy around being political correct. Now, it might not be the PC thing to do but it protected Americans and didn't get anyone. We can build amazing camps, best camps in the world, we'll get experts on it. We'll keep people safe'z

 

[Wilsongt]

There's no substance that he's brought in any significant amount of new people. Clinton is hovering give or take near her and Obama's numbers in 08 whereas Sanders us significantly behind.



And he's the one who made them angry by acting like the election is being stolen from him.

I wonder if actually rather than bringing new Democrats in he's turned some Democrats into angry Independents via his bullshit rhetoric of fraud and theft.

In all honesty, I think Obama did the best about bringing new Democrats in. Unfortunately, it ultimately made the GOp grow and even more batship crazy, but he still brought lasting Democrats in

 

[Gotchaye]

I think the debt ceiling analogy isn't quite right. That had immediate impacts in the here and now, by raising the risk premium, for example. Sanders' grand-standing is unlikely to have any lasting effects on Clinton's campaign, by contrast - three and a half months is a long time in politics.

I remember most of the anger over the debt ceiling stuff being about the hostage-taking itself rather than about the uncertainty due to ongoing negotiation being directly harmful. The principle a lot of people put out there and even applied elsewhere (Obama did this explicitly in speeches about letting the Bush tax cuts expire) is that if everyone agrees that X is the right thing to do, then do X before you start fighting about the things you don't agree on rather than trying to withhold support for X in order to force the other side to support something you want that they don't want. I think generally this is a pretty good principle.

Granted, this got a bit messy when Republicans wanted to do things like pass a budget that did not include funding for PP or Obamacare (although there of course the Democrats were not actually bluffing in saying they would not agree to a budget that did not include this funding). The arguments trying to position Democrats on the right side of this tended to be about what the appropriate default position is - do we assume that everything in the budget must be justified every year or do we assume we're funding everything we funded last year and then fight about anything we want to cut?

 

[gutter_trash]

the last 5 seconds of the video was the best part.

If the Primaries were really rigged, there would never have been a President Obama

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I remember most of the anger over the debt ceiling stuff being about the hostage-taking itself rather than about the uncertainty due to ongoing negotiation being directly harmful. The principle a lot of people put out there and even applied elsewhere (Obama did this explicitly in speeches about letting the Bush tax cuts expire) is that if everyone agrees that X is the right thing to do, then do X before you start fighting about the things you don't agree on rather than trying to withhold support for X in order to force the other side to support something you want that they don't want. I think generally this is a pretty good principle.

I don't agree. I think the key problems with the debt-ceiling shutdown were a) the fact it actually had immediate impact (i.e., federal workers not getting paid), and b) it exacerbated the debt problem itself by causing the markets to become scared; both of which are very obviously bad things. If the debt-ceiling had no immediate consequences at all (admittedly it's not really a debt-ceiling at that point, which is why I don't think the analogy works), then playing chicken is not really objectionable - even if you both want X, you can want X to different degrees, which means that you end up in negotiations. I can guarantee any political party will have done it at some point or another given the chance; it's a pretty common situation (and hence why a fair amount of game theory has been written on the chicken game).

 

[royalan]

It has been said before, but now it deserves to be said in the plainest of language:

Bernie Sanders is a liar.

I don't care about his intentions. I don't care about his goals. I don't even care about his stated "principles" (lol). The man is a liar. You cannot convince me that a 74 year old career politician is so blind to the process of government and the power of a politician's words. He has no chance at the nomination, hasn't for a long time, but he knows damn well that "Vote for me so that I can have influence over the Party Platform that nobody gives a shit about once the convention is over!" wouldn't open very many wallets and drive any rallies. The man continues to peddle versions of events and accusations that have been thoroughly debunked ("Money laundering!" "Quid pro quo!" "Corruption!" "My Nevada supporters were mistreated by The Establishment!"). He continues to argue that he's staying in this "race" to be a voice for the people who voted for him and fight for the nomination, while ignoring the fact that to do that would be to deny the voices of the millions more people who did not want him. Many of these voices belonging to minorities who already have to worry about disenfranchisement from forces outside of their own party.

And my biggest problem with Sanders, more than anything he's said about Hillary, is that he's the politician with the ear of young people this cycle, and he's completely abusing that privilege. He should be educating his supporters, teaching them about the process, how it works, how things get done, and what they should be doing to effect any sort of real change that they want to see. Instead, he's flat out lying to them to keep their interest, and instead of educating them he's ingraining cynicism and distrust of the process; training them to see boogiemen around every corner, turn their nose up at compromise, and view anything without the Bernie stamp as the corrupt establishment. When his campaign finally comes to its pitiful end and his legions of supporters are left feeling disilusioned, like the entire world is out to snuff them out, and completely check out of the political process because they were so sure that their way was the ONLY way, it'll be his own damn fault.

Bernie's influence is toxic, and I don't want to see it take hold in the party in any way, shape or form.

 

[Y2Kev]

I don't think you're going to agree. I'm not sure I agree with that either. For many, the brinksmanship over something so important was, at least I think, the most important part of why it was unacceptable.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I don't think you're going to agree. I'm not sure I agree with that either. For many, the brinksmanship over something so important was, at least I think, the most important part of why it was unacceptable.

That's fair. I'm a quite heavy consequentialist, so as long as the brink isn't crossed, if the brinkmanship in and of itself has no consequences, I'm indifferent.

 

[Maledict]

That's fair. I'm a quite heavy consequentialist, so as long as the brink isn't crossed, if the brinkmanship in and of itself has no consequences, I'm indifferent.

Whenever I read your posts I look at your tag and laugh. Not intended as an insult, but to me the way you approach politics really reminds me of how people play Paradox grand strategy games! ;-)

 

[Gotchaye]

I don't agree. I think the key problems with the debt-ceiling shutdown were a) the fact it actually had immediate impact (i.e., federal workers not getting paid), and b) it exacerbated the debt problem itself by causing the markets to become scared; both of which are very obviously bad things. If the debt-ceiling had no immediate consequences at all (admittedly it's not really a debt-ceiling at that point, which is why I don't think the analogy works), then playing chicken is not really objectionable - even if you both want X, you can want X to different degrees, which means that you end up in negotiations. I can guarantee any political party will have done it at some point or another given the chance; it's a pretty common situation (and hence why a fair amount of game theory has been written on the chicken game).

I'm not sure but I think you're saying that (ignoring the uncertainty stuff) the Republicans weren't doing anything at all wrong right up until the moment of the shutdown, and only after that were they behaving inappropriately. I remember lots of denunciations of political hostage-taking before this happened though. And it came up with the Bush tax cuts expiring and during various budget fights. I understand the game theory behind why a party would engage in hostage-taking, but it seems to me to be a thing that we should disapprove of if we want a well-functioning government. And mostly we do disapprove of it. There's a reason parties are rarely explicit that their strategy is to force a game of chicken, and it is generally not that they hope that decision-makers on the other side will think that they really don't care about the thing they're playing chicken with.

And, like, if hostage-taking is a legitimate strategy then surely it is also a legitimate strategy to say "you're hostage-taking and that's a shitty thing to do". I mean, how do you expect actors to respond to these kinds of strategies if not by drumming up indignation on their side about the other side using the strategy? These disputes get resolved when someone blinks and so it seems totally reasonable to create a lot of "we don't negotiate with terrorists" -type sentiment so that the hostage-taker has no reason to keep the hostage because he believes you won't blink. And obviously here Clinton has the advantage that the concessions Sanders wants are things that generally need to happen soon whereas the thing Sanders is threatening not to do is something he could hold off on doing for a month or two, probably.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm not sure but I think you're saying that (ignoring the uncertainty stuff) the Republicans weren't doing anything at all wrong right up until the moment of the shutdown, and only after that were they behaving inappropriately.

Correct (ignoring uncertainty stuff, though, which I don't think you can do, but we'll set this an alternate universe where the US had fixed terms on debt or something).

I remember lots of denunciations of political hostage-taking before this happened though. And it came up with the Bush tax cuts expiring and during various budget fights. I understand the game theory behind why a party would engage in hostage-taking, but it seems to me to be a thing that we should disapprove of if we want a well-functioning government. And mostly we do disapprove of it. There's a reason parties are rarely explicit that their strategy is to force a game of chicken, and it is generally not that they hope that decision-makers on the other side will think that they really don't care about the thing they're playing chicken with.

I think these are two slightly different arguments. I mean, generally speaking, I think people do what they have the most incentive to do. If your problem is that people have an incentive to play chicken, just hoping they don't play chicken probably isn't going to be effective. Instead, you need to change the incentive structure. For example, I heavily oppose the idea of a federal debt ceiling. I think it is a ridiculous idea.

The problem is not really down to the Republicans themselves that American government doesn't do well - I mean, they're the mechanism by which it doesn't function well, but they're a product of their political environment. If I were a Republican, and I mean a genuinely principled one, who cared about the concerns of my constituents and wanted to represent those concerns, I would also play chicken in this scenario (not to the point of shut-down, which is stupid, but certainly as long as I could until that point). I would not be doing them justice if I failed to do this. The problem comes from before the fact that Republicans do this (except when it causes a shut-down, which again, to stress, is incredibly harmful), and start with the mechanisms that are in place that make this the best thing to do.

And, like, if hostage-taking is a legitimate strategy then surely it is also a legitimate strategy to say "you're hostage-taking and that's a shitty thing to do". I mean, how do you expect actors to respond to these kinds of strategies if not by drumming up indignation on their side about the other side using the strategy? These disputes get resolved when someone blinks and so it seems totally reasonable to create a lot of "we don't negotiate with terrorists" -type sentiment so that the hostage-taker has no reason to keep the hostage because he believes you won't blink.

I don't think it's illegitimate to say "that's a shitty thing to do". I think it's just pointless. I mean, with most of these things you know in advance what's going to happen, it's just that everyone has to go through the motions because that's what makes it happen. That's why I've been saying multiple times we may as well just nap until the convention. The next few weeks is going to be Sanders savaging the DNC, Clinton supporters savaging Sanders, ad infinitum. Very tedious, and we could talk about more interesting things.

And the point of chicken is that both sides want it, so it's pretty difficult to say one side is hostage taking more than the other. One could say Clinton's refusal to compromise more on <X issue> is the hostage-taking. It's only because you have a normative notion before entering this that Sanders ought not receive <X issue> that you perceive him as the hostage-taker.

 

[nature boy]

Political Polls &#8207;@PpollingNumbers 21m21 minutes ago
National General Election:

Clinton 47%
Trump 43%

A point shift towards Clinton in a week.

NBC/Survey Monkey Poll

Political Polls &#8207;@PpollingNumbers 17m17 minutes ago
Political Polls Retweeted vcutrader
National General Election:

Trump 46% (tie)
Clinton 46%

#ARG

I think the National polls will look more or less the same, even when Sanders ends his posturing.

 

[Plinko]

I can't believe we live in a country where a guy like Trump gets within 10 points of somebody as qualified as Clinton. Makes no sense to me at all.

I honestly wonder how much of this is from the "I don't believe a woman should ever be in power" mindset.

 

[Gotchaye]

And the point of chicken is that both sides want it, so it's pretty difficult to say one side is hostage taking more than the other. One could say Clinton's refusal to compromise more on <X issue> is the hostage-taking. It's only because you have a normative notion before entering this that Sanders ought not receive <X issue> that you perceive him as the hostage-taker.

Sure, though I note that you don't seem to have a problem saying that it was Republicans who were in the wrong regarding debt ceiling brinksmanship and not Democrats for hostage-taking by refusing to repeal Obamacare. This is like what I was pointing out with why arguments about the Bush tax cuts got messy - we got lots of arguments about the appropriate default position. But usually the norms are pretty clear.

 

[Wilsongt]

Who will end up in prison first Hillary or the Virginia Governor?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Sure, though I note that you don't seem to have a problem saying that it was Republicans who were in the wrong regarding debt ceiling brinksmanship and not Democrats for hostage-taking by refusing to repeal Obamacare. This is like what I was pointing out with why arguments about the Bush tax cuts got messy - we got lots of arguments about the appropriate default position. But usually the norms are pretty clear.

I don't think the norms are clear: that's why this dispute happened. I mean, if we were Republican voters in this thread, we'd all be talking about Obama's brinkmanship and refusing to make concessions and so on, which is what they all do.

 

[Iolo]

Will Cornel West try to codify his language on Obama into the Democratic platform?

 

[Doc Holliday]

Macauliffe looking shaky on camera. I hope this doesn't fuck up Hilary Clinton.

 

[Bowdz]

I can't believe we live in a country where a guy like Trump gets within 10 points of somebody as qualified as Clinton. Makes no sense to me at all.

I honestly wonder how much of this is from the "I don't believe a woman should ever be in power" mindset.

Based off gamergate and the Uncharted 4 sexist tester thread, I think a large part of it is blatant sexism just like it was racism in 2008.

 

[thebloo]

I can't believe we live in a country where a guy like Trump gets within 10 points of somebody as qualified as Clinton. Makes no sense to me at all.

I honestly wonder how much of this is from the "I don't believe a woman should ever be in power" mindset.

It's a multitude of factors, but I think the main one is going back to the "tells it like it is". Bluntness is a lot of times considered a desired trait in leaders and these people can actually seem more competent in their directness, even though the substance just isn't there. I've seen it a lot of times, especially in corporations. It's like people become entranced with these gung-ho, blustering characters and it takes months or years for the "magic" to go away and see that some of them are just confident idiots.

 

[dramatis]

Macauliffe looking shaky on camera. I hope this doesn't fuck up Hilary Clinton.

Like the Republicans are going to let anything stop them, really.

The donor involved is a green card Chinese dude. You're better off wondering if the Sanders supporters are dumb enough to make a shit about it before California.

 

[Wilsongt]

Looks like Sanders supporters might run with a story that Clinton did not respond to a survey provided by a transgendered organisation.

So how what that meeting with AIDS activist, Senator Sanders?

 

[The Technomancer]

Looks like Sanders supporters might run with a story that Clinton did not respond to a survey provided by a transgendered organisation.

So how what that meeting with AIDS activist, Senator Sanders?

Okay now I'm officially fucking done

Just

*facedesk*

Go awaaaaay

 

[kadotsu]

Looks like Sanders supporters might run with a story that Clinton did not respond to a survey provided by a transgendered organisation.

So how what that meeting with AIDS activist, Senator Sanders?

B-b-b-but first gay pride parade in his town as a mayor.

 

[Gotchaye]

I don't think the norms are clear: that's why this dispute happened. I mean, if we were Republican voters in this thread, we'd all be talking about Obama's brinkmanship and refusing to make concessions and so on, which is what they all do.

Actually I'd say that Republican opposition to Obama has generally acknowledged that what they're doing is unprecedented, usually coupled with talk about how Obama's overreaches are also unprecedented. There's been lots of talk about how scorched-earth opposition is justified because Obama is a tyrant. To use an extreme example - "second amendment remedies" is not the language you use when you believe that you're trying to maintain regular order in facing opponents who are violating political norms. They've gone to "fight fire with fire" and the disagreement at this point is pretty self-consciously about the substance of what each side wants along with the occasional "well if the Democrats were in a position to [break political norm in an advantageous way] they would, so we'd be dumb not to do it first". Like with the Garland nomination.

But all that said I don't think that the fact that people disagree on some issue like this is sufficient to establish that there isn't a clear right answer to people who know what they're talking about.

 

[Wilsongt]

Okay now I'm officially fucking done

Just

*facedesk*

Go awaaaaay

https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominichol...-but-clinton-d?utm_term=.hv7aKw8no#.kmBdPXAa3

 

[JP_]

Vox on the disadvantages Sanders faced in this competition http://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11745232/bernie-sanders-rigged

 

[Iolo]

Vox on the disadvantages Sanders faced in this competition http://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11745232/bernie-sanders-rigged

Sanders's problem is that he was not successful in co-opting elites or in persuading a majority of the party's rank and file to turn against them. It goes to show not so much that Sanders was cheated as simply that political revolution is hard.

Sounds about right.

 

[Wilsongt]

Vox on the disadvantages Sanders faced in this competition http://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11745232/bernie-sanders-rigged

The party realizes at this point in the game, with Republicans being the party of "No, fuck everything the Democrats stand for", they can't afford to let someone like Bernie get the nomination.

Their safest best to make sure they aren't completely shut out of Washington is with Clinton.

Obama was able to sweep the nomination and the party because eight years of Bush got us nowhere, the economy was collapsing around everyone, and the Dems had the advantage of holding on to the house and senate. They can't afford to be as experimental right now.

 

[whyamihere]

Vox on the disadvantages Sanders faced in this competition http://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11745232/bernie-sanders-rigged

This is pretty weak.

"Planned Parenthood endorsed Hillary and Bernie couldn't get a real FP advisor" aren't particularly compelling arguments to why the system is somehow "rigged". I also reject the casually asserted notion that Bernie was better on LGBT rights, given a somewhat complicated relationship he had with LGBT rights as mayor of Burlington and Senator (wouldn't support LGBT non discrimination ordinance, tried to intervene with the Vermont legislature to have them not pass gay marriage because it would be too "divisive") and completely ignores Hillary's work as SoS.

They both have kind of mixed records on LGBT rights, which you'd expect from people their age! But to say that Bernie was "more loyal" to LGBT causes isn't really the case. Or, it's more complicated than Vox presents.

 

[shinra-bansho]

"Disadvantages" of his own making. His platform is simplistic and/or platitudes by choice. His constant pivoting to his wheelhouse issues is by choice. His general not giving a crap about foreign policy is by choice. No one made him spurn technocratic policy making.

 

[dramatis]

Vox on the disadvantages Sanders faced in this competition http://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11745232/bernie-sanders-rigged

You tell me, when you go into a war and complain about your disadvantages, do you think your opponents, who have a better strategy, have better management, have a more disciplined and organized army, and are just plain better prepared, are going to care if you are disadvantaged?

 

[gaugebozo]

If he even does it in any meaningful way.

Clinton was a political machine for Obama is 08 whereas Sanders can't even denounce death threats without accusing the victim of fraud and election theft.


Yeah he rubs me the wrong way. He's lost. It's over. Democracy has spoken and yet he's threaning to turn Philly into a circus.

I've seen what a messy convention looks like. It's called Nevada and the end result there was death threats and harassment of a woman while Sanders pondered if what she was wearing was the cause.

Wait, what?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Clinton and Obama are ideologically identical and Clinton's future career was predicated on Obama's success; it's not comparable.

If Obama lost, Clinton could have run 4 years earlier.

 

[Y2Kev]

Hillary

Give fbi investigation to mcaullife

 

[Ophelion]

Wait, what?

Not literally. They're saying he indulged in victim blaming.

 

[User 463088]

First...Trevor Noah is hot af.

Secondly, I'm not sure that it's shocking that the Democrats didn't embrace the man who has called us morally bankrupt. The fact that he thought he could be an outsider for 30 years and then expect us to fawn over him when he decided to join the party (LOLOLOLOLOL) is also problematic. He never put in the work to win over the party. If he wanted to be anything more than a message candidate he should have.

 

[pigeon]

I don't understand why you felt the compulsion to make this post. Black Mamba has pointed out why Sanders had every incentive to do this, pigeon has pointed out why Sanders have every incentive to do this, I've pointed out why Sanders has every incentive to do this. This isn't some massive surprise, if he just says "I will support the DNC no matter what" he loses all leverage. This is literally politics 101, you may as well complain about water being wet.

In fairness, I actually think he's making the wrong choice (because he's misunderstanding or ignoring his supporters, and because irrationality as a negotiating tactic has long-term corrosive effects on relationships).

That's fair. I'm a quite heavy consequentialist, so as long as the brink isn't crossed, if the brinkmanship in and of itself has no consequences, I'm indifferent.

I think this is generally wrong, though, because relationship effects are themselves consequences. Politics is a Prisoner's Dilemma tournament. We already know what happens when you're irrational in one of those -- you get breakdowns in trust and reduce your overall score.

To take another tack, though, for Sanders's negotiating ploy to be successful, he must inspire genuine fear and anger in Democratic loyalists. (Obviously if you say "I am a crazy person, wink wink," it won't work. You have to convince people you're actually crazy, which is why you get long-term relationship degradation.)

Given that requirement, I'm not sure why you are surprised or confused to see genuine fear and anger in this thread full of Democratic loyalists, or why you are arguing against it. If you actually convince us that's just bad for Bernie!

 

[excelsiorlef]

Vox on the disadvantages Sanders faced in this competition http://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11745232/bernie-sanders-rigged

Back in January, for example, both Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign endorsed Clinton even though Sanders has been a very loyal supporter of reproductive rights and a more loyal supporter of LGBTQ equality than Clinton. Sanders, naturally, was asked to say something about this, and what he wound up doing was dismissing them as part of the "establishment," which created an anti-Sanders backlash among fans of the group.

Sanders probably could have handled that more deftly, but it was a legitimately tricky situation for him. It's one thing for a politician to be attacked by interest groups whose agenda he hasn't supported. When Wall Street figures say nice things about Clinton or give money to her, for example, that's an opportunity for Sanders to reiterate his message. But when groups whose agenda you support attack you, it's very difficult to cope.

Decent article but this is bullshit.

Planned Parenthood didn't attack Bernie Sanders, they endorsed Hillary Clinton. An endorsement is not an attack. Planned Parenthood went out of their way to repeatedly compliment Sanders, they never attacked him. He attacked them.

There's a million ways to respond to that endorsement with grace that don't involve calling them part of the establishment he's fighting against.

And the Wonk section makes Clinton out to be some sort of cut throat tyrant. Lots of excuses for Sanders that I don't really buy. He didn't try to hire Foreign Policy advisors until like Jan/Feb that's why he couldn't find great ones he tried to hire them months after Clinton hired them herself.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Wait, what?

Turn of phrase.

After Nevada Sanders went harassment is bad but then spent paragraphs attacking Lange and accusing her of stealing election.

So in short harassment is bad but it's her fault it happened similar to how sexual assault victims' clothing is used to blame her for her own assault

 

[Retromelon]

Sanders is basically defending rapists at this point