Support NeoGAF

[Suikoguy]

He did speak out against this.

How about you include the sentence after that.

 

[Box of Kittens]

He did speak out against this.

One sentence saying "I'm anti-harassment BUT..." followed by a litany of complaints is not speaking out against anything in a meaningful way.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

His statement condemning the shit in Nevada spent more time complaining about the process, where nothing was done wrong, than actually condemning the threats and actions of his supporters. There's a reason you only posted that sentence and not the rest of the statement.

I agree with the rest of his statement. A lot was done wrong in Nevada.

 

[B-Dubs]

I agree with the rest of his statement. A lot was done wrong in Nevada.

Except that isn't true. His statement was widely panned by reporters for being wrong. Politifact, among other outlets, happened to have a reporter there and called bullshit on his statement.

EDIT: Also, when you're condemning violence you don't say anything to justify what was done. You condemn it. Do you think Obama or Clinton would have put out a statement like that? No, they'd have called it wrong and said those people don't support them. Obama would have flipped his shit at what happened there if it were him.

 

[Suikoguy]

I agree with the rest of his statement. A lot was done wrong in Nevada.

False:

http://www.politifact.com/nevada/st...tions-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/

 

[User 463088]

I agree with the rest of his statement. A lot was done wrong in Nevada.

Ya, from his perspective a lot was wrong.

He didn't win. That's enough for him to scream fraud all day everyday.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I agree with the rest of his statement. A lot was done wrong in Nevada.

Looking at this account of events, what exactly was done wrong in Nevada?

Sanders supporters wanted to change the rules to allow freaking megaphones. How do you allow that?

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

His statement condemning the shit in Nevada spent more time complaining about the process, where nothing was done wrong, than actually condemning the threats and actions of his supporters. There's a reason you only posted that sentence and not the rest of the statement.

What if he really was disgusted by the harassment but also thought there was something wrong with the process? There's not much to say about harassment and doxxing other than "don't do it", whereas procedural injustice naturally requires more elucidation. If you disagree with him that no wrong was done, and that he's wrong to think there was, that's fine, but it's pretty natural, rhetorically speaking, that he'd spend more time on the thing that would obviously require more time if it WERE true.

 

[User 463088]

False:

http://www.politifact.com/nevada/st...tions-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/

Ya, but they were hungry..and it wasn't their fault there were bars nearby. (And in case someone thinks I'm just being mean this is legitimately what a Bernie supporter on MSNBC said!)

 

[B-Dubs]

What if he really was disgusted by the harassment but also thought there was something wrong with the process? There's not much to say about harassment and doxxing other than "don't do it", whereas procedural injustice naturally requires more elucidation. If you disagree with him that no wrong was done, that's fine, but it's pretty natural, rhetorically speaking, that he'd spend more time on the thing that would obviously require more time if it WERE true.

Except according to reports nothing was done wrong. Also, he could have put out a separate statement for that. You don't lump that in with a condemnation of violence, and you sure as shit don't spend more time on that.

 

[Suikoguy]

What if he really was disgusted by the harassment but also thought there was something wrong with the process? There's not much to say about harassment and doxxing other than "don't do it", whereas procedural injustice naturally requires more elucidation. If you disagree with him that no wrong was done, that's fine, but it's pretty natural, rhetorically speaking, that he'd spend more time on the thing that would obviously require more time if it WERE true.

This was the sentence right after the "condemnation"

"But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked."

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I agree with the rest of his statement. A lot was done wrong in Nevada.

Politifact has a good breakdown of this. I don't think they did anything wrong besides hold a caucus.

 

[Holmes]

Yeah, I wouldn't be so afraid. Along with the fact that Trump's on a polling high right now, concessions to Sanders will be made in the Democratic platform (probably along the lines of minimum wage and getting money out of politics), Sanders will endorse Clinton and make a speech at the DNC, maybe even campaign for her, and Clinton will pick a VP that unifies everyone (Biden was also a unifier - old white man from Scranton, PA that had a lot of pull among the white working class, one of Hillary's biggest demo in 2008 that were the most anti-Obama).

 

[Aaron Strife]

My favorite thing coming out of the Nevada debacle was Sanders apologists going "Oh come on, it's just two delegates, can't you let Sanders have them anyway?"

Yeah because that's how elections work.

 

[BlastProcessing]

What if he really was disgusted by the harassment but also thought there was something wrong with the process? There's not much to say about harassment and doxxing other than "don't do it", whereas procedural injustice naturally requires more elucidation. If you disagree with him that no wrong was done, and that he's wrong to think there was, that's fine, but it's pretty natural, rhetorically speaking, that he'd spend more time on the thing that would obviously require more time if it WERE true.

Then you separate the issues. You don't jam them together in a way that uses one to obfuscate the other.

You also repeat the issue. Sanders has no problem repeating his core beliefs in his stumps and in interviews. He is quite good at hammering on the messages that are important to him. That he hasn't persisted in stressing that harassment is unacceptable is telling.

 

[Crocodile]

A) No level of procedural misconduct (of which there was actually none) justifies any violence, harassment, doxxing, etc.

B) Adding a "but" to any sort of apology, condemnation, etc. completely cuts the legs out from under it. It can no longer be sincere. Like everyone knows this.

C) Some weird as hell shit was included in the response statement like gunshots at one of his campaign offices or "high crime" areas or whatever which were at best complete non-sequiturs or at worse him playing his fucked up "implication" game.

His Nevada response was literally indefensible!

 

[Y2Kev]

What if he really was disgusted by the harassment but also thought there was something wrong with the process? There's not much to say about harassment and doxxing other than "don't do it", whereas procedural injustice naturally requires more elucidation. If you disagree with him that no wrong was done, and that he's wrong to think there was, that's fine, but it's pretty natural, rhetorically speaking, that he'd spend more time on the thing that would obviously require more time if it WERE true.

Regardless if whether or not you like the process (and I don't like the caucus process or the way NSDP does it), I think it's rhetorically a little limp-wristed (is this an insensitive term now?) to empathize with what is creating the frustration (I'm not going to call what happened in Nevada violence). DWS is garbage but I do actually agree with her that any condemnation with the word "but" in it is a half measure.

I think Bernie's statement was not up to par, but I also don't really care. This is a process question and not a suffrage question unless you take issue with Reid's obvious backdoor dealings back in February.

I think this is an issue of credibility with his supporters.

 

[pigeon]

What if he really was disgusted by the harassment but also thought there was something wrong with the process? There's not much to say about harassment and doxxing other than "don't do it", whereas procedural injustice naturally requires more elucidation. If you disagree with him that no wrong was done, and that he's wrong to think there was, that's fine, but it's pretty natural, rhetorically speaking, that he'd spend more time on the thing that would obviously require more time if it WERE true.

I think that this is false from a messaging perspective, because you end up with the situation he actually ended up with. That statement reads like implicitly condoning the death threats. If you want to avoid that you need to spend a lot more time condemning them relative to the amount of time you spend complaining. I mean, hell, they really don't have to even be in the same statement.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

False:

http://www.politifact.com/nevada/st...tions-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/

Politifact saying something doesn't make it right; Politifact is often wrong - I remember everyone in this thread used to complain about how they always gave Lie of the Year to a Democrat in order to appear balanced. In this case, protocol was not followed.

This article, for example, points out the video where Lange clearly ignores the much louder vote (and I think objectively we can all agree that she did side with the quieter vote, yes?). Politifact explains this away as "Clinton had more delegates so Lange was right to do this"; which is true, but delegates aren't all bound to vote the same way because this was on an issue for the Nevada State Democratic Party and not anything (directly) to do with the primary. It's not uncommon for cross-candidate votes to occur (for example, many Clinton delegates at the Maine convention joined the Sanders supporters in voting to abolish superdelegates for that state). Given this, overturning a clear voice vote against her is just blatantly wrong; and it set the tone for the entire rest of the event.

 

[User 463088]

A) No level of procedural misconduct (of which there was actually none) justifies any violence, harassment, doxxing, etc.

B) Adding a "but" to any sort of apology, condemnation, etc. completely cuts the legs out from under it. It can no longer be sincere. Like everyone knows this.

C) Some weird as hell shit was included in the response statement like gunshots at one of his campaign offices or "high crime" areas or whatever which were at best complete non-sequiturs or at worse him playing his fucked up "implication" game.

His Nevada response was literally indefensible!

Has there been a single time where Bernie (or his campaign) screwed up in which he apologized but immediately didn't add "BUT!!!!!!!!"

With the database problem, he apologized (after being forced) but immediately said other people might have done it. With teh fake endorsements? Witht he Union stuff? The Nevada thing? The Democratic Whores?

Has he ever taken responsibility for anything wrong his campaign has done? I can't seem to think of a single issue where he's taken ownership of it. The buck stops somewhere else, clearly.

 

[B-Dubs]

Politifact saying something doesn't make it right; Politifact is often wrong - I remember everyone in this thread used to complain about how they always gave Lie of the Year to a Democrat in order to appear balanced. In this case, protocol was not followed.

This article, for example, points out the video where Lange clearly ignores the much louder vote (and I think objectively we can all agree that she did do this, yes?). Politifact explains this away as "Clinton had more delegates so Lange was right to do this"; which is true, but delegates aren't all bound to vote the same way because this was on an issue for the Nevada State Democratic Party and not anything (directly) to do with the primary. It's not uncommon for cross-candidate votes to occur (for example, many Clinton delegates at the Maine convention joined the Sanders supporters in voting to abolish superdelegates for that state). Given this, overturning a clear voice vote against her is just blatantly wrong; and it set the tone for the entire rest of the event.

They were complaining about not being allowed megaphones. Indoors. Do you really think there would have been a majority of people wanting that?

 

[royalan]

He did speak out against this.





This is untrue, and a cheap piece of political chicanery at that.

Chicanery?

So I guess all those southern democratic leaders got together, wrote this, and made it public because they were just bored and doing shots one day?

 

[AntraxSuicide]

"Man of principle" my black ass.

Sorry, but a man of principle would have come out strongly, and with no conditionals attached, against his supporters when they started openly doxxing and harassing party leaders.

A man of principle would have at least offered an apology or toned down his words when his excuses for losing the South got so offensive, so dog-whistle, that Southern party leaders had to write him an open letter asking him to stop trashing a demographic of the Democratic party that already faces overwhelming discrimination and marginalization within their own states. Bernie did neither.

It's easy to be a "man of principle" when you're not being challenged. Once under fire, his principles seem to be the first thing Bernie throws off the boat. So excuse me if I'm not comforted by the idea that his principles alone will be the thing that makes him properly support the woman he just referred to as "the lesser of two evils."

By Vermont standards, he's principled as hell. But not in places where minority voters predominantly live. He can't get his message to appeal to anyone outside of white, middle-class voters. He's said as much, and I hold him to that. Maybe his support after he drops out will help Dems with that demographic. Gravy.

But I don't see why Dems should care at all in the first place. I'm reminded of an essay that Chris Rock wrote about Kevin Hart's support and media attention. A lot of places were writing pieces about "Is This the Moment Where Kevin Hart Crosses Over?" What they meant was that his audiences were predominantly black, and so there needed to be some moment for him to truly make it and garner more white viewers. Rock pointed out that almost no one says this about people like Louis C.K. or Jon Stewart, and they don't pull in nearly the crowds that Hart does.

The Democrats are a party that serve minority interests, for the most part. And that's okay! Those groups need the help more than white people do. And I think a lot of progressives (Sanders included) find that to be strange. They don't like that threats of their support being conditional don't seem to worry minority voters. It hasn't worked so far for Sanders in the primary, and I don't think it'll help his message in the long run either.

Sanders is the one who needed to cross over with support, not Clinton. It's a dog whistle to say that her support comes from hard Democrats (which is an attempt to hide Sanders' real problems at the polls). Her support comes from minorities, and they aren't receptive to Sanders. Maybe if he were more of a man of principle, he'd do better with those groups.

 

[RustyNails]

Why isn't California primary this week?😡

 

[Deleted member 231381]

They were complaining about not being allowed megaphones. Indoors. Do you really think there would have been a majority of people wanting that?

This was obviously not the only issue that came up, but even if had been, she is still bound to go with the louder vote. That is how voice-voting works, and that was what was agreed upon prior to the event. Note that Sanders voters did actually appeal to change the voting system to a ballot method... but Lange had sole authority over the voting system and decided to turn the appeal down. So in that respect, she's doubly in the wrong.

 

[Box of Kittens]

It is important to understand that, in our current system, swing states are swing states because they're demographically representative of the country as a whole.

Ohio isn't a swing state because it pulled a sword out of a stone, it's a swing state because it's a state with a mix of white and black laborers, with some tech and finance activity, that's received an influx of Hispanic workers. It's a microcosm of America.

Florida is a swing state because it's both heavily minority and full of old people.

Etc., etc.

So by campaigning to Ohio and Florida, sure, those states get a lot of state-specific attention. But by hitting the demographic expectations of those two states they also hit the country as a whole.

It's funny to me how over time I've become more positive about the Electoral College. My ideal would still be federally run presidential elections with either two stages or some form of instant runoff voting. However, given that we essentially have 51 separate elections going on, the Electoral College, with states awarded winner take all, does a reasonable job of converting those individual results into a national result, and the characteristics of the swing states are illustrative of that. It sucks that we got saddled with George W. Bush back in 2000, but the Electoral College was hardly the only factor in that.

I had a long post in the last thread discussing my thoughts on the National Popular Vote Compact. The long story short is that I once supported it strongly but am now more ambivalent about it. I wouldn't exactly be upset if it ever got implemented, but I do think it has its issues.

 

[User 463088]

Why isn't California primary this week?😡

Because FRAUD! and ESTABLISHMENT! And....um....um.....

Gimme a minute....

 

[BlastProcessing]

Politifact saying something doesn't make it right; Politifact is often wrong - I remember everyone in this thread used to complain about how they always gave Lie of the Year to a Democrat in order to appear balanced. In this case, protocol was not followed.

This article, for example, points out the video where Lange clearly ignores the much louder vote (and I think objectively we can all agree that she did do this, yes?). Politifact explains this away as "Clinton had more delegates so Lange was right to do this"; which is true, but delegates aren't all bound to vote the same way because this was on an issue for the Nevada State Democratic Party and not anything (directly) to do with the primary. It's not uncommon for cross-candidate votes to occur (for example, many Clinton delegates at the Maine convention joined the Sanders supporters in voting to abolish superdelegates for that state). Given this, overturning a clear voice vote against her is just blatantly wrong; and it set the tone for the entire rest of the event.

It's pretty easy for a chair to tell whether or not a voice vote hits 2/3s.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

This was the sentence right after the "condemnation"

And? Remember, this is the candidate who was accused of sending violent thugs to the Donald Trump rally in Chicago. To him, it probably looks a heck of a lot like his candidacy is being unfairly targeted as particularly prone to violence and fanaticism, and pointing out under-reported incidents of violence against his own campaign goes pretty well with his belief that there is a basic asymmetry in how the media covers campaigns it favors vs. those they don't, a cornerstone of his campaign to this point. Again, operating from the assumptions that Bernie, rightly or wrongly, really did see the procedural shit in Nevada as being a bigger deal, what else is he really supposed to say other than that he condemns harassment, and then move on to the issues that are important to him?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Then you separate the issues. You don't jam them together in a way that uses one to obfuscate the other.

You also repeat the issue. Sanders has no problem repeating his core beliefs in his stumps and in interviews. He is quite good at hammering on the messages that are important to him. That he hasn't persisted in stressing that harassment is unacceptable is telling.

It seems like Sanders only gives lip service to issues that he doesn't consider all that important, like the woman with disability who wrote that epic rant against him earlier.

I seriously doubt Clinton considers a lot of the issues she's running on and has formulated specific policy proposals to deal with to be that important either. But you know something? They're important to someone. And that's what American politics is - a collection of various interests and motives working under the same banner. What does someone whose #1 single issue is climate change have in common with someone whose #1 single issue is abortion rights? They work together for a candidate who will benefit each of them.

Sanders thinks he should be able to take his message of Wall Street and the establishment being crooked everywhere and achieve universal agreement. And it's true to some degree that there's intersectionality but how does breaking up the banks do anything about systemic racism? Or gun control? Or disability rights? He's promising that if we do this ONE thing, everything else will fall into place, so whatever, vote for him. But that's not going to be good enough for the people who've faced problems because of those issues. It doesn't recognize that people come from unique backgrounds and have unique needs from government. Clinton understands this. That's why she's winning.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Chicanery?

So I guess all those southern democratic leaders got together, wrote this, and made it public because they were just bored and doing shots one day?

The chicanery is when you accused of him dog-whistling. Sanders never once dog-whistled about the South. He did allude that they didn't really count as much because they were red states. I dislike that,probably as much as you, but that's not dog-whistling, and trying to imply that Sanders did should be below you.

 

[gutter_trash]

if anybody in the news media business wanted to take a vacation, these next two weeks are the perfect time to do so

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It's pretty easy for a chair to tell whether or not a voice vote hits 2/3s.

That particular vote was simple majority, by section VII.c of the constitution of the Nevada Democratic Party.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Why isn't California primary this week?

because Debbie is a mess

 

[royalan]

The chicanery is when you accused of him dog-whistling. Sanders never once dog-whistled about the South. He did allude that they didn't really count as much because they were red states. I dislike that,probably as much as you, but that's not dog-whistling, and trying to imply that Sanders did should be below you.

And this point has been made countless times.

What's different between the red states in the South that Bernie lost, and the much more conservative Midwestern red states that Bernie won?

Because that's the important distinction here. Bernie made a point to specifically call out the south and his losses there being due to the region being conservative. But that conservatism didn't stop him from being successful in the midwest. What is the biggest, most noticeable difference between those two constituencies?

I'm sorry, but my ears are ringing.

 

[daedalius]

This was obviously not the only issue that came up, but even if had been, she is still bound to go with the louder vote. That is how voice-voting works, and that was what was agreed upon prior to the event. Note that Sanders voters did actually appeal to change the voting system to a ballot method... but Lange had sole authority over the voting system and decided to turn the appeal down. So in that respect, she's doubly in the wrong.

Why is voice voting volume an actual thing? So dumb

 

[Suikoguy]

Why is voice voting volume an actual thing? So dumb

It's not.
No idea where people keep getting that idea from.

It's not a "who can yell louder" contest.

 

[Y2Kev]

I think it's like when you're at a hockey game and the big MAKE SOME NOISE!!! with the decibel meter comes on the jumbotron and then everyone tries to scream as loud as possible to get the fake meter to obviously go to the top.

 

[royalan]

It's not.
No idea where people keep getting that idea from.

It's not a "who can yell louder" contest.

Concerts, pep rallies and county fairs. Where "voice votes" actually are shouting contests.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I think that this is false from a messaging perspective, because you end up with the situation he actually ended up with. That statement reads like implicitly condoning the death threats. If you want to avoid that you need to spend a lot more time condemning them relative to the amount of time you spend complaining. I mean, hell, they really don't have to even be in the same statement.

If your basic viewpoint is that harassment and threats are obviously wrong, but there was bullshit that happened that people had a right to be mad about in a general kind of sense, how are you supposed to get that across, then? I guess he could have issued separate statements, but even that would have been received negatively by people of the kind that populate threads like this, so there really would have been no benefit to him to do so. It was basically a no-win situation for him, no matter what he did, so why not just focus on the things he wanted to focus on? He's not messaging to be president, anymore, but messaging to keep the general spirit of his movement - that the status quo is wrong, and is engineered to the benefit of a select few - alive.

 

[Suikoguy]

Concerts, pep rallies and county fairs. Where "voice votes" actually are shouting contests.

Oh, I don't go to those things. But yeah, I get it now.
I do seem to recall some of that bullshit at pep rallies.

 

[Y2Kev]

If your basic viewpoint is that harassment and threats are obviously wrong, but there was bullshit that happened that people had a right to be mad about in a general kind of sense, how are you supposed to get that across, then? I guess he could have issued separate statements, but even that would have been received negatively by people of the kind that populate threads like this, so there really would have been no benefit to him to do so. It was basically a no-win situation for him, no matter what he did, so why not just focus on the things he wanted to focus on?

Rhetorically? I'm not sure you can.

edit: Again, I don't care about his statement.

 

[sc0la]

If he wanted to express his grievances, real or imagined, with the Nevada state convention that is fine, it should have been a completely separate statement / press release.

Make the one condoning death threats separate. It doesn't even have to be long.

"making death threats is unconscionable, and it has no part in our great democratic process. I don't condone it and I don't want the votes of those who would participate in it." Fin

Put all your woe is me bitching separately.

 

[Box of Kittens]

It seems like Sanders only gives lip service to issues that he doesn't consider all that important, like the woman with disability who wrote that epic rant against him earlier.

I seriously doubt Clinton considers a lot of the issues she's running on and has formulated specific policy proposals to deal with to be that important either. But you know something? They're important to someone. And that's what American politics is - a collection of various interests and motives working under the same banner. What does someone whose #1 single issue is climate change have in common with someone whose #1 single issue is abortion rights? They work together for a candidate who will benefit each of them.

Sanders thinks he should be able to take his message of Wall Street and the establishment being crooked everywhere and achieve universal agreement. And it's true to some degree that there's intersectionality but how does breaking up the banks do anything about systemic racism? Or gun control? Or disability rights? He's promising that if we do this ONE thing, everything else will fall into place, so whatever, vote for him. But that's not going to be good enough for the people who've faced problems because of those issues. It doesn't recognize that people come from unique backgrounds and have unique needs from government. Clinton understands this. That's why she's winning.

I've been saying this quite a bit lately, but to me the bigger problem is not that he gives lip service to issues he deems unimportant, but that he isn't even willing to listen to different perspectives. I want a president who is able to listen to people with different backgrounds and ideas and realize that it's an opportunity to learn something. Sanders just lectures people and clearly can't be bothered with ideas that are different from his own.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

And this point has been made countless times.

What's different between the red states in the South that Bernie lost, and the much more conservative Midwestern red states that Bernie won?

Because that's the important distinction here. Bernie made a point to specifically call out the south and his losses there being due to the region being conservative. But that conservatism didn't stop him from being successful in the midwest. What is the biggest, most noticeable difference between those two constituencies?

I'm sorry, but my ears are ringing.

Sanders hasn't actually won many red states - only Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma and West Virginia. Altogether, they're responsible for less than 5% of the total delegate allocation. Him holding that the Southern red states are disproportionately represented and also not complaining about those seven red states is pretty consistent, because those states *don't* have any influence!

I'm sorry to hear about your ears. The NHS has some good advice.

 

[RustyNails]

because Debbie is a mess

I blame pigeon and everyone from Cali.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Why is voice voting volume an actual thing? So dumb

Partly because it's cheaper and faster than the alternatives, and partly because it gives conveners a greater degree of control over the proceedings. Of course, Lange could have changed this, but she ran the whole affair perfectly fairly, after all.

 

[User 463088]

If your basic viewpoint is that harassment and threats are obviously wrong, but there was bullshit that happened that people had a right to be mad about in a general kind of sense, how are you supposed to get that across, then? I guess he could have issued separate statements, but even that would have been received negatively by people of the kind that populate threads like this, so there really would have been no benefit to him to do so. It was basically a no-win situation for him, no matter what he did, so why not just focus on the things he wanted to focus on? He's not messaging to be president, anymore, but messaging to keep the general spirit of his movement - that the status quo is wrong, and is engineered to the benefit of a select few - alive.

It's called taking the L once in a while. That's a part of politics. Sometimes, you have to admit you've lost a cycle and go on. He should have said the actions of some of his supporter wasn't acceptable. Full stop. Period. End of. Thank you and goodnight.

The moment you transition to "Yes...buuuuutttttt!" you're now a 3rd grader explaining why you shouldn't get in trouble for pushing Jamar because he called you fat.

It's stupid.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

If your basic viewpoint is that harassment and threats are obviously wrong, but there was bullshit that happened that people had a right to be mad about in a general kind of sense, how are you supposed to get that across, then? I guess he could have issued separate statements, but even that would have been received negatively by people of the kind that populate threads like this, so there really would have been no benefit to him to do so. It was basically a no-win situation for him, no matter what he did, so why not just focus on the things he wanted to focus on? He's not messaging to be president, anymore, but messaging to keep the general spirit of his movement - that the status quo is wrong, and is engineered to the benefit of a select few - alive.

"I condemn violent threats against any individual, and I can firmly say that anyone who supports such action completely misunderstands the issues that I'm fighting for. There's no place in this movement for such actions, and I extend my thanks to my supporters who have committed themselves to peacefully participating in the election process. With our combined, loud but calm voices, we can send a message that our revolution is against such threats and against the level of corporatism and influence that the powerful have over the less fortunate."

Boom. This would've been great PR, and I think everyone in this thread would've been pleasantly surprised by his response.

Unfortunately, no one was surprised that his condemnation of death threats got a sentence while his bitching about nothing took up most of the statement. Bad PR for him.

 

[ampere]

Sanders has definitely dog whistled



And regarding the voice votes in Nevada, louder =/= more votes, and voice voting is really unscientific and imprecise anyway. Complaining about that should be "caucuses are dumb" not "corruption"