Support NeoGAF

[jack_package_200]

I think I'll stick with believing the people who weren't sending death threats.

Even without context, this is the correct mentality to have.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

And Crab, you're still arguing that black people apparently don't research candidates for voting. Without some serious evidence, I'm not okay with that statement.

I don't think most people research candidates, regardless of demographic niche. For example, here's awareness about the GOP side on 2012: http://www.people-press.org/2012/01/12/many-voters-unaware-of-basic-facts-about-gop-candidates/, or alternatively if you have jstor access I can link you some academic papers on voter awareness. Black voters are no different to anyone else in that respect. Most people just take in the information they're exposed to on a day to day basis and use that, so if candidates have unequal access to the sources of information different demographies people are passively exposed to, you see differential outcomes that have very little to do with preferences for or against platforms.

Specifically, in the case of Sanders, if you look at essentially any of his polling from early April, you'll see among likely Democratic black voters, his name awareness is normally about 67%, compared to approximately 85% among likely Democratic white voters, give or take slight variations per pollster. What's more, this isn't a binary divide - name recognition often amounts to little more than just that: name recognition. So there was a significant proportion of the black vote Sanders had very little capacity to influence, because, despite his best efforts *once he had decided to run*, he couldn't get that information to them.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think I'll stick with believing the people who weren't sending death threats.

I can assure you nobody I personally associate with would send anyone death threats.

EDIT: Except in mafia games, but that's a big scumtell.

 

[CCS]

I can assure you nobody I personally associate with would send anyone death threats.

EDIT: Except in mafia games, but that's a big scumtell.

Not saying they personally are, but only one side is sending death threats.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I don't think most people research candidates, regardless of demographic niche. For example, here's awareness about the GOP side on 2012: http://www.people-press.org/2012/01/12/many-voters-unaware-of-basic-facts-about-gop-candidates/, or alternatively if you have jstor access I can link you some academic papers on voter awareness. Black voters are no different to anyone else in that respect. Most people just take in the information they're exposed to on a day to day basis and use that, so if candidates have unequal access to the sources of information different demographies people are passively exposed to, you see differential outcomes that have very little to do with preferences for or against platforms.

Specifically, in the case of Sanders, if you look at essentially any of his polling from early April, you'll see among likely Democratic black voters, his name awareness is normally about 67%, compared to approximately 85% among likely Democratic white voters, give or take slight variations per pollster. What's more, this isn't a binary divide - name recognition often amounts to little more than just that: name recognition. So there was a significant proportion of the black vote Sanders had very little capacity to influence, because, despite his best efforts *once he had decided to run*, he couldn't get that information to them.

Clinton was on the ground meeting with community leaders. Sanders threw a rally (maybe) or two.

That's why she's known. She goes to them. Sanders expects everyone to come to him.

Also regarding Nevada sorry if I know someone who was there isn't convincing.

It's funny though I haven't heard any if those 56 come forward and state they were physically there.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Not saying they personally are, but only one side is sending death threats.

I'm plausibly sure there will have been Clinton supporters who have sent death threats at some point. Despicable people end up in most places eventually. Let's not tar the other side with the colours of their lowest common denominator.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I'm plausibly sure there will have been Clinton supporters who have sent death threats at some point. Despicable people end up in most places eventually. Let's not tar the other side with the colours of their lowest common denominator.

If they were I guarantee you it'd be major news oh and Clinton wouldn't say harassment is bad but did you see what they were wearing?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The entire party other than Jeb and Baker has surrendered to Trump:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/22/politics/donald-trump-lindsey-graham-republican-party/index.html

Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of Donald Trump's fiercest critics, is now calling on Republicans to support their presumptive nominee.

Graham urged GOP donors at a private fundraiser Saturday in Florida to unite behind Trump's campaign and stressed the importance of keeping likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton from the White House. The fundraiser was hosted by former U.S. Ambassador to Portugal Al Hoffman, a former Republican National Committee finance chairman who also co-chaired Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential bid.

"He did say that we need to get behind him," Teresa Dailey, a prominent Florida Republican fundraiser who attended the private event, told CNN on Sunday.

I grew up around the most cowardly people (who enabled abusers) and the Republican congress is more cowardly than them. If Trump wins, I hope he sends these guys to Gitmo.

 

[User 463088]

Who the heck writes letters!?

What a mess

TO be fair, he also sent like 90,000 texts and like 10.000 phone calls which I ignored.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I'm plausibly sure there will have been Clinton supporters who have sent death threats at some point. Despicable people end up in most places eventually. Let's not tar the other side with the colours of their lowest common denominator.

The Sanders delegates certainly aren't talking about it if they have then.

This is such an outrageous and bullshit false equivalence on your part. You're not even talking about real examples, just hypothetical.

 

[B-Dubs]

TO be fair, he also sent like 90,000 texts and like 10.000 phone calls which I ignored.

Damn dude

 

[User 463088]

Damn dude

Ya. I (mostly) dodged a bullet. Mess. Oh well. I survived.

 

[excelsiorlef]

The entire party other than Jeb and Baker has surrendered to Trump:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/22/politics/donald-trump-lindsey-graham-republican-party/index.html



I grew up around the most cowardly people (who enabled abusers) and the Republican congress is more cowardly than them. If Trump wins, I hope he sends these guys to Gitmo.

They want to win. It's about the only admirable quality the GOP has. In the end they'll work together in the name of oppression.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The Sanders delegates certainly aren't talking about it if they have then.

This is such an outrageous and bullshit false equivalence on your part. You're not even talking about real examples, just hypothetical.

Sanders had bullets fired into his office, for goodness sake.

 

[User 463088]

I'm plausibly sure there will have been Clinton supporters who have sent death threats at some point. Despicable people end up in most places eventually. Let's not tar the other side with the colours of their lowest common denominator.

We've now moved from "Ya, but Hillary!" to "Ya, but maybe theoretically someone at some point may have thought about maybe considering doing the same thing...and gosh, that would have been awful!"

 

[ampere]

TO be fair, he also sent like 90,000 texts and like 10.000 phone calls which I ignored.

Boy was taking relationship advice from Adele songs

 

[Suikoguy]

Sanders had bullets fired into his office, for goodness sake.

Bullet which was never found.
Not even sure that's what caused it.

Also ironic that that's the same BUT Sanders used.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Boy was taking relationship advice from Adele songs

And they say romance is dead.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Bullet which was never found.
Not even sure that's what caused it.

Also ironic that that's the same BUT Sanders used.

And meanwhile we have many interviews with folks who harassed Lange many were completely unrepentant and many used Sanders rhetoric ti justify their actions.

 

[royalan]

I remember, around the time the Chicago mess happened, and we started getting the first instances of messiness and violence from Trump's rallies, the general consensus seemed to be that Trump's halfhearted condemnation of the violence of his supporters was not enough. And that the tone of his supporters were an undeniable product of his rhetoric. Rachel Maddow especially went very hard on this point.

I wonder why people are so hesitant to admit that the same standard should apply on the left. To Sanders' supporters, specifically.

I don't deny that there may be, out there somewhere, some crazy Hillary supporters taking things a bit too far. But that group is not a visible part of Hillary's campaign, because her rhetoric is simply not the type that would encourage that sort of behavior.

 

[Crocodile]

No. Not knowing one of the two major candidates in an election and nevertheless voting means you are a low information voter. That's close to tautologically true. It is not at all the same as implying you are an idiot, because there are many reasons why people can't access information. The only people making this link are Sanders' detractors, never Sanders.

Your arguing that the Black population across the entire country, in rich and poor neighborhoods, all can't get access to the internet, phones, newspapers, their friends to inform themselves of the candidates and their differences? I'm arguing that Sanders didn't do a good enough job through his actions, policy or messaging of appealing to the Black community before or during his campaign. Can you not see how blaming the voters is likely to upset said voters?

This at least I mostly agree with. I don't think Sanders ever expected to seriously win. I think he just wanted to draw attention to some issues close to him and influence the eventual outcome; he never did any groundwork for a presidential run. As it happened, Clinton ended up being a rather weak and uninspiring candidate and Sanders caught fire from that point on. Nevertheless, you're right that meant he was lacking in 'in the trenches experience'.

Sanders hasn't been running as a message candidate but been running as if to win this whole time (or at least since New Hampshire).

Well, yes and no. There are many reasons why Sanders' didn't think he would end up being a serious candidate. Once he realized he could be, I think he made a genuine and determined effort to provide a serious and appealing program for black American voters. If the Democratic party had in any way nurtured the left wing of the party, and Sanders hadn't had to blaze his own trail, I think he could have done much better with the black American community. I mean, flip the question: suppose you're Sanders circa 2014, and you're deciding (much earlier) you want to make a serious presidential run and attract support from the black American community. How do you do it? The DNC would largely laugh at any attempt by you to get yourself in the national profile - they've been doing that even now Sanders has over 40% of the Democratic primary vote. So I don't think Sanders even had the chance to make a strong appeal to the black American community - he was finished before he started.

I mean this has been a man who has been shitting on the Democratic party for years so perhaps even starting in 2014 might not have been enough time. I'm not sure why the DNC would laugh at or have issues with an independent giving more of a shit about minority communities - why would that piss anyone off? If the DNC is currently giving him any attitude is because he has been intensifying his rhetoric explicitly against them. Even when stuff got heated in '08, Obama or Clinton weren't throwing barbs at the Democratic party. His supporters booed the party at a recent rally and DNC officials have gotten harassed by his supporters for a while now (with Nevada being the worst incident). You can't sling shit at someone and not expect them to eventually get irate.

With respect, even black voters list the economy as a more important issue to them in issue tracking polls than they do (for example) the police system. Obviously these things can't be entirely extricated: the entrenched racism that is a part of the economy itself means economic issues play out differently for black voters. Nevertheless, I don't think Sanders' failure to appeal was due to an overfocus on the economic issues. If anything, that probably stood him in better stead among black voters than anything else.

Maybe I should have explicitly stated it but I felt it was implicit in my comments - the way economics in our country has played out is in large part due to past and present racism. American politics is essentially all about race in one way or another - its perhaps the primary reason demographics have been the primary predictor for candidate success the entire primary. Sanders approach and messaging for extended periods of time was colorblind. Furthermore, "Purity" (as opposed to "pragmatism" and "incrementalism") is just not nearly as attractive to minority communities. You can't do that if you're starting from behind - especially as I've I said since he didn't put that minority community work that would have given him cred.

I don't think Sanders ever thought he would be in a presidential position in 2012. Captain Hindsight, and so on. I don't disagree, though - I just think that if Sanders had realized how weak Clinton was and how strong his message could be, things might have played out differently, and that it is a little unfair to criticize him for a situation he couldn't possibly have foreseen as recently as 2011 when he made the primary remarks.

I have no qualms about criticizing someone for not rolling out the groundwork to run for President failing to win the nomination because of it. You can't nor should you be able to succeed if you just roll out of bed one day and go at it. The fact that Trump could waltz in and strong arm the Republican nomination shows how decrepit the Republican party is at is core - even with all the offices it holds. The Republican party couldn't fight off the infection. That the Democratic party didn't fold to an outsider shows its core strength.

 

[Shihon]

Let me ask a honest question (to Bernie supporters)

They complain about closed primaries,super delegates, and how it's undemocratic. So why should the DEMOCRATIC primary be open to non-party affiliates and Republicans?

Isn't it the democrat voters duty to select the candidate and then the independents can decide if they'd vote for them or not in the general? You cant have it both ways,if you want a say in the nominating process then either join the party(or republican) and make your voice known then.

That's why I find it funny that Bernie thinks he's got some pull in demolishing the super delegates or opening primaries. He knows why the super delegates was created in the first place and is playing dumb. Hell I forgot,don't let me get started on the undemocratic primaries known as ''caucuses.''

 

[excelsiorlef]

I have to give credit to a lot of the folks over ta DailyKos, they are one of the only leftist media groups to not lose their freaking minds during this primary.

Recently, we’ve had more than one diary based on the idea that people have “had it” that the Democratic Party has left them, and so they will leave the party. I’ve heard it from more than a few Sanders supporters who are unhappy with any number of issues; I’ve heard it from Kucinich supporters a few years ago; and heck, we hear it from people in State Parties all the time who dislike the people who may control their state party.

Rage, anger, frustration. It happens. There are several ways to do something about it. Shaun King makes a pretty solid plea for his argument: Quit.

King, however, leaves out a very important part of the argument: the moment he quits the party, they no longer have any reason to care about his input, at all. This sounds offensive to independents, who feel as though the political parties are responsible to the will of all of the people, but the reality is, just as a McDonald’s franchisee doesn’t spend time taking instruction from a Wendy’s store owner, parties as a group rarely listen to those who have decided they no longer want to be involved.

The Democratic Party Of The Future

I think everyone looks at problems differently. Much like Shaun, four years ago, I looked at the state of the Kansas and Missouri Democratic Parties and I said: this is a shambles. Good people, good intent for the most part, but parties in trouble for multiple reasons.

The easy answer, frankly, is to quit. Throw up your hands and say “good riddance, I don’t want anything to do with that”. And, for people like me, writing bombshells on the internet and getting spots on news media doing so would have been easy. Over the years, I’ve had pretty good success building up decent contacts where I need them to make my argument.

What I knew, though, was that if I quit or stayed on the outside, absolutely nothing would improve. Shaun King’s argument is: quit and it will force them to reckon with reality. My counter argument: when you quit, you remove a progressive voice from the room and you increase the voice that people you oppose have within the party. And mathematically, that is hard to deny.

Shaun King’s solution only entrenches the problem, meaning that those Democrats you oppose and shake your fist at? They gain more, not less, influence within the party. The plan of a third-level progressive party? You splinter the left and you basically guarantee Republicans win more, not fewer elections, which is also contrary to your goals.

Knowing that the party needs more progressive voices, how does someone get involved? Depending on how you want to be involved, how much time and effort you want to put into it, there are opportunities to build the party you want in the future… from the inside.
....

King offers this piece of advice:

I am in full agreement with both Reich and Alexander. Whatever happens between now and the Democratic Convention - what's next is that we form a brand new progressive political party from scratch.

This advice, though, is the reverse of any idea of “revolution”. A revolution is defined as: “An overthrow of government or social order.” If you take your ball and go elsewhere, you aren’t overthrowing anything. You are, instead, saying you can’t be bothered doing the work of changing something, and you’d prefer to just start all over. It leaves untouched the organization you are trying to change.

While some would contend: well, it is a “kind” of revolution if we build a strong alternative that takes over the old, but that it is also predicated on fairly illogical premise that the only people who would join you in a 3rd party would be perfect examples of your goal, and all of the people you want to be free of would stay where they are, in the Democratic Party.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...volutionaries-Aren-t-Quitters?detail=facebook

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The degree to which people hate Muslims in the world right now is frightening.

For god's sake, the Austrian Party that might win the presidency tomorrow was started by a fucking SS member. The Nazi SS!

 

[User1608]

I have some respect for Charlie Baker. I am glad he's not a coward and at least has some principles.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

The entire party other than Jeb and Baker has surrendered to Trump:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/22/politics/donald-trump-lindsey-graham-republican-party/index.html



I grew up around the most cowardly people (who enabled abusers) and the Republican congress is more cowardly than them. If Trump wins, I hope he sends these guys to Gitmo.

Further proof that "moderate" Republicans are just as bad, if not worse than the far right.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Let me ask a honest question (to Bernie supporters)

They complain about closed primaries,super delegates, and how it's undemocratic. So why should the DEMOCRATIC primary be open to non-party affiliates and Republicans?

I think it's more complicated than that.

Firstly, the American political system is set up in such a way that effectively only the Democratic Party or the Republican Party will ever be viable. The combination of first past the post, federalism, presidentialism, bicameralism, and so on all combine to make organizing an alternative party essentially impossible. So the Democratic Party and Republican Party are, de facto, a part of the electoral system in and of themselves, rather than just participants. You can't really get around that. The presidential elections will always primarily be about a Democrat against a Republican, and if that must be the case, for American democracy to be truly responsive, the American public must have input into who can become the Democratic candidate and who can become the Republican candidate, without having to compromise on what might be a matter of political integrity in choosing not to self-identify as a member proper of a political party as a party and not as part of the election system. So that argues for an open primary.

You can reject this argument, and insist that primaries are purely private affairs; the fact no alternatives are possible doesn't mean we should recognise the Democrats and the Republicans as anything other than parties still. If that is the case, then you are also committed to dropping all public funding for party primaries, because they are now a private organization and not a public good. Given that neither party could afford primaries under such a scenario, you're essentially arguing for the abolition of the primary.

So the third argument available to you is to say that, well, they are open to the public, as long as they register for a party. This might be true... if it were not for the fact that both parties fight to make it as difficult as possible, to ensure a stronger degree of control over the process. Registration for New York's primary finished months in advance of the primary itself, something that should be seen as unacceptable. It might just about be allowable that primaries should be open to registered party X members only while retaining public funding, but only, at a minimum, with same-day registration and other legal stipulations that make access as open as possible given registering.

Mind you, this is really a side issue. The main issue is that America has quite possibly the worst constitution you could devise without having a country constantly torn apart by civil war and it's so entrenched you can't even change it. If it used a parliamentary system with a proportional electoral system none of this would be an issue in the first place, but there you go. Best you can hope for is the Alternative Vote, I suppose.

 

[itschris]

I have to give credit to a lot of the folks over ta DailyKos, they are one of the only leftist media groups to not lose their freaking minds during this primary.




http://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...volutionaries-Aren-t-Quitters?detail=facebook

Yeah, I'm glad some places aren't going completely insane for Bernie. Even if you prefer him, there's room to be reasonable and pragmatic about things.

Oh, and of course:

IMPORTANT UPDATE: So this is an important, but off topic update. Since publishing this diary, I’ve had a lot of good feedback, but since it went out and was linked somewhere else (reddit maybe?), and my email address is easy to see, I’ve also had some negative feedback. One of the negative feedback I’ve had from this is associated with my work for CTR. People have seen this show up linked to me, and they assume it is “Correct The Record” and have made pretty negative comments in regards to this. I’d like to point out “FOR THE RECORD”, that CTR is my initials: Christopher T Reeves.

So, if you’ve read the supposed association, wherever it has been published, it is completely false.

Thanks.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Hmm, Obama will power Hillary to the presidency in 2016 like Raygun powered HW, but it's going to be tough for that to happen in 2020 I think. That's uncomfortable since a white nationalist will probably take the 2020 nomination also.

 

[pigeon]

The main issue is that America has quite possibly the worst constitution you could devise without having a country constantly torn apart by civil war and it's so entrenched you can't even change it. If it used a parliamentary system with a proportional electoral system none of this would be an issue in the first place, but there you go. Best you can hope for is the Alternative Vote, I suppose.

This is a pretty good post, and I actually mostly agree with it (maybe not same-day registration, but certainly month-ahead registration is crazy).

However I think you should take some responsibility here for your country losing the Revolutionary War in the first place. It didn't have to be this way.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Hmm, Obama will power Hillary to the presidency in 2016 like Raygun powered HW, but it's going to be tough for that to happen in 2020 I think. That's uncomfortable since a white nationalist will probably take the 2020 nomination also.

Honestly, I think Trump's loss will be enough to prevent an equally bad candidate. Clinton would be the most disliked candidate of all time were it not for Trump himself; losing to her would be like a thunderbolt to the party. Romney losing to Obama can be brushed off as you know, losing to a charismatic sitting president when the economy was recovering, whereas losing to Clinton would be: if we can't win this, when can we win? The party elite will probably do a lot of work behind the scenes to try and make sure at most only one or two establishment candidates run to prevent the vote being split, and I can't see there being another Trump who is as good at being Trump as Trump is.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

This is a pretty good post, and I actually mostly agree with it (maybe not same-day registration, but certainly month-ahead registration is crazy).

However I think you should take some responsibility here for your country losing the Revolutionary War in the first place. It didn't have to be this way.

I blame the French.

EDIT: The UK's constitution is only slightly better than America's, though. It's not a scratch on the usual Scandinavian overlords with their sexy List PR unitary unicameralism with a flexible constitution and explicit civic law provisions.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Honestly, I think Trump's loss will be enough to prevent an equally bad candidate. Clinton would be the most disliked candidate of all time were it not for Trump himself; losing to her would be like a thunderbolt to the party. Romney losing to Obama can be brushed off as you know, losing to a charismatic sitting president when the economy was recovering, whereas losing to Clinton would be: if we can't win this, when can we win? The party elite will probably do a lot of work behind the scenes to try and make sure at most only one or two establishment candidates run to prevent the vote being split, and I can't see there being another Trump who is as good at being Trump as Trump is.

Have you met Trump people? They've never had a moment of self-reflection in their lives. They'll vote for Nugent or Schilling in 2020 without worrying about losing at all.

 

[mo60]

The degree to which people hate Muslims in the world right now is frightening.

For god's sake, the Austrian Party that might win the presidency tomorrow was started by a fucking SS member. The Nazi SS!

It is, but a political party can't really rely on fear-mongering about muslims to win an election especially in a diverse/multicultural country as we have seen through multiple examples in the last year or two which is a good thing

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

It is, but a political party can't really rely on fear-mongering about muslims to win an election as we have seen through multiple examples in the last year or two which is a good thing

I mean, the Austrian Party might though

Canada was good last year! Harper getting fucked up was so good.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Have you met Trump people? They've never had a moment of self-reflection in their lives. They'll vote for Nugent or Schilling in 2020 without worrying about losing at all.

Trump was helped by the fact the establishment candidates were a) terrible (I mean Jeb!?!?!? Rubot?) and b) were so convinced Trump wouldn't win they spent all their time attacking each other. I don't think Trump would have won if it had been, say, a two horse race between Trump and (for the sake of argument) Kasich right from the start.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Sanders had bullets fired into his office, for goodness sake.

And that excuses his and his supporter's douchebaggery?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

And that excuses his and his supporter's douchebaggery?

Sanders himself hasn't done any douchebaggery beyond the norm; certainly no worse than he's faced from Clinton. There is a vile minority of Sanders supporters with inexcusable behaviour; that's true of all campaigns (to different degrees) and it's difficult to know what can be done about it. Sanders is obviously not in favour of this and he's asked for people to cool it in the past. Constantly bringing it up with your average Sanders supporter doesn't really help things - they dislike it as much as you do and are just as powerless as you are to do anything about it.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Yeah, I'm glad some places aren't going completely insane for Bernie. Even if you prefer him, there's room to be reasonable and pragmatic about things.

Oh, and of course:

Bwhahahaha... of course.

 

[sphagnum]

Hmm, Obama will power Hillary to the presidency in 2016 like Raygun powered HW, but it's going to be tough for that to happen in 2020 I think. That's uncomfortable since a white nationalist will probably take the 2020 nomination also.

Trump's loss could allow the GOP to turn around and go "See? We didn't lose because of conservatism, we lost because Trump wasn't a real conservative!" Depends on how strong the Trumpists turn out to be after his defeat - whether they hang on and change the party completely or if they just collapse without their leader.

If they put up a Trump 2.0, that will probably be a better opponent for Hillary than if they nominated, say, a Paul Ryan, someone who can portray themselves as the "responsible one". Another openly racist crazy person will drive away the even-more-diverse electorate, but someone who can sell themselves as just a fiscal conservative could be appealing, especially if there's an economic downturn during Hillary's tenure.

But at this point who knows if the GOP can even reform in that direction anymore.

 

[Mrs. Manky]

Honestly, I think Trump's loss will be enough to prevent an equally bad candidate. Clinton would be the most disliked candidate of all time were it not for Trump himself; losing to her would be like a thunderbolt to the party. Romney losing to Obama can be brushed off as you know, losing to a charismatic sitting president when the economy was recovering, whereas losing to Clinton would be: if we can't win this, when can we win? The party elite will probably do a lot of work behind the scenes to try and make sure at most only one or two establishment candidates run to prevent the vote being split, and I can't see there being another Trump who is as good at being Trump as Trump is.

I disagree. The whole theme is that the ideology cannot fail, you can only fail the ideology. If Trump loses, it will be because "he wasn't conservative enough". The pic of him and the missus with the Clintons will be plastered everywhere as proof that The Fix Is In. And the more rabid section of the GOP base will clamor for someone even more right wing.

 

[ampere]

I think it's more complicated than that.

Not a bad point. They are private organizations, but because of their power really should be beholden to some public requirements.

I do like the proposal another poster (might have been Suikoguy) had, which is that you must switch parties by the start of the primary cycle, but you can register on short notice if you are a new voter. Caucuses should be eliminated, states should be required to have early and absentee voting

And the primary cycle should be more condensed, like 2 months total as some have suggested.

 

[hawk2025]

Sanders himself hasn't done any douchebaggery beyond the norm; certainly no worse than he's faced from Clinton. There is a vile minority of Sanders supporters with inexcusable behaviour; that's true of all campaigns (to different degrees) and it's difficult to know what can be done about it. Sanders is obviously not in favour of this and he's asked for people to cool it in the past. Constantly bringing it up with your average Sanders supporter doesn't really help things - they dislike it as much as you do and are just as powerless as you are to do anything about it.

Really?

It's a very easy argument to make that constantly implying Clinton is corrupt, bought for, and directly involved in disenfranchising voters is much worse than anything Clinton has thrown at Sanders.

Which has been, what, pointing out his history with protecting gun manufacturers?

He's been treated with a soft touch.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Sanders himself hasn't done any douchebaggery beyond the norm; certainly no worse than he's faced from Clinton. There is a vile minority of Sanders supporters with inexcusable behaviour; that's true of all campaigns (to different degrees) and it's difficult to know what can be done about it. Sanders is obviously not in favour of this and he's asked for people to cool it in the past. Constantly bringing it up with your average Sanders supporter doesn't really help things - they dislike it as much as you do and are just as powerless as you are to do anything about it.

He's created an atmosphere where many of his supporters literally believe his being denied the nomination not because he's losing by 3 million votes and almost 300 delegates but because the Democratic Party is committing voter fraud at every turn to steal the election from him.

His condemnation of the harassment didn't mention Lange by name, in fact his condemnation of the harassment didn't even reference that she was the one being harassed. Further in fact, the only time he does refer to her directly, and only as The Chair, was to accuse her of voter suppression and fraud.

His response was not really a condemnation ,it was lip service. His response was essentially to say harassment is bad but you have to consider what she was wearing.

Sanders has absolutely created the atmosphere that resulted in the Nevada incident. His rhetoric is conspiratorial and paranoid, it has empowered the less controlled part of his supporters to feel justified in violence and harassment, and his response to Nevada did nothing to change that at all.

 

[hawk2025]

He's created an atmosphere where many of his supporters literally believe his being denied the nomination not because he's losing by 3 million votes and almost 300 delegates but because the Democratic Party is committing voter fraud at every turn to steal the election from him.

His condemnation of the harassment didn't mention Lange by name, in fact his condemnation of the harassment didn't even reference that she was the one being harassed. Further in fact, the only time he does refer to her directly, and only as The Chair, was to accuse her of voter suppression and fraud.

His response was not really a condemnation ,it was lip service. His response was essentially to say harassment is bad but you have to consider what she was wearing.

Sanders has absolutely created the atmosphere that resulted in the Nevada incident. His rhetoric is conspiratorial and paranoid, it has empowered the less controlled part of his supporters to feel justified in violence and harassment, and his response to Nevada did nothing to change that at all.

This.

 

[Zornack]

Sanders himself hasn't done any douchebaggery beyond the norm; certainly no worse than he's faced from Clinton. There is a vile minority of Sanders supporters with inexcusable behaviour; that's true of all campaigns (to different degrees) and it's difficult to know what can be done about it. Sanders is obviously not in favour of this and he's asked for people to cool it in the past. Constantly bringing it up with your average Sanders supporter doesn't really help things - they dislike it as much as you do and are just as powerless as you are to do anything about it.

Just so I get this straight, Sander's has had a surrogate call Clinton a whore, has had delegates dox people and send death threats and insinuates that Hillary is a lying corporate drone nearly daily, but you're sure that Clinton and her supporters are just as bad so it's okay, correct?

 

[damisa]

It's not a coincidence that there has been harassing and death threats coming from Bernie and Trump supporters, they've been riling up the anger in their supporters in order to get more support with no regard to the danger. It's disgusting and sad that we have people trying to defend it or deflect it with some lame "every group has some bad apples" excuses.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Just so I get this straight, Sander's has had a surrogate call Clinton a whore, has had delegates dox people and send death threats and insinuates that Hillary is a lying corporate drone nearly daily, but you're sure that Clinton and her supporters are just as bad so it's okay, correct?

I don't think you read the post you quoted very carefully.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Just so I get this straight, Sander's has had a surrogate call Clinton a whore, has had delegates dox people and send death threats and insinuates that Hillary is a lying corporate drone nearly daily, but you're sure that Clinton and her supporters are just as bad so it's okay, correct?

You forgot also ave a surrogate who said don't vote Clinton just because she has a uterus, to which Sanders replied "yeah I would never ask anyone to vote for me because I am a man"....

 

[Zornack]

I don't think you read the post you quoted very carefully.

I don't think you understand how Sanders' refusal to properly denounce his supporters' disgusting and often sexist behavior coupled with his unending character attacks against Clinton has lead to a following full of harassment, conspiracy and misogyny.