Support NeoGAF

[SenorArdilla]

Oh my god. Republicans are really trying to push that "hypocrisy" angle.

 

[Crocodile]

WOKE Leftist: "Democrats SUCK!"
Me: "Ok. What should they be doing instead that they could be doing? Be detailed and specific"
WOKE Leftist: "............Democrats SUCK!"

This and "compared to political parties in other countries, Democrats are a right-wing party barely different from the Republicans" send me up a wall. Criticism is GREAT! But it needs to be constructive and specific. Too often I feel it isn't and that bums me out and annoys me. It feels too many people want to be mad than help :/

 

[royalan]

The DNC needs to shut Bernie up. Because he's not just going to stop on his own.

You don't get to be an anti-establishment figure (despite being in the establishment for decades) by working well with others. Bernie sees the current state of the left as the opportunity to remake the DNC in his image, only his politics suck and he refuses to see the world for what it is.

He's a petty, blundering old man and that's not going to change. Stop trying to build a coalition around him. Perez is a fool.

 

[BlastProcessing]

@JuddLegum
Off message here for Trump Jr. Says his father did tell Comey he hoped he let the Flynn investigation go. His dad says that's a lie.

Oopsie Doopsies

 

[RumbleHumble]

By the by, that Spoils of War book makes the argument that George Washington's motivations for involving himself with the revolutionaries were due to his status as a real estate speculator, something he shared with others like Jefferson in that they all had potential wealth tied up in as yet non-titled lands that the King was going to claim for the crown to distribute per custom.

I saw this argument before for others like Hancock, Franklin, etc., but never Washington despite his relentless acquiring of land all over the place that was nowhere near settlement. (That's why he and Jefferson were infamously "broke" coming out of the White House, both took all their profits and used it to buy more land unlike their northern counterparts who were more invested in standard short term returns.)

In one case, Washington offered his "services" as a former surveyor to men in his unit from the French and Indian Wars to negotiate their land grant (which was the payment for their military service) only for his men to find that he had oddly deeded all the good land to himself rather than parceling it out in standard size and shape chunks.

I love it.

Article that looks like it was copy and pasted onto a fake institute that's really just a tax shelter website about the various founders and their real estate endeavors that has much of this in it: http://lehrmaninstitute.org/history/founders-land.html

Andrew Jackson got rich the same way: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ade-a-killing-in-real-estate-119727_full.html

And obviously, we have the Wars with Mexico and Spain.

God Bless America.

I need to read that. I've always had some knowledge about the ulterior motives of Jefferson and Washington from "A People's History of the United States", but I've never had a chance to dig in deep before. It's safe to assume you're enjoying it?

 

[RumbleHumble]

@JuddLegum
Off message here for Trump Jr. Says his father did tell Comey he hoped he let the Flynn investigation go. His dad says that's a lie.

Oopsie Doopsies

The only thing coherent about this administration is it's continued incoherence.

 

[Macho Madness]

This guy is a clown.

Where's the lie

 

[NeoXChaos]

Jonathan Martin‏Verified account
Bernie takes implied shot at party estab

"With proper organization & FINANCIAL RESOURCES we can win in any district in the" country

Oh Bernie plz

Joel Benenson‏Verified account
@benensonj
Joel Benenson Retweeted Jonathan Martin
Bernie is wrong on this. We can & should play in more districts. But gerrymandering alone makes sweeping claims like this completely false.

Kyle Kondik‏ @kkondik 1h1 hour ago
More
Kyle Kondik Retweeted Joel Benenson
Also, even with totally nonpartisan redistricting many districts would be winnable only by one party (be it Manhattan or western Nebraska)

 

[Mr.Shrugglesツ]

Oh Bernie plz

Joel Benenson - He was the chief strategist for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign

ok

 

[neurosisxeno]

Even as someone who likes Sanders, even I'm starting to eye roll at these statements occasionally. I get where he's coming from, but in the same vein, what does this political infighting really accomplish? How does it benefit the Democratic Party?

Also, was this discussed?

”As a member of both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, I see firsthand the distinction between the legal and counterintelligence aspects presented by Director Comey's testimony this week," her letter reads. ”It is my strong recommendation that the Judiciary Committee investigate all issues that raise a question of obstruction of justice. These issues should be developed by our legal staff, presented to us, and be subject to full Committee hearings."

 

[royalan]

Bernie Sanders, as per usual, is the problem diagnosing the problem.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

The DNC needs to shut Bernie up. Because he's not just going to stop on his own.
.

But how? Sanders isn't even a Democrat right now. The DNC has as much control over him as you or I.

 

[Ogodei]

Healthcare repeal will have a disproportionate effect on poor people who are already the least likely to vote. I really think there will be minor blowback. I think McConnell knows it too, obviously, which is why he's calculated that the general rage from poor people dying in the streets will be less than the rage from activated Republican voters not getting what they have been told they want.

It has a disproportionate effect on the pre-Medicare elderly, who are a key GOP demographic and vote in droves.

The Medicaid damage doesn't come until later (if the Senate has its way), but the age discrimination kicks in almost immediately.

 

[Crocodile]

ok

Rather than an ad hominieum attack do you want to rebutt his point? Do you think a Democrat could win in literally every district in the country if the just "organized harder and spent more"? Do you think gerrymandering is not a thing? Do you think that even without gerrymandering that a Democrat could in say the middle of rural Oklahoma? That has to mean you think there is a realistic scenario where a Republican could win a district in Manhattan right?

This is the shit that I mean. It's fine if you have criticisms. But offer actual points people can latch on to. "Organize and spend lots of money and you can win ANYWHERE" doesn't mean anything (because it doesn't mean anything). "Try to compete in more districts and recruit harder" is also vague but more useful general advice (though we are already doing that).

 

[jack_package_200]

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/873700166179713025

The main Bernie program kicks off with The Beatles's "Revolution," which is about being skeptical of people who call for revolution.

That People's Summit is...hmm

Remember when they sang "We shall overcome" in California?

 

[Wilsongt]

The DNC needs to shut Bernie up. Because he's not just going to stop on his own.

You don't get to be an anti-establishment figure (despite being in the establishment for decades) by working well with others. Bernie sees the current state of the left as the opportunity to remake the DNC in his image, only his politics suck and he refuses to see the world for what it is.

He's a petty, blundering old man and that's not going to change. Stop trying to build a coalition around him. Perez is a fool.

Why hush up the greatest, most amazingly balding silvet haired, glassed thing to ever happen to the DNC?

They just cheated him and threw him out like garbage.

So tragic.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Rather than an ad hominieum attack do you want to rebutt his point? Do you think a Democrat could win in literally every district in the country if the just "organized harder and spent more"? Do you think gerrymandering is not a thing? Do you think that even without gerrymandering that a Democrat could in say the middle of rural Oklahoma? That has to mean you think there is a realistic scenario where a Republican could win a district in Manhattan right?

This is the shit that I mean. It's fine if you have criticisms. But offer actual points people can latch on to. "Organize and spend lots of money and you can win ANYWHERE" doesn't mean anything (because it doesn't mean anything). "Try to compete in more districts and recruit harder" is also vague but more useful general advice (though we are already doing that).

We had someone a while back say we could win in the South if we pushed for socialist policies, so that is definitely something people actually think

Either way, if we theoretically did win some insanely red seat in Oklahoma, that Democrat is a one-termer for sure. We should invest in seats where the potential for long-term success is there (like GA-06).

 

[TestOfTide]

We had someone a while back say we could win in the South if we pushed for socialist policies, so that is definitely something people actually think

If you are referring to me, I only argued that Dems could conceivably win in the southern states by maximizing the minority vote, winning over as many suburban whites as possible, and depressing (not actually suppressing but just depressing) white rural turnout in southern states.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Rather than an ad hominieum attack do you want to rebutt his point? Do you think a Democrat could win in literally every district in the country if the just "organized harder and spent more"? Do you think gerrymandering is not a thing? Do you think that even without gerrymandering that a Democrat could in say the middle of rural Oklahoma? That has to mean you think there is a realistic scenario where a Republican could win a district in Manhattan right?

This is the shit that I mean. It's fine if you have criticisms. But offer actual points people can latch on to. "Organize and spend lots of money and you can win ANYWHERE" doesn't mean anything (because it doesn't mean anything). "Try to compete in more districts and recruit harder" is also vague but more useful general advice (though we are already doing that).

I mean, I think you're blowing that out of proportion. Bernie's saying that the Democrats can get victories by organizing and not giving up on victories ahead of time because they're considered out of reach. He isn't saying that if only the Democrats got their shit together they could hold every single seat in the House after 2018, but we've brought two districts that haven't been held by Democrats since 94 and 96 to 6-point races. That was like, the whole point of the fifty-state strategy everyone gets excited about!

This is frustrating because it's like, the least charitable interpretation of what he said. Yeah, we're probably not picking up UT-1 or KS-1 but we also weren't supposed to have a chance at KS-4 and then we came close because of the grassroots support for Thompson. The DCCC ignored the race because they thought it didn't matter but people organized and made Estes sweat on election day even if Thompson ultimately lost.

 

[Mr.Shrugglesツ]

Rather than an ad hominieum attack do you want to rebutt his point? Do you think a Democrat could win in literally every district in the country if the just "organized harder and spent more"? Do you think gerrymandering is not a thing? Do you think that even without gerrymandering that a Democrat could in say the middle of rural Oklahoma? That has to mean you think there is a realistic scenario where a Republican could win a district in Manhattan right?

This is the shit that I mean. It's fine if you have criticisms. But offer actual points people can latch on to. "Organize and spend lots of money and you can win ANYWHERE" doesn't mean anything (because it doesn't mean anything). "Try to compete in more districts and recruit harder" is also vague but more useful general advice (though we are already doing that).

The chief strategist for Clinton '16 who lost against donald fucking trump is saying someone is wrong about how to focus on elections?

 

[Suikoguy]

If you are referring to me, I only argued that Dems could conceivably win in the southern states by maximizing the minority vote, winning over as many suburban whites as possible, and depressing (not actually suppressing but just depressing) white rural turnout in southern states.

I thought you were talking about states like GA.
I think the post you are referring to talking about states like WV, OK, etc.

The chief strategist for Clinton '16 who lost against donald fucking trump is saying someone is wrong about how to focus on elections?

Did you really just follow up a complaint about using ad hominem, by using the same ad hominem attack?

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

If you are referring to me, I only argued that Dems could conceivably win in the southern states by maximizing the minority vote, winning over as many suburban whites as possible, and depressing (not actually suppressing but just depressing) white rural turnout in southern states.

No, it was someone else who suggested that we could win over those Southern whites with socialist policies. Don't remember who.

The chief strategist for Clinton '16 who lost against donald fucking trump is saying someone is wrong about how to focus on elections?

maybe "donald fucking trump" isn't as weak of a candidate as you seem to think he was!

 

[BrutishMrFish]

The chief strategist for Clinton '16 who lost against donald fucking trump is saying someone is wrong about how to focus on elections?

By that logic Bernie is even worse given that he lost to the person who lost to Donald Trump.

 

[Tarydax]

The chief strategist for Clinton '16 who lost against donald fucking trump is saying someone is wrong about how to focus on elections?

And Bernie Sanders lost to Hillary Fucking Clinton by millions of votes. What's your point?

 

[Mr.Shrugglesツ]

By that logic Bernie is even worse given that he lost to the person who lost to Donald Trump.

And Bernie Sanders lost to Hillary Fucking Clinton by millions of votes. What's your point?

No, it was someone else who suggested that we could win over those Southern whites with socialist policies. Don't remember who.



maybe "donald fucking trump" isn't as weak of a candidate as you seem to think he was!

Primaries aren't the same as general elections?

Maybe?

I think so.

Hillary's general campaign was atrocious.

 

[TestOfTide]

I thought you were talking about states like GA.
I think the post you are referring to talking about states like WV, OK, etc.

No, it was someone else who suggested that we could win over those Southern whites with socialist policies. Don't remember who.

Yeah I was referring to basically every southern state that has a sizable minority population (not just GA but also SC, LA, MS, AL, etc.), but obviously not OK or WV because those are like 99% rural whites.

Primaries aren't the same as general elections?

Maybe?

I think so.

You want to talk about winning strategies. I mean we COULD talk about how we should go back to more stuff like Howard Dean's SUCCESSFUL 50 state strategy. Or we could bring up the fact that the Dems WERE actually fairly successful in 2012.

No, instead you want to make the FALSE claim that the democrats have had nothing but losses the past 10 years.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Primaries aren't the same as general elections?

Yea, Sanders wouldn't get 43.2% of the vote in a General.

 

[jack_package_200]

By that logic Bernie is even worse given that he lost to the person who lost to Donald Trump.

Yep

Its weird how often this point gets handwaved away by the usual suspects. He lost to Clinton the loser. Your dumb little hypothetical "_______ would have won" is irrelevant wishful thinking.

 

[Suikoguy]

Yeah I was referring to basically every southern state that has a sizable minority population (not just GA but also SC, LA, MS, AL, etc.), but obviously not OK or WV because those are like 99% rural whites.

IIRC the crux of the argument was that everybody is secret socialist, they just don't know it yet. I'm less sure about what states it would work on.

 

[Crocodile]

I mean, I think you're blowing that out of proportion. Bernie's saying that the Democrats can get victories by organizing and not giving up on victories ahead of time because they're considered out of reach. He isn't saying that if only the Democrats got their shit together they could hold every single seat in the House after 2018, but we've brought two districts that haven't been held by Democrats since 94 and 96 to 6-point races. That was like, the whole point of the fifty-state strategy everyone gets excited about!

This is frustrating because it's like, the least charitable interpretation of what he said. Yeah, we're probably not picking up UT-1 or KS-1 but we also weren't supposed to have a chance at KS-4 and then we came close because of the grassroots support for Thompson. The DCCC ignored the race because they thought it didn't matter but people organized and made Estes sweat on election day even if Thompson ultimately lost.

I agree with the bolded and think its a good message. I just get concerned because there are people who legit believe the worst interpretation of that. That's why I wish he was more careful with his language. His words mean a lot and when he isn't careful trouble happens.

Did you really just follow up a complaint about using ad hominem, by using the same ad hominem attack?

Yeah I just saw that and I'm just confused as shit.

Mr.Shrugglesツ rebutt the points the man is making, stop attacking him

 

[Wilsongt]

The chief strategist for Clinton '16 who lost against donald fucking trump is saying someone is wrong about how to focus on elections?

So are we suppose to completely ignore whatever anyone associated with Clinton's campaign says?

Despite whatever GAF, Twitter, 24-cable news arm chair pundit said about the election after the fact, no one saw Hillary losing the election, except maybe Nate Silver, and that is only because he kept saying shit like "Well, she could lose the election. She has a chance to lose. She might still lose."

 

[Box of Kittens]

Of course you aren't going to win everywhere. That having been said, it is better to spread the resources out rather than just flood 20 districts with everything since the marginal utility of money pumped into a district declines relatively quickly. Yes, you do spend the most on your target districts, but there's a lot of good reasons to cast a wider net.

 

[jtb]

Benenson also polled for Obama's two abysmal campaigns where he beat Mitt fucking Romeny and John fucking McCain. So what?

Of course you aren't going to win everywhere. That having been said, it is better to spread the resources out rather than just flood 20 districts with everything since the marginal utility of money pumped into a district declines relatively quickly. Yes, you do spend the most on your target districts, but there's a lot of good reasons to cast a wider net.

I agree 100% with this. If anything, I think the Hillary campaign epitomized how quickly paid advertising sees diminishing returns.

 

[Mr.Shrugglesツ]

No, instead you want to make the FALSE claim that the democrats have had nothing but losses the past 10 years.

False claim?

The fucking ACA that has helped millions is about to be overturned.

All the green progress through the ARRA is gonna get fucked because of the SoE Perry apparently left the planet and fuck it coal plants.

These are the losses in the past ten years.

 

[kirblar]

False claim?

The fucking ACA that has helped millions is about to be overturned.

All the green progress through the ARRA is gonna get fucked because of the SoE Perry apparently left the planet and fuck it coal plants.

These are the losses in the past ten years.

Did you think the Democrats could win forever and prevent an RRR situation?

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I agree with the bolded and think its a good message. I just get concerned because there are people who legit believe the worst interpretation of that. That's why I wish he was more careful with his language. His words mean a lot and when he isn't careful trouble happens.



Yeah I just saw that and I'm just confused as shit.

Mr.Shrugglesツ rebutt the points the man is making, stop attacking him

Like, as someone who lives in one of the shittiest districts with one of the shittiest congressmen in the country, I don't hold any illusions that just organizing and money are going to flip it and I don't think anyone else who lives around me is going to think that either. But is he supposed to say like "eh, some of y'all are fucked, just move I guess" or is he supposed to tell people they should try to make a difference, especially when they can at a local level? I guess maybe instead of saying "no district" he could have said "y'all should become a bunch of sewer socialists."

 

[TestOfTide]

IIRC the crux of the argument was that everybody is secret socialist, they just don't know it yet. I'm less sure about what states it would work on.

As someone who worked for the Democrats' campaign in rural NH. I'll just list my thoughts on that.....notion:

- First off....for the most part....NO absolutely not. A lot of rural voters are diehard conservatives who care about nothing but living as far away from liberals as possible. They view socialism the way we view racism.

- In NH there were a lot of voters who liked Bernie a lot, and I think a HUGE part of that was that there are a lot of people involved in education in this state and Bernie WAS suggesting a pretty big government investment in education, which they liked.

- The one thing that I found even a lot of rural conservatives seem to lean "liberal" on is they absolutely hate the idea of plowing through public land (such as nice pristine mountains) and turning it into more roads and power lines and shit.

False claim?

The fucking ACA that has helped millions is about to be overturned.

All the green progress through the ARRA is gonna get fucked because of the SoE Perry apparently left the planet and fuck it coal plants.

These are the losses in the past ten years.

Yes FALSE claim. Or did you forget that 2008 and 2012 were less than 10 years ago?

I'm not saying that the Democrats didn't fuck up badly in 2010, 2014, and 2016. I'm just saying that:

1) If you want to blame someone, go fucking blame Rahm Emanuel (no seriously. Others will back me up on this. Blame Rahm Emanuel.)

2) If you want to learn from the past, you don't just learn from the failures, but you also learn from the successes too (such as 2008 and 2012)

3) Stop assuming that Democrats aren't already learning a lot just because they aren't going balls deep into Bernie's plans.

 

[kirblar]

Like, as someone who lives in one of the shittiest districts with one of the shittiest congressmen in the country, I don't hold any illusions that just organizing and money are going to flip it and I don't think anyone else who lives around me is going to think that either. But is he supposed to say like "eh, some of y'all are fucked, just move I guess" or is he supposed to tell people they should try to make a difference, especially when they can at a local level? I guess maybe instead of saying "no district" he could have said "y'all should become a bunch of sewer socialists."

My grandparents on both sides of my family moved all the time. My family moved all the time job-hopping.

Planting permanent roots is bizarre to me. I've got military on one side and immigrants on the other.

 

[Mr.Shrugglesツ]

I
Did you really just follow up a complaint about using ad hominem, by using the same ad hominem attack?

Do you disagree that their campaign garbage? I'm not attacking the person. I'm attacking the job they did, as a chief strategist. He and his team failed.

IIRC the crux of the argument was that everybody is secret socialist, they just don't know it yet. I'm less sure about what states it would work on.

People are ignorant and uneducated. There are some that are beyond help and there are some that just don't know. (the irony of both the clinton and bernie campaign thinking and doing both isn't lost on me)

 

[jtb]

isn't the elephant in the room with the Bernie-theory of the Democratic party... Russia?

obviously, the Hillary wing believes it absolves all of their mistakes, and the Bernie wing tries to sweep it under the rug so that they can point to the failures of the Dems (to the point where Greenwald and co. are furiously apologizing for Putin every opportunity they get)

I find the Berniecrat argument significantly more unpersuasive, tbh.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Democrats have lost so much in the past 10 years

Spoiler

except for 2006, 2008, and 2012

 

[Mr.Shrugglesツ]

Democrats have lost so much in the past 10 years

Spoiler

except for 2006, 2008, and 2012

'10 seems to be missing from that timeline.

Obama's re election was great.

Dems running way from him '10 and '12 wasn't. Those were losses.

 

[Crocodile]

Like, as someone who lives in one of the shittiest districts with one of the shittiest congressmen in the country, I don't hold any illusions that just organizing and money are going to flip it and I don't think anyone else who lives around me is going to think that either. But is he supposed to say like "eh, some of y'all are fucked, just move I guess" or is he supposed to tell people they should try to make a difference, especially when they can at a local level? I guess maybe instead of saying "no district" he could have said "y'all should become a bunch of sewer socialists."

"Don't give up before the fight has even started! You never know where opportunity can strike so be prepared, be ready and make your voices heard!" I think says the exact same thing without a lie like "we can win any/every district"?

'10 seems to be missing from that timeline.

Obama's re election was great.

Dems running way from him '10 and '12 wasn't. Those were losses.

Did you mean '10 and '14? Yeah that's what tends to happen in midterm years to a party when they have the White House and the president has mediocre approval ratings. I wonder if we can use that to our advantage moving forward (though we should take nothing for granted)

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

"Don't give up before the fight has even started! You never know where opportunity can strike so be prepared, be ready and make your voices heard!" I think says the exact same thing without a lie like "we can win any/every district"?

I guess, I just don't see who is going to have missed the fact that they live in an R+400 district and be disappointed that they lost after Bernie told them they could win.

Spoiler

my takeaway from this discussion is that we need more sewer socialists

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

'10 seems to be missing from that timeline.

Obama's re election was great.

Dems running way from him '10 and '12 wasn't. Those were losses.

Sure, so we have 06, 08, and 12 as wins and 10, 14, and 16 as losses (while also winning seats during 16 despite barely losing the presidency). 50-50 in terms of wins and losses with 66% of the presidential elections being won.

Unless you think that Democrats should be able to win every single election despite there being no historical precedent, not sure what to tell you. 10 and 14 were going to be bad losses no matter what because literally every midterm in our country's history except for 3 has been bad for the ruling party.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Did you mean '10 and '14? Yeah that's what tends to happen in midterm years to a party when they have the White House and the president has mediocre approval ratings. I wonder if we can use that to our advantage moving forward (though we should take nothing for granted)

A lot of Dems ran away from Obama in 2012 too. 2010-2015 was basically "Obama who?" from a lot of Democrats. 2014 was especially bad, when we had people like Allison Lundergan-Grimes refusing to admit she even voted for Obama. The only person I remember outright embracing the Democrats accomplishments under Obama was Al Franken.

 

[thepotatoman]

Sure, so we have 06, 08, and 12 as wins and 10, 14, and 16 as losses (while also winning seats during 16 despite barely losing the presidency). 50-50 in terms of wins and losses with 66% of the presidential elections being won.

Unless you think that Democrats should be able to win every single election despite there being no historical precedent, not sure what to tell you. 10 and 14 were going to be bad losses no matter what because literally every midterm in our country's history except for 3 has been bad for the ruling party.

This completely ignores how absolutely terrible the loses were in 10, 14, and 16. 10 and 14 were some of the biggest waves in modern history, and 16 was an extremely important election against an extremely unliked candidate.

 

[kirblar]

This completely ignores how absolutely terrible the loses were in 10, 14, and 16. 10 and 14 were some of the biggest waves in modern history, and 16 was an extremely important election against an extremely unliked candidate.

We gained seats in the House in '16.

 

[Crocodile]

A lot of Dems ran away from Obama in 2012 too. 2010-2015 was basically "Obama who?" from a lot of Democrats. 2014 was especially bad, when we had people like Allison Lundergan-Grimes refusing to admit she even voted for Obama. The only person I remember outright embracing the Democrats accomplishments under Obama was Al Franken.

Yeah I remember that - it was embarrassing. I have no idea if losses would have been worse if they hugged him but the sense I get is that it wouldn't have mattered and they should have hugged him anyway.

We gained seats in the House in '16.

The Senate too but it wasn't enough

Wisconsin and Pennsylvania had to ruin everything

 

[BrutishMrFish]

Do you disagree that their campaign garbage? I'm not attacking the person. I'm attacking the job they did, as a chief strategist. He and his team failed.

You're attacking Benenson's job in response to his use of common sense.

If Bernie can't even appeal to mainstream Democrats or get his wing to succeed in favorable areas with lots of white people, he's not going to magically know how to win anywhere else. He couldn't even get the people who ran on his platform to come close to saving his own state or do better in Wisconsin than someone who didn't even bother showing up. Making it all about campaign failures is silly when Bernie's campaign experience is defined overwhelmingly by failure.