Even though Bernie Sanders continues to push the notion that he has a chance at the Democratic nomination, many of his supporters are beginning to accept that it’s all but mathematically impossible at this point for him to pull it out. So a new narrative is starting to form, about how it’s supposedly time for Hillary Clinton supporters to shut up, cease criticizing the candidate, and let him and his people continue to lambast Clinton daily without any counter fire.

Call it the “sore winner” narrative and it’s starting to take off in grumpy Sanders circles.

Jonathan Cohn ?@JonathanCohn
.@ddguttenplan: "If Hillary Clinton doesn’t stop being such a sore winner, she may well end up a sore loser." http://www.thenation.com/article/to-win-in-november-hillary-clinton-will-need-bernie-sanderss-voters/ …
10:15 AM - 17 May 2016
17 17 Retweets 17 17 likes
Follow
Name cannot be blank ?@dadflannels
My mom always said "only thing worse than a sore loser is a sore winner" and I think that's why I can't stand hearing about hillary Clinton
11:35 AM - 1 May 2016
Retweets 4 4 likes
Follow
Matt Thomas ?@Blackharp
My take on the Clinton aide saying "Fuck you" to Sanders. The only thing people hate more than a sore loser is a sore winner.
1:25 PM - 20 Apr 2016

Most of this is, of course, just people projecting their own feelings onto Clinton and has nothing to do with her actual behavior. As Greg Sargent of the Washington Post notes, “Clinton and her campaign are actually trying to signal to Democrats that they should dial down the hostilities with Sanders and his supporters.” Gender only intensifies this, of course, as women are already expected to beat themselves up and gesticulate about how unworthy they are, and so simply seeing a woman who is gracious but unapologetic pisses people off.

But this grousing is also an attempt to silence anyone who might continue to criticize Sanders, Clinton supporter or not. Which is understandable, to a large degree. After all, as the blogger Duncan Black notes, it’s not like doing so will win over any primary votes this late in the game, and it doesn’t really matter one way or another if it does. “Clinton won. It’s over,” he complains.

Peter Staley ?@peterstaley 10h10 hours ago
Sad attack from @BernieSanders campaign. Can they help me find this "fortune" they mentioned?

98 retweets 106 likes
Reply Retweet 98
Like 106
More
Peter Staley ?@peterstaley 20m20 minutes ago
My 5 most recent posts slamming Gilead, even though I'm on their payroll according to the @BernieSanders campaign
https://www.facebook.com/peterstaley/posts/10209786273073015 …
3 retweets 10 likes
Reply Retweet 3
Like 10
More
Peter Staley ?@peterstaley 11h11 hours ago
Sanders campaign attacks me personally. FACT: I'm a volunteer AIDS activist that lives on savings (NO ONE PAYS ME)
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10209785927224369&set=a.1191034335491.2028973.1217362611&type=3&theater …
266 retweets 241 likes
Reply Retweet 266
Like 241
More
Peter Staley ?@peterstaley 16h16 hours ago
CA HIV/AIDS Leaders statement regarding Senator @BernieSanders Support of CA Drug Price Relief Act
http://www.projectinform.org/uncategorized/ca-hivaids-leaders-statement-regarding-senator-sanders-support-of-ca-drug-price-relief-act/ …
33 retweets 29 likes
Reply Retweet 33
Like 29
More
Peter Staley ?@peterstaley 17h17 hours ago
An Open Letter to Sen. @BernieSanders Challenging the Characterization of Meeting with HIV/AIDS Activists
http://www.housingworks.org/news-press/detail/an-open-letter-to-sen.-sanders-challenging-the-characterization-of-meeting …
66 retweets 52 likes
Reply Retweet 66
Like 52
More

May 27, 2016

Dear Senator Sanders:

We are grateful that you took time to sit with us this week to discuss a broad range of issues related to the fight against HIV/AIDS. Our group represents a larger coalition of over 70 organizations and advocates from across the country who hope to use this opportunity to push forward the national conversation, which is sorely missing, about HIV/AIDS. While we were optimistic following what we felt was a productive meeting, our optimism quickly turned to disappointment when your campaign issued a news release misrepresenting the meeting with HIV/AIDS leadership entitled “Sanders Backs California Ballot Initiative to Rein in Drug Prices at Meeting with HIV/AIDS Advocates.” As 19 representatives of the coalition, nearly half of whom are either based in or affiliated with organizations in California, we are deeply concerned as this may now appear as if we were exploited for short-term political gain leading up to the imminent California Presidential Primary Election.

Your campaign’s release title and the bulk of its content mislead readers and the press to believe that our May 25 meeting was primarily focused on your endorsement of a California ballot initiative on HIV drug pricing. By extension, it also implies that our national HIV/AIDS coalition also fully endorses this initiative. Both these characterizations are inaccurate.

During the meeting, we raised the issue of the California ballot initiative with you toward the tail end of the discussion, not to support or endorse it, but to relay to you that a number of stakeholders in California have serious concerns about the initiative. There is no general consensus in the HIV/AIDS community in support of the California ballot initiative, which is why we requested that you meet with those stakeholders. Prior to our meeting, numerous California organizations have tried to reach your campaign with these concerns, without any success.

While our coalition is frustrated by your campaign’s release about the initiative, which was only touched upon briefly during our time together, we are eager to continue the dialogue around the other critical issues that were the focus of the meeting, especially:

your commitment to ending AIDS as an epidemic in the U.S. by getting to below 12,000 new annual HIV infections by 2025;
ending the global epidemic by 2030 by increasing the U.S. global AIDS funding commitment by $2 billion dollars per year;
groups at high risk for HIV infection, including transgender persons and those incarcerated;
creation of an expert task force to develop a national plan;
increased funding for HIV/AIDS research;
and a campaign to fight HIV discrimination, criminalization, and stigma.
In order to refocus our attention back to the critical issues raised in the meeting, our coalition will release the full meeting notes early next week, which will allow for greater transparency with our coalition partners, as well as the broader HIV/AIDS community. While we believe your campaign’s press release misrepresented the overall purpose and outcome of the meeting, we hope to continue engaging with your campaign.

Sincerely,

Tranisha Arzah, Peer Advocate, BABES-NETWORK YWCA

Jaron Benjamin, Vice President for Community Mobilization, Housing Works

Marco Alonso Castro-Bojorquez, Activist & Filmmaker

Guillermo Chacón, President, Latino Commission on AIDS; Founder, Hispanic Health Network

Thomas Davis, Health Education Specialist, Los Angeles LGBT Center

Kenyon Farrow, U.S. & Global Health Policy Director, Treatment Action Group (TAG)

Donnie Hue Frazier III, Prevention Training Specialist, APLA Health & Wellness

Ramon Gardenhire, Vice President of Policy & Advocacy, AIDS Foundation of Chicago (AFC)

Naina Khanna, Executive Director, Positive Women’s Network – USA

Kelsey Louie, MSW, MBA, CEO, Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC)

Hilary McQuie, Director of U.S. Policy & Grassroots Mobilization, Health GAP

Nadia Rafif, Director of Policy, Global Forum on MSM and HIV

Michael Emanuel Rajner, BSW, HIV/AIDS Activist and Social Worker

Venita Ray, Public Affairs Field Specialist, Legacy Community Health

Bamby Salcedo, President and CEO, The TransLatin@ Coalition

Andrew Spieldenner, Ph.D., United States People Living with HIV Caucus

Peter Staley, AIDS Activist

DaShawn Usher, Community Education and Recruitment Manager, New York Blood Center’s Project ACHIEVE; Chair, Young Black Gay Men’s Leadership Initiative (YBGLI) Vice-President, Impulse Group NYC

Phill Wilson, President and CEO, Black AIDS Institute

Posted on May 27, 2016 at 1:20 pm

ORLANDO, Fla. — It was supposed to be a stroke of genius: Gary Johnson, the 2012 Libertarian nominee for president and the party’s leading contender in 2016, announced that William Weld, the two-term former Republican governor of Massachusetts, would serve as his running mate.

The idea was clear and appealing. The pair would comprise a powerful two-governor ticket just as the leading Democratic and Republican contenders, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, rate as historically unpopular. The hope was they could emerge as a true third-party alternative.

But here in the corridors of the Rosen Centre Hotel and Resort at the Libertarian National Convention in Orlando, it could all fall apart as anti-authoritarian Libertarian Party activists, loath to be defined as “Republican-lite,” are increasingly and loudly critical of Weld, who joined their party only weeks ago.

Johnson seems to sense his dream ticket could be in trouble. The former two-term governor of New Mexico was booed at a convention forum on Thursday for calling Weld “the original libertarian.”

“A big hurdle for us is surviving this weekend and being the nominees,” Johnson told POLITICO in an interview on Friday. “Anything is possible. Bill is the first one that recognizes that.”

To:
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: Fw: Voting Rights Defense Project v. Padilla: We are seeking an ex parte hearing

From: Joshua White/CTYATT
To: Bill Simpich <bsimpich@gmail.com>@SFGOV,
Date: 05/26/2016 05:26 PM

Subject: Re: Voting Rights Defense Project v. Padilla: We are seeking an ex parte hearing

Mr. Simpich,

I am in receipt of your email, in which you state that you will be filing an ex parte request
with the Court tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. to shorten time on a motion for preliminary
injunction, and that you will provide me with your “papers” by tomorrow at noon.
I have major concerns with how you have approached this litigation and with your
decision to wait a full week after filing your complaint to ask the Court to set an
expedited briefing schedule on your motion, in which you will presumably be asking the
Court to order significant injunctive relief regarding a major election that’s occurring in
less than ten days.

You first contacted my client, the San Francisco Department of Elections, almost two
weeks ago, on May 13, 2016. We spoke on the same day, and you told me that you
believed the Department was in violation of Elections Code section 3006(c), which
requires the Department to provide certain information to voters who have not
expressed a party preference. On Monday, May 16, I provided you a full explanation
about why this was not the case. I even included screenshots of the Department’s
website, which contain all of the statements you claimed were lacking. I encouraged
you to re-contact me to continue our discussion. A copy of that email is attached
hereto. Instead, you ignored me and filed your lawsuit, which contains many of the
same allegations that I refuted in my email.

We spoke again on Monday, May 23, 2016, and I informed you yet again that the
allegations in your Complaint are meritless, and the Department has gone above and
beyond its legal duty to educate San Francisco voters and provide them with the
opportunity to vote in the presidential primary. In our conversation, you told me that you
were “working on” your preliminary injunction motion and that you would attempt to
provide it to me by Tuesday (i.e., May 24).

Now, almost two weeks have passed since our first conversation and a full week has
passed since you filed your Complaint. It is, in my view, inappropriate to go in to Court
on an emergency ex parte basis on a Friday afternoon, ten days before a major
election, and ask the Court to set a hearing on a motion that you have not even
provided to me on a schedule about which you have not solicited my input. An ex parte
hearing is simply not appropriate for a shortened schedule when, among other issues,
you have had a week to propose a schedule to me and have failed to do so. What
schedule are you proposing? If there is a statutory or other basis for your motion,
please send me that citation immediately.

Finally, please copy me on all communications with the Court. Also, let me know what
direct communications you have had with the Court on this scheduling issue and when.

Best,

Joshua S. White
Deputy City Attorney
Office of San Francisco City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera
City Hall • 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 234
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: (415) 554-4661
Fax: (415) 554-4745

Donald Trump’s election as president of the United States would pose an unprecedented threat to the health of American democracy and possibly world stability. There is, however, an upside: Trump’s campaign is an absolute garbage fire. By all accounts it is the most organizationally and strategically inept campaign for a successful major-party nominee in recorded history. Ashley Parker and Maggie Haberman round up many of the details, but the basic story that emerges from their reports and others is that Trump has absolutely no idea what he’s doing.

“Trump is reliant on information he garners himself, and can be swayed by the last person he talked to,” Parker and Haberman somewhat delicately put it. His campaign staff is far too small, and yet constantly at war with itself, already having gone through multiple shakeups and coups. In keeping with his general disdain for data, Trump has eschewed any use of analytics to target voters or competitive areas. Indeed, he has fixated bizarrely on plans to compete in New York and California, two states where any Republican faces hopeless odds against an entrenched Democratic electorate. He is currently in North Dakota for reasons nobody fully understands. He attacks fellow Republicans for no apparent reason. The super-pac donors who are supposed to be raising money on his behalf are disorganized and confused about basic questions like which super-pac they’re supposed to donate to.

To the extent that running a competent campaign matters, it will hurt Trump very badly. Yes, he won the Republican primary by relying on a massive imbalance of media coverage and exploiting a divided, extremely large field that failed to coalesce against him. Yes, he tapped into deep strains of anger in the conservative base that fellow Republicans ignored. But he’s not a political savant, and he hasn’t abolished the rules of politics. He's a reality-television performer who tapped into a deep vein of cultural resentment that appeals to a decided minority of the electorate. Fortunately, many of the same qualities that would make Trump epically dangerous in the presidency — his impulsive ignorance, blustering arrogance, and contempt for data — also make him unlikely to obtain it.

For some Democrats, Bernie Sanders’ latest gambit — challenging Donald Trump to a debate to cap all debates — is the last straw.

“Bullshit,” said Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. “That confirms what we’ve been saying. Why would you expect Bernie should be considerate or be nice or be working to bring everyone together? Why? He’s not a Democrat.”

The party’s frustrations are boiling over with Sanders as the primary season winds down: Namely that Sanders seems unwilling or unable to admit that Hillary Clinton is on course for the nomination. The ire toward Sanders began earlier this year among the loudest Democratic cheerleaders for Clinton — and now it’s seeping into nearly the entire Senate Democratic caucus.

Lawmakers reacted with puzzlement, sarcasm and barely veiled anger as Sanders’ campaign and Trump himself played up an event that would exclude Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) campaign manager suggested Thursday that the Republican National Committee has been more successful than its Democratic counterpart at bringing the party together.

“If you look at the Republican side, the party chair there has been working day and night to try and you know, keep everybody together and to try unify the party,” Jeff Weaver told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, referring to RNC Chair Reince Priebus.

The Sanders team has not been shy about suggesting that DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) has favored his opponent, Hillary Clinton, throughout the primary race. Weaver has repeatedly called Schultz “unfair” and the Vermont senator himself said he would replace her as party chair if he won the nomination.

“I think unity in the party is much easier to achieve if we have consensus and a chair who was committed to playing the traditional role that the chairs of party plays,” Weaver told Mitchell. “You know even when there’s sharp elbows and a primary contest, the chair of the party is looking out for the broader interest of the party to make sure the party can come together in the end and we have seen repeatedly from Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz that's really not the role she’s played.”

(CNN)Donald Trump may claim to have the backs of U.S. workers, but when it comes to making shirts for those backs, Trump has chosen to make his shirts overseas.

The Republican presidential candidate's campaign rhetoric starkly contrasts the practices of his own fashion business, which experts say has followed the path of many other clothing makers by jumping from country to country in search of the lowest wages and cheapest production costs.

Shipping documents obtained by CNN show that in 2014 Trump shirts were shipped to the U.S. from a factory in Honduras, where nationally the average factory worker earns about $1.30 an hour. Even that hourly wage may have been too high for Trump's licensed manufacturer. The Honduran factory's contract ended in 2015.

That same year, shipping forms obtained by CNN show Trump shirts were being manufactured and shipped from Bangladesh, where the average factory worker makes just 33 cents an hour, according to Nova. CNN cannot determine if the people making Trump's clothing were paid a different amount or the conditions they were working under.