A candidate that gets "damaged" by a primary run has no business anywhere near the GE.

Seriously, all this nonsense blaming Sanders for Clinton's loss and the subsequent fallout downticket makes the whole party look weak and petty.

I work installing and repairing industrial machines. Before I sign off, I don't just cycle the power and call it good because I don't want to "hurt" the delicate thing. I run it up to full power, dump as much load on it as I can, and keep it right against the red line until it stabilizes, blows up, or shuts down. If it can take what I do to it, it'll take what the operator does. I assure the job.

Primaries should be similar--make them at least resemble the GE. But we have this weird rush to circle the wagons. Push away anybody even slightly competitive, more closed primaries, etc. Just ever-more insular and protected. All that's going to get us is another candidate that can't hack it in the GE. The general isn't going to have closed races, meek opponents, super delegates, or a friendly committee running the show to carry our preferred candidate, so all of that is counterproductive garbage. It needs to be open, fair, and absolutely hard as hell for all candidates, not just some. Even if it doesn't change who the nominee ultimately is, it'll train than nominee for the slog of the general.

An example from history

I pop back in and I see thread after thread around here blaming Sanders, berniebros, racist whites, Jill Stein, sexism, Russia, millennials, etc. for the dismal election result.

Hillary lost because her lousy campaign made some huge mistakes; the same mistakes the whole party has been making for some time now. No core message, othering potential voters, taking the base for granted, doing a bunch of the same shit that used to make the republicans "bad." This outcome was obvious months ago, and all those links in the first paragraph are examples of people doubling down on what fails.

So here's a brief history lesson; Texas, 1966, La Marcha (Rio Grande Valley Farm Workers March): Thousands of Mexican-Americans and allies marched from The Valley to Austin, but were stopped in New Braunfels by political leaders, including Waggoner Carr. Now, Carr was a great guy who they really liked and would normally support, but there he was, trying to put down the march right along with the others. The fallout of that insult was a total loss of support for Carr among the MA community. He lost his next run in a landslide and fairly soon after left politics for good. (in fact, the whole democrat party was pissing off their base around that time, which led to the split that brought Kennedy to Dallas a few years prior. Had he not been killed he likely would have worked on that very problem) These weren't a bunch of detached teenaged nobodies or klansmen. These were the very best of the best activists within the MA community of Texas at a time when their political activism was far more dangerous than anything we face now. It was the Chicano Movement. No writing them off as lazy.

Nowadays Texas is red, despite massive demographic shifts, because taking brown votes for granted just doesn't work. I happen to know a few kids and grandkids of those marchers, and they're still pissed off at the democrats because, frankly, not much has changed in the decades since. Look at the lame Wendy Davis campaign with its half-assed pandering and read up on how and why she got routed. Not just that, but the MA community is a hell of a lot more conservative than people seem to realize; they're not going to blindly vote for a democrat who rolls into town, saying, "Hi! I'm a Democrat!" Democrats would know that if they'd come down here and ask and listen instead of just assuming allegiance and spending their time sucking up to rich donors.

I bring that up because many around here obviously think that not getting automatic votes from pissed off voters in the rust belt is somehow a novel thing. As if today's voters are inferior or just incorrigible racists. They're not. This is the reality of the world we all live in: you win by winning votes; adapt to the voters' needs or lose to those who do (or at least look like they do). Insulting or attacking voters achieves the opposite. So cut that crap out, 2018 is on the way.

And before anyone says, "Oh, people will have their fill of Trump by then; it'll be a cakewalk!" Again, history, 2004: Bush reelected despite the fallout of Iraq. People don't fear the familiar, even if it's pain. Listen to your voters, cop your attitude, and have a coherent message. Or watch history repeat itself once again.

I don't care how many supers Bernie hasn't flipped today.

Supers don't vote today.

Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Super-Delegates Declare Winner Through Media

....
This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary. The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identity the media organization – incredibly – conceals. The decisive edifice of super-delegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it’s only fitting that their nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward and undemocratic sputter.
....

Well, this horse race sure has been fun. How about we talk policy now? Trade!

One of my biggest concerns with Clinton is her stance on free trade.

She was for TPP before it started to cost her politically, then she flipped from support to opposition. On the one had, it's good to see a politician respond to public pressure. But, on the other hand, AFTER opposing the Colombia trade agreement in the 2008 campaign, she went on to support it as SoS.

It gets messier: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/21/401123124/a-timeline-of-hillary-clintons-evolution-on-trade

So, as a Bernie supporter, what am I supposed to think of Hillary's position on trade? Should I just file this one under "compromise" and assume the outcome will be poor, but not as bad as Trump? Or is there some reason I ought to feel confident in Clinton's handling of trade?

Pledged delegates and super delegates follow different rules

Lumping their counts together clearly distorts reality. So why do so many in media and around here do it?

Peer pressure. Good old peer pressure. "Look, everyone else knows what's up, why would us insist on being a loser, bub?" It happened way back when Hillary had hundreds of supers before even Iowa. She was "inevitable." It happened again in NH. "The clear front runner." And it just piled on in state after state since. "Call it."

The DNC has directly told the media not to include supers in the counts. But that didn't stop them.

Relevant video:

Sky so full of chairs that it blots out the Nevada sun

Just thought I'd throw this out there: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/national-media-retracts-its-claim_b_10132518.html

Y'all got punk'd.

Bernie's debating Trump is consistent with Bernie's promise

From months ago, when Bernie was requesting a full debate schedule from DWS (https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Letter-to-DNC.pdf) he wrote the following:

That is why I believe we should be open to a less traditional form of debating by welcoming the opportunity to debate not only amongst members of the Democratic Party but also having debates between Democratic and Republican candidates during the primary process. I believe that these inter-party debates would put in dramatic focus the shallow and at times ridiculous policies and proposals being advocated by the Republican candidates and by their party’s platform.

I was willing to suck it up and vote for Hillary in the GE, but not after this