Bernin4U
Bernin4U's JournalSo now when your conservative friends complain about the "liberal media"...
Good luck explaining to them that the establishment Dem party isn't actually liberal.
In racing, "As good as won" does not exist.
Especially when it's clear the leader is not firing on all cylinders.
Even the more reason to announce that your competitors they might as well give up now.
Trump-bashing getting a little old?
Mostly managed to avoid it, but what I do catch sure seems a lot like second graders on the playground making fun of the fat kid.
Yes, everybody can see him or her for themselves. They didn't need your help to point it out the first time, let alone the dozen times more.
Or maybe it's like the exceedingly depraved people on reality tv shows?
Gee, Homer, them fools on tv is so stupid. Can you believe how dumb they is?
So as long as we hear a thousand times how horrible Trump is, then I guess who or what his opponent really is starts to no longer matters that much?
Call it what you will. I call it extortion.
You better fight for the (lousy) candidate that we chose (for all the wrong reasons). If you don't, and we lose, it will be all your fault.
Isn't "meet our demands or the results will be your fault" what the extortionist (kidnapper, terrorist) always says?
Satanic Messages Found in Sanders Speeches
When played in reverse. One of them was thought to be heard saying, "Paul likes bread," proving the senator to be both sexist and classist.
When do polls matter?
A year ago, many if not most of us argued that primary polls were questionable at best, because, (1) traditional polling methods were inaccurate and slanted towards an older demographic, and (2) Bernie simply wasn't well enough known for people to have an opinion on.
And just as we've seen, #2 has been utilized quite effectively as a major campaign tool. Keep Bernie out of the press as long as possible, but once you must eventually talk about him, make sure to minimize anything of substance (what he's done, what he stands for) in favor of tabloid-style gossip.
Now we have polls showing Hillary consistently slipping further against Trump, while Bernie maintains a steady lead. But of course, now they are the ones arguing against the validity of these polls.
Why? Are the methods used not accurate? Do people not know who Hillary or Trump are?
Or is there something else? Like an expected bounce after she's found innocent of any wrongdoing from the private server issue (similar to the bounce she got after the Benghazi hearing)?
Please help me understand why polls from a year ago were valid to predict today, but polls from today are too early to predict five months from now?
R Borosage: What Does Bernie Want?
https://ourfuture.org/20160523/what-does-bernie-want?(Edit to add more article)
May 23, 2016
Robert Borosage
The Democratic establishment and liberal commentariat lathered itself into a fine hysteria last week. What began as a Hillary Clinton surrogate meme (Bernie has done his job, but now hes hurting Clinton and should get out of the race) became a maddened chorus.
The predictably angry reaction of Sanders delegates and truly deplorable behavior by some to peremptory rulings by a pro-Clinton Nevada party chair was blown into a mythical scene of chair-throwing violence, based largely on a report by a biased reporter who wasnt even there. The divisive Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz did her best to escalate rather than defuse the situation. Zealous Clinton advocates like Barney Frank and Paul Krugman slurred Sanders character because he wouldnt drop out of the race. Pundits like Eugene Robinson (behaving like a two-year-old) and Jonathan Chait (maddeningly narcissistic) piled on. Sanders voters were scorned as befuddled innocents who cant do addition, or, as Hillary Clinton earlier suggested, dupes who are being misled by Sanders misinformation. The New York Times and The Washington Post fanned the flames with alarmist headlines.
Slurs and insults are an odd way to build party unity. What is this fit of hysteria about? What has Sanders done to trigger this circular firing squad? What does Bernie want?
What Bernie Wants
Sanders intentions are not a secret. He has stated them clearly from the beginning of his remarkable presidential run. He hopes to win the nomination. And he intends to build a political revolution to change the direction of the party and the country, to challenge the corrupted politics and rigged rules that work only for the few and not the vast majority.
As movement builder, he has every reason to stay in the race. Hes still drawing stunning crowds. Hes still energizing a new generation. He has a responsibility to take his message across the country, to educate and proselytize.
As a candidate, he stays in the race because voters keep him in. He still has a shot however small at the nomination. He keeps gaining momentum. Hes won five of the last six primary contests, and basically tied the sixth (Kentucky). He won the closed primary in Oregon even after the mainstream media press declared that the race was over. Hes now got a chance to win California, in a primary marked by the diversity of its voters. His campaign raised more from its small donors than the Clinton campaign for the fourth month in a row in April.
As things stand now, Clinton seems certain to finish the primary season with more elected delegates than Sanders and with more total votes. If elected delegates chose the nominee, she would win. But they dont. Clinton will not have won the required majority of the delegates to the Democratic Convention, because the rules of the party say that the 712 superdelegates who are appointed, not elected, get to vote for whomever they think is the stronger candidate. These are party officials, politicians, and leaders of DNC-accredited institutions. They constitute 15 percent of the convention voters and will determine who is the nominee.
Playing by those rules, Sanders says he will appeal to those delegates to choose him when they cast their vote at the convention. He has a strong argument to make, particularly if he wins California. Hes the only candidate left standing whom Americans view favorably. Clinton suffers historic levels of disfavor, exceeded only by that of Donald Trump. Coming from nowhere, Sanders has grown stronger as his message has spread. Sanders runs better against Trump than Clinton in both national and most swing state polls. He fares far better among independents. He is more likely to inspire and turn out vital millennial voters. His message and his integrity will be a stark contrast to the bombast and duplicity of Trump. Surely he has a case to make.
So Sanders continues his critique of Hillary Clinton on issues and on the big money fueling her campaign. He continues to call on the Democratic Party to open its doors and let the people in, not remain a party dependent on big money campaign contributions and a party of limited energy. [DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultzs tone-deaf response to that was to repeal Obamas ban on lobbyist contributions to the Democratic Convention).
Sanders has already made it clear that if he doesnt win the nomination, he will endorse and stump for the winner. The most notable addition to his stump speechrecently has been an extended attack on Donald Trump, featuring the riff: I come from the working class of this country, and I will be damned if we will allow the Republican Party to win the votes of working-class Americans.
Democratic voters seem at ease with Sanders course. A recent CBS/New York Times poll showed that by 59 percent to 34 percent Democratic voters say that the long race for the nomination will help the Democrats in November rather than hurt it. (And the number is a sharp contrast with 2008, when by a virtual reverse margin, 38 percent to 54 percent, Democrats thought the long race hurt the party in November.) By 50 to 48, Democrats describe the party as united rather than divided, again a stark contrast with 2008 when by 56 percent to 42 percent Democrats thought the party divided. By 83 percent to 14 percent, Democratic voters already say theyll support Clinton if she becomes the nominee. The hand wringing about Sanders dividing the party seems overwrought at best.
House leader Nancy Pelosi, one of the few Democratic leaders not to lose her head in the past days, has it right. She praised Sanders as a positive force in the Democratic Party, saying hes has awakened in some people an interest in the political process that wasnt there And I think thats positive.
So why the hysteria?
The Clinton Problem
The problem, of course, isnt the Sanders obstinacy; it is Clintons weakness. The Democratic establishment essentially cleared the field for her. She started with all of the money, all of the endorsements, universal name recognition, a forbidding lead in the polls, and her pick of the best campaign operatives. Shes battle-tested. Shes intelligent, with remarkable energy and unmatched experience. But somehow she cant lock up a convention majority from elected delegates against a septuagenarian democratic Socialist who is funding his campaign with small donations.
Turns out the being the establishment candidate grates against the growing number of voters who realize the establishment has failed them. The big money backing Clinton had its costs when voters think our politics are corrupted. Her experience has liabilities, as she moved to disavow the policies her husband and she championed from trade deals like NAFTA and the TPP, to harsh and biased criminal sentencing measures, to banking deregulation and more. She is burdened by scandals, old and new, some self-inflicted, even if inflated by right-wing hit squads.
Worse, she chose to run as the candidate of continuity when voters are looking for change. She made herself the champion of incremental reforms when voters particularly young voters yearn for much more. She purposefully presented herself as more hawkish than Obama an interventionist Joe Biden called her at a time when voters are weary of endless wars without victory.
The result is shes almost as unpopular as Trump is and recent polls show him closing the margins between them.
Thats the cause of the hysteria. Clinton understandably doesnt want to risk the embarrassment of losing to Sanders in California. The superdelegates are aghast that they might face pressure from Sanders supporters to vote for him. Their votes are supposed to be locked up in backroom deals. They arent accustomed to being held accountable for them, or to facing public pressure phone calls, letters, demonstrations, and aggravations on how they vote. But they set the rules. They could have gone to the convention as observers, but they wanted a vote. Putting themselves in the kitchen, they now complain about the heat.
The Democrats Dilemma
Donald Trump is utterly unfit to be president. He is a classic American bounder, a version of Melvilles confidence man, peddling scams, preying on hate and division, posturing with bluster and bunk, insult and idiocy. Hes utterly incapable of carrying a policy argument, adopting and shedding positions at will.
Hes blown apart the Republican Party, repelling its neoconservative hawks, its establishment bankrollers, its suburbanite moderates, and its social conservative zealots. His sexism repulses women; his peddling of hate and racial division will mobilize people of color against him. His social conservatism and climate denial alienate millennials. His candidacy could well set the stage for a sea-change election, with sweeping Democratic victories up and down the ticket.
But Trump clearly has a genius for playing our media, particularly the increasingly abject cable news channels. He understands branding, and has brutally labeled each of his opponents. Hes wily as a fox in the supposed irresponsibility of his insults.
And unless the partys establishment responds to Sanders, Democrats are likely to end up a candidate particularly vulnerable to Trumps assault. For all of the Clinton campaign complaints, Sanders has been the courtliest of opponents. Trump has already shown hell have no such compunctions. And sadly, the Clintons provide numerous targets of opportunity, old and new. Along with raking through the scandals, Trump will paint Clinton as Obamas third term, while indicting her interventionist foreign policy, her support of corporate trade deals, and her funding ties with Wall Street.
Americans are not likely to elect Donald Trump president of the United States, but the Democrats are about to present the nomination to one of the few candidates that could make the race close. For this, Sanders is not to blame. And if Clinton is the nominee, shell have more than enough time to frame her argument against Trump and to organize the broadest coalition against him.
Democratic Unity
To win a convincing victory and gain a mandate for change, Clinton would benefit greatly from the energy and passion of Sanders and his supporters. The campaign clearly believes it might gather in moderate, suburban Republicans, the professional class repulsed by Trumps hate mongering and by his transparent lack of temperament or qualification to be president. The campaign may well decide that Trump will organize the Sanders voters for her. That would be a mistake. Young voters and Democratic leaning independents arent going to vote for Donald Trump, but they could easily stay home in large numbers.
No one likes a sore loser. But one of the hardest challenges in politics is to be a generous winner. If Clinton believes as she says that she will be the nominee, she should run hard to win California, while curbing the attack dogs, shutting down the attacks on Sanders character or his supporters intelligence. She should warn the superdelegates theyll have to take the heat, even as she seeks to consolidate their support. She should begin paving the way for unity. Sensible first steps would be getting the poisonous Debbie Wasserman Schultz out of the way, and opening up the platform and rules committees to Sanders nominees. After California, she should reach out to Sanders directly.
And she would be wise to embrace not only the Sanders energy, but to move to adopt many of his themes, and champion some of his major reforms. Sanders will no doubt endorse, if he loses the nomination. But how his followers respond the energy and enthusiasm they bring to the general election will be far more dependent on what Clinton does and how she runs than on his endorsement.
Should Bernie heel to save the Dem party?
Isn't it a little like using TARP to save Wall Street from itself?
And just how did that work out for you?
ON EDIT:
My question is really, isn't there a strong parallel between:
"We must save the Dem party at all costs (so that HRH, DWS, DNC, etc may continue business as usual),"
and
"We must save Wall Street at all costs (so that Paulson, Dimon, Blankfein, etc may continue business as usual)."
If you don't like Dem caucus rules...
Then it's your problem.
But if county or state party officials don't like them?
Then it's all our problem.