Nevada Dems: Who Caused the Chaos?

Looks to me like Bernie Sanders' supporters caused the chaos at the Nevada Democratic convention.

At the point where Sanders' personal goals interfere with those of the Democratic Party (on whose ticket he is seeking a place), it's time for him to go. That time has come, in my view.

Goodnight Bernie, please come back in 2020, on some other party's ticket.

Update: Hillary ended up with 20 pledged delegates to Sanders' 15. Of the 8 superdelegates, Hillary got 4, Sanders 1 and 3 haven't said who they will support:

[O]ut of the 35 pledged delegates Nevada will send to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia this summer, 20 will support Clinton and 15 will support Sanders. (Based on the results of the Nevada caucuses, Clinton had been apportioned 13 district-level delegates, while Sanders had won 10.)

Nevada also has eight superdelegates, of whom four have pledged support to Clinton and one has pledged her support to Sanders. Three have not said whom they will support.

< I'm on the bandwagon: Warren for VP | U.S. Supports Equipping and Training Libyan Troops >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Coming back in 2020 (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 15, 2016 at 06:59:03 PM EST
    Might involve blood magic.

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 15, 2016 at 07:11:14 PM EST
    it's pretty much being reported that the Bernie Bros caused the disruption.

    After this and the behavior in California I'm beginning to agree that Bernie should drop out unless he can get control of the situation and if he can't get control of the situation he should be denied a speaking spot at the convention. It really has gotten bad over the last couple of weeks.  

    Regardless of Who You Support (none / 0) (#42)
    by glanton on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:48:26 AM EST
    If you think denying him a speaking spot at the convention would be anything but a negative for the Dems, you're adrift.

    How (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:54:10 AM EST
    would causing a riot at the convention by having him there be any kind of positive thing? His campaign has been encouraging this kind of behavior from the bros.

    I would say the depends (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 10:00:20 AM EST
    Entirely on what he does in the next few weeks.  Why on earth would a guy who is relentlessly using republican attacks, and in fact providing republican with attacks, be given a speaking slot at the democratic convention?

    He's not a democrat.  He's damn sure not acting like a democrat.  At this point it seems to me a speaking slot at the republican convention makes more sense.


    Btw (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 10:10:17 AM EST
    If you hadn't noticed Bernies (sane) supporters are turning on him in droves.  If he keeps it up they can not allow him in the building at the convention and no one will care except the dead end BernieBros.  And screw them and the skateboards they ride in on.  They were never going to vote for a real democrat anyway.

    Real Democrats (none / 0) (#48)
    by glanton on Tue May 17, 2016 at 12:22:00 PM EST
    In some ways, that phraseology, which everyone lately seems so happy to throw around, is to me the worst thing to come out of the primaries.

    I understand that Sanders did not serve as a Democrat for all those years in Congress, but he always caucused with them, and whenever they did progressive things, he voted with them.   And his arguments that he's made during this campaign? if they are not part of what it means to be a Real Democrat, then I am not so sure I want to be one anyways.  I don't care for the hyperbolic anti-Clinton rhetoric by his most ardent supporters either, but this "Real Democrat" rhetoric seems to me way over the top.

    What IS a Real Democrat, anyways?  


    I think (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2016 at 12:28:33 PM EST
    the "real democrat" thing gets thrown around as a response to the fact that Bernie said the only reason he joined the party was for money and attention.

    And I think (none / 0) (#51)
    by glanton on Tue May 17, 2016 at 12:32:50 PM EST
    Those who support progressive causes hear this language and say, damn, the Dem party really isn't for me, is it?

    LOL, you would need (none / 0) (#90)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 17, 2016 at 06:34:37 PM EST
    medical attention, rather than a Party, if you believe:

    '...the 'fact' that Bernie said the only reason he joined the party was for money and attention."



    I guess all we have (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by jbindc on Wed May 18, 2016 at 11:45:19 AM EST
    are his own words to go on:

    As an MSNBC town-hall event in Ohio yesterday, the very first question asked the senator to talk about this decision: "Throughout your career in Congress, you ran as an independent while caucusing for Democrats. I'm curious about what went into your decision to run for president as a Democrat. Wouldn't it be more revolutionary to work outside the traditional political party structure?"

    Sanders' candid response raised a few eyebrows:

    "Look, here's the truth. You're right, I am the longest serving independent in the history of the United States Congress. And when we gave some thought to running for president, and the reason I gave thought, honestly, is not because I disrespect Secretary Clinton. I've known her for 25 years and I respect her.

    "I just happen to believe that in this moment of history, given the crises that we face, it is too late for establishment politics and establishment economics. So we did have to make that decision. Do you run as an independent? Do you run within the Democratic Party? We concluded - and I think it was absolutely the right decision - that, A, in terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party.

    "Number two, that to run as an independent, you need, you could be a billionaire. If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party."

    LOL, indeed.


    It is (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 17, 2016 at 12:35:49 PM EST
    Bernie who has been attacking the party by calling their rules unfair and their fund raising and other actions as corrupt. He all but accuses any Democrat who does not hew 100% to his vision of being a tool of the oligarchy.

    Hyperbole (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by glanton on Tue May 17, 2016 at 12:43:52 PM EST
    "He all but accuses any Democrat who does not hew 100% to his vision of being a tool of the oligarchy. "

    And I think you know this, or wouldn't have included the "all but" disclaimer.

    I'm going to vote for Clinton most likely, but the Dem party as it stands right now seems very very far from the ideas on which he is running.  Yet we also seem ready to deem those who support the ideas a bunch of "skateboarders" who need to go away.  Sounds like something Bill Kristol would argue, tbh.


    What Planet (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 17, 2016 at 12:56:48 PM EST
    are you from, Bernie has sued the DNC(after he got caught sniffing in Clinton's Data) and has accused them of "money laundering".

    Remember, wear your helmet and knee pads.


    Thanks for the insult (none / 0) (#56)
    by glanton on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:10:53 PM EST
    But I'm trying to discuss the reasons Bernie's supporters support him in the first place . It didn't have much to do with that lawsuit.

    I guess the question is should we be ok with always shifting the window to the Right while being able to use fear of the further Right as our main appeal?  And what's more, not only to be ok with that, but also willing to paint those who are concerned about that shift as irrelevant .


    No that's not the question (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:12:35 PM EST
    The question is do you want to elect a democrat in November.

    THAT is the only question that matters at this point.


    This is the only argument we've got (none / 0) (#60)
    by glanton on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:18:42 PM EST
    As we move into Summer.

    The Dems' continual rightward drift OTOH (none / 0) (#61)
    by glanton on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:20:29 PM EST
    Is never a timely point of conversation

    When (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:22:18 PM EST
    you've got supporters basically acting like barn animals that discussion is never going to be had. Because no one is going to listen to what they have to say.

    Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:26:45 PM EST
    That conversation has been had.  For a year.  It's over.  Hillary has moved to the left on a range of issues.  

    It general election time.  Unlike Bernie Hillary can't just spew platitudes.  She has to talk about what can actually be done.   Not unicorns and fairy dust.


    Well, she's (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:41:05 PM EST
    been talking about the HOW since the beginning.

    Bernie has never talked about how other than to scream revolution as the answer as to how anything was going to get done.


    The unicorns and fairy dust argument (none / 0) (#66)
    by glanton on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:30:13 PM EST
    Is the one that says Right = Pragmatic .

    And (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:32:41 PM EST
    Blah blah blah is what the right says is what Bernistas always say.



    You mean center-left (none / 0) (#78)
    by FreakyBeaky on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:34:55 PM EST
    I hope you're right (none / 0) (#79)
    by glanton on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:53:17 PM EST
    So for my part anyways (none / 0) (#65)
    by glanton on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:27:28 PM EST
    I'm not too keen on demonizing all the supporters or the ideas to which they are rallying . I guess you see the Nevada incident as so emblematic of everyone supporting Sanders' arguments , that the arguments themselves are rendered null thereby.

    Interesting move .


    Do tell (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:44:01 PM EST
    me how is their behavior helping? And you're the one that said "all" not me.

    Their behavior is not helping (none / 0) (#76)
    by glanton on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:51:38 PM EST
    That's an easy question to answer .

    Yet almost every Sanders voter that I know , while disappointed as hell, is saying they will vote for Clinton.

    How these big grandiose statements about Real Democrats and Bernie not speaking at the convention and "fairy dust" is helping , I cannot undertake to know .


    Bernie's (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:13:19 PM EST
    senior campaign people were the ones egging on the behavior. So it seems like if that's the kind of thing they want to happen then why would anybody want Bernie around? And if you notice I said that is if Bernie can't get a handle on this kind of thing. He might not be able to if it has spun out of control. We'll see. So far he has even refused to condemn the behavior.

    I see it more as a last straw (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:31:29 PM EST
    Like the Little Sisters of the Poor, Bernie and his supporters have been accommodated enough.

    It time for them to push, pull or get the hell out of the way.


    Accommodated ? (none / 0) (#69)
    by glanton on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:33:13 PM EST
    Are liberal arguments really such a bother to the Dems that they must rely on the favor of accommodation?

    Fer f@cks sake (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:35:20 PM EST
    I'm done with you.  This blog clogging party is over.

    I don't give a damn what you think.


    Grandiosity . That's your tone (none / 0) (#72)
    by glanton on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:40:41 PM EST
    I really don't understand it .

    It my nature (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:44:38 PM EST
    Your understanding is not required

    Please tell us (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by jbindc on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:36:16 PM EST
    What policy proposals of HRC's are "moving us rightward"?

    Her support of overturning Citizens United and requiring companies to disclose donatiobs to super PAC's?

    Her support of raising the minimum wage?

    Her support of a path to citizenship  and the DREAM Act?

    Her support of background checks and allowing victims of gun violence to sue manufacturers?

    Her support of automatic voter registration?

    Her unequivocal support of reproductive freedom?

    Her two-pronged plan to improve child care?

    Her support of DC statehood?

    Her support of improving women's pay to be more equal?

    Her support of improving small business opportunities?

    Her work towards achieving racial justice?

    The fact that her voting record in the Senate was as liberal as Elizabeth Warren's - does that indicate that she's "right"?



    Reading through this thread today (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by christinep on Sat May 21, 2016 at 01:41:07 PM EST
    It occurred to me, glanton, that your previous question about "What is a REAL Democrat" is a good query.  And, in that regard, it is important to recall that the definition matter & all its parts surfaced here for some years before the immediate matter of B Sanders' position.  Below is my vent....

    Personally, I really do believe in and urge the broadest definitional inclusion as to the political concept of "Democrat"/"Democratic Party" ala a Big Tent reality.  That plays from both sides ... and, that is never more clear than the turns taken in this primary election process.  Hey, I remember some at TL--some here now & some who appear to be taking time away from the site--who explicitly and implicitly stressed that Democrats like Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton as well as a host of other party leaders (Pelosi, Reid, Schumer et al) were not true Democrats because they didn't act nor appear progressive enough.  The point: We have long had factions in our party ... nothing new about that ... and, imo, that is as it should be.  But, in recent years, I think that it is fair to say that a number of "Democrats" have sought to lay down rules & litmus tests to determine, to judge who is a "Democrat."  

    In watching the throes, distortions, and all-around internal party warfare, "Democrats" like myself have had a feel day with jokes, lambastes, ridicule, etc.  My political self enjoyed their self-inflicted dilemma immensely.  Now, my perverse enjoyment is being tempered by the real possibility that the "Democratic Party" could go down the same path IF we consider to impose purity tests.  No, it isn't just one factor ... perhaps, when I look at the assignment of this-is-what-a-"real Democrat"-must-completely-be--in detail--or the party is going-to-he**-in-a-handbasket I see the inklings of a political purity test such as the further right of the Repub Party grew into over the years. OTOH, you appear to sense that there is a peril in the Democratic Party faction that has issues with Sanders and is now regarding that aspect of the primary process as not reflecting "real Democrats."

    Glanton, I really do believe that people like yourself and myself and TL commenters need to start with ourselves.  It is one thing to disagree on issues and strategy and approaches ... and discussions and healthy debate is exactly what we should have.  We are not timid observers; we speak our minds.  Where trouble arises for a party and/or individuals who care deeply about what it should be, however, comes from the a political balkanization that seems to be enhanced by the many info outlets found on the internet and in the media.  It might be an inevitable consequence of needing to fight for dominance in a large pool as well as the heightened internal divisions that grow when an oxymoronic purity is demanded in the political sphere.

    Bottom line: It would help if we could all cut each other some slack by not ascribing character-demeaning traits to others <whether candidates or supporters> within our party.  Otherwise we can only glimpse our potential future in the present travails of the Repub Party.


    Oops ... I left out (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by christinep on Sat May 21, 2016 at 01:47:46 PM EST
    a very important phrase in the beginning of my third paragraph.  The sentence opening with "In watching the throes, distortions .... internal party warfare..." should next READ "of today's Repub Party...."  Sorry for my slipshod typing.

    A well-reasoned response ... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Jane in CA on Mon May 23, 2016 at 02:38:16 PM EST
    Third Generation Dem here (HIGHLY partisan Third Gen Dem on both sides), who left the party after the double whammy of the May 30, 2008 Dem Rules and Bylaws Committee and what was actually more offensive to me: the lack of any real anger toward Donna Brazile's jubilant statement that the Dem Party no longer needed the "working class" to win.

    No working class, No Dem Party. Never thought I'd hear such a thing. Swore I'd never vote Dem again, then Jerry Brown almost immediately made a liar of me.


    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by christinep on Wed May 25, 2016 at 12:20:58 PM EST
    IMHO, Ms. Brazile seems to go where the power is.  (My 2008 words about her actions & piercing remarks could not be printed here.  It did take me awhile to let go of my angry response to her at the time; and, after a period of channel-switching when she appeared on TV, I'm ok with her at this time.)

    Ah (none / 0) (#128)
    by Jane in CA on Wed May 25, 2016 at 01:02:56 PM EST
    You are far kinder (or far more pragmatic!) than I am. I still despise the woman. And for the life of me, I can not fathom why the woman who was so clueless managing Gore's campaign (to the point where I once read -- and agree -- that she essentially committed political malpractice), is now somehow considered a political expert.

    ... which automatically bestows upon her the sort of expertise which is so admired by others who also appear on the electric TV machine.

    IMO (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2016 at 12:57:54 PM EST
    it's about behaving yourself and not screaming when things don't turn out the way you like. No PUMAs were running around throwing chairs at Obama delegates in 2008. And Bernie refused to come down on the people that are acting that way. So in some way I think some people want to separate themselves from that type of thing.

    Let me be clear (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:11:03 PM EST
    I'm done with Bernie.  And I don't really care if you approve it not.

    I'm done.

    With him, and I'm done swaddling and coddling his whiney spoiled arrogant Clonton hating supporters.  You want to vote for Hillary, great.  Bully for you.  You don't want to vote for Hillary, great.  Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

    We are going to win this election.   With or without you.


    I actually think it's good (none / 0) (#59)
    by glanton on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:14:51 PM EST
    That you made this clear because otherwise , I would really have thought a pseudonymous commenter was very concerned about how I am personally going to vote . That was a close one .

    FWIW, I do believe you are right about the outcome of this election . Trump will continue to scare the hell out of the electorate (and we should be scared of him) and that will be the featuring blow .


    Does snark count (none / 0) (#91)
    by sallywally on Tue May 17, 2016 at 10:07:40 PM EST
    as condescension?

    Yeah (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2016 at 12:26:48 PM EST
    I noticed that with Charlie Pierce leading the charge.

    really a shame (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by athyrio on Sun May 15, 2016 at 10:43:50 PM EST
    that it appears that Bernie has allowed his ego or ambitions to get in control of him...has really changed a lot of folks opinions of him as when Hillary went thru something similar she walked at the convention and supported Obama with so much class...

    She is a walking example of the incrementalist (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by ruffian on Mon May 16, 2016 at 06:21:24 AM EST
    approach to winning the presidency. No wonder they can't accept that mode of behavior. So evilly successful.

    I'm sure there are lots of local stories ... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 16, 2016 at 02:55:35 PM EST
    ... from around the country about such dubious behavior, which is unfortunately par for the course for people who believe themselves to be on a mission from God, and are thus endowed personally with some sort of superior wisdom which escapes the rest of us. They don't do their cause any justice by emulating the tactics of their Tea Party brethren on the far right.

    This past Saturday, we disqualified the State Senate candidacy of a Bernie Bro here in Hawaii County. He had only joined the state Democratic Party only two months ago at the state presidential caucuses, and he had been insisting publicly that Hillary Clinton is under criminal investigation and guilty of all sorts of unimaginable crimes, and that anyone who supported her was themselves guilty of corruption and stupidity.

    Unfortunately for him, state law requires such candidates to either be a member in good standing for at least six months in the political party under whose banner you wish to run, or to seek from that party's local county executive committee a declaration of eligibility, which serves as a waiver from that law. And I freely admitted to him after our vote that it was well nigh impossible for him to receive such official dispensation from many of the very people whom he had regularly disparaged as corrupt and stupid.


    How can the State of Hawaii (none / 0) (#7)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 16, 2016 at 04:48:21 PM EST
    set the rules for what I thought was strictly a Party function?

    The law applies to all parties equally. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:40:19 AM EST
    It stipulates that while a candidate has the right to run as a non-partisan, if he or she chooses to run under a designated party affiliation, he or she must be a bona fide member in good standing in the party itself. Each party is allowed to set its own rules regarding its definition of "good standing."

    Thus, Hawaii Democrats have a further minimum six-month membership requirement of all candidates, which can be waived by the party's relevant county executive committee upon petition. (For Republicans, it's 90 days.) In the case of the Bernie Bro, who only joined the party on the day of our March 26 caucuses, his petition for that waiver was denied by us.

    Still further, Hawaii has a statutory prohibition against write-in voting, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in Burdick v. Takushi (1992), ruling that the State had a vested interest in preventing candidates from "party raiding," or treating their party affiliation as a mere flag of convenience. Otherwise, our laws make it remarkably easy for a candidate to qualify for the primary ballot.



    NV Dems (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Nemi on Mon May 16, 2016 at 05:57:47 PM EST
    'The official Twitter page of the Nevada State Democratic Party' explains:

    The Facts about the Nevada Democratic State Convention on Saturday

    And (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Nemi on Tue May 17, 2016 at 04:54:11 PM EST
    NV Dems has since also filed a complaint to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee:

    By this letter, the Nevada State Democratic Party ("NSDP") hereby lodges a formal complaint regarding the conduct of supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders at the recent State Convention held in Las Vegas, Nevada on Saturday, May 14, 2016, as well as the conduct of representatives of Senator Sanders' presidential campaign (the "Sanders Campaign").

    Link, PDF


    there are those that forget (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by athyrio on Mon May 16, 2016 at 06:01:12 PM EST
    that for 20 years Hillary has been on the list of the most admired woman...that's quite an accomplishment...

    Now... This is a hatchet job (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Mr Natural on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:52:07 PM EST
    on Bernie's wife.

    A college once run by Sen. Bernie Sanders's wife Jane has announced it's closing in two weeks, thanks to a crushing debt burden it took on during her presidency.

    No, sadly, it is correct (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Towanda on Mon May 16, 2016 at 09:13:09 PM EST
    as I (and many in academe) have been following this saga for years in higher ed media.

    I know a private-college president in Vermont, who knows the situation well, and he says that it was fraud by Jane Sanders.  So do other media there.  (And more is emerging about her online PhD, too.)

    The Archdiocese now is on the hook, and Catholics there are irate at the impact to come on their parishes and schools.  

    With talk of primarying Bernie Sanders, too, he may be the one to pay the political penalty for the mess.  


    That just would be (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 09:18:32 PM EST
    A GD tragedy wouldn't it.

    With her lack of financial acumen (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by CoralGables on Mon May 16, 2016 at 09:32:34 PM EST
    it's becoming more obvious why tax returns were not released.

    Yes, (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Nemi on Tue May 17, 2016 at 06:47:40 AM EST
    after the Nevada turmoil on top of the despicable harassing of Hillary Clinton rally-goers in L.A., Al Giordano - a former Bernie campaigner no less - had had it and made a comment on Twitter about primarying Bernie Sanders if he didn't officially distance himself from this behaviour. Hardly had he uttered those words before he found himself appointed as the one to do it. His following is already enourmous, at least on Twitter, where his profile now includes the title Senator.

    I'm pretty sure he's not serious about running himself but goes along, is my guess, to raise awareness of the possibility. His comments and those of his followers are quite funny, but there's also a lot, a lot, of being fed up not only with the 'Dudebros' - who even took down Al Giordano's Wiki-page. That's some revolution, snort - but also with Bernie Sanders himself for not denouncing those trouble-makers.

    But I guess that's what he wanted? Revolution ... or some such. Isn't that what he's been preaching from day one? While always adding, that he doesn't see himself as the leader of the movement, it will come from the people.


    It's (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 17, 2016 at 11:24:32 AM EST
    a thin line between being a "Revolutionary" and merely being a "Rabble Rouser" Bernie is dangerously close to crossing that line into the bad side of town.

    Sanders crossed that line (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Towanda on Tue May 17, 2016 at 01:23:46 PM EST
    some time ago.

    As for revolutionaries vs. rabble rousers, well put.  After all, Sam Adams had his uses, but he was not the Adams elected to the presidency.


    Welcome to Bernie's Revolution, ... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 18, 2016 at 09:47:54 PM EST
    ... taking on the establishment head-on, one Wiki-page at a time.

    Here's the same story (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:57:37 PM EST
    And (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 09:02:52 PM EST
    The Burlington newspaper (none / 0) (#33)
    by Mr Natural on Mon May 16, 2016 at 10:53:35 PM EST
    is a bit overwhelmed.

    The backstory:

    The college in 2010 purchased 32 acres along North Avenue from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington for about $10 million. The diocese put the property -- including its 77,000-square-foot headquarters building -- on the market to help pay costs from priest-abuse litigation.

    The root cause of this fiasco involves a financial prediction made using a spreadsheet.  Plug in numbers until you get the numbers you want.


    There's another possible backstory here (none / 0) (#41)
    by Mr Natural on Tue May 17, 2016 at 08:49:03 AM EST
    According to the article, the school had reduced the debt from $11M down to $2M.  The final blow was losing the bank line of credit.  The school property, the campus, will now be sold to a developer.  It wouldn't be the first time a developer had used his influence over a bank to force such a property sale.

    Nah (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by jbindc on Tue May 17, 2016 at 09:50:28 AM EST
    It really looks like mismanagement, or at least, someone being completely out of their depth.

    Sanders' time at the school, in particular this land deal, has come under close scrutiny as her husband's presidential campaign gained steam. A local Vermont publication, "VT digger", reported that Sanders overstated pledged donation amounts when the school applied for the loan.

    The loan application, provided to CNN by the Vermont Educational and Health Building Financing Agency (VEHBFA), showed that the school claimed that it would take in $2.6 million in pledged donations, and up to almost $6 million in possible donations, to help pay off their debts.

    In its application, the college claimed to have managed all its debt and "demonstrated a strong financial position that steadily trended upward over the last several years."

    In the loan document, signed by Sanders, People's United Bank requires that the college "receive commitments of a minimum of $2.27 million of grants and donations prior to closing." Audits obtained by VT digger show that the school only took in $676,000.

    Jim Foley, general counsel of the VEHBFA, told CNN that "as far as the agency is concerned the loan documentation was fine" but that "hindsight is always 20/20. It looks like the college didn't have the cash flow or the student enrollment" to maintain the financial burden of the loan.

    In 2011 alone, Sanders reported on the loan application that they had over $1.3 million in confirmed donations. An audit of the school's finances posted online by a news organization showed contributions of only $127,655.

    The college has since sold the property, but in April they were told that their lender would not be renewing their line of credit -- cutting off the cash flow the school needed to operate.

    How is it a Hatchet Job (none / 0) (#124)
    by Jane in CA on Mon May 23, 2016 at 02:47:33 PM EST
    if it is true? Note, I don't claim to know whether it is true or not, but it was certainly the first thing I ever heard of Jane Sanders -- that she was resigning due to her perceived mismanagement of the College. And it was not presented as an opportunity to throw shade at Sanders; simply a possible problem for him. If it is not true, I'd like to hear to the opposing side.

    What if the childish antics ... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Caro on Wed May 18, 2016 at 02:13:12 PM EST
    What if the childish antics at the Nevada Dem convention were #RogerStoneDirtyTricks (http://bit.ly/224NZrM)? Don't the videos (http://wapo.st/1To28gf) remind you of the so-called Brooks Brothers riot that stopped the counting of votes in Miami Dade in 2000?

    The threats (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by smott on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:33:01 PM EST
    Are simply terrorism.
    Eff him for not denouncing that.

    #TerroristsForBernie. Is that what he wants? Jezebel had a piece where their reporter called the idiots back, and tried to humanize them....oh they're so annnngry, such special snowflakes... JEEzus. They're terrorists. Turn them in.

    Having said that, Dems can hardly deny him a speaking slot at the convention, though undoubtedly his supporters will find some way to be offended and cry foul.

    At the same time, his political career w the Dems has to be over. No more cooperation, no more asking for his vote, no more committee seats, no nothing.
    Except a primary opponent every single cycle.

    Weaver (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by FlJoe on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:53:49 PM EST
    on the tube: "of course we condemn violence, but there was really no violence and anyway we are the ones who are being abused by the big bad Democratic party, who are using their silly rules and all that vote counting stuff to steal our obvious victory". I paraphrase of course, but Bernie's camp is doubling and tripling down on all out war with the Democratic Party. There is no other way to describe it.

    Jeff Weaver today actually said (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by smott on Wed May 18, 2016 at 04:44:42 PM EST
    And I quote:

    "No one had the right to feel threatened."


    I (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by FlJoe on Wed May 18, 2016 at 04:52:23 PM EST
    missed that little gem. This guy is a thug.

    A wee bit ot (none / 0) (#5)
    by Nemi on Mon May 16, 2016 at 06:27:11 AM EST
    Top headline at Memeorandum just now - btw, it feels like it is the first in many months that isn't about Donald Trump! - reads:

    Even supporters agree: Clinton has weaknesses as a candidate.  What can she do?

    Oh, so she isn't Superwoman after all. Who'd have thought. Certainly not her supporters, right? So thank you WaPo for setting that straight. [eye-roll]

    And the first sentence following the headline, is of course more negativity:

    Hillary Clinton's declining personal image ...

    But at least the third headline on the site is the present by Jeralyn. Yay. :)

    Jon Ralston (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Mon May 16, 2016 at 07:05:19 PM EST
    Sour grapes revolution rocks the Paris Hotel

    On top of their bad behavior, it also turns out that about 400 Bernie delegates were MIA from the convention.

    wow (none / 0) (#11)
    by The Addams Family on Mon May 16, 2016 at 07:46:04 PM EST
    in the article you linked to, those cops looked at first glance like a line of brownshirts

    What would you say this looks like? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 07:51:05 PM EST

    Three hours after the event was scheduled to end, hotel security stepped in to close out the proceedings but the turmoil didn't end there. Protesting into the next day after Clinton came out on top, some angry participants posted Lange's phone number online, spurring thousands of death threats, according to the Nevada Democratic Party.

    i see (none / 0) (#15)
    by The Addams Family on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:30:39 PM EST
    that my comment was unclear

    i mistook the cops for a line of brownshirts & thought the brownshirts were the Bernie Bros

    because we've seen some of these Bros before

    remember 2008?

    now the jackboot is on the other foot - karma's a b!tch


    A line has officially been crossed IMO (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:37:51 PM EST
    As I said I think its a good thing it was not seen as a bigger "news" story.

    I think most people are pretty sick of this.  It's a tired old story about a sore loser who's 15 minutes is over.  Breaking news:  whiney spoiled brats don't get what they want and pitch a fit.   Yawn.

    Bernie would be getting a lot more press if not for the Donald.  Bad luck go Bernie.  And the bros.  


    i've always had a soft spot for Bernie (none / 0) (#19)
    by The Addams Family on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:46:36 PM EST
    but the Bros? not so much - & they're doing their best to get the Donald elected

    Based on a quick search (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:55:07 PM EST
    I didn't find one GD word from Samders on what happened in Nevada.  If I'm wrong plz correct with a link.

    Otherwise AFAIAC Bernie is now a bro.   There is no distinction.  He is now officially a threat to the party and the country and should be treated like one.  


    That is pretty (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 16, 2016 at 10:01:41 PM EST
    much what Armando tweeted. He said at this point he's not even sure Bernie could control the Bros even if he tried which he hasn't. Time to cut Bernie loose and go on. Reid is livid and Bernie's time in the senate looks like it might be turned into absolute misery.

    Time to Go (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by KD on Mon May 16, 2016 at 10:17:48 PM EST
    I was at the opening of a Hillary Clinton office in the L.A. area this weekend, and Maxine Waters had everybody chant, "It's time for him to go." She said Hillary can't fight Trump and Bernie at the same time, and for sure she's sick of him. The Bros. disrupted a Hillary rally in East L.A. and forced it to shut down. Totally out of control.

    THIS. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Towanda on Mon May 16, 2016 at 09:14:16 PM EST
    We've been seeing and saying it here for a while, haven't we, Howdy?

    We cannot have a repeat of the '68 Dem convention.

    The result was Nixon.


    About the convention (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 09:27:35 PM EST
    Hard to believe they would allow that.  Hillary is going to win this election.  With or without the freakin Bernie supporters.  

    Wacked out leftists and socialists making a fuss might actually help Hillary in a general election.  

    My advise, ignore him and them and start focusing on Trump.


    I was thinking more (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 09:16:06 PM EST
    Nader.  But yes.

    Well (none / 0) (#30)
    by sallywally on Mon May 16, 2016 at 09:58:26 PM EST
    Bernie is planning a contested convention.

    He can plan what he wants but (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2016 at 05:43:18 AM EST
    when Hillary arrives with more than the majority of pledged delegates, there is no contest. He is just acting like there is a contest in hopes of getting super delegates to turn.

    They are also (none / 0) (#38)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue May 17, 2016 at 05:53:28 AM EST
    Hoping to force change on rules and solidify plank positions. With his amount of delegates they will have a strong voice there.

    The "feel the Bern" movement wants the Democratic platform to include a higher minimum wage, campaign finance reform and possibly a plank less pro-Israel than many Democrats are comfortable with, according to pro-Sanders superdelegate James Zogby.

    And the Sanders contingent could seek an end to the Democrats' superdelegate system, according to Democratic strategist Brad Bannon

    As if this has the most remote (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 06:19:40 AM EST
    Relationship to to what happened in Neveda.

    I know! (none / 0) (#125)
    by Jane in CA on Mon May 23, 2016 at 03:00:37 PM EST
    I will never forget his lonely 8.5 hour filibuster against the extension of Bush's Tax Cuts. I wanted to weep watching this frail little man with the courage and will to do right against the entire Senate. I actually sent his campaign money for a time after that, I was so impressed.

    BUT ... he announced in September or October 2012 that Barack Obama was going to cut Social Security as soon as he was re-elected -- and Obama didn't even wait more than a month or two before he attempted to chain SS to the CPI, thereby effectively SS. I remember that even the Republicans were astounded.

    So... why wouldn't Bernie lodge a campaign against Obama? Why did he wait until "that woman' ran? Certainly, Hillary Clinton is NEVER going to go as far right as to suggest cutting Social Security. So, why is it business as usual, for Sanders,  when our current Democratic President continues trying to roll back all the advances of the great 20th century Democratic Presidents, but too much when a Dem candidate, tested by fire, and true to her base runs?


    What happened in Nevada ... (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 17, 2016 at 02:52:29 AM EST
    ... was enough to lose Charles Pierce, an erstwhile Sanders supporter who's now publicly calling upon the candidate to stand down for the duration:

    "[T]his whole mess was over four freaking delegates, and the Sanders people should know better than to conclude what has been a brilliant and important campaign by turning it into an extended temper tantrum. I voted for Bernie Sanders. I even wrote about why I did here at this very shebeen. But if anybody thinks that, somehow, he is having the nomination 'stolen' from him, they are idiots."



    Ralston (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:05:50 PM EST
    now has phone calls that were made to the chairman from the bros.

    I think the silver lining here (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 07:54:47 PM EST
    Might be the news coverage of this.  There wasn't much.

    I don't think that many people care much what crazy Berie fans do any more.  It's a known thing.   It's expected.  No one cares.  

    The Associated Press (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:32:59 PM EST
    has no longer has a reporter covering the Sanders campaign.

    I honestly didn't even know about this until (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 16, 2016 at 08:38:45 PM EST
    I read it here.  I've been a little busy, but still.

    Bernie Should Leave Race (none / 0) (#34)
    by debbiehamil on Mon May 16, 2016 at 11:20:54 PM EST
    I have thought for along time that Bernie reminds me of Trump. Don't get me wrong he is not racist or disgusting, but like Trump he always talks about winning. While Hillary is talking about what she will do on the issues, Bernie is talking about all the states he has won and about the polls that make him look good. They both make it sound like all they need to do is snap their fingers and make things happen. Bernie constantly rants on "wall street" -- like Trump repeatedly rants on "the wall". They both rant on trade policies. Excuse me. no trade policy has ever FORCED a company to close down and move jobs overseas -- they do it because of GREED!

    Sanders statement on Nevada (none / 0) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 03:04:56 PM EST
    FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday issued the following statement:

    "It is imperative that the Democratic leadership, both nationally and in the states, understand that the political world is changing and that millions of Americans are outraged at establishment politics and establishment economics. The people of this country want a government which represents all of us, not just the 1 percent, super PACs and wealthy campaign contributors.

    "The Democratic Party has a choice. It can open its doors and welcome into the party people who are prepared to fight for real economic and social change - people who are willing to take on Wall Street, corporate greed and a fossil fuel industry which is destroying this planet. Or the party can choose to maintain its status quo structure, remain dependent on big-money campaign contributions and be a party with limited participation and limited energy.

    "Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a `penchant for violence.' That is nonsense. Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.

    "If the Democratic Party is to be successful in November, it is imperative that all state parties treat our campaign supporters with fairness and the respect that they have earned. I am happy to say that has been the case at state conventions in Maine, Alaska, Colorado and Hawaii where good discussions were held and democratic decisions were reached. Unfortunately, that was not the case at the Nevada convention. At that convention the Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place. Among other things:

    The chair of the convention announced that the convention rules passed on voice vote, when the vote was a clear no-vote. At the very least, the Chair should have allowed for a headcount.

    The chair allowed its Credentials Committee to en mass rule that 64 delegates were ineligible without offering an opportunity for 58 of them to be heard. That decision enabled the Clinton campaign to end up with a 30-vote majority.

    The chair refused to acknowledge any motions made from the floor or allow votes on them.

    The chair refused to accept any petitions for amendments to the rules that were properly submitted.

    "These are on top of failures at the precinct and county conventions including trying to depose and then threaten with arrest the Clark County convention credentials chair because she was operating too fairly."

    Such compleye bull (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by jbindc on Tue May 17, 2016 at 03:17:49 PM EST
    Bernie "Not My Fault or Responsibility" Sanders.

    And now complete lies.

    Not presidential.


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 03:20:35 PM EST
    I would say that pretty much tears it.

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 03:29:38 PM EST
    I just saw Harry Reid on TV.  He was saying he had talked to Sanders and was sure he would blah blah blah and would release a statement soon on the subject.  So I searched.

    This was clearly not what Reid wanted or expected.   Going to be an interesting few weeks.


    Not only that (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 17, 2016 at 04:08:15 PM EST
    how in the holy FK does he have a right to say this
    The Democratic Party has a choice
    Sounds almost like a threat to me.

    He does not condemn the well documented bad behaviour of his delegates, blaming it all instead on the "cheating" Democratic establishment for refusing to change the rules for his benefit.

    He finally condemns violence in general at the end of the third paragraph

    Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals.
    but then weirdly inserts this red herring        
    But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.
    Is he trying to say the he's the real victim and/or trying imply the Clinton supporters were behind it?

    He has definitely crossed the line into rabble rousing, sad really but dangerous also.


    A commenter (none / 0) (#86)
    by Nemi on Tue May 17, 2016 at 04:45:57 PM EST
    at Shakesville posted this 'some rules are for thee, but not for me'-video showing Bernie Sanders contradicting himself in the course of just 30 sec.

    (Not that it changes the content, but video put up by an 'antisocialist'.)


    Bernie needs to play the part of statesman. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:33:34 AM EST
    Instead, he appears to be channeling the late Hugo Chavez.

    If The Bern comes (none / 0) (#93)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed May 18, 2016 at 05:52:30 AM EST
    out with this, he has gone Full Chavez Socialist!!!

    "The devil came here yesterday, and it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of."


    I liked Hugo Chavez. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 18, 2016 at 02:57:37 PM EST
    He certainly had his faults as do we all, but he genuinely tried to make life better to rank-and-file Venezuelans. The Bush administration did not do our country any favors when they attempted to foment a military coup against his democratically elected government in April 2002.

    Whatever good will which had existed due to decades of painstaking nurturing was cavalierly tossed aside in a few months' worth of ideologically-based stupidity, which did grievous harm to not only our own bilateral relationship with Venezuela, but with our relations with the rest of the South American continent as well.

    That said, likely due in large part to his experience at the target of CIA machinations, it's hardly surprising that Chavez began to see bogeymen lurking in places where none otherwise existed, such as within the ranks of the legitimate Venezuelan political opposition. As far as he was concerned, the CIA had given him all the reason he needed to curtail dialogue with his opponents, and engage in acts of political repression against them.

    Further, Chavez frequently conflated his own outsized ego with the people's will, and frequently employed a strategy of polarization in an effort to isolate his critics politically, which he did with great effect. That's never a good thing in politics. And that's what's happened with Bernie Sanders.



    Chavez (none / 0) (#104)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed May 18, 2016 at 07:14:55 PM EST
    Eventually turned into a thug and thief, leaving his country penniless.

    But not his daughter,

    On more than one occasion the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez declared that being rich is bad, often adding "Rich people attack me for saying that, but I claim it is bad."

    His favorite daughter, however, may disagree.

    According to the Miami-based Diario Las América, Venezuelan media sources will soon publish materials showing that María Gabriela Chávez has bank accounts in the U.S. and Andorra with assets totaling nearly $4.2 billion.

    The reason he didn't (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 18, 2016 at 08:53:31 PM EST
    Post a link is that was FOX news

    That figures. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 18, 2016 at 10:10:12 PM EST
    Fox News had it for Chavez from the day the coup against him failed, after they had exclusively interviewed the new "President" Pedro Carmona, only to see him have to flee the country within 40 hours. Not surprisingly, Carmona now lives in Miami.

    So (none / 0) (#114)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu May 19, 2016 at 04:55:45 PM EST
    That means she is really broke and destitute?

    Without electric and food?

    Like most of today's Venezuelans?

     Diario las Americas reports.

    The daughter of Hugo Chavez, the former president who once declared 'being rich is bad,' may be the wealthiest woman in Venezuela, according to evidence reportedly in the hands of Venezuelan media outlets.
    Maria Gabriela Chavez, 35, the late president's second-oldest daughter, holds assets in American and Andorran banks totaling almost $4.2billion, Diario las Americas reports.


    Venezuela has become a failed state.

    According to the International Monetary Fund's latest projections, it has the world's worst economic growth, worst inflation and ninth-worst unemployment rate right now. It also has the second-worst murder rate, and an infant mortality rate that's gotten 100 times worse itself the past four years. And in case all that wasn't bad enough, its currency, going by black market rates, has lost 99 percent of its value since the start of 2012. It's what you call a complete social and economic collapse. And it has happened despite the fact that Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves.

    Never has a country that should have been so rich been so poor.

    There's no mystery here. Venezuela's government is to blame. Sure, $50-a-barrel oil hasn't helped, but it hasn't hurt so much that a "Mad Max"-style dystopia was inevitable. After all, every other country whose economy begins and ends at its oil wells has at least managed to avoid that fate. Which is to say that Venezuela is a man-made disaster. It's a gangster state that doesn't know how to do anything other than sell drugs and steal money for itself. Indeed, two of President Nicolás Maduro's nephews were arrested on charges of conspiring to bring 800 kilos of cocaine into the United States, the president's right-hand man is suspected of running a drug ring himself, and public money has a habit of disappearing into what could only be private pockets. Two ex-officials estimate that as much as $300 billion has been misappropriated the past decade. It's enough that Transparency International ranks Venezuela as the ninth-most corrupt country in the world. The only ones worse -- Somalia, North Korea, Afghanistan, Sudan, South Sudan, Angola, Libya and Iraq -- are a collection of rogue and war-torn nations

    We're talking about Bernie Sanders. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 20, 2016 at 09:48:46 PM EST
    I compared him to the late Hugo Chavez. I'm well aware of Venezuela's considerable problems, as I suspect are most others here, and we don't need a right-wing lecture about it from the likes of you. Your party can't even govern Kansas, Alabama and North Carolina responsibly. Clean up your own house and yard, before you demand the same from others.

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2016 at 05:37:30 PM EST
    that statement shows that he bears a large responsibility for what is going on. The fact that he doesn't care to follow the rules is the problem and those ones that were kept out were because at least some of them were from out of state. So according to Bernie they should have let people from out of state make decisions in Nevada????

    We've yet to hold our state convention. (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 17, 2016 at 04:05:39 PM EST
    Bernie Sanders: "I am happy to say that has been the case at state conventions in Maine, Alaska, Colorado and Hawaii where good discussions were held and democratic decisions were reached."

    Our convention convenes on Friday, May 27. We've been more than accommodating to the Sanders people. But they need to understand that our party has rules and by-laws which long predate their candidate's arrival on the scene, and we're not going to waive those rules just because they insist that we do so to their convenience.

    Many of them feel as though they're being shut out of the process. A lot of the problem stems from the fact that on the day of our caucuses, the Sanders people showed up, cast their ballot for their candidate, and then left rather than stick around for the organization of the districts and precincts and the vote for delegates to the state convention.

    As a result, while Sanders won the caucus vote, his supporters' premature departure effectively gave Clinton supporters carte blanche to organize the districts and run for the delegate slots. Now they want a do-over, and they're not going to get it. They were told to stick around on March 26 after the vote. The vast majority of them chose not to do so.

    You ignore rules at your peril.


    What the hell ;)? (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 19, 2016 at 10:26:26 AM EST
    Exactly MT.... (none / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Thu May 19, 2016 at 10:44:41 AM EST
    Who designed this sh*t?

    Not just caucuses, not just Hawaii, but the whole stupid convoluted bylaw-ridden shebang?

    Does it all stem from "electoral college" don't leave it up to the proles thinking?

    Not asking because Bernie lost, just asking....why do we make simple things so complicated unnecessarily?  Cast votes, count votes, most votes wins...DONE!


    a lot of it is because party organizing is a lot (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by ruffian on Thu May 19, 2016 at 08:03:03 PM EST
    or work. Mostly volunteer. I sure don't want to do it, and I know you don't. Yet if you want candidates that represent your views, someone has to help get the word out and drum up support. Not everyone is Donald Trump that gets free media.

    So the conventions are a way for those party loyalist and hard core organizers to be rewarded by being part of the process to select a candidate. But not everyone gets to go. So delegates are allocated by state...and then by district to make it fair because you know the minute one part of a state got more delegates than another someone is going to be crying.

    I suppose you could do as you say and get rid of conventions altogether, have one big national primary. Ot not even bother with that. No parties, just candidates. Guess who would win - the one with the most money and/or name recognition.

    Hmmm...that might happen anyway...never mind.


    Well explained (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 20, 2016 at 08:17:22 AM EST
    And the Obama campaign did an excellent job in Colorado schooling all of its participants on the ground. Count me impressed.

    Hmmm...that might happen anyway...never mind. (none / 0) (#116)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri May 20, 2016 at 06:06:18 AM EST

    Oh, for Christ's sake, kdog. Stop whining. (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 20, 2016 at 10:24:47 PM EST
    Life is hard enough, but it tends to get a whole lot tougher when you deliberately choose to be ignorant. If you want to vote in our presidential caucuses, then it's entirely YOUR responsibility to bring yourself up to date so that you can be an effective participant in the democratic process.

    It's most definitely not our responsibility as party officials to dumb down that same process for your own selfish convenience, just so you don't have to read a frickin' one-page memo that sent to you via the U.S. mail on caucus rules and procedure. Because Heaven forbid that you should be required to open an envelope and review its contents. You think that maybe we should also buy you a beer afterward for all your trouble?

    Our party's presidential caucus procedures are straight forward. First step, we lay out the simple rules to everyone in attendance, so they know exactly what's going to happen that day. Those are the same rules we send out to registered Democrats in the mail.

    The Sanders people can't claim after the fact to have not known about the subsequent election of precinct and district officers following the presidential preference poll balloting, because they were told right up front about it by people like me. They chose to not stick around and so, no, I'm not going to reopen the process because they only now belatedly realized that they may have screwed themselves.

    If you truly believe that elections can be conducted without established rules and procedures, or that political parties -- or any other organization, for that matter -- can function and govern themselves without charters and by-laws, then you are clearly someone who's self-absorbed by his own hedonism and should not be taken at all seriously.

    The world does not revolve around you. If you were never told that, then go back home and yell at Mom and Dad.



    Awwwww (none / 0) (#126)
    by Jane in CA on Mon May 23, 2016 at 03:09:25 PM EST
    I don't disagree with you -- rarely have, but I feel bad for Kdog ...

    Ted Devine (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 19, 2016 at 11:28:04 AM EST
    Bernie's senior advisor was one of the main architects.

    Don't like that guy... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by kdog on Thu May 19, 2016 at 12:12:57 PM EST
    I work with architects & engineers, nobody can over-design a simple thing quite like an architect or engineer.  I am deconstructing such a design right now to something simple & efficient that does the job at a fraction of the cost, at the behest of the guy who actually shells out the cash and does the work.  If I had a nickel for everytime an architect/engineer designed an elaborate 50,000 dollar sewage pump system only to see my redesigned simple 20,000 pump system approved and installed I'd have 5 bucks easy.

    Maybe that's the problem with all these people, they never have to spend their own money, they only look for ways to rip through other people's money!  And no oversight, as voters never seem to hold anybody accountable for nuthin'.  Id we did, there would be no more Democratic or Republican parties.


    ... to change your voter registration to Democrat this year so you could vote in your state's primary for the very candidate you've been touting in these threads. And you further used as your excuse your own misinformation about requirements and expectations of being a registered Democrat. So, please spare us any further lectures about how the political process is irretrievably broken beyond repair. On that subject, you're all meringue and no filling.

    Every state does its thing though (none / 0) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 20, 2016 at 08:14:06 AM EST
    States rights? :)

    Understanding how each state caucuses and all the particulars is vital to a successful campaign.

    And I'll just take a moment here to acknowledge that the 2008 Obama campaign had this DOWN! They dotted every I and crossed every T coming and going.


    He's getting killed (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 17, 2016 at 05:49:39 PM EST
    On MSNBC of all places for this response.  The just had the Nevada Chairwoman on.  

    They also had (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 18, 2016 at 12:50:28 PM EST
    a young Sanders' delegate, Angela..., who was pretty bad. Although, she did lose me at the start when Rachel Maddow welcomed her to the show, and she responded: "think you"   and continued on as a latter day Valley Girl.  

    "We were drunk -- and entitled (none / 0) (#96)
    by Towanda on Wed May 18, 2016 at 02:05:41 PM EST
    to free food, too" did not make that Sanders delegate a good spokesperson for the Sanders campaign, although it was somewhat hilarious.

    And NV candidate Lucy Flores now tweets the valley girl that she gave a good interview.  I would bet that Flores has lost Ralston with that, which puts her on his list with Bilbray.  And losing Ralston is second only to losing Reid there.


    Oh, yes. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 18, 2016 at 03:16:11 PM EST
    it was those two bars that were set up. Hilarious, but I fear that we will all be feeling the burn, as Sanders burns the house down.

    I saw that (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 19, 2016 at 08:45:31 AM EST
    I thought it was perfect.

    who is he (none / 0) (#108)
    by sallywally on Thu May 19, 2016 at 12:55:10 AM EST
    to say what is imperative for the Democratic Party?