The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Doctor Cleveland's picture

    Just a Thought (Democratic National Convention)

    By Doctor Cleveland on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 5:57pm | Politics

    It would really be great if DNC delegates would stop, you know, booing black people.

    End of post.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    A fiasco. Do not plan on watching any of it.  It appears Bernie bringing the hecklers on board may not be such a boon to the Party.


    by NCD on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 7:28pm

    Well then please don't post your opinions on it.  Thanks.


    by CVille Dem on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 7:05pm

    If there is anything worth watching please comment and I'll check the replays. 


    by NCD on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 7:24pm

    You mean Sanders delegates doc, not simply DNC delegates and it confirms m greatest fear of those folks, deep down inside, they think Black folks are not equal. 


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 8:05pm

    I have been trying to point this out since forever. We are told that we have to coddle these white whiny babies..

    Sanders is responsible for this!


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 9:09pm

    I know rmrd I'm sorry about it too. I'm disgusted, sickened, I am insulted and deeply embarrassed by their behavior. 


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 9:16pm

    Tm, you and others owe no apology. We all saw this, yet we were told to stop pointing out the obvious, people were bored. Instead of noting that the demands of the Bernie or abusers were outrageous, the people noting the whiny white hardcore Sanders supporters were criticized. We knew Sanders was not interested in making coalitions. His message was my way or the highway. Sanders ego may have done irreparable damage to the Clinton campaign. Hardcore Sanders supporters are not Democrats. The fact that they were not Democrats was clear to anyone with a brain. I apologize for not making my argument strong enough to convince others of the obvious. I cannot forgive Sanders. 


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 9:25pm

    Sanders brought Cornel West, a man angry at Obama because of inauguration tickets, into his fold. He put this waste of carbon atoms on the Democratic Platform Committee. As soon as West finished his work there, he shifted his support to Jill Stein. I don't care if people are tired of hearing about Cornel West, I spoke the truth. Sanders put ego above party and the country. We will see how the sniveling weasel Sanders tries to separate himself from what he created.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 9:31pm

    Cornel West!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 9:34pm

    Yes, Cornel West.actions as predictable as the BernieBros boos.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 9:52pm

    Now they are trying to yell down Cory Booker. Jeebus. Thanks rm. 


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 9:51pm

    Here is BenieBros Susan Sarandon connecting Bernie and the DNC emails with unarmed black men getting shot by the police.

    http://thedailybanter.com/2016/07/quote-of-the-day-susan-sarandon-says-b...


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 9:59pm

    She did that prison movie with Sean Penn, and Penn had the best conspiracy story/busted reporting scheme of all time last year in Mexico. She's looking to top - maybe can bring on The Hunger.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 1:00am

    She talks about how the movement will continue and grow. How it's not about the person and how they're building a coalition. She's a fool. Does she really believe that the things she and the other hard core Sanders supporters are saying and doing will grow their numbers?


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 2:49am

    I agree with much of this but let's be clear what actually happened. According to the reports I've been reading many of the Sanders supporters at the convention were booing every time Hillary's name was mentioned. It was indiscriminate. They booed Hillary's name whether the speaker was black, white, or hispanic.


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 9:28pm

    Thanks for pointing that out. I saw it the same way a number of times. Yes, they boo Hillary because she is the focal point of the place where they divide but when they boo others who say her name they are booing the  'idea' or story, they are not booing the identity of the person speaking.

    Edited to add this link.  Just another example of people looking at the same thing and seeing something different.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 07/27/2016 - 8:35am

    The black community will see whiny white folks booing black people. Sanders will take the blame for this nonsense.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 10:08pm

    There you have it. We will all see it. Not just the booing of black and hispanic speakers. The booing of Warren and others. These are the people Sanders needs to work with and no matter how much one tries to let it go it still affects a person emotionally. These are the people Sanders supporters will need to influence and there will always be a part that remembers, these are the people that booed me.

    How will Sanders movement grow when those who voted for Hillary feel attacked and reject supporting it in any way at any time?

    Sanders hard core supporters are working to destroy all the power and influence that could have been born from his movement.


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 10:41pm

    The beauty of the situation is that people who want real change know that we don't have time for Bernie or Busters. The majority of the audience at the DNC were in lockstep in the need to elect Hillary Clinton. Hillary has a rainbow coalition. The Bernie or Buster's embarrassed themselves and alienated themselves in front of the audience and the nation. Hillary united the majority of the audience at the DNC. Sanders is not able to influence his supporters. We have to stop denying the obvious.

    Edit to add:

    Yes, we all see it. I just reflect on the comments of numerous black people today. They see nothing in common with hardcore Sanders supporters.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 10:54pm

    I'm not convinced about your spin on this boo issue, LU all these speakers are connected directly or indirectly with the slimy DNC and HRC is just the leader of the crooked cabal. Self-centered true believers believe the demonstrators are trying to turn them or those like them to their cause which may make the TB's feel important but i think the demonstrators and the much larger demographic of dem voters who will never vote for HRC know that is a fool's errand and are appealing to people with less cult influence and more ability to use independent thinking.


    by Peter (not verified) on Wed, 07/27/2016 - 11:07am

    Could be. There are likely elements of what you say but even where that is the overriding force I think my point stands. When an exemplary black person gets on stage and tells a story the crowd likes hearing, the analysis isn't that they cheered because it is a black person. They cheered what was said. When a black speaker puts out something that numbers of involved activists believe to be bs they boo at the bs, not at the black skin. If booing at black speakers is wrong in principle then booing is wrong in principle. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 07/27/2016 - 9:26pm

    Bernie or Buster's see the world in their own little bubble and do not care to adapt to what others see and hear. My way or the highway. This is exactly why Bernie lost. This is why some Sanders voters do not fear a Trump Presidency like other ethnic groups fear an unleashed Donald Trump. This is why Hillary won ethnic minorities. Bernie or Buster's cannot empathize with others. 


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 07/27/2016 - 9:56pm

    Could be. Was this comment intended to have something to do with what I said?


    by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 07/27/2016 - 10:16pm

    I'm thinking it does.  If booing is wrong, booing is wrong.  Unless you are encapable of empathy or any ability to see the big picture.  Am I wrong?


    by CVille Dem on Wed, 07/27/2016 - 10:21pm

    I do not think that booing politicians is automatically wrong in principle. Do  you?


    by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 07/27/2016 - 10:26pm

    Sigh booing is automatically wrong when you are directing it against Civil Rights icons. It creates the image that those booing have no clue about the total history of the people they boo. The image is a group of spoiled white kids booing Civil Rights icons

    Here is comment from one Sanders grassroots organization pointing out the obvious. This was from back in February when Lewis noted that he had not seen Bernie Sanders during the Civil Rights era.

    PSA: Rep John Lewis' statements are not a reason to attack, confront, or brigade people. ANY people. EVER. This actually goes for any public figure.. or private. self.SandersForPresident

    submitted 5 months ago by IrrationalTsunamiTyrion Lannister[M]

    Regardless of what the Honorable John Lewis has to say, positive or negative, this is not a time to get out pitchforks, or begin another witch hunt regarding shills and corruption.

    This is another opportunity to relearn patience and dedication.

    PLEASE do not engage in what is described as "bernie bro" activity. Do not diminish statements made by Lewis for the sake of defending Bernie. Right or wrong this is something that the campaign needs to deal with before we can get involved.

    I have not seen any overt or subvert racism, but I know how this can sometimes devolve. Opportunities like these arise and give us a chance to grow. They are not chances to grab and hold the attention of our brothers and sisters to "explain" to them how Bernie is better. And racism can come in many forms. Assuming that African Americans or other people of color are not educated on Bernie and need to be "brought to the light" is a stance full of pity and arrogance... and is incredibly demeaning to those whose respect we need and must earn.

    Bernie has a history of being honest and straightforward. He will provide context or explanation, we do not need to do it for him. He does not jump into fights that he is unprepared for. We need to do the same. For him, us, and any progress we are going to make with supporters we need to keep this revolution moving forward. Supporters from every background, regardless of what that background is. Ethnically, economically, etc.

    So once again, listen and wait, do not confront and shout.

    -IT on behalf of the SFP/GFS team

    https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/45aeqa/psa_rep_joh...

    Sanders needed black votes. What blacks saw was Sanders supporters attacking John Lewis. They also saw Sanders fumble the confrontation with Black Lives Matter. Sanders had no real contacts in the black community who could provide cover for him. Hillary had tons of cover regarding her initial interaction with Black Lives Matter. 

    We have had similar discussion multiple times. Sanders needed to appeal to black voters and he was incapable of rising to the task.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 07/27/2016 - 11:33pm

    Boo all you want, Bernie lost.

    Today, Trump asked Russia to hack computers in the US.

    Today, charges against all of the Baltimore police officers who murdered were dropped. The RNC audience cheered the fact that none of the officers put on trial had been found guilty.

    Trump is not releasing his taxes. He may have financial ties to Russia. 

    Sanders lost. Tell your buddies to boo any politician they want. I don't care.

    The rest of us have moved on. We are supporting Hillary against Donald, Hillary is running against the Donald because Bernie lost!

    Boo Hoo. Bernie had a boo-boo.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 07/27/2016 - 11:56pm

    So lulu, You want to claim it's not racist. Ok, it's not racist. But what is it you think is being accomplished by the bernie brats? A convention is just an ad. For the party activists that get a ticket it's for networking, inspiration, a chance to get to meet their heroes. Most Americans won't watch it but the news networks will show them snippets to create a narrative. That narrative will help or hurt the candidate.  The booing will be used to create a negative narrative that will hurt Hillary and increase Trump's chances.

    That in my mind is bad enough. But the bernie brats are damaging their own movement. Their closest allies are in that convention hall. Democratic activists. They are here on dagblog. Liberals who supported Hillary. All across the nation there are people like Hal who are pissing off liberal Hillary supporters.

    Is the Sanders movement going to continue and grow after this election? I don't think so. The bernie brats are driving away everyone who is not with them 100%. They are pissing off potential allies who will not soon forget. If Sanders endorses a candidate in a primary I'll vote for the other guy. If Sanders asks for money for a candidate I won't respond. If local activists mention Sanders I won't take part. And if Trump wins Sanders and his bernie brats will be blamed, justifiably or not.

    That's what I see happening. What do you think the bernie brats are accomplishing by throwing their sore loser tantrum at the convention?


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 12:28am

    If it is not racist then the difference between that and 'being' racist is well worth establishing. Beyond that, I didn't say it was a good tactic. Bernie brats, what a cut, did you make that up yourself?


    by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 12:40am

    No, some commenter on TPM. Fits though doesn't it.

    I'm not much interested in discussing whether the behavior was motivated by racism. By all reports racism wasn't the motivation. But it certainly looked racist. Appearance isn't the whole or even the biggest part of the story but it's not meaningless. How our actions will be interpreted by those watching and how our enemies will use that is also part of the story.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 1:06am

    Well, I guess t can be real or else it can all be scripted.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 1:17am

    Let's not forget that pushback against negative behavior is also real.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 1:32am

    Roland Martin, a black news reporter, was on the "Tom Joyner Morning Show" radio program today. He noted that black DNC delegates were ready to counter protest anything the Bernie or Buster's did. These black activists would not have taken kindly to disruptions during the speeches. The fact that this rift exists can be placed squarely at the feet of the hardcore Sanders supporters. The fact that the hardcore Sanders supporters feel no need to try to heal this rift speaks volumes. The hardcore Sanders supporter tees oars incapable of recognizing how they damage their own movement. 

    Bernie or Buster's see the world from their bubble and do not have the skills to address differences they have with other delegates in an adult fashion. I agree that because of their inflexibility, the Sanders "revolution" is already a thing of the past, Clinton supporters are repeatedly told that we have to placate the hardcore Sanders supporters. Clinton supporters, on the other hand, are to simply remain silent. The Bernie or Buster's created the division and see no reason to act to heal things. 


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 7:46am

    RMRD - do you live in a bubble?  You seem utterly incapable of understanding or acknowledging any legitimacy in the arguments of those who criticize your preferred candidate.


    by HSG on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 7:51am

    Hal, do you know what projection is?


    by CVille Dem on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 9:18am

    Hal, my preferred candidate is the one selected by the Democratic Party. If the Hillary supporters here at dagblog are representative, we are going to be able to work through differences we may have. That is the mood that I see in other Hillary supporters I meet and the mood I get from the DNC. The sense I get from Sanders hardcore supporters is that they are arrogant and insufferable. These insufferable people demand that we acknowledge the weaknesses that they see in Hillary Clinton. They place demands that we not hurt there poor little feelings by arguing with them. Many of us no longer care what the hardcore thinks or does. They have pissed off every other segment of the Democratic Party. If Hillary is so horrible then they can vote Trump. or they can waste a vote on Stein or Johnson. We realize that we cannot work with the hardcore Sanders supporters just like we know that we can't work with wingnuts.

    The hardcore Sanders supporters want to be treated better than everyone else. A request was made to move on, and the hardcore Sanders supporters refuse. Sanders gives the same message over and over. His hardcore supporters mimic his behavior. The real discussion is now Clinton vs. Trump. The goal is to expose the racist con man Trump for the danger he represents. Trump seems to be getting aid from a foreign government that is an enemy of the United States. Trump has the support of white supremacists. We face a real danger and don't have the time to keep returning to a pity party for the inept campaign conducted by Bernie Sanders. Bernie said to move on. Honor his wishes.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 11:09am

    LULU - do you think, as I do, that all the personal attacks and insults from the Clinton claque against Bernie and his supporters results from the fact that the former know they can't win the intellectual argument?


    by HSG on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 7:54am

    Hal, that is a real knee-slapper!  It gave me quite a laugh this morning.  Thanks!


    by CVille Dem on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 9:19am

    Reminds me of the theoretical physicists' dilemma - it works in practice, but will it work in theory?

    It's not enough to win elections - what we really need to win are intellectual arguments.* Short of that, we're unworthy gnats on the shoulders of giants.

    *of course that doesn't mean "win" in a concrete sense - we're talking about an infinite series that comprises an NP-incomplete problem that can't be solved in non-deterministic polynomial time - it can only be given up on, due to weakness and lack of stick-to-itiveness.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 9:49am

    I think that is a short answer that explains a big element of it but I really don't like giving a short answer to this question. I think it is a fair question that would be interesting to pursue  around the table in person [with all involved] but probably couldn't go well in this format. It is already personal in too many cases. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 9:32am

    It is personal which is very very sad.  We can't seem to have a discussion with the Clinton supporters regarding what it means to be a progressive, what counts as dishonest, whether Clinton's policies have really benefited our country.  Merely criticizing Clinton's votes and actions is akin to a "personal" attack on her and her supporters.  This makes an honest dialogue impossible.  Just cacophony.


    by HSG on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 10:18am

    Hal, the Primaries dealt with Hillary's flaws. Hillary had the most negative media coverage by a mile.

    http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06/18/chart-exposes-media-bashes-hillar...

    Hillary Clinton was more honest than Bernie Sanders in statements made in the Primaries

    http://www.forwardprogressives.com/like-it-or-not-hillary-clinton-is-bei...

    Hillary's flaws have been argued repeatedly. Hillary still won.

    Edit to add:

    The Sanders revolution will die because his supporters cannot work with others because his supporters make rigid demands.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 11:38am

    Hal, we've largely stopped discussing policies - you simply say Clinton does & believes X, while we document her saying/doing Y, and then you repeat Clinton does/believes X. If we start a new discussion, say on String Theory or hits of the 80's, you show up to say Clinton does/believes X and we start all over. We can't be discussing the Democratic nomination, because Clinton handily won the nomination so it's over, but you still want to re-litigate that period as well. We're all mostly looking at Clinton vs. Trump, which 99% of the world's media understands to be the only remaining presidential political event of 2016, but you're intent on rewinding to sometime primary season, or perhaps you'd be happy to have everyone say it's July 2016 and Bernie had the greatest ideas and we should adopt them all for the Democratic Platform. 

    Michael didn't like my _ _ _ _ in the punchbowl analogy, but the Convention is like a Wedding - we're all busy rah-rahing the winner (since we're all card-carrying Democrats or at least sympathizers/fellow travelers), refocusing on the general elections, looking where our candidate competes with the others and what we need to do to support the effort - virtually or physically, depending on our means and wherewithall. And yet you're completely out of step with this, continually come along to preach some dour prognosis. You say you're supporting Hillary, but all of your comments are about how much a crippled, imperfect candidate she is and how much better Bernie is and how he'd be far further ahead by now if he were elected. Once, twice, we can ignore, roll our eyes, do a "whatever". But as it keeps on, yeah, it gets personal - we think you're just messing with us. You're not suggesting "which are the items that will fit easily into the new platform" which we could discuss. Instead it's "Hillary should adopt everything because it's all better".

    Again, elections have consequences. Bernie might be able to get some of his agenda adopted, whether in full or modified, but there's really no precedent for having a losing party get his complete way. If you recall, with Hillary in 2008 it was pretty much "shove it, you have no right to ask for anything, you lost". There was no consideration of her for VP, her finance director Solis-Doyle who blew it in January was hired by the Obama campaign (more it seems as an insult than to actually use), and there was no Hillary team on the Democratic Platform committee. She and Bill spoke, but she was campaigning for Obama at the end of June/early July and it was obvious the speaking was to endorse and support, not to fluff up the PUMAs in any way - she was very quick in closing that door. But in any case, many of us are happy to have the platform a bit more liberal (if not counter-productive or completely unrealistic or adverse to our thinking) - but not into supporting Trump in any way or trading in "lock her up" kind of rhetoric, including your seeming insistence that she engaged in criminal acts at State and support of various other ad feminem attacks on her over the years. And if it's a scandal before 2015, it's largely water-over-the-dam, litigated, re-litigated, spread through media and chewed on ad nauseum. Deader than a Monty Python parrot - will not stand up no matter how we staple its feet to the perch. If you want to discuss possible better approaches to ISIS, Mideast turmoil, surveillance, trade, etc., without the explicit Hillary-as-worst-ever-compromised-actor component, we might be able to engage a bit.

    If you want to accept some degree of reality and wind things forward to where the rest of us are, it might seem less "personal". If you want to retain some position of irreality and demand we follow you to this la-la land, well, you'll continue to see responses of disbelief, disrespect and occasionally not-so-nice expressions of complete frustration. At this point, if you stopped posting at all, I doubt if you'd be missed, which is a shame, because as much as you've written, it'd be nice to say, "hey, I miss arguing with that guy", but in this case it's more like "wow, he always knew how to twist things back to the same old repetitive point(s)". Having a bit of support from Wattree and Peter doesn't change that. So again, you're clever enough to provide some forward-looking analysis, whether it agrees with the crew or disagrees - just give us some fresh blood, something that regenerates our aging brain cells. Thanx.

    PS - I don't even see how this thread squares with your more positive & reality-infected piece 3 days ago - http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/plea-my-fellow-progressives-20917


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 11:37am

    What is really funny/ironic/not funny/sad...is that if Hillary came out tonight and said that it is clear that Bernie deserved to win and because of that she will work to enact every single one of his issues, including all the attendant raised taxes, that she will not only never darken the door of a bank again, that she will only consider war as an option after Chelsea becomes a Marine, and will appoint Bernie to any Cabinet post of his choosing...

    Hal would come back and say -- "Too bad we just can't believe one word the liar says."


    by CVille Dem on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 1:13pm

    Hal, i hope you realize that you are setting yourself up for the 'Nader treatment'. The Clintonites don't accept anything except blind submission to the Red Queen and your continued calls for actually examining this cult is seen as heresy and will not be forgotten or forgiven. Even though Bernie was part of the cult his actions during his sheepdogging campaign, where he briefly saw an opportunity for power, mean he will never be forgiven and his total submission to the cause now hasn't changed the dynamics of the attacks on him for his heresy.

    If Clinton wins i don't think that Bernie or you will fair any better and will be dragged out at the next election extravaganza and put to the torch because any questioning of the Glorious Leader is forbidden. If she loses you nor Bernie will have any rest, someone will be waiting with cans of gas to douse and set aflame the heretics who helped destroy the grand vision of royal Clinton rule.


    by Peter (not verified) on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 12:30pm

    Peter, Hillary lost in 2008 when she couldnt get Michigan & Florida restored, and didnt primary Obama in 2012, and somehow didnt steal the primary in Michigan this year nor get those caucus systems she'd lost in 2008 repealed. The funny thing is, she didnt even ask to change the long-standing rules, and even with the number of debates she acquiesced to more.

    So apparently she's not such a domineering all-powerful Red Queen after all. So with that, could you just kindly Shut the Fuck Up? Thought not, never mind.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 1:10pm

    I think everyone knows which delegates I meant.

    And I'm sure they would be shocked and offended to be told they're acting in racist ways. But actions are actions.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 4:20am

    This is great news, Bernie helped to bring out a resistance movement that he didn't intend to and he cannot control these rebels. Booing Black members of the misleadership class even indirectly while booing the Red Queen seems to me to be the height of equal treatment, they now own part of the blame for what has happened to many people in the US whatever their color.

    This fiasco of democrat unity can only get more entertaining, will the Red Queen have to make her acceptance speech from an undisclosed location or will the DNC goons have to gas Bernie's mob so she can speak from behind a chickenwire screen.


    by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 11:54pm

    Where do you come up with this stuff?


    by kyle flynn on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 11:58pm

    It's a riot.


    by kyle flynn on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 11:59pm

    Peter, at the end of the day a small but vocal group of Sanders supporters booed Democrats. Black Democrats will see white Sanders supporters booing black people. They will also we Sanders attempting to unify the party. Some Sanders supporters will not heed the message. They will vote for Stein or Trump. Some will stay home. The others have moved on.

    Blacks consider the small subset of hardcore Sanders supporters "ridiculous" just like Sarah Silverman. The argument of a person who suggests that, at the end of the day, there is no difference between Hillary, Sanders, or Trump because the system is a cesspool would also be rated "ridiculous". An argument telling black people that Hillary and Sanders are no different than the guy receiving support from Klan members and bigots, would be interpreted as an argument created in white supremacy. By this argument, blacks are incapable of determining what is in their best interest. Before blacks rejected the racist message crafted by Trump, they would ridicule that argument that they have no choice in the election.Given Supreme Court nominations and a host of other issues, they would realize that the person spewing the "no difference" nonsense was clueless when it came to issues of race. The no difference argument is made by someone with no skin in the game, so to speak.

    Edit to add:

    Jamelle Bouie at Slate notes that we are talking about a small subset of Sanders supporters. Hillary may never be able to gain their trust.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/07/democra...


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 9:09am

    Only 28% of Americans trust Hillary Clinton.  The "small subset of Sanders supporters" who distrust your candidate are in the great majority.  Did you know that RMRD?


    by HSG on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 9:18am

    Hal, numbers are our friends. Take they fact that some polls have her tied with Trump. That would be 40% of the vote of likely voters, If you look at the electoral college, she is likely to demolish Trump, Your picking up on 28% trust has no real impact.

    Aren't the conventions and post convention debates supposed to be about decreasing negatives? Are you getting paid by Trump?


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 9:33am

    You realize good sir, that the fact that the mass majority of Americans not trusting her makes her weaker in the general election, therefore Bernie would be a better candidate in the general election.

     

     


    by MakeAmericaGrea... (not verified) on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 2:56pm

    This is a ridiculous simplification of a complex situation. There is no way we can predict what will or what would have happened over the course of a general election campaign. One stupid statement can create a media narrative that can flip the race. The republican attack machine or the democrat attack machine can be successful or less than successful in creating a picture of the candidate that sways voters. There is insufficient evidence to make any prophecies what so ever though prophets on all sides will predict their victory. Intelligent people will look at the paucity of data and reject them all.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 3:15pm

    My honorable friend, Hillary has the electoral college sown up. Bernie did not generate enthusiasm among blacks or Latinos, two groups the Democrats need to win the Presidency. Bernie Sanders had monochromatic appeal. I mentioned that Roland Martin observed that black delegates were really to roll and match any protest by BernieBros during last night's speeches. Sanders and his hardcore supporters faced the same dilemma as Occupy Wall Street, a failure of good organization and a failure of diversity. The BernieBros are alienating ethnic minorities, virtually assuring that the Sanders revolution will burn out.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 3:21pm

    They are alienating ethnic minorities, Hillary supporters, and Sanders supporters who like Hillary, just not as much as they liked Sanders, or are pragmatic voters. The bernie brats are losing support even among the Sanders supporters.

    eta: For the record, I'm not convinced Hillary has the electoral college locked up. I won't begin to think about that until the August state polls begin to come out. And even then, while more accurate, those polls will still be a snapshot in time. Future events in August, September, and October could change voter patterns. Polling this early is not accurate.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 3:53pm

    The hardcore Sanders supporters do seem to be amazingly tone deaf. We have addressed the arrogance of the BernieBros repeatedly. Instead of working on a new game plan, they continue to insist that their loser candidate would have done better in the general election. The only thing holding him back from winning the general election was that more Democrats voted against him than for him.He could have been a contender if he wasn't such a loser.

    The Bernie supporters want to have the same old arguments. Sanders lacked the vision to create the beauty of the speeches heard at the Democratic convention. We would have had four boring days of millionaires and billionaires with the same lack of joy that was seen at the RNC.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 3:51pm

    Better to have voters distrust you yet vote for you than to trust you and not vote for you. Just sayin'. I never knew people expected to "trust" politicians at all - I thought they were all supposed to be lying self-serving bastards and if we got them to keep a few promises we'd be doing well. AFAIK, how Hillary made money when not on the government nickel wasn't my concern. So far she's struck me as smart enough not to issue a "no new taxes"-like promise that she'd have to reverse.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 3:27pm

    LIKE ^^


    by CVille Dem on Thu, 07/28/2016 - 7:07pm

    I wouldn't presume to know what any group would see in this insurrection only what i see and what Black voters might think about this uprising against the democrat machine probably doesn't matter as they are in a dependent political demographic with no viable choices to make.

    In a close race like this one a relatively small, a few million, contingent refusing to vote as they normally would, for the democrat, could tip the election. The Clintonites with their triangulation seem to have already ' moved on' and are publicly pissing on the  somewhat mildly radical contingent that is in an uproar over the dirty tricks and other subterfuge of the Clintonites. These brilliant operatives seem to think they can attract  republicans who dislike Trump like many of their elites but if they read or understood history they might recall that while democrats fall in love republicans fall in line.


    by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 1:05pm

    The argument that black voters don't matter and are mere beggars is consistent with a Eurocentric ideology.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 2:21pm

    Note the claim that black voters "have no choice" when, in fact, they basically chose this Democratic nominee.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 2:35pm

    That escaped his notice


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 2:54pm

    I didn't say black voters or their votes don't matter but they are taken for granted by the Clintonites who are the preeminent users of the ideology that black people's needs and desires don't matter because they will always fall in line even after the horrible Eurocentric abuses  the Clintons have inflicted upon them. I'm not judging black voters and i try to understand their reasons for continuing  this nonproductive relationship.

    The Clintonites are treating the white Sanders supporters, who refuse to submit,  differently and they think they can be replaced by other white people, republicans who dislike Trump, we'll have to wait and see how that ploy turns out.


    by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 4:19pm

    The Sanders supporters that refuse to "submit" are about 10% of the Sanders supporters. 90% intend to support Hillary.


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 4:26pm

    I'm confused. You say that black demands were ignored. There are planks about voting rights and minimum wage. Which issues championed by blacks were swept aside by the Democratic Platform Committee in favor of Sanders? I will provide a link to the Democratic Party Platform document because I reject the Eurocentric style of arrogantly refusing to support my statement with documentation.

    . http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

    Edit to add:

    Voting rights, minimum wage, and police abuse were among issues important for blacks. The TPP was a major factor for Sanders supporters. Which issue is missing from the final document?


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 4:57pm

    So you don't think job losses due to free trade treasures matter to blacks RMRD?


    by Hal G (not verified) on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 5:15pm

    Treaties not treasures.


    by Hal G (not verified) on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 5:23pm

    Peter said that issues important to the black community were dismissed. I want him to tell me which items were left out.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 07/27/2016 - 9:20am

    There's a claim by Chris Hayes that by the time the prime time part of the convention started the only ones still booing or shouting, "we trusted you" at Warren were only about 30 people in the California delegation.


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 1:10am

    Fivethirtyeight claims that almost all the shouting and booing was the California delegation. But it answers the question: how can a small group do the most damage to their own cause?


    by Doctor Cleveland on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 4:18am

    Michelle was incredible. Cory Booker too. Didn't hear any more heckling and many had Bernie signs and I'm with her just below.


    by NCD on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 2:20am

    As our planet cooks - 14 straight record-breaking months - global warming deniers continue to claim nothing untoward is going on.  My response is anger, sadness, and also bewilderment.  I just can't fathom how so many people can look indisputable evidence in the face and dispute it. 

    Now I'm reading the vitriol from the Clinton die-hards here attacking Bernie Sanders who gave a great speech and, as the first day of the convention and recent and distant polls prove, would almost certainly be a stronger general election candidate.  I'm seeing the race card played repeatedly by Clinton supporters because many progressives are justifiably incensed that the Democratic establishment - black and white - conspired to bury the better candidate.  My response is anger, sadness, and bewilderment.  I just can't fathom how people can look indisputable evidence in the face and dispute it.


    by HSG on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 6:19am

    Skip reading the vitriol . That's yesterday.

    Personally I was grateful, but not surprised by Bernie's great speech. Josh  Marshall:

     

    giving voice to what animated his campaign while pivoting to supporting Hillary and not having either seem forced, contrived or false. 

     

    For me it was just Bernie being a professional (a term of praise from me)  behaving professionally.But he could have gotten it wrong and he didn't. In spades.

    A lot of tough things - some true- were said during the primaries. What else is new? Time to draw a double line under all that and  get on with sending Donald back to his eponymous ( I was dying to use that word) tower.

     


    by Flavius on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 8:17am

    Thanks Flavius for grounding me.  Your point is spot on but the attacks on Sanders supporters who have very legitimate beefs are both irritating and counterproductive.


    by HSG on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 8:21am

    They' ve become  a knee jerk response and , as you say ,counterproductive .  


    by Flavius on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 2:18pm

    Legitimate, not legitimate, it's all a matter of opinion. What would have happened if Hillary's most hard core  supporters had done the same thing to Obama in 08? They thought they had legitimate grievances too. What would you have said about them then? In 08 Hillary spent the month from the end of the primary until the convention talking her hard core supporters down. This year Sanders spent that month with no endorsement and tepid support for Hillary while giving his supporters permission to continue fighting Hillary or at least a wink.

    Is it about the movement or the man? Is this the way to build and grow the movement after this election? Warren has supporters that voted for Hillary and supporters that voted for Sanders. When Warren asks for help she gets it from both sides of the democratic divide. For the "revolution" to grow as a movement it needs to enlist people like me. Liberal activists that supported Hillary. But I will never support any movement that Sanders calls for. Not ever. So tell me is this show by the hard core Sanders supporters the best way to grow the movement?

    Sanders now seems to realize what you apparently don't.  " Our credibility as a movement will be damaged by booing, turning of backs, walking out or other similar displays,” Sanders wrote in a text message to delegate leaders. “That’s what the corporate media wants. That’s what Donald Trump wants. But that’s not what will expand the progressive movement of this country.”


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 2:46pm

    OceanKat, I was right with you until Bernie finally pulled a 180, or at least a 175, and gave a truthful endorsement last night.  Yeah, you and I both think he waited too long, and I think he was getting concessions until he evidently got enough of them, but the fact is, he finally delivered.

    He has set a high bar for his supporters by making a speech that neither said, nor implied "Hold your nose and vote for her."  He set an example.  I felt a glimmering of the respect that I had for him at the onset of his campaign.  I am glad he made the pivot.


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 2:53pm

    I agree, I think he trying to control the damage.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 2:56pm

    You're easier to turn around then the hard core Sanders supporters. Sanders chose this path. Just a week ago I talked with a young person who thought Sanders was going to win at the convention. Why did she think that. Because Sanders was leading his supporters on with a wink and a nudge. He was conning them with bull shit. Sanders decided to attempt to do in 24 hours what it took Hillary 24 days to accomplish in 08. It's not enough to make a speech at the eleventh hour. He actually has to deliver. He actually has to shut up his Bernie Brats. At least that much. Just as Hillary had to deliver in 08 for Obama. And she did. In a big way. Right down to stopping the role call vote and calling for Obama's nomination at the convention by acclamation.


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 4:07pm

    When a land-based animal flies, it is useless to complain that he didn't do it yesterday.

    That is a paraphrase which I wouldn't dare reproduce as originally spoken.  However, I get your point, and I agree that he waited way too long, and let his supporters (like Susan Sarandon, for example) continue to poison the well, and pee in the swimming pool.  

    I have decided to give him credit for what he has finally done.  I also said that I only felt a "glimmer" of respect, because he had already done much to lost it.  Let's see how it goes moving forward.  Remember the real enemy here (and I mean ENEMY) is Donald Trump.


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 5:53pm

    I obviously have little respect for the hardcore Sanders supporters. I do believe that Sanders is trying to get Hillary elected. He is trying to do good. Would I want Sanders in an important Cabinet position? No. Perhaps he can be Ambassador to the Vatican.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 6:01pm

    I'm thinking Cuba.


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 6:32pm

    Viva Fidel!


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 7:25pm

    Oh Lay!


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 7:53pm

    Democrats do not boo leaders like Elijah Cummings and John Lewis.  Period.  What kind of people are we if we make excuses for people who boo them?  Interrupting their speeches in any way besides applauding cannot, will not, should not be tolerated.  They're insulting two men who have done so much for this country and not just the Democratic party. What they did to them is inexcusable and unforgivable. 

    It's shocking that anyone would even try to say otherwise.


    by Ramona on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 3:24pm

    It does get tiresome repeatedly hearing that we are supposed to coddle these spoiled and bratty people so that they will forgive our being honest about their behavior and vote for Hillary.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 3:34pm

    I am a tad surprised that there has been so little comment on the profound difference between the RNC and the DNC.  The DNC has so far gone beyond my expectations to present a positive and hopeful and pragmatic and cheerful and honest, and even humorous convention.  This is the Democratic message.

    The RNC, in contrast, was all about joyous negativity and even joyous hatred.  There was nothing that anyone could gather from their  convention except (unwarranted) fear and hate.

    I am so proud to be a Democrat!   This convention. Is all about the Common Good,  and I am proud to be a part of it.


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 07/26/2016 - 9:01pm