Home / General / #BernieorBust Dead-Enders Are Not Representative of Sanders or his Supporters

#BernieorBust Dead-Enders Are Not Representative of Sanders or his Supporters

Comments
/
/
/
43 Views

bernie

This Harold Meyerson column is excellent. Two points in particular are worth emphasizing:

Sanders skeptics have been eyeing him apprehensively since he announced, fearful that he would become this year’s Ralph Nader. Nobody who actually knew Bernie, however, ever believed he wouldn’t support Hillary Clinton in the end. In fact, he did much more than that. By shifting the discourse in the Democratic Party to one more appropriate to an age of inequality, and by pushing the party in its platform to commit to causes from which, at best, it had been laggard in embracing, he was showing his people precisely what focused progressive activism can yield: tangible victories in the arena of real politics.

All of Bernie’s Sighted supporters understood this. Virtually every one of his endorsers who has a track record in the give-and-take of real politics—union activists, elected officials, environmentalist leaders—has proclaimed, as Bernie has, that the revolution succeeded in moving the party and its nominee to the left, and that a Hillary Clinton presidency, whatever it shortcomings, would create the possibility of significant progressive organizing and victories, while a Trump presidency would be a reign of repression.

I said this as it was unfolding, but people panicking about whether Sanders would endorse Clinton just didn’t understand him. He’s never been a risk to become a new Nader — he’s not obscenely self-centered and he understands the value of compromise. There were things he could have handled better towards the end of the campaign, but you can say the same and arguably worse about Clinton in 2008 and there’s was never any risk that she would abandon the party or refuse to endorse Obama.

And it’s also worth noting that Sanders’s supporters are if anything coming around more quickly than Clinton’s did in 2008:

Bernie’s messaging, the presentation of the platform and rules in a way that made clear just what he’d won, and the progressive—and in the case of Michelle Obama, brilliantly humane—presentations on Monday were plainly calculated to open some of the Bernie diehards’ eyes. So did the presentations from children of undocumented immigrants and other speakers to whom it would be hard to argue that the difference between Clinton and Donald Trump wasn’t really all that great.

As the convention began, a new Pew poll showed that 88.5 percent of voters who’d consistently backed Sanders throughout the primary season now favored Clinton. A majority of the Sanders delegates in the hall in Philadelphia also back Clinton, but a loud Blinkered minority has managed to command disproportionate media coverage, which ever favors the loud. This disconsolate fringe—not just delegates but also the demonstrators lined up outside the convention area’s fencing—is almost entirely white and non-immigrant, people, that is, with less reason than some to fear a Trump presidency will overturn their lives. Nor are the demonstrators I’ve talked to preponderantly local, but rather have come from across the country to shout their rage and discontent. In short, the Blinkered are a fraction of the left, the Naderites come again. They are people who wouldn’t normally be involved either in Democratic politics or real-world progressive organizations, who hitched their wagon to Sanders’s star while many more experienced progressive activists failed to grasp Sanders’s potential for moving the world further in their direction than any political phenomenon in years.

My hunch—no more than that—is that if the election stays close, many of the Blinkered will reluctantly succumb to a very rational fear in the last two weeks of the campaign, and Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein’s vote will plummet just as Henry Wallace’s did in the final stretch of the 1948 campaign. The prospect of a Trump presidency will finally strike dread in all but the most hermetically sealed mentalities.

Even though they’re over-represented at the convention and MSNBC seemed determined to track down and interview each and every one of them, #BernieorBusters are a small, shrinking, figuratively and sometimes literally flatulent minority of Sanders supporters. People indifferent to the outcome of the election, or who (like Jill Stein*) are actively working to throw the election for Trump aren’t representative supporters and definitely aren’t representative of “The Left,” as much as they’d like you to think otherwise.

*Here is one BLISTERING hot take for you:

I was going to say that Jill Stein is to political commentary as Skip Bayless is to sports commentary, but that’s not really fair to the latter — Skip’s shitty takes aren’t actually part of a campaign willing to risk the the infliction of massive suffering on some of America’s most vulnerable citizens in exchange for no upside whatsoever.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • brad

    Look, if the Dems were truly a progressive party then they would have compromised by running Ron Paul.

    • sam

      ding ding ding ding!

      I keep saying this on twitter too – there is a fraction (small but vocal) of Bernie supporters who were never democrats – they were always ron paul libertarians or anarchists who found a new home in Bernie’s campaign, for exactly as long as he raged against the machine. That group were never democrats, never liberals, and were never interested in anything but their own very specific interests. They were never on “our” side to begin with.

      • Rob in CT

        Yes. Thankfully, they’re a tiny group.

        • Buckeye623

          If you want to get frustrated, read the comments section over at Naked Capitalism, from a Strether post.

          Come for the anti-neoliberal economics, stay for the.. fervent fee-fee flagellation!

      • efgoldman

        That group were never democrats, never liberals, and were never interested in anything but their own very specific interests.

        And in the end, most of them can’t be bothered to vote.

        • They would, but Oakland is so gerrymandered it doesn’t matter.

          • kped

            Dana, your tweets during this cycle are the most sober and rational I read. Keep it up! (Maybe it’s because I share your views and see the chicken little stuff by so many as annoying childlike behavior…)

          • TroubleMaker13

            And yet, no Greens on the city council.

        • Alex.S

          My favorite was the guy who set up a website to harass superdelegates, but didn’t vote in the primary because he thought it was closed and he wanted to remain independent.

          • MAJeff

            he thought it was closed and he wanted to remain independent.

            This is the kind of “purity” that drives me fucking nuts. Whine about “not having a say” but don’t do the thing–a thing that requires literally no work or investment of time, money, or energy–that would give one a voice.

            Registering as a member of a party for voting purposes requires absolutely no effort. You don’t even get on any mailing lists. But, noooooooooooo, special snowflakes be too fucking pure.

            • Alex.S

              It was Illinois, which is an open primary. I believe you just need to ask for a party’s ballot.

              I actually sent in a correction on that story to the Washington Post, since they erroneously repeated the information from the person that it was a closed primary. They fixed it… but I have no idea if they read my note or not. Also they didn’t indicate the correction in the online article — other sources that quoted the article still have that anecdote.

              http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/12/clinton-super-delegates-aggravated-by-sa

      • brad

        Yep, as many here remember well, LGM’s chosen exemplar of BernieorBust thought, Lolcats Goodman formerly of Salon, went from Ron Paul to Jim Webb to Bernie Sanders. Oddly he’s now gone to Stein instead of Johnson, despite the genitals involved, but when these folk lecture on progressive purity the only proper response aside from ignoring them is to point, laugh, and condescend.

        • the only proper response aside from ignoring them is to point, laugh, and condescend.

          I try not to in most cases, but with these nitwits, I can’t help but condescend.

        • keta

          Kind of like the best response to a flasher:

          “Hey! That looks just like a penis, except smaller!”

      • JL

        A small point, but anarchists aren’t inherently not on your side (or Bernie or Busters). Left anarchists are part of the broad progressive/left spectrum and do more work than most people realize (e.g on reproductive freedom, disaster relief in underserved areas, labor solidarity).

  • Karen24

    I loved Sanders’ speech last night!

    As for the dead-enders, Politico noted astutely that almost all of the hecklers were from the California delegation, which was seated near the cameras.

    • PotemkinMetropolitanRegion

      Christ, NPR/PBS had an interview with Rooney, who said the same thing; then immediately afterwards their correspondents dismissed it, “no way, the dissent is all over the place.” Whats wrong when Politico calls it over NPR

      • Tyto

        Same thing with NPR’s interview of Rep. Fudge. She estimated that a couple of hundred of the ~1600 Bernie delegates were responsible for the noise, and that it was coming only from two sections. Gonyea and Segal totally blew her off.

      • MAJeff

        Well, they’re Nice Polite Republicans.

    • Happy Jack

      ThinkProgress called them “garbage people.” They should should tone it down.

      The time for retribution against these people can wait until after the election.

      • ThrottleJockey

        Retribution? The people to seek retribution against are the DNC officials who rigged the election, protestations that they didn’t notwithstanding. If the party of fairness no longer stands for fairness, and if its standard bearer is so mealy mouthed about defending fairness, well then there might be some acrimony. Blame the DNC and DWS, not Sanders.

        • The people to seek retribution against are the DNC officials who rigged the election,

          Primary, not an election.

          And it wasn’t rigged either technically or (most importantly) substantively.

          • calling all toasters

            But it was rigged delusionally, which is the most important type.

        • TroubleMaker13

          The people to seek retribution against are the DNC officials who rigged the election, protestations that they didn’t notwithstanding.

          Yeah, who needs evidence when there’s (self-)righteous anger to unleash.

        • Please give it a rest TJ. The primary was not rigged. The DNC and DWS were short-sighted and unprofessional but their actions did not throw the election to HRC. Take it from Sanders himself.

          [I’m a pretty hardcore Sanders supporter myself but it’s past time to climb down and roll up our sleeves, we’ve work to do]

        • brad

          Words mean things. No one rigged anything, calm your hyperbolic horses.

          • brewmn

            He’s on a troll. Ignore him.

        • efgoldman

          if its standard bearer is so mealy mouthed about defending fairness, well then there might be some acrimony.

          Give it up, TJ. Three million more votes in primaries run by the states, not the national party, is not even close, and not “rigging.” Emails from low level functionaries speculating about something that was never done is not “rigging.” The fact that your guy lost and was mostly hurt politically by his own actions, failures, and words is not “rigging.”
          You live in Chicago, for fuck’s sake; you ought to understand politics and basic arithmetic.

          But then, trolls gotta’ troll.

        • Aaron Morrow

          If the primary season is a boat, and the DNC is the crew, and DWS is a captain…

          then I suppose there is indeed a way one can say the ship was rigged.

    • Nixonlandia

      Removed for regrettable intemperance.

      • Peterr

        Following the path of Tricky “expletive deleted” Dick?

      • efgoldman

        Removed for regrettable intemperance.

        Aw, hell. That’s the best kind.

    • delazeur

      What is the significance of the dissent coming from California? I understand it was one of the more hotly contested primaries (or rather, has been the focus of vote-stealing allegations) and it is a large delegation, but I am not sure why Californian Sanders supporters would be more likely to jeer than the others.

      • Sargon

        Marin County is in California.

        • delazeur

          I would have expected the BoBers to come from SF/San Mateo County.

          • MyNameIsZweig

            There are many in Oakland, if my own observations are accurate.

        • Brad Nailer

          That’s true, but having lived Marin for almost 20 years, I see those people as lefties, yes, but not bomb-throwers. They’re way too solidly professional-class and the like to be shouting down anybody, a Democrat in particular.

          • Porlock Junior

            Just my thought. Around here we’re so mellow that we don’t even lynch people who refuse to vaccinate children. (Of course this has nothing to do with fears that we’ll turn out to be outnumbered.)

      • Alex.S

        It’s close to the media. Literally, the California seating section is close to the media section.

        There are a few other states that have very vocal members. From one report, I saw Indiana and Wisconsin pointing fingers at New Mexico.

        • ThusBloggedAnderson

          Yeah, can’t link it right now, but Julia Ioffe chatted up the NM delegation & they were a narrow HRC majority w both sides squabbling.

      • DrS

        We’re cranky ever since they replaced the Carrot Festival with whatever that thing is that they do in Coachella these days.

        • los

          the bags say “grapefruit”

        • leftwingfox

          Now there’s an idea for a Loony Tunes short…

          • DrS

            Hahaha! Yes! Bugs actually makes the correct turn in Albuquerque, but the Carrot Festival is no longer therein.

            I bet Bugs dressed as an female EDMer would break several sectors of the Internet, unless Rule 34 is already in effect.

      • Goobergunch

        In California we select our district delegates in candidate-specific caucuses. For instance, I live in the 17th District, so I went to the designated location for the Clinton delegate caucus on May 1 and voted for six delegate candidates. (My caucus was pretty sparsely attended, so I had the chance to meet and talk to a bunch of people, which was cool. Although you could also just vote and leave if you wanted to.)

        This means that the Sanders district delegates were all elected by people that cared enough about the Sanders campaign on May 1 to take some time out of their Sunday afternoon to go somewhere and vote for delegates. Given that you already need to be a pretty hardcore supporter of your candidate to run as a delegate to begin with (you’re volunteering to go cross-country and drop a few thousand dollars mid-summer), I’m not terribly surprised that there are a handful of Sanders dead-enders in the 551-strong California delegation.

        Amusing flashback from 1992: “California delegations are, by nature and tradition, rebellious, cantankerous and seldom happy with the status quo.

  • Anon21

    As the convention began, a new Pew poll showed that 88.5 percent of voters who’d consistently backed Sanders throughout the primary season now favored Clinton.

    Nate Silver offers a partial rebuttal of that poll starting here: https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/757954632601796608

    My take: third-party/”other” support very predictably collapses the closer you get to Election Day. So “forcing” respondents to choose between Clinton and Trump more accurately simulates how most will act when they actually go to vote.

    There’s probably something to his point that Sanders activated or converted some people who wouldn’t have bothered to vote/would not be open to voting for a Democrat if not for his campaign. I hope that most of those people stick around and at least vote for Democrats down-ballot. But if they don’t, I think it’s unlikely that Clinton will need them–Obama did not.

    • leftwingfox

      Interesting, thanks for the link.

    • Jackov

      The new Pew poll included the option “Neither” which gets 2% from
      consistent Sanders supporters.

      One can also go back to the Pew poll from early July which showed the following preferences for Sanders supporters:
      Clinton 85% Trump 9% Other/Don’t Know 6%

      • Anon21

        The point is apparently that if you proactively include Stein and Johnson (rather than just “neither” or “other”), they siphon a fair amount of Clinton’s support from the consistent Bernie backers.

  • Denverite

    Skip’s shitty takes aren’t actually part of a campaign willing to risk the the infliction of massive suffering on some of America’s most vulnerable citizens in exchange for no upside whatsoever.

    Are we 100% on this? He was a huge Tebow fan.

    • Yes. No, we’re not willing to declare you “suffered” by playing a playoff game against the worst defensive coach in Steeler history.

      • wjts

        Dick LeBeau is one of the all-time great defensive coaches, and his defenses were a big part of the Steelers two most recent Super Bowl Championships. The Denver game was a shitshow, but it really doesn’t make him the “worst defensive coach in Steeler history”.

        • gmack

          All you say is absolutely true, but holy Christ his game plan for that game was terrible.

        • Scott Lemieux

          Right. LeBeau was a legitimately great defensive coordinator. He hung on for a few years too long, but when you’re still good in your early 70s it’s not surprising that he didn’t know when to quit. (I was always amazed at the amount of pushback pointing out that the 75-year-old LeBeau had clearly lost something off his fastball used to get.)

          The Tebow game plan was, in a sense, the blunder you would expect of a formerly great coach. A clear template had been established for how to beat Tebow (and since it had been done with the Patriots secondary it certainly didn’t require great personnel or anything.) But LeBeau clearly thought he didn’t need to rely on what had already worked, and who knows, 10 years ago he might have come up with something that was different than Belichick but just as effective. But instead he came up with a dog; it happens.

          • Denverite

            Curious whether Phillips sees the same decline over the next five years or so. He’s already 69, so he’s getting there. On the other hand, although the Broncos’ defensive talent isn’t really BETTER than the late ’00s Steelers (both are in the conversation for top-ten-of-all-time), I think the Broncos have a number of set-it-and-forget-it pieces that make a DC’s life a lot easier. It doesn’t take rocket science to let Miller or Harris or Talib just do their thing.

            • Scott Lemieux

              It could happen. But for the next 2-3 years the Broncos defense would be in good shape even if he magically transformed into Rob Ryan.

    • kped

      The blog Tebow defender seems long gone, so you won’t get any pushback on this.

      • Scott Lemieux

        Hey, Dilan’s still here.

    • calling all toasters

      Don’t forget Johnny Money Football.

  • Rob in CT

    People got nervous/upset that Bernie dragged it out a little, but in the end he got things he wanted in the platform and then went out and gave a full-throated endorsement. He’s apparently also been meeting w/some of his nuttier delegates (from CA) and telling them to cool the hell down. Those are the things that a reasonable, pragmatic politician does. I wish the dead-enders could be reasoned with, but there’s always people you just can’t reach.

    I know I’m repeating myself, but holy shit is Stein is utterly reprehensible at this point. Has she always been that bad?

    • Alex.S

      Only thing I can remember about Stein in 2012 was Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit) using his column in USA Today to write a puff piece on her – http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-09-23/jill-stein-green-party-presidential/57837680/1

      Interestingly… Stein has a much larger social media presence than Johnson. But it appears that the Libertarian Party is getting more votes and is more popular among people who are leaning towards Hillary.

      • Rob in CT

        Putting aside the fact that libertarianism is an (entitled) childish fantasy, their ticket actually includes people with real governing experience. And their childish fantasy is more palatable to Americans than the Green version.

        • DrDick

          You said it better than I could.

        • Murc

          Putting aside the fact that libertarianism is an (entitled) childish fantasy, their ticket actually includes people with real governing experience.

          You know, I wouldn’t vote for him over Clinton, but Bill Weld is the sort of Republican who wouldn’t terrify me. You know? If he were in the White House I might not be happy, but I would sleep soundly at night.

          If the New York State Republican party had had half a brain, he might be Governor here right now.

    • it’s a competition… to some extent you can’t fault a competitor for saying and doing all she can to win, no matter how late in the 4th quarter it is, or what’s on the scoreboard.

      I personally don’t agree with some of the punches aimed at Stein/Greens… I mean, sure they have some nutty positions, but they’re still on “our side” of the political spectrum. The saying about attracting more bees with honey, etc. applies. What is there to gain from bashing them?

      • so-in-so

        Nobody who says straight-faced that a Trump Presidency would be the same as Clinton Presidency deserves any slack.

        If the greens wanted to do something, they would run candidates at local/state level where they could win and maybe try to cross-endorse the more liberal main party (Dem, it seems) candidate at the national level. I don’t know if the Democrats would allow that, but I’ve seen cross-endorsements at sate and local level, so it might work. That doesn’t tickle their special-snowflake purity sense, so Stein tries to play spoiler and actually harms “our side”.

      • Lost Left Coaster

        Because they’re actively working to ensure a Trump presidency. That is contemptible. It doesn’t matter their intentions; their desire to win the presidency is quixotic at best and sabotage at worst.

      • Rob in CT

        “our side” – those quotes are doing a lot of work.

        She straight up said there is not a dime’s worth of difference between political parties with stark differences, PLUS one of them has just nominated a malignant, blustering buffoon. But yeah, blue team/red team, all the same maaaaaan. That shit is toxic.

        This is someone who has zero – ZERO – chance of winning. It’s not like she’s close and so one more bit of persuasion means she would win and transform the US (hah). We’re talking about the difference between getting 1% and 2% of the vote. For this, she’ll say shit like the above?

        To hell with her.

        • N__B

          Thanks for saving me the trouble to write this.

      • Scott Lemieux

        so some extent you can’t fault a competitor for saying and doing all she can to win

        When the competitor in question can’t win but can enable a white supremacist authoritarian to prevail over a moderate liberal, you sure as hell can.

        • efgoldman

          the competitor in question can’t win but can enable a white supremacist authoritarian to prevail over a moderate liberal

          In a closer election, maybe. I don’t think she’ll be a mosquito bite on a donkey’s ass when all is said and done.

          • Lost Left Coaster

            That’s the hope but goddamn, I love Democracy Now! but they could stop flogging Stein’s candidacy any day now and I would really start enjoying their show again.

          • Scott Lemieux

            “Bush is so dumb Gore will beat him by 20 points.” — Ralph Nader, 2000

            My guess is that the election will not be particularly close. I also don’t think we should count on that, particularly since Stein’s risks carry a massive downside and absolutely no upside.

      • TroubleMaker13

        I personally don’t agree with some of the punches aimed at Stein/Greens… I mean, sure they have some nutty positions, but they’re still on “our side” of the political spectrum. The saying about attracting more bees with honey, etc. applies. What is there to gain from bashing them?

        Stein and the Greens have done absolutely fuck-all to build a real, viable alternative to the Dems. Fuck. All. Aside from a sub-token number of fringe candidates in a smattering of other elections, all they do is trot out a ridiculous clown like Stein every four years to spew a bunch of inane bullshit in the hope that they’ll be able to shake out enough votes to get their hands on public funds. They’ve shown zero commitment to substantive change through the electoral process.

        • Rob in CT

          Come to think of it… maybe some lefty group should “Occupy” the Green Party. It’s tiny. It should be fairly easy to take over.

          [Dun, Dun Dun! Years from now, someone will link to this comment at the beginning of a great Neoliberal conspiracy]

          • Ahuitzotl

            dont worry, Comrade, our commentscrubbers will be by shortly to ensure the secrecy of the Reloveution

        • Lost Left Coaster

          Your comment sums up exactly why I have no love or respect for the Greens. Black Lives Matter has accomplished more to shift politics in the USA over the entire existence of their movement than the Green Party has done for the entire existence of theirs. The Greens have accomplished nothing substantive over the years, while other organized left-wing groups have accomplished all sorts of things. The fact is, running a presidential candidate is just a silly, self-indulgent, potentially damaging exercise that shows very limited imagination. Public mobilizations and pressure can exert influence no matter who is president, and all of us on the progressive left will get much, much farther with our goals if we do not have a neo-fascist misogynist white supremacist in power.

      • DrDick

        Meh! They refuse to do the hard work of organizing locally in all 50 states, only jumping in at the last minute for national campaigns. As such they are simply engaging in political masturbation and potentially draining off a few votes that could make a difference in elections.

    • ThrottleJockey

      I heard an interesting discussion by Howard Dean a couple months back where he said that the supporters take it harder than candidates. In a way this makes sense. Someone seeking political office often does so out of some personal ambition, but volunteers are usually doing it because they’re invested in an idea, and to paraphrase Inception ideas are hard to kill.

    • dave

      I was in Suffolk Superior Court on a civil matter in 2013 and while waiting for my case to be called, Stein was there being sued by an ex-campaign staffer who was (IIRC) claiming that Stein had refused to pay her for work she did on the campaign.

      Obviously I have no real insight into the truth of the claims, but as presented by the attorneys involved in that motion hearing, I recall that I found the staffer’s version of events more believable.

      It definitely wasn’t a good look for Stein to be stiffing her workers – reminded me of Nader and the PIRGs.

      • so-in-so

        So in reality, it’s Stein who isn’t a dimes worth of difference from Trump!

    • He’s apparently also been meeting w/some of his nuttier delegates (from CA) and telling them to cool the hell down.

      That sounds like a useful undertaking for him, although he might do better to follow it up by taping thorazine patches to the dead-enders’ arms.

    • DrDick

      People got nervous/upset that Bernie dragged it out a little, but in the end he got things he wanted in the platform and then went out and gave a full-throated endorsement.

      Which is exactly what we Sanders supporters told them would happen, but we are just a bunch of know-nothing dead-enders so it does not count.

      • Rob in CT

        Oh, come on.

        There’s a clear distinction between those of us who voted for Sanders but clearly were going to vote HRC in the general, on the one hand, and BoBers on the other.

        “Dead-enders” is not aimed at you, me, Murc, or really any sane Sanders supporter.

        • DrDick

          It has, in fact, been directed specifically at me for various criticisms of Clinton, even though I have sad from the outset that I would vote for her if she was the candidate. I would like the Clintonistas to quit focusing on thge supposed deficiencies of Sanders supporters so much and focus Trump, whose is our mutual enemy. They seem to be the sorest winners I have ever seen.

  • Murc

    Jesus god, all of this.

    Thank you Scott.

    • DrDick

      Indeed.

  • Alex.S

    Yes, but one of them is loud and is near one of the audience microphones. Of course, he could only shout for a minute or so before giving up because no one else in the audience cared…

  • Mark Field

    MSNBC’s coverage last night was truly reprehensible. Anybody have a good alternative?

    • Rob in CT

      C-SPAN?

      • David W.

        My wife and I watched C-SPAN’s coverage last night, and about the only time the booing from the floor was clearly audible was when Franken and Silverman were speaking. I didn’t miss the commentary.

        • brad

          I watched it too, it was a bit more often than that. “we trusted you” during Warren was particularly grating and audible. Especially hearing the entitled white guy voice mainly doing it.
          But yes, no commentary was a plus.

      • Thom

        PBS wasn’t too terrible most of the time.

        • I have to disagree. PBS cut away from Booker’s speech, and features David Brooks. We have carved our cable all the way back, so CSPANisn’t an option, but seriously, David Brooks?

          • Thom

            I just tune him out.

          • sam

            That is literally the reason I could not watch PBS. I was flipping back and forth between MSNBC and CNN (depending on which one of them decided to bloviate instead of actually show the speakers at any particular time), until my DVR decided it needed to record two non-convention shows at 10:30 last night (one of them was Samantha Bee, so…of course) and I discovered the live feed from the DNC channel on youtube.

      • Anon21

        I wanted to watch CSPAN, but my cable provider doesn’t offer it in HD.

      • Mark Field

        CSPAN seems like it would work. I’ll give it a shot. Thanks.

        • If you’re moderately-hearing impaired, C-SPAN was good. (That is, they didn’t closed-caption the protestors, and only the “Black Lives Matter” chant during Cory Booker’s speech–as Dave Barry says, I am not making this up–was crystal clear.)

    • keta

      I watch on you tube. I’m not sure what feed they use, but the camera work and sound are great, and not a single pontificating prick to be found.

      • Lost Left Coaster

        I think that Twitter was providing a livestream as well.

        Thank goodness in the Internet era people can choose to watch events like this without the mediation of talking heads.

    • MaureenDowdsLudes

      I watch the Young Turks on you tube. Decent job with commentary.

    • Scott Lemieux

      I tried CNN for a bit, and then Jefrrey Lord, so…ugh. At one point I actually switched to Fox and watched 20 seconds of Rudy Guiliani redbaiting.

      • jim, some guy in iowa

        20 seconds of Rudy911? it’s a wonder your tv lived to find another channel

    • smith

      For some reason, I have problems streaming C-Span, but found the DNC live stream to be excellent: https://www.demconvention.com/live/

    • ASV

      C-SPAN, or stream it. The commentary everywhere else will be worse than useless.

      • Lost Left Coaster

        And teevee commentary is so obsolete in the age of Twitter anyway. There are any number of knowledgeable people commenting on events like this in real-time. No need to listen to whatever idiots CNN et al decide to put on the air.

        • so-in-so

          If only someone would tell the teevee commentators.

    • Ahuitzotl

      West Wing on Netflix

  • Anon21

    Question for the group: should media orgs consider cutting crowd mikes if they’re presenting an inaccurate picture of the atmosphere in the hall, or simply if they’re making it hard to hear the speaker?

    I can see arguing it both ways–it gives context for why some of the speakers are stopping or stumbling, but it also may magnify the disruptions of a tiny handful of delegates.

    I don’t really have a problem with the between-speech interviews with Bernie diehards. Some of them are even making good points–like yeah, it is a disgrace that Democrats won’t endorse Medicare for all.

  • Thrax

    Well, yes and no. Yes, Sanders himself is now singing the right tune. But many were apprehensive that the stridency of his attacks on Clinton, and his insistence on staying in the race, and withholding an endorsement long past the point when the outcome was really in doubt, would harden some of his more intractable supporters and make them less likely to come around. That’s what seems to be happening at the convention, and if nothing else it’s not exactly giving Clinton the convention coverage she was looking for.

    Yes, to be fair, the e-mail controversy didn’t help. No telling whether there’d be the same kind of convention strife without that. But I think it’s fair to say that the thus-far acrimonious convention is not entirely unrelated to the way Bernie waged the primary battle.

    • Thrax

      But hopefully things like this will have some effect:

      After the first day of the Democratic convention was frequently interrupted by delegates for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) protesting calls to unify behind Hillary Clinton, the Vermont senator told his supporters Tuesday that their jeers would not stop a Donald Trump presidency.

      During a breakfast meeting with California delegates, attendees booed when Sanders said that they need to elect Clinton and defeat Trump. The senator then told the crowd that their jeers aren’t helpful.

      “It is easy to boo, but it’s harder to look your kids in the face who would be living under Donald Trump,” he said.

      http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanders-easy-to-boo

      • Brad Nailer

        Part of me wanted Booker or Warren to interrupt their speeches and say to the catcallers, “I’ve got the fucking podium, so you can shut the fuck up or leave.” It probably wouldn’t have worked, but it would’ve made for great TV.

    • Russell Arben Fox

      But many were apprehensive that the stridency of his attacks on Clinton, and his insistence on staying in the race, and withholding an endorsement long past the point when the outcome was really in doubt, would harden some of his more intractable supporters and make them less likely to come around.

      But as I and many, many others have said all along, the only way Sanders was going to have the affect we all wanted him to have on the inevitable winner was to, you know, try to win. The hardening of the activists was an unavoidable–and, frankly, not entirely negative–consequence of trying to win. As Timothy Burke put it this morning, if your sense of momentum is so fragile that some rude, loud-mouth booing is seen as undermining the whole thing, you’ve for much worse problems to deal with.

      • so-in-so

        Did he need to label the party in which he was running as corrupt to try to win? A novel tactic, but not one I want to see emulated (except to the extend trump does it on the right).

        • MyNameIsZweig

          That really was a stupid tactic on his part, but I’m not convinced it’s going to have the long-term consequences that some people seem to be expecting.

      • Thrax

        I’m not finding this persuasive. Clinton tried to win in 2008. She got a lot closer to winning than Sanders did. And yet I don’t remember her supporters booing Obama at the convention (and they had similar “rigging” theories; they weren’t ultimately persuasive, but her supporters sure believed in them). I don’t remember Ted Cruz supporters booing Donald Trump last week either, and Cruz wasn’t much further from winning the nomination than Sanders was (and might have been closer had he not dropped out in April). The Sanders campaign led to convention strife with no recent parallel. Maybe it’s the e-mails, but I don’t think that’s all of it.

        Not sure where Burke said that, but not persuaded by that either. Convention coverage is one of the very few times a lot of low-information voters tune in to the campaign. Screwing up the coverage of it can have consequences. You can’t just wish it away.

        • so-in-so

          Didn’t you see T’s post? We totally have to invade protest now that we have PROOF of WMD rigging!

          • Pat

            Thing is, she’s a woman. You have a lot of guys on the internet who threaten and harass women for basically existing. I’m really not surprised that out of several thousand people, a couple are diehards who cannot, will not stand for a woman who seeks power.

            It’s so primal, I think it’s got to be misogyny.

        • And yet I don’t remember her supporters booing Obama at the convention (and they had similar “rigging” theories; they weren’t ultimately persuasive, but her supporters sure believed in them).

          I think they were too busy looking for the “Whitey Tape” to show up and boo.

        • MyNameIsZweig

          Convention coverage is one of the very few times a lot of low-information voters tune in to the campaign. Screwing up the coverage of it can have consequences. You can’t just wish it away.

          Jesus, this isn’t Chicago 1968 here. If HRC’s candidacy can be derailed by a few people booing in the convention hall, then we’re in much deeper trouble as a republic than I had realized.

          • so-in-so

            then we’re in much deeper trouble as a republic than I had realized.

            I guess you didn’t hear, the GOP nominated Donald Trump on a basically Fascist platform….

      • ThrottleJockey

        Yeah couldn’t agree more.

      • But as I and many, many others have said all along, the only way Sanders was going to have the affect we all wanted him to have on the inevitable winner was to, you know, try to win.

        Which he did. But he didn’t feel the need to make a big deal out of the email non-scandal in order to try to win. Because he didn’t need to do that (and it probably would have backfired). Similarly, as other people pointed out, he didn’t need to label the DNC as fundamentally corrupt in order to try to win. I doubt that had much marginal gain anyway.

        He certainly didn’t need to hang on as long as he did to have tried to win. We can debate whether hanging on through CA and DC was helpful in any way (I tend to think not) and whether the delay in conceding and endorsing was helpful (again, I suspect not very). None of those were required to be trying to win and arguably not even evidence thereof.

        • so-in-so

          Getting Cornel West on the platform committee was such a win!

      • djw

        the only way Sanders was going to have the affect we all wanted him to have on the inevitable winner was to, you know, try to win.

        Can you point to, or give a sketch of an account of, how the switch to bogus nonsense about an unfair/’rigged’ process in April/May plausibly increased his chances of winning? I just don’t see it. It’s a message that seems tailored to a particular slice of his core supporters, not winning new ones.

    • rewenzo

      Well, yes and no. Yes, Sanders himself is now singing the right tune. But many were apprehensive that the stridency of his attacks on Clinton, and his insistence on staying in the race, and withholding an endorsement long past the point when the outcome was really in doubt, would harden some of his more intractable supporters and make them less likely to come around. That’s what seems to be happening at the convention, and if nothing else it’s not exactly giving Clinton the convention coverage she was looking for.

      I really don’t see the evidence of this, or even that this is particularly plausible.

      It seems much more likely to me that there already existed a core constituency of people who don’t like Clinton, whom Sanders did not invent nor enlarge. They attached themselves to Sanders because (1) he opposed Clinton; (2) he is personally appealing; and (3) his policies are closer to where they want politics to be. These people are not Sanders’ minions and to the extent the Bernie-or-bust-types are a toxic subgroup of leftist voters, they were already toxic without any help or input from Sanders, and merely continued to vehemently oppose Clinton as was always their inclination.

      Also, as an aside “the stridency of his attacks on Clinton?” Let’s not make more of this than it was. It was a hard fought primary campaign, but it wasn’t particularly vicious. If candidates can’t criticize each other “stridently” why bother holding these things? It doesn’t even rate next to any of the numerous simultaneous contests on the Republican side.

      • Dilan Esper

        As far as I can tell, the only “strident” attack any Hillarybot identifies is about corruption. The rest is a bunch of dumb unproven claims about timing.

        And the corruption attack CLEARLY qualifies as “trying to win”. No way could Sanders win without hammering the Goldman Sachs issue and connecting it to her and her husband’s positions on deregulation and general proximity to rich bankers.

        If HRC didn’t want to be called corrupt, she could have been less corrupt. Give back all the speech money, or better yet, don’t take hundreds of thousands of dollars for almost no work when you know you will be running for president and people will want to buy access. But blaming Sanders for trying to win? Come on.

        • veleda_k

          Yeah, she should have returned the International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association’s money. And the American Camping Association’s. Wouldn’t want anyone to think she’s in the pocket of Big Camping.

          Plenty of politicians before Clinton gave paid speeches before their presidential campaigns. It just didn’t incite this level of outrage until HRC did it.

      • Thrax

        These people are not Sanders’ minions and to the extent the Bernie-or-bust-types are a toxic subgroup of leftist voters, they were already toxic without any help or input from Sanders, and merely continued to vehemently oppose Clinton as was always their inclination.

        Then do you have a theory for why this “toxic subgroup” is disrupting the Democratic convention in 2016 and why no other convention in memory featured similar antics? Because all of the other factors you describe are true of roughly every contested primary campaign ever.

        It was a hard fought primary campaign, but it wasn’t particularly vicious.

        Well, on Clinton’s side, it was really incredibly gentle. Clinton barely even criticized him. Sanders went a fair amount further, and while there have been harsher campaigns, calling your opponent corrupt is fairly tough.

        It doesn’t even rate next to any of the numerous simultaneous contests on the Republican side.

        True, though that may just mean that Republicans are better about falling in line.

        • rewenzo

          Then do you have a theory for why this “toxic subgroup” is disrupting the Democratic convention in 2016 and why no other convention in memory featured similar antics? Because all of the other factors you describe are true of roughly every contested primary campaign ever.

          Yeah, the toxic subgroup hates Hillary Clinton and this is the only Democratic convention at which she has been the nominee. My point is that these were people who backed Sanders primarily because they opposed Clinton first, and backed Sanders second. Sanders was the vehicle for their opposition to Clinton. There was nothing Sanders could do to make them more likely to vote for Clinton because it was never about their obeisance to Sanders but their hatred for Clinton.

          Well, on Clinton’s side, it was really incredibly gentle. Clinton barely even criticized him. Sanders went a fair amount further, and while there have been harsher campaigns, calling your opponent corrupt is fairly tough.

          In the context of a primary season where candidates were literally comparing the sizes of their dicks and labeling each other psychopaths and child molesters, I find it very unlikely that Sanders, by implying or even outright stating that HRC was corrupt, appreciably coarsened the discourse.

          True, though that may just mean that Republicans are better about falling in line.

          In my universe, Bernie Sanders has endorsed Hilary Clinton and given an enthusiastic speech at her convention, which every significant Democratic politician is attending. Meanwhile, the man who finished second to Donald Trump pointedly refused to endorse him even as he spoke at his convention, and numerous senior members of the Republic party boycotted said convention.

          • Thrax

            Yeah, the toxic subgroup hates Hillary Clinton and this is the only Democratic convention at which she has been the nominee.

            It’s just possible that there have been other primary contests in which some supporters of the runner-up hated the nominee. And yet it’s not a routine event for said supporters, or even a small faction of them, to disrupt the convention by booing whenever the nominee is mentioned.

            I find it very unlikely that Sanders, by implying or even outright stating that HRC was corrupt, appreciably coarsened the discourse.

            I don’t care about the discourse. I’m asking whether that was a sufficiently harsh attack that his supporters were convinced they shouldn’t back Clinton in the general.

            • rewenzo

              It’s just possible that there have been other primary contests in which some supporters of the runner-up hated the nominee. And yet it’s not a routine event for said supporters, or even a small faction of them, to disrupt the convention by booing whenever the nominee is mentioned.

              Clinton is a particularly hated candidate on both the left and right, and I didn’t think this was really disputed? Polling confirms she has unusually high unfavorables, and her relative unpopularity has been regularly complained about, including on this blog. People were complaining about Clinton’s “coronation” well before Sanders got into the race, and Clinton has been accused of corruption well before Sanders got into the race.

              Even if candidates are not “routinely” booed at conventions, it is a thing that can happen. Because of her relative unpopularity, if a candidate were to be booed a little bit at her convention, I would have guessed it would be Clinton. There is no need to blame this on Bernie Sanders.

              I don’t care about the discourse. I’m asking whether that was a sufficiently harsh attack that his supporters were convinced they shouldn’t back Clinton in the general.

              Yeah I don’t see it. It’s not like Sanders invented the concept of Clinton cronyism.

              • Thrax

                Polling confirms she has unusually high unfavorables, and her relative unpopularity has been regularly complained about, including on this blog.

                Negatives at 55% rather than, say, 40-45% might explain the presence of a few more detractors in the hall. They don’t explain why some of those detractors would start booing. After any primary, there are more than enough people who don’t like the nominee to cause the sort of disruptions that happened yesterday; it doesn’t take a lot in absolute numbers. There sure as hell were enough in 2008. And yet 2016 was different.

                There are potential explanations that have nothing to do with Sanders’s conduct. Sanders supporters were disproportionately not Democrats in the first place and therefore had no a priori commitment to a smooth convention process. They were disproportionately young and not familiar with the “let’s all get along now” ethos that prevails at most conventions. The rise of social media made it much easier to coordinate responses. The e-mails, etc.

                My point is that I’m not willing to conclude that it was okay that Bernie held out far past the bitter end, attacked Clinton as corrupt, etc., because look, everything turned out fine. Things don’t appear to be fine at this juncture.

                • Pat

                  (it’s because she’s a woman)

            • MyNameIsZweig

              I’m asking whether that was a sufficiently harsh attack that his supporters were convinced they shouldn’t back Clinton in the general.

              Apparently not, since the vast majority of them are doing just that. And the ones who aren’t, never would have no matter what Bernie did, because many of them aren’t Democrats anyway.

    • JL

      I think the idea that BoBers would have now been cool with Clinton if only Sanders had endorsed her earlier is ludicrous. The strains of thought represented by BoBers have been around long before the Sanders campaign. Sanders didn’t create them, they just gravitated to his campaign.

      • Thrax

        “Cool with” is not the question. “Disrupting the convention” is.

  • keta

    I thought Sanders’ speech last night was really, really good. He enumerated the many causes his campaign championed and then urged the burden of carrying these planks forward onto the shoulders of Clinton and her presidential campaign, while offering his full support. He had the right balance of celebratory and congratulatory, and then reminded everyone that the heavy work is ahead and that success is best achieved together.

    And fuck the little sparkles of specialness that felt their mid-speech mewling last night served any purpose.

    • rjayp

      agree.

    • Scott Lemieux

      Agreed. It’s brutal having to follow Michelle Obama but Warren and Sanders both gave very good speeches. Ellison was good too.

      • Turangalila

        I felt like Ellison’s text was better than his delivery though. He stumbled over some parts; possibly rattled by the ‘bros? I haven’t heard him much before to compare tho’

      • los

        Michelle Obama – real life inspirational (not my thing)

        but Warren – trump nemesis (woot) flamethrower.
        and Sanders – get to work, roll up sleeves, man the oars.

        Ellison (missed completely, but I was in and out during all of it except M Obama’s)

        I don’t recall my impression of DWS…

    • D.N. Nation

      Can the Twitter Outrage Court do something good for once in its life and toss that one special snowflake Vermont delegate into Internet Jail? Oh, the poor little thing had to, like, sit! and listen! to other people talking! And Bernie only came on at 10:30 (aka the PRIME TALKING SPOT)! It wasn’t fawwwwr!

      Engage young voters, sure. But I refuse to kowtow to arrogant lost causes like this one here.

      • los

        young voters
        The lost cause attitude is innacurately: APOCALYPTIC THE END !!!
        In reality, class war is never over.

        (I’m guessing at that VT delegate, because haven’t seen what you mention)

  • twbb

    Do people like Stein and her supporters just think that a majority of the electorate are progressive? Or do they think a truly progressive candidate would just convert the rest of America?

    • so-in-so

      They think we will learn to like it after they show us what’s good for us. “Democracy” only matters if it facilitates their ends.

    • brad

      I suspect they rarely move past the empty circular “logic” of “sure, it’s not realistic to say Stein could win, but it’s only because we believe it that it’s true, maaaaan”.
      The good news is that most will, eventually, grow up a bit.

    • Jill Stein takes a homeopathic approach to politics: one pure progressive part per million will fix everything.

      • so-in-so

        +7%

      • Rob in CT

        Oh, WIN.

      • Scott Lemieux

        I’m totally going to later originate that.

      • Very nice!

      • leftwingfox

        +10C

      • Perfect! Well done, sir. A sugar tablet with you.

    • Lost Left Coaster

      They think that if Jill Stein could just showcase her charisma and brilliance in a political debate on the teevee, then the dominoes would all fall and the two party system would collapse forever.

    • NewishLawyer

      I suspect that they would make a sort of argument that conservative ideologues make. “Leftism can’t fail, it can only be failed” and argue that the people have never been given a true liberal or left-wing candidate to vote for and if they were….

      The issue is that I think a lot of liberals (even ones who are dedicated to the Democratic Party) lead pretty insular lives and don’t realize that they are only a plurality of the Democratic Party and certainly not a plurality of the nation.

      The Democratic Party is a broad coalition consisting of various minority groups (racial, ethnic, religious, sexual), white women with college degrees, whites with advanced degrees, environmentalists, trade unionists, etc. People can belong to one or more of these groups. Sometimes the groups have overlapping goals and other times they are diametrically opposed to each other.

      The problem seems to me is that the groups largely live separate lives. Your upper-middle class liberal Democrats with graduate degrees and hipsterish tastes are probably not talking much with middle-aged African-American women, etc.

      • FlipYrWhig

        Yup. Basically every bad blogosphere analysis of American politics stems from considering the readership of the blogosphere as the Democratic base. IMHO Bernie Sanders’s campaign fell short because he DIDN’T engage the Democratic base, because the Democratic base is people of color, middle-aged women, and those who are both.

        • NewishLawyer

          I think that there are a lot left-leaning white guys who don’t quite realize that they are not part of the HRC base or just a small part of the Democratic Party overall. They like to concern troll for Trump while not analyzing their HRC hate.

          At the same time, it is sort of annoying that Kaine can get denounced as a boring white dude.

          The clashes are complicated in urban politics because you do have upper-middle class parents fighting with minority parents over educational issues and budgets. I’ve been concerned trolled that the GOP can pick up among the white upper-middle class parents and a new “White Pride” can come to Brooklyn instead of Steve King’s congressional district.

    • Aaron Morrow
      • Turkle

        Wow. I did not know about this.

      • Lost Left Coaster

        I pretty much lost it for the Green Party during the California recall election of Governor Gray Davis. A group of us progressive activists in a small liberal California city had breakfast with Green Party candidate Peter Camejo, and he made his case not only for his candidacy but also for a “yes” vote on the recall against Davis. And he lost me on that: I mean, the entire recall against Davis was orchestrated by Darrell Issa and was a complete Republican power grab in a state where their power was waning fast. This was so transparent, too. I was still young so I felt a pang of guilt after meeting Camejo but still going to the voting booth and pulling the lever for both “no” on the recall and also selecting Cruz Bustamante, the uninspiring Democratic candidate in the race, as Davis’s replacement. And, of course, the rest is history and we got Arnold Schwarzenegger. But I was appalled that the Greens were willing to jump on board with Issa’s bullshit recall and try to say that Davis had done anything remotely meriting the recall.

    • Redwood Rhiadra

      Do people like Stein and her supporters just think that a majority of the electorate are progressive?

      Yes, they absolutely do. Talk to them for any length of time and they’ll start spouting stuff like “70% of Republicans support single payer”. They honestly believe that if the left just gave up on what they derisively call “identity politics” (aka abandon minorities and women) and concentrated on The Great Class War, that GOP voters would switch sides.

      (The fact that minority and women voters would, rightfully, abandon them in such an event never penetrates their skulls.)

    • a_paul_in_mtl

      Oh, they think that the reason why people don’t vote progressive is down entirely to “lesser of two evil” politics. If we were only to all stick firmly to our principles instead, a hitherto silent AND invisible majority of “true progressives” (which are not at all an exclusive club for the noble few who are pure at heart) would come from the shadows and take its rightful place in the broad, sunlit uplands of history in the making!

      A somewhat more nuanced view says that actually, that wouldn’t happen, but that’s because of corporate controlled media. So what people want isn’t what they actually want, it’s what we know they would want if only they knew what we know.

      • a_paul_in_mtl

        “Lesser of two evils” politics!

      • los

        So what people want isn’t what they actually want, it’s what we know they would want if only they knew what we know.
        Close enough. Famously, “I’m against Obamacare, but I’m for the Affordable Care Act”
        And others.

        that’s because of corporate controlled media
        Evidently.
        http://frankellyvaldez.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Uncle-Suds-Logo.jpg

    • TroubleMaker13

      Neither. They have no interest in winning or governing and no clue how to do either even if they did. They’re just spoilers, plain and simple.

    • DrDick

      Most Americans actually are progressives, or at least strongly support very progressive policies. They are not so wild about the label, however, and they also tend to favor some substantial signs of competence and experience.

      • Rob in CT

        I think the truth here is in between.

        As in, Americans are more progressive than the label themselves, but less progressive than a credulous reading of poll data might indicate.

        When push comes to shove, it turns out a lot of that supposed support for progressive policies is really weak. Far more people will say “yeah, that sounds fine” in a poll, but when it comes to actually doing it, a significant % get cold feet.

        For example, that poll that had ~50% of Republicans in favor of single-payer. Yeah, right, pull the other one.

  • NewishLawyer

    There are seemingly a lot of adults who fail to learn moral and ethical complexity. This includes adults who somehow made it through graduate/professional school without picking up on moral and ethical complexity.

    I don’t understand the idea of “lesser of two evils” as an argument. Trump is clearly evil. HRC and the Democratic Party are not perfect but they are far from evil.

    The world is complex, resources are limited (including time and energy), and there are a lot issues where there is no clear or necessarily morally correct answer but a serious of pros and cons and trade-offs with whichever course you pick.

    Yet there are seemingly grown-ass people who seem to think that allowing for moral and ethical complexity sullies themselves. I sort of get it in college students but beyond that…..

    • Frequently Confused

      Quit living in the real world and come join us in fantasyland. The rainbows are beautiful and there are pots of gold at the end of each one. (Also ponies, but that’s a given)

    • Steve LaBonne

      I think “seemingly” is the operative word in that next to last sentence.

    • Nick056

      My memory is that books like Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent, or at least the ideas therein, influence the dead-ender types to reject any “compromise.”

      When you see the two-party system as an elite creation that perpetuates itself through the media by setting the agenda and marginalizing alternative sources of power, resistance is imperative. If consent is truly manufactured, compromise is doing the work of the machine.

      Shorter: there are people who read about the Hearst papers contributing to jingoism during the Spanish-American war, and their takeaway is to never vote Democrat. It’s nutty but it makes sense if you can’t accept that an elite cabal doesn’t run everything.

      • Steve LaBonne

        The thing is, this is partially true in some less lurid sense in any functioning society – there is always an “establishment”. The sane conclusion is that you will get nowhere trying to confront it head-on and that real non-destructive change comes from patiently, partly from within and partly from just outside, nudging it in the right direction.

      • Funny thing is Chomsky said if he was living in a swing state he’d vote for HRC.

        • Steve LaBonne

          I disagree with Chomsky as often as I agree with him, but I respect him. Unlike some of his devotees, he’s neither stupid nor insane.

        • Matt McIrvin

          He’s said similar things in previous election cycles.

      • a_paul_in_mtl

        “If consent is truly manufactured, compromise is doing the work of the machine.”

        Funnily enough, though, these folks tend to be very selective in how they choose to “resist the machine”. They do not, for example, eschew the compromises with the system involved in paying taxes to Uncle Sam, buying goods and services from corporations, paying rent, going to university, (quite often) working for corporations, and so on.

        Chomsky himself works for MIT, but then he never said that it follows from the “Manufacturing Consent” model, which is actually a very useful way of understanding certain things, that people should never sully themselves with compromise.

        • NewishLawyer

          I wonder what sort of economy do they think a revolution will produce that will get rid of all these compromises.

    • a_paul_in_mtl

      “There are seemingly a lot of adults who fail to learn moral and ethical complexity.”

      For some people, the very acknowledgement of the existence of moral and ethical complexity is a sure sign of moral and ethical degeneracy.

      • NewishLawyer

        These are called kindergarten students.

    • TroubleMaker13

      There are seemingly a lot of adults who fail to learn moral and ethical complexity. This includes adults who somehow made it through graduate/professional school without picking up on moral and ethical complexity.

      In fact, there seem to be some who *go to* graduate/professional school primarily to burnish their credentials in reducing moral/ethical complexity to cartoonish black-and-white.

    • los

      I don’t understand the idea of “lesser of two evils”
      Whoever originated the term, probably founded it on cynical view that all politics is/are evil.

      For me, “lesser evil” is a name for incremental battle/war strategy.

  • destinvil

    The “dead-enders” are so not representative of the remainder of Bernie’s coalition of voters that the constant references to them rather than to legitimate voters is annoying and distracting

    • Rob in CT

      The dead-enders made a scene yesterday at the convention.

      I get being tired of the media pumping them up to be (far) more than they are – I feel that way too. At this moment, however, I can’t find fault with Scott or others talking about them.

      • efgoldman

        The dead-enders made a scene yesterday at the convention.

        It amazes me that the dead-enders know, and have learned, so little about politics that they haven’t learned basic arithmetic.
        Why, it’s almost like they were Republiklowns.

    • a_paul_in_mtl

      The reason for referring to them is to 1) Make the very point you are making but seem to feel should go without saying, even though the media is largely depicting it otherwise , and 2) Because their arguments are, as always, worth refuting.

      Because however marginal they are, this election is looking a lot too close for comfort, which means we cannot afford to allow the Busters’ false equivalencies any quarter in the public arena. After all, the Nader campaign was marginal in terms of actual number of votes but still apparently managed to swing one state and also fed into the general media narrative that allowed people to think that it wouldn’t much matter if Bush won.

    • los

      What happened to the noble fartathon? Did it deflate prematurely or was it covered up by the coverup of another liberal media coverup?

      • so-in-so

        It ran out of gas.

        • calling all toasters

          Gone with the wind.

          • so-in-so

            It’s an ill wind…

  • Cheerful

    I was reading a Bernie or Bust facebook group and apparently the plan if he does not win the roll call (the possibility that he just might is still alive and well in their hearts) than their supporting delegates are to make a showy mass exit. Which will be kind of clarifying I think, presumably leaving the majority of Bernie delegates there to be part of the Democratic party.

    • so-in-so

      So in their heart of hearts they think Clinton will lack a majority?

      • humanoid.panda

        I seriously think this is the right, proper and democratic thing to do. If you can’t accept that the outcome is legitimate, for whatever reason, then exit is the democratic option- not staying and trying to sabotage the proceedings.

        • humanoid.panda

          And I think that in turn, the DNC should take the credentials of walk out delegates. A divorce is a divorce.

          • so-in-so

            Maybe cancel their room and travel arraignments, if those where on the DNC dime, as well.

            Yeah, I think they pay their own way, and that would probably backfire anyway in the press. Interesting to think about.

        • D.N. Nation

          Nah, man, yelling NO TPP when black Congressmen are talking about voting rights (boooooriiiiiing!) is what The People want to hear!

          • Frequently Confused

            That part really bothered me. Not sure why exactly, but it made me angry and hostile towards the Busters.

            • so-in-so

              It was emblematic of one of the Sander,s campaigns big problems.

              • los

                offshoring those Detroit jobs…

        • efgoldman

          exit is the democratic option- not staying and trying to sabotage the proceedings.

          If you’re a delegate to a party convention, the proper and democratic thing to do is either shut the fuck up or join the inevitable motion for nomination by acclamation.
          That’s why you’re there. To count votes and act on what the party, as delegates and an organization, has decided by votes.
          Otherwise take your special snowflake ass on your purity pony, and ride it somewhere else. There’s serious work to be done.

          • N__B

            What goes up, must come down
            Electoral spin going round
            Talkin’ ’bout your troubles, primaries past
            Ride a purity pony, with your snowflake ass

            • efgoldman

              Ride a purity pony, with your snowflake ass

              Funny, you don’t look like David Clayton Thomas.
              (A frat brother of mine played with BS&T on two or three albums.)

              • N__B

                We sang that song at my high school graduation. In retrospect, a pretty strange choice.

      • N__B

        In their heart, they’re not very smart.

    • brad

      They don’t seem to understand they’re not taking the ball home with them, tho. Poor kids.

    • Davis X. Machina

      Just so long as the bolters don’t re-convene in Richmond and nominate Breckenridge.

  • a_paul_in_mtl

    So I Guess This Means “Bust”

    “Bernie or Bust
    In Bernie we trust”

    But now we don’t because
    He’s turned traitor to the cause
    By supporting Hillary
    How could he do that to me?

    He was supposed to be our savior
    Well worth blessing with my vote
    Now he’s gone out of favor
    ‘Cos he’s nothing but a turncoat!

    And now upon that ballot
    His name I will not find
    So I’ll have to bite the bullet
    And settle for Jill Stein

  • This.

    The busters are voting from a place of privilege. They are a small minority of Sanders’ supporters.

    To paraphrase Bernie from last night, the important thing is defeating Trump, not the insignificant bullshit that the media focuses on.

  • los

    he could have handled better towards the end of the campaign
    Sanders’s “contested convention” threat… which i guess was always leverage on the platform. that was probably obvious to campaign pros.

  • Alex.S
    • Rob in CT

      Good to see most folks returning to sanity (King said some really silly things about a month ago, as I recall).

    • sam

      It’s about fucking time. I’ll give him some credit for saying this publicly, after all of the shit he was spewing over the past few months.

  • Rob in CT

    Simultaneously frustrating and hopeful:

    http://www.vox.com/2016/7/26/12285822/why-sanders-delegates-boo

    Activist values and conventions are a poor match

    No angry Sanders delegates I’ve spoken to over the course of Monday and Tuesday can really offer a coherent theory for why it’s important to make noise at the convention. Nobody thinks they’re one “No TPP!” chant away from Clinton stepping aside in Sanders’s favor, and they all understand that Sanders himself has clearly and repeatedly asked them to knock it off.

    Certainly they don’t want Clinton to lose — I’ve yet to find a “Bernie or Bust”-er among the lot. At the same time, they also concede that convention disruptions reflect poorly on Clinton and marginally reduce her chances of winning.

    It all seems bizarre — until you realize that, as Solomon said, activists are here to speak truth to power.

    Teva Gabis-Levine is one of two designated “whips” for Sanders among the state’s delegates. He acknowledges that he was one of the earliest to hear Monday afternoon that Bernie wanted him to get people in line. But he just didn’t do it.

    “In my capacity as whip I chose not to pass that information along,” Gabis-Levine says. He thought people had a right to “express themselves.”

    That’s the frustrating bit.

    • JL

      This seems oversimplified but astute. I’ve thought for a while that a lot of the BoBers and angrier delegates are mostly confused about context. The delegates like those quoted are trying to bring street protest tactics to a convention. And the BoBers outside, who I’ve had a little time to observe, have been approaching a primary in a way that makes more sense strategically for a non-electoral cause – make noise, don’t let power tell you to stop, stick with your cause even in the face of setbacks or mainstream derision. But that doesn’t work if your cause is a candidate. Candidacies have different life-cycles and relationships with institutions of power than issues.

      It seems worth noting that there are a lot of causes being demonstrated for in Philly too. I’ve seen people assume all the protests are about Sanders. Not so.

      • Rob in CT

        Oversimplified – well, yeah, it’s a blogpost by Yggy. :)

        But yes – activism vs. party politics does seem to be a useful way of thinking about this.

  • Matt McIrvin

    I’m seeing so many Busters on social media, especially on my erstwhile favorite, Google+. There’s something about West Coast white guy tech culture that attracts these people. Some on Facebook too.

    A few of them worship the ground Sanders walks on, but most don’t; I don’t even think most of them were ever really Bernie-or-Busters. They’re just plain Busters, spreading poxes on all available houses, who may have been momentarily Bernie-curious at some point but pop up to tell us that everything is just rigged by the 1% and maybe Trump blowing up the system to kick everyone in the ass with a dose of concentrated evil is what we really need. They seem to hate Hillary Clinton with supernova intensity; somehow she symbolizes everything they hate about the whole world.

    And I think most of them are not young.

    • Matt McIrvin

      It also occurs to me that living in California would do little to foster the impression that your individual vote in a presidential election actually matters.

It is main inner container footer text