Democratic Establishment’s Thuggish Power Grab at Nevada Convention

Posted on by

Apparently annoyed at Sanders supporters having managed to take advantage of Clinton delegate candidate no-shows to obtain more spots, the Nevada state party put through rule changes weeks before the state convention that gave the meeting chair complete and arbitrary control of the final step in the delegate certification process. That in turn produced a convention that was entirely undemocratic in the small d sense, with some Sanders delegates who had won their positions via the then-existing rules being stripped of their standing. In addition, the meeting was run on authoritarian lines, with party members offering pro-Sanders motions having the microphones cut off and the meeting being terminated with motions still on the floor. Don’t buy Twitterverse claims that the meeting was run in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order; accepting a motion to adjourn without a second was one of many dubious procedures.

As Lambert remarked, “This is Clinton’s idea of a party unity strategy.”

V63OIPG

I suggest you read this post by John Laurits in full (hat tip martha r), but the opening section makes clear what was at stake (emphasis original):

Greetings, my friends! As many of you have probably heard, “tensions were high” at the state convention in Nevada yesterday. Now, because CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the usual “news” outlets seem to have forgotten to mention it, I’ve decided (as usual) to step in to inform you all and clean up the mess of misinformation.

You see, all of this happened because there has been a bit of a misunderstanding between the “Democratic” Party and ourselves — they’ve been laboring under the impression that we — you know, the people — are supposed to subserviently accept what the democratic party officials have decreed but — meanwhile — we (having been misled by the word “democratic” being in their name) thought that we would get to have a say in choosing our nominee for president. As you can guess, this embarrassing miscommunication has led to a lot of confusion — but worry not! I believe that we can clear all of that up in this article by taking a look at a few numbers. First up, let’s talk about…

1,693 and 1,662

Those were the numbers of both Clinton and Sanders delegates that were at the state “democratic” convention in Nevada on Saturday — well, actually, those are the numbers of delegates that were allowed to participate in the convention on Saturday — and, as you can see:

1,693 – 1,662 = 31

Clinton had 31 more delegates inside of the convention — which wasn’t very good news for the Sanders supporters yesterday. But wait! There’s another number that you should probably know about and that is…

64

64† is the number of Bernie Sanders delegates that were not allowed to participate — this is because they were de-certified and denied entry into the convention. I’ll only point out the obvious — that 64 delegates would have been immensely useful for the Sanders-supporters, who were 31 short of Clinton’s suddenly higher delegate count.

Now, at this point, many of you may find yourselves wondering, “what do you mean ‘de-certified?’ How does that work?” Well, it’s really quite fascinating — let me tell you!

First, I’ll need to quickly explain that the Nevada caucuses are a three-tiered process — the first tier was made up of the caucuses that were held on Feb. 20th, which Clinton narrowly won with 52.6% to Sanders’ 47.3%. The second tier was made up of county conventions, which Bernie Sanders’ delegates ended up winning because a large portion of Clinton delegates simply couldn’t be bothered to show up and, therefore, didn’t vote. The third, and final, tier was the state convention, where the delegate counts in Nevada were to be finalized — which is what happened yesterday.

Now, what happened at the convention!?

Yesterday morning, around 9:30AM (while many delegates were still in line to get in ), the leadership at the convention, led by Roberta Lange, decided to hold a quick “voice vote” (essentially, a shouting match between the two sides) about whether to change the rules of the convention. Now, I must warn you — prepare to get angry. The rule change that they voted about was, in a nutshell, to disregard the results of the second-tier county conventions — where Sanders’ had won — and only to count the results of the first-tier caucus that Clinton had won. I’d like to remind you that this “voice vote” was held before all of the delegates were present and — as is fairly clear in this videowas, at the very least, inconclusive.

This report by Nevada Congressional candidate Dan Rolle (hat tip martha r) gives a good account of what transpired at the convention:

This is the short version, again from the YouTube page:

I made a quick video explaining the backstory behind the convention. It’s too important to simply watch the videos and look away. You need to understand why it happened:

Basically, NDems enacted some rules that were designed to give convention authority to the state chair. You can read about that here:

https://www.change.org/p/nevada-state-democratic-party-tell-nvdems-to-not-steal-our-democracy-at-the-state-convention

That group challenged these rules in court. That challenge was denied, essentially because the court didn’t feel it should intervene in party politics.

Fast forward – The same group gets the requisite number of signatures to change these rules. Robert[a] ignores this, and enacts her rules:

You can see where she does this here:

https://youtu.be/Ka6SnkbuUPI?t=74

Fast forward. Clinton wins by a few delegates, but over 64 delegates were rejected. By the board she chose. The argument is that with these votes, Sanders wins. Also worth noting, many were turned away because they simply could not find parking.

At the end of the convention, we motioned the party platform. I called for Roberta’s removal here. My mic was cut:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGdcfeiwZw4

Fast forward: The delegates are counted. Roberta denies a recount, closes the convention at her discretion. She then bolts off stage. This, while being flanked by police.

Most of the videos are here:

Chaos At Nevada Democratic Convention; State Party Chair Flees Building As Sanders Supporters Demand Recount

Rolle concludes (9:13):

It didn’t have to happen. There’s no reason for that. All that board had to do was take a minute and listen, and bring those people into the discusssion. But I think we’re not talking about Hillary versus Bernie anymore. We’re way beyond that. Because the fact of the matter is that if Hillary legitimately had more people there, Hillary legitimately wins. OK. I get that, I think most most people understand that. That is not what we’re talking about. We are talking about a state party, and a national party, that are willing to usurp fairness in order to have their way. And that’s too bad.

Lambert, who followed events on Twitter last night, says the Washington Post and CNN reports were at best incomplete. He also pointed out that the Sanders supporters did an impressive job of organizing; seemingly taking lessons from both Occupy and Black Lives Matter, they streamed everything live. As a result, they were able to put events on the public record and get their story out.

After credible allegations of election tampering and vote suppression, this all-too-heavy-handed move to block Sanders voters is guaranteed to alienate Sanders voters. Don’t expect to find much brotherly love in Philadelphia.

Print Friendly
Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Reddit10Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Facebook0Share on LinkedIn1Share on Google+2Buffer this pageEmail this to someone

206 comments

  1. lb

    If Clinton makes it to the general and there are any voting/counting irregularities in Republican-controlled states, I do wonder whether her opponent will be nice enough not to bring this up. It wouldn’t be to showcase hypocrisy so much as to say that Clinton believes rules simply don’t apply to her, and that she gets a do-over in any situation that doesn’t go her way.

    I also wonder whether this will push the Brand New Congress effort to work outside the Democratic party entirely for 2018. Some of us are going to remember this a _very_ long time.

    1. Eaglemount

      Hillary: “I’m Winning!” Well, No wonder!

      http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/04/post_35.html

      3,000,000 + registered but unaffiliated voters purged in NY State. Similar numbers purged in other states such as OH, AZ, KS. Hillary claims to be ahead in popular votes by 2.500,000 but popular votes have not been tallied in caucus states like WA, NE, ME, IA, AK and others. Lawsuits pending in OH, AZ, NY and others over voting discrepancies.

      Over 90% of ‘Superdelegates’ , all signed up for Hillary, including all of our own here, in Washington State, where 75% of the votes went for Bernie! The same is the case with most other states where Sanders won. Our electeds believe we voters are stupid – too stupid to have a valid right to choose. And, when we get to the general election, the Electoral College will ‘interpret’ our vote for President.

      ‘Delegate math’ in a rigged election …. LOL!

      This would be laughable if it weren’t so strikingly important. What is at stake are the offices of the President, and Congress and our democracy.

      Earlier in this campaign I would have said Sander’s supporters would likely switch to Hillary, but now I don’t believe this will happen. The longer responsible voters witness the twisting of the democratic voting process by the DNC and Hillary’s ilk, the more support she, and any who benefit by this assault on our democracy, will lose.

      Hopefully, there will not be a voter ‘sit out’, ‘but a write in’, otherwise, progressive down ticket candidates will lose, as well and we may be faced with wild eyed hate clowns of the GOP.

      In fact, witnessing this farce unfold makes one wonder just who the REAL ‘clowns’ are: The racist GOP bigots extolling their ignorant hate; the Democratic Party, blatantly unraveling the democratic voting process; or we citizen voters who allow this to happen.

      A group is forming that seems to have a plan mapped out – BNC; Brand new Congress. And we sure as hell need one. I sent ’em some money. Check it out, you may find it interesting.

      https://brandnewcongress.org/

      Reader comment: “The Democrats neglect the fact that Bernie’s supporters are not seeking Democratic party unity. They want fundamental change in the system. ”

      Exactly!

      Post ’til your fingers bleed!

      1. redleg

        For voters like myself, the down ticket candidates are getting vetted by their support for Clinton. Support = Green vote.
        Change takes time and it has to start somewhere.

      2. Peaceful Journey

        This is a great comment Eaglemount. I wish I knew how to post it on twitter for everyone to read.

    2. Bob Corsaro

      When the weak complain of Injustice, the powerful throw their hands up and point to the “rules”. When the rules are beneficial to the powerful, they must be obeyed at all cost. Anything less would be chaos and anarchy.

      When the same rules harm the powerful, we are told to ignore them in the name of “sanity”. This is a game of “heads I win, tails you lose.” It’s a scam that is repeated, ad nauseam, right before our eyes, day in and day out.

  2. EndOfTheWorld

    Any time you are using a whole lot of rent-a-cop’s, there is something seriously amiss at your “meeting”. I’ve always wondered what legal authority those cops actually have in that situation. They’re being paid to show up in uniform on their off-duty time. That’s misappropriation of funds if they’re uniforms are provided by the city of Las Vegas and these guys go make some extra money as thugs at an event like this, IMHO.

    1. oho

      don’t know the specifics of situtation and the policies of LVPD,—–at special events organizers generally can request a uniformed police detachment for traffic control, etc (and pay their overtime).

      But given the number of police, it’s highly unlikely those guys were working crowd control at the convention beforehand.

      the police are likely regular-duty Strip officers who got called in en masse (by the casino or by the Democratic organizers—or both?)

      Brother is a police officer.

      1. Jake

        You have to wonder what was the internal thought process of the LVPD called in. If they are on duty, of course, as a paramilitary organization they have little choice in executing orders. But they have to be observing and thinking about what they are seeing. When does consciousness of the environment and conscience come into play?

        1. B1whois

          Don’t hold your breath. They are not paid to have a conscience, so it would take a lot to override that fact.

          1. Jake

            They are paid not to have a conscience. There fixed that for ya’. ;-) You have a point. It is truly remarkable how many people are available for those jobs. The banality of evil.

    2. Elizabeth Burton

      My initial observations was “How is it all that law enforcement was already in place? You’d think the people running the convention were afraid there might be a problem.” In other words, I doubt they were all just hanging out having a beer, which means someone made arrangements to have them on-site in advance. Why would they do that for an event that has occurred hundreds of times without the need for law-enforcement intervention?

  3. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

    Somebody please point me to the OccupyThe SuperDelegates Movement, you know, where we block them from entering their homes until they agree to vote what the PEOPLE want not just the BILLIONAIRES.
    Send lawyers guns and money: a few lawyers to slap nuisance suits on them at least, who knows, maybe a brain-dead news org would pick it up
    Get some outrage going
    Couple this with Boxer’s desperate pleas, first she says “I have a message from Bernie” but later she says “I’m for Hilary!”

  4. Presumptuous Insect

    It seems that the Clinton people are scared shitless of Bernie, or why this transparently corrupt process?

    1. Waldenpond

      The elite aren’t scared. The money just wants to move onto the second act of electoral theater the general election. It’s a plutocratic private club and can have whatever rules they want.

      The 1% have never had anything but contempt for the peasant class. Ds are even pretending they are screwing people over because they really, really care, they have dropped the veil.

      1. Larry Coffield

        Yes I agree, but dropping the veil is really huge. We knew what Nader said was true, but our denial system still had wiggle room to rationalize lesser evilism. Now, the gloves of neoliberal thuggery have been removed, and we are told green imperialism enwrapped in militarism is the only path . Save the planet via neofeudalism.

      2. Nathanael

        The problem is precisely that the 0.1% aren’t scared. They should be; they’ll probably mostly get shot in the coming revolution. But they never studied history and the dates 1789 and 1918 mean nothing to them.

  5. inode_buddha

    A couple things (Yes I am controlling myself here):

    1: Sanders supporters should live-stream *everything* as much as possible, and as early as possible from every event they attend. Said videos maybe useful later.
    2: Sanders supporters better start watching like a hawk for any further attempted rule changes, and contest them loudly and publicly.

    I’ll probably log in and say more later after my stomach settles down. My gut instinct is to get the best lawyers I can find (Cravath, Swaine and Moore).

    1. Uahsenaa

      The Sanders campaign has actually done a good job of rooting out shenanigans, the problem lies more in the available recourse, generally legal when not controlled by the party itself, and as we saw in New York, the time sensitive nature of the primary process is not amenable to the often slow pace of the court system, in which judges are loath to order recounts/redo’s after the fact. You have to win before the voting takes place, or there will be little recourse to undo any miscarriage of justice.

    2. hemeantwell

      First Black Lives Matter, now Sanders Voters Matter. Another portion of the state suppressive machinery is hung up to rot on the Internet. These apparatchiks still live in an administrative temporality in which the past was vulnerable to degrees of suppression or distortion that are no longer possible. They invoke rules and pound gavels in a way that no longer produces a finality but, instead, an indictment.

      1. ekstase

        I agree. There must have been other times in history when this occurred. I wonder what it was like when horse-drawn carriages and Model-T Fords rolled down the same streets for a while. There must have come a day when someone said, “Damn, my horse isn’t worth anything anymore, the writing’s on the wall.” (Cause that’s how they talked back then.) Or the days after the fall of ancient Rome, when somebody must have said, “I don’t know why, but I think we should eat out of pots that are not lined with lead, but lined with something different!” And thus, stopped being insane. Or, more currently, “Perhaps I should stop craving a McMansion and SUV, for I am not the only one on this planet.”

        There comes a time when we see a fork in the road, and a brief little moment when those clinging to the anachronism become hilarious.

    3. billybam

      FYI, courts will not hear cases of internal political party disputes. They are considered private organizations.

      1. inode_buddha

        Thanks for the info, I didn’t know that. OTOH, one good thing comes of all this — now Sanders supporters can try to block these kinds of tricks, now that they’ve seen how it happens. IOW, every move your opponent makes is a learning opportunity, and a way to defeat them.

      2. jrs

        This private party BS is just that. Yes maybe if we had dozens of competitive political parties I could accept that what they did is their own prerogative. But in a duopoly where only two parties rule over everyone? Nope not buying that they are private organizations. Complete BS.

      3. zapster

        Allowing private orgs to dictate who we can vote for. Hm, what could possibly go wrong? Seems to me a case can be made that it’s strongly in the public interest to nationalize these orgs. :\

  6. jgordon

    Clinton and the elites are treating the Democratic Party like the Pequot: “There she blows—the Presidency is in sight!” I’m sure it’ll work out well for everyone involved.

  7. Pavel

    This is going to be massive blowback from this latest display of Team Clinton shenanigans. I was just over at Daily Kos reading the Hillbots frantically trying to defend the Nevada actions. The Bernie supporters behaved raucously to be sure but what do people expect?

    Meanwhile we read how Trump is “Teflon Don” and his supporters don’t give a damn about his tax returns or his treatment of women — they just want to Throw The Bums out and Trump is leading the troops.

    Hillary (once again) is running a deeply flawed campaign, and we see Bill again putting his foot in his mouth on the trail. She may yet win the general, but it would be a Pyrrhic victory after defeating the Trump supporters and pissing off the Sanders ones in the process, and the House Repubs investigating her until kingdom come.

    There’s still a month or so to Philly. I suspect Biden is waiting on the sidelines. Anything can happen.

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      One of the problems with Trump reporting is that the media is now engaging in over-the-top attacks. They are getting as worked up over minor issues (like his impersonating his own publicist) as with serious ones (anti-Muslim racism, why is he hiding his tax returns, what the hell does he stand for?)

      If you look at the stories of entrepreneurial successes in the US, many founders speak of fakery much worse than Trump’s with pride. For instance, startups (from Faith Popcorn to IIRC Oracle) have created a Potemkin operation to convince early clients they were real (borrowing someone’s office space, getting friends to pose as employees, having other friends call while the prospect was visiting so as to appear in demand).

      And Trump’s sexism appears to be more tacky than vile. So he calls women who work for him “Honey”. Do we forget that Obama did that to a reporter? Trump’s never been accused of advances or leering. And he claim that he promoted and paid women appears to pan out. My God he had a female construction manager! That is a very important role just about NEVER filled by women.

      So by getting hysterical over minor stuff, the media is coming off as if it is crying “wolf,” which will undermine charges on more serious issues (unless they are incontrovertibly shocking).

      1. EoinW

        The first casualty of this election campaign was the credibility of the MSM. They continue to dig their own graves.

      2. Roquentin

        It’s the ol’ “narcissism of small differences.” The media desperately needs Trumps garish behavior that he’s something other than the same sort of center-right neoliberal who has run the country since Carter. And man, has it ever worked. The hysteria coming out of the liberal media is completely geared to make Clinton look better by comparison, which was the goal from square one. This kind of thing has its limits though, and people aren’t stupid. Soon enough, they see this for the crass, self-serving sensationalism that it is. We’re almost there already. You’re absolutely right this is damaging in the long term, and it will trivialize objection to Trump across the board.

        Even though I am vehemently opposed to him, I’m starting to think that a Trump presidency would serve the establishment right. He’d be a massive, flashing neon sign telling everyone that something is very, very wrong with our political system. A sign too compelling for anyone to ignore. On some level we’d all have to acknowledge that parts of our political system are broken, some probably beyond repair.

        1. JTMcPhee

          This link is to the op Ed by Sheldon Adelson, featured in this past Sunday’s editorial section of my local newspaper. Which used to be fairly decent, “democratic,” until “markets.”

          http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/sheldon-adelson-i-endorse-donald-trump-for-president/2277284

          I have not looked to see if Adelson now owns (legally) an interest in the merged unitary press entity that used to be Conservative Tampa Tribune, and Moderate St. Petersburg Times. Just another episode in the Great Adventure of Species Suicide…

          Other frequent “guests” are now Kristoff, George Will, David Brooks.

          Interesting that over at DKos, the “story” is about the “antidemocratic and repressive” actions of Bernie supporters at the NV convention. Challenging that gets your comments “hidden,” under Kos’s new policies of “all must heave together to haul that baggage over the finish line…”

          One of the Times’ better reporters, a guy named Howard Troxler, took his family and ran away to the hills of the Carolinas about six years ago — smart fella, he was well aware of the horror that is coming. And knew that us ordinary people who looked to him as a leader, not just an opinion leader (“Troxler for Congress!”) had no idea about how to protect ourselves and our “quaint notions” of constitutional democracy against the One Ring with its Two Rules… And its growing bands of Orcs and mountain trolls and Saruman types…

      3. BondsOfSteel

        Trump’s sexism is much worse. He clearly values women primarily based on their ‘beauty’. There are stories after stories of Trump parading women as trophies based on their looks. He tries to maintain a myth that the only women that work for him are beautiful and labels them as ‘Trump Women’. I don’t doubt that how you look in heels is a qualifier for employment.

        And the reason I said ‘beauty’ is because it’s a specific type (or brand) of beauty… blonde, white, skinny. OTOH, the man does own a beauty pageant… so… well… there’s that.

        1. jgordon

          If Trump chooses to staff his companies based on some bizarre and arbitrary physical characteristics–well that’s just his thing. Because he’s certainly not choosing attractive women for appearance-challenged women out there. Isn’t this important service in our wretched society that places so much unwarranted importance on image?

          I’m shaking my head in awe Trump’s magnanimity. If I were in his position I’d probably staff all of my companies with curvy Chinese women who have dark skin, fat cheeks and squinty eyes–which is just wrong. I don’t have half the openness and broad-mindedness of Trump, and that brings me sadness. I truly aspire to reach his inclusive and progressive values.

        2. jrs

          I’m pretty sure that just calling your female employees “Honey” violates workplace sexual harassment laws. But laws who needs those?

          1. optimader

            I’m pretty sure that just calling your female employees “Honey” violates workplace sexual harassment laws.

            What if her name is Honey?
            http://www.babycenter.com/baby-names-honey-2076.htm

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey_Rider
            Ok, that’s really Ursella Andress, but I still wouldn’t piss her off if shes holding a Gerber shark knife.

            BTW out of curiosity I did search (bing) the phrase “women who work for Trump”
            Apparently his only female employee is his daughter. or possibly he had her cloned??
            heard it hear first

          2. Yves Smith Post author

            No It may be seen as condescending but it’s not sexual harassment. Not even close.

            And there are bosses who condescend all the time.

          3. Pavel

            What about a CEO who has a “consensual” relationship with an intern in his office, despite a 30 year age difference? And then repeatedly lies about it when investigated by the corporate ethics department? And ends up costing the shareholders millions of dollars because of the resulting investigations due to his dishonesty?

            Just a thought experiment, mind you. Bill Clinton (for instance) would NEVER do such a thing.

        3. Yves Smith Post author

          You really need to smell the coffee.

          Overwhelmingly, hedge fund and PE funds and wealth management firms run by men hire only pretty to drop dead attractive women (to the extent they hire women in non-secretarial positions) for marketing. Certain companies hire only very good looking women for customer facing jobs.

          1. Pavel

            Not just hedge funds and wealth management firms. Just turn on the telly and watch Fox News, CNN, CNBC, Bloomberg etc. Lots of old white guys with grey hair teamed up with gorgeous Pouting Young Things (as Private Eye used to say IIRC). Hasn’t changed a bit since the 60s.

        4. aab

          I don’t really enjoy defending Trump. I believe he raped his wife Ivana. I do not think he is a good guy.

          But given that we’re supposed to be comparing him to Clinton, I can’t help but notice that his daughter seems pretty articulate, and that her father seems to trust her judgment and acumen. I am aware she is now in a dynastic marriage, but still. Chelsea, by contrast is FAR less impressive. I have read some of her “writing.” It’s unimpressive. Maybe this is merely a function of her having an innately undistinguished mind. But her parents don’t seem to have raised her to be in any way an independent thinker. She, more than Ivanka, has the life arc of a Victorian aristocratic daughter. And Hillary treats all women who are not obedient to her horribly.

          Again, not really defending Trump. I wouldn’t want to date him. But as I think back, didn’t he have a female top lieutenant for a long time who had a lot of authority and autonomy? Huma carries purses and phones. I think Trump’s female executive carried business lines.

          With this, as with all things, Clinton’s attempt to position him as significantly worse doesn’t hold up that well.

      4. Emma

        This is a good brief analysis by Yves. And I doubt she is a ‘Trump-Pixie’ either! What I find perhaps the most objectionable and difficult to stomach is the Epstein affair(s). Despite the fact Bill respected the workplace, and in this case nation, as the physical screwing obviously occurred elsewhere. It’s difficult to not jump to such a conclusion after twenty-odd Epstein flights with other mens’ underage daughters. But hey, look on the bright side….we’re not dealing with Fred and Rosemary West here.

        Many years ago I did a little voluntary work for a woman’s refuge which was barely operating then on a shoestring budget. It quickly became obvious to me how few options many women have in abusive relationships to move onwards and upwards. More often than not, the women returned to their husbands, partners, fathers, brothers and boyfriends who provided a place the women could call ‘home’, but where the beatings and kid-fiddling continued. Homelessness and/or intermittency were not significant improvements. Besides, restraining orders do little when men take no notice.

        Some women had family members complicit in the abuse, but if the women ventured outside of the family, they soon found others just as complicit. These were male ‘friends’ who in sad reality were indifferent to the womans’ plight and simply focused on their own selfish needs. Actually providing tangible and constructive assistance to help the women find work and a personal refuge they (and their kids) could call home didn’t figure in the men’s minds at all. Indeed, in many cases they simply made things worse for the women by antagonizing the original source of perpetration.

        It was also clear that many of the men and women were dealing with mental health and learning difficulties, exacerbated by financial issues. The appalling lack of dedicated services to help the women, and men too, was a deplorable state of affairs, all the more so because it was a ‘socialist’ country. Ultimately, many of these couples did not just need relationship counseling but a whole army of altruistic and suitably trained professionals who would not take sides and instead work tirelessly to raise both women and men.

        So, when it comes to the Clintons, and not just their collective, but each own respective networks and foundations of contacts, numerous off/on shore bank accounts, multiple homes and so on and so forth, to persist in screwing the nations’ under-age daughters, under-paid workers, under-employed breadwinners, under-shielded employees, under-abled bodies, under-fed children……… is an understandable oversight of what American values and leadership is all about. Or is it?!

      5. cwaltz

        I remember the moment that Obama called the California AG , the “best looking Attorney General.”

        As a female that once had to deal with the workforce I thought it was icky(who wants to think the guy you talk to has his eyes on your legs and breasts while you are trying to talk about your IDEAS) but not that uncommon to have guys spend a bunch of time opining on female appearance.

        Trump is more overt than average.

        1. Emma

          Trump is definitely more overt than average with his sexist salivations but so is Bill Clinton with his sexual misconduct:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations
          Do you think Samantha Cameron would still be with Dave if he continued with the ‘piggate’ animations? Do you think Segolene Royal was content to remain with Francois Hollande while he continually foo-fooed femmes-fatales with flair? No. Segolene was ‘royal’ and thought enough is enough!

      6. dbk

        Yves, spot on. The female construction manager says volumes about what he actually practices, as opposed to what he preaches.

        From what I’ve understood, Trump started out as a Democrat. I often wonder whether he genuinely believes anything he says, and sometimes even imagine that he believes nothing of what he says.

        This is not an expression of support, but of considerable doubt.

        I don’t know what I will do in November, but I’m weary – and wary – of arguments about the Lesser Evil.

      7. Deloss Brown

        Agreed whole-heartedly, and it was very infuriating yesterday to see CNN devote time (a half-hour?) to Trump supporters rebutting Trump’s sexism.

        I am not a Hillary fan. I am a Bernie fan. I will vote for Hillary if she’s the nominee. “Why!?” Read the following line from a USA TODAY article on line:

        “Trump told Fox News last week that he would appoint conservative, pro-life judges to the Supreme Court.”

        1. Fiver

          Not going to happen. If Clinton and Party succeed in essentially stealing the nomination from Sanders (with enormous aid from media et al) and it’s then Clinton vs Trump, a prospect which from the Clinton camp perspective pre-Sanders was ideal for the Clinton vs old culture-war ‘ism’ issues she’s built her career persona around all along, Clinton’s now-empty rhetoric will better resonate with the near-daily home-run balls Trump lobs in. Mainstream media control the play now, and we already know their choice. Looks like CNN gets another war.

        2. hunkerdown

          SCOTUS is out of our hands by at least two degrees and your cargo-cult attempts at trying to get better SCOTUS are ridiculous on their face. Perhaps you’d better save it for when “your” Party isn’t forcing a vote on the RWNJ Merrick Garland with much self-righteousness after ostensibly offering him up as a joke, making a great show of pretending that they didn’t expect them to swallow.

      8. Nathanael

        Hillary Clinton is an appallingly incompetent candidate and practically anyone could win a general election against her. She’s resorting to election theft just to win the primary. Every time she campaigns she becomes less popular.

        Her only chance of winning is if Trump manages to somehow shoot himself in the foot sufficiently to make himself even less popular than she is.

        This election will have record low turnout and very high third party voting. I don’t think this will be *the* revolutionary year, but we’re getting closer.

    2. hreik

      Pavel, Since early this year DailyKos is really a nasty place, w Hillary supporters pervasive, defensive and ugly. I used to go there all the time. No more. It’s an echo chamber, with ugly echos.

      1. NotTimothyGeithner

        “Since early 2007, Daily Kos has been a nasty place”

        Fixed it for you. The misogyny and racism on display was appalling then.

      2. Brindle

        At DK 90 to 95% of comments are lacking any insight of any kind. I stop in maybe every few weeks but the general tone of mediocrity usually causes me to exit sooner rather than later, There are many good diaries and commenters but all in all it’s an exercise in Dem party control.

      3. C

        I took my cue to stop reading when Kos published an editorial commenting that Hillary’s bad poll numbers were of no concern as the people opposed to her were following Sanders and would eventually “come home.”

        No attempt was made to explain why people who oppose her policies should “come home” or how those who opposed the Iraq War, Libya, or the Patriot act are supposed to consider her a reliable choice, or how those opposed to deals like the TPP should put their faith in someone who takes the backing of the SEIU but opposes a minimum wage hike until forced.

        It made me realize that ultimately Kos, like many other professional Democrats had bought into the idea that the Republicans are worse and therefore we should all vote blindly out of fear. Hardly an inspiring, or even rational point of view.

        1. sid_finster

          I read this elsewhere and it hit home. Wish the words were mine.

          The United States is in the situation it is in because for years we have voted for the lesser of two evils

        2. C

          Case in point here is another such piece: Ralph Nader isn’t content with just giving us George W. Bush, now he wants to give Trump a boost

          From the piece:

          To date, Clinton has captured 3 million more total votes than Sanders, but Nader argues the results would be different if independents were allowed to participate in each state

          The actual vote results prove otherwise. But even if true, it’s irrelevant. This is a Democratic primary. It costs nothing to be a Democrat. So if you want a say in the Democratic primary, then become a Democrat. Otherwise, you don’t get a say. You can vote in the Green Party primary, or the Independent Party primary, or take your sanctimonious “I’m too good to be a member of any party” self and let others make the decision for you. But to whine that non-Democrats don’t have a say in a Democratic decision-aking process is ridiculous.

          1. Lambert Strether

            On the 3 million, some large percentage of those voters are due to Sanders having no name recognition, and being an insurgent generally. I’m not saying their votes don’t count, but a more small-d democratic process would have reduced that number considerably.

            1. C

              Oh I agree. If you read the whole piece his dismissiveness is even more obvious as if people signing up to vote Democrat because they like Sanders are somehow wrong to do so or lesser than him.

              Ultimately he has been a Hillary nut since day 1 and now that her coronation has been upset by the dirty people his smile is wearing thin.

      4. Don midwest

        The Bernie News Roundup on dailykos is an excellent way to keep up with the campaign and issues. It is relatively safe spot – safe from the BS. It has been posted by a volunteer every day and there have now been 343 columns posted and often it is the most important column on the site for that day.

        Many have left or have been driven off dailykos as noted by others in the comments on this link.

        There are still some brave ones who try to educate the rather large following of dailykos, but it is an up hill battle when the owner, Kos, has gone all out for Hillary.

        Someone today posted an interview of Kos in 2008 arguing that Hillary should drop out and let Obama go all the way. These days he is on the opposite side – Bernie should drop out and not go all the way.

        This election has shown the corruption in the parties and the liberal failures

    3. Eaglemount

      More DNC tripe! The Hillary establishment needs to go. She is a loser against Trump and a loser for the country should she gain the presidency. Establishment politics have had their chance and it is now full frontal exposure for them and their twisted neoliberal policies.

  8. Nick

    What I don’t understand is why the Sanders campaign doesn’t make this a bigger deal. They could easily make this news by simply reaching out with a campaign email about it and expanding the conversation, and maybe having the Chicago Sanders supporters (where highly suspicious activity was highlighted in the links section yesterday) join forces with the Nevada supporters and perhaps Arizona and NY crews to make a bigger stink about it.

    I can’t figure out Bernie’s angle here. Is he trying to just focus on the races ahead and deal with all of this afterward? It seems like this should be addressed while it’s still a hot topic.

    Is there any news about how things look for Bernie in Kentucky tomorrow btw? Any Kentucky readers want to chime in?

      1. Nick

        Well, fair enough, and you’re probably right, but that perspective seems to ignore the fact that this whole campaign is built on persistently sticking up for what’s right, not looking at what may well happen and saying “this probably won’t gain any traction, so let’s not do anything about it.”

        Like Marco comments below, not addressing it makes people wonder why the campaign is so unresponsive.

        I would argue that the fight itself is equal to if not more important than the actual outcome in inspiring millions of people who might otherwise just sit the election out.

        Even sending out an email saying that all of the campaign’s resources are tied up in the super important upcoming primaries so they unfortunately can’t address these matters, but that they fully acknowledge them and all those involved have Bernie’s full support in pursuing them. How long and how much energy would that take to tweet? In fact it would inspire me to give him a few more bucks.

        1. Yves Smith Post author

          We linked to an article a few days ago on the NATO order of battle versus the Russian order of battle. It has been war-gamed repeatedly. NATO loses every time yet NATO refuses to change its tactics.

          What is the Russian formula? Reinforce success. Period. Divert resources to units/campaigns that are winning, to the extent of pulling resources away from units that are doing badly and throwing them in support of the efforts that are gaining ground.

          What is the point of devoting resources to the lost fight in Nevada? Sanders will never never never get those delegates. The people who were there should and are mining the well-warranted outrage, but the campaign would be making a monster mistake to divert its focus and resources from the upcoming primaries, most importantly, California

          1. sleepy

            I think you’re right. Imho the injustice has more legs and appeal coming from the ground up via the folks who were there. If Sanders himself made it an issue, the media retort would be that Sanders is desperate for delegates and is stretching.

            Having said that, I think the national convention would be the suitable forum for raising these issues as an example of procedural injustice and theft. At that point it won’t be considered a campaign issue.

            Beyond that, I can’t imagine why the Clinton supporters did what they did. More than likely they could have achieved their goals by following proper procedure without the heavy-handedness. Ultimately it’s another nail in the coffin of kumbaya between Sanders and Clinton supporters.

          2. harry

            But there is a case for Nevada dems to campaign to eject the Dem officials who pulled that stunt. It’s the only language party officials understand.

          3. Steve H.

            California. Exactly.

            The most important state primary in at least a half a century.

            There is a duty to get it right. Total resources into making sure the machine doesn’t grind off the gears.

          4. patrick

            I will never look at Hillary Clinton supporters and democratic politicians the same again (with the exception of the sheep people*) I initially feel sorry for human sheep cuz they aint very swift. Then I consider the big picture, the future. They are idiots. Anyway, its time to take back the peoples party. Every two years primary them and vote them out. National polls show again and again that the majority of Americans agree with Sanders positions on just about everything. My two female senators voted for fast track a few months back, Cantwell and Murray, they won’t get my vote again. IMO, most female politicians seem intent on doing their best imitation of A MAN! Pathetic! Hillary Kissinger, the politician, is a poor excuse for a women. -*Sheep definition number two: A weak, timid or stupid person-.

            1. katiebird

              Every two years primary them and vote them out. National polls show again and again that the majority of Americans agree with Sanders positions on just about everything. My two female senators voted for fast track a few months back, Cantwell and Murray, they won’t get my vote again.

              I would go a step farther and when there is no Dem Primary candidate, vote for the Republican (that is the most powerful vote you can make to dump a Bad Dem) … Then vote out the Republican when that turns out badly.

              Keep voting out the bums with Primary Candidates and then General Election Power Votes (not 3rd Party)…

              The idea being that we WILL vote out any Elected Official who betrays us. 3rd Party votes feel good but they don’t effectively count against the incumbent office holder.

              1. hunkerdown

                If that worked, wouldn’t it have by now? How is flipping between two parties with an informal power-sharing agreement and veto power over their respective ballot lines going to threaten them?
                The system doesn’t deserve the validity granted by engaging with it.

                1. perpetualWAR

                  Have you done this?
                  Have you talked to anyone who has?
                  I’ve only been doing this since 2012 election, as I couldn’t stomach votkng Obama a second time. But, I haven’t simply voted out the incumbent, which I believe is what is being advocated here.

                  I like it.

                2. different clue

                  It has never been tried by enough people to make a difference. It could be a way to start purging and burning distasteful office-holders out of both parties. Just keep forcing changes in each party’s office-seeker bench. Eventually one or both parties will become so disarrayed through bench-decimation as to be invade-able and conquerable by organized movements of voters seeking desired results from their officeholders.

              2. Deloss Brown

                Hello, Katybird. On a school bus with other parents and children–it was either under Reagan or H.W. Bush–I suggested to another parent that I was going to have cards printed (and hand them out) which would say

                Take the Oath! I Will Never Vote for a Republican Again!

                Other Parent became wrathful and defensive. Me, I still think it’s a good idea.

                “Trump told Fox News last week that he would appoint conservative, pro-life judges to the Supreme Court.” –USA Today

          5. Bronwyn Beistle

            While that may be right course for campaign, it has the unfortunate side effect of normalizing endemic election fraud and voter suppression, and has been doing just that for the past 12 years. One of the problems here is the crappy laws around this issue–the ugly conflation of public and private that enables, basically, fascism in this country strikes again: two private organizations controlling our politics, and the law can’t interfere because they’re “private.”

          6. LizinOregon

            My experience here in Oregon shows the Sanders campaign is clearly staying focused on the remaining primaries and is very organized about.

            I got an email from the campaign with a link to the secretary of state’s site to confirm they had me eligible to vote in the Dem. primary while there was still time to correct it if needed. And I just got an email from them with the same link encouraging me to check that my mailed ballot had been received and was accepted. It is quite an operation and I am beginning to see why their mailing list is in such demand.

          7. NotoriousJ

            I certainly see a lot of traffic about this travesty on social media; I can’t say how widely it is known by supports. In a bit of strategic counterfactual rationalization, perhaps this is a good thing. Hils only picked up handful of delegates, and hopefully unwittingly reinvigorated the tribe where it will really count: California. Assuming no shenanigans here, of course #sarc

          8. Daniel O'Donnell

            On the outside chance that anybody might read this (after coming so late to the thread), is there a title or a link to this article? I did a search on a few terms (e.g. NATO, ‘order of battle’) but did not find the article this refers to.

          9. Nathanael

            It’s really interesting the degree to which the US military is a paper tiger.

      2. Waldenpond

        If he wants to go to the convention, he should keep his supporters going. Even if it’s just a youtube video for them… keep people phone calling, canvassing and donating?

      3. cm

        One thing Sanders should be doing is working with potential Sanders state delegates who are currently in the same position as Nevada. I’m thinking specifically of Washington, where we go through the THIRD round of delegate selection on Saturday, May 21.

      4. fosforos

        He could, and should, do it with maximum drama: Announce on a nationwide network talk show next Sunday that the Clinton vote-fraud operations have definitively invalidated any pledges he’s made to support the Dem convention’s nominee and that absent a fair convention and the adoption of his program as the party’s platform he will accept the Green Party’s offer to campaign as their candidate.
        That is a story that cannot even for an instant be buried!

        1. Yves Smith Post author

          He does not get on TV unless invited. And the interviewers control the agenda. They lost in Nevada in court, and he can’t accuse the Clinton campaign of fraud with no proof, and he can’t accuse the Democratic Party of acting as Clinton stooges with no proof either. He does not have a smoking gun.

    1. Marco

      I understand the need to focus on the remaining primaries but I have to agree. For those of us who can’t travel to a state caucus meeting or phone bank or go door to door, our only outlet is giving money and an unresponsive (or slow to respond) Bernie campaign when these kinds if shenanigans arise is a reason to hold back.

      1. Yves Smith Post author

        It looks like sour grapes and unless he can offer a concrete action plan, it’s not a good foundation for official messaging. People like to fund success, not failure. I have a case of my own of what amounts to a professional betrayal, and it’s very hard to take it much further than close allies.

        He’s much better served having his supporters take this up, particularly since many are high-functioing and well-organized.

        1. C

          Ultimately this is state-party politics which makes it the penultimate form of insider baseball. In my limited experience with this I have found that the state parties are fundamentally run by people who stay, work in the shadows, and are well accustomed to shutting out actual believers and to weathering firestorms of derision.

          Hillary Clinton has long cultivated the support of party insiders and nowhere is it more apparent than in cases like this or in strong party places like Pennsylvania and Chicago where the insiders deliver ‘rules’ be damned.

          For the Sanders campaign I would argue there is value in flagging this, especially as they move to weak party states such as Oregon where the prospect of a sleazy insider campaign will taint the Clinton brand. But if he wants to change the rules, that is a long slow fight that would depend upon having fierce, patient, and well funded allies in Nevada who focus on that fight, and that fight alone. Changing the shape of Congress would be easier.

          I would argue that he should make that change as that is part of what worked for the Tea Party, and perhaps after the campaign it might make sense for his most committed Nevada supporters to turn their attention to winning the state. But that won’t happen now, or even by 2017.

          1. Nathanael

            The losers who run state parties are probably not aware of the fact that their parties will be gone in a few years if they don’t clean them up.

    2. aab

      We ARE reaching out to each other. Sanders supporters communicating via social media are well aware of all this stuff. The problem is that the Democratic Party is a private club, essentially. I couldn’t read the piece above, because I was Twitter yesterday watching it unfold, and it’s upsetting. If Yves addressed this above, I apologize for commenting without reading, but I believe this would be, at best, a civil action. Bernie’s campaign simply can’t be expected to take this on and try to run at the same time. Based on the exit poll discrepancies, the Clinton campaign and Democratic machinery has stolen votes in almost EVERY primary state, and pulled stunts in most caucuses. That’s on top of all the voter suppression that they both actively did and passively benefited from when the Republicans did it in Republican controlled states. There is video evidence in Iowa, Nevada, Illinois and PA that I know of. I think there’s also video evidence in a couple of other states. Then there’s Bill Clinton’s clear polling place violations in MA, and the testimony of the sister of the developmentally impaired man whose entire group home (none of whom have IQs over age six) were told if they just checked the box they could eat at McDonalds. There’s numerical evidence in addition to the exit poll discrepancies in New York and other states. There is a lot of evidence.

      What does it matter, if the Democratic Party, the party of the current sitting President, doesn’t care? Bernie’s supporters will have raised in the neighborhood of $200 million for the campaign. How much more would they have to raise to file lawsuits in all these states? How many judges would issue emergency orders in time to matter before the convention?

      There are already reports of people being purged/switched from the rolls in KY, getting the wrong ballot, etc. I’m sure tomorrow there will be switched polls places, delayed hours, “broken” machines. There have been reports of weird stuff in Oregon, even. This nomination is already being stolen. Nevada isn’t even important in terms of the number of stolen delegates; it’s more because of how flagrant it is.

      The major media located in New York was silent about what happened in New York. We have already seen how they intend to “BernieBro” up what happened in Nevada. With the media this complicit, what do you think the Sanders campaign or independent citizens can actually do?

      The United States is not set up for this. As with so many other aspects of our governing system, a lot hinges on some combination of good behavior by those in power and the ability to con the populace into believing the system works differently than it actually does. Unless enough superdelegates recognize that they personally will be economically damaged by nominating Clinton and losing in November (and therefore having nothing to offer the banks and corporations for their money for all but a necessary few like Schumer), Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. And I’m sorry, I know I have been arguing about this on here with people who think I’m asking people to debase themselves, but I don’t see any feasible alternative to voting for Trump. I have no illusions that he will be a good President. But whether we can actually purge out the corporatists and take back the Democratic Party, or have to start a third party, the Democratic Party must be weakened for any sane alternative to take hold. This has been building for years. If the Clintons can do this openly and be rewarded, with her announcing Bill will oversee economic development from the White House WHILE CONTINUING TO RUN CGI, what recourse would we have? At that point, my greatest hope would be that the military would refuse President Hillary Clinton’s orders to fire on citizens protesting in the homeland, as much because they hate her as anything else. That’s not a theory I’d like to test. Does anyone really believe that Trump will deport more people or instigate more violence than what Obama is doing how or what Clinton is clearly longing to do?

      This isn’t on Bernie Sanders to address. This is on all of us as a people.

      1. Nick

        You’re absolutely right, this is on all of us as people to address. As it has been for the past 40 years. And yet it took Bernie Sanders (along with lots of other concurrent movements) to truly galvanize millions of people to do so in earnest.

        All the more reason for Bernie to email his supporters and let them (all) know about the situation and that they’re aware of it but have to focus their resources on the all-important primaries in the remaining states, and then hit them up for a donation.

        Fingers crossed for tomorrow!

      2. Brooklin Bridge

        Great comment!

        The ability of the media to bury this, the ability of the DNC and the Clintons to openly steal the nomination is galling beyond belief, but it’s also (gallingly) true, as Yves points out with her Russia/Nato example, that for Sanders to stop and try to address the issue, even just make it public, would get nowhere.

        As you point out, we have a broken system. No way to run as a third party at all and no way to be a Democrat and get a fair/democratic hearing. And to run as a Republican you have to be a certifiable nut case or so close to it that clinically, it would be splitting hairs.

        Voting for Trump is a distinct possibility to consider as a means of throwing a spanner in the works. Part of the process of doing so is to understand fully that Trump may well be as bad as one imagines, but that is not the point. The point is to upend the system and the lessor evil has nothing to do with two people but rather with accepting the status quo or trying to break it. At some point people realize that furniture is going to be broken; this is a fight, not a fair process. In this light, there may be solid argument for choosing Trump over the Green party since the latter is essentially a non vote (other than the usefulness of possibly getting to 5%) or a way of letting others decide.

        The other consideration is that no matter how the general election plays out, what has gone down will not simply disappear this time. People are waking up no matter how maddening the pace and the open corruption that has so unfairly stolen the nomination from Sanders demands and ultimately will get a hearing by the public.

        1. Brindle

          So true—the Dem Party as now constructed is an anti-human vehicle.

          —“The point is to upend the system and the lessor evil has nothing to do with two people but rather with accepting the status quo or trying to break it. At some point people realize that furniture is going to be broken; this is a fight, not a fair process.”

      3. Ulysses

        Very much on point with this comment!

        The corporatist coup has already taken place,* here in the U.S. The Sanders campaign has woken people up to this fact, leaving us with two possible outcomes:

        1) despite a thoroughly corrupted process, Bernie wins the White House and begins to use his “bully pulpit” there to try and undo some of the damage,

        or 2) the corrupted process prevents Bernie’s election, and the people have to decide what other steps they might take to push back against the corporatists.

        *No more evidence of this fact is required than the recent reality that Citigroup lobbyists literally wrote nearly all of an omnibus funding bill, that was dutifully passed by their employees in Congress (aka “representatives” of the U.S. citizenry)

      4. Big River Bandido

        I think you have hit this nail on the head: national reform is impossible until the Democratic Party itself is reformed — meaning, taken over. Until that happens, Sanders supporters would be better off voting for Trump. Either he’ll surprise us with his leniency in office, or he’ll be the perfect foil for a regenerated Democratic Party 4 years down the road.

        1. roonie

          Whomever is involved in Dem county politics, please chip in, but from my limited involvement when Dean ran, it seemed to me that 10 – 15 dedicated people per county could “take over” a county machine. It just takes perseverance and time.

          I suspect it is a lot easier to infiltrate and take over the county/state Dem Party’s than it is to get a Third Party up and competitive. I think Bernie knows this too.

        2. redleg

          The Dem party *has* already reformed… into what the GOP was roughly 5 years ago. That’s a running count, not a fixed date.

      5. EricT

        After reading about Bernie being disenfranchised at the selection of representatives to the leadership committees for the Democratic Convention, I foresee Bernie’s delegates walking out in disgust or protesting. I also think it’s likely that the party will split, Bernie’s half will merge with the Greens, the other half will become the new Modo Centrists party with disaffected Republicans and Corporatists Dems. I don’t think Bernie will subvert the Democractic party, but I would really go for a Bernie Sanders/Jill Stein administration.

      6. Vatch

        Great comment, although I disagree with one point of yours:

        I don’t see any feasible alternative to voting for Trump.

        If Sanders is not nominated, vote for a third party candidate, such as the Green Party candidate. By denying votes to Hillary Clinton, this makes a Trump win likely, and if the third party candidate gets 5% of the vote, the third party gets federal grant money. We can’t depend on a Trump Presidency to revitalize the Democratic Party. George W. Bush was hideous, but that didn’t revitalize the Democratic Party in any way, shape, or form. If the Democrats nominate someone as bad as Clinton, we need a third option, and federal grant money will help enormously.

        1. Brooklin Bridge

          You always make excellent sense regarding the 5% of the vote (hell, even looking on one’s key board, you find the (5) and the (%) on the same key :-) ), but your point about G. Bush was perhaps off. Bush vs. Gore was about corruption in the voting system and then corruption in the Supreme Court, not so much about the problems with the Democratic party itself and not even about running as a “spoiler” third party candidate (Nader).

          The 2000 election was never about revitalizing the Democratic party and the 2016 election is turning out to be more about demolishing it. It’s way beyond revitalizing.

          1. Vatch

            I think the Democrats could have opposed Bush’s policies on Iraq, the environment, and taxation a lot more vigorously than they did. Instead, some Democrats in Congress were quite supportive of the Bush administration.

            1. Brooklin Bridge

              Don’t get me wrong, the Democrats as a party were largely as bad then as they are now, but that wasn’t (as I remember it) the issue with the 2000 election. No one, or very few, felt there was a problem with the nomination process in 2000.

              I couldn’t agree more with your points about Democrats; Iraq and no fly zones from Bush I, environment, taxation, etc., and it is likely that had an effect in Gore’s lackluster campaign and ultimate loss (of his own state, for instance), but the corruption of the party was not at all as visible back then and people were not talking about replacing it all together.

              I have a hard time deciding what’s best:
              1) Third party
              2) Sanders write in
              3) Trump

              Your points about getting to 5% for a 3rd party are absolutely correct. It’s also true, however, that a vote for Trump amounts to a direct and active vote against Hillary and a moral vote against the Democratic party. I can respect any of those choices, but am personally inclined toward voting for Trump (time to bust things). Our two party corruption has passed a Rubicon of sorts as the Nebraska fiasco underscores.

        2. different clue

          Voting FOR Trump would make a Trump win MORE more likely than merely voting Third Party. If indeed the purpose really IS to beat the Democratic Party into submission with tire irons and nail studded baseball bats until it gives in to replacement-restaffing and retraining and reorganization.

      7. Eureka Springs

        Yes a great comment. However:

        But whether we can actually purge out the corporatists and take back the Democratic Party

        Was it ever not in the hands of the elites? Was it ever actually democratic? Why do you want to ‘”take back” a party so utterly corrupt, filled with contempt for it’s own participants, lined with three tears of redundant assurances that people will not be heard (NV caucus and two more steps) ultimately cementing that for all to see with a line of brownshirts protecting an autocratic dilettante on stage?

        Be careful what you wish for (take back), you might just get it. Probably become it.

        1. aletheia33

          agree. what is left that is worth taking back? the dem party was never all that helpful to the little people except when pushed to it by “extremists'” protests, hoovervilles, people getting arrested en masse, people getting killed in the deep south, etc. so who needs this party? its active members will simply be pulled more and more toward the point where even the most “ill-informed” voters will see that they are just republicans in trendier clothes.

          the dream of “taking over” the dem party is a delusion. but there really is such a thing as people power. without the people’s votes, the dem party does not exist. i like the idea of all sanders’s people simply walking out of the convention–never to return. a great many sanders supporters are already saying if he does not get the nomination they are done with the dem party, because of all the election fraud they’ve seen go down.

          they will put themselves to work for some kind of “restoration” of “real” democracy–as if that ever existed in usa. and they’ll all start fighting with one another over how to go forward. eventually a movement will coalesce. what it will look like, no one can know. i hope it will amount to something more radical (i.e., basic) than taking “back” the party.

          what i fear most is a literal war between the trumpists/whatever they morph into and the sanderistas/whatever they morph into. no options for too many people, and gunfights in the streets. as in germany interwar, that’s when people have taken any solution. sanderistas today are strongly nonviolent. i fear that could change if they become completely disaffected with all approaches other than militarism. and i fear it continues to be just too easy for TPTB to divide and conquer.

      8. SpringTexan

        Yes, I do believe Trump would deport more people and that that is a horrible danger. Yes, Obama’s been Deporter-In-Chief and Clinton would continue that, but Trump would be still worse in that area.

      9. Deloss Brown

        Hi there again, aab. I’m a Bernie supporter. I send him money, and generally to anybody whom Kirsten Gillibrand or Emily’s List solicits for. But if Hillary becomes the nominee, I will vote for her and send her (less) money.

        If you still need a reason not to vote for Trump:

        “Trump told Fox News last week that he would appoint conservative, pro-life judges to the Supreme Court.” –USA Today on line

        Some Republican (Senator) raved on CNN yesterday that if Hillary gets in, it could ruin the Supreme Court for 100 years. Here’s hoping.

        1. aab

          Emily’s List supports corporatist candidates over feminists and pro-choice candidates. I would recommend not giving EL money or using it in your own decision-making about who to support.

          Hillary Clinton stated on Meet The Press last month that she would support a constitutional amendment to restrict abortion. She is also a member of the same far-right, fundamentalist prayer group as Ted Cruz. She is not pro-choice. She is to Trump’s right on numerous foreign policy and domestic issues.

          If she manages to get elected, the Senate with be Republican controlled, and the only Democrats will be conservative corporatists — the only kind of candidate the DNC/DSCC will support (the DCCC does this for House races). The kinds of Supreme Court Justices appointed by a President Clinton with the consent of that Senate will not be markedly different from those appointed by a President Trump. Particularly given that with Clinton as President, the TPP would go into effect, and huge elements of our judicial system could be overruled by global corporations.

          Moreover, despite her vast personal fortune, Clinton is paying herself over a half a million dollars out of her campaign contributions. Bill and Chelsea are also being paid. So is Katy Perry and a lot of other entertainers who the campaign pays for their “endorsement.” She really doesn’t need your money. What you do with your vote is your business. But I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever vote for her.

          1. Yves Smith Post author

            Agreed, I gave once years ago to Emily’s list at the prodding of a friend. The one upside was the perk was a dinner at Bloomberg’s house (the ticket price was not that high, trust me, and this was many years ago), so I have a dim idea of how he lives. I now know better.

    3. Arizona Slim

      After the stolen in election in AZ, the Bernie campaign people couldn’t get out of here fast enough. Day after the election, the Tucson HQ packed up and bailed.

      In all honesty, I’m as much of a Bernie supporter as I ever was. But the campaign? Don’t get me started. Just don’t.

      1. Lambert Strether

        Campaigns aren’t permanent organizations; they’re more like traveling circuses. Which is the problem, really. And the locals seem to be doing a great job. That’s where the strength is.

      2. flora

        Same as in states Bernie won. On to the next election where the immediate work is still needed and the dollars to rent a campaign headquarters are needed. You don’t keep spending resources in the area that has finished the state campaign. You put those resources into the next campaign.
        A football team doesn’t hang out in the end zone once a touchdown has scored. It’s on to the next play.

  9. Jen

    Well, WRT to Biden, there is this from TYT. “it appears that what they just did was put Joe Biden out as the establishment candidate in case this thing goes south, and they now think that it might go south…”

    1. pretzelattack

      that would explain the desperation lately of what seem to be shill bots on comment threads–“it’s really well past time for bernie to quit”

    2. grayslady

      Joe Biden is going to be headlining a fundraiser for Debbie Wasserman Schultz. He’s a non-starter for anyone except a yellow-dog Dem.

      1. Jen

        Consider it the DNC’s own special way of spitting on the plate and sending it back.

    3. flora

      so THATs why last night’s news featured a bit on Biden giving a commencement address. starting to crank up the Wurlitzer for a Biden candidacy, just in case.

      1. NotTimothyGeithner

        Biden:

        -Iraq
        -patriot act
        -bankruptcy
        -devotion to the credit card industry
        -deregulation
        -NAFTA
        -Anita Hill (David Brock could easily move to Bkden)
        -the casual racism, no its not cute.
        -franking

        Trump might win 45 states.

        1. Jen

          Or 50. They’re assuming that Hillary supporters will also gratefully receive this last minute substitution. Here ya go, folks: we bequeath to you the candidate that none of you voted for. Thank you for playing. It’s one way to unite the party, but perhaps not quite in the way TPTB intended.

        2. TheCatSaid

          And his son’s involvement in fossil fuel contracts in Ukraine and elsewhere. Shock doctrine, with an intergenerational component.

        3. different clue

          Also Biden’s other son invested in doing fracking all over Eastern Ukraine . . . hence Biden’s support for the Banderite Regime in Kiev.

  10. EndOfTheWorld

    What do you want Bernie to do? Call a press conference? The word is getting out quite well on social media, which is a Friend of Bernie (FOB). The msm presstitutes are actually irrelevant.

    1. ambrit

      This ‘divide’ is only relevant to the extent that the younger, more internet savvy cohort actually comes out to vote in November. I have no solid figures, but I would not be surprised to see that the older voting public lean much more towards being influenced by the dregs of the old MSM than the internets. To that extent, the strength of the younger cohorts voting turnout is important. Thus, Bernie needs to spin a positive ‘vibe’ for his supporters. He always opens his e-mails with something along the lines of; “We knew this wasn’t going to be easy, but, with us all working together things are going to work out…” Someone in his campaign ‘gets it.’
      Sanders real strength here is his ability to steer his supporters away from H Clinton in November. If the Philadelphia Convention works out as completely crooked, Sanders can legitimately proclaim, “A plague on both their Parties.” Since I would not be the least surprised to see Sanders ‘kneecapped’ in the Senate by the DNC apparatchiks after the main election, no matter what the final outcome, obstructionism could be Sanders enduring legacy.
      Now, if Trump wins in November, Sanders could possibly see a ‘reward’ for his inadvertent help in defeating Hillary. If Sanders declines this opportunity, his supporters will have to cut loose from him and try to forge a new political movement. Easier said than done, I know, but, all one really needs is a “cause” to focus on. That, and a core group of Stalwarts to carry the torch during the ‘lean’ years.
      We now officially live in “Interesting Times.”

      1. Brooklin Bridge

        Well said. I wonder if the new political movement right now isn’t simply to tear the old one down.

        1. ambrit

          Good point. To put it in econospeak; Creative Destruction. Clearing away the decayed apex trees to allow the saplings to grow.
          I hope it doesn’t come to blood in the streets of Philadelphia, but, the DNC crowd have shown a complete lack of ethics. When one ‘side’ tears up the rule book, they cannot realistically expect the opposition to still follow the old rules themselves.

      2. NotTimothyGeithner

        Sanders supporters have one leg out the door if they aren’t gone already. Sanders is speaking to a sentiment that already exists as can be seen by 2010 and even 2014 which was really bad for Team Blue. Obama was in trouble against Mitt Romney, an actual robber baron. Sanders career gives him credibility to speak to the disaffected, but he has no real control.

        The bigger question is why so many eligible Democratic voters didn’t vote if Hillary is a tolerable candidate. With a single candidate, the Democrats could for us on a national race and support down ticket races. Hillary has made these arguments. The answer is the Democratic Part is dead for much more than the Sanders supporters. Sanders’ popularity climbs despite hurting hurting he Democrats plans, and the reason is the Democrats are a decayed party.

        1. ambrit

          Yes about the ‘voting with their feet’ theory. Sanders might be a transition ‘enabler.’ (I’m very tempted to make allusions to Karensky, the Mensheviks, and Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Each had a chance to replace the Russian Empire. Lenin won out, but after him came Stalin. Thus are reform movements subverted.)
          Sanders main function seems to be as the focus for a disparate and disaffected populace. In that, ‘influence’ is as good as it gets. Whole populations can be swayed by words. That’s why the MSM was ‘colonized’ by agents of the elites. That’s probably why those same elites want to ‘capture’ the Internet.
          To quote Jim Morrison: “No one here gets out alive.”

          1. Nathanael

            Allusions to 1918 in Russia are entirely apt.

            There will be a major transition. I still don’t know how it’s going to fall out, but I want to be safely deep in a very liberal area near Canada when it does.

  11. Watt4Bob

    Re the corruption evident at the Nevada democratic convention.

    A good friend more than once admonished that;

    “A politician is a person who would steal a red-hot stove.”

    That bit of wisdom is based on the following event, as explained at the explore Pennsylvania history web site;

    During the 1860 Republican national convention, Pennsylvania Senator Simon Cameron (1799-1889) commanded the delegates of the second most populous state in the Union. The Pennsylvania delegation supported ardent abolitionist William Seward until Cameron gave their votes to the less well-known Abraham Lincoln, in return for the promise that he would become secretary of the treasury. Lincoln instead appointed Cameron his Secretary of War.

    In a story told widely in the decades that followed, Lincoln, upon his arrival in Washington, asked Pennsylvania Republican congressman Thaddeus Stevens the following question about Cameron’s honesty:

    “You don’t mean to say you think Cameron would steal?”

    In response, Stevens dryly answered,

    “No. I do not believe he would steal a red-hot stove.”

    When Cameron, upon hearing of Stevens’ quip, demanded an apology, the crusty Republican congressman is reputed to have replied that he could have been wrong: Cameron might steal a red hot stove.

    1. LifelongLib

      Reminds me of the post here the other week about the British guy speaking in Parliament who said something like “Half the Tories here are crooks”. Told to apologize, he responded “Ok, half of them AREN’T crooks”.

  12. ambrit

    Just an observation, but doesn’t that photograph of the ‘rent a cops’ lined up in front of the podium look suspiciously like pictures of the Brown Shirts at work in Germany before the Night of the Long Knives?

    1. Brooklin Bridge

      As per Lambert, Hillary’s strategy for bringing the party together (I would add: skulls cracking if necessary)!

  13. aab

    In case my comment currently in moderation actually goes through, I’d like to clarify one thing. I believe it very important to continue to push through the rest of the primaries. His poll numbers keep rising, and more and more people are aware of Clinton’s many forms of corruption. Other than New York, they haven’t been able to steal more than 8% of the vote, I think, even in machine states. It’s still possible to get ahead of her in the delegate count, which at least would put what the party is doing in clear focus, and make it harder to drop Biden into her place. There are apparently massive numbers of Latino voters in California registering for the first time in their lives to vote for Bernie. That kind of unanticipated voter is what swung Michigan, and may be harder to counteract.

    Please don’t take my harsh assessment of the situation as reason to quit trying. My point is the opposite: determined collective action in the face of this corruption is the only feasible path forward — not petitions, or pleading, or expecting Bernie to do it on his own.

    1. EndOfTheWorld

      Ain’t no way Joe Biden is going to be dropped in her place. There just ain’t no way. But yes, Bernie will win CA, IMHO. Maybe big. Let’s not forget Hill will be talking to the FBI soon, not a positive “optic” for her wavering image.

      1. Jen

        Link from previous comment awaiting moderation. Goolgle (or duckduckgo if you prefer) “TYT – Why is Joe Biden talking about running mates?”

      2. Peter Bernhardt

        It will be yet another uphill fight against the establishment in CA, of which Barbara Boxer is an exemplar. To my great disappointment, my rep in Congress, Barbara Lee, has not endorsed Sanders. But, and this is only a small comfort, she hasn’t given in to Clinton and remains virtually the only Dem in the state who hasn’t declared their support for the establishment candidate. But yeah, I like his chances in our state even if I no longer have faith in fair elections.

  14. pretzelattack

    this reminds me of the brooks brothers’ fake riot in miami in 2000, but this time they had cops actively supporting them instead of just standing by.

  15. allan

    Shorter Dem apparatchiks: sometimes you have to destroy a party in order to save it.

    This will work out about as well as it did in Vietnam.

    1. Big River Bandido

      If Clinton turns out to be the Democratic nominee, the Party will have already been effectively destroyed. No sense in progressive voters supporting that crap.

    1. sleepy

      This whole mess reminds me of the “vote” taken at the dem convention approving the platform change recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

      It required a 2/3 floor vote. They never got close but the chair announced its passage anyway. Starts at 1:45–

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncbOEoQbOg

      1. Pavel

        I remember that well — it was a real shocker in how blatantly they ignored the voice vote.

        New “Democrat Party” motto: You can have your votes as long as you agree with our positions.

  16. samarkand

    According to ABC News, delegates were not certified because they did not have proper identification and didn’t meet a May 1 deadline to register as Democrats. Is this true? Were these really the rules in order to be certified? Or was something not above board, and these requirements were raised capriciously without any true basis in the rules? Genuinely wanting to know.

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      I have to think that if the delegates “weren’t registered as Democrats” that they were un-registered, which happened to lots of voters in NY. Party affiliations were switched or scrubbed.

      The Sanders organizers were too on top of procedure to have missed basic requirements like that. Does not sound plausible.

      1. Lambert Strether

        If there is a list of those “not registered Democrats” I have yet to see it. And the refusal of the chair to give the minority report a hearing is quite telling. If they’re confident the denials are good, why not let the Sanders people have their say?

      2. hunkerdown

        Defeat, disqualify, and put the Party back together later, I believe was her grand royal plan?

    2. aab

      If you’re referring to Nevada, I saw photos of people’s credentials from the country caucuses last month in their hands as they waited to check in on Saturday. If they were Democratic delegates for the state of Nevada in April, they should be able to be Democratic delegates for the state of Nevada in May.

      Moreover, she started doing the count before they had been processed, so before she could even know whether they had proper identification or not. And then refused them the normal appeals process before the credentials committee. If you want more on this, read Erin Bilbray on Twitter, who is a superdelegate for Bernie, and whose father, a former Democratic congressman for the state of Nevada, was a Hillary delegate. He tore up his credentials and left in disgust at what he was seeing. This, from an old time pol from NEVADA.

      This was in no way aboveboard. The Sanders delegates did nothing wrong. They were robbed, as were every citizen who put their faith in the Democratic party ever, in any way. There is video evidence available of all of this. Every single reporter who claims otherwise (I’m looking at YOU, Rachel Maddow) is lying and abrogating their constitutional responsibility. They are, in fact, traitors to the nation.

      That’s not hyperbole.

      1. RabidGandhi

        My copy of the constitution is missing the article on Reporter Responsibility. Could you please send me yours?

        Thanks.

        PS my dictionary does have an entry for “hyperbole” however; I’d be glad to send it to you.

        1. aab

          Freedom of the Press is in the Bill of Rights. There aren’t a lot of professions protected in there. Journalists are given that protection, because it was understood that they performed a vital service necessary in any version of a democracy.

          Particularly given the blatant and extreme election theft going on, Clinton’s security breaches while Secretary of State which left her open to having every single thing that went through her email system and every word spoken in her presence accessible by other countries including Russia and China, her using her position as Secretary of State to privately enrich herself by making weapons deals with various dictatorships, and her clear intent to enforce the TPP, I hold by my position. Journalists who facilitate her accession by acting as her willing propagandists and refusing to report on her various misdeeds are traitors to the nation. That is not hyperbole. I believe I have met the definitional requirements.

          I am a graduate of the same department as Yves, so I do not need any assistance from you with regard to basic definitions in the English language.

          1. Eureka Springs

            Well I don’t know about your version but I’ve searched several times over the years and it’s funny haha how I cannot find the word “democracy” in the bill of rights or the constitution itself.

            Seems to me we have no “version” of democracy at all. An aversion to democracy is our feature, not a bug.

          2. RabidGandhi

            I am on the record here as wholeheartedly condemning HRC and her MSM media enablers. I agree with you that they are utterly evil.

            Even so, making up constitutional clauses (the constitution does not even mention journalists much less assign responsibilities to them) or using the word ‘treason’ (a capital crime) are the very definition of hyperbole, your relation to Yves notwithstanding.

            Making hyperbolic claims with no factual basis only serves to fuel the argument that Sanders supporters are lunatics. By doing so you are only giving HRC and her minions a reason to dismiss everything valid we have to say.

  17. Tom Stone

    I don’t find this surprising, it’s how republics die.
    It’s going to get very ugly indeed over the next few years.

    1. Reify99

      I can’t find it right now but I read last night that Roberta Lange of NVDems is related to Hillary by marriage,- something like Roberta’s sister is married to Hillary’s brother.
      Sorry for the lack of substantiation.

      1. sleepy

        You may be correct, but you also might be thinking of Barbara Boxer’s daughter, Nicole Boxer, who is married to Tony Rodham, Hillary Clinton’s brother.

        Are these people tested for hemophilia?

        1. Reify99

          My caffeine levels have been adjusted. Neither of Hillary’s brothers are married to NVDem Roberta Lange.

  18. grayslady

    I hate to sound like a broken record, since I’ve made this point here before, but you never win when you play someone else’s game. Unless Bernie supporters are willing to stand up and say they will actively work against the election of any superdelegate who votes for Hillary at the Philadelphia convention, Hillary will be the nominee. Forget playing nice, and whether Hillary won a particular state or not. There’s been so much election fraud in this primary that state results are questionable anyway, especially in states with long-time corporate Dem officials.

    1. Waldenpond

      That is still their game because former electeds like Dean are also superdelegates. They are only in office to audition for their board position, lobbying retirement etc. They just have to be corrupt faster to get their payoff. Being a superdelegate is another payoff. The states that attempt to end the superdelegate system will be sued by the DNC and a judge will find for them as they have the right to associate how they want and make whatever rules they want.

      I see some attempts to organize but the same old groups supporting the same old neoliberals are involved. It’s a challenge to get needed expertise without the usual grifters insinuating themselves.

      1. grayslady

        Targeting the lobbyists, such as Howard Dean, is not the object, because you have nothing to threaten them with immediately. There is a longer term threat, of course, if no one friendly is left in Washington for them to pressure into having favorable bills passed.

        The goal is divide and conquer. If the Dem representatives understand that they’ve just been handed a pink slip, they will be the ones to pressure the other superdelegates. It is step one in an outside coup. Inside coups work with the Repub party (think all those representatives elected by Tea Party supporters); they don’t work with Dems.

        As for lawsuits, those will be thrown out for the same reason the Nevada lawsuit was thrown out: political parties are actually private enterprises, and the courts don’t see jurisdiction unless a state or Federal law has been broken.

        1. Jen

          Attn: NH NC readers. According to the link that Petal shared (links comments), our super delegate Maggie Hassan is in a tight senate race with Kelly Ayotte. No time like the present to let Hassan know what she needs to do. My experience with Annie Kuster is that she values her keeping her job above all. She’s also a super delegate, and one, I might add, who appears to be keenly aware that one Dem in the house more or less doesn’t make a difference. Last, but not least, there is Jeanne Shaheen, who made a great show of hanging out with Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren when she was up for re-election in 2014, and then voted for fast track after voting against it. You can offer her the opportunity to redeem herself, and let her know that you have a long memory.

    2. aab

      That’s the team I am playing on. It will be my goal to block EVERY Clinton endorsing elected official, and boycott EVERY organization that has supported this election theft. That is also why I am willing to vote for Trump in the general election. Clinton is perfectly willing to suppress the vote down to just the actual people in her employ vs. the people in Trump’s employ. If it’s 5% of the electorate voting, and she wins by one vote, she’ll be happy to take charge, cut all entitlements, and send my daughter to war as a draftee.

      That’s a big ol’ nope. She is indisputably the greater evil, and must be stopped by anyone who cares about the country or the planet.

  19. ke

    It’s always a racket with the corporatistas. Hillary and Mark Cuban tell you just how desperate they are. Public education tells you that peer pressure groups form on incompetence, and if you are a happy little kid by God they are going to drag you into misery come he’ll or high water.

    That’s why you can’t plan an economy; no one with any sense will touch it. And why you let stupid strangle itself, before you start work.

    1. ke

      From labors perspective, there’s KidWorld, ParentWorld and Corporate World. The teenage years are like the caterpillar and the butterfly, and most spend their lives in between, repeating the past. The demographic problem solves itself.

  20. Peter Bernhardt

    As I expected, my newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, has ignored this story. Instead, what I find on the editorial page is a letter to the editor accusing Sanders of refusing to release speeches he has made to marxist organizations (huh? what?) as an apology for Clinton’s prevarication about her GS transcripts. This was accidentally and ironically juxtaposed against a cartoon lampooning the Facebook editorial bias for trending topics. Finger on the scale indeed!

  21. Rhondda

    Made me wonder if the hand-wavy “Roberts’ Rules of Order” assertion was because (or made media-possible by) the state chair’s first name: Roberta. Teh stupid not only burns, it leaves a scar on the body politic.

    1. B1whois

      It is a common mistake, thinking they meant Roberts Rules of Order, when what was actually used was RobertAs Rules of Order. Nothing to see here.

    1. ambrit

      If the DNC tries to bottle up the non Hillary dissenters in some miniscule ‘protest zone’ blocks, if not miles, from the convention site, I expect to see running battles in the streets. This is a show no self respecting anarchist would miss.
      Of course, we could have our own version of a Reichstag Fire. Say, a ‘mysterious’ conflagration breaks out in the convention hall the night before the opening day of the convention. Next, the DNC changes the venue, since the old venue is a smoking pile of rubble. For some unknown reason, all the Hillary delegates make it to the new venue without problems the very next morning. For some arcane reason, the Sanders delegates all end up at the wrong place. A fully Hillary crowd at the ‘official’ venue adopt ‘fast track’ procedures and nominate Hillary on the first ballot. Heck, why not by acclamation? When the Sanders delegates complain, they are cooly told that they weren’t there on time. Tough t—y.
      We have already seen Brownshirts make their appearance; why not a Reichstag Fire? Make the fire destroy Independence Hall too and the coup would be total and of a piece.
      Quibble with me as you will. This campaign so far has reinforced my concept of; “One cannot be too cynical.”

      1. Nathanael

        I’m actually not sure it will happen this year. People are getting madder and madder at the blatant election thefts and blatant fraud. But people are less and less violent each year (thanks to getting rid of lead in gasoline), so people are biding their time more and more.

        The elites, being from the lead-poisoned generation, are mistaking this quietness for acquiescence. In fact, I think people are quietly planning. When the revolution comes, the elite will never see it coming. Something will set it off, and millions of small groups will launch the plans which they’d idly made; entire cities will be taken in hours, before the open battles start in the more conflicted cities.

    2. EGrise

      “Go ahead, you’re booing Bernie Sanders!”

      Good grief, she was flustered and came off like a ninny.

  22. Steven

    Is the Republican Party more democratic than the Democrats? For whatever its worth, it looks like Trump supporters are going to get their man. For some of us ‘bitter ender’ Sanders supporters, it looks like the choice in November will be how to repudiate the Democratic Party, with all its rigged voting and ‘Super delegates’: vote third party or write-in Sanders.

  23. Don midwest

    Election Integrity might get a lot of notice this year

    I live in a suburb of Columbus OH and some local people have been working the election integrity issue diligently since the election for president was stolen in the state of OH in 2004.

    There is a relatively small group of people who have kept at this issue over the years and the political parties do not raise the issue because they want elections to convey legitimacy on elected politicians.

    The first time the local group has been contacted by a presidential candidate was by the Bernie campaign in the suit to enable people who would be 18 by Nov to vote in the primary.

    Bob Fitrakis is a poly sci prof, atty and head of the OH Green party. He recently spoke to the Black Caucus in the US house and they are going forward with legislation. Bob also spoke to DC Bar and other places. It may be that the various people and groups concerned with these issues will get some action this year.

    The other co author of their new book which, will be out shortly, is Harvey Wasserman. He was on democracynow last Feb. Could the 2016 Election Be Stolen with Help from Electronic Voting Machines?

    With others, there will be a big law suit filed just before the CA primary to raise the issue of election integrity. This will make the news.

    Bob and Harvey are just completing a book which is reviewed here

    Title of the review: Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, THE STRIP & FLIP SELECTION OF 2016: Five Jim Crows & Electronic Election

    Note in the title the use of the word Selection rather than Election.

    From the review

    Just because a crisis situation seems impossible to address effectively, there is no reason to give up, but every reason to keep wheels turning–inside out, as does this masterful dissection of elections and voting as a system between the Civil War and today.

    Quite a time period to cover in less than 100 pages, but authors Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman face this challenge, prefaced and introduced by the famed author and investigative reporter Greg Palest and actress and activist (head of Progressive Democrats of America) Mimi Kennedy.

    First readers are told what we must and can do in the short term and then in the long term, including the idealistic six-step “Ohio Plan” that will clean up the entire election system. I kid you not: manual, transparently counted paper ballots, automatic registration, a 4-day “Election Day” holiday, and banning of anything electronic anywhere near the polls, which will be manned by high school and university students paid $15 per hour–that’s how to spread the ideals and tasks of democracy to future generations relying on tried-and-true methods from 100 years ago (this time effectively supervised). Pay students stipends for an indescribable experience that they will want to go back to time and again.

    In the long term we must 1) ban corporate money from the campaign process; 2) abolish the Electoral College; 3) end gerrymandering; and 4) provide free public media access for all candidates meeting certain universal basic requirements. (Footnote: For all those large states with smaller populations that feel cheated at the Electoral College level, take heart–those of us on the coasts will be migrating to central US to swell your populations and fill your states, so that your Electoral College representation will rise, but at what price? Space is at such a premium, especially when global warming floods over the coastlines. Besides that, all of our votes will be counted fairly once this blight on democracy is eliminated.

    I apologize for the strange formatting. I think that the links work but it will take more practice until I can do it right.

    1. Lambert Strether

      I fixed the link. Basically, type some text (like a title), select the text, click the link button, enter or paste in the URL, click OK. That should do it. (Then Post Comment.)

  24. Pat

    Am I the only one who considers it ironic that in some ways we are likely to see the repeat of 1992? That year dissatisfaction with both parties’ nominees, particularly regarding trade, led to Ross Perot garnering 15% of the vote and essentially allowing Bill Clinton to win the election in ’92 in what would have been a close election but probably a winner for Bush 1. This year both parties are once again nominating unpopular candidates, trade is an issue, and a third party or write in rebellion by a portion of voters could deny the presumable front runner the Presidency.

    Karma is not enough of a bitch to the Clintons, but I really would love to see the Greens get enough votes to gain more standing AND see the voters give Hillary the finger at the same time. Although if things keep going as they are, she may not even be the nominee or will lose that presumable front runner standing by July.

    1. Kurt Sperry

      If the Greens could get to the 5% threshold and deny Hillary the win, that’d be pretty much a best case scenario short of Sanders getting the nomination from my perspective. If the Democratic Party cannot be taken over, it must be destroyed. It isn’t the Republicans who actually block progressive policies; only the corporate Democrats can prevent them from ever being brought forward.

  25. The Progressive Slots

    Electoral politics is exactly like gambling. In both cases it’s somewhat exciting but the more you play the more you lose.

    Say you blow your money playing Keno at the Trump Towers. Then you would at least end up with fond memories of addictive dopamine hits and fleeting encounters with rich people who will never bonk you or associate with you. But only a dope would do that, Right?

    OK, homo economicus, let’s say you spent 27 bucks or a multiple thereof. What would you rather have to show for it?

    – An independent National Human Rights Institution in compliance with the Paris Principles holding state conduct and policies to comprehensive world standards? Or

    – Nothing?

    So far you spent your money on electoral politics and you’ve got, let’s see…

    Nothing. Sanders is being crushed by fraud and armed force. Hillary’s giving you golden showers while coercively negating the will of the electors. You got no policy concessions, no rhetorical concessions, no empty gestures. Nothing.

    The money you gave to Bernie ($186M last I looked,) conservatively invested at 3%, would fund a stable endowment for a high-end European NHRI or a modest 3rd-decile American one.

    Why would you blow your money on rigged electoral politics?

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      I think you don’t know before hand which option would be preferable.

      Also, the experience, even if not the goal is not achieved, can be useful.

  26. Pat

    A few years ago I reluctantly came to the conclusion that while not as bad as Difi, Boxer was another problem in the Democratic Party. While more than a few people have probably joined me in that estimate in the last few days, I do find it sad. It isn’t just that power apparently really does corrupt, it is that it is incredibly hard to try to figure out who is not already on board with the corrupt nature of the beast. The only sure indicator I know is that support by the mainstream Democratic Party apparatuses is a pretty good indicator that you should do everything possible to deny that candidate the job.

    One of the big questions that all Sanders supporters need to ask themselves going forward is: Should we attempt to transform the Democratic Party from the ground up, is there value there for people orientated politics? Or start building something new, and allow the corrupt calcifying Democratic Party to keep sinking under its own weight? There are decent arguments to be made for both approaches. But there is one thing both have in common, it will be long, hard work with few rewards at the beginning.

    1. Nathanael

      Local Democratic Parties have the legal right to disafflliate from the state and federal parties. This is what should actually happen. If they won’t do that, then you make a different party.

  27. TheCatSaid

    To confirm and add to Don midwest’s important comment above, the election process (including procedures, technology, chain of custody, etc.) is badly broken. Great people have been doing trojan work over the last 16 years on this topic, mostly out of the limelight.

    A major expose is underway at blackboxvoting.org called “Fraction Magic”. It is hair-raising. The proven methodology (discovered because of telltale traces, email trails, and more) allows someone with only couple minutes’ access to change multiple votes in MANY PLACES AT THE SAME TIME in particularly nefarious ways, including pinpoint precision of weighting individual voters or groups of voters (e.g., voters with certain profiles or addresses in a specific precinct).

    There are some ways to catch it. Please read the report. It’s a compelling read, concise, and well documented. The last episode is due out any day.

  28. Gaylord

    When Bernie loses the nomination, remember this fiasco and vote for Jill Stein. I wish Bernie would team up with her in the Green Party. At last, there might be a chance for the overthrow of the oligarch party duopoly.

    1. Lambert Strether

      If you think that Sanders was the prime mover in the “fiasco,” it’s not clear to me why you would want him to join up with Stein.

      In any case, the Greens need to grow their candidates organically, not have them parachuted in.

  29. Russell

    What I see as the shape of things to come is Hillary against Trump with the DNC calculation that the Republican votes will replace the lost Sanders votes enough to give her & Bill the office.

      1. ambrit

        I’m hoping for a strong third party showing to throw the election into the House. Then we will get what we ‘deserve;’ President X, (a generic apparatchik.)

        1. Deloss Brown

          1. Begging your pardon, ambrit, but I cannot agree. If the election gets decided by the House, we are guaranteed that our next candidate will not be a “generic apparatchik,” but will be a deranged and dangerous Republican, possibly Paul Ryan himself. I do not want such a thing. Do not, do not, do not want such a thing.

          2. “Trump told Fox News last week that he would appoint conservative, pro-life judges to the Supreme Court.” –USA Today on line

          3. Paul Ryan would do that. So would any Republican. And he (or she) would also dismantle Social Security, Medicare, food stamps–the list goes on. I don’t “deserve” that. I don’t want that.

          And I beg everybody’s pardon if I am about to hurt any feelings: I am a Bernie supporter and send money to Democratic Senate and House candidates, and I don’t much like Mrs. Clinton, but if she’s the candidate, my choices are to vote for her, or to jump off a tall building. I think the talk of “I’d sooner vote for Trump” or “the Green Party” are delusional. As I said, I apologize in advance. But I don’t think anybody can deny paragraphs 2 and 3 above.

          1. ambrit

            How to reply;
            Well, I see H Clinton as being, as Glen Ford from Black Agenda Report formulated, “the more effective evil.” Just as it took Nixon, a perceived right wing Republican, to normalize relations with Mainland China, it will probably take H Clinton, a perceived Leftist, to dismantle the bulk of the New Deal and Great Society programs. She is a wolf in sheeps’ clothing, and thus, doubly dangerous. A Trump, or other right wing character, (and the reality of Trump is very much in doubt,) would deliver a clear ‘opposition’ against which the so called Leftists could campaign.
            Given the ‘Iron Law of Institutions,’ apparatchiks are self selected from the more philosophically conservative cohorts. This might manifest as a ‘radical’ President doing battle with a recalcitrant bureaucracy. Foot dragging and obstructionism can be subtle and powerful tools in political fights. The downside of this is the distinct possibility of a coup of some sort happening. Not necessarily the Army, but a false flag operation giving a pretext for a suspension of the Constitution and a declaration of martial law “for the good of the Nation.” Clinton is quite as capable of such an act as any so called Republican ‘Demon.’
            Don’t worry about hurting my feelings friend. Your civility is refreshing and appreciated. One needs must develop a thick skin when venturing out into the Commenteriat, everywhere. I take the point that passions are running high concerning this election. Good. That means that people are being exposed to other ways of looking at ‘things.’

          2. Nathanael

            No matter who is the candidate, my vote in the general election is irrevelant, because I live in a safe state.

            Unless you live in one of the five or six “swing states”, vote third party at every Presidential general election.

Comments are closed.