2:00PM Water Cooler 7/14/2016

By Lambert Strether of Corrente.


“The Republican Party appears to be taking some of the bite out of Donald Trump’s fiercest trade criticism, crafting a platform closer to its traditional trade views but taking a neutral position on President Barack Obama’s signature trade achievement, the TPP” [Politico]. Setting the stage for cutting deals in the lame duck. But don’t worry. It’s bipartisan! Back to Politico: “The intricate dance resembles the one taking place in the Democratic Party, where Hillary Clinton [BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! Politico wrote this with a straight face!] and Bernie Sanders both oppose TPP but Obama still hopes to win approval of the agreement before leaving office.” Note: It doesn’t really matter what Clinton promises on policy, given that ISDS will mean no privatizations can be ratcheted back, and that no additional services can be provisioned by government for “the general welfare” without compensating capital for “lost profits,” no matter how democratic the process through which the people sought “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” away from the clutches of Mr. Market.

A leaked chapter of the proposed EU-U.S. transatlantic trade deal shows the European Union wants the agreement to include an aggressive regulatory cooperation process for the energy sector. The leaked chapter drew quick criticism from environmental activist groups for, among other things, language that left energy efficiency norms up to industry self-regulation and established non-discrimination requirements for suppliers to electrical grids and gas pipelines. The Sierra Club says those provisions could undermine efforts of governments to pass meaningful regulation and incentivize the use of clean energy” [Politico].

In the New Hampshire rally with Sanders. “Clinton [inserted] into her standard stump speech a strong endorsement of Sanders’ position on an issue on which they have differed – one that the Vermont senator had not mentioned in his speech. In her administration, she said, the U.S. would say ‘no to unfair trade deals … including the Trans-Pacific Partnership'” [Los Angeles Times]. I’m not hearing “do everything I can to prevent passage of the TPP in the lame duck session.”



A foundation executive looks at the Clinton Foundation’s records [Medium]. Just appalling. Insultingly appalling.

The Voters

“Anti-Trump conservatives, you need to wake up. Wagging your finger at the enemy about the Constitution is going to be as effective as Stoddard pointing at his law books was in his battle against Valance. You don’t live in 1950s America anymore or even Ronald Reagan’s America. You don’t live in Stoddard’s East. You live in Doniphon’s Wild West. Your enemies don’t care about or play by your rules” [Economic Populist]. While not sharing this writer’s political views, it looks to me like the whinging Stoddards in the Republican Party are the exact same people who were unable to display adaptability and defeat Trump when he stomped the conservative nomenklatura in the primaries. So we see the Iron Law of Institutions playing out in both legacy parties, this election. What fun.

Sanders and Clinton in New Hampshire

So, what’s happening with the Sanders list?

“Text of Bernie Sanders’ speech endorsing Hillary Clinton” [MarketWatch]. Lambert here: Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin. The moment had to come, and now it has come. Will Sanders, in practice, have proven to be a sheepdog? Will Sanders’ endorsement decapitate his movement? To me, the open question is what actions Sanders voters will take, going forward, beyond the ballot box, and as organizers. I’m not really sanguine about that, because the Chicago conference didn’t give me confidence the left could unsilo itself, and distinguish itself, as a single institutional force ready to take power, from the (neoliberal) liberals (mostly Democrats) and the (neoliberal) conservatives (some Democrats, mostly Republicans). That said, the Sanders campaign did more than the left could have expected in its wildest dreams. To the text:

[SANDERS:] I have come here today not to talk about the past but to focus on the future. That future will be shaped more by what happens on November 8 in voting booths across our nation than by any other event in the world. I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president.

During the last year I had the extraordinary opportunity to speak to more than 1.4 million Americans at rallies in almost every state in this country. I was also able to meet with many thousands of other people at smaller gatherings. And the profound lesson that I have learned from all of that is that this campaign is not really about Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, or any other candidate who sought the presidency. This campaign is about the needs of the American people and addressing the very serious crises that we face. And there is no doubt in my mind that, as we head into November, Hillary Clinton is far and away the best candidate to do that.

I’d prefer the position that Clinton hasn’t won the nomination until there’s a vote on the convention floor, which I had understood to be the position of the Sanders campaign.

[SANDERS:] Hillary Clinton understands that we must fix an economy in America that is rigged and that sends almost all new wealth and income to the top one percent.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

[SANDERS:] This election is about the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality that currently exists, the worst it has been since 1928. Hillary Clinton knows that something is very wrong when the very rich become richer while many others are working longer hours for lower wages.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

[SANDERS:] I am happy to tell you that at the Democratic Platform Committee which ended Sunday night in Orlando, there was a significant coming together between the two campaigns and we produced, by far, the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party. Our job now is to see that platform implemented by a Democratic Senate, a Democratic House and a Hillary Clinton president — and I am going to do everything I can to make that happen.

Platform as a highly inadequate baseline and a method to hold Clinton’s feet to the fire? Yes. Not negligible, but not much. And Clinton immediately showed — before the rally! — that she didn’t take it seriously.

[SANDERS:] Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today.

I don’t see how the institutionalized corruption of both legacy parties generally and the Clinton Dynasty in particular make any of this possible. One door closes, another opens…

“‘I can’t help but say how much more enjoyable this election is going to be when we are on the same side,’ [Clinton] said. “You know what? We are stronger together!'” [CNN]. Whichever Clinton operative decided to deploy the “stronger together” slogan shouldn’t be expected to have known that it’s also a slogan developed by the military junta in Thailand. But whatever.

“Tuesday’s rally drew supporters of Clinton and Sanders, some of whom chanted ‘Bernie’ while others chanted ‘unity.’ Some Sanders supporters left their seats when Sanders endorsed Clinton. Earlier, when New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen said ‘we need to elect Hillary,’ she was interrupted by shouts of ‘No!’ and chants of “Bernie, Bernie’ [USA Today]. “But there were deafening cheers as Sanders said Clinton would ‘make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today.'”

“The most ringing portion of the endorsement came at the end, with Sanders bringing up some of the personal reasons why he had chosen to support Clinton. But even this portion felt a bit lifeless, with Sanders citing Clinton’s intellect and passion on children’s issues, and failing to address her integrity, which he directly challenged during the campaign and which will continue to be an issue the Republicans attack in the wake of the conclusion of the FBI’s investigation into her email scandal” [Slate].

And what happened here?

Do we have any readers who were on that conference call?

“[I]n a nod to Sanders’s successful fundraising efforts that brought in millions of dollars from small donors, with at one time an average donation of $27, Clinton’s campaign has made $27 an option on its online donor page” [CNN].

“About 85 percent of Democrats who backed Mr. Sanders in the primary contests said they planned to vote for her in the general election, according to a Pew poll released last week. Yet she has struggled to appeal to the independents and liberals who rallied behind the senator’s call for a ‘political revolution’ to topple establishment politicians, Mrs. Clinton included” [New York Times]. 85% of declared Democrats. Not such a good number from a third of the electorate.

“I am not voting for Hillary Clinton, regardless of her endorsement by Bernie Sanders. My decision isn’t because of the scandal around her emails or because of some concern over her character. My reasons are pretty straightforward. I don’t agree with her ideologically” [Eddie S. Glaude, Time].

The Trail

“The final amendment to the Democratic Party platform was meant to sprinkle Hillary Clinton’s name throughout the document, putting a contentious and drawn-out primary process to rest in favor of a unified party. It never came up for a vote” [Bloomberg]. “Despite having the support of both the Clinton and Bernie Sanders campaign staffs, the amendment hadn’t been run by committee members or Sanders supporters in the audience, some of whom angrily shouted down the language because, they argued, Clinton isn’t the official nominee yet. The moment highlighted the state of the party after a long weekend of intense debates in Orlando, Florida, that left some tempers frayed, and extensive back-room policy negotiations between the two campaigns….”

“On Tuesday, the [Trump and Indiana Governor Mike Pence] will put their compatibility to the test when they appear together at a rally near Indianapolis, the latest in a string of public auditions for the running mate role” [RealClearPolitics].

“”Hillary Clinton’s campaign is vetting James G. Stavridis, a retired four-star Navy admiral who served as the 16th supreme allied commander at NATO, as a possible running mate” [New York Times]. From the Wikipedia entry, which seems to have been written by a Clinton operative: “Stavridis has long advocated the use of “Smart Power,” which he defines as the balance of hard and soft power taken together. In numerous articles[17] and speeches, he has advocated creating security in the 21st century by building bridges, not walls.” I mean, come on.

Stats Watch

JOLTS, May 2016: “Job openings fell sharply” [Econoday]. “On the breakup side of the labor market, the quits rate is unchanged at 2.0 percent and is not pointing to much confidence among workers who in general, despite low wage growth, are not moving up to higher paying employers.” Hysteresis….

Wholesale Trade, May 2016: “Wholesalers held back inventory growth in May, up only 0.1 percent and well under a 0.5 percent rise in sales at the wholesale level. The stock-to-sales ratio is down one notch to 1.35 from 1.36” [Econoday]. “Inventories of two very large components — drugs and autos — fell sharply.” That’s too bad. A lot of us need more drugs. And: “The headlines say wholesale sales were up month-over-month with inventory levels remaining at levels associated with recessions. Our analysis shows an degradation of the 3 month averages but we see acceleration looking at the single month’s data” [Econintersect].

NFIB Small Business Optimism Index, June 2016: ” [R]ose 0.7 points in June to 94.5, the third monthly increase since falling to a 2-year low in March” [Econoday]. “[P]lans to increase capital outlays rising 3 points to an even more solid 26, while job openings were even harder to fill, rising 2 points to 29. Expectations of an improvement in real sales rose 1 point to 2, but plans to increase inventories fell 2 points to a minus 3 and plans to increase employment dropped 1 point to 11.” And: “[A] negligible increase showing no real enthusiasm for making capital outlays, increasing inventories, or expanding” [Econintersect].

“More than a year after last reaching an all-time high, the U.S. stock market did it again today” [ETF.com]. Best economy ever!

Gentlemen Prefer Bonds: “Some interesting stuff overnight. Risk is back on as global equities continue their surge and the pound sterling recovers. One commentator suggests that the surge is mostly short covering and partly a response to the modicum of stability which has emerged with the naming of new Prime Minister now a certainty. The Yen continues to weaken and that has buoyed Japanese equities. The Treasury yield curve steepened as it cheapened” [Across the Curve].

Shipping: “The Turkish captain and second-in-command of a ship carrying a record £512m ($670m) worth of cocaine were convicted yesterday in a Glasgow court of an international drug smuggling operation” [Splash 247]. “Some 3.2 tonnes of the drug was found in a ballast tank in the bows of the Hamal OSV after it was stopped 160 km off Aberdeen.” Isolated incident, I’m sure.

Supply Chain: “General Motors Co. is locked in a bitter dispute with a parts supplier that the auto maker warns could shut down its North American assembly plants. GM is fighting to get inventory and factory equipment from a family owned supplier that filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last week, a filing the supplier says was triggered by a deeply unprofitable contract with GM, the WSJ’s Stephanie Gleason reports. The conflict is about as antagonistic as it gets in the automotive world, where the fortunes of car makers and suppliers are closely intertwined and often long-lasting. In this case, 115-year-old Clark-Cutler-McDermott Co. says it has lost $30,000 per day since 2013 under its pact with GM. Small auto suppliers can struggle to struggle to profit from the breakneck production pace that GM and others car makers set because operating above their production capacity actually costs more money than initial supply contracts typically envision” [Wall Street Journal].

Supply Chain: “The cracks that online sales are creating in the retail supply chain may be showing up most vividly at American shopping malls. That’s where department stores, once the linchpin of malls, are being displaced by specialty retailers and restaurants that take up a fraction of the space but drive more sales, the WSJ’s Suzanne Kapner reports. One mall operator, General Growth, has taken back space from 65 department stores, or about 15% of its anchors, and doled it out to smaller operators. The shift unravels the traditional concept of the mall, with an anchor tenant, and highlights the way e-commerce has fractured retail logistics, with demand to deliver truckloads of goods to outlets giving way to more nimble distribution of lighter loads to smaller storefronts and distribution centers. The challenge for shipping providers is making those sorts of deliveries with the efficiency that comes with bigger loads for big clients” [Wall Street Journal]. Worth noting that warehouse, trucking, and retail work is both ill-paid and the mainstay of millions. These supply chain upheavals must be affecting them, but we don’t know how; not part of the narrative.

Supply Chain: “Air New Zealand to replace inventories with 3-D printing” [DC Velocity]. “Air New Zealand is using 3-D printing—also known as additive layer manufacturing technology—to make the fold-down cocktail trays that form part of its ‘business premier’ passenger seats.”

Political Risk: “A performative statement is one which doesn’t describe reality but rather creates it – as, for example, when a priest says ‘I pronounce you man and wife'” [Stumbling and Mumbling]. Readers will recall I’ve mentioned the tendency among Democrats to performance statements. Although the post starts on on politics, it broadens out to this crucial example:

I do so instead to suggest that performativity is more common than we might think. Take three very different examples

– As the wonderful Donald MacKenzie has pointed out (pdf), the statement “markets are efficient” created a reality in which index-tracker funds were launched.

Somebody smarter than I am would, I think, find it useful to integrate performativity (which operates at the sentence level of claims) with narrative (which operates at the level of discourse, as per this well-received post “When Narratives Go Bad” from Epsilon Theory, in Links a few days ago.

Political Risk: “Easing Political Uncertainty Encourages Animal Spirits” [Brown Brothers Harriman, Across the Curve]. Pesky voters!

Political Risk: “The Q3 and Q4 comps probably will be better than Q2’s (I’m not sure they could be worse), but I suspect it’ll be awhile — at least until after the U.S. election and probably well into early 2017 — before rail execs talk with a bit more confidence about the industry’s medium-term traffic prospects. Until then, we’ll all continue to monitor, navigate, and now and again curse the uncertainty curve” [Progressive Railroading]. Animal spirits? These are the laziest, most torporous animals in the world, and most prone to whinging!

Today’s Fear & Greed Index: 88, Extreme Greed (previous close: 81, Greed) [CNN]. One week ago: 68 (Greed). (0 is Extreme Fear; 100 is Extreme Greed). Last updated Jul 12 at 12:05pm. My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball; but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!

Dear Old Blighty

“FYI: Glossary Issues with the Chilcot Report” [Another Word for It]. This is important, because people who make bad assumptions about the data may run searches that give partial results, even in the simple-minded world of string searching.

Class Warfare

“Megabank JPMorgan Chase & Co. announced Tuesday morning that beginning next February the bank will begin to raise wages for about 18,000 hourly full- and part-time employees. Depending on the cost of living at various locations, minimum hourly pay will rise in a range of $12.00 to $16.50. The increases will be phased in over three years in more than 75 cities” [247 Wall Street]. In other words, Jippy Mo implemented Clinton’s minimum wage proposal, clear evidence she didn’t ask for enough. Of course, all this was driven from “below,” and is not a matter of nobless oblige.

“Starbucks Raises Lack Detail, Bolster CEO Image” [MarketWatch]. Now that’s a shocker. From CEO Howard Schultz’s memo: “[E]ffective October 3, all partners [sic] and store managers in U.S. company-operated stores will receive an increase in base pay of 5% or greater. The range of increase will be determined by geographic and market factors and is intended to ensure Starbucks remains a retail employer of choice in all the markets where we operate.” So Starbucks implemented Clinton’s minimum wage proposal too.

“I argue that neoliberalism is a species of fascism because the economy has brought under subjection not only the government of democratic countries but also every aspect of our thought” [Defend Democracy].

“Friendship and natural selection” [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]. ” Across the whole genome, friends’ genotypes at the single nucleotide polymorphism level tend to be positively correlated (homophilic). In fact, the increase in similarity relative to strangers is at the level of fourth cousins. However, certain genotypes are also negatively correlated (heterophilic) in friends. And the degree of correlation in genotypes can be used to create a “friendship score” that predicts the existence of friendship ties in a hold-out sample.”

“New Economic Thinking Is Needed to Stop Party Crashers Like Trump” [Mark Thoma, The Fiscal Times]. “That empowerment must be both economic and political. Workers deserve to be compensated fairly for their work, and have generous social support programs to rely upon when economic changes that are out of their control throw them out of work or force them to accept lower paying jobs. We should not hesitate to ask those who have gained so much from globalization and technological change to give something back to those who have paid the costs of their success.” All this would have been especially great, say, forty or even thirty years ago.

“The Abdication of the Left” [Dani Rodrik, Project Syndicate].

[T]he experience in Latin America and southern Europe reveals perhaps a greater weakness of the left: the absence of a clear program to refashion capitalism and globalization for the twenty-first century. From Greece’s Syriza to Brazil’s Workers’ Party, the left has failed to come up with ideas that are economically sound and politically popular, beyond ameliorative policies such as income transfers.

Economists and technocrats on the left bear a large part of the blame. Instead of contributing to such a program, they abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central tenets. Worse still, they led the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures.

UPDATE True, or not, this is richly ironic, given that not only economics departments and institutions with which Rodrik works intimately, but the political class as a whole, globally, did everything in their considerable power to destroy the capability of the left to deliver the program which they now insist it deliver! Recategorizing a process of suppression and academic marginalization and professional butchery — hackery being far too weak a word — as “abdication” is even more richly in “murdering one’s parents and begging for mercy as an orphan” territory. Brad DeLong comments: “In retrospect, who can disagree? We [who?] misjudged the proper balance between state and market, between command-and-control and market-incentive roads to social democratic ends” [Washington Center for Equitable Growth]. It’s not clear to me how the list DeLong’s keeping of people to fire after Clinton’s (presumed) election is going to help “[build] a programmatic economic response from the left” as called for by Rodrik, but perhaps there’s a subtlety I’m missing.

News of the Wired

“A dwarf planet half the size of Britain has been found tumbling through space in the most distant reaches of the solar system” [Guardian].

“A Nihilist’s Guide to Meaning” [Medium].

* * *

Readers, feel free to contact me with (a) links, and even better (b) sources I should curate regularly, and (c) to find out how to send me images of plants. Vegetables are fine! Fungi are deemed to be honorary plants! See the previous Water Cooler (with plant) here. And here’s today’s plant (Lee):


Lee writes: Cottonwoods in mist, Lamar valley, Yellowstone National Park.

Readers, if you want to send me some videos of plants in whole systems (bees and blossoms, for example, or running streams) — I can use them to practice with FFmpeg and hopefully post them. Because of download times, they’ll have to be measured in seconds, rather than minutes. Thank you! Adding, I got another one today! Please keep sending them; they will ultimately appear!

Adding, thank you for your contributions during the rapid and successful Water Cooler Mini-Fundraiser. It remains only for me individually thank those who sent contributions via physical mail! Now, let me if I can find a physical pen; I don’t think I have any, anymore….

* * *

Readers, if you enjoyed what you read today, please use the dropdown to choose your contribution, and then click the hat! Your tip will be welcome today, and indeed any day. Water Cooler will not exist without your regular support.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in Water Cooler on by .

About Lambert Strether

Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of neoliberalism (“Because markets”). I don’t much care about the “ism” that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism razing it. I don’t much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue — and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me — is the tens of thousands of excess “deaths from despair,” as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics — even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton’s wars created — bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news flow — currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press — a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let’s call such voices “the left.” Volatility creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes all such programs, isn’t allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I’ve been blogging about it daily for fourteen years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.


    1. jo6pac

      Those that sent money to Bernie please let Lambert and us know if dddc or dnc ask for $$$$$$. Then may be it will just be a letter from the foundation asking for $$$$$$$$$$$$.

          1. Rick

            As did I. I will keep the poster I bought from his campaign as a reminder of a now passed moment of hope.

            1. cwaltz

              The moment hasn’t passed unless you were expecting Bernie Sanders to do all the heavy lifting.

              The reality is that each and every person disappointed today should make a concerted effort to let the DNC know in no uncertain terms did their lying, cheating and outright rigging of this primary mean that they’ll be getting a vote this November. It also means that each and every person find their spine and support someone other than the Democratic nominee. Expect to hunker down for 4 years no matter what because if Clinton or Trump are the nominees then you can pretty much expect there won’t be many benefits for average Americans.

              1. Optimader

                that they’ll be getting a vote this November. It also means that each and ev
                You probably meant no vote

              2. Ike

                hear hear! I unsubscribed from ActBlue, KOS, & Bernie although I don’t now what to make of my FB page BernCongress. What are we going to call the movement now?

                1. Dave

                  I was asking the family what else we could unsubscribe from to register displeasure, disgust and disdain for the economic masters of the economy pushing Hillary after we supported Bernie for so long. Hearing my rant, my ten year old came up with something so simple, so basic, so effective, that I have to mention it.

                  “Don’t buy anything until after the election except what we really need”

                  Buyers’ strike till November?

                  Can you forswear all discretionary purchases until then?

                  Just think what even one tenth of Bernie’s supporter doing that would do to Obama’s “rapidly improving economy” claims and Hillary’s happy face?

              3. Higgs Boson

                If we survive a HRC administration, that is. Her harpies Nuland and Power are hell-bent on starting a war with Russia. Hunker down, indeed – in my fallout shelter!

                1. Procopius

                  I read a brief mention several months ago that Nuland’s husband, the bloodthirsty Robert Kagan, is employed as either a consultant of “adviser” to the National Security Council. That makes me suspect there are a LOT of neocons deeply burrowed into the structure.

                2. Procopius

                  I read a brief mention several months ago that Nuland’s husband, the bloodthirsty Robert Kagan, is employed as either a consultant or “adviser” to the National Security Council. That makes me suspect there are a LOT of neocons deeply burrowed into the structure.

              4. Bev

                We have to stop the ability of the abusive right to rig future elections with the assistance of the abusive media. This is important:

                from http://www.trustvote.org email:

                I am thrilled to announce that Bob Fitrakis the lawyer and board member and writer of the Columbus Institute of Contemporary Journalism, has filed the first Ohio Election Integrity Lawsuit against Edison Media Research to release the raw data which shows such dramatic differences on exit polls and electronic vote totals in eleven states in the presidential primaries throughout the US. The file number and details of this lawsuit as transmitted to me are as follows:

                Although I have presented the file number of the lawsuit at this time, as you may find out the contents are not available for viewing at this time. Nonetheless since so many of you wanted the file number, I am including it in this announcement for you. I will let all of you know as soon as the details of the lawsuit will become available. The biggest opportunity in informing you in detail about this lawsuit is the education that goes with informing you about our election systems.

                The following transaction was entered by Fitrakis, Robert on 7/11/2016 at 5:03 PM EDT and filed on 7/11/2016
                Case Name:Johnson v. Edison Media Research, Inc
                Case Number:2:16-cv-00670-EAS-TPK
                Filer: Peter M JohnsonDocument Number:2

                Docket Text: 
                with civil cover sheet against Edison Media Research, Inc, filed by Peter M Johnson. (Attachments: # (1) Civil Cover Sheet) (Fitrakis, Robert

                The exit polls have been adjusted to fit electronic vote totals since 2004 when they appeared to show Kerry winning against Bush. Explanations were developed at that time to explain the differences between the exit polls and the vote totals which was that exit polls are generally unreliable. This assessment of exit poll reliability was developed by Karl Rove who was an assistant to George Bush. In order to keep the Media Consortium business money coming in, Edison Media Research has always edited, or “cleaned” as they put it their data since that time. The raw data exit polls are stored at the University of Connecticut. No one has ever requested them. We are requesting it for the first time.

                People who want to see raw data are often labeled “conspiracy theorists”. We want to make sure you know that we will be described as such. Actually, we are just people wanting to see unedited exit polls and to learn what really happened during our primary elections. As you may know, the exit polls and the electronic vote totals are very different in eleven states. The Media Consortium and Edison Media Research canceled the exit polls for California, New Jersey, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, New Mexico and Puerto Rico, after receiving a letter from Cliff Arnebeck, the other lawyer who works with Bob Fitrakis asking the Edison Research to put a hold on the raw data.

                We are expecting the Edison Media Research to file a motion to dismiss. They have up to sixty days to do this. During this time, we need to spread the word about this lawsuit to as many people as possible. We also need to raise funds to address further legal costs. If you feel inspired to support us, please donate to this lawsuit on the Ohio Election Integrity lawsuit button on Trustvote.org. We really appreciate your help however large or small. Thank you!! Our costs are going to rise significantly now. If we raise money beyond our legal costs, we will be able to direct some of this money towards alternative media education so that many people in the US begin to know about the kind of election editing that goes on.

                If we are successful with this lawsuit, we will then file another lawsuit to look at the paper ballots. Everyone will be educated throughout this process about the real role of Edison Media Research and the Media Consortium in presenting news about our elections. The Media Consortium consists of CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, Fox News and the Associated Press (AP). Our examining the ballots will show us who really won the Democratic presidential primary. Although Bernie may have already conceded by that time or before then, at least he will know what the truth was about how many votes he really garnered. He can do with that what he wants. Additionally, voters will know the truth about the Democratic presidential primary and how votes were handled.

                The results of looking at these ballots has substantial consequences for American people. Americans will have been educated about what really happens when large corporations with partisan interests who are part of the 1% count our ballots with proprietary software that no one is allowed to look at to see if the vote totals have changed. This process in our country makes our elections extremely vulnerable to hacking and manipulation. As a large group of people, perhaps millions of people, learn about the unfortunate nature of our election process, that same large group will have a chance to begin to demand and create a much more transparent system, a system that is run by the people and for the people. A system that is hopefully not run by private partisan corporations. This is also the deep heartfelt wish of both the Institute of American Democracy and Election Integrity and the Institute of Contemporary Journalism. It is a wish which members of both Institutes feel will require the support of millions of people to effect a change.

                Come join us in manifesting this change. It will take time, but it will be extremely satisfying!

                Lori Grace
                Institute for American Democracy and Election Integrity

                Robert Fitrakis
                Columbus Institute for Contemporary Journalism

                Just in! Lori Grace, Bob Fitrakis and Bill Simpich will be on KPFA tomorrow,
                July 12th at 5pm.


                Support this important effort for honest elections which could move politicians and news organizations to more honestly adopt laws to help citizens, rather than harm them. It also could affect the 3rd party efforts as soon as November, if the fraud of those voting, scanning, tabulating machines and the media that reinforced the fraud were brought to light as this lawsuit would do, with the result of finally having those machines eliminated, and media reformed.

                via: https://twitter.com/LeeCamp?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

                Lee Camp [Redacted] ‏@LeeCamp 20h20 hours ago

                WATCH what Jill Stein said to me about where the #Bernie movement goes from here


                Dr. Jill Stein ‏@DrJillStein 18h18 hours ago

                I congratulate Bernie on an impressive campaign within an undemocratic primary & showing how grassroots campaigns can win America.


                The politics of fear has given us everything we were afraid of.



                OpEdNews Op Eds 7/8/2016 at 14:52:51
                Bernie Sanders has Options: Will he choose the right one?
                By Senator Mike Gravel

                Lacking procedures to amend the Constitution and realizing the Congress would never act on such a matter, the only recourse People have is to take direct amending action in a national election conducted by a nonprofit entity with transparent electoral procedures better than any government election in our history. Taking this direct electoral action is the only hope the People have to ever overcome and end the controlling power of the elite 1% short of a violent revolution. This electoral process is legal in that it follows the same electoral process established in Article 7 of the Constitution, which created our government. Bernie has the organization and financial wherewith all to undertake this national election.

                Over the last couple decades, colleagues and I have drafted a legislative package, the Citizens Amendment to the Constitution and a Citizens Legislative Procedures Act, incorporating the same legislative procedures that govern the U.S. Senate and most legislative bodies. We have also thought through the tactics to circumvent the government to bring about its enactment as the law of the land.

                The heart of our efforts is the six sections of the Citizens Amendment to the Constitution of the United States herein summarized:

                Section 1. Asserts the authority of the people to establish an independent Legislature of the People with the power to enact, repeal and amend public policies, laws, charters and constitutions;

                Section 2. Sanctions the national election and the enactment standard for the ratification of the Citizens Amendment and the enactment of the Citizens Legislative Procedures Act;

                Section 3. Establishes a Citizens Trust with a board of Trustees and a director to conduct initiatives elections and administer legislative procedures on behalf of the People;

                Section 4. Defines the standards to henceforth amend constitutions and charters, and the standards for enacting laws;

                Section 5. Only natural persons can introduce initiatives and contribute funds for their enactment or defeat; and

                Section 6. Establishes the power to enforce the Citizens Amendment in the Citizens Legislative Procedures Act and additional appropriate legislation.

                The Sanders campaign organization is uniquely positioned to take control of the national electoral process for the enactment of the National Citizens Initiative. This will necessarily generate the cohesive grist needed to keep the Sanders movement from dissipating and will actually empower his supporters and all American citizens as legislators able to enact their social, economic and political agenda themselves. The cohesive force created by this undertaking will continue to impact governance policy long into the future to the horror of the 1%.

                All that is required to buy into direct democracy is unreserved faith in the People, which most politicians and elites have little of. Or unreserved faith in the 1%

                The decision is now Bernie’s and his supporters to make.

                1. Lambert Strether Post author

                  Bev, please just don’t dump stuff. Please add value by selecting and highlighting the areas to focus on. If every commenter did as you do, the comments section would be unreadable and unusable.

        1. Pirmann

          She doesn’t actually need The List, so long as Bernadict and Liddy Warren continue their sycophantic campaigning, and as long as they funnel their fund raising $$ to Her.

          Don’t think it can’t happen…

          1. different clue

            What the Clintonites really want The List for is to use as an Enemies List. As long the Sanders group keeps that list away from the Clintonites, people will be safe.

            Of course, the Clintonites could also have digital sappers working on hacking into all Sanders’ databases. ” All your List are belong to us.” Lets hope the Sanders group doesn’t have any undercover Clintonite moles within it and lets hope their anti-haqrataq security is unbreachable.

      1. Bullwinkle

        I recently received an email (last hour or so) from the Bernie gang asking for $$$. No mention about the Billary endorsement and more blah blah about the “revolution”. I unsubscribed.

        1. ChiGal

          Uh, no, it not only mentions the endorsement but acknowledges your disappointment as well.

          1. Bullwinkle

            Yes, you are correct. Honestly, I didn’t read much after the second paragraph. My bad.

        2. HBE

          Huh, i didn’t think of that. I had mentioned I would agree with those that said he was bird dogging if he handed hillary the list, i didn’t think he would keep it but just funnel his donations to her (if that is what’s actually happening?). Is that possible to even do?

          This sucks, but I would be absolutely enraged if he Gives all his campaign money directly to Clinton instead of the down tickets he wants to build a “revolution” (reforms) from.

          OK so he is just keeping his word so I won’t say it was bird dogging, but I will definitely be keeping an eye out for him doing the already mentioned things that go above and beyond just keeping his word to endorse the dem nominee.

          Im sorry I tricked myself into having hope in the system one last time, well fool me twice.

          1. Arizona Slim

            The unsub form asked why I was leaving Bernie’s list. I cited the Clinton endorsement as my reason.

            1. pretzelattack

              i can’t think of a good reason to give the endorsement before the convention. i was hoping he would use withholding it as a way to damage her campaign, while still remaining true to his word.

              1. Indrid Cold

                People need to remember this the next time someone ostensibly ‘independent’ or ‘socialist’ or ‘with social democratic instincts’ runs as a Democrat so long as that party is operated by and for a criminal syndicate masquerading as a charitable foundation. One would have thought the Republicans would have pioneered this sort of sleazery.

                1. pretzelattack

                  i just thought of a possible reason, but i can’t say it’s convincing. i was hoping that bernie would drag out giving his endorsement as long as he could, giving clinton 2 weeks less to execute her pivot to the right, whatever good that would do.

                  but if he wanted to give his endorsement in such a way as to ensure his supporters would not vote for clinton, this would be a possible way to do it. look at the justified outrage on facebook. fear may not motivate people, but anger does, at least for awhile. giving his endorsement in this way was like slapping his supporters in the face and telling them “good luck, kid, it’s a cold world out there”.

                  i don’t know if this was his intention, and i would have to go through some contortions to convince myself that it was. at any rate, we have been slapped.

                  1. NotTimothyGeithner

                    I saw a comment that the timing was stupid on the democrats’ part at this point. It would have been better to embrace Sanders and his supporters at the convention after a basically procedural vote where Sanders loses fair and square and could bow out gracefully.

                    My belief is a lack of participation is frightening the Democrats. Hillary’s walker brigades and big money strategists simply are not going to stand in the Summer sun outside a Wal-Mart (where I have seen voter registration efforts have been at places where I kind of suspect the people are registered already) or a K-Mart, anywhere transient types might be. I suspect they pushed for it to “get back to work” especially after the House sit in didn’t do much except to embarrass a few civil rights leaders as they embraced the grossly immoral no-fly list.

                    1. aab

                      Can we just take a moment to remember again what a repulsive display that sit-in was?

                      I left the Democratic Party today. It felt surprisingly good.

            2. Pat K California

              When I learned of the endorsement today, I knew exactly what to do. Got on the Internet and re-registered from Democrat (I’ve been one for years) to “no party preference”. Then unsubscribed from Bernie’s list.

              I harbor no ill will toward Sanders though. Cripes, he is completely responsible for making me finally truly “see” the total rot at the heart of the Dem party. I’ll forever be grateful for that. So in the unsubscribe box I gave him my thanks and told him to take care of himself. Then I said, “Never Hillary. Never ever.”

              Time now to move on and give some attention to Jill Stein.

              1. JTMcPhee

                I think Jill Stein needs to earn that attention, mount that assault on the Elysium. Not happening from anything I can see.

          2. Optimader

            Seems to me the list is pretty much irrelevant. Or am i missing something?

            Anyone on his list that makes an autonomous nervous system move from Sanders to Clinton merely because he endorsed her would likely have moved to her after she was nominated. Everyone else that had a set of rational reasons for supporting Sanders should really have no justification to vote for HRC and should consequently pursue any alternative than HRC

            So whats the point of Sanders list folks?

              1. optimader

                Using The Terminator robot as a metaphor, I doubt a list primarily composed of little people will be perceived as a threat to Clinton, Inc.

                1. aab

                  I think it’s mostly for volunteering and money. There are soft Bernie supporters, and some will be on the list. Don’t think they’ll give her what she needs, though.

                  The enemies thing is no joke to me — but then I’m the one Brad D. was really threatening when he misunderstood Yves’ Politico piece.

                  And I’m on that list. Would it be dispositive? No. But if she got into power, you don’t think some little Stanford intern wouldn’t be tasked with datamining and cross-referencing social media, list info, etc. ? I’m not operating with some high degree of security. I did not imagine when I started posting that it would be necessary. The people they have gone after so far have NOT been big fish. Remember, they enjoy dominating and hurting people. That’s how you rise through the ranks in Clintontown: brownnosing and bullying.

                  Also, if the DNC/DCCC/DSCC/Clinton campaign, etc. hound the people on the list for money, even if they resist those appeals, it might also turn them off other, better appeals: Brand New Congress, Teachout, etc. As with so much Clinton, if they get their hands on it, they can destroy its value, even if they themselves do not benefit from it.

        3. afisher

          I received an email from DCCC – He pledged to do EVERYTHING he can to turn the House blue — and he asked for your help – send DCCC cash.
          And then another from DSCC – typical hair on fire screed.

          They are not based on Bernie email list.

          1. Lambert Strether Post author

            Hmm. If the DCCC/DSCC apparat believes that Sanders can “deliver” his supporters, that will be one excellent test. (I won’t trust a news story about this, naturally; FEC reports needed.)

          2. Dave

            Here’s how I’m giving the middle finger to the DNC traitors:

            I sent back yet another DNC request for money in their postage paid envelope. Wrote “Nope”, I’m voting for Trump”…and I enclosed a lead tire weight I found in the street, wrapped in paper so the sharp edges won’t hurt post office machinery.

            Per their contract with the post office, the DNC will have to pay about $20 postage on that envelope, whether they like it or not. Washers, nuts, smooth rocks, maybe even taping the envelope to the face of a brick should do the trick. Let’s transfer some money to the postal service which is a fine publicly owned institution.

        4. MojaveWolf

          As soon as I noticed all the past tense stuff in that “forever forward” email, I started skimming in expectation of the worst until I got to the “I have endorsed Hillary Clinton” part. I quit reading then. Didn’t even know he asked for money.

          I am thankful, very thankful, to Bernie and very appreciative of what he’s done in showing that their is a huge, massive progressive constituency out there, and that he and Trump have shown that America is not as stupid and complacent as I feared, and the majority will vote for change if they think there is a real opportunity to make it happen. (that said, the timing and language of this endorsement was bizarre and horrifying, and I’m as deeply upset and disappointed by it as anyone).

          But now, as others here have said, it’s up to us to carry things forward. I worry that none of this will matter (short of much more physically obstructive means of protest) unless we shift to entirely hand counted paper ballots everywhere in the future (and counted with multiple observers and possibly filmed, if that latter is practical), with the chain of collection under observation at every step, but for now, I’m going Green, and repeatedly telling all the “please vote lesser evil to stop Trump” crowd that if they don’t want Trump, they really, really, really don’t want me to choose between the D/R lesser evil, cause that would be him, not HRC.

          I have thus far been both banned (only in one case, granted) and unfollowed (more than one case) by former Sandernistas on twitter who are going either the Trump or HRC route, to which I say fine. (note: most of the people going Trump are totally cool with those voting Stein; the others are the exception)

          I have also been absolutely charmed by the HRC/DNC crowds method of winning voters to their cause, which usually consists of sending myself and other unhappy former Sandernistas tweets saying some variation on “Won’t miss you bye!”. Keep in mind, those particular tweets are not coming from people who are unfollowing us but people we have never heard of before. A truly unique vote gathering strategy which I hope they continue to use. (and which points back to my desire for handcounted paper ballots, tho expect people actually working for establishment candidates to tell you why this can’t be done, and why small sample audits are the way to go, and to ignore you if you point to past issues with this method).

        1. NotTimothyGeithner

          Unsubscribe and explain why if the option is available. You might suggest they ask GoldmanSachs for money since they will drop 200k on a Clinton speech so embarrassing she doesn’t want to share it.

          1. Optimader

            Clinton doesnt get it but there should be a $1.00 checkbox even if is a cash burn to collect it as it pshycologically invests the donor

            1. MojaveWolf

              I keep telling them I’m more worried about stopping Hillary, as Trump is anti-TPP, doesn’t have a history of orchestrating right wing coups of democratically elected governments that get environmental and human rights activists killed, doesn’t have a history of pushing for stupid invasions of other countries, seems opposed to war as opposed to sounding like he’s desperate to restart the cold war and possibly even a shooting war w/Russian and generally seems like much the lesser evil to me as compared to Hillary. And if they are going to continue to make stopping Trump their primary focus rather than enacting worthwhile policies and/or stopping HRC and the DNC crowd who are fine with winning elections through fraud and disenfranchisement and using the media and their paid off shills to spread lies and misinformation, then they need to unsubscribe me from their list.

        2. Dave

          Better yet, hit the “SPAM” button if you are using GMAIL. If enough people do that, all their emails go to spam or don’t get through to begin with.

          1. m

            Sent to spam, getting tons today. They are overselling Bernie. Won’t unsubscribe from Bernie though, not his fault system rigged. Time to burn it down & vote for Trump-lesser of two evils.

      2. Elizabeth Burton

        Funny you should ask. I have begun receiving emails from DCCC again despite my having NOT resubscribed to same, and in today’s mail was a “survey” under Pelosi’s name asking me what I planned to do to get Democrats in Congress. Before their half-assed survey (which was so general as to be meaningless) began they were begging for money.

        That said, wasn’t Bernie’s list already in the DNC’s database? Which means they could grab it even if he didn’t officially share it. Too bad for them I’ll be specifically targeting my small donations directly to candidates supported by DFA et al.

        Bernie did what he could with the tools we have—the ones that will actually work given the situation. He did a terrific job of making people aware of not just the effects we’re dealing with but the causes, and that very much needed doing. He said from the beginning this was about waking up the dragon, and anything else achieved was gravy. I have seen too many potentially excellent movements go belly up because it got to be all about an individual or a small group of people who were then branded all sorts of nasty things when they turned out to be human.

        Bernie Sanders knows more about how to get the sausage made than most of the people calling him a sellout and a traitor, and my goal is, yes, to keep the GOP out of the Oval Office and to get as many Bernie-style progressives in Congress as can be managed. Those who will vote for Stein should perhaps consider how much of her progressive platform can be achieved if, should she actually manage to win, she has absolutely no power base in Congress. Which she doesn’t.

        I’m all for having more parties, but I also know this isn’t a game that can be won in months or even years. Viable parties need to have solid foundations of committed voters AND experienced candidates with accomplishments suitable for drawing the interest and potential support of uncommitted voters. I don’t trust Hillary Clinton, and I fully anticipate we will be engaged in World War III by the end of her second year in office; but I feel the same way about having Trump. Nevertheless, I’ll do whatever I can to renew the power of the original system of checks and balances, and that won’t happen if I waste time and effort throwing tantrums because sometimes life just sucks.

        1. Yves Smith

          No it is not. Please stop spreading rumors.

          I started getting e-mails and letters from the DCCC right. after I voted in the NY primary. I found that to be very creepy.

          All the parties buy credit card records. It is possible that they got donations to political campaigns (not just Sanders, but Warren, Canova, etc) from that.

        2. roadrider

          Those who will vote for Stein should perhaps consider how much of her progressive platform can be achieved if, should she actually manage to win, she has absolutely no power base in Congress. Which she doesn’t.

          What a load of shit. I’m supporting and voting for Jill Stein (as I did in 2012) not because I expect her to be elected but to play the longer game of building support, gaining ballot access, federal matching funds and access to the debates. Your silly straw man argument ignores all of that merely to provide a sanctimonious scolding for any one who dares not support the corrupt, war-mongering grifter Hillary Clinton.

          I’ll do whatever I can to renew the power of the original system of checks and balances,

          You’ve got to be kidding me. What checks and balances? Clinton is a Wall St/WalMart today, a war monger and supporter of the surveillance state. What part of that does the right wing Congress not support?

          and that won’t happen if I waste time and effort throwing tantrums because sometimes life just sucks.

          More sanctimony and talking down to anyone who disagrees with you. In what fucking bizzaro world does supporting Jill Stein equate to “throwing a tantrum”?

          Life doesn’t suck – but you do.

          1. Yves Smith

            You are out of line. Your comment is a clear violation of our written comment policies.

            And the critique of the Greens is valid. The Presidency-driven strategy, when the Greens are not a national party and have Stein on the ballot in what, only 37 states, is barmy particularly when you add in that Stein is not remotely a credible candidate for president. Voting for Stein is virtue-signalling and a protest vote. Don’t pass it off as anything more than that.

            And stop name-calling readers who have a grip on what the Greens can accomplish with their current approach, which is bupks. I’d be prepared to support the Greens if they showed any evidence that they really were playing a long game. But all I hear is Greens supporters demanding votes as a matter of right and never once discussing policies or concrete objectives.

        3. uncle tungsten

          Bernie Sanders has sown an idea into people’s minds. An idea that will take stronger hold over the coming months. It is an idea that is impossible to eradicate. If Bernie campaigns alongside all those truly progressive candidates to mobilise people to vote and get them elected he will continue to build the revolution so many now believe in and contribute to.

          It is a matter of essential political tactics to get mighty close to your enemy and hold them to your chest. Clinton now has a person she can’t discount for being competition, she can’t discount for being passé, she can’t shake off in any reputable way and he is demonstrably committed to the Democratic Party. Every statement he makes, he contrasts her inadequacy and illegitimacy.

          Every statement she makes will immediately be compared two ways: with Trump and with Sanders. This tactic is precarious and it is difficult to execute but I prefer Sanders in this role rather than see him relegated to “that whining other guy who lost” and is running independent.

          He is in a way the specter of the people’s imagination appearing at many rallies supporting good candidates and building the advocates for the next challenge for President. He has authenticity and with him and people you can build a revolution and people should not desert their aspirations or Bernie Sanders. If you stick with the revolution you will succeed. See Nelson Mandela, Angela Davis. Saul Alinsky, Howard Zinn. Good luck.

        4. aab

          There are many, many ways to get voter/partisan-related data. Kos sells it. Move On sells it. Every time you sign one of those online petitions, with your email address? They sell it. Your file (or whatever Zuckerberg is calling it now) is compiled across many, many vendors. Are you an animal rights, high online activity sucker? Or are you a loyal Dem, longterm voter stalwart? That’s in there, along with your credit rating, Facebook’s new, exciting, totally unvalidated version of your credit rating, whether you have kids, whether you drink, whether you menstruate (and if so, when!)

          But Bernie’s list would give them a very specific type of information. They’d know exactly how to lie to you. They’d know which fake progressive to send begging. They’d know up-to-date contact information, and whether you can actually be motivated to get off your couch to GOTV. And yeah, knowing committed Bernie supporters might be used in more negative, blacklisty ways. So it would be useful. But if you get inundated by Democratic Party marketing now, it doesn’t mean he handed over his list.

      3. gary headlock

        Yes, I started getting emails from DDDC a couple days ago. I yelled at their spam bot to get off my metaphorical lawn, and unsubscribed. Disappointing.

      4. perpetualWAR

        I got a call yesterday from the DNC. I have NEVER shared my phone number with them. I asked how they got an unlisted phone number and he didn’t know. I told him to take my phone number off their list of approved numbers to call. I told them the way I was voting was strictly 3rd party. If there is no 3rd party, it will be to vote out the incumbent. Period.

        He tried to argue that he was a former Bernie supporter. I told him to stop. I told him good luck with ever getting me to return to the party. Goodbye.

        1. Yves Smith

          *Sigh*. Companies sell lists. Your phone number could have come from anything: a magazine or newspaper subscription, the membership in a charity that sells its lists (some do!), even a product.

          1. Marley's dad

            I started to get “surveys” from the DNC shortly after Bernie’s kerfuffle with the DNC in spite of having unsubscribed from their list a long time prior. Sometime after that I started getting the same crap from the DCCC even though I had unsubscribed from their list also long before Bernie’s dust up with the DNC

            1. JTMcPhee

              Welcome to the oh so very vulnerable Brave New World of Clouds and “tech..” We don’t even get the comforting stuff the Matrix provided, the broken window overpainting…

              Sleep well, knowing that there are about 5,000 nuclear weapons ready to launch, and thousands more on the way, with guys and gals who cheat on their competency tests at the consoles and keyboards…

              1. Alex morfesis

                Actually…the idea of watching most of the nukes fail at launch would probably put an end to their proposed use on all sides…I really dont accept the reason we have not had nuclear war is because “bright people on both sides”

                or mad

                More like madd

                Mark all detonations duds

                Nevada survived 100 above ground nuke tests….

                Yes…on paper the aardvarks in charge have proclaimed the capacity and technology to do a wizard of oz on mankind and turn us back to surfdumb…

                But the great thing is that most folks have no real clue…and do not notice…

                besides…a few folks survived both hiroshima AND nagasaki…

                Mankind is resilient…the world has spent 100 years basically fighting over oil…many wars in the past were fought over salt…


                We will survive four years of $hillary or Trump…the zombie apocalypse is not around the corner…this too shall pass…

          2. perpetualWAR

            How did this guy know I was a Democrat? *sigh*

            Of course I know companies sell lists. Do you think I was born yesterday?

            1. aab

              See my post above in the thread. And if you have NEVER “liked” a Democrat or Democratic-type organization on Facebook or signed a petition, they can profile you in other ways: where you live, what you buy, etc. I don’t remember the details, but the modern data mining process is very, very efficient for that purpose. It’s why the Valley tech bros are so, so rich (well, one of the reasons.)

      5. Kokuanani

        At 1:51 pm [EDT] I received an e-mail from Bernie:

        Please let me know that you will stand with me to defeat Donald Trump, and to elect candidates who will stand by our agenda as part of the future of our political revolution. Add your name now.

        Perhaps this is a backhand way for the DNC, DSCC and/or DCCC to troll for our names & addresses? [I did not click through to find out.]

        If so, unsuccessful.

      6. mk

        I use two email addresses for communicating with politicians.

        email-address-1 = old address, phasing out, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has had this one for years to request funds. When I started contributing to Bernie’s campaign, I used this address.

        email-address-2 = new address, phasing in, Bernie campaign contribution via ActBlue account changed to this email address, ActBlue only communicates with me using this address. Bernie’s campaign continues to send to email-address-1 and email-address-2.

        Bernie sent an email on July 12 subject title “Forever Forward” which I received at both email addresses at 10:37am, DCCC sent two email requesting funds at 12:49pm and 4:20pm to email-address-1 only.

        I’ll let you know if DCCC ever sends me a request for funds to email-address-2, which would indicate to me that the info has passed from Bernie to DCCC.

    2. Marco

      Devastating. And Lambert is spot on about the Chicago conference (it was a big joke). Back to a fragmented Left.

      1. montanamaven

        By and large, I’ve found that conferences are a joke. When I was involved in politics (I bought the stupid “change the party from within” Thom Hartmann meme), I went to Take Back America and Media and Net Roots Nation conferences. Struck me after the second one that they were just big job fairs and propaganda machines. Now sit ins and strikes are what work, not conferences and marches. If you have a gathering, it should be “festivals of resistance” as Barbara Eherenrich writes about. There should be no “speakers”. We should all be able to speak. Hmmm? Sounds like Occupy.

        1. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

          Sit-ins, strikes, AND THEN BRICKS THROUGH SHOP WINDOWS. Remember what worked and what didn’t the last time people forced any kind of major policy change (1968-72).
          Maybe the Benedict Bernie moment will arouse enough anger to summon the spirits and we can get away from all of this “I’ll-work-to-change-the-system-from-within-while-I-sit-back-and-sip-my-latte” bullshit.
          The tree of liberty must from time to time be watered with blood.

      2. Mike Mc

        Join us. http://brandnewcongress.org/home

        Worked on John Anderson’s 1980 campaign, Bob Kerrey’s NE Senate campaign, Bernie’s NE caucus victory. BNC kind of a Manhattan Project/moonshot deal, but I’ve never seen this much thirst for change and actual democracy among ordinary non-political people before. Bold Nebraska demonstrated that issues that directly impact peoples’ daily lives carry a lot more weight than party labels and political posturing.

        1. Arizona Slim

          Remember those 2015 Bernie e-mails from Claire and Zack? The ones that said that it was an honor to have us in the movement? (Movement, my foot. It was as much of a movement as Obama’s campaigns were.)

          Well, Zack Exley left Bernie’s campaign and started Brand New Congress.

          Methinks that Zack saw the handwriting on the wall.

          1. Lambert Strether Post author

            I was wondering if somebody noticed that Mene mene… reference!

            Another way of saying this is that power is lying in the street again. Don’t bemoan that. Take it!

          2. neo-realist

            I’m wondering if Zack left the campaign not because he perceived a lack of willingness on Bernie’s part to fight for his agenda, but because he knew TPTB had so stacked the deck against him that he felt he had to take a different direction to progressive empowerment that would lead to the implementation of Bernie style policies in the long run?

            1. aab

              I believe Brand New Congress is still allied with Bernie and may be involved in whatever he is working on going forward.

              Even if Bernie won (wins?) the nomination, the existing Democratic Party would block progressives. Look at what they’re doing to Teachout. Look at what’s going on in the Labour Party. Rooting corporate neolibs out would take time.

              My understand when Brand New Congress launched was that they were getting a running start on 2018, whether or not Bernie got the nomination. Seemed smart to me.

    3. dorkenergy

      Just created this petition:

      To all those blindsided by Sanders endorsing Clinton
      On June 28, the Sanders campaign solicited donations “to help our delegates come to the Democratic convention so we can have our entire political revolution represented next month in Philadelphia.”

      The Sanders campaign knew at the time of this solicitation that an endorsement of Clinton would make presence of his delegates at the DNC unnecessary. Hence, funds were solicited under false pretenses and should be refunded. Let Clinton and her backers pay for any delegates who still want to attend.

      Sanders campaign: Refund solicitations to fund delegates at DNC

        1. dorkenergy

          Very good point. I was trying to keep it pithy, but it should be:

          To all those blindsided by Sanders endorsing Clinton before the convention

          1. dorkenergy

            Gee, I thought I was just asking for my latest $250 back since I would not have sent it in the context of a pre-convention endorsement being “negotiated”.

            1. meeps

              dorkenergy @ 4:52 pm

              I understand your dismay.

              Last week I made a contribution to the Sanders campaign, as I have done many times since his announcement. This time there was a new feature–another form asking, “Would you like to ‘split’ your contribution among these Democrats…?” I proceeded to “split” the pledged dollar amount between Bernie, Tim Canova and Tulsi Gabbard.

              Imagine my consternation when my bank account revealed that my donation hadn’t been “split” (which, in ordinary English, I took to mean divided). The f*ckers double dipped me! In light of today’s premature concession and endorsement, I can’t help but feel it was a final looting. Had I known he’d endorse before the convention, I wouldn’t have donated at all.

              Bad on me for not reading in Newspeak?

      1. ChiGal

        Note the endorsement was acknowledged in the email so no false pretenses.

        I get disappointment, but does it really help to pile on and kick a guy when he’s down?

        If this is one of them rabbits y’all are planning on wowing us with, no thanks

        1. ChiGal

          Also I thought part of the negotiations pre-endorsement were that his delegates WOULD participate.

          1. dorkenergy

            Don’t understand what you might mean by this

            part of the negotiations pre-endorsement were that his delegates WOULD participate.

            Are you saying she agreed to allow them to attend her coronation? Or did he agree to mandate that they do so?

          2. hunkerdown

            Participation doesn’t mean power. Sometimes it means just the opposite.

            The question is, which up-and-coming big-city mayor will throw the Party’s next voice vote? With face-recognition software being so available, it would be useful, perhaps, to have pictures of the crowd to ID who supports Hillary and to build a national shun list.

          3. perpetualWAR

            The Bernie delegates are participating. Have you heard of the fart-in? They will be eating lots and lots of beans and letting Clinton supporters smell their discontent! It’s brilliant, actually!

            Send beans to the DNC convention.

        2. dorkenergy

          You say

          the endorsement was acknowledged in the email

          The petition refers to the email of June 28 which solicited support

          to help our delegates come to the Democratic convention so we can have our entire political revolution represented next month in Philadelphia.

          Maybe you saw a reference to a pre-convention endorsement in that email which I overlooked?

          1. ChiGal

            My bad. Thought you were referring to today’s email, which another poster complained didn’t mention endorsement but it does. Apologies!

    4. Plenue

      I never believed he was some radical socialist hero; he was and remains a run-of-the-mill New Deal Democrat. But such are the times we live in that that still makes him a rebel by the standards of our current political landscape. I never had much hope he would ultimately succeed, but I expected him to take it all the way to the convention like he kept saying he would. He still managed to destroy Clinton’s air of inevitability and fought her to a standstill in the near total absence of positive media coverage (or much coverage at all). He forced her to rely on the explicitly anti-democratic super-delegates to carry her across the finish line.

      But in the end he himself is the one who put down his own campaign with a shot to the back of the head, and apparently was lying to his own staffers about not endorsing Clinton right up until he did it. And whatever deal he thinks he made in exchange for his endorsement, is he really that stupid and gullible? She’s already throwing the new DNC platform under the bus!

      Goddamn traitor. I want my 50 bucks back.

    5. mcarson

      Here’s some additional views about what’s happening w/Sanders:
      Post endorsement Sanders phone call to delegates (5-8 min intro by staffer)

      Body language analysis of Sanders endorsement speech:
      (Reads as angry forced speech, not his timetable at all)

      Also rumors/no links from “insiders” saying he was threatened with having all platform positions negated by block voting at convention if he held out any longer. This fits with body language analysis, and news reports/phone call saying no big floor fights at convention. On call said he was going for super-delegates and open primaries as floor fights, no more mention of Israel, TPP, Fracking floor fights. Delegates saying they are being contacted to make sure they show up, on phone he said he needs everyone there for a delegate vote, so he’s planning something.

      I’m not happy about this at all, but I’m going to give it some time. He listed Clintons “gives” from their negotiations, one was a doubling of Community Health Center funds. That’s a BFD for me, I was uninsured with breast cancer, saw Drs. for $20 a visit, labs/drugs 75% off or free from a new CHC that was his “ask” for his ACA vote.

      If he barnstorms for Clinton and progressives out in the states, he’ll do it on the DNC’s dime, and repeat his stump speech with a “so vote against Trump” tag line, and that’s worth something, it will keep the pressure on her.

    1. diptherio

      Thanks for that! Heilbroner was his mentor…and it shows. I’ll be watching these for awhile. His explanation of commodity-fetishism is the best I’ve heard.

      1. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

        The problem with opposing “commodity fetishism” is that you need something in its place, and that “something” is always some peak money-creating institution, which is then always and everywhere at the whim of things like politics and war. Those forces prevail, not most of the time, but EVERY time and ALL of the time.
        Unless you take Friedman’s “replace the Fed with a laptop that issues 2% more money every year” advice, which of course will happen on the first of never.

  1. jo6pac

    “Whichever Clinton operative decided to deploy the “stronger together” slogan shouldn’t be expected to have known that it’s also a slogan developed by the military junta in Thailand. But whatever.”

    I do believe the General has done more good in Thailand than any so-called elected pro-Amerikan govt. has done.

    Then on to the admiral I sure he as anti-Russian as hillabllie other wise he won’t make the cut. WOW what a F$$$$$ mess Amerika has become. The best govt. $$$$$$$$$$$ can buy.

    I need a nap.

        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          Another subtly persuasive word is ‘regime.’

          The Bush regime or the Clinton regime.

    1. clarky90

      Clinton’s “stronger together”, is “fascism” in the vernacular.

      “The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity (see Unity makes strength); a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is very difficult to break”


  2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

    [I]n a nod to Sanders’s successful fundraising efforts that brought in millions of dollars from small donors, with at one time an average donation of $27, Clinton’s campaign has made $27 an option on its online donor page

    More cosmetic co-opting of progressive ideas.

    “I will save the planet by driving a Prius.”

    Actually I do drive one, but I do it by save money…so I can fly coach (on a greenhouse gas emitting jet) for an exotic island vacation one day in the future.

    1. Optimader

      ….Clinton’s campaign has made $27 an option on its online donor page…

      A clickbox that returns
      Error 404 Cannot Find Site
      thank you for your $27.00 donation!
      We have billed you credit card $500.00

  3. I Have Strange Dreams

    Mark Thoma: “Workers deserve to be compensated fairly for their work”

    Richard Wolff:

    a worker who says to himself/herself, “I will never work for an employer who doesn’t pay me what I’m worth”, is a person who doesn’t understand capitalism. You will NEVER get paid what your worth, because that is the foundation of this system. The capitalist, because he/she has the money to put you to work in the first place only does it if he/she gets more from you than he/she lays out for the process. Which is why if you follow Marx, you have the mass of workers paid more or less what they need to get by, while the growth built into this system accrues to the employer. Or to say the same thing in simple English, the rich get richer and everybody else doesn’t.


    1. Yves Smith

      Sorry, the traders who did the negative basis trade (which blew up the banks, see ECONNED for details) got paid way more than they were worth. Bankers who get multi-year guarantees to jump ship are also routinely paid more than they are worth because their new employer is trying to gain market share in an area where they are weak and those efforts routinely fail (as in the banker was more productive in his old shop due to reputational reasons and synergies with other businesses that don’t transfer over with him).

      And I am tired of naive Marxism. Workers when they organize can be paid fairly for their work. Capitalists also seek a return. When the two actually duke it out because labor can impose costs on capital due to government not tipping the scales in favor of capital, you can get reasonable results.

      Of course, the idea of valuing labor in monetary terms is pretty fraught. I think that’s the much bigger conceptual problem.

      1. dots

        >> (which blew up the banks, see ECONNED for details)

        I almost forgot you suggested that before when I was trying to understand it better too. Putting it on my list now.


      2. Steve H.

        An interesting thing going on in pro basketball right now. LeBron James continues to push the power of the workers over management and the owners. Salaries are blowing up to $20 million for mediocre players, but the elite players are leaving teams and going where their happy is. Several have gone to their hometowns, where they can be ‘a member of the community that happens to play basketball.’ Outside income of endorsement deals contributes to the freedom of the workers, while old-guard ‘loyalty is good business’ hardliners like Pat Riley are being dumped.

        Search Jalen & Jacoby, ‘The Free Agent Era, Dwayne Wades’ Value and Twitter Questions’ for a discussion (podcast).

      3. I Have Strange Dreams

        I admire and respect this blog and think you guys are doing a great job and am grateful to be allowed comment here. However, I think holding out hope for Capitalism is magical thinking and that casually dismissing Dr. Wolff as ‘naive’ is reverting to the neoliberal playbook. To conflate bankers and traders with proles is also, imo, unfair. You are certainly right that labor value is the bigger conceptual problem.

        I have just purchased ECONNED. Looking forward to reading it and glad to see that the kindle edition has real page numbers. (I hope my pinko colleagues don’t fid out that I supported the Amazon Death Star!)

  4. Uahsenaa

    I have come here today not to talk about the past but to focus on the future.

    I figured you’d pounce on this, considering it’s exactly the same language Obama used to signal how he wouldn’t lift a finger to punish the bad actors on Wall Street. If Sanders cannot even acknowledge the basic fact of how terribly he was treated throughout the campaign and how tainted the whole process was, he doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously anymore. Good on him if he, quite by accident, got a leftist movement jump started, but he clearly isn’t the one to lead it.

    1. Arizona Slim

      Exactly. He sure didn’t have much to say about that massive vote suppression and election rigging, now did he?

      And what was up with the campaign’s obsession with phone banking? I mean, come on. Primaries were getting stolen right and left, and what did we volunteers get? More e-mail exhortations to make calls for Bernie.


      1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        Very few “X or bust” voters.

        Many – in the South, Michigan, or anywhere – will fall in line…in November, they are looking at the Hillary line (or it could just well have been another victor’s line).

        That’s the Realpolotik of not running as an Independent.

        1. cwaltz


          If he had run as an Independant then it was likely he would have been shut out of the process. He ran as a Democrat to make his policy ideas mainstream.

          I actually admire the guy for moving the political window left even if he didn’t win his longshot primary as a Democrat.

          *doesn’t mean I’ll be voting for his candidate of choice but it does mean I appreciate that people are talking about things like making college free*

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef


            I think there is a giant mis-understanding between him and many of his supporters.

          2. polecat

            It doesn’t matter if he’s moved the window left, if all she does is ram it shut….which is what she’ll do…sure as carts to horses!

            1. jsn

              She will certainly try to slam it. There’s already too much passing through it though: the giant rightward slosh that Thatcher started has run its course and the ideologies that drove it no longer convince anyone who is not paid handsomely to believe them.

              Reality is running leftward now but there is no organized left to channel it. One genius of neoliberalism is that it locks most effective organizers deep in the system where, even if increasingly precarious, they have more security than less “orderly” people, depriving left society of nuclei around which to congeal.

              Like Lambert said up-thread, power is lying on the ground: unfortunately at present, the left is to uncoordinated to pick it up.

            2. cwaltz

              It’s only slammed shut if everyone gives up the conversation and goes home.

              Instead of a pity party write your representation and insist that they put forward stuff like Bernie put forth in his platform.

              Keep the conversation going and do everything you can to make sure candidates you vote for support what you want.

            3. jrs

              We win the verbal nothing, they win ALL THE POLICIES. Really the plutes win all the policy fights and get everything they want, but we’re winning because words. No it’s true those words could spawn future movements, but that is by no means certain.

          3. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

            Screw that, “sigh”. That is the sound of the supine Left, turning the other cheek, rolling over so it can receive blows from another angle.
            The correct sound goes more like this:

            1. cwaltz

              I’m pretty sure that you don’t know me if you think I’m advocating lying down.

              I’m telling people to look at facts.

              Like it or not third party candidates were NOT INCLUDED IN NATIONAL DEBATES last year. They livestreamed their ideas over the internet to little effect. Bernie chose not to do that. You can like it. You can dislike it. However, that was his choice.

              Additionally, I’m pointing out that like or dislike his choice it was effective from the viewpoint that it nationally presented the idea that our nation could choose to pay for things other than war like health care or college.

              It’s obvious to me that even though I dislike the DNC that Bernie moved the goalposts leftward and THAT is nothing to sneeze at. My intention from this point on is to continue to carry his message and to support candidates that believe in the things he advocated(which by the way ISN’T Hillary Clinton.)

            1. clinical wasteman

              The real movement that abolishes the present may still be ‘mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms’, but it now has an ironclad motto!

      2. TheCatSaid

        There are a number of groups who’ve been gathering data & evidence and filing various lawsuits. 1st step will be procedural challenges in relation to the CA primary. It could get bipartisan support, and would have important implications for election procedures in other states as well.

    2. Brindle

      I watched the Sanders / Clinton thing for all of 6-7 seconds, then turned off tv—low point of Sanders campaign.

    3. Pirmann

      Also, IIRC, Mark McGwire, when he testified before Congress regarding steroid use in baseball.

    4. different clue

      He got millions of people aware of each others’ existence. And he became a nucleating agent around which they could crystallize. So if he is now removing himself from the center of the crystal, it becomes up to the crystallized SanderBackers to stay crystallized and to become dynamically re-shapeable in ever-new crystal patterns as events require.

      Its up to them now.

        1. polecat

          How does THAT work, considering all the skullduggery employed by the Dept. of ‘JUST THEM’ ??

      1. Roger Smith

        In what direction are they supposed to go? It is a common trope that the left has no solid base or organization, but look at why. We have a huge unifying, center point, who folds on the principles leaving people without a leg to stand on. The left is constantly being beat on and marginalized and when it gets a break, the organizer splits.

        Now his statement said he plans to create organizations so we will see what that is all about in the coming weeks.

        1. Uahsenaa

          I got that email too, which, by the way, was continuing to solicit donations for a now presumably defunct campaign. Maybe something is in the works, but I’m not holding my breath. Meanwhile Jill Stein is using the opportunity to try to scoop up the disaffected.

          1. different clue

            Lots of money would help lots of leftocratic challengers primary lots of clintobamacratic office re-seekers.

            And also begin funding lots of local and superlocal leftocrats run for dogcatchers, drain commissioners, school board members, etc.

            The same long march through the Decromatic Party as what the Christian Evangelicals did through the Republan Party.

            1. Code Name D

              Going to need to see proof of this though, How do we know these funds are not landing in Clinton coffers. Democrats have a long history of skimming.

        2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          1. It’s up to us. Then, he plans to create organizations. That seems to be up to him to lead…just not the movement, but different organizations.

          So, it’s up to us, and not quite up to us, but with him leading the way.

          2. If – at this moment – it’s up to us to continue the movement (and not doing anything concrete about the future organizations he mentions – how can we? We don’t know much about them.). has he done anything to facilitate ‘letting the followers go so they can be independently take up the job of ‘it’s up to us?’ Today’s ‘it’s up to you’ seems abrupt and his voters, well, ill-prepared to assume the ‘it’s up to us now’ task. Not sure what he has to do, but many are commenting – here and elsewhere – as if they don’t know what to do with ‘it’s up to you now.’

          1. Roger Smith

            The “different organizations” part is unsettling. Unless they are well defined and organized, keeping things central seems to be the better course.

            1. TheCatSaid

              I’ve heard arguments for hive organization. Not having specific leader(s) makes it harder to decapitate a movement.

              1. Kurt Sperry

                That ignores human psychology and culture. It’s a nice idea, but naive and misguided I think.

                1. different clue

                  Perhaps thousands of micro-hives with thousands of micro-leaders. Too many micro-hives ( or micro-wolfpacks, if one prefers) to decapitate every alpha bee or alpha wolf.

              2. Ike

                All politics is local. There are ways the Republican & Democratic parties suppress the hives so that they can’t get the nectar they need. A run for any local government seat will provide you with that kind of education. Only disruptive events that carry resonance can break the log jam. But then it is usually contained locally( or only has relevance locally) and kept in a silo. gee whiz.

            2. Code Name D

              No. The “differing organization” was as inevitable as Sanders endorsement and not all together a bad thing. DFA was started after Howard Dean dropped out of his primary bid.

              What its mission statement says however will be important. And what I am hearing is not filling me with confidence. Basically it’s a “progressive surge” into the Democratic Party to start taking over committees and offices which oversee the party apparatus. The problem is that this has been done before and already has a track record of failure.

              Getting into these positions is easy, but they tend to not have a lot of power. It’s keeping these positions and advancing to higher ranking positions which prove to be impossible. Sanders was able to pry open the door to some of the more powerful positions, but in no case does he ever carry a majority, so still no real power. And in a few months they will start being pushed out or have to resign for what ever reason. It’s like trying to hold back the tide with a rake. When the tide goes out, you and your rake look like you are making a difference. Once the spotlight fades, the tide roles in, and you are right back where you started.

              If Sanders new org can address some of these issues, that would be something. But I do not see it yet. Then again, they haven’t even gotten started yet. Still, this was something they should have been talking about months ago.

          2. neo-realist

            There appear to be potential pathways for progressives to plug into for long term movement building: The Progressive Democrats of America said they would not endorse HRC and would work on the down ticket races–they’ve endorsed the likes of Tim Canova and Hank Johnson. You’ve also got Zack’s New Congress outfit.

      2. fritter

        Which is to say its the same as its always been. Here’s another opportunity to pick yourself up by your boot straps. As long as Democrats refuse to hold their candidates accountable (the common crutch of every partisan), that’s the way it will always be. If the Democrat party has had any function over the past 30 years besides stymieing “the left” its news to me. If Bernie Sanders doesn’t have the decency to stand against a corrupt mass murderer, no one in his “organization” is going to do any different. Most “left” policies are support by a majority of Americans and have been but you wouldn’t know it to listen to any Democrats.

        1. tony

          They have defended women and LGBT people. Well, assuming you were middle class. Of course Dems moving so far to the right has meant that GOP had to become Comic Book Villains, the Party.

      3. m

        start with monitoring our local elections and preventing private clubs from using tax dollars to discriminating during primaries. Anyone should be able to vote in any primary.

        1. John k

          Yes, and there is a way in CA, amend the constitution to force it… Naturally would never pass legislature. Takes a half mil to get it on the ballot, then the parties will campaign against it. Got $$?
          So this is a starting point to force more democracy into the largest state, and sometimes others follow CA lead. Need local progressive to push these things…
          Easy enough for people to say ‘it’s up to us’, but People rallied around Bernie because of long held positions plus a sitting senator. Easier to pick up power in the street if you already have some cred, course $ useful, too.
          Doesn’t have to be dem given both parties are far right neo-lib… As Bernie said, tweedle dete vs tweedle drum.
          Schwartzeneger got top two in primary vote getters to face off, regardless of party, already beginning to push candidates to center. Imo the electorate is ready to unite behind candidates, we’ll see if Bernie uses unspent $ on them.

          Frankly, asking me for $ to send his supporters to convention where he tells them to vote the neo-con does not appeal.

    5. jgordon

      I always sensed that Sanders was weak sauce. Even if he did make it into the presidency he is too much of a timid nice guy to actually get anything done.

      1. Aumua

        Bernie’s a human being. Surprise, surprise.
        This is what he signed up for, from the start.
        Back to reality, reality sucks.
        Man first Warren, now Bernie. It is a bitter pill.

        I still think humanity is like a drug addict, who doesn’t change until things get really really bad, or alternatively, they die. So hang on everyone.
        I’m still not voting for Trump. Fuck that shit.

      2. neo-realist

        Reality check: With a mostly 1% bought and paid for congress, he wouldn’t achieve anything if he were a prisoners take all guy.

        1. John k

          Not true.
          Any president can
          enforce existing law,
          instruct Doj to vigorously indict white collar criminals,
          break up failing banks,
          avoid standing between banks and pitchforks,
          investigate high income individuals suspected of tax avoidance avoid invading countries,
          resolve disputes through diplomacy, e.g. Russia,
          Reward whistle blowers in accordance with law instead of prosecuting them,
          Aggressively investigate racist police depts,
          Forbid admin regulators from working in regulated industry for ten years,
          No doubt a partial list. A president has great power.

    6. Lambert Strether Post author

      Moses did not actually enter the promised land.

      No, I’m not much of a fan of “look forward and not back,” but there’s only so much time and space…

  5. Mike Mc

    Dumb question RE the TPP/TTIP/TISA: enforcement? Say it passes US Congress and EU. Somebody invents a doohickey or process (preferably green) that guts a particular industry’s business.

    What is the enforcement mechanism? Passive acceptance by USA and EU members while a militarized police force extracts fines? The example I’m thinking here of labor unrest in China, but lots of Euro and American examples of resistance.

    1. hunkerdown

      It’s not about the gutting of business, but the replacement of private ownership with state ownership, which those who want to own everything believe is Bad. Refusal to trade is one method to enforce that those fines or other performances are rendered; expropriation Paul-Singer-vs-Argentina-style is another.

    1. Lambert Strether Post author

      I think Obama’s list was always a Democratic party list. If there were a separate OFA list, I would imagine the Democrats ingested it, after OFA was dismantled.

    2. NotTimothyGeithner

      Lists are two way streets. Obama kept the cultists, but activists are driven by positive vibes and action.

      The people who knocked doors in the early Summer of 2006 didn’t do it to elect Obama or make Pelosi speaker. They did it for policy changes. If they wanted Obama or Pelosi for them alone, they could watch the West Wing. By and large, they dropped out during the ACA debacle or spent their time defending Obama, who always was an obvious empty suit, from criticism.

      The Democratic Party is largely dead outside of where it’s a one party state, and there it’s just factions. When Obama is gone, his followers will scatter.

  6. Jen

    Email from Bernie to supporters after rally. Parse away.

    I am writing you today to express my deep pride in the movement – the political revolution – you and I have created together over the last 15 months. When we began this historic campaign, we were considered fringe players by the political, economic and media establishment. Well, we proved them wrong.
    We showed that the American people support a bold, progressive agenda that takes on the billionaire class, that fights for racial, social, economic and environmental justice and that seeks to create a government that works for all of us and not just the big campaign donors.
    We mobilized over 13 million voters across the country. We won 23 Democratic primary and caucus contests. We had literally hundreds of thousands of volunteers across the country. And we showed – in a way that can change politics in America forever – that you can run a competitive national grassroots campaign without begging millionaires and billionaires for campaign contributions.
    Most importantly, we elevated the critical issues facing our country – issues the establishment has pushed under the rug for too long. We focused attention on the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality in this country and the importance of breaking up the large banks who brought our economy to the brink of collapse. We exposed our horrendous trade policies, our broken criminal justice system, and our people’s lack of access to affordable health care and higher education. We fought aggressively to address the crisis of climate change, the need for real comprehensive immigration reform, the importance of developing a foreign policy that values diplomacy over war, and so much more.
    We have shown throughout this election that these are issues that are important to voters and that progressive solutions energize people in the fight for real change. What we have accomplished so far is historic – but our work is far from over.
    This movement of ours – this political revolution – must continue. We cannot let all of the momentum we have achieved in the fight to transform America be lost. We will never stop fighting for what is right.
    It is true that in terms of winning the Democratic nomination, we did come up short. But this election was never about me or any candidate. It was about the powerful coming together of millions of people to take their country back from the billionaire class. That was the strength of our campaign and it will be the strength of our movement going forward in the months and years ahead.
    In the coming weeks, I will be announcing the creation of successor organizations to carry on the struggle that we have been a part of these past 15 months. I hope you will continue to be involved in fighting to transform America. Our goal will be to advance the progressive agenda that we believe in and to elect like-minded candidates at the federal, state and local levels who are committed to accomplishing our goals.
    In terms of the presidential election this November, there is no doubt that the election of Donald Trump as president would be a devastating blow to all that we are fighting for. His openly bigoted and pro-billionaire campaign could precipitate the same decades-long rightward shift in American politics that happened after the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. That rightward shift after Reagan’s election infected not just politics as a whole but led to the ascendancy of the corporatist wing of the Democratic Party – an era from which we are still recovering.
    I cannot in good conscience let that happen.
    To have all of the work we have done in elevating our progressive ideals be dashed away by a complete Republican takeover of Washington – a takeover headed by a candidate that demonizes Latinos, Muslims, women, African Americans, veterans, and others – would be unthinkable.
    Today, I endorsed Hillary Clinton to be our next president. I know that some of you will be disappointed with that decision. But I believe that, at this moment, our country, our values, and our common vision for a transformed America, are best served by the defeat of Donald Trump and the election of Hillary Clinton.
    You should know that in the weeks since the last primary, both campaigns have worked together in good faith to bridge some of the policy issues that divided us during the election. Did we come to agreement on everything? Of course not. But we made important steps forward.
    Hillary Clinton released a debt free college plan that we developed together which now includes free tuition at public colleges and universities for working families. This was a major part of our campaign’s agenda and a proposal that, if enacted into law, would revolutionize higher education in this country.
    Secretary Clinton has also publicly committed to massive investments in health care for communities across this country that will increase primary care, including mental health care, dental care, and low-cost prescription drug access for an additional 25 million people. Importantly, she has also endorsed the enactment of a so-called public option to allow everyone in this country to participate in a public insurance program. This idea was killed by the insurance industry during consideration of President Obama’s health care program.
    During the Democratic platform proceedings in St. Louis and Orlando, we were victorious in including amendments to make it a clear priority of the Democratic Party to fight for a $15 an hour federal minimum wage, expand Social Security, abolish the death penalty, put a price on carbon, establish a path toward the legalization of marijuana, enact major criminal justice reforms, pass comprehensive immigration reform, end for-profit prisons and detention facilities, break up too-big-to-fail banks and create a 21st century Glass-Steagall Act, close loopholes that allow big companies to avoid taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens and use that revenue to rebuild America, approve the most expansive agenda ever for protecting Native American rights and so much more.
    All of these progressive policies were at the heart of our campaign. The truth is our movement is responsible for the most progressive Democratic platform in the history of our country. All of that is the direct result of the work that our members of the platform committee did in the meetings and that you have been doing over the last 15 months.
    But none of these initiatives will happen if we do not elect a Democratic president in November. None! In fact, we will go backward. We must elect the Democratic nominee in November and progressive Democrats up and down the ballot so that we ensure that these policy commitments can advance.
    It is extremely important that we keep our movement together, that we hold public officials accountable and that we elect progressive candidates to office at the federal, state, and local level who will stand with us.
    As part of that effort, we still have a tremendous amount of work left to do in the Democratic Rules Committee that will be meeting in the coming weeks. We have to enact the kinds of reforms to the Democratic Party and to the electoral process that will provide us the tools to elect progressive candidates, to allow new voices and new energy into the Party, and to break up the excessive power that the economic and political elites in the Party currently have. As with our fights on the platform committee, that will only be possible if we stand together.

      1. Carla

        Hope some of y’all stick with yr convictions and vote Green Party.

        It’s really not that hard to do once you make your mind.

        We’re gonna need more parties, and the Dims and Repugnants seem to be self-destructing (couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch, BTW).

        1. habenicht

          Yeah. In some ways the “throwing your vote away” scorn usually cast on third party voters isn’t all that scornful this election.

        2. Aumua

          I think a better message can be sent that way than the message we will send by voting for Donald Trump, of all people. So count me in this camp.

        3. MojaveWolf

          Voting Green, no question. Likewise my SO. We both preferred Bernie, but looking at list of currently available options, I’m very much going for Stein (and Trump would be second on the list of four, if anyone cares; he’s anti-TPP and generally seems better than Johnson all round and better than HRC as far as what I’m guessing they will actually do in office on everything except the environment, and since I’m viewing the DNC establishment crowd’s take on environmental “solutions” as the equivalent of putting a band-aid on someone who just got their leg chopped off, it really doesn’t much matter which is “better” for this purpose, so since both ignoring the chopped off leg and putting on a band-aid both result in patient death).

          I realize the ptb at nc are not fond of the Greens, but at this point making them into a viable option is pretty much what we have to work with. Look at Trump’s VP shortlist. He’s a smarter guy than people give him credit for and I don’t think he means most of the awful crap he’s said, but it’s going to hard for him to walk back against a media tide, and the mere fact that he was willing to say it in the first place (not to mention, looking at his overall character in isolation, as opposed to comparing it to HRC and the DNC/GOP establishment, where he comes off much better) is not exactly a ringing endorsement. Plus he has a hostile “home” party working to take him down–the VP candidates who could actually help him win and be acceptable to the GOP establishment at the same time are all running and hiding from him. His best bet for the general is to go outside the party and let the establishment stew. but then he risks losing the nomination. (yes, any lurking Hilbots/DNC types, I’d rather Trump win than her, and if he does I’ll be taking credit, not blame–you keep giving us crap right wing neolib/neocon candidates on the Dem side and putting them in office through fraud/disenfranchisement/other types of election rigging, and I’ll keep working to defeat them, & btw f u)

          Let’s see what he does. Let’s see what Stein does. But right now, while I think she buys too much into a toxic version of identity politics and is a little too left wing tribalistic for my tastes, she seems like the best candidate going and we’re as likely to see a Green takeover in Cali as we are a GOP one (and this would be a much better takeover, too), and a vote for her sends a much clearer message than a vote for Trump, which will be construed by the media as a vote for conservatism rather than against the establishment, so even for practical purposes, on top of who I like better, she makes as much sense as Trump for me to vote for. (Johnson is proTPP, and I view this as akin to saying “we need another Iraq invasion”, and against meaningful campaign finance reform, and generally is just no for me)

      1. ChiGal

        What that means will partly depend on the Bullwinkles of this world, that’s one thing we know.

        Me, I’m not unsubscribing. Nor will I vote for Clinton Foundation.

          1. ChiGal

            I’d like to hear more about those rabbits instead of this sulky adolescent I’m Not With Him stuff.

            1. pretzelattack

              i’m thinking bullwinkle would be a canny vp choice for cthulhu, balancing the ticket.

              1. rich

                I think bullwinkle got it right.

                Got same email and did same thing.

                Sulky??lol….oh that’s right be cooperative and give up your principles…that’s the ticket….which literally will be the ticket.

          2. ambrit

            H C : “Hey there. Glad you could make it. Are those political contributions in your pocket or are you making sure I don’t rip yours’ off too?” (Invective takes many forms.)
            By the way, anyone hear from Liz Warren today? Just curious.

      2. Pirmann

        It’s meaningless. Just another lobby bezzle that will get lost in the fray of the myriad lobby bezzles already in Washington.

        He needed to win the Presidency, or run third party, or announce that he is not voting if he wanted to keep this going. Meaningless successor organization creation means no progress to be seen in my lifetime.

        1. Lambert Strether Post author

          Absolutely untrue. Part of the problem the Sanders campaign got, as it were, trapped in the mud of trench warfare was (a) the media blackout and (b) no policy shop. (For example, see the Gerald Friedman episode.)

          Both of those are most definitely solved with “successor organizations.”

          1. Steve H.

            At the local level, organizations with three people can make a significant difference. It’s a lot easier to work on local conditions. Strange things happen at the 1-2 point.

            I agree that the disposition of the list is the bellweather which will say a lot. Where you say ‘trapped in the mud’ I see ‘behaved with integrity’ at a very high level for presidential politics.

            And one ever-so-quiet whisper from the shadows: two weeks can be a very long time.

            1. Lambert Strether Post author

              On “trapped in the mud,” I was thinking of the Battle of Cambrai, where on the first day the British tanks, a new technology*, broke through the line of German trenches, potentiallly converting a war of position into a war of movement. Then on the second day the tanks broke down, the British didn’t know how to exploit the breakthrough, and it was back to the mud. No judgment about integrity involved.

              * Tanks = no SuperPAC and $27.

              1. Steve H.

                Ah! That’s quite a case I did not know about, thank you.

                You’ve been clear about your assessment of his integrity, particularly recently. I see the mud as that which he did not reach down to pick up and sling in retaliation for what was done unto him. The new technology only worked with the catalysis effect of moral integrity. It is the U.S. version of Fifth-Generation methods which he has brought to the field, and with far less blood compared to much of the world. Worthy of note.

      3. montanamaven

        If “successor organizations” are independent of the Democratic Party, then they may have some value. But if it’s more “Progressive Democrats” and “Move Ons” and “Daily Kos” etc, then It’s just the same old Lucy and the Football deal. The Democratic Party is a dead donkey stinking up the place. Movements that enter the carcass suffocate to death. I think a huge move into the Green Party or Libertarian Party or Republican Party would at least scare the Dems and that’s at least a goal I could embrace.

        1. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

          i appreciate the emotions behind the Charlie Brown hope that “successor organizations” are the way forward.
          But Charlie Brown is a complete chump. It’s a big poker table, and the sooner the people figure out that THEY are the suckers, the better.
          Take your chips off, now. Better yet, grab the edge of the table and fling it upwards with all your might

          1. Archie

            You are on a roll today Hal. I couldn’t agree more with the sentiments you have shared. Every criticism Bernie made of the misguided “trade” agreements, the DNC rigged primary system, the anti-democratic nature of the current campaign finance laws, the tone-deafness of the Wall Street Whore/Capitalist suck-up Democrat Party elites to pleas for basic health care and education for all, and to the income inequality resulting from all of these failed policy areas, now rings hollow in today’s announcement. And why? Because in “good conscience” Trump must not be allowed to be president. But hey, we have the most “progressive party platform” EVAH!!!!!!!

            Well, in good conscience, I reject all calls for unity with “progressives”, “liberals”, and the rest. What we need is some real Bolsheviks to counter the neo-liberals and the neo-cons. I guess Bernie wasn’t up to the task.

        2. Waldenpond

          I looked at initial notices and it consisted of Ds, no platform and requests for money. One group was trotting out anti-choice Ds.

          Really not excited about the Greens but I can ignore politicians and vote on legislation, at least until the TPP passes. :)

        3. mcarson

          I think the “Brand New Congress” is going to be important from now until 2018, when I begin to make my living selling “Primary Clinton 2020” bumper stickers.
          This election, the hope was elect Sanders, then find him a congress. So now it’s time to round up a decent congress, and elect a president in 2020. We need both ends of the rope.
          One difference between Dean/Obama/ etc. is the number of people working at the local level or running for office. My son in law is running for state rep. No experience, against the ALEC state chair. He’s walking his district daily, for a November election. Non-party people are finding him, talking about providing money & volunteers,and the Sanders team is responsible for that. They plan on pushing hard through November on their “Anything but Hillary” campaign to elect state democrats. I haven’t seen this groundswell of local action before.

          1. Feelin the Bern in WI

            This is the important part of where Bernie can take us. It’s down at the state level that we can make a difference. Think redistricting 2020. 2010 was disaster for WI just for this reason. We have to get the state legislature back if only for this one reason. His list is important to those of us locally so we can connect with his voters. Bernie brought out mostly young volunteers in my area.

            We need candidates for city council, school board, county board. Nomination papers for those elections happen in Dec 2016. We have to be ready right after the Presidential election. I’m working hard to get Bernie supports to RUN. These local non partisan elections are great first steps and you can make a difference. Unfortunately, I’ve had no luck in interesting any of them in working down ticket or to run themselves.

            The idea of being in it for the long run is important. Seems like Americans are unwilling to commit and stick with it. Nothing happens overnight.

      4. meeps

        “announcing the creation of successor organizations”

        Might have been prudent, though, to announce this before making a move that would initiate a mass ‘unsubscribe’ movement.

        1. aab

          Pretty sure he wasn’t allowed to. This whole trap was apparently designed to alienate his supporters. The stuff leaking out tonight is interesting.

    1. Vatch

      I really, really wish he’d waited until after the official Democratic nomination had occurred. However, several weeks ago, someone here expressed the opinion that delaying the endorsement is a form of sheep dogging, because his supporters would retain some hope that the endorsement wouldn’t happen. I’m not sure I agree with that, but it is a reasonable point of view. Now that the sad endorsement has occurred, we can move on, and provide support to someone else. Not Hillary. No way, no how.

      1. Aumua

        Yeah, maybe he just decided to let us down sooner, rather than easier. It still hurts though man.. WHY BERNIE WHY?

    2. ChiGal

      So yeah, working from within – BUT STILL WORKING and more organization to come.

      Agree with Lambert it is surprising he actually used the word “endorse” while still running (!), and that the key will be what WE not Bernie do going forward.

      Also, as to assuming facts not in evidence: these attributions are one way to keep the pressure up on Clinton Foundation. However futile this seems to be…

      Not buying this as a sellout. Bernie never sold himself as a savior.

    3. ProNewerDeal

      I wish Sanders noted that his endorsement of H Clinton is contingent on H Clinton’s behavior on key issues.

      For example $15 min wage, Public Option (I wished he called it Medicare Pt. O to define it clearly), free public tuition. Say if 2 of 3 aren’t enacted, someone from the Sanders movement will primary challenge H Clinton in 2020. Perhaps the decision on whether or not to primary challenge, could be based on a plurality vote of Sanders org members. The Sanders org could have at least 1 full time worker investigator analyzing H Clinton’s actual behavior & contrasting it against Sanders 2016 platform, & reporting it on the org’s website.

      Without such a mechanism to force H Clinton to actually implement these policies, I doubt H Clinton will actually implement any of them – she will be like 0bama, blatantly doing the opposite of most of his campaign promises, such as his 2010 killing of the Public Option (as per Jane Hamsher’s Firedoglake reporting).

      It is also unclear to me who is actually the Lesser Evil. Trump at times expresses better policies on TPP & war (especially Russia relations). But how does 1 judge & contrast the policies of 2 habitual lying Flip-Floppers?

      BTW, the Green Party/Dr. Jill Stein has an excellent opportunity here. I hope she recruits a VP who is a charismatic “name” that can get on TV for “free media” at their whim, somebody like Matt Damon. It is sad that celebrities get such attention, but this is the nation that elected crappy actor Ronald Reagan. Otherwise, the media will continue to pretend the Green Party does not exist.

      1. Aumua

        There are so many ways he could have softened the blow.. but he didn’t do ANY of them. It’s just so mind mindbogglingly awful for him to go out this way that I can’t imagine WHY he would behave like this. That he’s just a sellout.. it doesn’t ring very true to me. Maybe he’s trying to push us over the edge, into open revolution. I just don’t know. I feel confused, and hurt.

    4. pretzelattack

      that decades long rightward shift was aided and abetted by neoliberal dems, and this would continue under clinton. jesus.

        1. ambrit

          The trouble for many of “us” is that ‘inside baseball’ is an at best obscure spectator sport.
          My first question after the ‘endorsement’ was; “What did Sanders and, by inference, ‘his’ movement get out of this?” Most here can figure that H Clinton will renege on most ‘deals’ made with Sanders ‘in her name.’ Sanders is no dope. Otherwise, he might be making the mistake of ascribing to others the high ethical standards he hews to. (A good graphic would be a picture of Bullwinkle pulling a fierce H Clinton head out of the hat. “I gotta get another hat!”) What are Sanders’ motivations here? Can he be plain tired of it all? Can Sanders be performing a “cunning plan” to shoo the new blood away from the Democratic Party altogether? Does he really fear Trump more than he does the Clinton Gang? Given Sanders reputation of being a deal maker, how do we spin this endorsement of H Clinton as anything else but a move in an ‘inside baseball’ strategy. That’s where this all becomes interesting. The Clintons are famous for “quid pro quo” as the basic strategy of their politics. Sanders has delivered, if weakly, the submission the Clinton Team sees a necessary to unite the full range of Democratic Party Bases. What did Clinton promise in return?
          I’m now more than ever interested in who H Clinton places in positions of power in her regime. As with Obama in ’08, the appointees to the advisory posts will tell the tale.
          How about H Clinton for President and W Clinton for Veep?

          1. Arizona Slim

            Tired of it all? Thank you, ambrit, for bringing that up!

            Because that was PRECISELY what I thought while listening to Bernie’s March 2016 speech in Tucson. He seemed worn out.

        2. rich

          House Letter Calls Clinton Foundation ‘Lawless’
          A new congressional letter circulating among lawmakers charges the William, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation is a “lawless, ‘Pay-to-Play’ enterprise that has been operating under a cloak of philanthropy for years.”

          The letter, obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation, is authored by Tennessee Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn who plans to send it to FBI Director James Comey, Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen and Federal Trade Commission chairwoman Edith Ramirez.

          The letter calls upon the three agencies to launch a “public corruption” investigation into the ties between Clinton Foundation donors and Hillary Clinton’s policies as secretary of state.

          The letter says there is a “pattern of dealing that personally enriched the Clintons at the expense of American foreign policy.”

          Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/11/exclusive-house-letter-calls-clinton-foundation-lawless/#ixzz4EESP7gHD

          Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs.

          What’s to be cynical about?:) Not a fan of Blackbeard or Trump but lets get serious.

          If Hope and Change didn’t deliver, Bernie riding in the caboose on HRC’s gravy train is not going to get a majority of the people anywhere near the station.

          “Every ounce of my cynicism is supported by historical precedent.”
          ― Glen Cook

        3. perpetualWAR

          You have often said “Bernie will eventually endorse her because he said he would.”

          But, if Bernie is a “man of his word” and he stated many times openly he was taking the fight to Philly……how do any of us reconcile that he really wasn’t a man who stands behind what he says?

    5. Benedict@Large

      I wasn’t voting for Hillary even before Bernie got in the race. There’s certainly no reason for me to start now.

      As for Bernie, he never understood that the Clintons don’t play negotiation politics. Whatever he thinks he’s won, it’s all vapor. It’s the Clintons, the Foundation, and nothing else.

    6. Rhondda

      I hit reply, thanked Bernie and the team for all their hard work, made a short statement about the rigged campaign, rigged media, HRC’s corruption, lawlessness, etc. and my eyes now being opened. And then closed with the factual statement that “I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.”

      I’m sad, not mad. And I’m not one for kicking people when they’re down.

  7. Anon

    So one chapter ends and another begins. Why not endorse at the DNC? Doing it now gives her all of the leverage to renege on her “progressiveness”. Abrupt change or incrementalism; there are merits to both, but…

    I am appreciative of one thing this election cycle – it has put everything into stark focus
    for me. In fact, there should be a new rule: If the people at the top of the ladder freak out over something, then it’s probably a good decision for the rest of us.

    On a side note, I guess Bruce A. Dixon was right?

    1. Lambert Strether Post author

      Read the post for my view on sheepdogging* at least. A lot of this is like Zhou Enlai’s (apocryphal) comment on the effect of the French Revolution: It’s too soon to tell.

      To me, it’s all about the program and the voters, not the man. Dragging the Overton Window left is a great thing, and the Sanders campaign did it it. But directional change is not enough; IMNSHO there need to be standalone left institutions outside the neoliberal paradigm (narrative) entirely; the “Overton Prism,” I’ve called it. Whether the Sanders movement can organically create such institutions is the $64,000 question. I care a lot more about the answer to that than I do about the legacy party candidates; gridlock is my preferred outcome.

      * Itself an example of meta-sheepdogging, given that it’s designed to drive voters to the Greens, without serious examination of GP platform, candidate, or institutional capabilities (weak). Of course, as I’ve said, politics ain’t beanbag, so congrats to Dixon for creating a successful meme for his party,

      1. Ahimsa

        Much was made here of Sanders intention to keep his word and support (endorse?) the eventual democratic nominee.
        What about keeping his word to take it all the way to the convention!?

        1. Lambert Strether Post author

          I’m not happy about that at all. An endorsement was baked in, but the timing of this endorsement doesn’t seem in the least organic; Sanders isn’t driving it.

          1. NotTimothyGeithner

            It’s July. I’ve scanned the public facebook photos of a couple of Congressional campaigns here in Virginia. They are jokes compared to long shots from 2006 in similar enough districts. The difference is the crowds are quite a bit smaller and older and the staff appears in the pictures over and over again, and there are less frequent updates.

            My guess is panic has set in. Registration efforts and down ticket voting especially in safe blue and red states are all at risk where Hillary won’t be spending money. Judging from the articles about how impressed elected Dems were by Sanders ability to gain small donors and volunteers, I think they expected to be the beneficiaries come Summer.

            Sanders might as well give them the magical list. It won’t do much good.

            1. allan

              And then there is Plan B, at least for this Sanders supporter. Which is to push the Dem Overton window to the left by [mixed metaphor trigger warning] trimming its right wing. Plan to wait until early Fall, see who the most endangered New Democrat incumbents are, and then support their GOP opponents. If Schumer and DWS can play this game,
              why can’t the rank and file?
              Fewer and better Democrats.

              1. NotTimothyGeithner

                It’s anecdotal and I’m comparing to memory. I checked the public Facebook (deleted it many moons ago) and related sites for candidates in the 5th, 6th (why do they even bother, probably boredom), 10th, and first districts in Virginia, and they appear to be way behind their efforts from previous cycles.

                In the 5th, I know who hosts the candidate meet and greets every cycle, and they aren’t doing very well. The staff shows up in pictures all over the district which is huge to fill out the crowd. Some of the usual suspects are even missing from the house party rolls. One picture on the candidates FB page is from Arlington, VA which is an hour from the extreme North of the district.

                When there are 10 people in the crowd shot of an event for the candidate, and we could get twice that for an organization meeting, there is a problem, and I suspect it’s filtering up.

                1. Lambert Strether Post author

                  You’ve invented a really interesting method, and it would be fascinating to see if a Google image search, with some culling, would yield useful results.

                  1. NotTimothyGeithner

                    It’s just the Dean recognition of faces from the events in different parts of Iowa in 2004. He knew he was done when he saw the same people.

                    We always counted crowd size or knew how many people can fit into a room and took pictures accordingly. If there are 40 people, you don’t take a picture of 10 unless they’ve lost their minds.

                    At least for the 5th district, I always check for fellow Wahoos who do so much of the grunt work. Noticing the repetitive faces was fairly easy. I know and have been to all of the stupid events with fried food candidates have to go to.

          2. dots

            Perhaps events in EU have caused some sudden rethinking among serious people?

            Brexit, in particular, was not nearly as surprising as the media made out, if one was paying attention to walls going up, people flooding in, and general mood of the un/under-employed but probably terribly shocking if you were busily focused on polls, stock markets, and foreign wars.

            My hunch is that it caused a few parties to recalculate odds and ends.

          3. cwaltz

            I suspect the DNC is freaking out and they maneuvered this.

            No surprise. This is the party after all, that insists it has an adversarial relationship with activists.

            Here’s to hoping this move blows up in their adorable little faces(as I suspect it will.)

            Here’s the comment I left for Bernie on his Facebook-

            I am another person in the camp of having great admiration for Sanders and his career. However, I will not be voting for Secretary Clinton…..ever. I will vote for Dr. Stein this cycle in hopes of getting an alternative to the crooked, broken and corrupt Democratic Party on the ballot one of these days so that good men like Sanders don’t have to swear fealty to horrible organizations.

            Here’s the one I left for the DNC
            I’ll be voting Green in November and no amount of fear mongering about Trump is going to make me vote for your corrupt candidate DNC. If you lose, it will be your own fault because you chose to run Clinton. If you wanted my vote then you shouldn’t have rigged the primaries to begin with.

            It’s fairly cathartic to let them know they can force Bernie to stand on stage and sing kumbaya but it doesn’t mean a darn thing in terms of my vote in November.

              1. Another Anon

                The DNC sent me one of those pleas for money.
                I sent the letter back with on it the message “F*ck TPP”.
                Perhaps it was slightly juvenile, but I certainly felt better.

      2. Roger Smith

        gridlock is my preferred outcome.

        That is the best we can hope for at this point.

        Regarding the Greens, I cannot tell you how many times I have seen Stein sniping for Sanders voters in the past 1-2 months. Now I am not plugged into their apparatus, but following Stein on Tweetspace and FB I have seen nothing about events etc… only some sparing posts about phone banking and getting votes for ballot inclusion. I want to see the Green’s as a solution… but I get the impression that when they hold national level events, the same twenty people show up every time.

          1. Roger Smith

            Ha! Thanks for the history lesson. Perhaps this is what inspired the sheriff in Blazing Saddles.

        1. Bullwinkle

          My impression is that Jill Stein doesn’t campaign. Either she doesn’t know how or she doesn’t want to. What she seems to do is to give interviews when and where she can at various media sites (and of course the emails asking for $$). But that is not the same thing as holding a rally and/or going out and shaking hands with people. She needs to get herself out into the people more. Just my 2 cents.

          1. Rhondda

            She just had a rally here where I live in Kansas City, MO. A week or so ago. It was held at a community center. I really wanted to go but the 4:30-6:30 time didn’t work for me, especially that day.

            I got the impression she was speaking in a number of cities.

      3. Anon

        I’ll admit that the previous post was written in a bit of self-contained anger. That said, it’ll be interesting to see how your Overton Prism shines in the next few months or even how these left-leaning institutions outside of the paradigm are to prosper. Would it be easier to simply take over the Greens and get a ground game running from 2017 onwards?

      4. Left in Wisconsin

        IMNSHO there need to be standalone left institutions outside the neoliberal paradigm (narrative) entirely

        What we know from both Occupy and the Sanders’ campaign is that there are a large number of USAmericans who would like to see US politics move “outside the neoliberal paradigm.” The difficulty is that campaigns are (relatively) easy (no disrepect to Occupy or Sanders) but institution building is hard. In this case, there are 3 big issues:

        1. Funding: It is not possible to fund this kind of institutional framework via foundations. At best, it is possible to get “start-up” foundation funding, if you don’t sound too radical, or supplemental funding, if you have already proven successful. But even in these cases, foundation funding will pull strongly toward conventional politics.

        That leaves various other possibilities: billionaires (a la Nader), unions (though, again, strong pull toward politics as usual), or some other member dues-paying structure.

        2. Staffing: I think there would be lots of interest but the nuts and bolts are daunting.

        3. Competition: The liberal-(pseudo)left is already super-fragmented and already dependent on foundation funding. Any competing effort to encroach on turf already claimed will likely be met with either dismissiveness or all out war.

        Two comments: First, I haven’t heard any discussion of particulars as yet, which makes me wonder if Sanders, or anyone else associated with Sanders, is actually serious about this. Second, you might notice I haven’t mentioned the “program.” In a way, that’s everything. OTOH, the existing liberal-(pseudo)left is very experienced at saying the right things while ensuring they are off the table.

        1. Lambert Strether Post author

          On funding. That’s what the list is for! I think most of the other issues can, over time, be solved with funding, especially if pseudo-left institutions like CAP are kept at arms-length. “We” are not “stronger together.” The opposite is true.

          1. Iowan X

            Like many, VERY unhappy with this endorsement prior to the Republican Convention. But the organization-building described in Sander’s email IS essential; he’s got the list, and if he can work out the vision and the logistics, outside the Dem establishment, this can be a good thing. The key thing will be to stay away from the “Foundations”. And do direct actions while building the policy–and we mostly know what they mean to me.

            In short, we need a left machine to hold Hillary’s feet to the fire, if she’s elected, AND to build the left coalition for Congress and below, which also holds her feet to the fire.

            My bet is that Bernie gets prime time, at the convention, where he can do a commercial to “re-build” the D Party via the new groups (plus the stuff not included in the platform?) in return for today’s endorsement. The email message today about “re-building” the D’s is all we’re going to hear from Sanders about the “election irregularities”.

            1. ChiGal

              I was wondering if maybe why he endorsed now is cuz they were threatening to not let him speak if he held off any longer…

          2. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

            Disagree. It costs *nothing* to grab a brick and throw it and that’s the reaction this current situation richly deserves. They already know this basic fact in places like France and Germany and Chile and Brazil and it’s time the 99% grew a pair, especially since their latest White Knight was shown to be nothing but a eunuch all along.

              1. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

                In a system of exorbitant privilege informed and enforced by violence, violence is the only language they understand. The violent crowds on streets and on campuses are what scared the sh*t out of Nixon. Ceaucescu. De Gaulle. Mubarak. Pinochet. It doesn’t matter what your brick hits.

                1. perpetualWAR

                  Hear! Hear!
                  Time for guillotines, bricks, hot tar, pitchforks and general havoc!

                  Let’s give ’em hell.

      5. Benedict@Large

        Sure, the Overton Window move left. For a while.

        Don’t hold you breath. The Clintons are owned, and they do their owners tricks. The Foundation is their Tip Jar. All is Right in the world.

    2. John k

      I’m pretty disappointed, but time to be charitable.
      He came closer than anybody, esp Msm, expected… In fact, for a blissful few months they were panicking.
      He woke many of us, certainly me, that alternatives are possible. I really expect lots of progressives copy him.
      He was never one to go after her the way trump already is.
      I assume he concluded he would get more by endorsing now rather than later. This just means he’s pragmatic, not weak.
      Granted, I see trump as least evil, plus I think best way to bring dem party to its roots is for clintons to lose… And also plus I think foreign policy will improve under trump… And maybe domestic, too. We critically need to spend vast amounts on infrastructure, and trump has pledged to do that… IMo reps are ready to support a rep pres on domestic spending, especially cause recession.

  8. fresno dan


    But now comes the House Financial Services Committee and offers evidence beyond our “empirical evidence”: a 288-page report, “Too Big to Jail: Inside the Obama Justice Department’s Decision Not to Hold Wall Street Accountable.” And below is the Committee’s galling summary. Enjoy!
    The above summary by the House Financial Services Committee is infuriating even years after we’ve known, from watching it unfold, that this was the case, that, as Holder himself had said, a bank can be too big and its executives too powerful to prosecute, for fear of causing stocks to go down and bonds to blow up, or whatever….

    Of course, the REAL reason is that it would have meant a great diminution in the share of the Grift the dems get.
    BUT, it is cynical to talk about the past….So….
    I have come here today not to talk about the past but to focus on the future…
    in the future, we should hang more people.

  9. James Levy

    “During the Democratic platform proceedings in St. Louis and Orlando, we were victorious in including amendments to make it a clear priority of the Democratic Party to fight for a $15 an hour federal minimum wage, expand Social Security, abolish the death penalty, put a price on carbon, establish a path toward the legalization of marijuana, enact major criminal justice reforms, pass comprehensive immigration reform, end for-profit prisons and detention facilities, break up too-big-to-fail banks and create a 21st century Glass-Steagall Act, close loopholes that allow big companies to avoid taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens and use that revenue to rebuild America, approve the most expansive agenda ever for protecting Native American rights and so much more.
    All of these progressive policies were at the heart of our campaign. The truth is our movement is responsible for the most progressive Democratic platform in the history of our country. All of that is the direct result of the work that our members of the platform committee did in the meetings and that you have been doing over the last 15 months.
    But none of these initiatives will happen if we do not elect a Democratic president in November. None! In fact, we will go backward. We must elect the Democratic nominee in November and progressive Democrats up and down the ballot so that we ensure that these policy commitments can advance.”

    Well, the chances are a lot better that at least some of those things will happen if we elected Democrats rather than if we elect Trump and the Republicans, but it would be much, much, better if we elect Jill Stein.

    1. notabanker

      The chances that we see bills called “The Working Families Minimum Wage Act”, “The Working Families Advanced Education Act”, “The Public Prison and Detention Facilities Reformation Act” (I can go on but you get the picture) are pretty darn good.

      The chances that any of those bills actually contain language to enact the intent of any of the causes listed above is absolutely zero.

      1. Lambert Strether Post author

        Any time I see “working families” in a bill or a talking point I know I’m looking at something focus-grouped. What’s wrong with “working people,” or “workers,” or even, at this point, “proles”?

          1. NotTimothyGeithner

            Single mothers have traditionally been the most slammed group, welfare queens, sluts. Their sons are too young to go sons of Katie Elder on their abusers, and they have to deal with the kids. Fathers have an easier time denying paternity or are better fighters than mothers. Working families was always code for we won’t help the “sluts” because outside of children they are the largest group of weak people in society.

  10. Synoia

    A question to the Lawyers:

    Is it possible to mount a Constitutional based challenge to Regulation Harmonization and ISDS clauses in Treaties, and to the arbitration process which appears to cut out the Courts as a part of Government, and the open ended nature of the treaties, which appears to eliminate the Legislative part of Government?

    Starting with a stay on the implementation of TPP?

    If so, can we start a kick-starter campaign to raise money for the legal fees?

    I believe in identifying the problem, making a plan and executing on the plan.

    1. Vatch

      I’m not a lawyer, but for starters, the TPP is not a treaty, since it will be decided under the fast track trade promotion authority rules. This means that a simple majority of both the House and Senate, plus the President’s signature, will pass it. A treaty must be passed by two thirds of the Senators present, and does not involve the House at all. So the TPP, if passed, will not have the superior status of a treaty, and as an ordinary federal law, could be revoked by future laws.

      1. hunkerdown

        Also, parties to the T-“trade” agreements are governments, who agree to implement or refrain from particular policies. The subjects of those governments are not directly party to the agreement.

        [Disclaimer: not a lawyer, but I once wanted to be one when I grew up]

  11. willf

    “[I]n a nod to Sanders’s successful fundraising efforts that brought in millions of dollars from small donors, with at one time an average donation of $27, Clinton’s campaign has made $27 an option on its online donor page” [CNN].

    Let no one say that Sanders hasn’t successfully affected Clinton!

  12. Lee

    From Sanders’ email:

    “In the coming weeks, I will be announcing the creation of successor organizations to carry on the struggle that we have been a part of these past 15 months.” We await developments.

    The storming of the palace having fallen short, I’m assuming Sanders is contemplating a takeover of a good portion of, if not the entire Democratic party machine, from the ground up. That seems to me at best a 50/50 proposition.

    There is a link at the end:

    “Please let me know that you will stand with me to defeat Donald Trump, and to elect candidates who will stand by our agenda as part of the future of our political revolution. Add your name now.”

    I hesitate to sign up lest I be mistaken for a lesser of two weevils voter and start receiving unwanted solicitations from the Clinton camp.

      1. Left in Wisconsin

        I don’t see any possibility of Sanders or his “people” taking over any part of the DP apparatus.

        At the state level, the apparatus is not issue- or candidate-specific. There aren’t, for example, distinct HRC and BS staffers or staffers who are identified proponents or opponents of TPP who are free to advocate their views. DP staffers work for the party and the party works for incumbents. Because the views of DP incumbents are all over the map and, more importantly, because the vast majority of DP incumbents are in bed with corporations of one sort or other, there is not, and IMO cannot be under current arrangements, anyone who is part of the apparatus who is avowedly anti-corporate.

        Here is Wisconsin, for example, US Rep Ron Kind is a leader of the pro-TPP movement. The state DP has made it clear to Sanders’ supporters that Ron Kind is a good Democrat, the state DP will support Ron Kind in any and every way, the current primary challenge to Kind is not acceptable to the party, etc.

        Of course, the DP apparatus in DC is orders of magnitude more corrupt. (OK, maybe only 1.)

        In other words, there is no way at this time for the Sanders’ movement to take a portion of the DP. Unless Sanders or -ites are able to negotiate a different kind of apparatus going forward, it’s all or nothing.

    1. Kokuanani

      I wonder how many folks will be left on the list to “notify,” after so many unsubscribe in anger at the endorsement announcement?

      1. Medbh

        I wonder if that’s part of the plan. It saves them the work of winnowing through the “hell no” supporters, and enables them to target the ones who might actually go for Clinton.

  13. Joseph Hill

    I was always going to vote 3rd party (have in presidential Bill Clinton popped my cherry) but begin giving serially to Sanders since last August to see what he could do for the Dems. Now I know. I hadn’t been even cynical enough to think that the endgame of my donations would be an endorsement of Clinton. But Sanders is a politician and that’s what politician’s do. I unsubscribed from ActBlue when I began getting Clinton solicitations from them a month or so ago. I unsubscribed from Sanders list as soon as I got his pablum for Clinton this p.m. Now, rather than vote 3rd party I’m in the mood for some monkey wrenching, Trump style. Also – I think the fixation on the executive branch is a big distraction and kind of pointless. We haven’t been a democracy for some time and that’s certainly not where to begin looking to “restore” it.

    1. jgordon

      That’s the right attitude. We need to do everything we can to keep that psychopath Hillary out of office. I firmly believe that a Hillary presidency could be the end of life on earth. Even if it is lesser of two evils–well at least Trump isn’t an extinction risk.

      1. Aumua

        You know I don’t share your assessment of Clinton somehow single handedly imminatizing the eschaton. But regardless of whether the president is to be the Clinton, or the Trump, it seems obvious we are headed towards extinction either way. On that same note, I also firmly believe that if and when real change does occur, it’s not going to matter so much who the president of the United States is anymore.

        It’s just that when I hear you say we have to keep Clinton out at any cost.. what I hear is a reflection of what they’re saying: that we have to keep Trump out at all costs. It’s the other side of the same coin. It’s a bad penny either way, it’s fearmongering is what it is.

    2. heresy101

      Trump was prepared for the sellout and be a shoo-in if he stays on message:

      While I would normally vote for Stein, this election is too important because the Warmongress will take us into WW3 because she supports the aggressive expansion of NATO, a no fly zone in Syria, and putting the Navy outside of China.

      TRUMP IS THE LESSER EVIL! He will not be able to pass the TPP, build his wall, put together a Grand Bargain to destroy Medicare and Social Security. While the Damnocrats would meekly follow “that woman” in doing all those things, and more, they wouldn’t be able to support Trump if he did any of those things. Additionally, they wouldn’t be able to support all the typical Repugnant things that Trump will propose. The best outcome of this election is gridlock and building movements against the Police
      State and getting real candidates elected in 2018.

      1. James Levy

        I was told two things in 2001: Bush had “no mandate” and because of this he would have to “govern from the center.”

        It was bullshit.

        He came into office guns blazing and he and the Republicans ran roughshod over the Republic for 8 years. The idea that if Trump wins and has the House and Senate at his back that this will lead to “gridlock’ is pure fantasy. If Clinton goes down the Republicans will get both houses and if you think we’ve seen “fuck the worker” policies before, you ain’t seen nothing yet:

        Higher minimum wage?
        Better working conditions?
        Greater access to healthcare?
        End to fracking?
        Action on climate change?
        Rolling back the police state?
        An end to torture and the drone wars?
        Tax increase on the plutocrats?

        Don’t make me laugh.

        We need plans to deal with what’s coming, not asinine “How can I express my hatred for Hillary Clinton more insanely emphatically than the next guy” screeds. What are you people going to do if your hopey-changey dreams of a Trump presidency comes to pass, and he governs, I don’t know, like the Republican plutocrat he is and who will be advising him and sending him bills to sign?

        1. tongorad

          Higher minimum wage?
          Better working conditions?
          Greater access to healthcare?
          End to fracking?
          Action on climate change?
          Rolling back the police state?
          An end to torture and the drone wars?
          Tax increase on the plutocrats?

          Do you really think Hillary is going to be better for all of us on these issues?
          And what of Bush? What’s Obama’s legacy in overturning what he did? We’re worse off than ever.
          The Democrats are the greater evil. They serve to legitimize neoliberal policy.
          Not scared of Trump in the slightest.

          1. James Levy

            You may hate it, but more people have access to healthcare now than they did 9 years ago. And it was Democrats like the crappy Cuomo who stopped fracking in NY. And it’s Democrats who are talking about a higher minimum wage, and yes, defending what’s left of Choice in this country. And no Democrats, no gay marriage. In fact, we have plenty of Republicans who are still pushing Sodomy laws.

            Those are facts.

            The idea that the Republicans will not make things worse can only be entertained by people who don’t live in Republican-dominated states like Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Or did you miss what they’ve done in those states to worker’s rights? This “Republicans don’t matter–it’s all the evil democrats” crap is something you tell yourself because you have whipped yourself up into a frenzy of hatred for the Clintons. It’s not thinking about what is best for millions of people.

            And why, if you supposedly believe in the things that Sanders espoused, would you not be afraid of a President Trump, who, if you check his website, you might discovery is really a right winger on most issues and contradicts himself on the rest. How can that not bother you?

            1. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

              Trump needs to raise a billion to have any chance at all and there is ZERO chance of that happening.
              The battle was for Bernie. The battle’s over.

              1. James Levy

                If you check, in state NOT run by reactionary Republicans more people were granted access to Medicaid and, thanks to Sanders, more money went to public health facilities. It was a crappy start, but it was more than ANY Republican was going to give you.

                1. Code Name D

                  Dude, Obamacare was authored by the Heritage Foundation. Mitt Romney launched exactly the same plan a few years before for Massachusetts.

                  Tell me again how Republicans can only make things worse?

                2. MojaveWolf

                  I live in Cali. A friend who was on Medicaid died of cancer this Spring about 4 or 5 weeks after diagnosis without ever getting treatment. He went in for chest pains, turned out to be stage 4 w/multiple tumors and blood clots, and they kept saying “we’re going to start aggressive treatment on X day after Y test to make sure you’re a good candidate.” He would turn out not to be beyond hope and they would say “we’re starting treatment x day.” Then “one more test 1st.” And so on, even going outpatient, until “oops, you’re terminal, we’re going to stabilize you then put you in a hospice for end of life care” followed by death a few days later before he ever made the hospice. Highly liberal state here. I was not impressed.

        2. jgordon

          that was a total non-respinse to what was said. The reason we have no choice but to support Trump is because Hillary has good odds of ending life on earth. That’s not hyperbole because we hate Hillary; that’s a simple logical conclusion based on her history and what she has said.

          1. James Levy

            How are Hillary Clinton’s lousy advisers any worse than George W. Bush’s or Ronald Reagan’s for that matter? They’re the same people! Last time I checked, we survived them. My guess is we’ll survive Clinton as well. And the idea that Trump will go off half-cocked if he ego gets bruised or his own party tells him he’s not “man enough” to stand up to the Ruskies is at least as plausible as Clinton screwing up and getting us into a war with Russia. It’s just that you want to pretend it isn’t because, yes, you have an insane hatred and need to demonize Clinton.

            1. Yves Smith

              Huh? They were not trying to provoke a hot war with Russia. We are now installing “defensive” nuclear weapons all over Eastern Europe, the latest in Romania, which tip the nuclear balance of power in the US’s favor. This is an incredibly aggressive move. And this comes after moving NATO into former Warsaw pact countries since 1997, a move George Kennan said would prove to be the biggest geopolitical mistake we ever made.

              1. James Levy

                I double-checked what I already knew: the US has nuclear weapons in Germany, Italy, Belgium and Turkey. The number of such warheads is vastly reduced from the 1970s-80s. So your comment about them being installed “all over Eastern Europe” is incorrect, and pointless given that the delivery system of choice would undoubtedly be cruise missiles and with a 1500 mile reach they can hit all over European Russia. If you are referring to anti-ballistic missiles (which don’t have nuclear warheads–in fact, most don’t have warheads at all–they are kinetic energy weapons) the plan for them to go into eastern Europe is from our friends in the Bush Administration and is utterly stupid. Continuing that policy would be amazingly stupid. I haven’t heard Trump comment on it either way.

                1. Carolinian

                  You forget that the objection to so called “first strike weapons” is lack of response time. In his recent speech on the subject Putin said that his analysts had concluded that the ABM launchers in Eastern Europe could be reloaded with nuclear tipped cruise missles in a matter of hours. I’m not sure your “only as crazy as the Bush administration” defense of Hillary is likely to be too reassuring to the Russians.

                  But hey Trump is scary so let’s continue with Einstein’s definition of insanity instead.

                  1. Aumua

                    In all honesty, I’m afraid of both of them. I’m terrified of either one of them ‘leading’ us. Tell me that’s wrong.

                    What I won’t do is be pushed into voting for one or the other, because I’m supposed to be more afraid of their opponent. Is fear all we have to base our vote on now? I think Kennedy had something to say about that. How about we vote based on what we believe in and what we stand for instead? I think that sends a lot more potent message.

                    1. dots


                      Voting for someone we don’t believe in, someone we are afraid of and/or someone we perceive as a danger to ourselves, the country and the other countries we affect, just for the sake of the participating in a voting ritual, is not Democracy. Instead it’s being bullied into giving our system of governance the appearance of legitimacy. If it demands us to surrender our authenticity and integrity in the process, it’s an evil we have every right to oppose, seek to change and/or refuse to participate in. This isn’t just about the messaging. How we participate now determines the future others must live.

                      LBJ once ran a fear-mongering ad saying “The stakes are too high for you to stay home” and this is where we are today. We need to change the narrative and we can’t get there by repeating it to each other every 4 years.


                      “A lesson will keep repeating itself
                      until it is learned.” – lots of folks

                  2. Another Anon

                    Yes and the Russians have repeatably pointed
                    out that the last time there were foreign troops massed
                    in Poland near their border was 1941.

            2. jgordon

              “Insane” hatred? Hillary is probably the most corrupt person ever to run for president. Also leaked evidence proved that she was the one directly responsible for pushing Obama into Libya and turning it from one of the most prosperous and stable countries in Africa into the ISIS-breeding hellhole of death and despair that it is today. Also there is: “We came. We saw. He died! (Raucous laughter))

              I say a lot if things people disagree with, but I don’t even think Lambert or Yves would disagree with anything I said here. Supporting Trump is simply the logical choice here–as the best way to prevent a known psychopath from getting near the nuclear codes.

        3. clarky90

          James Levy says “We need plans to deal with what’s coming”! Here it comes!

          Putin sacks EVERY commander in his Baltic fleet in Stalin-style purge ‘after top brass refusal to follow his orders to confront Western ships’

          Up to 50 officers in Russia’s Baltic fleet have been sacked by Vladimir Putin
          Among those to be sacked were the head of the fleet and his chief of staff
          It came after the Baltic fleet reportedly refused to confront Western ships

          Sackings have been described in Russian media as a ‘Stalin-style purge’


        4. Lambert Strether Post author

          Bush may have come into office guns blazing, but if the Dems hadn’t whimpered and showed their belly his bravado wouldn’t have meant a thing. For about two years the only two voices of sanity, and I mean this quite literally, were Paul Krugman and, believe it or not, Al Franken.

          Of course, the Dems wouldn’t do that this time. All out resistance, right?

          1. James Levy

            As I pointed out, this is why the “gridlock” meme is bullshit–Trump with a Republican Congress will be All Reactionary, All The Time. You demand that others read carefully what you write and have scant patience if they don’t. Extend the same courtesy to others.

            1. aab

              Clinton with the Republican/Corporate Democratic Congress would be the same, or worse. Democrats will back her. They may at least weakly oppose him.

              I agree with you that voting for Trump and hoping for “gridlock” is probably foolish, for what it’s worth. For me, the issue is that Clinton is just flat-out as bad or worse along every vector. She’ll appoint conservative, anti-choice, corporatist Supreme Court Justices, pretending she’s “forced” to because of those meanies in the Senate. Please tell me one clear positive of electing her. Because he’s less interested in the Russian War, less interested in expanding NATO, opposed to TPP, less interested in cutting Social Security. I realize his party is more into that stuff — but in that regard, they’re aligned with Clinton, so it’s STILL better to put him in than her. With the added bonus of possibly weakening both parties.

              I know this commenting system isn’t set up well for back and forth, and I’m going to bed soon. But I really would be interested if you could present ANY evidence of how electing Clinton — particularly given her criminality and incompetence — would clearly be better. Because “Trump is bad” doesn’t cut it. Neither does “Trump is crazy” — come on, she’s a bloodthirsty maniac.

            2. MojaveWolf

              @JamesLevy — Why are you so convinced Trump will be more militant than HRC? Domestically, you I think you may well be right that she will be better than him, other than the TPP (which is such a huge “other than” it negates the entire rest, even if I was sure she would be *somewhat* better; as it is I think it probable but I’m not at all sure; it’s really, really just plain guesswork re: Trump’s domestic policy; I take his website at the same value as I took Obama’s in 2008, which is to say the same value I view the Dem Platform). But foreign policy? He looks clearly better there to me (I am voting Jill Stein; when viewed in any light except opposition to HRC/DNC Trump looks really bad to me).

              Also, continuing to put in neoliberal shills of any stripe is continuing to make everything worse. I don’t think the country got noticably better under Obama, tho I’ll grant you he’s saner and more competent than Bush/Cheney were and slowed down the visible rate of economic decline. Sorta like Jerry Brown was more competent than Arnold as governor of Cali, but nonethless promotes fracking and did his best to ignore a giant methane leak.

              Meanwhile, my local Republican congressman, who I don’t agree with on many, many things, at least went from being silent on the TPP to vocally opposing it and voting against fast track, and has been quite responsive when I’ve emailed him (as opposed to Boxer, who ignores all emails completely, and Feinstein, who sometimes ignores but mostly sends condescending form letters in response).

              i agree w/you that on the whole the GOP sucks worse, but not all of them all of the time, and since the Dems are leading us straight off a cliff plummetting to hell anyway, I don’t really care that the road they are taking offers a slightly more comfortable ride w/a slightly more diverse make-up of people in the best seats.

          2. sd

            The strongest and most vocal opposition was Paul Wellstone, who was likely assassinated. We will never know what really happened there….

        5. Medbh

          It’s crazy to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. The “lesser of evils” approach has taken us further down a path of destruction.

          What is the plan to deal with what’s coming in a Clinton presidency? Her prior behavior is just as frightening as Trump’s. Ignore what people say; look at what they have done.

          If Trump wins and governs as poorly as you suggest, the backlash will be even stronger. Supporting “light” versions of failed practices delays the renewal, and makes us more vulnerable to an even more extreme version of whomever represents the “not the status quo.”

          I refuse to support evil. We’re in a trap of our own making, and it won’t change until we stop accepting the choices they allow us.

          1. clarky90

            Donald Trump was almost the last person on Earth that the Republican Power Brokers wanted as their candidate. Trump is the candidate because ordinary people demanded that he be chosen. The Republican PTB are still kicking and screaming about losing control of “their party” to the people.

            1. aab

              One of the numerous reasons why voting for him to stop Clinton makes sense to me. If I have learned anything this primary season, it’s that TPTB are both awful and wrong, what they want should be opposed, and what they oppose — in a binary situation — is the better option.

              And no, I’m not a Trump “fan.” But there is simply no valid argument for allowing Clinton to attain power because you’re afraid of him. James Levy keeps trying and failing. I get the horror — the whole election is a nightmare — but living in Rome under Caligula was probably not fun, either. Lest one mistake me, it’s Hillary whose the next insane dynastic ruler.

  14. steelhead

    I too am disappointed that Bernie didn’t wait until the convention but the degree is much smaller than what I felt in 2009 about Obama’s betrayal…

    1. Pavel

      That was indeed some rare good news. The BBC and other establishment tools were desperately trashing Corbyn. At least he is on the ballot and will have a chance.

  15. Jess

    Jill Stein on Bernie’s endorsement:

    “I wish Hillary believed what you believe, @BernieSanders. But it just doesn’t pass the laugh test,” Stein added in another message…”It sounds like the only good thing Bernie can say about Hillary is that she’s not Donald,” Stein continued. “That’s what most of her supporters like about her.”

    Jill Stein shreds Sanders’ Clinton endorsement

    1. pretzelattack

      oddly, what i like about the donald is that he isn’t clinton. stein makes good sense.

  16. frosty zoom

    it’s time for the left to unite around p.t. barnum, for, however looney, his psychopathies seem harmless in comparison to lady macbeth’s.

    poor bernie. potus was his if he ran with the greens, but he’ll be a faithful doggy right to the end. how could any morally just individual endorse the gaddafi laugh?

    1. landline

      “poor bernie. potus was his if he ran with the greens”

      Yep, a damn good chance. Now, we’ll never know.

      No disappointment because he did what he said he would, just like Obama escalating the Afghanistan war.

      The best sheepdog is a Saint Bernard.

      1. James Levy

        Sanders has busted his ass for working people for 30 years. What the fuck have you done in comparison that you can cast a stone at Sanders?

        1. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

          He had impeccable credentials as a man of principle, until he got to the finish line, that is. Even if he wanted to eventually throw his weight behind Hilary he could easily have held out a few more weeks until the convention. Fiery speeches, followed by the appearance of some democracy, followed by a ringing endorsement as the “tallies” came in.
          Instead we get “this is the way the world ends, world ends, world ends, this is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper”

          1. MojaveWolf

            I don’t understand Sanders caving early and that speech either, but I’m agreeing w/Levy on this one. We on the left would not be where we are now w/out Bernie’s candidacy.

            As much as I can, gotta give Bernie the benefit of the doubt. Seems like he’s earned it. Hope he doesn’t expect us to actually follow that endorsement tho.

            1. Lambert Strether Post author

              Agreed on all points.

              It will be interesting to see if any new institutions emerge from the Sanders campaign. That, to me, is the thing to watch for.

              It would also be nice to have some direction communication from Sanders on all this before the Borg devours him entirely he focuses on Trump on the trail.

              I think we had discussion in the past of a truce between Sanders and Clinton (at the campaign level as opposed to the supporter level). That could work….

        2. dots

          I think the hardest thing you can do in politics is to keep busting your ass for working people for year after year after year, often to the sound of crickets chirping in the background. Allowing space for spontaneous change is not the same thing as wishful thinking, but cynicism usually guarantees more of the same.

        3. landline

          I’ve been busting my ass as well, usually unpaid, to the best of my abilities. And I’m a working class person, not a politician, who deserves more scrutiny than common people.

          So, to use your word, fuck you.

          I never called the cops on anyone, like your hero Bernie, false prophet, staunch supporter of the MIC.

    2. Massinissa

      Potus was Bernies if he went with the greens? I highly doubt that. I don’t think he would do all that much better than Stein will, which is to say, not very well. Even if he did do relatively successfully as a Green, he would get what, 20% of the vote? If he was lucky?

      PS: I’m voting Stein, if that means anything.

      1. hunkerdown

        Do you really suppose he would do so poorly on their ticket, having likely drawn away significant support from both bourgeois Parties by simply being credible and sensible? (And are you conjecturing those election results as counted or as cast?)

        It could be argued that Perot’s 20% provided support for the rightward, pro-business shift of the Democratic Party. Telling 20% of voters to get stuffed, and by (possibly erroneous) extension, 20% of citizens, doesn’t seem like a good recipe for an appearance of majoritarian legitimacy. It sounds like a recipe for four years in a bulletproof Popemobile.

      2. MojaveWolf

        Disagree; think he would have a better chance at getting plurality of votes than HRC or Trump, and probably would have thrown the election into the house.

        Knew he probably wouldn’t do this but bitterly disappointed nonetheless. Now hoping Stein does well, while not trusting the vote count AT ALL.

  17. Adam1

    What I haven’t been able to tease out is A) does Sanders think he’s being true to his word to endorse whoever became the 2016 Democratic Presidential candidate; B) if it’s not him does he want to protect his Senate powers so he now goes with the “team”; or C) he doesn’t see value in sending the party back to the woods. Personally as a registered (barely) Democrat I’m all for burning down the building and starting fresh. The party would do good if it spent 40 days and nights in the desert.

  18. armchair

    Why does the recently discovered dwarf planet need to be called half the size of Britain? Is this a sly hint that Britain is under threat of being halved by departures of Scotland and Northern Ireland? I guess I always thought of countries as surface area. Does that mean that if you took Britain and turned into a piece of saran wrap, then cut the saran wrap in half, you could then wrap it around the dwarf planet?

          1. clinical wasteman

            The dwarf planet half the size of Britain and tumbling through space is called England. The metropolitan non-elites of low-end London, Glasgow, Liverpool etc. have leveraged our precariousness and are now hurtling in the opposite direction. Definitely not towards a Euromanagerial mothership, but there may be a rendezvous with summer 2011.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      It is about 5 times the size of Vermont.

      Maybe they don’t want to remind people Vermont is a dwarf state.

        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          Those dwarves did stand with elves and men to turn back the bad guys at the Battle of Five Armies.

  19. petal

    I know it’s faceborg, but have been checking out Bernie’s page for the last few days out of curiosity. It’s been blowing up(gotten quite ugly), especially in the last 24 hours. A lot of angry people out there, and vowing they won’t vote for HC. It looks overwhelmingly anti-endorsement and anti-HC.

    1. pretzelattack

      i hope that is a general sentiment. a clinton regime appalls me. 4 years trump > 8 years of clinton.

      1. Optimader

        Thats potentially the big downside risk.

        Even if you dont like trump, at least he gives the RNC hives! HRC is the DNC shill

      2. petal

        Dude, it’s bad. It’s so ugly over there right now. Holy Moses. Anger, betrayal, “hypocrite” being thrown out there, people that gave money when things were tight, people that had spent money to be delegates or go to the convention, you name it. It’s all coming out. Most of them are saying they’ll vote for Jill Stein, but there are a few saying publicly they’ll vote for Trump instead because the Clintons need to be stopped, etc. But, like 99% are saying they absolutely will not vote for HC no matter what. Stay tuned!

        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          $27 is a lot of money.

          Students with non-dischargeable debt know that.

          Maybe Hillary can have a summer inventory clearance sale – $13.5 per person.

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            “Hey, let’s go to Clinton Cafe. They don’t have organic, sustainable, fair-wage coffee, and the baristas are all robots or robotic, but it’s only half price – $13.50!!!”

          1. petal

            Sure, Lambert. Sorry about that-just got home from work and had to get everyone (dogs) sorted.

            Here is a link to his page and you can see the comments from people. This is a link to his “Forever Forward” letter and all of the comments there.

            Here’s the comment that so far is most liked(9600+): “Intelligent Bernie supporters will NEVER support her because she stands for everything we’re fighting against. #neverhillary Just because Bernie has left our movement does not mean it is over.”

            Here is another(4400+): “You have to be the biggest sellout ever. She is literally everything you’ve been complaining about and your going to forget all of that in the name of partisan politics.” That one is from the livestream post for the endorsement.

            All of these are visible to the public/everyone, even if you don’t have a faceborg account. No sign-ups needed unless you want to post a comment. They go on and on for miles, some nastier, some more bitter, some angry about their donations, etc. Interesting stuff to read through. Even saw one about “he better not hand over the list to that b-tch”.

              1. petal

                Yep. Ha!

                On the way home I forgot to look to see if the huge Bernie 2016 sign was still up as I went into town. Had meant to and totally spaced.

            1. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

              One of the posters who claims to know insiders from both camps says HRC said she would repudiate and block each of Bernie’s positions unless he endorsed right away.
              Bare knuckled fascist power play at its best.
              But being a gentle and credulous consensus type Bernie read the tea leaves 100% wrongly. His positions never had a single solitary chance

        2. NotTimothyGeithner

          It’s not surprising.

          The simple reality is the Democrats promised a great deal in 2006 and 2008 and failed to deliver on those promises after being rewarded. In 2010, the Democrats received an epic beat down considering demographics. In 2012, the GOP attacked voter registration, a torch taken up by Clinton Inc, and Obama promised the second term would be different and that ACA would work.

          In 2014, the Democrats whined about the possibility of losing the Senate and again received an epic beat down.

          The Democrats are not popular. Without fear of the GOP, they would be like the Communist Party in Russia today with their little marches of walker brigades, a shell of nostalgia. Hillary is the wife of a President who was so popular he received less than 50% of the vote in his reelection after the GOP shut down the government and generally behaved as vile buffoons. Hillary’s weaknesses are well documents at this point. If you aren’t a yellow dog Democrat at this point, you are not going to embrace the Democratic status quo. Anyone who does will become a pariah.

          1. Arizona Slim

            Recall that Bill Clinton only got 43% of the vote in 1991. Bush got 38% and Perot got 19%. So much for his much-vaunted popularity.

    2. Jess

      Which FB page, specifically. (There are many) Want to go and look for myself, maybe throw in my two cents worth.

      1. petal

        Jess, I just posted above, hope it helps. I’m sorry-I was getting ready to leave work at the time and just got home a few minutes ago. Cheers.

    3. Roger Smith

      Interesting Redditor comment:

      “… I just donated $50 to him last week for the god damn delegates travel costs. I have a fucking plane ticket to Philadelphia on the 23rd and a hotel booked for 6 days. I saved up my money ALL YEAR for this trip. What happened to marching on the convention and protesting DNC corruption? What happened to defending progressive morals and principles? “

          1. Buttinsky

            Best line I’ve heard all day.

            But I do think screaming at people who have just been sucker-punched to go spend a bunch of money to march in Philadelphia pretty much sums up the disorienting day it’s been.

            1. Lambert Strether Post author

              Well, it is true that your recommendation that people should lie back on their couches pissing and moaning is cheaper.

              Why the heck would anybody want to exercise agency, anyhow? Philly’s a great town and I have no doubt that many interesting things will happen, Sanders aside.

              1. Buttinsky

                I actually think the gist of your advice was reasonable, for all kinds of reasons — not least of all because, as you express more eloquently immediately above, doing something is often better than doing nothing, especially when it’s a matter of feeling bad about a situation that one has almost no control over. Yes, “agency.” That might be just as rewarding, both politically and personally (I speak from my own experience only of course), when exercised on a local level. But I didn’t make a recommendation. I observed that “march!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” seemed representative of the general imperative mood yesterday in the face of more complicated emotions.

        1. ambrit

          Be very careful and have your health insurance paid up.
          Conspiracy Land, just down the block from Candy Land, natch, is bubbling on about the chance of false flag events at the RNC Convention in Cleveland supplying a pretext for Martial Law and a suspended election. Not much about the Philly Stake through the Heart of the Democratic Party yet.
          The ‘rules’ for marches and demonstrations at Cleveland are so strict and seemingly engineered for failure that “normal” people are worried. (The New Black Panther Party has announced that they will be doing ‘open carry’ of firearms in their appearances in Cleveland. Despite all the things banned in most of downtown Cleveland, such as selfie sticks, tennis balls, camera tripods, etc. open carry of firearms is allowed. A recipe for disaster?) Marches have one or two hours to ‘perform’ along a prescribed route and then must be out of downtown within the hour after. Hurricane fencing with concertina wire topping, concrete barriers, two thousand sets of police riot armour, militarized vehicles galore, all set a low bar for events getting ‘out of control.’ Permits are needed just to film and stream to the web from within the event ‘zone.’. Private drones are disabled somehow; control link jamming is the present conjecture.
          One basic rule of organizing anything is Keep It Simple Stupid. This ‘event’ has become so complex, something is bound to go wrong. When ‘wrongness’ appears, the “Forces of Law and Order” are prepared to Bomb it to the Stone Age.
          If there are any ‘unapproved’ marches, ‘they’ had better be very big, for self protection.
          Good luck! Stay safe!

          1. Rhondda

            Be very careful and have your health insurance paid up.

            I do believe that Obombercare insurance specifically does not cover ER care for injuries acquired during riots and/or insurrections. I am not joking.

            1. hunkerdown

              I just grepped the text of the ACA and the words “protest”, “insurrection” or “riot” appear nowhere. I think insurers, in general, are permitted to exclude coverage for injuries received by active participators in a riot etc.

              That, in and of itself, has chilling effects on public participation. The private side can create a riot at any time, even retroactively.

              1. Rhondda

                Well, perhaps I shouldn’t imply that it’s a part of Obamacare in general.

                My ACA health plan specifically won’t pay for it. I was quite surprised to see that cavil in the fine print.

                1. hunkerdown

                  And that’s why Americans don’t often get in the streets, while countries with single payer have much better civic participation rates.

      1. Montanamaven

        Go and raise hell. It will be a lot more interesting than when I was a delegate and essentially was an extra in a bad movie about a war hero “reporting for duty”. Refuse to lift up the banners and chant when instructed. Bring your own banners. But be prepared. They will have thugs there to keep everybody in line.

      2. Buttinsky

        The Jill Stein subreddit, on the other hand, is reporting a flood of new subscribers today (many explicitly ex-Bernistas as of this morning).

    1. mcarson

      Saw this bumper sticker, Bernie-blue with meteor coming left to right towards land.

      Giant Meteor/2016
      Just End it Already!

      1. aab

        Not to be mean to my friends going Green, but that meteor got 13% in the poll it was included in. That’s like double Stein.

        On the other hand, the meteor would be of little use in the debates, and it looks like Jill with have a lot of fun, so that’s nice.

        As someone with offspring, I would very much prefer no meteor, no tumbrils, no nuclear war with Russian. But we can’t always get what we want, I hear.

        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          The future of less wealth inequality.

          Back to where the country was. That’s the future to work toward (I was going to say, to hope for – but it sounds too much ‘not up to us do anything).

  20. Joseph Hill

    Man, I feel bad for the folks who put a lot of time and energy into expressing their support for Sanders – much of it based in opposition, to all things Hillary. What a kick in the teeth. Was he that big a nebbish after all or did they make him an offer he couldn’t refuse? Or now do we see why he seemed to be pulling punches on Clinton during the campaign: perhaps he’s not that much different.

    1. Lambert Strether Post author

      Sure! Which is why Clinton ran as a democratic socialist! Oh, wait….

      To your serious point, and speculating freely, I think the horse’s head in the bed was probably Reid threatening Sanders position as chair of the Budget Committee if the Dems win the Senate. If you want to affect legislation, and Sanders does, that’s a good place to do it from. Not what I would have wished, but it’s not unreasonable.

  21. afisher

    After “the announcement”, Trump immediately threw Bernie under the bus (donaldtrump.com) while the subreddit The_Donald is attempting to woo voters. Reason is pimping for Gary Johnson. But then it gets really humorous. People need to take a quick visit to Reddit, subreddit Politics ( https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/new/?count=25&after=t3_4sj5h0) and scroll thru the articles)

    And Jill Stein is having a Facebook conversation tonight ( 7PM est)

    The only solace, is that we are a highly wanted group.

    FWIW: I listened to a podcast today – and the broadcast boiled the election choice down to KISS question – do you want a group of bigots running the country.

    Here’s hoping I didn’t break any rules posting this.

    1. Buttinsky

      What makes you think a bunch of bigots haven’t been running this country for 240 years?

      1. John k

        Reps took over the bigot faction from the dems after Johnson passed civil rights, flipping the south. Since then most reps, and all in the south, are bigots.
        And plenty of reps won the pres.
        Not to mention northern dem machines, and police forces… Plenty bigots there.
        The diff here is that trump is more vocal. But other issues are more important in this election, not least stopping the Clinton machine and avoiding hot nukes.

  22. Anne

    What is it you’re unsubscribing from, exactly? The ideas that are the Sanders platform, the belief that more people need to participate in their government and the election process, the reality that there is a long way to go to get the kind of government we want, a long way to go to effect the kinds of changes Sanders supported?

    Are you just taking your bat and your ball and going home because the guy whose team you wanted to play for up and signed with someone else?

    What if there had never been a Sanders? What if Clinton had had a clear field from Day One – what would you be doing? Trying to get Stein elected? And what happens when that fails – do you just give up?

    Are you only interested in working for the changes we need by being a follower?

    Do not misunderstand me here: I am not voting for Hillary Clinton. But I damn well will not turn my back on this thing Sanders helped create just because he didn’t win – or because he’s decided he can’t take the chance that Trump wins and we get a president who’s loony enough to actually sign into law the insanity passed by the Congress.

    I sure as hell am not voting for Donald Trump.

    I may leave the presidential portion of the ballot blank, as I did in 2008, on the theory that none of the candidates is qualified for the office.

    I’m pretty sure it was made very clear to Sanders that if he didn’t get on board, or at least pay lip service to unity, they would cut his legs off and prop him up on a back bench somewhere in the Senate, and any chance he had to effect any kind of change would evaporate. Say what you will, this isn’t a Senator who has ever been a sell-out, so you might want to try thinking about how much it could matter having an effective Sanders in the Senate to ride herd on Clinton and her cronies.

    Yeah, I’m sure it would have been highly satisfying for Sanders to tell Clinton to fk off…for all of about 10 minutes, until reality set in.

    So, fine, unsubscribe – maybe it will keep you from getting Clinton mail – but jesus, holding your breath until you turn blue isn’t accomplishing anything.

    1. Mark Alexander

      I contributed time and money to Sanders, and unsubscribed just now. But I’m not “holding my breath until I turn blue”. I knew Sanders was committed to supporting whomever the D. nominee turned out to be. But I’m disappointed with the timing, the effusiveness of his praise, and the contradictions between what he said in the debates and what he’s saying now. How can he say HRC would make a great president when (to name just one example) she has poor judgment about national security, as he remarked during a debate? How can he say that she cares about issues like health care for all or income inequality when she has demonstrated that she really doesn’t give a fig about these things?

      I’ll continue to support Progressive candidates here in Vermont (yes, we have a third party that has actual seats in the state government). But I will not support the D. party — individual candidates, maybe, but only on the basis of their positions, not their party affiliation.

      1. Anne

        But I’m disappointed with the timing, the effusiveness of his praise, and the contradictions between what he said in the debates and what he’s saying now. How can he say HRC would make a great president when (to name just one example) she has poor judgment about national security, as he remarked during a debate? How can he say that she cares about issues like health care for all or income inequality when she has demonstrated that she really doesn’t give a fig about these things?

        I feel the same way – I guess what I’m trying to do is remember that what his candidacy inspired (or energized or whatever/however you want to frame it) doesn’t have to die just because his candidacy is over. And if it does, well, then shame on us. Shame on us for not having enough of a commitment to change that we could just shut down because of what happened today.

        I think we’re making a mistake if we actually think that Sanders believes what he said about Clinton today. I mean, if he were the presumptive nominee, would you believe her if she stood on that stage today and talked about supporting the things Sanders campaigned on? I wouldn’t. I didn’t believe her when she threw her support to Obama in 2008 (of course, as it turns out, those two really are more alike than they are different, and now, of course, she remains loyal to whatever Obama represents).

        There are a lot of people who will vote against Trump by casting a ballot for Hillary, and apparently, Sanders is in that group.

        1. Rhondda

          As I was tidying up the dinner dishes I was thinking that maybe the thing that has everyone twisted up is that we wanted Bernie to be someone he isn’t. Someone from the left and full of heart and fire and goodness, but also what my uncle calls a “mean talker.” A lefty Trump. And especially in this crux moment. I know I would have really felt the Bern today if he had called them on The Shit. (Figuring we all have a good idea of what The Shit is, so no need for listing.) It was hard to see the…comity. The upraised clasped hands and praise and unity victory kumbayaya. Maureen Dowd is insufferable but she was right about the Clinton Contamination.

    2. aab

      Please don’t leave the Presidential line blank.

      Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but the electoral college will be awarded on the percentage of votes cast. Hillary’s theft process works BETTER with lower turnout. Leaving that line blank will be the same as not voting at all — that is, you are helping Hillary gain power.

      The beauty of recognizing that Trump is the lesser evil is that I can be unafraid in my voting, if nothing else. If I could help hand my state to Stein, it might put Trump in the White House — but so what? That’s just win/win/win. Weakens the hold of the Democrats over the state, weakens the hold of corporatism over both parties, goes a long way toward purging Clintonism from the Democratic Party so that either it can be taken over or beaten from the left. Meanwhile there is at least a possibility that Trump will withdraw us from the TPP, or Senators will rebel at pushing it through in the lame duck. That’s not a small thing.

      Please, just vote for someone who isn’t Hillary Clinton.

      1. hunkerdown

        The credibility and legitimacy of a “democratic government” (such as the term has been debased into near-synonymy with oligarchy) rests on the consent of the governed, as expressed through voter turnout. Those who are inside the institutions to whom we so consent work almost exclusively through performative speech. They have no reason to acknowledge themselves as anything other than righteous and legitimate until their performative speech fails to capture the minds and hearts by which their will be done, by other “leaders” (a risible term) and others who are not subjects and owe no obedience.

        There are no facts in evidence that the American system as a whole as indispensable, so ignoring dissent against it as a whole is your own fallacious option — and just a little bit self-serving on the part of those invested in the American system, ahem. Since it is the American system as a whole that is responsible for its own outcomes — the primacy of the landed gentry in government and the staged events and other frauds that shape our stations, and all that by well-worked, fully conscious design at that, I argue that the system itself has failed to earn my enabling vote, or that of anyone else outside the detestable chattering professional citizen class.

        Those who protest against oligarch-run elections aren’t seeking your favor or your approval. They continue to weaken the prestige of the oligarch-defending state by withholding their endorsements. A priori disregard of extra-parliamentary political forces is actually performative speech on the part of the Establishment. It is a naïve, arrogant, offensive, and frankly delusional position given the noticeable effects such forces in Establishment hands have had on the course of this very primary election.

    3. Annotherone

      @ Anne — Been reading here for several months but haven’t commented until now – am doing so just to say thank you for what you’ve written here, Anne – these are my feelings exactly.

      My head is whirling from the plethora of negative commentary about Bernie today, after his endorsement of H. Clinton. I have been a fan of Senator Sanders from long before this campaign season, trust his judgment and his integrity completely. What happened today had to happen, we all knew it. The reason it happened today rather than at the convention won’t be revealed to us, but there’s some very good reason otherwise I’m certain Bernie would have waited. As you’ve surmised – probably some kind of veiled threat about his position in the senate was presented to him by Reid or other..

      I might not vote for Clinton, I’m thinking to leave the presidential choice blank (Greens will not be on our ballot nor will a write-in preference). I shall follow Bernie’s progress, hope fervently that he’ll be rewarded with some important position in the new administration (should Clinton be the new Prez), and continue to support him in any way I can.

      Thanks again for your words – we appear to be in the minority today, but not necessarily wrong!

  23. Mike Mc

    Join us! http://brandnewcongress.org/home

    Vote for whoever you like (or against whoever you hate) at the top of the ticket, but remember your civics lesson: only Congress has the power of the purse. The GOP/Tea Party has out organized Democrats, Green, Libertarians, Independents at the local level for years. Let’s get after the 2018 Congressional elections NOW while people still feel the Bern! (Yes, today sucks. Get over it – it doesn’t get better unless we do something.)

  24. Ottawan

    Its a feint! Well….maybe not a feint, but Queen Hillary best be on her guard for Sir Bernie’s true blow!

  25. neo-realist

    If Jill Stein’s Green Party got busy building a 50 state or so movement in addition to running for the Presidency, I could get behind them. But this business of running a figurehead like Nader, Stein, or Rocky the Squirrel every four years, obtaining 2% of the vote, then going into hibernation for another four years is getting very, very old:(. Build a damn broad based movement for christ’s sake and stop thinking that running a figure head every four years is doing something in the absence of a movement.

    1. Massinissa

      “obtaining 2% of the vote”

      They actually get less than 1% sooo, you’re actually giving them too much credit :P

    2. Rhondda

      It has seemed to me that the Greens have been organized and working like busy bees ever since Jill Stein took the reins. For about a year I was a sustaining member and so maybe I received communications about ongoing activities when others did not. I genuinely perceive a notable improvement in the organization.

      1. neo-realist

        I’m waiting and hoping for a few, proud and principled greens to run for local and state offices in Washington State. How about our Seattle City Council; we’ve got a few hacks who could stand to be challenged. Hell, a socialist won a CC seat. Maybe Jill should hire some new head people for WA state.

    3. edmondo

      LOL – they would kill for 2% of the vote.

      In 2012 – Faced with a choice between Obama 2 vs Romney (or the closest thing we have to no choice at all), the Green Party scored an amazing 0.39% of the vote!

    4. Torsten

      It’s hard for the Greens, without billionaires backing them. Bernie could have given them $27 x 20? million. But he chickened out. Or he was a sheepdog. Take your pick, but the Greens are the salvation of all that has been redeemable about Homo sapiens.

  26. jo6pac

    I just can’t wait until the first picture of obomber, killary, and sanders getting off AF-1.

    Time for some whine on the front porch and watch the working people go by.

  27. ira

    re: Rodrik, et al

    Those who put out the people´s eyes, reproach them for their blindness

    — John Milton

  28. SumiDreamer

    I can only hope REAL progressives – those opposed to plutocracy — get to grips now and ditch identity politics.

    The Tea Baggers are taking on the plutocracy and the deep state right now. They want the Clintonistas arrested. If we actually stick with it that could happen. Impeachment and disbarment for both Lynch and Comey and any of the others who have a hand in this coverup. They can be impeached by Congress and the repugs shold throw their weight around and DO it.

    Progressives and POC have everything to gain by an arrest, indictment and imprisonment.

    1. John k

      Reps won’t, they’ll just complain for their base. Remember the banks own both parties, they won’t want to rock the neo-lib boat.

      1. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

        Remember remember the 5th of November. I say put a bomb under all of these (Hilary) Papists

  29. Pavel

    From the “plural of anecdote does not equal data” department… sitting in a Logan airport bar and spoke to 2 people completely at random: one declared himself Libertarian and said he would reluctantly vote Trump. The other, when Sanders and Clinton appeared on the CNN screen burst into expletive-laden invective and called them both “clowns”. There is a huge amount of anger and cynicism out there, and Sanders’s cowardly cave-in only increases that sentiment.

    I now think — for better or worse — that Trump will win. As the fellow at the bar said, at least he might screw things up but at least he would do it in a new way. I suspect a lot of people feel the same way.

  30. TheCatSaid

    Lambert that expose of the Clinton Foundation is amazing! Thanks for finding it. Go go go Amy Sterling Casil! (Once again, truth is stranger than fiction–who could imagine such complexity doing so little?!)

    So when will the FBI get around to looking at the Clinton Foundation, do you think? mid-February maybe?

    I hope Bernie & supporters still show up at the Dem Convention. There’s many a slip . . . And the information about election-related lawsuits (filed & upcoming is intriguing.

    If we end up with seriously more awareness and seriously more engagement and an evaporation of faith in what we’ve been told by MSM we’ll be on our way to create change.

  31. hunkerdown

    From Body Language Success, Dr. Jack Brown’s take. Dr. Brown’s adopted the perspective of his class that Hillary is a victor and thus entitled to respect under the circumstances, and merely offers the suggestion that she should have been positioned in (note: not “taken”) a more alpha position on the stage, while Bernie’s gestures are those of a narcissist or autist.

    Or, just maybe, someone who has good reason to protest the rules and the conduct of the contest, not only on his behalf, but ours?

    Dr. Brown’s site is a godsend for those of us who are functionally “ingesturate” but I suspect he’s going to be as confused as Marie Antoinette when Uber-for-dung-carts arrives (tumbrl? Oh, rats, it’s taken for Yahoo’s “brand protection”).

  32. robnume

    Can’t thank you enough for exposing the “Clinton Foundation” for what it really is. An incredible scam. Hope this story goes viral. People need to know who Hillary and Bill really are before they make the huge mistake of putting Hillary into the White House. She is a neolibcon, as I like to call ’em..

  33. Eureka Springs

    Random thoughts and observations:

    Overton aside. Real windows which move left/right always remian inside a fixed frame. This is certinly what I have witnessed every time for over a decade of watching this slow trainwreck. Mo n better dims, Hope, OWS, Sanders etc.

    And I want to throw up a little everytime I read or hear the word “movement” too. It’s more annoying than “innovation.” Less progressive than a bowel movement. And as Sanders and Lambert repeatedly reminded y’all… he was gonna flush this “movement” just like he did today. It was about the only promise he kept… especially if you look at the results of the last month or so – the final party platform, Good gawdess, what a failure.

    Did Sanders campaign act democratically… and poll his list to see what they thought about endorsing HRC? DId that campaign ever really act/poll within, democratically?

    The only good reason for/response to Sanders endorsement today… is so that not a single person shows up in PA, not Sanders himself, not a Sanders delgate, not to just see it, not to protest it… nothing. Dead silence would be best. Hell don’t even post a dang link about that sham of a anti-democratic criminal party with a nominee who 1 in 77 billion stole the nomination, party on a blog.

    And I’m not shocked but a bit surprised and rather disappointed in Stien. She’s asking Sanders to come help her sell the G party platform down the veal river too. It’s a damn shame and just plain obvious and stupid.

    1. Charger01

      Chris Hedges noted several years ago that the Greens were (paraphrase) junior leaguers that lacked a sufficient base of support (people, funding) to be effective. Apparently a few wealthy policy folks control the majority of the party- and are content with the status quo.

  34. JerseyJeffersonian

    Here’s what Hillary’s potential Vice Presidential running mate had to say about matters in Ukraine:

    “We ought to be providing lethal aid”—anti-tank, anti-armor weapons, unmanned aerial vehicles, and cyber assistance—to the Ukrainian government in its struggle with Russian-backed separatists, retired NATO commander [and Dean of The Fletcher School]Adm. James Stavridis told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.

    Soviet President Vladimir Putin “has demonstrated he is the bully in the neighborhood” by seizing parts of Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine.

    As to whether sending lethal aid would cause Russia to send more aid, and even troops, to support the separatists, Stavridis said, in answer to a question, “This is a calculation” that it will not commit its forces, but “when you release ordnance, everything changes.”

    The former top officer in European Command added, “If the Ukrainian government cannot hold the line against the separatists [in the eastern region of the country], they will lose politically.” The United States is “trying to stabilize a democracy.”…

    Democracy? In line with Lambert’s ritornello from the links section, facts not in evidence.

    Boy, it sure is reassuring that a guy who thinks like this might be only one more stroke away on Hillary’s part from becoming Commander in Chief, isn’t it?

    1. Montanamaven

      Why I am 100% not Hillary. She learned from Madeline Allbright . ” what’s the point of a military if you don’t use it” or words to that effect. Fighting the “war on terror” is soooo unsatisfying…. So small. Waging war on a nuclear power like Russia is much more exciting and will use more of our subs, aircraft carriers…that don’t get used in the loser “war on terror “.

      Trump is not the more evil. I hope he picks the anti Stavridis military guy as his running mate.

  35. ChiGal

    I checked out Petal’s link (thx!) and maybe 2 or 3 comments down there was one from “Chris Wright” claiming to have contacts in both campaigns stating Bernie was being threatened with losing all concessions unless he endorsed now.

    Interestingly, he also indicated he is a Bernie delegate and THIS MORNING got a PHONE CALL from the campaign as they were concerned he hasn’t raised enuf for his travel and they want ALL THEIR DELEGATES THERE.

    Bernie is still FOR something, not just AGAINST…

    1. edmondo

      “Losing all concessions” on what? the platform? Ha! the Clintons wipe their posteriors with platforms.

    2. ambrit

      Is Sanders ‘organization’ going to start a credentials fight on the floor of the convention?

  36. JM

    Re: Rodrik and The Abdication of the Left

    For what its worth, I think Rodrik is approaching a point in his life where, if he were reflective (which I think he is), he must be noticing that much of his academic and consulting work will never fully enter into the mainstream of economic policy practitioners (i.e. finance and trade ministers, macroeconomic advisers, etc.). This need not be so because his academic work is brilliant and, along with the late Alice Amsden’s work on South Korea, demonstrates alternative models and strategic policy making are out there to be experimented with (indeed, the notions of experimentation and learning in economic policy are the subject of much of his recent work).

    The problem is that, in practice, the “Rodrik” school (if you can call it that) require a strong central state with bureaucratic competency, a willingness to really examine from a firm-based perspective how the economy operates (e.g. on the factory floor), take an integrated economy-wide approach (i.e. consider social factors such as the distribution of wealth), and finally political will to “discipline” the big players (individuals in corporations) in trade and finance. In reality, though South Korea and other Asian Tigers pulled it off (and, let’s be honest, success did not come without assassinations of trade unionists), the idea that the State would use its coercive power to “discipline” capital into operating in such a fashion as to assist national development priorities is comical. Rodrik pushed back against the wave of research on “government failure” (Anne Kruger helped advance that movement). But what does it mean when you stand back and survey the world economy and you see government AND market failure (which, let us not forget, is always an “accomplishment” by individuals, groups, or networks)? Not to be glib, but honestly what does Dani Rodrik’s research mean in the context of Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Palestine? Though there are always exceptions, it seems like the hegemony of the fusion of global finance capital and the American government is intent on stunting (or reversing) any progress being made through alternative approaches around the world (they’ve again done a bang up job in Latin America).

    I can see how Rodrik would want to blame the “left” (whatever that even means in economic thinking) for abdicating some responsibility but honestly, in hindsight, it is hard to compete with empire. It took tremendous, sustained discipline and commitment over decades for the East Asian tigers to “catch up” (Chalmer Johnson’s book on MITI and industrial policy in Japan is a fascinating look at what it took in Japan). Rodrik must be looking out and seeing an ocean of bad economic decision-making and, if my cynicism is correct, cannot name the responsible individuals because of informal but influential social norms in the economics world.

    Rodrik was mostly silent when the World Bank appointed Jim Yong Kim over Jose Ocampo and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. I haven’t heard Rodrik using his positions at Harvard (Kennedy School) and Princeton (Institute of Advanced Study where he somewhat ironically is the Albert Hirschman professor since Hirschman was a vociferous critic of orthodox economic thinking in his time) to condemn Reinhart and Rogoff (also at Harvard) for their irresponsible advocacy of austerity based on faulty analysis. It would be nice if Rodrik could go after Krugman for the spurious claims he made about Sanders (all negative) and Clinton (all positive), since Sander’s policies more closely approximate the Rodrik school of thought, but that just is not how the world works right now.

  37. JM

    Re: Rodrik and The Abdication of the Left

    For what its worth, I think Rodrik is approaching a point in his life where, if he were reflective (which I think he is), he must be noticing that much of his academic and consulting work will never fully enter into the mainstream of economic policy practitioners (i.e. finance and trade ministers, macroeconomic advisers, etc.). This need not be so because his academic work is brilliant and, along with the late Alice Amsden’s work on South Korea, demonstrates alternative models and strategic policy making are out there to be experimented with (indeed, the notions of experimentation and learning in economic policy are the subject of much of his recent work).

    The problem is that, in practice, the “Rodrik” school (if you can call it that) require a strong central state with bureaucratic competency, a willingness to really examine from a firm-based perspective how the economy operates (e.g. on the factory floor), take an integrated economy-wide approach (i.e. consider social factors such as the distribution of wealth), and finally political will to “discipline” the big players (individuals in corporations) in trade and finance. In reality, though South Korea and other Asian Tigers pulled it off (and, let’s be honest, success did not come without assassinations of trade unionists), the idea that the State would use its coercive power to “discipline” capital into operating in such a fashion as to assist national development priorities is comical. Rodrik pushed back against the wave of research on “government failure” (Anne Kruger helped advance that movement). But what does it mean when you stand back and survey the world economy and you see government AND market failure (which, let us not forget, is always an “accomplishment” by individuals, groups, or networks)? Not to be glib, but honestly what does Dani Rodrik’s research mean in the context of Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Palestine? Though there are always exceptions, it seems like the hegemony of the fusion of global finance capital and the American government is intent on stunting (or reversing) any progress being made through alternative approaches around the world (they’ve again done a bang up job in Latin America).

    I can see how Rodrik would want to blame the “left” (whatever that even means in economic thinking) for abdicating some responsibility but honestly, in hindsight, it is hard to compete with empire. It took tremendous, sustained discipline and commitment over decades for the East Asian tigers to “catch up” (Chalmer Johnson’s book on MITI and industrial policy in Japan is a fascinating look at what it took in Japan). Rodrik must be looking out and seeing an ocean of bad economic decision-making and, if my cynicism is correct, cannot name the responsible individuals because of informal but influential social norms in the economics world.

    I may be mistaken but Rodrik was mostly silent when the World Bank appointed Jim Yong Kim over Jose Ocampo and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. I haven’t heard Rodrik using his positions at Harvard (Kennedy School) and Princeton (Institute of Advanced Study where he somewhat ironically is the Albert Hirschman professor since Hirschman was a vociferous critic of orthodox economic thinking in his time) to condemn Reinhart and Rogoff (also at Harvard) for their irresponsible advocacy of austerity based on faulty analysis. It would be nice if Rodrik could go after Krugman for the spurious claims he made about Sanders (all negative) and Clinton (all positive), since Sander’s policies more closely approximate the Rodrik school of thought, but that just is not how the world works right now.

  38. Buttinsky

    I’ve been looking for a little perspective today.

    I admire tremendously what Bernie Sanders has accomplished in making it clear that certain values and goals are not only alive, but popular, and he proved that masses of voters in American can be motivated to organize for important and good things like universal healthcare and a decent wage and publicly funded education and uncorrupted politics. He has also proved that the Democratic Party is beyond reform, not an unimportant goal all its own.

    But though I voted for him in the primary and would have certainly considered voting for him in the general, I would never have called myself a Sanders partisan, and I was always keenly aware that steely-eyed observers like Alexander Cockburn and Jane Hamsher always had a special place in Hell reserved for Bernie Sanders. Here is Hamsher in 2011:

    “Whenever the talk of a primary comes up, I always ask “who is going to do this?”… The answer is always someone like Bernie Sanders or Jan Schakowsky, the same people whose job it is to put the Good Liberal Housekeeping Seal of Approval on whatever piece of neoliberal shit the White House cooks up to please the bond vigilantes. The people who suddenly become okay with war when the White House says so, who shake their fists in the air with outrage right before they fold, the people you can count on to always be there when there’s nothing they can do…and are nowhere to be found when they can.

    . . .

    “If you want my attention, tell me how you’re going to take out Bernie Sanders or Jan Schakowsky or Raul Grijalva or Peter Welch. Let me know how you plan to send a message and enforce discipline with the people who claim to represent your values, but betray them over and over again because they have no fear whatsoever of you. Dennis Kucinich is getting redistricted out of office, so the other side certainly knows how to make themselves heard. Message received.

    “Yesterday Bernie’s job was to stand up in the Senate and whine about Tea Party extremists. If Bernie had one-tenth of their conviction, his vote alone could have saved the country from the shitty health care bill that put them all in office.

    “If you want to have power, stop slobbering all over abject failure. And stop dreaming that you’ll ever have any influence at the top by elevating people whose only systemic function is to serve as an opiate for liberals when they’re getting screwed….”


    1. Lambert Strether Post author

      > “shitty health care bill”

      That would be the same Hamsher who let one Jason Rosenbaum run a daily column of health care coverage that never, ever mentioned single payer. A silo paid for, IIRC, SEIU. So pot, meet kettle.

      1. Buttinsky

        I hesitate to point out what I wish had been obvious, that this is as bad as someone informing me that yesterday Donald Trump piquantly remarked (as in fact he did) that “Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs” — and my replying, “Yeah, well, Trump hasn’t done enough to end income inequality in this country.”

  39. marym

    Bernie Sanders Rules Out Convention Floor Fights on Platform

    Party rules empower Sanders, who endorsed Hillary Clinton Tuesday, to try to force votes at the Philadelphia convention on proposed planks that failed to muster the necessary votes at a Platform Committee meeting last weekend in Orlando.

    But Sanders has decided against using the so-called minority report process, the senator’s top policy aid informed allies Tuesday.
    Democrats worried about potentially raucous floor fights on wedge issues like an amendment opposing the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. That plank was Sanders’ top policy goal heading into the Orlando, but it was voted down out of respect for President Obama, who supports the TPP.
    Sanders’ campaign is still gearing up for a fight on party nominating rules, with their top goal being the elimination of superdelegates. The party’s Rules Committee will meet just ahead of the convention.


  40. Propertius

    A foundation executive looks at the Clinton Foundation’s records [Medium]. Just appalling. Insultingly appalling.

    Maybe. Maybe she really knows what she’s talking about when it comes to nonprofits and their finances, but when she writes stuff like this I have to question her credibility:

    The drug is called naloxone. The program is intended to enforce purchase agreements. The private Big Pharma companies are called kaléo and Adapt Pharma. The price is fixed, paid by taxpayers. It is intended to replace street drugs or other prescription drugs and guarantee revenue for Big Pharma. That’s it. There is no social or other benefit. It is about keeping addicts on a specific drug and out of people’s sight and mind.

    Naloxone is an opioid antagonist. It blocks the effects of opioids and prevents people from dying when they OD. It has saved countless lives, but don’t take my word for it:


    Maybe she doesn’t think that keeping people from dying is a “social or other benefit.” On the other hand, maybe she’s confusing naloxone and methadone (a synthetic opioid often prescribed to heroin addicts as a legal substitute) because she has absolutely no idea what she’s talking about. And maybe Medium (a/k/a “Twitter on Steroids”) isn’t a particularly reliable source.

    1. hunkerdown

      According to the Pedia of Wiki, it’s also added to some opioid tablets to make them self-antidoting when injected but effective when ingested (since naloxone doesn’t cross the GI barrier). Prescription drug abuse reduction → new opioid formulation laws → ka-ching!

  41. Attila the Hun

    Poor Bernie. He created a national movement and now it has no leader. What will happen to the enormous number of citizens who rallied to his side now that he has surrendered to the Clinton machine. What a waste of time , energy and money. He couldn’t even make it to the convention. His supporters are going to have to find a new leader to rally around, if they can. What a pathetic ending to a story that could have been a game changer. The Democratic Party is morally and intellectually bankrupt but apparently omnipotent. So it all ends with a whimper.

    1. John k

      Maybe not. Beyond somebody or bodies stepping up to the bar…
      If Bernie never ran I would not have focused on Clinton’s criminality and would instead have focused on trump racism and overall boorishness. Would probably have held my nose and given big o his third term.
      Bernie opened my eyes, no matter he now closed his own. I cannot unsee what I’ve been forced to look at. Imo a substantial number like me feel the same, and no longer see neolibcon dems as lesser evils but greater ones. This is trumps to lose…
      And beyond this, maybe somebody will pick the mantle… Obviously easier if Clinton loses and dems are in disarray for 2020.

  42. allan

    Illinois seeks to shut down state Obamacare insurer

    Illinois moved Tuesday to take control of Land of Lincoln Health to begin an orderly shutdown of the insurance company, meaning about 49,000 people will lose their health coverage in the coming months.

    The state said it will allow policyholders to buy coverage from a different insurer before their Land of Lincoln plans are terminated, but it’s unclear when the policies will lapse.

    “It’s a bad day for the marketplace in Illinois and our consumers,” said Jason Montrie, president and interim CEO of Chicago-based Land of Lincoln. “This is the end.”

    The Department of Insurance said the decision was based on the startup company’s deteriorating financial condition. Land of Lincoln is required to pay $31.8 million to other insurers under a complex formula in the Affordable Care Act, which aims to keep premiums stable by balancing risks among insurers.

    I’m sure Jonathan Gruber has a perfectly sensible explanation.

    For the Fall election, the ACA is an albatross wrapped in a white elephant inside of an attack ad.

  43. sd

    This is late. Reading between the lines of Sanders email.

    […] But none of these initiatives will happen if we do not elect a Democratic president in November. None! In fact, we will go backward. We must elect the Democratic nominee in November and progressive Democrats up and down the ballot so that we ensure that these policy commitments can advance.

    [Note: Sanders does not mention Clinton by name here.]

    It is extremely important that we keep our movement together, that we hold public officials accountable and that we elect progressive candidates to office at the federal, state, and local level who will stand with us.

    [Note: This is bigger picture and a long term plan. Change has to come from the ground up.]

    As part of that effort, we still have a tremendous amount of work left to do in the Democratic Rules Committee that will be meeting in the coming weeks. We have to enact the kinds of reforms to the Democratic Party and to the electoral process that will provide us the tools to elect progressive candidates, to allow new voices and new energy into the Party, and to break up the excessive power that the economic and political elites in the Party currently have. As with our fights on the platform committee, that will only be possible if we stand together.

    [Note: Progressives must show up and stay engaged if they want to effect change.]

    You should know that I intend to be actively campaigning throughout this election season to elect candidates who will stand by our agenda. I hope to see many of you at events from coast to coast.

    [Note: Sanders does not say he will be out there campaigning for Clinton. It’s clear he is emphasizing down ticket races. This is the long game. This is where the energy needs to go. Now.

Comments are closed.