Feeling The Bern, From Beginning To End
I can now say I have felt the Bern, from beginning to end. I am able to make this statement since I attended my second Bernie Sanders rally yesterday, in Santa Cruz, California. I attended my first Bernie rally all the way back in July of last year, in Phoenix, Arizona (held right after the Netroots Nation blogger conference). So I have seen how the Bernie revolution began and I have also seen it entering the homestretch of campaigning during the primary season, one short week before California and a few other states become the last to vote.
It would be hard to do a straight comparison between the two rallies, so I'm not going to attempt to do so. The Phoenix rally was massive, with over 11,000 people attending. The Santa Cruz rally was smaller, but there were a few mitigating factors (which is why a comparison of just crowd size isn't valid). Bernie announced his rally in Santa Cruz roughly 24 hours before it was held. The auditorium was much smaller (Santa Cruz doesn't really have a 10,000-plus-sized auditorium available), because Santa Cruz itself is much smaller than Phoenix. Even so (according to the fire marshal I talked to) there were 3,425 people allowed in before they shut the doors, which left at least a couple of thousand outside the arena who didn't get in. More on them in a moment. Here was the line which greeted me as I arrived at the arena, hours before the rally was set to begin. It's hard to see, but the line extends far over that bridge in the background.
All photographs © Chris Weigant 2016
Bernie also gave a second speech that day, an hour down the coast in Monterey, which was attended by an estimated 8,000 people. So even though it's kind of apples and oranges, he spoke to the same total crowd in one day as he did in Phoenix, at the very least.
When I wrote about Bernie's Phoenix speech over ten months ago, I really didn't want to predict his ultimate chances of success. Back then, I wrote:
Bernie Sanders, to put this another way, doesn't need a focus group or a poll to tell him what he ought to stand for. He already knows what he stands for, and he'll freely tell you exactly what that is. This authenticity is likely what is drawing in such enormous crowds to hear him speak at such an early phase in the presidential contest. Bernie's not only beating Hillary Clinton and all the Democrats in crowd sizes, he's also beating the entire Republican field (unless you believe Donald Trump's laughable crowd estimates, which I have to say I do not). This populist enthusiasm has, so far, been largely sneered at by the inside-the-Beltway media, but the longer it continues (and the more it grows) the harder it is going to be to ignore.
The question is whether Bernie will hit a ceiling of support or not. Is it possible for him to defeat the Clinton machine? Well, it's been done before, just ask Barack Obama. However, history really isn't on Bernie's side, since most "movement" presidential candidates ultimately fail in their bids for the nomination.
I then wondered whether he'd hit a ceiling of Democratic support, perhaps similar to Ron Paul's 15 percent mark among Republicans. He obviously did a lot better than that, I have to admit. What is impressive about Bernie, though, is that what I wrote about him back then has stayed true right to the end: his biggest strength all along has been his authenticity and his ability to focus on the issues he feels are the most important ones. And the enthusiasm he has inspired has not lessened one bit during the whole campaign.
The most enthusiastic member of the crowd yesterday might have been the gentleman dressed up as Bernie, who was gleefully greeting everyone as they entered the building.
The rest of the crowd seemed about average for Santa Cruz -- a heavy mix of old and young (Santa Cruz is a university town), with ultra-liberals dominating (that's a polite way of saying there were a lot of hippies there -- because there are a lot of hippies in general who live in Santa Cruz).
As the crowd milled around inside, an extraordinary thing happened outside the building. Bernie arrived, much to the delight of the overflow crowd who didn't get in, and then Bernie gave them a mini-speech before he even entered the building. Now, I'll fully admit I have limited experience covering political rallies live, but this was the first time I'd ever seen a candidate go to such an extra length to reach the people who didn't get in. Especially a candidate being protected by the Secret Service (who hate spontaneous events, especially in the open air). Bernie spoke for 15 or 20 minutes to the crowd outside (at a hastily-erected podium), and then he entered the arena to speak to those who had arrived early (I must point out in all fairness that I probably wouldn't have gotten in to see Bernie if I wasn't on the list of credentialed press, because I didn't arrive four hours early). Bernie speaking to the overflow crowd was a very nice gesture for a politician to make.
Inside, Bernie took the podium to wild cheering. He made a joke about his support being an "earthquake" and the crowd obliged by stomping on the bleachers and making the whole place shake. Bernie has lost none of his crowd-pleasing appeal, to put it another way.
A side note about the arena: the preceding night to this rally was when the Golden State Warriors clinched their spot in the finals, with Bernie in the audience. The Santa Cruz arena is where the farm team for the Warriors plays, which explains all the Warriors stuff on the walls.
The content of Bernie's speech was similar to what I had heard 10 months ago. His issues haven't changed all that much in the intervening time. He has added and refined a few things in his stump speech, such as explicitly calling for marijuana to be moved from a Schedule I controlled substance to "descheduling" it entirely and ending the federal legal ban on marijuana altogether. Also added were short sections on Native American issues and fracking (fracking is currently a big local political issue, as Monterey County has an initiative banning fracking set for the November ballot). Fracking was also an issue where he painted a clear difference between his position and Hillary Clinton's.
Bernie did take a few shots at Clinton, which is entirely to be expected since he is, after all, running against her. But I saw none of the overhyped media narrative that "Bernie is viciously attacking Hillary" -- in fact, if anything, he went fairly easy on her, only mentioning her by name perhaps two or three times.
What was new in Bernie's speech was an indication of how he's going to transition next week, when the campaign is over (technically, the primary season won't be over until Washington D.C. votes, but the last state will vote next Tuesday). He admitted that the media was going to call the whole race for Clinton next Tuesday night, likely hours before the California polls even close (when the New Jersey results are in):
On Tuesday night, on the seventh, you're going to hear from media saying that Hillary Clinton has received, whatever it is, 80 or 90 delegates, which she certainly will from New Jersey and other states. And they'll say, the primary process is over, Secretary Clinton has won.
The crowd booed loudly at this. Bernie pointed out that counting only "the real delegates that people vote for" (in other words, the non-superdelegates), this would not be factually correct.
The Democratic National Committee will tell you it's not factually correct. The truth is, no candidate, not Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, will receive the number of pledged delegates... that he or she needs to become the Democratic nominee.
Bernie vowed to push on to the convention and fight for every last superdelegate -- but then, what else is he really going to say, right now? He can't appear defeatist in any way, because then fewer people would then turn out to vote for him next Tuesday. Instead, he has begun listing the things that he'll attempting to change, using his influence and his leverage at the Democratic National Convention -- including (perhaps) the entire superdelegate system. If you read between the lines of Bernie's speech, you could hear the agenda items he'll be negotiating for before the convention starts.
Much of the media is credulously taking Bernie at his word right now, about "fighting all the way to the convention" for the nomination. I, to be blunt, do not take Bernie at his word -- I fully expect him to concede the race next Tuesday night (even though I'll be voting for him and would be delighted to see him win California). To me, thinking along these lines gave the entire Bernie rally a sort of bittersweet flavor.
But that was just me -- the crowd itself reflected none of this feeling, and neither did Sanders. Bernie sounded strong (no raspy voice), well-rested, and as energetic as ever. This is remarkable when you consider all the hard work he's put in over the past year. He built, as he did when I first saw him, to a rousing end to his speech, and the crowd's response did seem like it should be measured on the Richter Scale. He's lost none of his appeal, and his crowds are just as fervent as they were right from the start.
Santa Cruz, like Phoenix and a whole bunch of other towns before it, was indeed feeling the Bern.
After the speech was over, I spent some time outside at the vendors' tables, seeing as how this might be the last chance to see such a wide display of Feel the Bern wares. This was one area where things have noticeably improved over what was on sale in Phoenix. There was a wide array of Bernie T-shirts, hats, and buttons on display to choose from. This being Santa Cruz, some were (of course) tie-dyed. The most amusing shirt I saw someone wearing was a riff on Trump's slogan: "Make American gay again!" Or, perhaps, the shirt with the classic Che Guevara image on it (replaced with Bernie's face under a beret) -- that one worked on a number of different levels. The most stark message I saw was on both T-shirts and professionally-printed signs, which stated bluntly: "FUCK TRUMP." I couldn't help but think, as I watched thousands of Bernie supporters disperse, that that might be a message they all could take to heart in the general election.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Glad you enjoyed yourself!
Paula -
Yeah, but like I said it was kind of a bittersweet experience. 99% of Bernie supporters aren't there yet, but I've already moved on to "what might have been..." personally.
Still, the crowds do love Bernie. That's really the astounding part to me. Maybe the next true radical liberal will actually have a chance, that's my thinking anyways...
:-)
-CW
PS.
I really should have gotten a photo of that Che/Bernie shirt -- it was pretty well done!
:-)
-CW
Hey CW
Well, after shaking my head in disgust many, many times this election season, I now find myself feeling sorry for you.
As a purveyor of the status quo, you seem to regret the probable outcome of the horse race here at the end.
Hillary "we're not truly well off" Clinton isn't getting your vote in the CA primary, and it sounds like you'll be swallowing the bitter pill and voting against Trump in November.
The lack of joy in such a future seems nothing less than foreboding.
Anyway, I've noticed quite a few mentions of Gary Johnson recently (though the media blackout on Jill Stein continues).
One of your fellow HP pundits went so far as to predict he could receive 8% of the vote in November and then, without any sort of justification or substantiation, claimed all those votes would be coming at Trump's expense.
Then today, Mr. Social Security Cutting Grand Bargain Obama flip flopped and came out in support of expanding Social Security... and, gasp, taxing the rich to pay for it.
I can't help but think that these two turns of events are related. The corporatist neoliberals are growing concerned that their Wall Street coddling, military interventionist ways may cost them the White House, so they are looking for ways to placate the Left.
Bernie winning a few concessions on a meaningless platform document that will promptly be ignored and wishful thinking about the Libertarian Party just wasn't going to be enough to allow Hillary to eke out a win (still laughing about that electoral college prediction post btw).
So, Obama is going to drag Hillary into supporting the SS expansion Bernie has supported from Day 1, knowing full well it too is an empty promise that she would ignore or pragmatically compromised away.
Will Bernie's "not Trump" speech at the convention (which will be called an endorsement of Hillary) and this SS pandering be enough to bring around Bernie's supporters?
Obviously, it's not going to work with me.
Moving on, I just checked in on HP's polling page for Tuesday's voting.
Apparently, only supposedly pro-Hillary CA and NJ are worthy of polling (coincidence?), so I'll look forward to your predictions.
Lastly, I wonder how many more really, really, completely believable, and utterly convincing pieces from folks like Nate "the election's not rigged" Silver will be necessary too.
IMHO, more than zero suggests a recognized problem they feel must be countered... and we passed the dozen mark long ago.
But maybe it's just me thinking 400+ superdelegate thumbs on the scale before a single vote was cast, DNC and state party actions, and the nearly fair and almost balanced media has an effect?
Nope.
It can't just be me... or all those pieces wouldn't be necessary.
A
Let me state for the record that I probably disagree with EVERYTHING Bernie stands for... No surprise there...
But at least Bernie is a candidate of integrity.. He is NOT a politician which is very high praise indeed..
It's a shame that the near totality of the Democrat Party would support a lying and cheating rhymes-with-witch like Hillary Clinton over a man of principles and integrity like Bernie Sanders...
If THAT doesn't indicate how far off the cliff the Democrat Party has fallen, NOTHING will...
Michale
Having said the above, I have to give a heartfelt and well-deserved KUDOS to CW...
BookEnding the Bernie Sanders campaign was a VERY nice touch....
I still think that Bernie has a shot... Especially if the Comey announcement comes out BEFORE the convention....
But regardless of how it ends, the reporting done by CW.COM on the Bernie campaign was (and is) excellent....
Well done....
"I'de like a steak for my eye..."
"Rare???"
"No, well done.. "
"Well done???"
"Well done.."
-My Favorite Martian
Ya kinda lose something without the visuals.. :D
Michale
I, to be blunt, do not take Bernie at his word -- I fully expect him to concede the race next Tuesday night (even though I'll be voting for him and would be delighted to see him win California). To me, thinking along these lines gave the entire Bernie rally a sort of bittersweet flavor.
I agree.. If Bernie loses California he will likely pack it in and call it a day....
If Bernie WINS California (think Michigan) then it's going to be a wild ride all the way to the convention and beyond..
It's all going to hinge on California..
"The Following Takes Place On The Day Of The California Presidential Primary. Events Take Place In Real Time"
As you can probably tell, I have been binge-watching 24 the last month or so.. Halfway thru Season 3 now.. :D
Michale
What a great piece. I just thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
CW,
A little late for this perhaps, but I'd like to get your opinion on why you prefer Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton. In particular, what policies of his do you prefer to Clinton's? Do you expect that Sanders would be able to accomplish more or push through more of his agenda than Clinton would be able to? If so, how?
I ask these questions, in large part, because I feel like Sanders is promising far more than he'd be capable of delivering were he to be nominated and win the general. Sure, he may be generating a lot of excitement now with his promises of revolution and change, but I fail to see how he would manage to push through his agenda as president, and that could disillusion a large block of young voters. While Clinton may not promise nearly as much, her agenda seems far more likely to become true, and the caution with which she presents it says from the start that some compromise is probably going to be necessary.
I ask these questions, in large part, because I feel like Sanders is promising far more than he'd be capable of delivering were he to be nominated and win the general.
{{cough}} {{cough}} Barack Obama {{cough}} :D
But I get it... Once bitten and all that... And besides.. Sanders is just some old white guy.. :D
Michale
{{cough}} {{cough}} Donald Trump {{cough}} :D
Exactly.. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are of comparable comparison.. :D
Michale
Sanders really is anti-establishment, Trump is just pretending.
You can't read what is in Trump's soul...
Assumes facts not in evidence...
Trump's plan, whatever that may be, will be heading the other way.
If you don't know what it is, you have no idea where it's going to head..
Assumes facts not in evidence...
Hillary is just pretending to support getting the Big Money out of politics along with most of her current positions.
The facts clearly show this to be factual...
Although this brings up a very interesting distinction..
Is BIG MONEY the problem in campaigns??
Or is it that OTHER PEOPLE'S BIG MONEY is truly the problem..
Trump has BIG MONEY in his campaign.. But the important distinction is that he is not BEHOLDEN to the owners of that money...
I think that's important...
Michale
This bit by CW must have appeared while I was typing last night-
"Maybe the next true radical liberal will actually have a chance"
Just in case anybody was wondering what I meant by purveyor of the status quo.
Everything Bernie is proposing would have been in the Democratic mainstream before Bill Clinton abandoned the party's principles to sell out to Big Money.
And, unfortunately, the ridiculous repetition by the status quo defending/enabling punditry of "radical" and numerous other false characterizations, gleefully welcomed and encouraged by Hillary, her campaign and supporters, and of course her donors, is designed to mislead the voting public and prevent a return to sanity.
Of course, tolerance for Hillary's (and Obama's)economic policies, militarism and legalized corruption as if they were remotely liberal or progressive remains the conventional wisdom that feeds the beast.
So, once again I shake my head in disgust, with an extra bit of vigor for CW based on the admission he will be voting for Bernie in CA.
Even going by the Dem party platforms the corporatist neoliberal presidential candidates and congresscritters claim to represent, it is the status quo that is truly radical.
Here's what I don't get...
Everyone, from President Obama on down to every Weigantian here has been trash talking Trump about how he is so divisive and how he is pitting Americans against foreigners...
Granted, most Weigantians are doing it a LOT better than Obama is...
If we turn against each other based on division of race or religion. If-if-if-if-if-if-if-if-if-if-if we fall for, you know, a bunch of okie-doke, just because, you know it-it-it. You know, it-it-it-it-it-it sounds funny or the tweets are provocative.
:D
But here's the thing that no one here can answer???
Obama and the Demcorats have been DIVIDING Americans for the last 8 years, pitting poor Americans against rich Americans..
How is that any different than what ya'all accuse Trump of??
At least, with Trump, he is singling out criminals and terrorists for American scorn...
Obama, Hillary, Bernie and the Democrats are singling out law-abiding Americans whose ***SOLE*** "crime" is that they are successful...
If one TRULY wants to look at a Party that is BUILT on divisiveness and US/THEM mentality..... One need look no further than the Democrat Party....
Michale
And a UNITED Republican Party is born....
Admit it.. Ya'all are dismayed at the speed in which the Republicans have come together and are rallying around Trump...
gazettextra.com/20160602/paul_ryan_donald_trump_can_help_make_reality_of_bold_house_policy_agenda
Union members are evenly split over Hillary and Trump...
dailycaller.com/2016/06/02/trump-continues-to-win-support-from-union-members-labor-leadership-isnt-happy/
And coal miners are moving en masse to support the GOP..
freebeacon.com/politics/coal-miners-union-endorses-rob-portmanreelection-senate-strickland/
All of these facts do not paint a pretty picture for the Democrats in 2016..
If you want a snowballs chance in hell of keeping the White House...
The ONLY logical choice is Bernie...
Michale...
Admit it.. Ya'all are dismayed at the speed in which the Republicans have come together and are rallying around Trump...
disappointed, sure - but hardly surprised, given the republican tendency to fall in line no matter the candidate. among the republican ranks there are a few pockets of hope for me:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/where-republicans-stand-on-donald-trump-a-cheat-sheet/481449/
dismay won't come unless he's elected president.
by the way, did CW ever declare a winner in the lex luthor fake as his hair nickname contest?
JL
Bleyd [10] -
OK, you asked a serious question about my support for Bernie over Hillary, so I'll give you my take on it.
First, I'm doing so in the comments rather than as an article, because as a general rule I don't like to "endorse" Democratic candidates in primaries. I may be biased towards one in my writing, but I try to at least maintain some level of neutrality. Otherwise I get drawn into the back-and-forth between the candidates' supporters, which I feel distracts from any other message I want to write about. I know other pundits sometimes endorse candidates, and I don't fault them for that, but I choose not to myself. I don't see it as my job to convince Democratic voters to vote for one person over the next, to put it another way.
Hence I only started admitting I was voting for Bernie roughly a week ago. I'm not going to change anyone's mind at this point, but I did want it on the record who I personally was voting for. Part of living in CA is the luxury of being able to do this, because everyone else votes first. If CA voted in April, perhaps I wouldn't even admit who I voted for until the primaries were all over. Last open race, I didn't even get the chance to vote for my candidate, because John Edwards had dropped out by then.
Having said all of that, I am enthusiastically voting for Bernie Sanders next Tuesday, even knowing full well that he's going to lose the nomination to Hillary Clinton. My vote is actually significant this time around (it usually isn't, the race is usually over by June).
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not a Bernie Bro or anything. I don't hate Clinton and I think she'd be miles better than Donald Trump. I'll put it this way: I will be enthusiastically voting for Hillary Clinton in November for one reason, and that is the Supreme Court. I will also be half-heartedly voting for Hillary Clinton on pretty much all other issues, because I think that once she gets into office she will only half-heartedly address middle class issues and other issues important to me. But a vote is a vote, no matter how enthusiastically cast. They all count the same, in other words. But I just wanted to state up front that I won't be just "voting against Trump," I will indeed be voting FOR Hillary.
The Supreme Court is on the cusp of becoming sane (read: liberal) for the first time since the 1980s. If the Senate continues to block Obama's pick, then the next president will have a nomination to make on the first day in office. And I've pointed out in the past the fact that of the next three oldest justices (most likely to leave the bench), one is liberal, one is the swing vote, and one is conservative. So if all three are gone in eight years, that means the court changes from 4-1-4 (one swing, four liberal and conservative) to a guaranteed 5-1-3 (the first-day-in-office pick) and could possibly go as far as 7-2 liberal by the time Hillary's done.
That is MONUMENTAL in importance. American life and politics will be immeasurably better as a direct result. For decades to come, hopefully. Which is why I'll cheerfully pull the lever for Hillary, because I do trust her to appoint good justices.
But you asked for issues that I think Bernie is better than Hillary. Bernie's for $15 an hour minium wage. Hillary's already bargained herself down to $12. Bernie is for descheduling marijuana -- Hillary can't even bring herself to mention marijuana. From her debate performances, she is open to "studying" medical marijuana. That's it -- nothing more. She's not even (to the best of my memory) for moving it from Schedule I to Schedule II. That is an over-timid politician who is a afraid of a hot-button issue -- it is not leadership. Those are just two issues, there are others I could list.
As for the "Hillary will get more done" thing, as well as the "Hillary knows compromise is necessary," I don't really buy either one of them, at least not in the way Hillary supporters do. Now, I know plenty of fervent Hillary supporters (many close friends), so I've had this conversation in detail before. Allow me to explain.
"Hillary will get more done." I don't buy it. I think Hillary is in for a very rude awakening on her first day in office. I think she remembers what congressional Republicans were like during her time in the Senate, and during her husband's administration. Now, there were wild folks (like Newt Gingrich) from those two periods, but by and large the GOP was a lot more reasonable back then. THEY knew how to compromise, to put it bluntly, because that was the only way to advance their agenda. They've all but given up on compromising these days, which doesn't bode well for ANY Democrat in the White House.
Republicans in Congress are now different than they were in the 90s or even when Hillary was a senator. The Tea Party obstructionism is historic in nature. And for the life of me I cannot see this changing with Hillary Clinton in the White House. I think they're going to fight tooth and nail against her -- and indeed would do the same to Bernie. I think the chances of either one of them getting anything done are almost precisely equal, in fact, and very low.
Of course, there could be a wave of Democrats riding into the Senate and the House. If we took control of both chambers, things could indeed get done. But that'd be true for both Bernie and Hillary, and in fact I think Bernie's got a better chance of creating such a wave -- a point in his favor.
"Hillary knows compromise is necessary." This is more of a stylistic issue I have with her. In the first place, I think Bernie Sanders also knows how to compromise, no matter what he says on the campaign trail. You campaign in poetry and govern in prose. But Hillary seems to be attempting to campaign in prose, too. Forgive me if I support the candidate who is better at campaigning, but there it is. But I don't buy the "Bernie will refuse to compromise" thinking, personally.
Most Democrats disappoint, after they get into the Oval Office. Obama disappointed many on the Left, something I predicted before he was even sworn in, in fact. Kerry would have been disappointing in many ways, I'm sure, as would Al Gore have been too. But maybe I'm a little tired of being so disappointed in our candidates all the time. Hillary would disappoint, same as Gore or Kerry would have, but I think Bernie would have disappointed a lot less.
I am probably about to closely mirror Donald Trump's "The Art Of The Deal" here (because it is such a basic dealmaking idea), but when you head into a situation where you have to deal with the other side, you start out by shooting for the moon. This has been Obama's biggest disappointment -- he was even ready at one point to cut Social Security to strike a "grand bargain" with the GOP (thankfully, it didn't go through). Obama's record, in fact, is exactly what Hillary is now almost promising to do.
Picture the deal as a football field. Obama (and, liklely, Clinton) start in their own end zone and the GOP starts in theirs. Obama (and Clinton) begin the negotiations by marching the ball to the 50-yeard line and stating "I am willing to compromise -- look at how reasonable I'm being in my demands." The GOP counteroffers by moving their position five yards. So Obama (Clinton) is on the 50, and they're on the 5. Obama (Clinton) then counters by moving to the 30. Republicans move to the 10. They wind up striking a deal on the 15 yard line -- 85% of what Republicans wanted, and only 15% of what we wanted.
I think Bernie would handle such negotiations differently. I think in the end, he would strike better deals by not conceding half the field at the very start. Maybe he'd get the public option (for instance) although not a single-payer system for all.
That's why I both support Bernie and know precisely how Hillary is going to disappoint me. I don't think she realizes how hard-line the GOP in Congress has become (I think they'll plot to make her a one-term president from her first day in office, just as they did with Obama), and I don't think she'll wind up striking better compromises. I mean, she's campaigning right now promising that she'll be more compromising than Bernie -- I'm not reading tea leaves here or anything.
So, yes, I will vote for Hillary in November. But I'll also be voting for Bernie next Tuesday, and I hope he wins CA which could give him more influence over the direction of the Democratic Party in the future. I think his influence is a good one on the party as a whole, reminding them all of what they used to be for, back in FDR's day. I think it's great he's "pulled Hillary to the left" and I hope she makes good on some of the issues she's had to move on, when she gets in office.
Well, this is already long enough, so I'll leave it at that. I don't hate Hillary, but she fails to excite me as a candidate. Bernie does. I think he'd be a better dealmaker because he doesn't give away half the store as his opening position. On the issues I care most about in politics, Bernie is exactly where I am. Hillary is not. That's why he earned my vote -- but Hillary's a lot closer to where I am than Trump, which is why she'll earn my vote in November.
-CW
nypoet19 -
Nope! It's been in the back of my mind... I'll announce winners tomorrow, how's that?
:-)
-CW
altohone [4] -
(sorry, I'm answering these kind of out of order)
I've been keeping my eye on Johnson, and will also be taking a look at Jill Stein. I've seen two polls with Johnson in double digits, which is flat-out astounding, but I'm still waiting for a little more data before writing about it.
I saw a prediction from one pundit (I can dig up the link if you'd like) which said Bernie's probably going to take Montana, and has a good shot at Dakota and NM. But Hillary's likely going to romp in Jersey.
Michale [6] -
Well, thanks for the kind words! I did think it was an interesting bookend to see Bernie at the start and at the end, personally...
Don Harris [7] -
OK, I've got an interesting question or two for you. Do you think Warren will run? In either 2020 or 2024? Or do you have your eyes on someone else to be the "next Bernie"?
One thing that heartens me is how far Bernie got -- MUCH much further than any other populist Democrat going back to the 1980s, at the very least. I think it proves that the party may indeed be ready next time around. I've written about this twice in the past few months:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/03/28/populism-isnt-going-to-go-away/
and:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/04/28/next-time-around/
I look forward to the next few elections, that's for sure!
Michale [8] -
I may wind up with egg on my face, but I still think Bernie's going to gracefully concede (while promising to keep fighting for his issues) next Tuesday night, no matter what happens in CA. We'll see what happens....
Balthasar [9] -
Well, thank you also for the kind words! I always wonder when writing these first-person things whether anyone cares or not what my subjective experience was....
Michale [17] -
When were we EVER united politically as a country? Oh, and war jingoist periods don't count.
:-)
OK, that's it for now...
-CW
Hey CW nice summation in 20.
Nice summation in on the rally experience, I was fortunate enough to attend one of his pop up rally's at the other end of our beautiful bay that was outdoors (not to many days before yours) and I really must say it was energizing and I did not see any of the sensationalized BS that has been published, we had about 7k at mine and some hardcore HRC as well as some conservative groups trying to stir up the crowd but really I think the worst thing a saw was someone literally say "STFU I am trying to hear what the man has to say, you can talk later." all in all a cracking good time. It gave me a glimmer of hope that the system is not quite broken beyond repair.
I'd love your input on a thought I had, and perhaps it is formed by my overly cynical view that we aren't really electing a political party but more electing a corporate interest block. But....
When you were talking about Bernie's ability to compromise, I was surprised you didn't mention his time as mayor of Burlington. I've been and it is a great place to visit, and deal with the political establishment I would add....
To that end I would ask why didn't he use that lasting legacy more? Is it because he did not think it was a legacy, or it didn't occur to him? Or could it be that his "professional" political operative didn't think it would be a good sell?
Please don't forget "Trumpf the insult politics dog"....I think it can hunt, even have it's own nightly segment (although not here).
Hey Bleyd... er, I mean CW
I guess "liberal" corporatists endorsing constitutional violations beats conservative corporatists doing the same, but the difference can't generate enthusiasm in me.
Amazing how the conservative court didn't overturn Roe, and upheld gay marriage...
... so now legal LGBT couples can be fleeced by Wall Street criminals who will face no consequences, and spied upon by the NSA and FBI too, all while their jobs are offshored and fracking poisons their water, and the rights we enjoy are trampled overseas for 1%er profits.
(I kept that short, but we all know the list is much, much longer)
In other words, I don't buy the Supremes argument any more than the compromise argument.
That conventional wisdom may be enough to convince some... but I wouldn't bet it'll convince enough.
-
-
-
And, in case you missed it (which seems apparent), Glenn Greenwald had a fine piece on the fictional Bernie Bro thing which every Bernie supporter should read before using the term. Even some enthusiastic status quo radicals would agree.
That is MONUMENTAL in importance. American life and politics will be immeasurably better as a direct result.
Wanna lay a wager that it's going to be immeasurably worse??? :^/
Michale
When were we EVER united politically as a country? Oh, and war jingoist periods don't count.
Oh, sure, we have always been "divided".. In the sense that a family is "divided" over various issues, but everyone recognizes that they are still family..
The US is no longer a "family"... No one takes comfort in their commonalities, but rather emphasizes the differences..
My point, though, is that the Democrat Party is constantly harping on the GOP for being so divisive, when it's the Democrat Party who is the one that's being divisive...
Trump is pitting Americans against criminals and terrorists. Who could HONESTLY have a problem with that??
Hillary, Bernie, Obama, et al are pitting Americans against Americans...
And THAT's just sad...
Michale
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/02/trump_supporter_left_bleeding_after_being_attacked_by_mob_in_san_jose.html
Like I said.. We're no longer a family..
To the Left, the Right is the enemy to be attacked and destroyed...
And the Right reciprocates...
And so it goes and so it goes...
Michale
And, in case you missed it (which seems apparent), Glenn Greenwald had a fine piece on the fictional Bernie Bro thing which every Bernie supporter should read before using the term. Even some enthusiastic status quo radicals would agree.
I am always interested in what Greenwald has to say.. Even if I disagree with practically all of it.. :D
Got a link???
Michale
"Obama Is The First To Effectively Attack Trump"
-Joe Scarborough
"If we turn against each other based on division of race or religion. If-if-if-if-if-if-if-if-if-if-if we fall for, you know, a bunch of okie-doke, just because, you know it-it-it. You know, it-it-it-it-it-it sounds funny or the tweets are provocative."
-President Barack Obama
I guess Mr Scarborough doesn't have a very high bar for "EFFECTIVE"... :D
Michale
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/violence-breaks-trump-rally-san-jose-protesters-hurl/story?id=39576437
Condemnation from the Left???
{{chiirrrrrppppp}} {{chirrrrpppppppp}}
:^/
Michale
http://media.nbclosangeles.com/images/987*555/AP_497860005643-trump.jpg
The Left Wingery must be SOOO proud of themselves..
NO ONE on the Left has any moral foundation to complain about Trump's alleged encouragement of violence.
NO...... ONE........
Michale
Michale wrote:
"John M,
I am curious to see if you are still feeling the Bern... :D"
I think CW's piece about why he will be voting for Bernie in the California primary but Hillary in November sums up my feelings and reasoning pretty well too. Yes I still like Bernie and would prefer him as the nominee but I think ANY Democrat in November would be light years better than Trump for the future well being of the USA as a whole.
I think CW's piece about why he will be voting for Bernie in the California primary but Hillary in November sums up my feelings and reasoning pretty well too. Yes I still like Bernie and would prefer him as the nominee
Good.. You haven't lost ALL sense of reality...
but I think ANY Democrat in November would be light years better than Trump for the future well being of the USA as a whole.
Well, except for this.. :D
heh
Michale
but I think ANY Democrat in November would be light years better than Trump for the future well being of the USA as a whole.
as would most republicans, greens, libertarians, socialists or NPA's. but who's counting?
as would most republicans, greens, libertarians, socialists or NPA's. but who's counting?
as would very few republicans, greens, very few libertarians, socialists or ALL the NPA's. but who's counting?
There..
Fixed it for you... :D
Republicans are united.. Democrats are fractured...
Michale
as would very few republicans, greens, very few libertarians, socialists or ALL the NPA's. but who's counting?
Of course, that should read NONE of the NPAs.. DOH!!! :D
Michale
CW:
Thoroughly enjoyed reading your response in [20]! While I am 100% behind Bernie's message, I do not believe he has the status in Congress necessary to pull off his goals. While it is cool to bash "career politicians" these days, that doesn't change the fact that they know how to get things done. How they do it might not be pretty, but it gets the job done -- and these days not too many jobs get done in DC. Republican could try to continue their complete obstruction of all legislation the President supports with Hillary (I wouldn't doubt it as they view Hillary as the Anti-Christ), but I think that would put the final nail in the coffin for the Republicans as a Party! The nation is sick of politicians working as hard as possible to prevent anything from getting accomplished! We're sick of politicians lying to our faces because they think we are all too stupid to realize how they are screwing us over! My father summed up the state of things pretty well the other day. We were talking about Trump being the Republican candidate and I asked him, "Dad, don't you see the man is saying whatever he thinks will get cheers from the crowd?" His response: "But how are his lies any worse than the ones we were already being told by the GOP? They are more obvious, maybe, but at least you know upfront that his are lies."
As opposed to the lies told by the Democrat Party???
That's what ya'all don't seem to acknowledge.. Ya'all castigate the Right for their lies and their violence and their intolerance and their divisiveness...
Yet you give the Democrat Party a pass for the EXACT SAME transgressions..
Michale
Fixed it for you...
no thanks, i'm content with what i wrote. I think ANY Democrat in November would be light years better than Trump for the future well being of the USA as a whole, as would most republicans, greens, libertarians, socialists or NPA's, full stop.
JL
So much for that chirping eh?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-violence.html?_r=0
I think ANY Democrat in November would be light years better than Trump
Oh.. I believe YOU believe that..
But upwards of 40% of Democrats disagree with you.. :D
So much for that chirping eh?
And if ya'all here followed suit, then ya'all would have a moral leg to stand on..
But ya don't, so ya don't... :D
Michale
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-violence.html?_r=0
Wow.. The violence has been going on for a month..
While it's nice that Hillary's advisers have finally taken a stand about it...
What took them so long???
Michale
GT,
It's really simple...
If you don't condemn ALL violence against supporters when it occurs you have no moral standing to condemn ANY violence against supporters...
What could be more simple than that???
Michale
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/06/03/04/34DF717600000578-3611772-image-a-20_1464925009475.jpg
Trump supporters actually love their children..
Democrat supporters teach their children that killing people you don't like is perfectly acceptable..
Michale
Destroying property is legitimate. Shouting down is legitimate. Disruption of all events is legitimate. Murder isn't.
-Editor Of VOX
So, basically, with the Left Wingery, ALL violence short of murder is completely acceptable...
Remind me again how it's the RIGHT who is all about violence???
I seem to have forgotten what with all the FACTS to the contrary.... :^/
Michale
-Editor Of VOX
You mean an editor of VOX. Editor in chief Ezra Klein posted:
On Thursday night, Emmett Rensin, the deputy editor of Vox’s first person section, sent a series of tweets that, among other things, urged people to riot if Donald Trump comes to their town.
We at Vox do not take institutional positions on most questions, and we encourage our writers to debate and disagree. But direct encouragement of riots crosses a line between expressing a contrary opinion and directly encouraging dangerous, illegal activity. We welcome a variety of viewpoints, but we do not condone writing that could put others in danger.
In this case, Emmett’s tweets violated Vox’s standards and Emmett has been suspended as a consequence.
And if ya'all here followed suit, then ya'all would have a moral leg to stand on..
But ya don't, so ya don't... :D
Huh? I think you might have a case trying to impose your view on me via , what is your latest parrot? Ummmm hang on it'll come.....got it! Assumes facts not in evidence.
It's really simple...
If you don't condemn ALL violence against supporters when it occurs you have no moral standing to condemn ANY violence against supporters...
What could be more simple than that???
So, I guess we can look forward to equally vitriolic and hysterical condemnation of the violence on the repub side from you right? I mean that is the rule right?
No, I mean the editor of VOX who made the inititial statement..
Of course it would try to be back-pedaled..
But the simple fact is, that IS the mentality of the vast majority of the Left Wingery, MANY Weigantians included..
And, while Hillary's ADVISER might have condemned the violence against Trump supporters, Hillary herself blamed Trump..
"He Created an Environment in Which It Seemed Acceptable."
-Hillary Clinton
"By wearing a short skirt and a low-cut top, the victim created an environment where rape is acceptable"
Those two statements are IDENTICAL insofar as the meaning they are meant to convey...
Yea, the Left Wingery really has it going on.. :^/
Michale
So, I guess we can look forward to equally vitriolic and hysterical condemnation of the violence on the repub side from you right? I mean that is the rule right?
I have and I do..
When that Trump supporter sucker-punched that protester that was led away, I whole-heartedly condemned the action..
You can be forgiven that you missed it because it was just one of a bunch of condemnations..
When it's the Left Wingery that commits the violence, I am the *SOLE* voice of condemnation.. Of course there are those who have given blanket condemnations, so they are exempt...
think you might have a case trying to impose your view on me via ,
No, I am not trying to "impose" anything.. If you don't want to condemn the Left Wingery violence, that's perfectly within your purview..
But what you CANNOT do is claim to be against ALL violence but only condemn the Right when they commit the violence..
There's a word for that..
It's called 'hypocrisy'.... Look it up...
Michale
Michale,
To those who used violence: "I CONDEMN THEE!"
Signed, All of the " Left Wingery"
There ya go! That takes care of that issue....what next?
To those who used violence: "I CONDEMN THEE!"
Signed, All of the " Left Wingery"
There ya go! That takes care of that issue....what next?
What next???
Your Blanket Condemnation Exemption (BCE) applies equally to violence from the Left Wingery and the Right Wingery... In other words, you won't have to condemn ANY campaign violence any more.. Isn't that great!!!
Of course, if you DO condemn violence above and beyond your BCE, then you lose your BCE status..
Of course, we don't expect that to happen, right!?? :D
But you are in good company.. You, JL, JM and RD all have BCEs... :D
I don't have a BCE as I prefer to condemn violence on a case by case basis... :D
Michale
Michale
Those two statements are IDENTICAL insofar as the meaning they are meant to convey...
SERIOUSLY?!? Was Trump the victim of the violence that he is being accused of creating the environment that promoted said violence? Nope! You cannot be serious with this! I keep waiting for the punchline, because that comment is so outrageous that this has to be a JOKE!!
Listen,
I am serious...
While it wasn't Trump that was assaulted (this time) it was Trump supporters who were assaulted...
Blaming Trump for the actions of the Left Wingery is no different than blaming a rape victim for being raped or blaming a mugging victim for being mugged...
The ONLY blame to be had here for the violence of the Left Wingery scumbags IS the Left Wingery scumbags...
Michale
OK...I guess it is time for us to go to the big board of discussion and debate
Condemnation from the Left???
Unless I am mistaken this was your question posed in a manner that is asking where condemnation was from one partisan side. I simply provided information that proved your partisan interrogative was not as accurate as you would like for the situation you asked about.
To be totally transparent with you since the bar seems to be set higher for us than you in that regard. Here is the post that started our discussion in its entirety (sans link of course)...
Condemnation from the Left???
{{chiirrrrrppppp}} {{chirrrrpppppppp}}
:^/
I may not be the fartest smeller', but I do think that I am pretty good at comprehension, and I am trying to figure out the part of your partisan interrogative that requires me to condemn all violence or else I am being a hypocrite before I can post or discuss. Can you enlighten me? It is the emoticon?
I've looked in the rules of Weigantia, and I can't find anything on blanket condemnations there either.
GT,
Can you enlighten me?
I would be ECSTATIC to... :D
If you condemn violence from the Right but ignore violence from the Left, it proves that you don't really care about violence..
You just want to bash the Right...
Like I said.. It's called hypocrisy..
That clear it up?? :D
Michale
"RULES!?! There are no rules here"
James Earl Jones- Field of Dreams
heh :D
Michale
What in the heck are you doing up at this time of night?
Me, I'm just killing time in the airport, enjoying the freedom of an open network that OPM can't look over my shoulder on.
Back to the discourse at hand... you posited the partisan interrogative thereby inviting a partisan response, without a suitable follow on interrogative that would draw my opinion on violence out, therefore I am confused at how you would arrive at the conclusion that I condone violence from the left, when in point of fact you have no idea, you have drawn an unsupported conclusion.
Therefore, I must conclude that your original interrogative was crafted in a disingenuous fashion that would allow you to wrap yourself in the comfort of your Argie Bargie blanket or you had nothing in the tank and decided the best way out was some Argie Bargie.
No matter how you slice it you still have not answered my previous inquiry, of what in your original question requires me to issue a bipartisan condemnation of violence when I am responding to a distinctly partisan question, or where in the rules of discourse I must issue a bipartisan condemnation to a distinctly partisan question before I am allowed to discuss.
If you wanted the bipartisan condemnation you should have used those words.....
But, you didn't, so it isn't.
What in the heck are you doing up at this time of night?
Actually, it's my morning. :D On Sat & Sun I am usually up and in my shop by 0300... I get more done between 0300 and 0800 on Sat & Sun than I do all week.. :D
But, gods it's so frakin' hot and muggy!!! :(
I hate the summer...
Back to the discourse at hand... you posited the partisan interrogative thereby inviting a partisan response, without a suitable follow on interrogative that would draw my opinion on violence out, therefore I am confused at how you would arrive at the conclusion that I condone violence from the left, when in point of fact you have no idea, you have drawn an unsupported conclusion.
Too many big words...
Knuckle dragging ground pounder, remember..
It's really simple as I said above..
If one is really against ALL violence, then it stands to reason that one would condemn ALL violence, not just the violence that comes from the Right...
For example... If I HADN'T condemned the Trump violence but only condemned the violence coming from the Left, then you would be able to use the HYPOCRISY argument against me..
But I *HAVE* condemned ALL the violence, both from the Left *AND* the Right...
Ergo, my neutrality is well established..
If you want to apply for BCE status and all that that entails......
"PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER!!!!! itty bitty living space"
-Genie, ALADDIN
:D
...... then that is an option as well...
The nice thing about the BCE is that it shuts me up..
The down side to the BCE is that ya don't get to bash the Right as often as ya might like to.. :D
So there are PROs and CONs... :D
Michale
Since, as of lately, ALL the violence seems to be coming from the Democrat side of the equation, perhaps BCE status would work to your advantage.. :D
Food for thought.. :D
Michale
ah yes... in closing for a bit...airplanes and such...
You still have failed to answer my principle question why am I required to issue some sort of blanket denial to a partisan question whose wording does not require a blanket denial.
If you want a certain denial then ask the right question...Otherwise it is just Argie Bargie 'cause you had nothing in the tank.
But it did help pass the time in the airport
You still have failed to answer my principle question why am I required to issue some sort of blanket denial
You are not "required" to do anything...
o a partisan question whose wording does not require a blanket denial.
As I mentioned above, your initial interrogative was rather verbose...
Before I can fully address your boggle, could you dumb it down for me???
"If you dumb this down anymore, I'm gonna punch you!!"
Lt Col John Shepard, STARGATE: ATLANTIS
:D
Michale
If you want a certain denial then ask the right question..
If I have to tell you what your denial should be, then it really isn't YOUR denial, now is it?? :D
Michale
@Chris Weigant [#20]
A little late to the party, but just wanted to say this was the best articulation of reasons to support Sen. Sanders I've read. Thanks for writing it.
A little late to the party,
"Welcome to the party, pal!!!!"
:D
Michale
Sorry... Got excited and fired off a few warning shots.. :D
Michale