This is a huge part of my problem with him. I think there are some good arguments to be made for open primaries. If I remember correctly, New York’s requirement is particularly egregious because you have to be registered with a particular party quite far in advance - that doesn’t seem like a good approach to bringing in new people. BUT it’s been that way for a long time! It’s not like the DNC saw Bernie entering the race and said QUICK, NEW YORK, CHANGE YOUR RULES! If Bernie truly wanted to bring more people into the Democratic Party and get more people civically engaged - which is an admirable goal! - then he should’ve started working on that long before his own campaign, which he started 24 years into his congressional career.
Hypothetically I also support open primaries, but if someone chooses to die on this hill while ignoring caucuses well.... yeah. I don't have anything nice to say about that. So yes, I agree with all of this.
Oh caucuses aren’t absolutely my hill to die on. They are utter garbage.
I mentioned it upthread. The night before an important primary in 2016, Hillary supporters shut down several of the big Bernie groups on Facebook by posting child porn in them.
... you realize that was probably a Russian led attack disguised as HRC supporters, right?
No. One of the people was identified. He is an actual person.
It was debunked that chairs were thrown, but it wasn't debunked that the supporters were rude, unrurly and shouting, and one chair was lifted in the air, but not thrown...
While I have no reason to doubt that reporting, in the extensive video posted on social media in the aftermath of the convention I've so far found none of a chair being thrown. One video shows a chair being lifted in the air. Other videos do show angry Sanders supporters rushing toward the stage and shouting obscenities.
Talking Points Memo this afternoon tried to get to the bottom of what happened and the report was inconclusive: "There has been disagreement between Sanders supporters and those critical of their behavior Saturday over how violent the state convention actually was, and who is to blame. Descriptions of the day's events recount shouting, interruptions, crude names and epithets being lobbed at party officials, and an evening that culminated in a group of Sanders backers rushing towards the stage and even flipping chairs. Only some of those incidents could be backed up by video evidence posted by those at Saturday's convention and other reports."
Either way, it's clear with any of these that complaining that a political process is not legitimate results in some of those who believe that it isn't legitimate causing outbursts and anger. That's expected, when your candidate is not the nominee. But then is it okay for those supporters to disengage when thousands of others voters vote and want a different person just because that person doesn't openly and continually criticize the process. Do you really think Clinton's nomination was not legitimate?
Do you actually contribute anything of substance here? So far in this thread you've made baseless and false claims, posted an article you snatched from google, and misrepresented the content of that article, all while refusing to engage substantively with any posters who have responded to you or with any of our other posts on this subject.
I could talk policy ALL DAY LONG but I'm not going to do it with someone who is engaging in bad faith, which you appear to be.
Not a single one of you is capable of anything but a bad faith argument when it comes to Bernie.
This is why Democrats will continue to lose. Largely affluent liberals are a menace. At least republicans are honest. Liberals act like they actually give a shit about people and then continue to vote for oligarchs. Have fun with that.
He literally said other people say it. I get, as the article points out, this is coy. But since we're using "literally" here.
But that has been the point all along. It's coy to the point of being a meaningless distinction. And it's a subtext his supporters are taking and running with, which is done on purpose so it amounts to the very same thing.
The reality is a lot of his supporters were PISSED that he didn't say it was rigged. They came to that conclusion on their own. And he lost a lot of supporters over it.
It was debunked that chairs were thrown, but it wasn't debunked that the supporters were rude, unrurly and shouting, and one chair was lifted in the air, but not thrown...
My original comment on this topic was to say that the person in the Twitter video that was posted is perpetuating a lie by saying chairs were thrown. I didn't dispute that there was shouting, etc.
No. One of the people was identified. He is an actual person.
Source? Links? Anything to prove that even though he is actually a person it wasn't someone pretending to be him?
Not at this point, no. Other than to say I was a first hand witness. I didn't save anything from back then. (Certainly not saving screen shots of child porn!) I can't remember the person's name, but he was in some way loosely associated with the Hillary campaign. A volunteer maybe. It was really his account, it had a history, he was interacting with some of the people who were angry with him.
But that has been the point all along. It's coy to the point of being a meaningless distinction. And it's a subtext his supporters are taking and running with, which is done on purpose so it amounts to the very same thing.
The reality is a lot of his supporters were PISSED that he didn't say it was rigged. They came to that conclusion on their own. And he lost a lot of supporters over it.
The reality is that 1 in 10 Sanders supporters ended up voting for Trump and that did make a major difference in the election. Sure he lost a lot of supporters by not saying what he implied for the entirety of the primary... but his supporters helped get Trump in the door and will again if they keep up this same narrative.
To answer the question that many Clinton supporters may be asking: By this data, yes — there are enough of those Sanders-Trump voters who could have potentially swung the election toward Clinton and away from Trump.
Specifically, if the Sanders-Trump voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania had voted for Clinton, or even stayed home on Election Day, those states would have swung to Clinton, and she would have won 46 more electoral votes, putting her at 278 — enough to win, in other words.
The article goes on to say that comes with a lot of what-ifs that may not have happened, but the numbers were there and we should all learn from that - especially Bernie, Warren, and Biden's campaigns.
So Bernie can't keep on this idea that primaries are rigged if you want to be the primary nominee and you want what is best for progression in this country, especially away from Trump. But if you want to burn it all down and say that all of the US (including those who are disenfranchised and lower economic groups) deserve Trump if you can't have the process you want, then you will help elect Trump again. It's up to Bernie supporters to be gung-ho about Bernie AND change and progressives like Warren, that have very similar if not more concrete policies. If everyone who isn't with Bernie is a villain and the primary process is rigged, you're just playing into populism and that can't win for you or anyone.
Source? Links? Anything to prove that even though he is actually a person it wasn't someone pretending to be him?
Not at this point, no. Other than to say I was a first hand witness. I didn't save anything from back then. (Certainly not saving screen shots of child porn!) I can't remember the person's name, but he was in some way loosely associated with the Hillary campaign. A volunteer maybe. It was really his account, it had a history, he was interacting with some of the people who were angry with him.
So faced with a mountain of evidence that Russian bots infiltrated several sites and played the long game (including impersonating people from all the campaigns), you're insistent that it did, in fact, have to be HRC supporters. Ok.
Source? Links? Anything to prove that even though he is actually a person it wasn't someone pretending to be him?
Not at this point, no. Other than to say I was a first hand witness. I didn't save anything from back then. (Certainly not saving screen shots of child porn!) I can't remember the person's name, but he was in some way loosely associated with the Hillary campaign. A volunteer maybe. It was really his account, it had a history, he was interacting with some of the people who were angry with him.
Ok, so one Hillary supported caused some trouble in a Facebook group. What does this have to do with the primaries?
The reality is a lot of his supporters were PISSED that he didn't say it was rigged. They came to that conclusion on their own. And he lost a lot of supporters over it.
The reality is that 1 in 10 Sanders supporters ended up voting for Trump and that did make a major difference in the election. Sure he lost a lot of supporters by not saying what he implied for the entirety of the primary... but his supporters helped get Trump in the door and will again if they keep up this same narrative.
To answer the question that many Clinton supporters may be asking: By this data, yes — there are enough of those Sanders-Trump voters who could have potentially swung the election toward Clinton and away from Trump.
Specifically, if the Sanders-Trump voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania had voted for Clinton, or even stayed home on Election Day, those states would have swung to Clinton, and she would have won 46 more electoral votes, putting her at 278 — enough to win, in other words.
The article goes on to say that comes with a lot of what-ifs that may not have happened, but the numbers were there and we should all learn from that - especially Bernie, Warren, and Biden's campaigns.
So Bernie can't keep on this idea that primaries are rigged if you want to be the primary nominee and you want what is best for progression in this country, especially away from Trump. But if you want to burn it all down and say that all of the US (including those who are disenfranchised and lower economic groups) deserve Trump if you can't have the process you want, then you will help elect Trump again. It's up to Bernie supporters to be gung-ho about Bernie AND change and progressives like Warren, that have very similar if not more concrete policies. If everyone who isn't with Bernie is a villain and the primary process is rigged, you're just playing into populism and that can't win for you or anyone.
I'm not certain how this is relevant to my comment that you quoted. That said, a significantly higher percentage of 2008 Hillary primary voters went on to vote for McCain (25%), than 2016 Bernie primary voters went on to vote for Trump (12%). People in the latter group were likely to consider themselves conservative. (Bernie had some crossover support, they never would have voted for HRC.) Blaming the election loss on Bernie supporters is disingenuous at best.
Not at this point, no. Other than to say I was a first hand witness. I didn't save anything from back then. (Certainly not saving screen shots of child porn!) I can't remember the person's name, but he was in some way loosely associated with the Hillary campaign. A volunteer maybe. It was really his account, it had a history, he was interacting with some of the people who were angry with him.
So faced with a mountain of evidence that Russian bots infiltrated several sites and played the long game (including impersonating people from all the campaigns), you're insistent that it did, in fact, have to be HRC supporters. Ok.
What evidence do you have that a Russian bot was responsible for this particular incident? I'm insistent because again, I saw it first hand, including the account and interactions of one of the people involved. Whether or not you believe that, is not up to me.
Source? Links? Anything to prove that even though he is actually a person it wasn't someone pretending to be him?
Not at this point, no. Other than to say I was a first hand witness. I didn't save anything from back then. (Certainly not saving screen shots of child porn!) I can't remember the person's name, but he was in some way loosely associated with the Hillary campaign. A volunteer maybe. It was really his account, it had a history, he was interacting with some of the people who were angry with him.
Not at this point, no. Other than to say I was a first hand witness. I didn't save anything from back then. (Certainly not saving screen shots of child porn!) I can't remember the person's name, but he was in some way loosely associated with the Hillary campaign. A volunteer maybe. It was really his account, it had a history, he was interacting with some of the people who were angry with him.
Ok, so one Hillary supported caused some trouble in a Facebook group. What does this have to do with the primaries?
I mean, it's in the thread. The discussion was about how each side was treated on social media. And as I've already said, there was more than one person who did this. One person (to my knowledge) was identified.
Not at this point, no. Other than to say I was a first hand witness. I didn't save anything from back then. (Certainly not saving screen shots of child porn!) I can't remember the person's name, but he was in some way loosely associated with the Hillary campaign. A volunteer maybe. It was really his account, it had a history, he was interacting with some of the people who were angry with him.
I don't recall anything about a Super PAC. Be that as it may - believe as you wish, but I witnessed this and it did happen. Worth noting that Chelsea Clinton is on the board of the company that owns the Daily Beast. It is not known for being unbiased.
Not at this point, no. Other than to say I was a first hand witness. I didn't save anything from back then. (Certainly not saving screen shots of child porn!) I can't remember the person's name, but he was in some way loosely associated with the Hillary campaign. A volunteer maybe. It was really his account, it had a history, he was interacting with some of the people who were angry with him.
He literally said other people say it. I get, as the article points out, this is coy. But since we're using "literally" here.
Reminds me of someone. "People are saying... I'm not going to tell you who, but I think you know... people are saying that we're the greatest administration of all time! Perfect phone call with Ukraine! People are saying that the Democrats are still mad that they didn't win the election and we have the best economy probably in American history!"
I don't recall anything about a Super PAC. Be that as it may - believe as you wish, but I witnessed this and it did happen. Worth noting that Chelsea Clinton is on the board of the company that owns the Daily Beast. It is not known for being unbiased.
You can say you saw child porn being posted, but surely you cannot actually be claiming that this was what shut down the group when the people who manage and are in charge of the group are acknowledging that there was no coordinated, large-scale attack?
But that has been the point all along. It's coy to the point of being a meaningless distinction. And it's a subtext his supporters are taking and running with, which is done on purpose so it amounts to the very same thing.
The reality is a lot of his supporters were PISSED that he didn't say it was rigged. They came to that conclusion on their own. And he lost a lot of supporters over it.
Yes, that's the entire point. The primary was not rigged, and by continuing to perpetuate that myth, Bernie-or-Bust voters are the ones who are being divisive.
But again, none of them (nor Bernie) care, because Bernie isn't a Democrat and cares not at all about the importance of the party.
This is kind of incredible, really, given that this entire thread was meant to discuss the public gaslighting of Elizabeth Warren by Bernie Sanders and his supporters.
I don't recall anything about a Super PAC. Be that as it may - believe as you wish, but I witnessed this and it did happen. Worth noting that Chelsea Clinton is on the board of the company that owns the Daily Beast. It is not known for being unbiased.
You can say you saw child porn being posted, but surely you cannot actually be claiming that this was what shut down the group when the people who manage and are in charge of the group are acknowledging that there was no coordinated, large-scale attack?
So faced with a mountain of evidence that Russian bots infiltrated several sites and played the long game (including impersonating people from all the campaigns), you're insistent that it did, in fact, have to be HRC supporters. Ok.
What evidence do you have that a Russian bot was responsible for this particular incident? I'm insistent because again, I saw it first hand, including the account and interactions of one of the people involved. Whether or not you believe that, is not up to me.
Well of course you witnessed it happening. Serious question - have you listened to or read descriptions of any of the Russian internet interference? Because what you described is *exactly* like thousands of other encounters many had. Not only that, but everyone involved swears that they know what happened, and it was in fact bots and the Russians.
You can say you saw child porn being posted, but surely you cannot actually be claiming that this was what shut down the group when the people who manage and are in charge of the group are acknowledging that there was no coordinated, large-scale attack?
Chelsea did it!
We are getting dangerously close to Pizzagate with all of this...
The reality is that 1 in 10 Sanders supporters ended up voting for Trump and that did make a major difference in the election. Sure he lost a lot of supporters by not saying what he implied for the entirety of the primary... but his supporters helped get Trump in the door and will again if they keep up this same narrative.
The article goes on to say that comes with a lot of what-ifs that may not have happened, but the numbers were there and we should all learn from that - especially Bernie, Warren, and Biden's campaigns.
So Bernie can't keep on this idea that primaries are rigged if you want to be the primary nominee and you want what is best for progression in this country, especially away from Trump. But if you want to burn it all down and say that all of the US (including those who are disenfranchised and lower economic groups) deserve Trump if you can't have the process you want, then you will help elect Trump again. It's up to Bernie supporters to be gung-ho about Bernie AND change and progressives like Warren, that have very similar if not more concrete policies. If everyone who isn't with Bernie is a villain and the primary process is rigged, you're just playing into populism and that can't win for you or anyone.
I'm not certain how this is relevant to my comment that you quoted. That said, a significantly higher percentage of 2008 Hillary primary voters went on to vote for McCain (25%), than 2016 Bernie primary voters went on to vote for Trump (12%). People in the latter group were likely to consider themselves conservative. (Bernie had some crossover support, they never would have voted for HRC.) Blaming the election loss on Bernie supporters is disingenuous at best.
So faced with a mountain of evidence that Russian bots infiltrated several sites and played the long game (including impersonating people from all the campaigns), you're insistent that it did, in fact, have to be HRC supporters. Ok.
What evidence do you have that a Russian bot was responsible for this particular incident? I'm insistent because again, I saw it first hand, including the account and interactions of one of the people involved. Whether or not you believe that, is not up to me.
Many Bernie supporters also voted for Stein (who got more votes in Wisconsin than Trump won by) and Bernie was extremely reluctant to throw his support behind Clinton, campaigning until well after he was unable to win the primary, and not supporting her until the actual convention after it became apparent a beam of light from heaven wasn't going to come down and anoint him as the nominee.
I don't recall anything about a Super PAC. Be that as it may - believe as you wish, but I witnessed this and it did happen. Worth noting that Chelsea Clinton is on the board of the company that owns the Daily Beast. It is not known for being unbiased.
You can say you saw child porn being posted, but surely you cannot actually be claiming that this was what shut down the group when the people who manage and are in charge of the group are acknowledging that there was no coordinated, large-scale attack?
The person in charge of one of several groups said that. He later proved to be a Hillary supporter. I also never said anything about large-scale or coordinated?
This is kind of incredible, really, given that this entire thread was meant to discuss the public gaslighting of Elizabeth Warren by Bernie Sanders and his supporters.
I've said in here a couple of times that I don't deny the experiences of Hillary supporters on social media.
What evidence do you have that a Russian bot was responsible for this particular incident? I'm insistent because again, I saw it first hand, including the account and interactions of one of the people involved. Whether or not you believe that, is not up to me.
Well of course you witnessed it happening. Serious question - have you listened to or read descriptions of any of the Russian internet interference? Because what you described is *exactly* like thousands of other encounters many had. Not only that, but everyone involved swears that they know what happened, and it was in fact bots and the Russians.
I know what some of the memes look like. Buff Bernie, Yosemite Sam, etc.