Bernie gets booed by hundreds of protesters for several minutes

[PeteB]

This just proves that some (not all) of Sanders and Trump supporters are driven by sheer negativity, not a wish to support that particular person.  For Trump, this was nicely framed by Anne Coulter, when she said that Donald Trump’s immigration policy is so awesome, she doesn’t care if he performs abortions in the White House.  Similarly the same ilk of Sanders voters want non-institutional chaos, irrespective of how it turns out. 

What is similar to both groups are that they are driven by the "have-nots" (typically blue collar whites), who believe that in the ensuing Trump/Sanders "revolution", they would materially prosper - for a lot of their supporters, this is all about "ME", not some grand cause.

Obviously I do not want to generalize - a lot of Sanders supporters are genuinely trying to promote progressive values; a lot of Trump supporters believe that the country could be better ran than it currently is.  But these loudmouths at the DNC convention and the David Duke segment of Trump's supporters definitely belong into the first category.

[IceSpear]

I guess it's not surprising that the most toxic (aka "passionate") of Berniebros were the ones most motivated to run for delegate slots. Sad!

Poor Adam and Flo...

[Xing]

This hatred of Hillary has existed for a while, and would exist regardless. The fact that some of these folks aren't listening to their own candidate is truly sad. It makes me believe that these particular Bernie fans (remember that a majority of us are already behind Hillary) never really supported Bernie because they liked him, but because they hated Hillary.

People have the right to their own minds and opinions. I don't blame them for not transitioning to Crooked Hillary after all of the shenanigans that have gone on with their candidate.

I'm sure you'd say the same thing about NeverTrumpers.

[ProudModerate2]

This hatred of Hillary has existed for a while, and would exist regardless. The fact that some of these folks aren't listening to their own candidate is truly sad. It makes me believe that these particular Bernie fans (remember that a majority of us are already behind Hillary) never really supported Bernie because they liked him, but because they hated Hillary.

People have the right to their own minds and opinions. I don't blame them for not transitioning to Crooked Hillary after all of the shenanigans that have gone on with their candidate.

I'm sure you'd say the same thing about NeverTrumpers.

Exactly.

[pho]

Considering all of their advantages, the Democrats are making a shambles of the general election.

[MK]

Bernie is a sellout.  Whats the point of his whole movement if hes going to kiss the toes of the Clinton machine. 

Looks like his supporters got tricked.

[RaphaelDLG]

Bernie is a sellout.  Whats the point of his whole movement if hes going to kiss the toes of the Clinton machine. 

Looks like his supporters got tricked.

He understands something called "strategy" that unfortunately many of his supporters do not understand.

[Hermit For Peace]

Bernie is a sellout.  Whats the point of his whole movement if hes going to kiss the toes of the Clinton machine. 

Looks like his supporters got tricked.

Bernie works within the exact same "establishment" that Hillary worked in. He takes his paychecks from the "establishment". He votes within the "system" as it's set up now. Bernie is part of the establishment whether people want to see that or not.

So how exactly did he sell out? There are only two choices to vote for in this election. Is he supposed to support Trump? Or support the party he is a part of?

Distorted thinking abounds with the Bernie crowd.

[BlueSwan]

This is what happens when you push the curruption narrative. This is why I have said all along that this year is very different from 2008. Policy differences and various nasty personal attacks can be overcome, but the curruption narrative cannot. Once you have brainwashed your followers into thinking that the system is rigged and that everybody is out to get you, you can't really go back on it. As much as I appreciate Sanders doing the right thing right now, he really brought this on himself, by feeding the curruption narrative for months on end.

[Hammy]

Bernie is a sellout.  Whats the point of his whole movement if hes going to kiss the toes of the Clinton machine. 

Looks like his supporters got tricked.

Bernie works within the exact same "establishment" that Hillary worked in. He takes his paychecks from the "establishment". He votes within the "system" as it's set up now. Bernie is part of the establishment whether people want to see that or not.

So how exactly did he sell out? There are only two choices to vote for in this election. Is he supposed to support Trump? Or support the party he is a part of?

Distorted thinking abounds with the Bernie crowd.

Not only this, but he stressed (repeatedly) throughout the primary that he would endorse Clinton if she was the nominee.

[Phony Moderate]

But if they're booing Bernie can such people really be called BernieBots? I'd say the real BernieBots are those who are switching to Hillary purely because their Comrade says so.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

But if they're booing Bernie can such people really be called BernieBots? I'd say the real BernieBots are those who are switching to Hillary purely because their Comrade says so.

And they're a vast majority of those who voted for Sanders. So we have a fraction of fringes. It always happens. If Sanders were the nominee, there would be a few of Hillary PUMAs too.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

This just proves that some (not all) of Sanders and Trump supporters are driven by sheer negativity, not a wish to support that particular person.  For Trump, this was nicely framed by Anne Coulter, when she said that Donald Trump’s immigration policy is so awesome, she doesn’t care if he performs abortions in the White House.  Similarly the same ilk of Sanders voters want non-institutional chaos, irrespective of how it turns out. 

What is similar to both groups are that they are driven by the "have-nots" (typically blue collar whites), who believe that in the ensuing Trump/Sanders "revolution", they would materially prosper - for a lot of their supporters, this is all about "ME", not some grand cause.

Obviously I do not want to generalize - a lot of Sanders supporters are genuinely trying to promote progressive values; a lot of Trump supporters believe that the country could be better ran than it currently is.  But these loudmouths at the DNC convention and the David Duke segment of Trump's supporters definitely belong into the first category.

If you think this is a line of argument that would gain any traction with those opposed to Clinton, particularly after the different recent email "scandals", I think you are gravely mistaken.

When the leadership of the Democratic party is so openly about nothing but themselves, seeing them trying to raise the standard of enlightenment and rally the troops is insulting.

If Trump is elected (which I fervently hope he is not), I'd like to see his first act being tossing Hillary and the rest of the Clinton crew in jail to rot. They'll deserve it, if for nothing else, than for being so consumed by their own egos that they let the nation fall into the hands of Trump and his ilk.

(Now, back to looking for jobs in Canada.)

[PeteB]

This just proves that some (not all) of Sanders and Trump supporters are driven by sheer negativity, not a wish to support that particular person.  For Trump, this was nicely framed by Anne Coulter, when she said that Donald Trump’s immigration policy is so awesome, she doesn’t care if he performs abortions in the White House.  Similarly the same ilk of Sanders voters want non-institutional chaos, irrespective of how it turns out. 

What is similar to both groups are that they are driven by the "have-nots" (typically blue collar whites), who believe that in the ensuing Trump/Sanders "revolution", they would materially prosper - for a lot of their supporters, this is all about "ME", not some grand cause.

Obviously I do not want to generalize - a lot of Sanders supporters are genuinely trying to promote progressive values; a lot of Trump supporters believe that the country could be better ran than it currently is.  But these loudmouths at the DNC convention and the David Duke segment of Trump's supporters definitely belong into the first category.

If you think this is a line of argument that would gain any traction with those opposed to Clinton, particularly after the different recent email "scandals", I think you are gravely mistaken.

When the leadership of the Democratic party is so openly about nothing but themselves, seeing them trying to raise the standard of enlightenment and rally the troops is insulting.

If Trump is elected (which I fervently hope he is not), I'd like to see his first act being tossing Hillary and the rest of the Clinton crew in jail to rot. They'll deserve it, if for nothing else, than for being so consumed by their own egos that they let the nation fall into the hands of Trump and his ilk.

(Now, back to looking for jobs in Canada.)

I am sure that you meant to say something, and I am confident that in due time, you will succeed.  But next time, please try to make a coherent argument or, at the very least, don't take my words (in vain ) in order to justify whatever you are trying to justify at the moment.

[SillyAmerican]

This merely serves to show that the candidacies of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders stem from the same place: the electorate's total disdain for establishment politics. The difference? The GOP tried everything it could to derail Trump, short of dirty/underhanded manipulation of their nominating process, but the Dems crossed over the line.

So now we have been provided the proof that DNC officials worked against Bernie Sanders:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How long before we hear "what difference does it now make?" from the presumptive Democratic nominee? Because let's be clear, it wasn't Bernie being booed, it was his caving in to Hillary Clinton and the DNC after being provided with proof that the system was in fact rigged. All those Bernie supporters who donated $27 and attended their caucuses and cast their votes, their participation in the process has been discounted and marginalized by the Democratic establishment.

So which is worse: Donald Trump being allowed to win his party's nomination, or Bernie Sanders NOT being allowed to do the same?

[afleitch]

So which is worse: Donald Trump being allowed to win his party's nomination, or Bernie Sanders NOT being allowed to do the same?

Maybe the few million more votes cast for her by the voters. Not the 'machine' or the 'system' but the voters. I think winning the nomination that way is pretty neat

[Suburbia]

Some of the Sanders supporters have legitimate concerns about how the DNC has treated his campaign. But if they keep it up, some of them will look like a bunch of spoiled brats.

[RaphaelDLG]

This is what happens when you push the curruption narrative. This is why I have said all along that this year is very different from 2008. Policy differences and various nasty personal attacks can be overcome, but the curruption narrative cannot. Once you have brainwashed your followers into thinking that the system is rigged and that everybody is out to get you, you can't really go back on it. As much as I appreciate Sanders doing the right thing right now, he really brought this on himself, by feeding the curruption narrative for months on end.

I think the problem is that the system is rigged in some fundamental ways, if nobody is "out to get you" or conspiracy theories are bullsh**t - even Hillary will admit as much.  And that fundamental reality has to be addressed. 

Could Sanders have addressed this reality in a more artful way?  Yes, he probably could have.  But it's also true that, while the Hillary campaign itself has done an OK job of making overtures in the last month or two, the Democratic party, most obviously the DNC with the recent email revelations, has to a large extent brought this kind of stuff on itself.

[Virginiá]

This is what happens when you push the curruption narrative. This is why I have said all along that this year is very different from 2008. Policy differences and various nasty personal attacks can be overcome, but the curruption narrative cannot. Once you have brainwashed your followers into thinking that the system is rigged and that everybody is out to get you, you can't really go back on it. As much as I appreciate Sanders doing the right thing right now, he really brought this on himself, by feeding the curruption narrative for months on end.

I think the problem is that the system is rigged in some fundamental ways, if nobody is "out to get you" or conspiracy theories are bullsh**t - even Hillary will admit as much.  And that fundamental reality has to be addressed.  

Could Sanders have addressed this reality in a more artful way?  Yes, he probably could have.  But it's also true that, while the Hillary campaign itself has done an OK job of making overtures in the last month or two, the Democratic party, most obviously the DNC with the recent email revelations, has to a large extent brought this kind of stuff on itself.

I would argue that as long as Bernie ran a campaign on something being "rigged", Clinton was going to get caught up in it due her natural shadiness. That being said, when Bernie turned his focus on Clinton and speeches and other misc campaign finance stuff, it really poured massive gasoline on the fire. That much cannot be denied. It's my opinion (and maybe just that), that Sanders damaged Hillary quite a bit in the primary due to that angle. He probably could have even damaged her beyond repair had he started on that stuff from the start.

However, this wouldn't even be a problem if Clinton didn't have so many liabilities. It's her own fault for running when she knew she had all this baggage. In the end, even if she wins I'm starting to believe more and more that it will a pyrrhic victory in terms of long-term Democratic success, especially if her administration is dogged by any kind of scandals and/or a recession. People aren't just going to magically start liking/trusting her after November 8th - She will have to bend over backwards to earn that, and any little scandal or recession, no matter how small, will have an out-sized impact on her image due to her past issues and damaged credibility.

[RaphaelDLG]

Virginia, I have nothing to add, I agree with both of the points you made, though very surprisingly, I'm just a tad less fatalistic than you in this case.  There's a narrow way out reputationally speaking for Madame Secretary IMO and it's good governance coupled with spectacular Republican incompetence.

[Virginiá]

Virginia, I have nothing to add, I agree with both of the points you made, though very surprisingly, I'm just a tad less fatalistic than you in this case.  There's a narrow way out reputationally speaking for Madame Secretary IMO and it's good governance coupled with spectacular Republican incompetence.

I do believe she has a shot at being looked at as a decent president, or at least not terrible, but she really has to deliver on substance. She has little charisma or natural charm like Obama and is already defined as a 'shady' character. If Republicans commit to obstructing Congress for her entire tenure as president, I do not think she will fare as well as Obama did. She really has to deliver on some of her campaign promises, and that will require Congressional action for many.

Republicans will probably continue to harm their brand by continued obstruction, but because of Trump, they will no doubt see this election as a fluke that was ruined by a selfish agitator and that all they need is a "true conservative" to run. This will give them the excuse they need to obstruct and demonize Hillary, so as to hopefully make sweeping gains in 2018 and also win the White House in 2020. This is the current GOP strategy - demonize and obstruct. They keep getting midterm blowouts and it only emboldens them to do whatever they have to for those sweet, sweet short term gains, regardless of bad they end up looking. I think the only way to change this is for them, in 2018, to have a 1998-style midterm instead of a 2014. It's like giving a dog a treat for crapping on the floor - Sure, it's bad, but the dog keeps getting rewarded for it and so it does it again hoping for the same results.

(sorry for rant lol)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If Hillary wins (and I sure hope she will), it'll be despite herself.

[RaphaelDLG]

@virginia:  agree, but another possibility could be that, despite obstructionism, the economy goes on a massive upswing due to exogenous factors a la the 90s, and, the nation of knuckledraggers that we are, we attribute that to the sitting President (like we did in the 90s).  Probably unlikely.

[Hermit For Peace]

If Hillary wins (and I sure hope she will), it'll be despite herself.

More like it will be despite of what the media and the GOP has spewed about her all these years. Lots of accusations, distortions, finger pointing, he said she said stuff, all with their personal negative spin on everything.

And Hillary has survived it all in spite of it all.
 

[Hermit For Peace]

He should, like Big Don said, go home and go asleep. Bernard let his supporters down.

What exactly was Bernie supposed to do? What could he do to not "let his supporters down" as you say?