Democratic Party leaders accuse Bernie Sanders and his presidential campaign of inciting “violence” among supporters by promoting allegations that the primary process is rigged in favor of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Surrogates for Clinton and pundits, who favor Clinton, have ramped up their attacks on Sanders for maintaining a robust campaign, even though the last votes have yet to be cast in the primary.
HRC, the un(wanna)touchable...
Clinton Fatigue Syndrome: DSM VI
Is there ANY excuse for throwing punches and chairs and threatening people's lives and their grandchildren's lives (http://bit.ly/1TZEdRC), and threatening their livelihoods (http://bit.ly/1TZDMGM)?
Besides, Hillary is leading in vote count, in pledged delegates, and in overall delegates? What's "rigged" about that?
Sanders supporters who REALLY want to create a progressive revolution will work very hard for as long as it takes, and it may take a long time, to elect more progressives to Congress and to state and local offices. That will have more long term effect that just electing a president you like. As the Obama election showed us very clearly.
Clearly if the Democratic establishment wanted to rig the primaries in favor of Clinton they would not have allowed any caucuses. It could be argued that it has been rigged against Clinton by having so many caucuses. The caucuses have very low voter turnout and attendees are largely the most progressive Democrats. It is this conspiracy theory that the primaries are rigged that gets Sanders a lot of criticism. Each state decides what the rules are and most of these these rules have been largely in place for many years. They were not greatly changed for this election. If Sanders had been able to get a much larger proportion of the African American votes we would not be hearing all this stuff about rigging the primaries. Basically he lost the election in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday, particularly because he lost Texas by a large margin (about 75 pledged delegates). Then the next week losing Florida by a large margin (again by about 75 pledged delegates) and also losing Ohio put him in an almost impossible situation. His subsequent loses in New York and other northeast states pretty much put an exclamation point on things. He is about five times further back as Clinton was in 2008 at this point and she could not catch Obama. Although Obama did not have have enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination Clinton did not contest the convention but opted to try to unify the party.
But were there any chairs thrown at all? That seems to be a dirty trick because the video of the episode doesn't show any chairs being thrown. You say punches but no one else says that? One woman made some statements but that is her words and from reading what she wrote that is her speaking rhetorically like when she says 'hung in public'.
Meanwhile first they changed the rules in Nevada which you seem to think that is okay. You act surprised that people got upset at being cheated? So if someone cheats and tells you that they have just made some new rules that allows them to cheat would that be okay with you if that happened to Hillary? Look at what happened in Arizona and New York and elsewhere. Why can't we have legitimate elections? If they are rigged by people who have worked for one candidate's campaign why is that okay? Because it helps Hillary? What about the people's right to one person one vote and not the rigged game of unelected superdelegates choosing the candidate instead of it being the voters' choice?
" Walsh suggested Sanders wants to turn “the first female presidential nominee into a corrupt caricature of herself, a cross between Carly Fiorina and Marie Antoinette,”
like she hasn't already done that to herself. wow. let's keep sinking all our money into killing people! Let's keep bailing out the banks! I could go on for a long time!
Bernie or Bust.
and did i miss the voter purges, the voting machines, the winning of a county by one vote? it is sooooo rigged, and he's still doing so well.
What no polls showing how more people would vote for Sanders over Hillary or Trump? But you loved polls so much! What about the polls RoberL... I mean Lrx (don't be shy) . What about the polls.
I can guarantee you that if there was physical violence at the Nevada convention, somebody, out of the 1000 plus people attending, would have caught it on their smart phone or video camera and it would be all over the news. But it's not, is it?
Well let's toss a coin? What? Anyone can win six times in a row right? Don't you trust us? Fine then... In the land of card sharks and sleight of hand magicians ... Here...pick a card! What do you mean you don't think that national elections should be decided by such a means? Don't you trust us?
"Senator Barbara Boxer said on CNN, “_To his supporters who are grousing _
_about the fact that everything is rigged, it’s not rigged. You know, _
we’ve had elections. Hillary has more votes."
Really? See this piece in HuffPort: "Debunking Hillary’s Specious “Winning the Popular Vote” Claim": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-kall/debunking-hillarys-specio_b_9972312.html
I would not at all be surprised that all of the "threats" were sent by the Democratic Party Dirty Tricks Department themselves who are trying to get the nomination for Hillary at any cost. And I have yet to see a video of the alleged chair throwing. And again, if such a video exists, it would be interesting to see the name tag on the perpetrator. From what I have heard, there were some unruly people but the Bernie supporters there were actively trying to calm them down. And tempers were high as the voice vote was challenged and the chair would not agree to a more accurate voting method.
Bernie has publicly condemned violence and such actions are NOT typical of Bernie supporters.
In previous elections, I have seen (and formally protested) the "Dirty Tricks" that the Democratic Party regulars use to swing the election unfairly to what they want rather than what the voters want. By the way, the results of my polite formal protests were investigated by the Democratic Party regulars themselves and they are unfortunately accountable to no one. They basically ruled that there is no way to counter such illegal behavior and since it took months to investigate, there was nothing that could be done anyway. With such lack of accountability, it is no surprise that the Arizona Democratic Party would rig the system in Hillary's favor.
(By the way Caro, I used to subscribe to your blog/newsletter and have great respect for your opinions, but I really think that you should give Bernie a chance. He brings the excitement to the Democratic Party that it needs to win the general election. I do not think that Hillary can or should win in November. Her actions in Libya and her admiration for Henry Kissinger scare the life out of me.)
Well, there certainly were death threats, and threats against one person's employer, for which there's no excuse.
Hillary got a very raw deal in 2008, and her supporters were pretty sore about it. I think the whole nominating process is ridiculous and convoluted and needs to be completely revamped. Elections only, no caucuses, no county and state conventions. And closed primaries only. I'm a Democrat, and I don't want non-Democrats deciding who the candidate for my party should be. Just as I don't want people from another town voting for mayor in my town.
But all of that has nothing to do with what needs to be done if you truly want a progressive revolution. It will take a lot more than electing the president you prefer. Work to elect more progressives. When there's a progressive majority in Congress AND a progressive president is when we'll really see some progress. "Big change comes from big majorities." (http://bit.ly/22ifjD1).
I guess they did throw chairs, Caro, here's proof.
Hillary's ratings against Trump have declined since Sanders and his supporters have started trashing her, but she's still ahead of Trump in the average of polls (http://bit.ly/23WqJkz). And she's well ahead in the Electoral College vote (http://bit.ly/224OPVE).
Sanders polls better against Trump because the right hasn't started attacking him yet. By the time they're finished with him he'll be a combination of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and every other communist dictator every born. These are the people who turned Boy Scout Al Gore into a serial liar and war hero John Kerry into a battlefield coward.
Hillary, on the other hand, has been vilified by these people for at least 30 years and is not only still standing, but still putting one foot in front of the other. It's one of the things I most admire about her.
Besides, at this point it's not about who is going to be the Democratic nominee. It's about how are we going to build a progressive majority in Congress and in state and local races.
I'm willing to believe they weren't Bernie supporters, it may even be more likely that the disturbances were led by people associated with right-wing dirty trickster Roger Stone (http://bit.ly/224NZrM), as a purposeful wedge to make Democrats fight one another. So what does that tell you about people's ability to be misled and driven to passion instead of reason?
I didn't have anything against Bernie until he started personally attacking Hillary. And I didn't have anything against his supporters until they started personally attacking me. Right now, I'm not in a very good mood about either him or his supporters.
There has been no rigging going on at all. It's just a stupid process that needs to be changed.
Sure. Rob Kall making sh*t up.
You have the perfect right to have a closed primary except that you use tax payer money. When you do that you can't use tax payer money to shut out some taxpayers (independents) because you are not using only private funds. You are using their money too and that gives them rights.
Do you believe in democracy or not? What about that half the people in this country are independents? Or that young voters just coming of age may not be registered yet or know which party they want yet? How can there be some open primaries (which seem fair enough) and some closed? Open primaries allow people to choose a party. It is called democracy. Is is messy? Always was but trying to cheat people out of their votes is going to destroy people's faith in their government. Hillary may not be able to govern even if she does 'win'. She is the least trusted of all the candidates and in fact may actually be still in the race only because the rigged game has helped her. Independent voters deserve their choice as much as you feel you do. Bernie is also a democrat but they are cheating, changing rules the night before, disenfranchising voters and changing people's registration inexplicably. How can that just magically happen hmn? It can't. Someone cheated.
Oh and by the way...what if Hillary is indicted? She is not a saint. Besides destroying 30,000 documents before anyone could see if they illegally contained classified material that shouldn't have been on a private server, her using a private server was only to be able to avoid Freedom Of Information requests about her term and decisions as Sec Of State. That is illegal. She knowingly committed a crime.
Who wants this kind of behavior in a president?
Caro is certainly right that the whole stupid process needs to be reformed.
But by whom and how?
Political parties have argued that they are private organizations who do not want non-party members nominating their leaders. That has led to closed primaries. So what are the credentials to be deemed a member? Pretty loose sh*t, as we all know. State conventions come closer to gathering party members. Still, the party members can't be sure their consensus opinion will be that of the electorate. Consequently, every campaign manager needs to work the byzantine variances that occur from state to state; when they succeed, they certainly earn their money.
The "rigging" is in those byzantine variables. If any sport might be invoked for this, perhaps it is golf. Golf courses for decades were exceedingly WASPish, excluding Jews, Catholics, or Blacks, or anyone else (think Michelle Wie) who could not meet a course's membership requirements. I do not further doubt that smart head greenskeepers could manufacture course conditions to disadvantage a player, either by tee or pin placements.