I cannot fault them for that too much. No side is without execution missteps. Kudos to his having ground troops that were organized enough to get more state delegates in Clarke county despite having lost the actual vote there, and a ding on Team Clinton that they could not get their people there to the second round. A bigger ding on her because her team has done this before while more of Sanders shock troops are relatively new to the game. As president he’d have gotten good experienced people in and delegated much of the day to day business of administration and governing, just like Clinton will. Yeah some of those state delegates they got did not have the follow through, but some did. His team executed moderately well. The simple fact is that more people who vote in the Democratic primaries and caucuses have prefered Clinton, including in Nevada, and it is hard to win when dealt that hand.
His representative spinning people throwing chairs and making death threats as “people who have been energized and excited by his campaign” and that it behooves "the party to be more welcoming and engage those people.” … that’s another thing.
Voice votes when things are close are always a bad idea, for exactly this reason: it seems like the will of the group might be being thwarted. So. Poor execution by the Clinton forces.
But good lord, all this whining about the People in the text quoted by the OP? Do they have no sense of delicious irony? (Well no, they probably don’t) Complaining about The People being thwarted in a quest to overturn the clear will of the people of Nevada, who by a six point margin chose Clinton…sigh.
No. Not Hillary. The local Democrats in Nevada. And I don’t know that they were even at fault, just making the point that they maybe could have been a little more accommodating. But I wasn’t there so who knows?
The people running local campaigns are not the same people who would be running the country if Bernie won. (Actually, most of it is run by experienced government officials in the various departments. Bernie has said that if the politicians would leave them alone to run their departments, they mostly know what they’re doing.)
And remember that Bernie started out as Mayor of a small town.
People from that background know that poor delivery of actual government services, like potholes or bad garbage collection or slow snowplowing that will get you kicked out of office faster than any big ‘issues’.
I’ve seen a bumper sticker: Jesus, save me from your followers!
I think this applies to a lot of movements. There often seem to be people involved who aren’t very pleasant. (And often the loudest, most forward ones.)
At our Precinct Caucuses, several Saunders organizers came with an obvious chip on their shoulder. They were rude & annoying to our volunteers who were convening the caucuses (and overwhelmed by the turnout). These people were convinced that everything was ‘rigged’ for Clinton – here in one of the most liberal parts of the liberal state of Minnesota! Four of our 5 District Officers were actually Saunders supporters, and the district went for Saunders by about 70%. But many of our volunteers came away really annoyed at ‘the Saunders campaign’ because of the behavior of some of their people.
But I disagree with you on “do not want on the same team”. I want my team to win the election, so I want as many as possible on it. Even if some of them are jerks! Their vote counts the same.
We had some stickers around: I’m voting blue, no matter who. They were snapped up very quickly.
:dubious: Hillary isn’t paying for her delegates’ hotel rooms either. At this level, it’s basically a bunch of middle-class volunteers spending their own money.
And if you don’t think a certain minority of “Clinton moderates” can be nasty to those they see as filthy hippie leftists, you aren’t paying attention.
ETA: I’ve seen the videos. I’ve read the reporting, but domestic and foreign. I’ve seen the outraged memes on Facebook. It looks to me like Bernie’s supporters massively fucked it up this time. I see no coordinated wrong-doing on the part of the NV Dems; they’re guilty at worst of ineffective organization.
Let us imagine this certain number of “Clinton moderates” actually throwing chairs and making death threats against “those they see as filthy hippie leftists” …
Clinton’s response to that would be the issue. If questioned about that she responded that well those people getting the death threats are responsible for it because they were not welcoming enough … then she would be, rightly, pilloried.
Clinton moderates can be nasty, but you’re not going to find them going to rallies holding up signs with obscenities and vulgarities directed at candidates and then baiting supporters into violent confrontations by physically impeding their path into an auditorium and disrupting everything once they get inside. I think we’ve pretty well established that most of Hillary’s supporters are part of the well-behaved, more mature establishment, which is the problem in the eyes of Sanders supporters, who think we should be passionate about breaking up big banks because the economy and the Universe itself are rigged.
Usually, if Clinton moderates are nasty, it’s probably because they’ve been provoked and they’re tired of hoping and wishing that Sanders and his cracker jack supporters would just go away. It’s obvious that they’re not just going away. They’re a movement, don’t we see? :rolleyes: They’re trying to save the world, and we’re in their way. With that sort of jiihadist thinking, it’s understandable of a few Clinton supporters get to the point where they tire of being civil.
Also, importantly, Clinton supporters in 2008 were nothing like Bernie supporters in 2016. There were a few “never Obama”-screeds, but by and large civil behavior and, in the end, plenty of voting for Obama after all. Hopefully these Bernie Bros will vote for Clinton in the end, but I’ll never forget their horrid behavior.
I think having a voice vote that is anywhere near close and then not doing a full count, when tempers are already flaring, is a horrible idea. Even if your side won the voice vote fair and square, all it does is breed distrust and suspicion.
Well, it remains to be seen whether a faction of Sanders supporters will continue formally campaigning against Clinton after the convention, some voting Republican, as Clinton PUMAs did against Obama.
Can someone explain the yeas-nays video that Sanders supporters are all up in arms about?
I believe the Sanders supporters were wrong and I believe that Sanders’ tepid response was ineffectual and only stoked the flames of his misguided supporters (and I say this as a Bernie voter).
But what procedural issue was taking place during that video and why were the Sanders voters wrong to be enraged about it? I searched online and I couldn’t match up that procedural vote with what they were actually voting on and why the Sanders voters were angry about it.
In the end, the real effect of such “PUMAs” was negligible at best. Clinton supporters then overwhelmingly voted for Obama, or did not vote. They did not vote for McCain. Palin helped ensure that outcome, to be fair.
Emerging “Bernie or BUST” types, which much seem louder, more obstreperous, and more numerous than in 2008, could be seriously damaging, comparable to Nader voters in 2000.
Some did. They also ran a PAC which attacked the Democratic nominee during the general campaign, so Sanders’ supporters have some ways to go before matching Clinton’s for intraparty spite.
I doubt that is really possible. Sanders will not be on the November ballot, if not as the Democratic nominee.