Sanders issues belligerent statement after followers threaten to kill NV party chair

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders issued an angry statement today, that appeared to belittle and make excuses for death threats, and violence, from his supporters at the Nevada Democratic Convention a few days ago.

Concerns are growing among Democrats that Sanders and his extremist supporters may willingly bring the same violence to the national Democratic convention this summer.

Sanders’ supporters were unhappy that several of their delegates were turned away from the convention because they weren’t registered as Democrats, a requirement of the convention. Several of Hillary Clinton’s delegates were also not permitted to enter, for similar reasons. More on the procedural details here. And there’s much more from local political reporter Jon Ralston about what really happened, and how it was Sanders’ supporters who created the riot.

The Sanders supporters, unlike the Clinton supporters, caused a near riot as a result, and forced security to shut the convention down after it was no longer believed safe.

Following the raucous event, Sanders supporters then published the private cell phone number of the state party chair, who then received death threats.

Lots of them.

Sanders has been silent for days in the face of such thuggery from his own supporters. When he finally spoke today, the Senator was belligerent, and seemed to blame the party for the violence and bullying coming from his most diehard supporters. Keep in mind that these people were Sanders’ delegates to the convention — they weren’t nobodies that he has no connection.

First, here’s Sanders’ statement. Then, the horrific cell phone calls to the state party chair.

by default 2016-05-17 at 3.13.53 PMby default 2016-05-17 at 3.14.04 PM

Now here are a few of the text messages that Nevada Democratic party chair Roberta Lange received following Sanders’ supporters publishing her private cell phone number, and urging people to harass her:

by default 2016-05-17 at 1.38.04 PM

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis  — Win a pony! (not really)

by default 2016-05-17 at 1.37.56 PM

This is but a sampling of the 1,400 messages she received. Here are a few of the harassing voicemails (courtesy of Jon Ralston) – be warned, they’re vulgar:

Call 1.

Call 2.

Call 3.

See more examples of the calls, including transcripts, from Ralston.

HuffPo has more of the text messages and the transcript of this voice message:

“You should be tried for treason, stripped of all authority that you think that you have. All your property, everything. You should be hung in the middle of town, till dead. You are a disgrace to the American people. You should just commit suicide. You’re a disgrace. You’re horrible. Nobody wants you in power. You are a dirt bag. You are the reason why we are voting for Bernie Sanders,” the caller said.

The Nevada Democratic party is rightfully worried that the thuggery shown in Nevada by the Sanders campaign and its followers is only a harbinger of what’s to come at the national Democratic convention later this summer. The party has filed a complaint against the Sanders company — this was before Sanders issued the bizarre statement downplaying what his delegates and supporters did.

And this was how the Sanders delegates treated Sen. Barbara Boxer:

This is what happens when you try to win an election by convincing people that the system is broken and that the election was stolen. They end up believing you. Sanders’ refusal to tamp down the violence is scarily akin to Donald Trump’s own refusal to help de-escalate his most extreme supporters.

What Sanders’ delegates and supporters did to Roberta Lange is simply inhuman. The woman is now afraid for the safety of her kids. Sanders thinks this is how he’s going to still win the election. In fact, it’s how he’s losing any remaining shred of dignity he had left.

Here is a video of Bernie Sanders’ vision of America:

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis  — Win a pony! (not really)

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

280 Responses to “Sanders issues belligerent statement after followers threaten to kill NV party chair”

  1. Bobs_Vendetta says:

    You are so full of shit in everything you say here. That Clinton attracts dishonest, despicable supporters such as you is all the more reason never to vote for her for anything.

  2. ElJiffy says:

    Well, like you said, Sasha needs to eat

  3. Webster says:

    If you think the blog is bad, you should follow him @aravosis on Twitter. He’s turned nastiness, arrogance, condescension. pettiness, and name-calling into an art form. It was a train-wreck to follow. Like you, I once highly admired and respected him, but after watching him twist and distort facts, and fabricate smears and brickbats out of thin air, I’ve moved beyond shock and disappointment into absolute dislike. It’s always sad I think when someone you once looked up to turns out to be somewhat of a monster…

  4. ElJiffy says:

    I refrained from replying to this comment because I still had some respect for Mr. Aravosis. But day after day of attacks on Sanders, or rather his surrogates or supporters, have made me think that maybe you’re right, maybe John is looking for an emolument for all his anti-Sanders bile. Consider past posts such as “Sanders Issues Belligerent Statement”, “Sanders Campaign Again Attacks Top AIDS Activist; LGBT Community Livid”, or “Sanders Supporter Admits To Faking ‘Shoot The Gays’ Video”.
    Consider further that John describes himself as an “American blogger and political consultant” (and, ahem, as a “semi-regular pundit”) and it’s apparent that since the pretty cute Jon Green left it to pursue higher learning, ‘Americablog’ has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the New Democrat-Clinton conglomerate.

  5. Gretchen Pemberton Brena says:

    He is not! He’s sharp as ever and the only one interested in helping us 99%! I feel demonized by the media just b/c I’m a Bernie supporter. I am not violent at all. I’m a happily married 59 year old mother of two college-educated daughters and a lawyer. Bernie is still my choice!!

  6. Ghostdreams says:

    They don’t care. A man-made myth got circulated about Bernie and they bought into it. Now they’ve decided if they can’t have it their way they just won’t vote. I said months ago we were in trouble when, at my caucus, we had Bernie people threatening other people. I said months ago we were in trouble when I saw that any criticism of Bernie Sanders provoked really vile and nasty reactions. When I brought up Sierra Blanca his bernbots told me that Bernie’s environmental racism wasn’t important. When I brought up his support of wars in Bornia, Libya, etc? It’s Bernie so it doesn’t matter either. Just today Bernie had a meeting in which he told his followers he isn’t their savior. MY GOD, WTH? He had to tell them that? What is up with these people? In any case.. I know five people who are no longer supporting Bernie Sanders over what’s happening but it’s very worrisome. Read the comments here. The fact that Lange got DEATH threats doesn’t bother them a bit. SHE deserves it! SHE has it coming. You know .. THAT is what criminals say when they do something wrong and get caught. Responsible adults don’t act like this in the first place but IF someone does lose their cool, they own up to it and apologize. I see no difference between the Bernie brownshirts the Trump thugs.

  7. 2karmanot says:

    If you scream even louder we can hear you.

  8. CrazyChester says:

    Yet another long-winded blog editorial, long on hyperbole, and short on facts that perpetuates debunked slander and simultaneously seems to have no vitriol or even mild condemnation for the obviously improper, dismissive, and undemocratic actions of this chair person. Where is the balanced assessment of what precipitated this non-violence? Maybe the author is a paid Hillary shill who, like the bulk of the establishment DNC believed from the start there was no, and should be no opposition to the chosen one and that Bernie should have just “gone away”. I really hope Senator Sanders goes independent with Elizabeth Warren and shows this corrupt and inept organization exactly how and why they failed in such a spectacular fashion while smashing the votes for both Shillary and Trump.

  9. Christina says:

    I really hope for the sake of harm or intent to harm non Bernie supporters, they cancel the convention and have the delegates vote for their nominee in a secured unknown. area. This Democrat sees Bernie Sanders hampering any chance of party unity. He is in a dementia state of mind!

  10. Christina says:

    Thank you Miss Nomer for your educated comment on the behavior exhibited in Nevada. This is no way to vocalize your differences. They were indeed threatening. After the convention was cancelled then they threatened to harm and kill the members of the party and their families. This behavior was no different than brandishing a knife or firearm. Very abusive childish behavior. Sen Sanders is no better he would not even calmly discuss this with his supporters. I wonder why. Feeling a little insecure Bernie!

  11. Webster says:

    “The Egregious Double Standards for Bernie and Hillary Supporters in the Media”

  12. Starr Johnson says:

    There were no chairs, if you were there you would know that.

  13. cleos_mom says:

    I admire your persistence but these people have gone full Jim Jones.

  14. Webster says:

    MissNomer? More like MissInformed. The chair-tossing melee has been totally debunked. Yet another false story wheeled out by the Hillary-humpers. Try something fresh — or at least true…

  15. doug dash says:

    I guess we will find out in California.

  16. MissNomer says:

    Tell me about chemtrails.

  17. MissNomer says:

    Yes, the innocents only raised chairs over their heads and threatened to throw them until someone stopped them. Totally nothing to see here. People in polite company brandish chairs as weapons all the time. It’s totally no big deal.

  18. MissNomer says:

    If you seriously think the fracas in Nevada and BS’s subsequent reaction won him any votes, you are delusional.

  19. WampusKat says:

    Ralston was there… Berniacs made themselves look like vile neckbeards on national television. Not sure how you all plan to erase this from the minds of the people who saw it on MSNBC:

    I’m glad the country now gets to see what Bernie’s Greens/Libertarians are really about. People are dropping out like flies. Way to go.

  20. WampusKat says:

    “Don’t link to COUNTERPUNCH. It’s a far-RW racist trojan horse (No Click On It)”

  21. 1nancy2 says:

    That’s correct. DNC will throw the election to Don. They s*ck: lost in ’10 and again in ’14 and again in ’16. Sad; for the working stiff.

  22. 1nancy2 says:

    Hill will lose to Don, pure and simple. Why? She is a terrible candidate and DWS s*cks, big time. I’ll decide next year what to do; till then, Bernie will get my $ till the very end. Hill? Not one thin dime. No way, no how. Dem’s are losers, cowards, stand for zip, zero, nada, nope.

  23. Badgerite says:

    Uh huh. Most of this is just silly. That someone attacked a Sanders campaign office is bad, but please don’t tell me that Hilary Clinton in any way encouraged or is responsible for that. Some lone fruitcake did something bad is not the same things as Sanders supporters under instructions from his campaign disrupting the Nevada convention to the point that security had to be called. And then making death threats and being abusive to a Democratic party officials. ( And that is documented and is the crime of assault).
    You do know that in September Bernie Sanders will be 75. I was fine with Sanders being in the campaign to raise issues, mostly about the economy. And I thought I could support him enthusiastically as the nominee if he were to actually win the nomination even though I support Hilary Clinton as the better candidate But the more I think about his age, and his entire campaign and especially the fact that he will be 75 in September, the less I am able to do that. The only way I would support someone of his age to ascend to the presidency is that the alternative is so awful, one would simply have no choice. But there is no way in hell that the Democratic party is going to nominate a 75 year old man to his first term as president. That is just irresponsible.

  24. JS says:

    How entitled can you be to dismiss domestic human rights. What is this country going to be like for gays, Muslims, women, minorities, the poor – under Trump? What makes you think that the rest of the world is going to be any better under trump than Clinton? Supreme Court appointees will change this country for decades. Stop with the self-righteous save the world from evil crap and have some sympathy for those whose lives will become much harder under trump. Trump has talked about carpet bombing countries and killing relatives of terrorists. There will be less environmental regulation under trump than Clinton. Everything will be worse. Revolutions take time and dedication and sacrifice, they do not come from executive office elections. Do the hard work and build a movement to take the party to the left. But this whining sulking self-righteousness is going to get trump elected and hundreds of millions of people in the country and abroad are going to suffer as a result. That’s not hyperbole, that’s taking trump at his word.

  25. JS says:

    Delusional hyperbole.

  26. Minnie Wipster says:

    Snopes says claim that Sanders supporters threw chairs is FALSE.

  27. Minnie Wipster says:

    It’s long past time to stand up against the Democrats forcing conservative candidates on us. If we allow them to continue in this manipulation, the world is doomed. Clinton will support Wall Street’s suicidal path in its willful destruction of this planet to gain the greatest profit. A choice between Trump and Clinton is no choice at all. And, if the only thing people are interested in is domestic human rights, then by all means vote for Clinton. But know this…voting for Clinton means turning one’s back on the human rights for the rest of the world.

  28. Krusher says:

    Your nurse is looking for you, it’s past time for your meds.

  29. Krusher says:


    1. of, relating to, or supporting democracy or its principles.

    “democratic reforms”

    synonyms: elected, representative, popular, parliamentary; More

    2.of or relating to the Democratic Party.

    So what’s your point?

  30. doug dash says:

    Or vis a versa. You are obviously a pessimist always looking at the glass as half empty. Many of us believe that should Clinton win it will be because of the the experience that the fight with Sanders gave her. After all, she’s not that good of a candidate to begin with which she even admits to.

  31. MissNomer says:

    Oh dear, who to believe? Politifact or some crazed rando Berniac?

    50 of the 64 disqualified delegates did not show up.

  32. Jessica7859 says:

    just as Brian explained I didnt know that you can get paid $9452 in one month on the computer . look at this web-site


  33. Who Funds Your Campaign? says:

    Oh and not rig the voting machines. (and if you do, maybe don’t let it get caught on video? Don’t let the fraudulent audit be exposed?)

  34. Who Funds Your Campaign? says:

    Primaries being completely open would help stop the fraudulent voter purges we’ve seen in this “Democratic” primary “election”. Also, tax payers pay for these primaries. If you want the peasants to pay for the primaries, you have to let them vote. And not make it complicated and “glitch”.

  35. Who Funds Your Campaign? says:

    Unfortunately, the February caucus was largely fraudulent too. There is a ton of video evidence of it.

  36. Who Funds Your Campaign? says:

    You don’t even know what “democratic” means.

  37. Who Funds Your Campaign? says:

    By inflammatory rhetoric, you mean reality about HiIIary’s horrendous and violent actions?

    Congratulations on being fooled into voting for her destructive actions, and by being fooled by lies about the Nevada convention. I’m sure the people in Haiti, Honduras, Syria, Libya, and all those other peasants you don’t give a damn about are happy for it.

  38. Who Funds Your Campaign? says:

    Did the police in Nevada also take note when Bernie’s office was ACTUALLY shot up? Or when his staff quarters were invaded and ransacked? Or when his female supporters were attacked by HiIIary’s male supporter?

  39. Who Funds Your Campaign? says:

    Before May 23. Monday is the last day to register.

  40. Who Funds Your Campaign? says:

    It would be a good point, if it weren’t bullshit. The vast, vast majority of Bernie supporters want a peaceful rally in support of Bernie (and protest, because we were factually, proven, robbed by an undemocratic fraudulent nomination process). The fabrication of “violence” from us that never happened, is a set up for them putting provocateurs in the crowd so that they can claim we were violent when we are not.

    The irony is amazing too. We’re the only NON-warmongering campaign. It’s the main reason WHY I am volunteering so hard, despite the odds. Because of HiIIary’s (and Trumps, probably) rampant violence against people and the planet. It’s completely unacceptable and uncivilized and unsustainable. I’m amazed by the people who are supporting these violent candidates, accusing BERNIE supporters of being violent. It’s just amazing that the media is so bent on lying about us to scare people about us, that they have to come up with lies about our “violence”.

    Oh no, we booed corruption! So violent right? Give me a break.

    & where is the reporting of our campaign office in NV being SHOT UP? Of the female Bernie supporters assaulted by the male HiIIary supporter? Of the staff quarters being invaded and ransacked? Oh right, news silence. It’s not news because it’s happening to the peasants, because it doesn’t fit their convenient narrative that the peace-mongering Bernie supporters are somehow violent demons.

  41. Who Funds Your Campaign? says:

    Well the violence was a lie, for starters. The only violence that was committed at all was against Bernie supporters when his campaign office was SHOT UP in Nevada and the staff quarters were invaded and ransacked. And the female Bernie supporters who were stalked and assaulted by the male HiIIary supporter. But I guess that doesn’t matter because we’re just the lowly peasants trying to have a democracy, right? The NERVE of us trying to run an honest campaign against HiIIary, the famed installer of brutal dictatorships worldwide – who takes their money, and sells them weapons. How DARE we try to stop that. How DARE we actually not be violent, despite what Time Warner – one of her top donors – and CNN which they own, lie about us.

    You know what? When I’m at the convention rallying for Bernie, I’m going to wear a big peace sign shirt just so there is no mistake when I am shot dead by our fascist scum dictators, about who was ACTUALLY violent when HiIIary’s machine puts provocateurs in the crowd to make it look like we were the violent ones. What a scary, peaceful demonstrator I am!

    Oh no, I booed corruption! I booed how Harry Reid rigged the 1st tier of the NV caucus in the first place! I guess I must be violent, because the things I am aware of don’t fit your fictitious narrative.

  42. Who Funds Your Campaign? says:

    I love how HiIIacrites can’t help themselves but blame Bernie and his supporters for everything that they caused themselves, including the massive bullying, alienation and fraud HiIIary’s machine has committed against Bernie’s supporters and campaign this entire time. The evidence is so blatant, so proven, and you guys still think you can insult us peasants into submission. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad & serious.

  43. Who Funds Your Campaign? says:

    I love how HiIIacrites can’t help themselves but blame Bernie and his supporters for everything that they caused themselves, including the massive bullying, alienation and fraud they’ve committed against his supporters and campaign this entire time. The evidence is so blatant, so proven, and you guys still think you can insult us peasants into submission. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad & serious.

  44. Who Funds Your Campaign? says:

    She didn’t break rules, because she made herself a dictator installed those rules to give herself even more power.

  45. Who Funds Your Campaign? says:

    She’s horrible. And yes, the future of the country (and world) ARE at stake. It’s either violent corporate dictatorship with HiIIary, or a chance at survival on this planet with Bernie.

  46. Badgerite says:

    What arguments. I asked 5 questions, none of which you or Sanders or any Sanders supporter has ever bothered to answer. But, of course, the first thing you do is proclaim yourself the “true” liberal and basically called me non liberal, right wing because you can’t answer my questions.
    I didn’t make any “arguments”. I asked questions that begin with the word How. As in how are you going to do a, b. or c. As in ,,,,,,How will you get legislation passed,,,,,,How will you pay for this… will you sell this…… How will you keep the economy growing…..How will you deal with the inevitable attacks……how the hell, you are 74 years old and the presidency of the US is the most demanding job on the planet.
    ( Ronald Reagan was perhaps the only president in history to serve a second term while suffering from dementia – see the Iran Contra Scandal- but I think there can be no doubt that he did suffer from that in his second term ) It is an open question whether Bernie Sanders could even make it through one year of one term.
    For me, of all the questions I asked the last one is definitive. No, the Democratic party is not going to nominate a 74 year old man to assume the presidency of the United States because everyone is afraid to say no to the kids. NO.
    And just for the record, the ACA is structured in such a way that if you can pay what is required, and still have enough left over to put money in savings or to spend. An amount like 8% is simply to burdensome on lower and middle class incomes to do anything of the kind. And the figure that I have heard quoted for middle and lower incomes is an 8% increase and those figures were from reputable sites. That amount would not burden “rich, old , white people”.
    And in that class I would put Bernie Sanders and his wife. They wouldn’t even feel it. But people actually in the lower and middle classes sure as hell will.

  47. RubyB says:

    Watch the videos. Roberta Lange closed delegate registration 30 minutes early and 60 people in line were not allowed to register. 59 of those 60 were Bernie supporters. 59 more Bernie votes would have made this convention accurately reflect the county caucus results. Roberta Lange then violated Nevada Dem party rules that say when a voice vote is not clear, an actual count needs to be taken. The voice vote clearly went against her, but she just threw a hissy fit and gaveled the discussion closed, basically saying that she was the chair so she could.

    The Bernie people took it to court and the court said that the convention was a private party so if the leader didn’t want to follow the rules she didn’t have to. That’s why there was no “hijacking.” Roberta Lange certainly acted unfairly and undemocratically but she did not break any rules.

  48. RubyB says:

    Innocent until proven guilty. How do we know that those messages are not from Roberta Lange’s supporters to make Bernie look bad? Or from Trump supporters trying to harm the Democratic party? I think the threats should be investigated and the persons who made them charged. But there is no evidence to show who actually sent those messages. I prefer not to convict people until the evidence has been reviewed.

  49. Voodoo Chile says:

    As a consumer of political media, the smearing of liberals and liberal politicians has been going on since last summer. You may recall the whole BLM kerfuffle, which took place last summer. That’s when people like Joan Walsh started writing hit pieces about what a racist Sanders and his liberal supporters are.

    As for the rest of you comment, I’d just like to point out that you use right-wing arguments against left-wing policies. No true liberal would argue that we can’t have a social safety net lest we raise taxes on the middle class. I am a liberal, and I am for better social programs and I’m willing to pay for them.

    Also, I’ve seen already the 8% number you quote, and it’s a misrepresentation. That’s how much corporate taxes would go up, and you use right-wing trickle-down arguments to imply that our salaries would go down as a result.

  50. Voodoo Chile says:

    David Brock paid a lot of money to take over Blue Nation Review and turn it into a Clinton propaganda factory. Who’s to say that’s the only website he stopped at?

  51. Webster says:

    Oh, I think John understands it all right, but desperation makes people do strange things. As he seems to have lost his gig at the UN, I think he’s trying to cash in on his former glory by angling for a possible position with the Hillary administration. But it’s kind of sad to see him throw his integrity out the window in the process. There was a time when I really admired the man, but a girl’s got to do what a girl’s got to do to keep Sasha in dog food, I guess…

  52. MissNomer says:

    Except for the millions of voters Bernie lost to Hillary, yeah.

  53. MissNomer says:

    It’s not her job to unify the party. Bernie made the mess; he can clean it up.

  54. RubyB says:

    Here’s the full video of Barbara Boxer at the Nevada convention. I have
    not seen the first part of this in the mainstream or even the
    mainstream progressive media. She is taunting the delegates to boo
    her. So they boo her. Then she releases statements about being afraid
    for her life attached to a partial video–conveniently leaving out the
    part where she taunts the delegates.

  55. quax says:

    I did not say that he endorsed violence, I wrote ‘I don’t recall that Bernie endorsed an “eye for an eye” mentality before’. By bringing up these incidents he opens the statement up for interpretation as if he tallies up wrongs against wrongs. Don’t think that’s what he means. IMHO it’s just badly worded, and easy to misinterpret. Bringing up these unrelated shooting incidents does not help in the least.

  56. timncguy says:

    I hope you’re not talking about the 64 unseated Sanders delegates. That number isn’t even close to right. there was a LIST of 64 delegates that could not be verified as registered dems. Of those, 6 were verified and seated. * were not able to be verified and were not seated. The other 50 on the list NEVER SHOWED UP AT THE CONVENTION to try to participate.

  57. ElJiffy says:

    The system is broken. Everyone but John seems to understand this.

  58. thud says:

    Try reading his statement again and quote where he endorses violence. That convention was trashed by the party leaders who ran it not the fellow Democrats who weren’t able to have their say.

  59. quax says:

    DNC hit squads? Tea party fanatics? Zombies?

    I don’t know, nor do you. But even if this was due to some mentally challenged HRC fanatics, I don’t recall that Bernie endorsed an “eye for an eye” mentality before (hence referencing this incident is the weakest part of his response).

  60. Badgerite says:

    And….there it is. This is not the kind of leadership I want. The kind that encourages this attitude. HRC all the way.

  61. Badgerite says:

    It has not been “going on since last summer”. And by the way, the Bernie people who descend like locusts on anyone on Facebook or elsewhere who has taken a nuanced approach to this campaign and has asked the Sanders campaign to answer any hard questions or who does not sufficiently #Feel The Bern have been anything but open to debate and discussion. It has been complained about all the time by blogs sites that have tried their damnedest to be even handed and have said consistently that they saw value in both candidates and would be willing to support whoever won the primary. They have attacked people like Paul Krugman, John Aravosis, Bob Cesca, Chez Pazienza, Stephanie Miller. And those are just the ones I know about because I visit their sites. They attack average people just making a comment as well. You are invariably called a “neo-liberal” shill ( Wikipendia – Shill: a person, also called a plant or a stooge, who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with that person. Shill: an accomplice of a hawker or gambler or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others) and that is just for starters. It then descents into liar, bitch, whore, etc. And that is just for questioning 1) how Sanders would get any of his proposals through Congress, 2) even if he did, how would he pay for it 3) if he could keep the economy growing while he did this and 4) how he would withstand the GOP smear machine and 5) he’s 74, ( Ronald Reagan was 69 when first elected to the presidency and his age was an issue at the time)..
    For me, during a primary process I don’t pay attention so much to what the candidate says as much as I do what he does and how he leads. I can’t say I ever watched the debates in 2008, but I saw how Barack Obama handled the Rev. Wright controversy and the extraordinary and personal speech he gave at the time. After that, I knew he would be a good president. I have watched Sanders and gone not by what he said, but by how he led. And he led his supporters to be unquestioning of him and to be aggressive and nasty and insulting to anyone who disagrees with or even questions how. How would you get this done? How would you hold up on the barrage of negative advertising and the smear job that would be aimed at him as it has been and will be aimed at Hilary Clinton?
    How would you convince the middle class that is already struggling that it would be a good idea to raise their taxes by 8 %. That is roughly what I try to put into savings every year. I can afford the ACA. I would be unable to save under an 8% tax increase. And the response is always, “How much are they paying you to say that,,,Neo-liberal shill” or well things would just be better everywhere so you would make more money. Uh huh. I have never Felt the Bern because he is 74, unvetted and has never really answered my questions in a way that I believe is realistic. I also find that I do not like the way he runs his campaign, or the ridiculous depiction of historical events that his supporters are always trying to tell me about that didn’t actually happen that way. No thank you. I’m with her.

  62. JS says:

    Im disgusted and frightened by those who refuse to support a democratic nominee against Trump. Do they not understand what’s at stake? A Trump presidency means:
    right-wing religious extremist supreme court appointments
    Extreme climate change denier as energy advisor
    abortion made illegal
    same-sex marriages invalidated
    Department of education eliminated
    increase in military spending
    increase in violent anti-Muslim behavior
    less regulation of gun ownership

    This is a short list.

  63. Badgerite says:

    What “shenanigans”, exactly? The reports from sites and people who have looked at this whom I trust such as TPM and Bob Cesca have shown that of the 64 Sanders delegates in question, only 8 actually showed up in person. And the others did not show up and their credentials, ( that is registered Democrats and even addresses I believe ) could not be verified.
    Those sites stress that what the Sanders supporters were doing was trying to up end the prior caucus vote, which they lost, which was within the rules but hardly a great defense of liberty, democracy and representative government that Sanders alleges. That had the Sanders people prevailed on all of their motions that the net shift in allotted delegates for Sanders would have been a whopping 4 delegates.
    Oh, again. 8 of the 64 actually did “show up”. So naturally, death threats should be in order. Jesus. Listen to yourself.
    TPM also had a link to I believe CNN which has an audio that clearly shows that making a disruption at the Nevada convention was on instructions from the campaign itself. It didn’t just ‘happen’. This has been a problem for me with the Sanders campaign from day one. Absolute inconsistency. The caucus process is indeed about who shows up and at every level. Sanders supporters did not show up at the level of caucus voting and then they also failed to show up at the point where delegates are allotted. To hear Sanders supporters tell it, no matter what the situation, primary or caucus, closed or open, “they was robbed”. They wasn’t “robbed”.
    They just didn’t have those ’64’ people actually there. And even if they had, it would not have significantly changed the delegate math in any way. To me, it is evident that this was a staged disruption to pretend they was “robbed” so as to trash HRC as much as possible going into the California primary. I must say, I can admire devious and sneaky. You actually need that in a president. Somewhat.
    But death threats? “Bitch and whore” from as—- kids who have not done squat yet in their lives? I don’t think so. And that, by the way, is on video. And then Sanders crapola statement trying to capitalize on it. Let’s get real here.

  64. Voodoo Chile says:

    It’s a Vast Center-Right Wing Conspiracy, lead by the David Brock wing of the party.

  65. Voodoo Chile says:

    On the other hand, how do you think the rest of us feel when people like John Aravosis call us racists, sexists, homophobes, and now violent radicals? Because that’s been going on since last summer.

  66. Voodoo Chile says:

    Donald Trump thanks you and John Aravosis for smearing liberals as sexists, racists, and homophobes.

  67. pliny says:

    No one asked Lange to “operate outside the rules”. What occurred was an attempt to suspend the rules and address the issues with them. It’s a standard procedure for these things.

    Just because there were more Clinton delegates on the floor (and let’s not revisit how exactly that came to pass…) does not mean they all supported what went down. That’s kind of the point of having a vote,

  68. Voodoo Chile says:

    John Aravosis already painted liberals as sexists, racists, and homophobes, so it’s really no surprise that he’s now painting them as violent radicals.

  69. pliny says:

    Caucuses are about who shows up at each level. Whether or not that’s a fair way to pick a nominee is a separate conversation. The fact is that at the district level, the Sanders delegates put in the work. They tried to do the same at the State convention but (without imputing blame to specific people or parties) credential shenanigans occurred,

  70. Webster says:

    Leave it to the Democratic party to swift-boat one of their own…

  71. barada says:

    No no, there was violence. When someone hugs you so aggressively, you could pull a chest muscle hugging them back. Dangerous stuff.

  72. barada says:

    The Dean Scream, 2016-style.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

  73. thud says:

    Stick with your nice safe candidate. Wall Street loves her. Why question their judgement?

  74. Minnie Wipster says:

    Hogwash. There are no videos of any violence on the news, the Internet, or anywhere else. If there were, I would have seen it. The worst thing that happened was one person picked a chair and another person (a Sanders supporter) made him put it down. That was it. There are no police reports of violence or anything else.

  75. TiberiusB says:

    If you’re waiting for any update that in any way acknowledges the fictional account of the “violence” at the convention or the lack of any actual death threats (though the messages and voice mails were definitely way out of line), don’t, because any facts that don’t line up with John’s “reality” are verboten.

    -No violence occurred, unless yelling is violence. Police were there and no arrests were made. Spelling it out, THERE WAS NO RIOT.

    -No death threats were made at the convention, though the messages to Roberta Lange afterward were unacceptable and walk right up to the line and maybe slip a toe over. Certainly the online and voicemail messages should be investigated.

    -No one knows who made those calls or sent those messages as yet, so insisting that it was Sanders’ delegates is dishonest, at the very least.

    The Sanders campaign is about pushing back against the establishment. He’s bound to draw in a lot of people from across the political spectrum, including more extreme anti-government elements, particularly those that dwell in the darker corners of the Internet. Don’t be surprised when some of those short fuses go off. It’s a much more difficult demographic to control than the more establishment inclined Hillary supporter. Even so, much of that fringe element appears to have been absent from the convention and only reared its ugly head afterward online.

    The DNC has, demonstrably, worked in Hillary’s favor and, arguably, tilted the scales against the Sanders campaign. There may be a debate over the degree, but it’s impossible to deny that favoritism towards Hillary has been a very real problem (debate schedules, the “Victory for Hillary” fund, the removal of the ban on lobbyist donations, etc.). Was this the case in Nevada? I’m not convinced, but given the fact that Hillary was already bound to win,
    the DNC would have been wise to at least let the Bernie camp feel they were being fairly represented. It all seems to boil down to refusal to allow a vote to change the rules to allow the 56 Bernie delegates to be seated (a legitimate effort, btw, and not just sour grapes and refusal to play by the rules, as some would portray it). With the delegates split so evenly, the Bernie camp had to know they didn’t have any real chance to win that argument, but the ridiculous handling of the voice votes really set people off. Really stupid move by the DNC, and one that only feeds into the whole “the game is rigged” narrative. If a large number of Sanders delegates didn’t show up, then his campaign would do well to determine why. Poor scheduling of the caucus? Bad scheduling by the DNC? Gremlins? Again, the Sanders campaign draws in a large number of people from all over, many of whom are not familiar with Democratic party rules, particularly as they pertain to primaries, caucuses, registration deadlines, and so on. They should have expected to be faced with party registration conflicts from day one.

  76. Nelson Kerr says:

    He looks to be turning into a reckless zelot

  77. jabber1 says:

    So then you condemn the Hillary supporters who constantly call Bernie supporters names? I didn’t think so. Hillary supporters are so full of themselves and think they know everything. They are snobs.

  78. jabber1 says:


  79. jabber1 says:

    Yes. I am changing mine from democrat to independent. I am done with the democrats. They care only about the rich just like the republicans. I won’t vote for Hillary. If Trump gets in he will destroy the country but I think the country is already toast.

  80. redspear2 says:

    In California you can vote if you are unaffiliated…I know I live there. So purging the rolls as you say woudl do nothing to prevent people from voting and if they purged independent and republican rolls they woudl increase teh number of available voters

  81. stupidicus says:

    I’ll be 61 in a month or so, not that it is any of your business. What’s next, she had nothing to do with the Libya, Syria, ect, fiascos? WHat are you, dishonest or just dumb?

  82. Kyungju Park says:

    “He’s riled up a bunch of low-information voters in order to destroy the Democratic Party.”
    So, is this part of Hillary Clinton’s plan to unify the party? Insulting those who disagree with her? Is she wearing a WWDD (What Would Donald Do?) bracelet?

  83. Kyungju Park says:

    No chairs were thrown. See for yourself. If you have video of actual chairs being thrown at this convention, I’d be interested in seeing it. I’ll bet you don’t. In conclusion, don’t believe everything you hear from an establishment politician’s operatives.

  84. Kyungju Park says:

    As Jimbo2K7 says, there was no chair throwing. Here, watch for yourself:

  85. Kyungju Park says:

    It’s not a matter of ‘fault’, Phil. It’s a matter of being honest. She tells us that she’s a “progressive who gets things done”. As Joe Biden whispered to Barack Obama upon Obama’s signing PPACA into law, “This is pretty fucking big!” For her to be asking where was Bernie when she was trying to reform healthcare, which was a pretty fucking big failure, is to ask us to only remember the good stuff about her. If you only remember the good stuff, yeah, she’s a great candidate. But taken in toto, I find her to be very ‘meh’. Too many bad positions and too many decent positions that only Bernie’s candidacy compelled her to take. Among others, I received a mailing from her campaign yesterday that indicated she favors a $12/hour minimum wage. I’m with Bernie and $15/hour.

  86. Kyungju Park says:

    She’s right, Doug. No arrests for bad behavior in Vegas. In Atlanta, however, this Clinton supporter WAS arrested:

  87. Kyungju Park says:

    You appear to be one of the online ‘trolls’ that the Clinton Super PAC is paying $1 million to.

  88. Krusher says:

    OK, bye! (waves cheerfully) Have a nice life.

    the Democrats

  89. doug dash says:

    Well that’s good. No crimes were committed by anyone. No harm no foul. Politics is a dirty business.

  90. TheAngryFag says:

    John’s turned into quite the HillBot

  91. MissNomer says:

    “No arrests were made at the convention, according to the Las Vegas police.”

  92. MissNomer says:

    He’s brought “new blood” to the Dems? Nope. He’s riled up a bunch of low-information voters in order to destroy the Democratic Party. Right now he’s not even running for the nomination – he’s only ginning up hatred for the Democratic Party and its nominee, and he needs to stop.

  93. MissNomer says:

    Never done anything for peace? She has, but judging from your hyperbole (I’m positive no one’s told you not voting for a vagina would send you to hell), you will refuse to believe it.

    Opposition to the Viet Nam war made her join the anti-war campaign of Senator Eugene McCarthy in 1968.

    She joined the anti-war campaign of George McGovern in 1972.

    She was called “unpatriotic” by the Pentagon for asking if there was an exit plan for Iraq.

    She was inducted into the Irish American Hall of Fame for her work on behalf of the Irish peace process.

    She successfully negotiated the 2012 Israel-Hamas ceasefire in Gaza.

    She convinced China and Russia to join the global coalition of sanctions on Iran that ultimately led to the Iran nuclear deal.

    As secretary of state, she succeeded in repairing relations between the US and the rest of the world after Bush damaged them so badly.

    I’d say when she gets a choice between war and peace, she usually comes down on the side of peace and works very hard to achieve it.

  94. MissNomer says:

    Allegations of fraud and misconduct at Nevada Democratic convention unfounded

  95. Badgerite says:

    Bottom line: Sanders lost the earlier caucus vote, 53% to 47%. What the Sanders people were trying to do is rig the delegate selection to not reflect the caucus vote and peel off some of the Clinton delegates.
    Frankly, this reminds me a lot of what happened in 2000 in the manual recount in Dade County, Florida. A group of boisterous, loud Bush supporters were bused in and staged protest outside the doors where the recount was occurring in an effort to bring the recount to a halt.
    Which they succeeded in doing. The rest is history.
    This is what the Sanders supporters were actually doing, you know.
    This from Josh Marshall:
    Sanders talks the talk. But anybody can do that. It is how you behave in controversy and conflict that is the mark of the kind of leader you are.

  96. Rainbird says:

    Yeah, sure, be proud of your vote. Glass-Steagall, Honduras, the Iraq war vote, TPP, fracking, NAFTA, privatized prisons, CP time. All things to be very proud of.

    The democratic party has moved away from me. I am proud to stand with Bernie and where democrats used to be. I hope that I am able to check a box for him in November, if not I will write him in.

  97. timncguy says:

    sorry, you were being reasonable until your last paragraph. When the rules call for voice votes, not be willing to operate outside the rules doesn’t indicate any such thing. In fact, based on the registration counts, the chair was well aware that there were more Clinton delegates in attendance than Sanders delegates.

  98. timncguy says:

    here is the Ralston Reports piece. Since he was in attendance at the event, I wouldn’t describe his account as not being grounded in facts

    Here’s another that will show you the Scribd doc

  99. Kyungju Park says:

    Silly of you to make the assertion that I am exaggerating my influence. I’ve already told you that I live in Texas and, as a result, my vote won’t matter at all. You must’ve missed that bit. In any case, I’ll just reiterate that, more than anything, it’s the Hillary supporters who’ve turned me off to her almost as much as she has herself. And I’m old enough to remember the PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) movement started by the Hillary supporters in 2008 when she refused to exit the primary even though Barack Obama was clearly going to be the party’s nominee.

  100. pliny says:

    Politifact has unfortunately been biased on occasion, not just against Bernie. They usually do a good job, but in this case seemed to skip a few points of contention to reach their determination. A single example of this would have been the timing of the first vote on the rules, which occurred earlier than scheduled while people were still trying to get registered and on the floor.

    The Politifact article characterized this as “The first major fight happened in the morning, with the convention being gaveled in nearly 40 minutes after the scheduled 9 a.m. start time.” That’s… not exactly an impartial way of conveying the information. Leaving out the part where the people who organized the convention may have (intentionally or not) taken advantage of a registration bottleneck they created is just plain bullshit.

    While I take your point on the voice vote volume not being representative of the actual vote, this entire situation could have been shut down at any point by Lange accepting the Sander’s supporters repeated begging for an actual count. We can always argue over cellphone video, but you can’t argue with math.

    The fact the Lange repeatedly refused to do an actual count indicates that she knew how it would come out.

  101. pliny says:

    Your Ralston reports link doesn’t work. It just dumps you to their home page. The Scribd document appears to have been deleted, The Daily news link also 404ed.

    I tried poking about the two sites to see which articles you might be linking and bailed on DailyNewsBin when I saw: Not only did it sound like astroturfing, but when examined more closely, one of the quoted twitter accounts doesn’t appear to have made the quoted tweet: (The other two seem like legit Hillary supporters, but including an account that hasn’t tweeted publicly since 2010 is slightly suspect)

    I’m having trouble figuring out which article you were trying to use as an example on the Ralston Reports site. There’s a rehash of the doxxing and abuse of Lange, which I think we all agree should result in criminal charges, and there’s a repetition of the Bernie Bros rioting narrative, but nothing that seems grounded in facts.

  102. Cyndie Poffenbarger says:

    Obviously a slanted article to smear Bernie Sanders. I watched the videos. The exaggeration of what happened is despicable. Yes Bernie Sanders supporters were upset and they had every right to be if you watch the videos. So much dishonesty and corruption. People who think that is OK obviously live in a bubble of self entitled priviledge and have no understanding of the working class people. Shame on you.

  103. doug dash says:

    Go ahead a split hairs with your stupid nonsense.
    Did Gore run the country into the ground for the next eight years? Or was it Bush?

  104. thud says:

    Who fired shots at Bernies Nevada headquarters? Who ransacked his worker’s quarters?

  105. thud says:

    Yeah I read that already. My question is whether the disdain in merited. I read a rundown of Nevada D’s moves prior to and during the convention and if just a part of it is true then, yeah, disdain is due and much more.

  106. timncguy says:

    56 weren’t turned away. In reality there was a list of 64 who were identified as not being registered dems. Of those on the list 6 were ultimately seated when they were able to verify their registrations. That left 58 names on the list. Of those 58, only 8 physically showed up at the convention to try to register. They were not able to verify their details so they were not seated. The last 50 did nlt even show up for the convention to try to register. There were also Clinton delegates who were denied seating for the same reasons.

    The committee deciding the fates of these people was made up of 50% Clinton people and 50% Sanders people. It was on the up and up.

  107. timncguy says:

    a video of a voice vote recorded by a partisan likely standing among a group of similar minded supporters can’t really be a reliable measure of fact. Of course the voices of those standing close to the person recording will make the loudest noise. This is of course why the person responsible for measuring the voice vote is standing in front of the entire group and not in the middle of the group.

  108. rmthunter says:

    Excuse me, but “the country” did not elect Bush in 2000. The Supreme Court elected Bush in 2000. The voters elected Gore, as I recall, by about 500,000 votes. It’s a flaw in our electoral system that that didn’t translate into a majority of the Electoral College after the Florida Secretary of State stole the state for Bush.

  109. rmthunter says:

    Except that the new election cycle will begin in February, 2017.

  110. Badgerite says:

    Really. What part would you classify as right? The part where I say neither Barack Obama nor Hilary Clinton would threaten riot or violence at the convention in victory or defeat. That is demonstrably true. Venezuela is a basket case. Also demonstrably true. I remember when Hugo Chavez died. They were talking of his legacy. And as I thought it would be, the Chavez legacy is that Venezuela is a basket case both economically and politically.
    Look, what I see in Bernie Sanders is an aged 60’s radical for whom “the revolution” never came. As to the threatened with violence thing, that seems well documented, as in who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes. And most everyone was saying that was just his over the top supporters or an overzealous campaign operative. But Josh Marshall has a post out that credits inside information from those close to the campaign that the violent response at the Nevada convention was a tactic encouraged by the candidate himself.
    Platform is easy. Anyone can do that. That is what you say you are about. His policy proposal may be New Deal, but his core is 60’s radical looking for the revolution that never came. And that comes out in his campaign and the actions and words of his supporters all the time.
    So, what, exactly, am I “lying” about?
    I thought Chez Pazienza’s post had it about right.
    And here is a quote from CNN as to the Sanders campaign’s denial of any responsibility for what happened at the Nevada Convention.
    “But new audio obtained by CNN shows a senior aide–on the eve of the Nevada Convention–encouraging the Senator’s supporters to “take over” the convention, change the party rules, and continue the ‘revolution’ that Sanders has long campaigned on.”
    And his statement after the fact .far from distancing himself from the actions or harassment engaged in by his supporters, seemed more to sanction it after the fact and pretty much threaten more unless….what? He gets a say in the platform? Well, that was something he could already have assumed he had. So unless what?
    Why, unless the Democratic party decides to suddenly become the Bernie Sanders party. Well, that is not likely to happen and even less so now.
    That doesn’t sound like a “compromise” to me. It sounds like the actions of an
    ideologue. So, what am I lying about?

  111. goulo says:

    The whole country was lied to indeed, but many people were intelligent enough to see that Bush and Cheney were lying, and principled enough not to go along with the lie.

  112. Latonya Croll says:

    “my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr”…..!ti265urtwo days ago grey MacLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly. 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here !ti265u:➽:➽:.➽.➽.➽.➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsScopeGetPay-Hour$98…. .★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★::::::!ti265u….,..

  113. Latonya Croll says:

    “my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr”…..!ti265urtwo days ago grey MacLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly. 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here !ti265u:➽:➽:.➽.➽.➽.➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsScopeGetPay-Hour$98…. .★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★::::::!ti265u….,…

  114. pliny says:

    I’m unfortunately not seeing your links now. While a voice vote is a popularity contest, just having more Hillary delegates in the room doesn’t mean they all were voting for the bogus rules. They actually have the right to make up their own minds and vote individually. The videos indicate they likely did so.

    Speaking of links here’s an interview with A Hillary supporter who had her credentials messed with:

  115. pliny says:

    Don’t take the Bernie supporters word for it, A Clinton delegate has come forward about the problems with her credentials –

  116. JS says:

    They aren’t registered as democrats. They should expect to be turned away. It’s a party function. I registered as a democrat because it was the only way to influence the mayoral election in my city. It’s a pretty basic thing to ask people to do – if we want to participate in party activities then we have to register to become a member of the party.

  117. Ryan P says:

    “Sanders’ supporters were unhappy that several of their delegates were turned away from the convention because they weren’t registered as Democrats”

    This may be the first time I’ve seen the word “several” refer to the number 56. The “several” Hillary delegates turned away numbered 8. The meaning of “several”–how it stretches!

  118. Jimbo2K7 says:

    One man picked up a chair then put it back down.

    Yes, there was a lot of anger, and if you had been treated the way the Bernie supporters were, you would have been as well. This did not have to be so poorly handled.

    Minimizing the huge base of Bernie supporters is shortsighted and stupid. Insulting and ignoring them is a losing strategy.

  119. Moderator4 says:

    Me three.
    Too many totally inappropriate comments to keep up with.

  120. Amwatching2c says:

    “people like you would accuse him of being a spoiler” That’s what I called him. Explain this Bernie Boy..

  121. quax says:

    Only if it ends without a Trump White House. Otherwise the nightmare will endure.

  122. thud says:

    Short term selective memory loss perhaps? I was around then,Kent State and such. I remember the Democrats getting us further and further into the Nam. Have they gotten any better? If you consider the leadership at this point the answer is NO!

  123. quax says:

    Either way I hope they catch whoever and press charges.
    This crap is highly damaging to Bernies campaign and his message in general so I can’t see him having a hand in this.
    I had to revalue my impression of Bernie Sanders, but find it still inconceivable that he would ever tacitly or openly endorse any form of violence.

    Nevertheless the disdain for the Democratic party as an institution seems to flow from the top if Josh Marshall is to be believed:

    Chances are this will get much more ugly before it gets better.

  124. Gerard L. says:

    She is a war hawk because she has never done anything for peace. Insult my age, insult my intelligence, insult my morality and then tell me if I don’t vote for a vagina for president I am going to hell. That is a political platform?

  125. Jenny Ogeltree says:

    Unfortunately, I have seen evidence of the Correct the Record troll operation fanning the flames … I was also online the night they posted adult and child porn, yes, child porn, on several of our facebook pages before reporting our pages for objectionable content to have them taken down. Apparently facebook wasn’t fooled for long and our pages were restored fairly quickly, but the Bros4Hillary page was bragging and laughing about their accomplishment before they decided maybe it wasn’t a good idea to admit to the deed so they deleted their posts. I have no doubt that David Brock’s operation is responsible for at least part of the threats against Lange; it really is too good of an opportunity for those bottom feeders to pass up, and the anonymity of the internet combined with a good proxy server allows them to impersonate Bernie supporters with impunity.

  126. Jenny Ogeltree says:

    The Sanders supporters were rightfully angry at what happened, and that sad part is that those same fraudulent tactics used to disqualify delegates were used at the Iowa caucus as well. Anyone who thinks the democratic party leaders are not corrupt and willing to steal your vote is just fooling themselves.

  127. Jenny Ogeltree says:

    I do not support threats of any sort of violence, but I disagree with your contention that Lange did not incite the mob attacking her. She did exactly that with her chicanery and underhanded tactics that deprived the Sanders supporters delegates that had been rightfully awarded to them per the rules at the second level of the caucus where HRC’s delegates failed to show. And the sad fact is that some of HRC’s supporters are making threats to fan the flames … it’s amazing what a million dollar troll operation will resort to in order to create a false narrative. David Brock’s troll super-pac is a cancer in the democratic process. If nothing else, this whole episode has opened a lot of eyes about what the Democratic Party self-enrichment club actually stands for, and apparently it’s winning elections at all costs.

  128. Moderator3 says:

    Oh God, me too.

  129. CherMoe says:

    She’s a “warhawk” because she ultimately voted for the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan after Congress and the WHOLE COUNTRY were lied to by George Bush & Dick Cheney? How old are you, anyway? Do you remember the Viet Nam War? Were you around when the National Guard shot up a bunch of college students at Kent State University in my home state of Ohio? Do you realize where and when Hillary and Bill Clinton were during those days? Get a grip! You must be all of 19 years old.

  130. Jenny Ogeltree says:

    Because technically, the HRC delegates were forfeited (per the rules) when they didn’t show up at the second level, and the Nevada establishment wanted their HRC delegates back so they did it through chicanery. If the reverse situation had occurred, you can bet your bottom dollar that the rules would have stood as written and HRC would have been awarded those Bernie delegates. Lange and the Nevada Dems changed the rules without debate and disregarded the rules of order that should have governed the convention. The Nevada debacle in no way represented a democratic procedure, and if the Feb 20 results were final, why was there a second level at all with procedures to reapportion the delegates that hadn’t shown up? So now Lange gets to run from media outlet to media outlet on her “poor me” victimization tour, when it was her own victimization of the Sanders campaign that started the ball rolling in the first place.

  131. B00Z says:

    I’ll be SO damned glad when this election is behind us

  132. stupidicus says:

    as a big fan of the warhawk HC, I’m a tad surprised that you have such a problem with violence, or really just the threat of it in this case. It must be because they are americans as opposed to innocent brown muslims in foreign lands, no?

    How many such notches do you suppose HC put on her six guns in the wake of surviving that nasty sniper fire?

  133. thud says:

    I read it and took it differently from you. Why would he destroy everything he has achieved by condoning this crap. It’s been highly damaging.

  134. thud says:

    You may be right, it may just be the work of some very misguided enthusiasm. Either way I hope they catch whoever and press charges. This crap is highly damaging to Bernies campaign and his message in general so I can’t see him having a hand in this. But nobody is above suspicion in my mind.

  135. Phil in FLL says:

    Neither one. Actually, only Trump supporters would put Trump in the White House, and there aren’t as many of them as you think. Not only that, but Trump will no doubt be a catalyst in getting people who normally don’t vote to vote, just to keep Trump out of the White House. That’s why I think that people like Kyungju Park (and you, of course) are exaggerating your influence on the outcome by not voting. The same advice goes to you: Get over yourself.

  136. clark says:

    I agree, but there are many places, CA included , that have purged their roles preventing people who were previously voters, to not be able to vote. In CA people are urging each other to check their voter status before June 7.

  137. quax says:

    If you assume this is an uncoordinated, spontaneous false flag action e.g. by some Tea Partiers seizing the opportunity, then yes this is not outside the realm of possibilities.

    But a coordinated effort e.g. DNC setting up the Nevada ruckus and then following up with a false flag event, doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

  138. Benjamin Mulroney says:

    hillary clinton supporters are putting trump in the white house, not sanders supporters.

  139. Benjamin Mulroney says:

    most everything you say is completely wrong. bernie sanders is no radical ideologue; his career is full of compromise and his platform is one of moderate social democratic reforms. and he hasn’t threatened anyone with violence. you are just lying.

  140. Benjamin Mulroney says:

    there is no Socialist Democratic Party. sanders ran inside the democratic party because it is one of only two parties one can run for president without being ignored by most of the media. sanders campaign has brought new blood to the democratic party and will provide a net gain in votes for the democrats in november. if sanders ran outside the democratic party, people like you would accuse him of being a spoiler.

  141. Amwatching2c says:

    Sander should have known DNC rules. Now he cries the system is rigged. He could have run as a candidate for the Socialist Democratic Party. He never was a Democrat and is working to send Trump to Washington.

  142. Nelson Kerr says:

    I guess you did not read his repose slightly condemning the violence then paragraphs making excuse for the thuggery

  143. Aecetia Reya says:

    Then, even if the Clinton campaign feels like Sanders supporters are being sore losers, maybe they should start actually standing behind them. If they want a recount, give them a recount – does it really hurt? If they need to debate the rules then debate them and take the time to at least make them feel like they are not just being brushed off. If they feel like machines are being tampered with or election fraud has been committed then the rest of the democrats should be just as concerned about that allegation – whether its true or not. If Clinton campaign is positive that there was no corruption then they shouldn’t be opposed to any recounts or investigations into voter suppression – they should welcome it because it will help try to clear the air and unite the party. If Sander’s supporters are wrong then at least they were heard. They’re frustrated because they aren’t being heard and they are lashing out. At this point, if Trump wins, it wouldn’t be Sander’s fault for running as an Independent and splitting the votes, it would be the Democratic party.
    And using the Nader argument is like an ex trying to convince their partner to stay: “You’re not happy and feel ignored and abused, but if you leave, I’ll lose the house and it will be your fault.” Using that argument is just another way to suppress the voices of Sanders supporters.

  144. goulo says:

    “trailer park trash babies”? Are you just making up random insults?

  145. Phil in FLL says:

    To say that you are going to threaten the convention with violence and riot is to basically forfeit any right to lead this party. Period. Barack Obama would never have done such a thing. In victory or defeat. Nor would Hilary Clinton.

    Good point. Neither Obama nor Hillary would ever have done that, in victory or defeat. That’s not how things are done in a democracy. That’s how things were done by Lenin and Trotsky in Russia and by Castro in Cuba—at the point of a gun—which is just the flip side of the rightwing Tea Party creeps who also want to take over at the point of a gun.

  146. thud says:

    It’s pretty easy to be “out organized ” when the party leadership is against you. Your assertion that Bernie is deliberately fomenting violence is ludicrous.

  147. Badgerite says:

    This has always been my concern about Sanders. I would vote for him against Donald Trump. But I would have reservations in voting for him because he does not really seem to value the democratic process as he says he does or progressive values. He is an ideologue. I look at other countries where ideologues have taken power through a democratic process and it just really hasn’t worked out well. Venezuela is a basket case. It takes more to make a society and an economy than dividing up the benefits. It isn’t as simple as that. When he started he was a one note candidate. And, to me, that has only amplified over time and with his impending loss. I can see now why Senator Leahy did not support him. And Barney Frank would not support him. As well as most of the Democratic party.
    To say that you are going to threaten the convention with violence and riot is to basically forfeit any right to lead this party. Period. Barack Obama would never have done such a thing. In victory or defeat. Nor would Hilary Clinton. This isn’t the Vietnam War era. That was the last century.
    Not this one.

  148. thud says:

    Why do you think it takes a large organization to send some emails? I took that link from an article about false flag operations that have been admitted to. There’s plenty more where that came from. Like I said it’s an old tactic.

  149. TheAngryFag says:

    Then why do you keep begging Sanders voters to get behind Hillary?

  150. doug dash says:

    The only person arrested at this event was a Clinton supporter

  151. Bradley J. Timm says:

    Each party has loose cannons. This is a smear job, plain and simple.

  152. Candace says:

    I like open primaries But closed primaries are not the problem. Laziness is. It’s not hard to change your political affiliation. Everyone had plenty of time to do so.

  153. stealthfighter says:

    I cannot upvote this enough

  154. Kyungju Park says:

    Apparently, you have been fooled if you think that I’d prefer a Trump victory. In fact, I live in Texas. Since we don’t directly elect our President, my vote for Hillary or Bernie won’t amount to a hill of beans. The Republican candidate, whether Trump, or Cruz, or Hitler will win the state’s electoral votes. I have the luxury of voting my conscience.

  155. Kyungju Park says:

    I’m not saying that the caucus vote shouldn’t be honored. I’m saying that it’s the rules of the Nevada Democratic Party that it CAN be overturned. That’s the state party rules. Not Bernie Sanders’. They should change the rules going forward. I firmly believe that. But them’s the rules for now.

  156. Phil in FLL says:

    Your logic doesn’t refute the fact that the caucus vote from February should be honored, not overturned. Intelligence? Name-calling? You have no argument for overturning the will of the people from the February caucus.

  157. Phil in FLL says:

    …her attempt to reform healthcare in the 90’s was a big fat failure to get anything done.

    Was that really Hillary’s fault? Isn’t that the fault of the Republican senators and congressmen who you now support? That’s pretty well documented from the early 1990s.

  158. Kyungju Park says:

    There’s a very simple, elegant solution to your concerns over a voice vote being hijacked by loud people. It’s called a headcount or rollcall vote. Unfortunately, the state Dem chair refused to allow one. I suspect she knew that it wouldn’t turn out the way she’d hoped. Nah, who am I kidding. You and I BOTH know that’s why she refused to allow it. Don’t let your hopes get in the way of your intelligence. That’s the Republican way.

    As for overriding the will of the May caucus, unfortunately, that’s the rules. All of that could be avoided by direct popular vote, but the Nevada Democratic Party–not the federal government, not Bernie Sanders–makes the rules. Unfortunately, those rules appear to be breakable whenever the establishment candidate appears to be at risk of losing.

  159. Krusher says:

    I certainly hope the police in Nevada are taking notice of the threats–they should be easy enough to trace.

  160. Phil in FLL says:

    From your comment above:

    Donald Trump may thank me for not supporting Hillary, but then, by the same token, Hillary may thank me for not supporting Trump.

    Don’t even try to pretend to be even-handed. Your comments make it obvious to all that you prefer a Trump victory. No one is fooled.

  161. Phil in FLL says:

    MissNomer, I believe your reply above did refute what Bill Perdue thinks that he pointed out. You could ask him, on behalf of others, why he even bothers to comment. Thank you.

  162. Kyungju Park says:

    If Hillary wants to talk about “being a progressive who gets things done”, she probably shouldn’t bring up “Where was Sanders when I tried to reform healthcare in the 90’s”, because if memory serves me correctly, her attempt to reform healthcare in the 90’s was a big fat failure to get anything done.

  163. Krusher says:

    At first, I supported Bernie Sanders, also because his message resonated with me. But as his campaign progressed and the rhetoric from his campaign became more and more inflammatory, I changed my mind and voted for Hillary Clinton in the Massachusetts primaries. Nothing that has happened since has caused me to regret my decision, and this latest display of fascistic behavior from his campaign and supporters makes me mighty, MIGHTY glad that I cast the vote I did.

  164. Treasured Lights says:

    NO. You and the few thousands who are acting like babies, are irrelevant to this election.

  165. Phil in FLL says:

    You think so highly of yourself and your ability to put Trump in the White House. Please get over yourself.

  166. Kyungju Park says:

    Where are the transcripts of the Goldman-Sachs speeches? Aren’t you the teeniest bit interested in what’s so secret? I know that I am.

  167. Kyungju Park says:

    Where are the transcripts of the Goldman-Sachs speeches? Aren’t you the teeniest bit interested in what’s so secret?

  168. Phil in FLL says:

    My priority is to honor the will of the people who voted in the Nevada’s Democratic caucus in February. You can argue about Robert’s Rules of Order all you want, but when some (not all, but some) Bernie supporters were trying to have the election results of the February caucus thrown out the window, that is intrinsically unfair. You have a very hard sell if you’re trying to convince people that the state chair should have allowed some Bernie supporters to dictate how many delegates were awarded based on how loud they can shout at a meeting—or as you call it, a voice vote. No voice vote in May (by whoever shows up via Facebook invitation) should override the will of the voters three months earlier. That principle of basic fairness should be obvious to you.

  169. Kyungju Park says:

    …and THIS is why so many Sanders supporters will not be voting for Hillary. Myself included. Congratulations on making this election a lot closer than it has to be!

  170. Kyungju Park says:

    Let’s face it: the American electoral system is anything but democratic (see Bush v. Gore, 2000). It’s absolutely not democratic at the state convention level (see Ted Cruz, 2016). There are, however, rules that govern these conventions and Robert’s Rules of Order for how to conduct them. If you’ve watched the video of the voice vote at the Nevada convention, you’ll see, very clearly, that the state chair failed to fulfill her responsibilities and did her best to subvert the democratic process. If you’re seeing something else, you need to check your bias at the door and look again. If there’s one thing that the Democratic Party should stand for, I’d think it would be democracy. If they can’t promote that as a process, and stand by it, even when it doesn’t go the party leader’s way, then what, if anything, does it really stand for? Quick answer: not much.

  171. Bill_Perdue says:

    Where didn’t you even try to refute what I pointed out.

    Why do you even bother to comment if you can’t reply?

  172. Blogvader says:

    I understand why some are angry. This election season has been equal parts fascinating and disheartening.

  173. MissNomer says:

    Kind of hard to keep the standards up when people are throwing chairs at you.

  174. MissNomer says:


  175. MissNomer says:

    Death threats are “petty bullshit”?

  176. Kathi Geukes says:

    Only on Bernice……he’s delusional as usual because he still thinks he has a chance to win the nomination…..he needs to step aside and go back to hiding in Vermont, hoping that the Feds don’t indict him and his wife for tax evasion!!!

  177. TheAngryFag says:

    Let’s see… she told Anderson Cooper during a debate that she has consistently held the same values one of which was supporting same-sex marriage. Yet in 2002 to Chris Matthews’ face in a town hall-like interview, in response to the question “Do you think New York should legalize same-sex marriage?”, her response was “No.” In 2004 on the Senate floor she said “I believe that marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.” In 2010 in an interview she says “I have not supported same-sex marriage. I have supported civil partnerships and contractual relationships.” But yet in 2013 for the HRC she stated “I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples. I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law.” In 2014 while being interviewed by Terry Gross on NPR Radio the issue came up and Clinton accussed her of “playing with my words and playing with what is such an important issue” and declaring she has “a strong record and great commitment to this issue”.

    Her attacks on Sanders are based on lies and crap her HUSBAND pulled. Like how she claimed he “voted for the [Commodities Futures Modernization Act]” which is widely credit as being one of the major causes of the 2008 economic meltdown. This act stripped all regulatory authority over swaps and derivatives. What she doesn’t tell you is that a) The CFMA was not voted on as a separate bill, but rather rolled into the 11,000 page Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 which was a must-pass bill to keep the federal government running. Then Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) struck a deal with Bill Clinton to get the language in, see Bill Clinton’s Undersecretary of Treasury, Gary Gensler, a former Goldman Sachs partner, helped write the CFMA. Interestingly enough when Obama nominated Gensler to chair the Commodities Trading Futures Commission, one of the two entities Gensler had help strip of regulatory oversight. Sanders opposed the nomination. So here we had Clinton attacking Sanders for basically being blackmailed into voting for the CFMA because it was tucked into a must-pass spending bill. But what about Gary Gensler, one of it’s co-authors? He’s Hillary Clinton’s campaign CFO. So what does that say? Granted Gensler’s changed his tune since he saw the absolute destruction he helped bring, but Sanders never let him forget it.

    Or how about that ‘Where was Sanders when I tried to reform healthcare in the 90s?’ gag when he was literally standing right behind her and even sent him a nice thank you note personally written and signed?

    And let’s talk about her e-mail lies about how her predecessors did what she did (here’s a hint: they didn’t), how she only used it to e-mail Bill and Chelsea (which Bill disputed himself).

    The funny part is the video that shows all her lies is now making the news circles as Fox News, Washington Post and Newhouse (via PennLive) have all picked it up. Just search YouTube for “Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight” and you’ll find it.

  178. Phil in FLL says:

    Apparently, you have no argument, and believe me, that’s obvious to other readers. Have a pleasant day yourself.

  179. Phil in FLL says:

    12 delegates up for grabs. 7 go to Hillary and 5 go to Bernie, which is proportional. Some Bernie supporters openly stated that their goal was to overturn the results of the FEBRUARY Nevada Democratic caucus and have the “lion’s share” of the delegates go to Bernie by having his vocal supporters just show up at the state convention three months later. Why would that be fair? (See my comment at the top of the thread.)

  180. Phil in FLL says:

    TheNeedle, like so many other commenters on this blog, apparently thinks that he or she is psychic. Therefore, when something bad happens and the perpetrator has not been found, the person can conveniently ascribe the act to whomever they disagree with. I am so sick of tarot cards, crystal balls, tea leaves, ouija boards, etc. Let’s just agree that nobody is conveniently psychic.

  181. Blogvader says:

    Thank you for reading my post and responding as best you could manage. Have a pleasant day.

  182. quax says:

    Unconnected police corruption to frame innocents is a completely different ballgame than what you suggest. You are insinuating a coordinated conspiracy of the various DNC levels with the msm and the federal government. These kind of conspiracies require a level of sophistication that makes them virtually impossible to maintain.

  183. Phil in FLL says:

    Hillary won the Nevada caucus in February by 5 points. There were 12 delegates up for grabs and they were awarded proportionately: Hillary got 7 and Bernie got 5. It was actually the Bernie delegates who wanted to overturn the results of the February caucus and get the “lion’s share” of the Nevada delegates. Why should they be able to do that? Wouldn’t that be hijacking the electoral process and throwing out the results of the February Nevada caucus? Why should that happen? Should that happen because you can get on Facebook and have a lot of noisy supporters show up at the state convention three months after the actual caucus vote was held? We don’t win elections based on who has the biggest mouth… although Donald Trump is certainly going to try that strategy.

  184. Kyungju Park says:

    At first, I supported Senator Sanders because his message resonated strongly with me. I recognized at the time that his candidacy was unlikely to be successful and that I’d wind up supporting Hillary, even though she represents a return to the DLC days of triangulation and moving the Democratic Party ever further to the right. Now, however, I’m convinced that Hillary doesn’t deserve my vote under any circumstances. I’ve been called a Bernie Bro simply for supporting Sanders, and having watched how the Nevada convention was hijacked–yes, hijacked–by a status quo, establishment Dem state chair, I’m certain that a vote for Hillary is a vote for no change at all. Donald Trump may thank me for not supporting Hillary, but then, by the same token, Hillary may thank me for not supporting Trump. The fact is, neither of them is a candidate who will lead the change that we need in this country. My vote will go elsewhere, and in large measure because of Hillary supporters and their attitudes.

  185. Phil in FLL says:

    This is in response to Blogvader’s long series of back-and-forth comments with other readers. Under no circumstances should voters who are registered in one major party be allowed to vote in the primary of the other major party. The reasons are obvious. Depending on the circumstances of the particular election cycle, voters of one party would try to weaken the general-election chances of the other party by voting in the other party’s primary, and they would use the general-election strategy of their own party, of course. How stupid (or hypocritical) do you have to be if you fail to understand this?

    But further, some states (like California) allow independent voters (“No Party Preference” in the case of California) to vote in any primary. As another commenter mentioned, there would have to be a requirement of a long period of time to ensure that the voter was not switching to “independent” just in advance of the opposing party’s primary. The reasons for these precautions are so obvious that I’m flabbergasted that anyone would be hypocritical enough to question them. Of course, many of the same critics of closed or semi-closed primaries would be singing a different tune if it were a different election cycle, and Democratic voters were in a position to switch to “independent” just in advance of the Republican primary (just to weaken the Republican frontrunner, of course). Think it through again.

  186. Phil in FLL says:

    Do you think that Republicans should be able to vote in Democratic primaries? During this particular election year, that is an obvious ploy to let the Republican Party influence the choice of Democratic candidates based on what is the best strategy for Republican victory in the general election. In other words, it’s an argument taken directly from rightwing talk radio show hosts, like Rush Limbaugh who is regularly suggesting this. Of course, if the shoe were on the other foot (in a different election year) and Democrats were crossing over and voting in Republican primaries to cause havoc, I suppose that would be different. Hypocritical fail. Think it through again.

  187. doug dash says:

    Look this country was stupid enough to elect Bush in 2000 so it’s not far fetched to envision Trump being elected president. So, I want the best possible candidate to run against him. The primary will produce the best candidate. Nothing else matters including all of the petty bullshit that is often written here.

  188. Professor PhD says:

    Well stated, BeccaM and very true.

  189. Professor PhD says:

    Yeah…no. I doubt that mainly because I have seen first hand how the Berniebros behave when they don’t agree with another’s point of view. I have seen enough posts by the Berniebullies to see exactly how given to violence many of his supporters are becoming. While it is convenient to be all like “No, that was just false flags making those DEATH THREATS and doxing that poor lady Lange” it is also really unlikely. I bet it was “false flags” throwing chairs at the stage and shouting that poor woman down off the stage too, right? I’m sorry, but Bernie Sanders should have denounced–and strongly–the violence, the divisiveness, and the rudeness of his minions last night. He didn’t–he actually said “We’re going to take our fight all the way to the convention” (paraphrasing) and that is coded language telling his supporters to riot at the convention. Shame on him and shame on every one of his followers for NOT speaking out against the antics in Nevada. The reason HC won the delegates in Nevada, btw, is because ALL of her delegates showed up. BS was missing like 130+ delegates. HC simply out organized him. The end.

  190. Professor PhD says:

    Actually, there’s a rubric for that–the fivethirtyeight blog actually did the math. Hillary Clinton is THE most honest of all the candidates. Tell me, why, if BS (appropriate initials, btw) is so “honest” why has he only released a single year of tax returns? He’s not the second coming like all you minions think he is. Wake up, grow up, and stop acting like a bunch of entitled little schmucks.

  191. Buford2k11 says:

    Sounds like Trump supporters…I wouldn’t put it past the scumbag republicans to false flag the process to get Bernie in trouble…If they are really democrats, then they can kiss my ass, and leave my party, and go where they are accepted by the gop/bigots/hate group…

  192. thud says:

    No he did nothing of the kind. I’m saying somebody may have left those nastygrams to make him look bad. It’s an old trick.

  193. TheAngryFag says:

    I don’t support Trump either. You just subscribe to the fallacy that a lack of a vote is a vote for the other side. But no, it’s that Hillary hasn’t EARNED my vote. So if Trump wins it’s because he earned more votes than she did.

    We can try to blame other candidates like Republicans did for Ross Perot and Democrats did for Ralph Nader. But the actual truth is that George H W Bush and Al Gore lost because they didn’t earn the votes that would have put them over the top. Perot and Nader didn’t really siphon them off because there’s no proof that those respective voters would have picked Bush or Gore had Perot or Nader never run.

    This is the result in a Winner-Take-All or First-Past-the-Post voting system that we have. It creates this situation where people like me who can’t stand either candidate, and there are a lot of us this time around, will not vote rather than vote for the lesser of two evils. Because I for one am sick of having to hold my nose and vote for a despicable person simply because of the threat that “If you don’t someone worse will get elected”. I’m done with that BS. And this is exactly what a FPtP voting system is designed to do – reduce us to a two-party system where both parties just need to present the least detestable candidate because that’s all they need to do. Trump and Clinton exemplify this perfectly. They’re two sides of the same coin. Both are opportunists who will say anything to get elected and whose opinion will change whichever way the wind blows.

  194. Bill_Perdue says:

    Trump and the Republicans have basically the same program as Clinton and the Democrats. Both support wars of aggression, border racism, attacks on the Bill of Rights, union busting and a pigheaded refusal to pass ENDA or other robust anti-discrimination legislation.

  195. Nelson Kerr says:

    Donald Trump thanks you for your support

  196. Nelson Kerr says:

    Bernie tacitly endorsed a false flag? why would he do that?

  197. Nelson Kerr says:

    Time for law enforcement to track down the scum that made the threats ( most of the messages seem to be on media that is traceable<and then prosecute them to the full extent of the law,

  198. TheAngryFag says:

    And millions won’t because she’s a liar and an opportunist who will say anything to get elected. She’s Trump with boobs.

  199. Arturo Sierra says:

    There are many b.s. supporters that have switched to Hillary…It’s just that people like you are too stupid and ignorant to accept facts…I guess all b.s. supporters really are just scum trash!!

  200. Arturo Sierra says:

    Good! I’m sure you think you are hurting Hillary but the truth is you’re too IGNORANT to know that you are hurting our country!! So, good riddance to you troll witch!!

  201. Arturo Sierra says:

    ENOUGH!! We True Blue Democrats do not act this way and will NOT accept these THUGS into our party! It is time that we fight back…TO HELL with b.s. and his brain dead idiots!! I for one am anxious to confront any of these trailer park trash babies…I stand firm that we kick them out of our convention and arrest any or all that try to riot because their old fart is not the nominee! I’m sick of the tantrums, cult like, and obnoxious behavior of these human waste!! Time for them to STFU and work for the real change that a Hillary administration will bring or F#@% OFF!…Viva Hillary and to HELL with b.s.!!!

  202. Treasured Lights says:

    They can’t help but be nasty just like their leader Bernie

  203. Treasured Lights says:

    Who gives a rats ass. Millions will Vote for her. She’ll be the next President of the USA.

  204. Treasured Lights says:

    They are violent radicals.

  205. Comments are funny. People crying “false flag” and “distraction” and “Bernie Bullying” and all that. Problem is the Bernie issued the statement himself via press release on his website. Nothing funny about death threats.

  206. thud says:

    This sort of tactic is common enough. Those who refuse to consider it make it all the more appealing to manipulators.

  207. thud says:

    It’s called false flag and it’s a common tactic throughout the world. This case would be particularly easy to exploit. Be sceptical.

  208. Anna says:

    It’s ego.

  209. Anna says:

    Sanders supporters were acting like animals, they were throwing chairs yelling and swearing. It was all on the news.

  210. BeccaM says:

    Ask Nader supporters how well that strategy — running as a 3rd party candidate — worked out.

  211. Aecetia Reya says:

    It’s not ego – it’s frustration.

  212. Aecetia Reya says:

    Bernie Sanders should drop out of the Democratic race and run as an Independent. It’s pretty obvious that his, and his supporter ‘s beliefs, are not valued by the Democratic Party and/or the Hillary Clinton supporters – just read the forums. DPC and supporters are too happy with the status quo. Either Sanders and co. has to start behaving and fall in line with the Clinton Dynasty or take their shot on their own. I, personally, don’t understand why anyone who supports Sanders would want to support Clinton after constantly being ostracized, insulted and dismissed. I know Clinton supporters are feeling attacked too, but Clinton’s side is now depending on Bernie supporters to come on board with her campaign against Trump and it doesn’t seem like they’re trying very hard to win them over. Trump is doing a better job at schmoozing the Bernie-bros because he knows their value and – in case you didn’t notice – he’s winning a lot of them over.

  213. Elizabethjwooley2 says:

    “my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”…..!tn262rtwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here !tn262r:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsTrainGetPay-Hour$98…. .✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸::::::!tn262r….,….

  214. Jane Snape says:

    Love all the Bernie Bullies showing up in this comments section. You’re proving John’s point, dumbasses.

    And Jon Ralston’s point.

    And Lucy Flores’ point.

    And Charlie Pierce’s point.

  215. Allison Moss-Fritch says:

    Civil discourse, Linda and directed at issues, not personalities, please.

  216. Sylvia Smith says:

    I could support your argument if the Democrats and Republicans didn’t have such a tight control over the electoral process and if the independents didn’t represent such a large portion of the voters. To have two small groups select the two candidates is incredibly undemocratic especially in light of the fact that the majority of people wiling to vote for Clinton are doing so to vote against Trump and the majority of people willing to vote for Trump are doing so to vote against Clinton. (Reuters did a poll.) This system is incredibly broken.

  217. Sylvia Smith says:

    Seriously? A riot? There was no riot. This is a ridiculous rant. Shame on you! Painting Sanders supporters as violent radicals, I assure you, will backfire.

  218. My 2 cents says:

    No, you have to change registration by May 23. I know a number of rs who will vote for Kasich, as he is still on the ballot. Rs do not allow non-Rs to vote their ballot.If they changed by May 23, they would then have to vote only the Dem and non-partisan races, so wouldn’t have any input downticket.

  219. My 2 cents says:

    That’s already been happening. The deadline is the 23rd if they made a mistake like this, but I know we’ll still hear from plenty who didn’t bother to check :-(

  220. quax says:

    Yes, it’s just all one big conspiracy.

    Good grief.

  221. TheAngryFag says:

    All these Bernie hit pieces just reinforces my stance that I will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton.

  222. BeccaM says:

    I’m totally missing your ‘case in point’ then. You use the word ‘restriction’ clearly meaning it to connote something negative. I use a rather more descriptive explanation to define when it makes sense to let people participate in one particular primary, caucus, or election and when they should not.

    Put bluntly, preventing Republicans from pulling what they did in Indiana, where some 40%+ of Sanders primary voters said they were actually Trump supporters, is in the interests of both the voters and the political party. That’s not a restriction but a sensible limitation on who can participate in which ballots.

    Or are you trying to say that yes, you should be allowed to vote on your neighboring state’s government, else your rights have been “restricted”? Because that makes no sense at all.

    Let’s just say maybe you agree that a registered Republican shouldn’t be allowed to fuck with the Dems’ primaries, but that an independent can vote in any primary. Well, what you just did was give MORE options and electoral power to those who don’t join any party versus those who make that small but important commitment. How is that fair at all?

  223. mrspeel2 says:

    As if one isn’t enough, it sounds like Sanders is turning into another Trump. His ego is getting the better of him.

  224. Blogvader says:


    Case in point.

  225. BeccaM says:

    I support closed primaries, universally. Because people who don’t belong to a party, which is free to do and requires simply checking a box on a form in advance of the election in question, have no business telling that political party whom to nominate.

    That’s not a voter restriction, Blogvader. We don’t let non-citizens vote in American elections, we shouldn’t be letting Republicans vote in Democratic primaries. Which, by the way, are not actually elections at all but pledged delegate selections.

  226. BeccaM says:

    Nobody likes to hear that their heroes actually are human and do have clay feet.

    I’m on the other side of that process, went through the denial, anger, bargaining and depression and finally came around to acceptance. Only I knew as far back as the week after the first Super Tuesday that Sanders was probably not going to be the nominee. (Probably, not certainly.)

    However, at no point did I fool myself by thinking Bernie Sanders was some kind of political god who merely by running and being elected President would somehow change the entire country. I would’ve thought people’d remember how many believed Obama would do that and while he’s been a pretty good President, he nevertheless was obstructed first by conservative Democrats and then by the GOP majority on Congress…and he was also never nearly as progressive as he campaigned.

    The way I saw it, too, the principled stand not to accept large donations when faced with a Republican party which has taken no such vow would be like trying to go against a prize fighter with one hand tied behind your back. This is going to be a nasty and very expensive election and $27 donations aren’t going to beat the guy who’ll gladly make fake promises for $1m a pop.

    Whichever of them won the Dem nomination — Sanders or Clinton — was going to get my unconditional support. For Sanders, it would’ve been just to continue what I’d started last summer when he announced; for Clinton, I knew there would have to come a day when I finally threw in with her.

    Only thing I wonder is why the people who still support Sanders think they’ll win anybody more to their side by using epithets, dishonest rhetoric, or even threats. I mean, take Ms. McDonald up there. Does she even imagine I’d be more likely to change my mind and come back to Bernie when she insults me and calls me a liar? It’s like they’re so blinded by their denial and anger, the idea of using persuasion is just gone. And that’s sad.

  227. Bill_Perdue says:

    There are several things to note as this unfolds.

    Supporters of HRH HRC are becoming more bitter and sectarian by the hour. And moving further to the right by the minute. Actually, they’re galloping to the right.

    Supporters of BS are moving to the left and BS is accommodating them, to an extent. He’s already coem out against wars of aggression and in future it will be more difficult for him to vote for war budgets without being seen as a total hypocrite. He’s also made a big change in his position on immigrant workers, and although he has a long way to go before he can be said to have a socialist position, he is moving away from the racist program of Obama, the Clintons and Trump.

    What is most important is that the people attracted to BS are already to the left of him and far to the left of the racists, union busters and warmongers who own and run the DP and their brothers and sisters in the RP. Even those who are nominally Democrats will leave that party and move left as independents just as the Trump supporters will leave the RP, and for the same reason. Both of those parties are irredeemably bankrupt.

    For Democrats and Republicans, the times are about to get a whole lot more interesting.

  228. Phil in FLL says:

    Open primaries are fine in theory. A good example of a problem you would have to avoid would be the upcoming California primary, where you can vote if you are Democratic or “No Party Preference.” There would be a problem if you could change your registration from Republican to “No Party Preference” right up until the day of the primary. I’m not sure, but I think that might be the case. Could you find out? I know that rightwing radio talk show hosts are encouraging Republicans to vote for Bernie in the California primary since the Republican primaries are effectively over.

  229. Moderator4 says:

    Good-bye, Linda. You are out of here.

  230. timncguy says:

    but, you didn’t answer my question about whether you think you should be restricted to 1 primary or get to vote in all. If you are registered with a party, should you be able to vote in the other party primary in addition to your own or instead of your own? If there are more than 2 parties in your state, should you be able to vote in all the primaries?

  231. Blogvader says:

    Thank you for reading my comment and responding as best you could.

  232. timncguy says:

    well, your taxes are used for ALL the primaries. Do you think you should be able to vote in ALL of them or should you just have to pick one?

    The primaries are paid for by taxes because they are used for MORE than just the presidential nominee and more than just the 2 parties. They are used for state and local races as well and all parties and in some places for non-partisan races as well.

  233. Blogvader says:

    i don’t understand why people who don’t want to be a member of the party think they have a RIGHT to help select the nominee.

    Because I don’t receive a waiver for the taxes that are used to fund the primaries.

    I don’t understand why people think it’s perfectly acceptable to restrict my vote to select a nominee, then argue that it’s a moral imperative that I vote for a nominee that I was restricted from voting to select.

    It’s hypocritical.

  234. timncguy says:

    i don’t understand why people who don’t want to be a member of the party think they have a RIGHT to help select the nominee.

    Would you allow people who don’t live in your neighborhood to vote in your Homeowners’ Association meetings?

  235. Blogvader says:

    A victory can be claimed in a closed primary because in fact it is a contest within the party to select the party’s nominee.

    You’re welcome to your opinion, but as for me, It’s statements like that that really, really turn me away from the Democratic Party.

  236. timncguy says:

    it depends on what your opinion is of allowing people who are not members of the party to select the party nominee. It’s completely different that trying to keep people from voting in a general election.

    I can see the benefit of allowing indys in just to try to build the party. But, I also worry about outsiders coming in to try screw with the process.

    A victory can be claimed in a closed primary because in fact it is a contest within the party to select the party’s nominee.

  237. Blogvader says:

    Thank you for your opinion. I agree.

    I don’t think it makes any sense to endorse closed primaries and claim a fair victory was magically won, and it’s a little more grating to see this kind of sentiment coming from so many “Democrats” who would readily criticize conservatives in the same breath for restricting votes.

  238. timncguy says:

    depends on what is put in place to stop repugs from trying to make trouble. Maybe open to dem and Indy as long as there is enough time delay to not allow repugs to change their registration to cause trouble.

    And, all caucuses should be changed to primaries.

  239. Blogvader says:

    So you agree that Democratic primaries should be completely open?

  240. timncguy says:

    sure. she has shown her ignorance further with a comment up top calling the article total BS. The article is only reporting the facts that can’t be argued with.

  241. timncguy says:

    I’m not endorsing open or closed. Just correcting your facts. Clinton has won 10 open and 10 closed contests. She won 4 semi-open contests. Bernie won 7 open and 7 closed and 6 semi-open. They are both running about the same ratio of open and closed wins.

    The actual difference between the two is based on the racial diversity of the state. Sanders does better in the whiter states. Clinton does better in states with higher non-white populations.

  242. BeccaM says:

    Thanks Tim.

  243. Blogvader says:

    Case in point.

    Hillary supporters love to claim electoral superiority AND also endorse closed primaries. (ie, voter restrictions.)

    Why is the Democratic Party so un-democratic?

  244. timncguy says:

    your argument carries no weight. Clinton has won more open contests than Sanders has. And, a lot of Sanders wins were closed.

  245. Blogvader says:

    The same people making that statement, Becca, also strongly support closed primaries. (Just look at JA, who is fond of claiming electoral superiority, but thinks it’s perfectly acceptable to restrict voting.)

    Seems a bit ironic to me.

  246. Linda McDonald says:

    This article is the complete and utter bs.

  247. Blogvader says:

    It’s probably time to drop the ‘Democratic’ name when the neoconservatives run a more purely democratic primary than your party does.

  248. timncguy says:

    if you had been around here on a regular basis you would know better than to talk to BeccaM like that. She’s an honest person.

  249. BeccaM says:

    I don’t give a flying fuck about you or your doubts. Truly, I don’t.

    And the name calling? Incredibly juvenile. I sure hope you’re not teaching your kids to talk to people that way.

  250. Linda McDonald says:

    Doubt you were ever a supporter of Sanders. Liar like Shillary.

  251. timncguy says:

    50 of those 58 never showed up at the convention. You can’t vet or seat someone who isn’t there.
    The voice vote has been explained. There were 300 more Clinton people in the room than Sanders people. The numbers were known based on the registrations. Just because the side with fewer people yells louder doesn’t mean you win the voice vote.
    I provided 3 links at the top of this page. you should read them

  252. pliny says:

    That’s a logical possible explanation for some, but “some” is not 58. It also doesn’t address the voice vote shenanigans caught on video.

  253. BeccaM says:

    Because you can’t chant and shout down everyone else if there are decorum and behavior rules?

  254. kahuna754 says:

    Bernie’s never wrong. He’s a mean one – Bernie Grinch.

  255. timncguy says:

    I’m guessing that if Clinton were to get a surprise win in OR, the Sander camp would call it mail fraud

  256. BeccaM says:

    I believe most often ‘rigged’ is most usually a person’s synonym for ‘my candidate wasn’t popular enough to win despite my extreme enthusiasm for him or her.’

  257. BeccaM says:

    I read the same thing. Or to independent. Apparently oblivious to the fact that doing so made them ineligible to continue participating in the the Democratic party’s state caucus in the secondary and tertiary stages.

    One thing I’ve noticed among a lot of the “it’s rigged and unfair” folks: So many of them appear to be ignorant and unaware as to the actual voting rules of their own state and party. I guarantee in a few weeks there’ll be California ‘American Independent Party’ members in the thousands complaining they were disenfranchised because they didn’t know they’re not non-affiliated and long since missed the deadline to change their registrations.

  258. BeccaM says:

    Blaming the victim, are we? So it’s your contention someone is deserving of death threats and threats on their kids’ lives if they ‘bring it on themselves’ by doing their job in a way others don’t agree with? To have their phone flooded with threats and sexist vulgarity and worse?

    Lange did not incite the mob attacking her.

  259. timncguy says:

    One of the rules changes that the Sanders supporters tried to get was to remove the rules of decorum from the convention. Gee, I wonder why?

  260. timncguy says:

    except for the fact that some of the Sanders delegates admitted that they had changed their registration to the Green party out of frustration with how the national contest was going.

  261. BeccaM says:

    In a way, I’m glad I stopped supporting Senator Sanders at the end of last month, because this is the sort of thing on the behalf of his supporters which would appall me to be counted among them or be associated with them in any way.

    I’m also very disappointed that Sanders couldn’t just condemn the death threats and the violence and call for them to stop — he had to bring up two separate incidents which may or may not have been politically motivated at all. As if invoking a version of “they did it first” — only without actual evidence the Clinton campaign was involved in the shots or the burglary (which, for anyone familiar with Nevada and Vegas in particular knows, is a damned common occurrence there).

    “I condemn the violence and the threats. Anybody who thinks they’re doing it in my name, stop it. It’s unacceptable, it’s criminal, and it is diametrically opposite to everything I and my campaign stand for. If this is what it means to have your support, then I do not want your support.” <– That's how it should be done. Not a laundry list of esoteric complaints that despite the proportional outcome matching the proportional results of the initial caucuses last February, Sanders is supposed to be granted MORE delegates than the percentage he actually won that day.

  262. timncguy says:

    Some of those 64 changed their registration on their own from Dem to Green because they were mad at how the primary was going nationally.

  263. timncguy says:

    6 of those 64 were seated because they were finally able to be vetted as registered dems. * were not able to be vetted and were not seated. 50 of the 64 did not even physically show up at the convention.

    And, there were Clinton delegates that were not able to be vetted and seated as well.

    The credentials committee that was responsible for vetting the attendees was made up of 50% Clinton and 50% Sanders supporters.

  264. BeccaM says:

    Voter registration rolls are run by the state government, most often under the purview of that state’s Secretary of State.

    Who in Nevada is a Republican, Barbara Cegavske. How exactly was the Democratic leadership in Nevada supposed to have changed those voter registrations when they would have no means, access or authority to do so?

  265. BeccaM says:

    Sure I care, but I’m no bully. The question is who took responsibility for the burglary and the shots fired? Were there pro-Clinton messages on the walls? Or could it have been Trump supporters, of which there are a LOT in Nevada? Or was it just a random crime?

    Meanwhile, in the recordings and tweets and messages above, Sanders supporters are gladly taking credit for their death threats. They are literally doing it IN HIS NAME.

    If you can’t see the difference, there’s no hope for you. Also your definition of bullies is really, really over-general since it seems to include everyone who doesn’t support your candidate.

  266. timncguy says:

    Here are reports of what really happened at the NV convention

    And, now the flipping of super delegates has begun. But, it’s one of Sanders that is flipping to Clinton because of this NV crap

  267. pliny says:

    That Heavy link is a good place to start. I don’t have evidence for specific elections offices being responsible, I just think it’s more likely to be due to local screwups than some HIllary-allied organized attempt to disenfranchise people.

  268. Rian BuckWilder Rich says:

    Probably a government plant phone call to set up the finger pointing.

  269. TheNeedle says:

    None of the Hill-Bullies care that shots were fired into Sander’s campaign office? No one cares that the apartment housing Sanders’ campaign staff was ransacked?

    And of course, you don’t remark on the the fact that Sanders’ statement condemns all forms of violence.

    Of course not. Everything the Hill-bullies do is justified in your mind. She is the Queen, her supporters can do no wrong, and no dissent may be tolerated. It must be quashed.

  270. Jenny Ogeltree says:

    I’m am a Sanders supporter, but I am not for threats of violence whether in person, by phone or over social media. This plays right into the hands of the corrupt DNC and Brock, et al., and it’s a tried and true tactic to light your opponent’s fuse, watch them explode and then report the event as if you had nothing to do with starting it. Don’t fall for it … we’ll take democracy back, but it’s much harder when we let emotion override our logic. That being said, Roberta Lange did this to herself by being a DNC sycophant and hijacking the convention. The danger when lighting your opponent’s fuse is that you might get burned … or Berned, as the case may be.

  271. ksumom22 says:

    This is what happens when you win an election by cheating, lying, and stealing votes. 64…remember that number. There were 64 members whose registration was changed from Dem to Repub within the past month. These people have been through two processes already. Now why, all of a sudden, are they republicans? Why were the rules of the convention changed, in a secret meeting, 30 minutes prior to the start of the convention? Why were Roberts Rule of Order not followed? Are the items that were “approved” actually valid because the Rules were not followed? Just way too many inconsistencies. So HC-like.

    BTW: I’ve read the “death threats.” I believe what they’re talking about is the death of the DNC. If this type of garbage continues and the DNC chair (The big H Supporter Herself, Debbie) does nothing to stop it, there will be a mass exodus of the party shortly after the Philly convention. Also, if the Party feels that the Bernie supporters protesting against a crooked system and that they’re been treated poorly, just wait until Mr. Trump gets his teeth in you…that man will rip the Party to pieces.

  272. Phil in FLL says:

    We all know there have been instances of party affiliation records magically switching on people this year…

    Instances at the local offices. Can you point readers to some links or cite some examples of this? I’m not trying to be hostile. I just want information. Thanks.

  273. Phil in FLL says:

    Some have said that the caucuses, which are not democratic in the way that primaries are, should be replaced by a system of only primaries. The caucuses give an extra boost to lesser known challengers, such as Sanders (this year) and Obama (in 2008). I think that mixture of caucuses and primaries work fine as is. Of course, the primaries favored Sanders and Obama because caucuses are attended by activists—passionate supporters who do not necessarily reflect the actual mathematical support of each candidate. That’s fine. However, it doesn’t mean that a candidate can—or should—get the nomination through the actions of activists at caucuses alone. That’s why there’s a mix of caucuses and primaries. An outsider candidate who is lesser known has to have a campaign that catches fire after initial victories in caucuses and go on to win among a broad spectrum of primary voters. That’s what happened with Obama’s campaign in 2008, and that’s why he won the nomination.

    It’s dishonest, not to mention paranoid, to claim that the system is “rigged.” The system and the rules haven’t changed since 2008, the system worked as it should in 2008, and the system has worked as it should this year. I expect Senator Sanders to keep his pledge to work for the Democratic Party ticket this fall. I believe that he will.

  274. pliny says:

    If anyone else had pulled the same sort of false equivalences you made above about the Nevada delegates (“Several” of Hillary’s delegates vs 58 of Sanders’), You’d call them out for being deceptive and twisting the facts to suit their own narrative. We all know there have been instances of party affiliation records magically switching on people this year (Note: I’m not alleging a vast conspiracy here so much as a total shit-show in underfunded local elections offices).

    What happened in Nevada was not a riot. You make it sound as though the Bernie supporters started tearing the place apart the moment things didn’t go their way. They instead spent 16 hours trying to address their grievances through channels, and then organized a protest the next day. Real violent and unpredictable there. I suppose that doesn’t feed into the image you want to project, though.

    Instead you hold up the small number of asshats who chose to harass Roberta Lange and how are likely going to face some well-desevered criminal charges.

  275. Amwatching2c says:

    Bern For Trump

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS