The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[The Vortex Empire]

Yeah, that's what makes the speculation so puzzling. He may as well try to be Trump's veep.

As terrible a moral idea as that would be, it would be an absolutely hilarious campaign.

[RogueIce]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-c-rutle ... 63216.html

[SNIP ARTICLE]

A slightly old article, and I'm not sure how much credence to give it. But certainly disturbing nonetheless.

And since I supported Sanders and I know that some asshole will probably jump on this, I'll say up front that I am not suggesting that Clinton's win in California or her being the presumptive nominee is illegitimate. Shit like this would have to have happened on a very large scale for either of those things be the case, and there is no proof of it happening on that scale. Nor am I suggesting that Clinton was in any way involved in this.

However, issues like this should not be ignored, because they undermine the integrity of the democratic process and the public's trust in that process, and because we're supposed to have a right to have our fucking votes counted fairly, weather or not it changes the outcome.

It's much ado about nothing, and the only reason people bring up voter suppression is the weird quasi-official status of these primaries.

I admit I'm no legal expert, but AFAICT they aren't binding on the parties themselves. The delegates are bound to vote a certain way (for the first vote, at least); but the DNC and RNC don't have to accept it. If they want to run Al Gore and Jeb Bush come November, they can. There's no law that can stop them.

Now obviously for a lot of reasons they won't actually do that, but from what I can tell they could. If anyone has some explicit evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it, but I was unable to find any.

Frankly I wouldn't even care about the public spectacle if it weren't for them tacking along with official voter mechanisms to do so. They should be made to foot the bill, and logistics, on their own; likely from the national parties supporting each state party. But they don't and there's this whole meme that it's a "legit election" so people get all up in arms and none of it is helped that the state parties set their own rules and ways of doing things.

And to be blunt: it ain't democracy and should not be treated as such. If you can't be bothered to register as a D or R by whatever deadline they set, they should have every right and reason to tell you to fuck right off when you show up to the polls. This is a giant public spectacle of internal political party decision-making and so they have no reason, obligation or expectation to allow anybody who can't properly be a "member" (which is pretty fucking loose as-is) of that party to have any say in the matter.

So people whining about caucuses or closed primaries or registration deadlines or whatever as "undemocratic" are being silly, and complaining about "voter suppression" for internal party matters is dumb.

PS: Now obviously, if they tack on non-primary stuff to a ballot those should certainly be counted, but I've not heard of anything saying even provisional ballots won't do that; it's just about the candidates, and any other issues, if present, are separate.

[Flagg]

Sanders has decided not to call it quits.

Good job of helping Trump, asshole.

Are you neglecting the fact Senator sanders had a 1-1 meeting with President Obama then came back out to annouce he's still for sure running until the Convention is held?

Rather... interesting result from that meeting wouldn't you say?

After Obama endorsed Clinton 100%? No. I've known Sanders is a delusional cunt for awhile now.

[Thanas]

I think Obama asked him to quit, he declined. Now Obama is going to support Clinton in the primaries.

[Flagg]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-c-rutle ... 63216.html

[SNIP ARTICLE]

A slightly old article, and I'm not sure how much credence to give it. But certainly disturbing nonetheless.

And since I supported Sanders and I know that some asshole will probably jump on this, I'll say up front that I am not suggesting that Clinton's win in California or her being the presumptive nominee is illegitimate. Shit like this would have to have happened on a very large scale for either of those things be the case, and there is no proof of it happening on that scale. Nor am I suggesting that Clinton was in any way involved in this.

However, issues like this should not be ignored, because they undermine the integrity of the democratic process and the public's trust in that process, and because we're supposed to have a right to have our fucking votes counted fairly, weather or not it changes the outcome.

It's much ado about nothing, and the only reason people bring up voter suppression is the weird quasi-official status of these primaries.

I admit I'm no legal expert, but AFAICT they aren't binding on the parties themselves. The delegates are bound to vote a certain way (for the first vote, at least); but the DNC and RNC don't have to accept it. If they want to run Al Gore and Jeb Bush come November, they can. There's no law that can stop them.

Now obviously for a lot of reasons they won't actually do that, but from what I can tell they could. If anyone has some explicit evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it, but I was unable to find any.

Frankly I wouldn't even care about the public spectacle if it weren't for them tacking along with official voter mechanisms to do so. They should be made to foot the bill, and logistics, on their own; likely from the national parties supporting each state party. But they don't and there's this whole meme that it's a "legit election" so people get all up in arms and none of it is helped that the state parties set their own rules and ways of doing things.

And to be blunt: it ain't democracy and should not be treated as such. If you can't be bothered to register as a D or R by whatever deadline they set, they should have every right and reason to tell you to fuck right off when you show up to the polls. This is a giant public spectacle of internal political party decision-making and so they have no reason, obligation or expectation to allow anybody who can't properly be a "member" (which is pretty fucking loose as-is) of that party to have any say in the matter.

So people whining about caucuses or closed primaries or registration deadlines or whatever as "undemocratic" are being silly, and complaining about "voter suppression" for internal party matters is dumb.

PS: Now obviously, if they tack on non-primary stuff to a ballot those should certainly be counted, but I've not heard of anything saying even provisional ballots won't do that; it's just about the candidates, and any other issues, if present, are separate.

Is it just me or does every "I'm not saying that..." Read as "I'm totally saying that..."?

[The Romulan Republic]

He also came out and said he would cooperate with Clinton to defeat Trump.

I think Sanders is coming around to the fact that he isn't going to be the nominee (barring some truly ridiculous and likely catastrophic scenario, anyway), and he wants to help the Democrats stop Trump, but he also wants to keep pushing for the things he believes in. I think we're going to see his campaign shift focus to convention influence/the platform, backing down ballot progressives, and so on. Or at least I hope so.

Although personally, I would be happier if he conceded after the DC primary. I'll give him that long, at least, so we can let DC have its vote (which will almost certainly go to Clinton in a landslide), even a little longer because campaigns can take a little time to wind down.

But I do not want this shit going on to the convention floor, personally.

Apparently he also said at his meeting with Obama that he would use the DC primary to push for DC statehood, which is a cause I wholeheartedly support.

[Flagg]

I support DC statehood, but if you believe he's staying in for any reason other than his own ego, if you jam pop-rocks up your ass and sit on a shaken up 2-liter bottle of soda it will shoot you to the moon.

[Gaidin]

Sanders has decided not to call it quits.

Good job of helping Trump, asshole.

Are you neglecting the fact Senator sanders had a 1-1 meeting with President Obama then came back out to annouce he's still for sure running until the Convention is held?

Rather... interesting result from that meeting wouldn't you say?

After Obama endorsed Clinton 100%? No. I've known Sanders is a delusional cunt for awhile now.

They were always going to give Bernie a week or so's room after she won no matter when Obama endorsed Hillary.

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-c-rutle ... 63216.html

[SNIP ARTICLE]

A slightly old article, and I'm not sure how much credence to give it. But certainly disturbing nonetheless.

And since I supported Sanders and I know that some asshole will probably jump on this, I'll say up front that I am not suggesting that Clinton's win in California or her being the presumptive nominee is illegitimate. Shit like this would have to have happened on a very large scale for either of those things be the case, and there is no proof of it happening on that scale. Nor am I suggesting that Clinton was in any way involved in this.

However, issues like this should not be ignored, because they undermine the integrity of the democratic process and the public's trust in that process, and because we're supposed to have a right to have our fucking votes counted fairly, weather or not it changes the outcome.

It's much ado about nothing, and the only reason people bring up voter suppression is the weird quasi-official status of these primaries.

I admit I'm no legal expert, but AFAICT they aren't binding on the parties themselves. The delegates are bound to vote a certain way (for the first vote, at least); but the DNC and RNC don't have to accept it. If they want to run Al Gore and Jeb Bush come November, they can. There's no law that can stop them.

Now obviously for a lot of reasons they won't actually do that, but from what I can tell they could. If anyone has some explicit evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it, but I was unable to find any.

Frankly I wouldn't even care about the public spectacle if it weren't for them tacking along with official voter mechanisms to do so. They should be made to foot the bill, and logistics, on their own; likely from the national parties supporting each state party. But they don't and there's this whole meme that it's a "legit election" so people get all up in arms and none of it is helped that the state parties set their own rules and ways of doing things.

And to be blunt: it ain't democracy and should not be treated as such. If you can't be bothered to register as a D or R by whatever deadline they set, they should have every right and reason to tell you to fuck right off when you show up to the polls. This is a giant public spectacle of internal political party decision-making and so they have no reason, obligation or expectation to allow anybody who can't properly be a "member" (which is pretty fucking loose as-is) of that party to have any say in the matter.

So people whining about caucuses or closed primaries or registration deadlines or whatever as "undemocratic" are being silly, and complaining about "voter suppression" for internal party matters is dumb.

PS: Now obviously, if they tack on non-primary stuff to a ballot those should certainly be counted, but I've not heard of anything saying even provisional ballots won't do that; it's just about the candidates, and any other issues, if present, are separate.

Is it just me or does every "I'm not saying that..." Read as "I'm totally saying that..."?

I'm going to presume that's directed at me, given the context. In which case, you should direct it at me.

My answer is that if you're going to literally say that I mean the opposite of what I'm actually saying (precisely because I expected some partisan asshole would try those straw men against me), then there is no reasoning with you. You have made it clear that you will just substitute whatever position you've decided to accuse me of promoting to fit the straw man that you've created.

You are a troll with a petty personal grudge, and I'm going to ignore you now, because its all you deserve.

And yeah, its good to know that some of us are apologists for blatant voter fraud (at least in these circumstances- I bet if this happened in Sanders' favour you'd be up in arms about it).

Yes, the parties can legally set their own internal procedures, but anyone who thinks it is ethical to change the rules mid-game is, frankly, an asshole. Don't pretend you're giving voters a say if you don't intend to follow through.

Edit: I mean, for fuck's sake, peoples' votes being fairly counted and having an equitable election process should not be partisan issues. They should not be matters for debate. Are we really at the point where this shit is considered okay as long as we get the result we want? Are we Republicans now?

[Flagg]

You are a whiny douche, I directed it at him with full knowledge you would take it as a whiny douche. Thank you for proving me right. Lemme call 9-fun-fun for the waaaaaaambulance. Because you don't care about people's votes being counted, you care about the walking corpse, the embarrassment that is the Sanders campaign gorging on more media attention.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if the stakes were reversed, you'd be yelling, screaming, crying, and belching forth bile about how eeeeeevil Hitlary is for not conceding already.

To show I am a prophet, his next post will feature: Spoiler

LIE

[Flagg]

Are you neglecting the fact Senator sanders had a 1-1 meeting with President Obama then came back out to annouce he's still for sure running until the Convention is held?

Rather... interesting result from that meeting wouldn't you say?

After Obama endorsed Clinton 100%? No. I've known Sanders is a delusional cunt for awhile now.

They were always going to give Bernie a week or so's room after she won no matter when Obama endorsed Hillary.

I don't buy that simply because I think Obama would have waited on the endorsement until after DC (delusional clown, desperate crone, dried condom) voted had Sanders guaranteed not to take it to the convention.

[Gaidin]

After Obama endorsed Clinton 100%? No. I've known Sanders is a delusional cunt for awhile now.

They were always going to give Bernie a week or so's room after she won no matter when Obama endorsed Hillary.

I don't buy that simply because I think Obama would have waited on the endorsement until after DC (delusional clown, desperate crone, dried condom) voted had Sanders guaranteed not to take it to the convention.

There's a difference between "I support X" and "Sit down and shut up".

[Flagg]

They were always going to give Bernie a week or so's room after she won no matter when Obama endorsed Hillary.

I don't buy that simply because I think Obama would have waited on the endorsement until after DC (delusional clown, desperate crone, dried condom) voted had Sanders guaranteed not to take it to the convention.

There's a difference between "I support X" and "Sit down and shut up".

Yeah, but an endorsement is all he really had. Obama is not the "sit down and shut up" guy. He could have easily held the endorsement until the DC primary where Bernie will get shellacked to Capital Hill and back. I think endorsing Clinton right after meeting the guy is his way of condemning him.

[The Romulan Republic]

You are a whiny douche, I directed it at him with full knowledge you would take it as a whiny douche. Thank you for proving me right. Lemme call 9-fun-fun for the waaaaaaambulance. Because you don't care about people's votes being counted, you care about the walking corpse, the embarrassment that is the Sanders campaign gorging on more media attention.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if the stakes were reversed, you'd be yelling, screaming, crying, and belching forth bile about how eeeeeevil Hitlary is for not conceding already.

To show I am a prophet, his next post will feature: Spoiler

LIE

Literally all you have to post, increasingly, is petty insults, personal attacks, and, yes, lies. Because you have some sick, obsessive little grudge against me, and against Bernie Sanders because he ran as a Democrat and you think he's not a real Democrat, and you are apparently utterly incapable of letting it go. I'm going to do my best to ignore you, because I do not wish to feed the troll and its not as if you're posting anything of actual substance, but I do want to make one thing clear:

You do not have the right to put words in anyone else's mouth. You do not have the right to tell people what they think or to call them a liar and then present zero evidence. Either take me at my word, or if you feel that I am being disingenuous, provide some actual evidence. Show where I have contradicted myself. Because right now, all I see is a sad little man child with an obsessive grudge against a stranger on the internet who feels that that justifies anything he says.

And for the record, no, I would not tell Clinton to concede if the positions were reversed. As hard as this may be for you to understand, some of us actually have principles that we adhere to independent of weather they benefit Bernie Sanders. Some of us don't judge the rightness of an act on which candidate it benefits or harms. The Sanders campaign will have no glorious comeback in DC. But Sanders should keep his word and given the voters of DC a chance to have their say before he concedes, especially since God knows DC gets disenfranchised as it is.

But you have long made your contempt for democracy blatantly clear. Its no surprise that you see Sanders' commitment to continuing to campaign for what he believes in as attention-whoring egotism, because actually commitment to democratic principles is clearly beyond your comprehension.

[maraxus2]

But you have long made your contempt for democracy blatantly clear. Its no surprise that you see Sanders' commitment to continuing to campaign for what he believes in as attention-whoring egotism, because actually commitment to democratic principles is clearly beyond your comprehension.

That last part is quite debatable.

Yeah, but an endorsement is all he really had. Obama is not the "sit down and shut up" guy. He could have easily held the endorsement until the DC primary where Bernie will get shellacked to Capital Hill and back. I think endorsing Clinton right after meeting the guy is his way of condemning him.

I don't know that condemning is the right word. Not like Obama's made his preference for Clinton exactly a secret, what with the huge number of his campaign people working for Hillary. The last two months or so have been a long-running struggle to give Bernie an off-ramp for when he loses the nomination. I expect him to endorse Clinton without too much fuss in the next week or so, and I hope that he'll do the opposite of sit down and shut up. Namely, try to actively pull his voters into Clinton's camp and do something productive with that huge mailing list.

Now, that being said...
Link

Inside the bitter last days of Bernie's revolution
9 min read original
There’s no strategist pulling the strings, and no collection of burn-it-all-down aides egging him on. At the heart of the rage against Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, the campaign aides closest to him say, is Bernie Sanders.

It was the Vermont senator who personally rewrote his campaign manager’s shorter statement after the chaos at the Nevada state party convention and blamed the political establishment for inciting the violence.

Story Continued Below

He was the one who made the choice to go after Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz after his wife read him a transcript of her blasting him on television.

He chose the knife fight over calling Clinton unqualified, which aides blame for pulling the bottom out of any hopes they had of winning in New York and their last real chance of turning a losing primary run around.

And when Jimmy Kimmel’s producers asked Sanders’ campaign for a question to ask Donald Trump, Sanders himself wrote the one challenging the Republican nominee to a debate.

There are many divisions within the Sanders campaign—between the dead-enders and the work-it-out crowds, between the younger aides who think he got off message while the consultants got rich and obsessed with Beltway-style superdelegate math, and between the more experienced staffers who think the kids got way too high on their sense of the difference between a movement and an actual campaign.

But more than any of them, Sanders is himself filled with resentment, on edge, feeling like he gets no respect -- all while holding on in his head to the enticing but remote chance that Clinton may be indicted before the convention.

Campaign manager Jeff Weaver, who’s been enjoying himself in near constant TV appearances, and the candidate’s wife Jane Sanders, are fully on board. But convinced since his surprise Michigan win that he could actually win the nomination, Sanders has been on email and the phone, directing elements of the campaign right down to his city-by-city schedule in California. He wants it. He thinks it should be his.

“Bernie’s been at the helm of this campaign from the beginning,” said Weaver, “and the overall message of this campaign and the direction of the campaign and the strategy, has been driven by Bernie.”

Convinced as Sanders is that he’s realizing his lifelong dream of being the catalyst for remaking American politics—aides say he takes credit for a Harvard Kennedy School study in April showing young people getting more liberal, and he takes personal offense every time Clinton just dismisses the possibility of picking him as her running mate—his guiding principle under attack has basically boiled down to a feeling that multiple aides sum up as: “Screw me? No, screw you.”

Take the combative statement after the Nevada showdown.

“I don’t know who advised him that this was the right route to take, but we are now actively destroying what Bernie worked so hard to build over the last year just to pick up two fucking delegates in a state he lost,” rapid response director Mike Casca complained to Weaver in an internal campaign email obtained by POLITICO.

“Thank you for your views. I’ll relay them to the senator, as he is driving this train,” Weaver wrote back.

In the run-up to the California primary, the big strategic question was how much to modulate the tone of the letter to superdelegates that he's been preparing to send out Wednesday, building on the case that Sen. Jeff Merkley, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, former Sen. Paul Kirk and former Communication Workers of America president Larry Cohen have been making to fellow superdelegates over the phone for weeks about polls and other factors that would make Sanders the more competitive general election candidate.

This isn’t about what’s good for the Democratic Party in his mind, but about what he thinks is good for advancing the agenda that he’s been pushing since before he got elected mayor of Burlington.

Sanders owns nearly every major decision, right down to the bills. A conversation with former Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin about getting left in personal debt from his own 1992 presidential campaign has stayed at the top of Sanders’ mind.

He demanded that the campaign bank account never go under $10 million, even when that’s meant decisions Weaver and campaign architect Tad Devine have protested -- like making the call in the final days before Kentucky to go with digital director Kenneth Pennington’s plan to focus on data and field, instead of $300,000 to match Clinton on TV.

Sanders ultimately lost there by just 1,924 votes.

Sanders and aides laugh at the idea that he’s damaging the party and hurting Clinton. They think they don’t get enough gratitude for how much they held back, from not targeting more Democratic members of the House and Senate who opposed him to not making more of an issue out of Clinton’s email server investigation and Bill Clinton’s sex scandals, all of which they discussed as possible lines of attack in the fall. They blame Clinton going after him on gun control for goading him into letting loose on her Goldman Sachs speeches.

“If they hadn’t started at it by really going hard at him on guns, raising a series of issues against him, that really was what led to him being much, much more aggressive than he otherwise would have been,” said Devine, the consultant who helped engineer Sanders’ plans for a protest candidacy into a real campaign (and convinced him to run as a Democrat).

Since he finished approving the ads for California not long after the Kentucky strategy spat, Devine has been back home in Rhode Island, noticeably missing from cable news as a surrogate but still regularly in touch with Sanders. Devine, who’s been more anxious about what an endgame looks like, says he hasn’t heard anything from the senator that suggests he would alter his plans because of the Clinton campaign’s eagerness to have President Barack Obama endorse her and declare the primaries done.

“They would be very smart to understand that the best way to approach Bernie is not to try to push him around,” Devine said. “It’s much better if they try to cooperate with him and find common ground. They should be mindful of the fact that the people he’s brought into this process are new to it and they will be very suspicious of any effort to push him around.”

Aides say Sanders thinks that progressives who picked Clinton are cynical, power-chasing chickens — like Sen. Sherrod Brown, one of his most consistent allies in the Senate before endorsing Clinton and campaigning hard for her ahead of the Ohio primary. Sanders is so bitter about it that he’d be ready to nix Brown as an acceptable VP choice, if Clinton ever asked his advice on who’d be a good progressive champion.

* * *


Every time Sanders got into a knife fight, aides say, they ended up losing. But they could never stop Sanders when he got his back up.

Coming off walloping Clinton in the Wisconsin primary in April, the first internal numbers from campaign pollster Ben Tulchin showed Sanders within range in New York’s pivotal contest two weeks later. Though some senior aides say they realize now the dynamics of the state and the closed primary meant they never really had a shot, they also blame coverage of his New York Daily News interview and the blowup over calling Clinton “not qualified” for taking New York off the table.

Losing Pennsylvania the following week was another body blow, one of four losses in five states that night.

In the days following, before Sanders scored his win in Indiana that campaign aides feel no one acknowledged because it came the same night Trump locked up the Republican nomination, the calls started coming in from Democratic power brokers.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s call was part advice, part asking a favor, urging Sanders to use his now massive email list to help Democratic Senate candidates. Russ Feingold in Wisconsin was the most obvious prospect, and Reid wanted to make introductions to Iowa’s Patty Judge and North Carolina’s Deborah Ross—to help Democrats win the majority, but also to give Sanders allies in making himself the leader of the Senate progressives come next year.

Reid, according to people familiar with the conversation, ended the discussion thinking Sanders was on board. He backed Feingold. But that’s the last anyone heard.

Word got back to Reid’s team that Weaver had nixed the idea, ruling out backing anyone who hadn’t endorsed Sanders. Weaver says it’s because the Senate hopefuls had to get in line for Sanders’ support behind top backers like Gabbard and Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.)—though neither has a competitive race this year.

Sanders never followed up himself.

Just before they all figured they’d see each other at the White House Correspondents Dinner, a call from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta came in to Devine, who’s seen by most in the Clinton camp as the only senior aide to Sanders whom Clinton’s staff feels is actually open to a conversation, though Weaver and Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook have checked in with each other occasionally as well.

“I’m ready to talk,” Podesta said, though, “I don’t have a peace pipe or anything.”

Devine brought the idea to Sanders.

“Do you trust him?” Sanders said, people familiar with the conversation said.

“Yeah, I do,” Devine said.

“You think we should talk to him?” Sanders asked.

“I think we should try to win California, and then we’ll talk to him,” Devine said.

Reaching out to the Trump campaign was a different story. Devine knows campaign chairman Paul Manafort from, among other things, their collaboration on the campaign of ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. According to campaign aides, the morning after Trump was on Jimmy Kimmel Live, Weaver asked Devine to give Manafort a call to see if they could actually make the debate happen. They were already fielding offers from most of the networks—including a producer for Stephen Colbert, who wanted to host the debate on his own late night show.

Manafort laughed, said it was a joke, but then again, Trump was on his plane, and he had no idea what the candidate would do. The answer turned out to be a statement killing the speculation. Manafort left a voicemail for Devine saying he’d won over Trump. Devine never called him back.

* * *


Top Sanders aides admit that it’s been weeks, if not months, since they themselves realized he wasn’t going to win, and they’ve been operating with a Trump’s-got-no-real-shot safety net. They debate whether Sanders’ role in the fall should be a full vote-for-Clinton campaign, or whether he should just campaign hard against Trump without signing up to do much for her directly.

They haven’t been able to get Sanders focused on any of that, or on the real questions about what kind of long term organization to build out of his email list. They know they’ll have their own rally in Philadelphia – outside the the convention hall—but that’s about as far as they’ve gotten.

“He wants to be in the race until the end, until the roll call vote,” Weaver said.

Aides say they’re going to discourage people from booing Wasserman Schultz, who’s emerged as public enemy number one among Sanders supporters, when she takes the stage at the convention. But they think it’s going to happen anyway.

Meanwhile, they’re looking into trying to replace the Florida congresswoman as the convention chair with Gabbard, and forceWasserman Schultz to resign as DNC chair the day after the convention.

20150824_john_podesta_ap_1160.jpg
The meetings in Philadelphia have already started, with the platform drafting committee set to have its opening session on Wednesday. The Sanders team is headed by Mark Longabaugh—Devine’s business partner, but who’s veered closer to Weaver when it comes to eagerness to headbutt. There are negotiations with the Clinton campaign and the DNC over what they’re going to force them to agree to, from speaking slots at the convention to long-term control over party operations to the order of early state voting (Aides say Sanders believes the race would have been radically different if the order were different, and more states were by themselves on the calendar instead of lumped together on super-ish Tuesdays).

“Everything is on the table,” Longabaugh said.

There’s also the issue of payback. Campaign aides say that whatever else happens, Sanders wants former Congressman Barney Frank and Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy out of their spots as co-chairs of the convention rules committee. It’s become a priority fight for him.

Sanders, the aides say, believes Frank has hated him for years, but the former Massachusetts congressman’s calling him a “McCarthyite” pushed him over the edge. He never really registered who Malloy was, despite his being from a neighboring home state and his status as one of the most liberal governors in the country, but Sanders was enraged to hear the governor say he had blood on his hands for not supporting the gun manufacturer liability law.

Aides think Democrats should be grateful that he’s increased voter turnout and registration. And it’s why they assume Clinton’s campaign will humbly request he be her college campus and millennial ambassador through the fall, to keep up the rallies and the voter registration that’s given him the 45 percent of primary voters.

“When they say we’re hurting the Democratic Party,” Devine said, “we believe we’re helping it.”

That’s because Sanders is a savvier politician than almost anyone’s given him credit for. He likes that he’s been in front of almost a million people since the campaign started. But he knows that as soon as the campaign’s done, the crowds will start thinning, and he’s not going to get on television anymore. He’s certainly not running for president again.

Sanders knows the ride is about to stop—but he’s going to push it as far as he can before it does.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm going to predict that Elizabeth Warren will be Clinton's VP pick. Or at least, I really hope so, because it would be a brilliant choice.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... president/

Up until Thursday evening, Elizabeth Warren was the only female Democratic senator who hadn't endorsed Hillary Clinton. In fact, she was one of the last high-profile members of the Democratic Party to endorse her.



Yet, more so than any other Democratic senator, there is buzz that Clinton will or should pick Warren as her vice presidential running mate. Given her holdout on coming on-board Team Clinton, it's worth asking: Does Warren have a chance at the job?

Warren told Rachel Maddow on MSBNC on Thursday she's not being vetted for the job and she's happy with her current one. But despite what she says, it seems like Warren might be interested. We at The Washington Post put her on a short list among 27 candidates, and Reuters reports that people close to her say she's considering the pros and cons of being Clinton's veep. Harry Reid reportedly wants her to be the pick. And she gave a closely watched, fiery speech Thursday for the sole purpose of knocking Donald Trump down a peg or two.

In fact, almost out of nowhere, Warren has gone from watching the campaign on the sidelines to becoming one of Trump's loudest critics — especially on his home turf, Twitter.



In a lot of ways she makes sense as the pick. But did Clinton's most conspicuous holdout this primary campaign play her cards right to get it?

We can see both sides. On one hand, she played the primary brilliantly for promoting her brand of liberal politics and drawing the debate to the left. But that's not the same as saying she set herself up to be a running mate, and we could easily see how her unusual approach could backfire with Clinton.

Let's run through the arguments.

Yep. By staying out of it, she kept herself in it.

"Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is playing the long game to get exactly what she wants out of presidential politics — specifically, to make economic populism go mainstream. And so far, it's working out pretty great."

That's what we wrote back in December for a piece headlined: How Elizabeth Warren is winning the Democratic primary. I argued that by keeping her distance, Warren ensured her presence — and potentially game-changing endorsement — was felt. It appeared to play a role in helping pull Clinton to the left on economic policy.

Hillary Clinton: 'I'm running for president'
Play Video2:19
Hillary Rodham Clinton officially launched her presidential campaign on Sunday. The announcement began with a video and a tweet. (YouTube/Hillary Clinton)
Now that the primary is just about over, Warren's silence may have an added benefit of making her voice louder.

When she does flex her political muscle for Clinton — like going on a Twitter tear against Trump or giving a speech calling him a "nasty, loud, thin-skinned fraud" (an excerpt from Thursday's speech) — it makes the kind of news Democrats want to see: Donald Trump + colorful insult.


['Toxic stew of hatred': Elizabeth Warren excoriates Donald Trump]

Warren's attacks are buzzy in part because they are rare and she was not an official Clinton surrogate. When she speaks, it resonates. And that's something the Clinton campaign arguably needs when they're going up against a guy who can single-handedly dominate a day's news cycle with one tweet.

What's more, by not endorsing Clinton early on, Warren likely maintained her goodwill with Bernie Sanders backers who might otherwise have dismissed her. Which means that if Clinton is looking for Sanders-esque running mate, Warren certainly looks the part.

"What he did was powerfully important," Warren told Maddow on Thursday. "He ran a campaign from the heart."

No. Why would Clinton reward Warren for not getting on-board — and arguably helping Sanders?

Fact: The Clinton camp is all about loyalty — perhaps to a fault, some would say.

"Lawyers! Aides! Advisers! No presidential candidate has ever been as defended as Hillary Clinton," claimed Sarah Ellison in Vanity Fair in November, arguing that such a team could be her downfall.

Clinton surrounds herself with intensely loyal aides because the candidate herself values loyalty. It's something the Clintons are known for — along with punishing those who run afoul of them. (They even reportedly have assembled a hit list, according to a book by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes.)

If Clinton has hard feelings about Warren's non-endorsement, of course, she's kept it to herself.

But given how she's put loyalty front and center over the years, it stands to reason that Clinton would want it from her No. 2 as well. Warren's lack of an endorsement during most of the primary could be construed a lot of ways, but not as something she did out of loyalty to Clinton. And it's not a stretch to think that an earlier Warren endorsement might have foreclosed some of the momentum Sanders gained among liberal voters who also like Warren a lot.

That's a big strike for Warren's veep chances, especially since "when picking a vice presidential nominee, the single most important factor is chemistry," The Fix's Chris Cillizza pointed out in April, as he argued that Clinton wouldn't pick Warren.

The wildcard: Politics

Bernie Sanders supporters on the fence about Hillary Clinton
Play Video1:56
On June 9, President Barack Obama endorsed Hillary Clinton. But at a D.C. rally that same day, Bernie Sanders supporters were on the fence about backing Secretary Clinton in the general election. (Alice Li/The Washington Post)
5-Minute Fix newsletter
Keeping up with politics is easy now.
Sign up
Another fact: The Democratic presidential nomination went on longer than most expected and exacerbated divisions between the party's progressive and central factions.

As Sanders makes his gradual exit from the campaign (he indicated as much after a meeting with Obama on Thursday), party leaders are carefully watching to see how wounded their party is post-primary. If things are bad, there's a solid case to be made that Warren, the liberal hero to many Sanders backers, is the best salve to help heal those wounds.


It's hard to say whether that's actually the case. While Clinton was giving her history-making speech Tuesday, some Sanders supporters booed her. Polls also suggested that Sanders could win California in one final, defiant swipe at the establishment.

But Clinton won California by 13 points. And as Cillizza pointed out recently, a March Post-ABC national poll found that 77 percent of liberal Democrats said they would be satisfied with Clinton as their party's nominee. History suggests that even disenchanted Sanders supporters will come around — just like Clinton backers did for Barack Obama in 2008.

A complex mixture of politics, personality and personal choices will probably factor into whether Warren will eventually end up as Clinton's vice presidential pick. Given all that, it's tough to say whether Warren's unusual approach to this primary helped or hurt her chances for the job.

I don't entirely agree with this article, but it makes some good points.

I do have some slight misgivings about Warren for VP, since it would apparently give the Republican Governor of MA a chance to appoint a temporary replacement and put her seat at risk. And because on some level, I doubt weather the country is progressive enough to elect an all-female ticket. But on the other hand, the former is arguably a minor concern if it helps ensure victory in the general election, and the latter is not something that should be held against Warren (besides, the kind of people who would care about that are probably mostly voting Republican anyway).

Most critically, Warren may be the only high-profile candidate who could easily unite the Sanders and Clinton camps.

I don't know if she deliberately positioned herself with that in mind, but if so, it was a tactically brilliant choice, even if I do think her not endorsing Sanders probably cost him Massachusetts.

So I'd be on board with this choice, for sure.

[FireNexus]

Look at the hatorade on Warren's Twitter from scorned BernieBots. The ones who haven't already moved on wouldn't be united by Satan himself cumming acid into their wombs or rectums and trying to date the offspring.

[Mr Bean]

Warren was the presidential contender that everyone wanted but no one got. Having her as a VP pick is smart from Clinton perspective bad from Warren perspective as Senator Warren is very useful in the Senate. That said eight years to VP Warren to Eight years of President Warren is the Democratic Party Dream.

[Gandalf]

If it all goes balls up, Warren 2020!

Warren 2020: A Vision for America.

[Flagg]

I've heard from a friend inside the party (whose name I can't really divulge) that Warren absolutely hates campaigning. I don't know that that would stop her from accepting, though.

[Flagg]

You are a whiny douche, I directed it at him with full knowledge you would take it as a whiny douche. Thank you for proving me right. Lemme call 9-fun-fun for the waaaaaaambulance. Because you don't care about people's votes being counted, you care about the walking corpse, the embarrassment that is the Sanders campaign gorging on more media attention.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if the stakes were reversed, you'd be yelling, screaming, crying, and belching forth bile about how eeeeeevil Hitlary is for not conceding already.

To show I am a prophet, his next post will feature: LIE

Literally all you have to post, increasingly, is petty insults, personal attacks, and, yes, lies. Because you have some sick, obsessive little grudge against me, and against Bernie Sanders because he ran as a Democrat and you think he's not a real Democrat, and you are apparently utterly incapable of letting it go. I'm going to do my best to ignore you, because I do not wish to feed the troll and its not as if you're posting anything of actual substance, but I do want to make one thing clear:

You do not have the right to put words in anyone else's mouth. You do not have the right to tell people what they think or to call them a liar and then present zero evidence. Either take me at my word, or if you feel that I am being disingenuous, provide some actual evidence. Show where I have contradicted myself. Because right now, all I see is a sad little man child with an obsessive grudge against a stranger on the internet who feels that that justifies anything he says.

And for the record, no, I would not tell Clinton to concede if the positions were reversed. As hard as this may be for you to understand, some of us actually have principles that we adhere to independent of weather they benefit Bernie Sanders. Some of us don't judge the rightness of an act on which candidate it benefits or harms. The Sanders campaign will have no glorious comeback in DC. But Sanders should keep his word and given the voters of DC a chance to have their say before he concedes, especially since God knows DC gets disenfranchised as it is.

But you have long made your contempt for democracy blatantly clear. Its no surprise that you see Sanders' commitment to continuing to campaign for what he believes in as attention-whoring egotism, because actually commitment to democratic principles is clearly beyond your comprehension.

Contempt for democracy? Petty grudge? Lies!

I don't hold a grudge against dog shit I wipe off my boot, and you take up less thought. Frankly, unless I'm responding to, or reading your sad nonsense, I don't even think of you. How's that for a grudge? Arrogant pissant.

And how can I have contempt for democracy when party nominations are as democratic as the old Soviet Politburo? Do you think Caucuses are "democratic", snowflake? Hate to burst your delusio-bubble but if the DNC wanted to they could choose the nominee based on a witches examining of squirrel innards. So to take a page from your sad, one line playbook: LIE!

[Flagg]

Yeah, but an endorsement is all he really had. Obama is not the "sit down and shut up" guy. He could have easily held the endorsement until the DC primary where Bernie will get shellacked to Capital Hill and back. I think endorsing Clinton right after meeting the guy is his way of condemning him.

I don't know that condemning is the right word. Not like Obama's made his preference for Clinton exactly a secret, what with the huge number of his campaign people working for Hillary. The last two months or so have been a long-running struggle to give Bernie an off-ramp for when he loses the nomination. I expect him to endorse Clinton without too much fuss in the next week or so, and I hope that he'll do the opposite of sit down and shut up. Namely, try to actively pull his voters into Clinton's camp and do something productive with that huge mailing list.

Well, when I say "sit down and shut up" I mean "stop attacking the nominee and get on board" rather than "take your ball, go sit in the corner, and finish the process of mummification". We need his mailing list, funding sources, and glory hole locations, no question.

[maraxus2]

Contempt for democracy? Petty grudge? Lies!

I don't hold a grudge against dog shit I wipe off my boot, and you take up less thought. Frankly, unless I'm responding to, or reading your sad nonsense, I don't even think of you. How's that for a grudge? Arrogant pissant.

And how can I have contempt for democracy when party nominations are as democratic as the old Soviet Politburo? Do you think Caucuses are "democratic", snowflake? Hate to burst your delusio-bubble but if the DNC wanted to they could choose the nominee based on a witches examining of squirrel innards. So to take a page from your sad, one line playbook: LIE!

Honestly, I don't get how a Sanders supporter (and a fervent one at that) could have the balls to accuse someone else of disrespecting democracy. 1. Sanders supporters consistently throw around accusations of voter suppression/fraud whenever they lose. 2. Many of Bernie's delegates come from caucuses (which are crappy and bad), and two of his caucus wins were later tainted by Clinton victories in both state beauty contest primaries. 3. Bernie's been trying to make the case that the Soups should explicitly overrule the popular vote. Because reasons, I guess?

Again, not throwing shade at a campaign tactic. But let us not pretend that he's doing any/all of the above out of the goodness of his heart and commitment to "democracy."

[Terralthra]

Claims that Obama endorsed Sec. Clinton after Thursday's meeting as a condemnation or response to something Sen. Sanders said appear to be overblown, since he filmed his endorsement Tuesday, before the California, New Jersey, etc., primaries were even over. In other words, it was probably filmed in response to the AP's publishing of superdelegate polling and subsequent clinching of the nomination by Sec. Clinton. Since that's more or less exactly when and how then-Senator Obama clinched the nomination, it makes sense.

[Flagg]

Contempt for democracy? Petty grudge? Lies!

I don't hold a grudge against dog shit I wipe off my boot, and you take up less thought. Frankly, unless I'm responding to, or reading your sad nonsense, I don't even think of you. How's that for a grudge? Arrogant pissant.

And how can I have contempt for democracy when party nominations are as democratic as the old Soviet Politburo? Do you think Caucuses are "democratic", snowflake? Hate to burst your delusio-bubble but if the DNC wanted to they could choose the nominee based on a witches examining of squirrel innards. So to take a page from your sad, one line playbook: LIE!

Honestly, I don't get how a Sanders supporter (and a fervent one at that) could have the balls to accuse someone else of disrespecting democracy. 1. Sanders supporters consistently throw around accusations of voter suppression/fraud whenever they lose. 2. Many of Bernie's delegates come from caucuses (which are crappy and bad), and two of his caucus wins were later tainted by Clinton victories in both state beauty contest primaries. 3. Bernie's been trying to make the case that the Soups should explicitly overrule the popular vote. Because reasons, I guess?

Again, not throwing shade at a campaign tactic. But let us not pretend that he's doing any/all of the above out of the goodness of his heart and commitment to "democracy."

I'm personally offended as someone who had their vote stolen from them by Jeb Bush and Kathrine Harris in FL in 2000 to be told I hate democracy when primaries are not and have never been real democratic processes. So pistols at dawn, blah blah fuck yourself TRR you child.