Check this out – Sanders speaking to his supporters in the streets today and being booed for asking them to vote for Hillary. I note that Sanders knows enough to ask – too often Hillary supporters demand, bully, and condescend.
The Vox article sates :While addressing a rally of Sanders supporters in Philadelphia on Monday afternoon, the senator said, “We have got to defeat Donald Trump, and we have got to elect Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine” — and he was met by a chorus of boos. I tried to embed the speech with Sanders being booed here: http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12275998/bernie-sanders-booed-hillary-clinton
The loud booing continued for some time. “Brothers and sisters. This is the real world that we live in,” Sanders said. “Trump is a bully and a demagogue. Trump has made bigotry the cornerstone of his campaign.”
Sanders will speak in primetime at the Democratic National Convention tonight. As an aside, what time does a convention consider “prime time”? I never watch TV and I don’t know what “Prime Time” is.
As for the needed “courtship” I do have some suggestions. They include humility, listening, and not playing only to the professional elite. I am willing to be far more specific, but having not been listened to for ten years [and more] and ultimately giving up on party politics, I doubt anyone will listen now. My work life is in the trenches with with bottom 30%. I know that world.
To answer your question, “prime time” for decades has been 8-11pm in the local area. Large audiences between dinner and bedtime, hence the best time to advertise.
Since this is a live event, 8pm Eastern is not great for West Coast viewers. Hence, the Primest of times at convention is usually seen as 10 Eastern / 7 Pacific. That’s your largest audience.
I have the convention live stream on. I have no stomach for journalists with leading questions and talking heads these days.
Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Warren were also slated for the 10PM hour. I thought the parties would have done a better job finishing by the 11PM news.
You put forward very kind, very honest and very needed words with this thoughtful post.
… his own, erstwhile, supporters… What makes you think Hillary Clinton will have greater success?
If, in fact, some supporters of Sen Sanders act like children what about a grown up politicians ‘courting’ is going to change that?
I don’t mean to minimize your efforts, amberpaw, but I do mean to challenge you on the notion that it’s all, and only, up to Secretary Clinton to undo the Gordian knot of the 2016 electorate. The booing of Sen Sanders suggests a similar refusal to listen by some of those not behind Secretary Clinton: some Sen Sanders supporters also need to grow up.
Politics is a team sport.
And be inclusive of the Bernie delegations and make them feel welcome. The folks who insist he isn’t a real Democrat in the first place, that the delegation should get over the corruption of the disgraced DNC Chair, and that they are unworthy of being in the convention are the same folks who would’ve been pissing and moaning had Bernie mounted an independent campaign. He didn’t, he’s been a good soldier and the vast majority of his supporters, many of whom are first time voters or first time Democratic voters, will follow him.
You don’t think Hillarys supporters would’ve been booing in 2008 had they found out Dean was coordinating actions against her? Please. Give me a break. This was all about anger at the process which they are right to feel was corrupted by the actions of the chair, rejecting their fantasies that Bernie somehow won more votes, we can still accept the reality that this is a major tarnish on the DNC and his delegates have a right to be angry. Hillary should fire DWS from her staff and truly distance herself from these actions.
… you first learn what ‘team ‘ means, before defining it as the job of me (or my ‘co-religionists’) to meet you and yours all the way.
You will search forever and fruitlessly for evidence that I have said or have done any of these things.
From where I sit, between Sens Warren and Franken and First Lady Michele Obama, we’ve had ten times the convention, in one day, the ‘other side’ had all week. And then, along comes Sen Sanders saying good things: I’m fucking ECSTATIC over what Bernie Sanders said. It”s not me who’s refusing to listen to what he said.
A conveniently timed ratfuck regarding the seamier underbelly of DNC politics aside, I think the convention is off to a good start.
If it were all people who were on board with HRC from the beginning – you know, those “evil” superdelegates who endorsed before the field was set thus “rigging” the vote count in her favor – who spoke and said y’all better get in line now the Sanders folks might have a legitimate gripe. However, there were several Sanders supporters including Sanders himself who made the case. Also, Sarah Silverman’s “You’re being ridiculous!” had to come from a Sanders supporter. I would have cringed (even while largely agreeing) if a Clinton surrogate had said that.
but a political outsider, and even better, ever sweet Ms. Silverman.
This election has been so ugly because so much has gone so wrong in our country. And the process has NOT instilled trust. Time to stop ALL name calling, look at the negotiated program and platform, and fight for what we say we believe in. That means paying long term attention and being inclusive of supporters of whomever, for some of us, is “the other candidate”. I still don’t “like” Hillary and have very specific reasons why I don’t. I won’t bore you – and I know the validity of my concerns. The platform and goals which were negotiated address at least some of those concerns, like a new “Glass-Segall” but I am absolutely sure no president can “do it on their own” and the minute “we stop paying attention” absolutely nothing of value will occur. Correct. I remain short on trust just as while managing my current health concerns and work pressures I do not have much energy or time to allot.
not going to vote for Clinton. Some Bernie supporters are not going to behave.
I don’t know any Bernie or Bust people, but they remind me of maenads in The Bacchae. I’ve yet to see one interviewed who had a good explanation for their behavior. They’re upset? Seriously? They boo a reverend? They boo Elizabeth Warren? Bernie Sanders? Put tape over their mouths? These people will support Hillary or they won’t. I’m underwhelmed. Maybe there are some out there who aren’t a slave to their feelings, but these people are unpersuadable. No need to poke them in the eye, but they aren’t listening to reason.
We need peace, and it starts with us individually. We can’t control the Busters, but we can control ourselves. We can take an offense without giving one in return. As I tell my Granby citizens, it matters how we talk to each other. It’s best to give the Bernie or Bust people their space. Reasoning with them isn’t going to work. Many of those interviewed have said as much.
Yeah, the interviews have been bad, and, of course, all that the channels want to do is find Bernie supporters who won’t go for Clinton – I’m suspicious of how big the group is versus how big the media wants to portray it to be. You know they’re going through a handful of supporters now backing Clinton before they find the one butthurt supporter to put on camera. I really wonder how many are in critical states, though. Probably about 15% of Bernie supporters can withhold support in Vermont and it won’t change the electoral picture in that state. Can this very small population on the margin make a difference in the handful of states that matter? Who knows. It is interesting that I haven’t seen an interview with a Bernie supporter who says something along the lines of “I’m making a protest vote for Jill Stein or no one and it’s because I live in a solid blue state. If I lived in Ohio or Florida, my calculus would be different.” That’s also probably because they screen to find the most aggressive and ridiculous to put on camera.
California has a lot of them because they have a lot of delegates. I think they’re part of the group making mischief.
I can’t help but feel the uniting the party thing is a weird version of false equivalence. Ted Cruz is not the same as a segment of delegates being Busters. The DNCon has done a serious amount of negotiating to work out the process between Sanders and Clinton’s campaigns.
Many of us are familiar with a certain type who wears an asbestos suit of self-righteousness as protection from a burning world. One aspect is the thought that their rightness is so strong that it will convert the sheep if it is just heard, and any occasion no matter the context is appropriate for the telling that will lead to conversion. I’d fully expect many of these Bernie or Burn the World types all but line up for the cameras so we can enjoy their enlightened take on politics.
….how?
n/t
Are concerned that a major presidential candidate appears to be doing the bidding of a foreign power attempting to re-establish the soviet empire.
Some have “fart ins”
Every party has its crazy activists, impervious to reason, who would gladly allow great harm to the republic, so long as it can be blamed on someone else. One tries to find ways to be respectful of these people while keeping them away from sharp implements; the other nominates them for President.
And do find some of the thoughts expressed by the more zealous of the supporters to be similar. That said, there are many Hillary supporters apparently still butt hurt over the primary. It’s time for all to move on and to defeat Trump. That’s for certain. I do think the Bernie or Bust crowd would do well to channel its energy into local third parties (hint hint) as well as local primaries where their energies and votes will elect good people instead of electing Trump.
And much of the Buster problem originate with the activist-politician dichotomy. Put it on a continuum if you like, but activists have different methods and different aims than politicians. Activists push. When successful, they manage to put issues on the table. When very successful, they manage to force politicians to act.
The Busters are trying to be activists in the political arena. They are using chants, boos, tape over their mouths to draw attention to themselves, but in interview after interview, they say they want to make their feelings known. The thing is, everyone knows their feelings. They are using activist tactics, but they have no further objective. Things are in the political realm now. Things have to enter the political realm eventually. I think the Busters just don’t know what to do with themselves.
…into progressive campaigns in Congressional primaries that are not yet decided.
N/t
…don’t do much for federal policy. If Sanders folks want to get legislation to Clinton’s desk for her to sign it’s Congress they need to work on. State leg. races have their own merits, but I deliberately specified Congressional in this context.
They focus on state legislatures now, so that there might be some slight hope of a durable D majority in Congress before the 2030s
delegate tell a reporter that she’s voting for Jill Stein.
WTF? Why doesn’t she leave? The reason Busters aren’t persuadable is because they don’t make sense.
She was on the MSNBC set in the convention hall the other night explaining why Sanders supporters should choose her over Clinton.
…she wouldn’t be able to share her truth. The point for many of these people isn’t to influence events, but to feel good about themselves. The value of those feelings outweighs any need for them to be correct. In other words, Jill Stein’s soulmates.
After a night with Bernie, Ellison, Merkley, and Warren, I saw one Buster claim that “nobody” for Bernie had spoken. I saw someone complain — complain! — that Bernie “had to go last”. Several of them seemed to think on Tuesday that Bernie might be nominated.
This is an instance where the idea of saving the best for last is accurate:
Monday – Bernie
Tuesday – Bill
Wednesday – POTUS
Thursday – Hillary
Add Ben Jealous to the list of Sanders supporters who spoke Monday (and pivoted to why we need to elect Hillary). If Sanders had gone earlier in the evening they would have complained that he didn’t get the peak viewing spot. I don’t recall another convention doing so much to accommodate the person who came in second.
Boisterous and democratic. I welcome the rowdy agitators to the process especially since this dissent is pretty tame. Did the southern delegation walk out like it did in 48′ and 64′? Did half the congressional delegation and the AFL-CIO form Democrats for Trump like they did for Tricky Dick in 1972? Did Bernie refuse to shake hands and endorse earlier like Teddy refused to do for Carter in 1980 as his supporters were calling for a futile floor vote? Against an incumbent from the same party?!
Did the mayor of Philly call Bernie a Jew mother fucker like Daley did on national television when Sen. Abe Ribicoff spoke in 68? Were Maddow and Hayes tackled by police like Cronkite and Rather in 68′? Hillarys speech will be in prime time and won’t be drowned out by riots outside like Humphrey’s or airing st 2am like McGoverns. Let’s have some perspective here and welcome a return to our Jacksonian roots as a people’s party.
…and boisterousness on the positive side is fine, but it just so violates my sense of decorum to boo, shout people down, etc. Not only would you never see me engage in such behavior, but I get so uncomfortable being around it that I would be tempted to walk out myself just to get away from it.
Vote for Jill Stein? Go home. Boo people who don’t deserve it? They can F off. Worse behaved people in the past, so what? Irrelevant. That was then, this is now. Different context and a bunch of people with hurt feelings.
…it’s worth noting that the conventions jconway cited above preceded those parties losing the presidential elections those years.
Let’s hope that Ms. Clinton is a better candidate than Hubert Humphrey in 1968, George McGovern in 1972, or even Jimmy Carter in 1980.
I must say that I’ll always believe that Mr. Carter’s 1980 re-election was intentionally and inappropriately sabotaged by the CIA. I note that the director of the CIA was William Casey, who also just coincidentally happened to be the campaign director for Ronald Reagan at the time. He was also coincidentally a key player in the Iran-Contra scandal (again involving Mr. Reagan) and coincidentally and tragically died of “natural causes” the night before his scheduled deposition for the Iran-Contra committee.
Casey was appointed by Reagan as Director of Central Intelligence after serving as his campaign manager in the 1980 election.
n/m
And here i thought he got shivved by St. Ted
I don’t think Ted Kennedy had much to do with Mr. Carter’s loss in 1980.
I do think that Mr. Casey was working with the Iranian revolutionaries behind the scenes, just not as DCI.
I think it was the Iranian hostage crisis that took down Jimmy Carter, and I think William Casey (and others) did all in their power to ensure that it did just that. I’m not saying that they actively conspired to cause the takeover. I’m saying that they worked very hard, and successfully, to ensure that Mr. Carter was unable to resolve it.
I think that the ties that were forged with the Iranian government during that period were used again during the Iran-Contra scandal, and I think Mr. Casey’s unfortunate death — together with George H. Bush’s pardons — made sure we never learned about them. In that context, I note that Mr. Bush also served as DCI.
When the Southern delegations walked out of the entire convention. Far fewer Bernie delegates, if any walked out. The protestors outside weren’t really for Bernie and would never have been for a Democrat anyway. The disruptions were minor and forgotten now. Maybe forgiven in time too.
A had a mental tic that made me conflate 48 and 64 and come up with 68 – mea culpa!:)
and we won’t be remembering the boos four years from now. It was an excellent convention.
Only speculation on my part, but I think this convention represents a turning point in American politics. Democrats have reclaimed and redefined love of country. The GOP always had the happy rhetoric to cover up its unhappy policies. At the RNC, they lost the happy rhetoric.
Too bad that even in this thread some find the need to ridicule others, truly. And if candidates from outside what some of us now call “The Duopoly” try and attach voters who have supported Sanders, that too is the normal democratic process. It is not “poaching” it is actively advocating and entirely appropriate. I may be unwelcome in being so open as to my lack of enthusiasm for Hillary, and my suggestion that she can still harvest votes like mine by respectful inclusion [as opposed to, even in this thread, the unrespectfull and at times ad hominem – even juvenile “dissing”]. It remains my opinion that she and/or her campaign have been tone deaf much of the time, and alienated some that could have been a natural part of her constituency – in addition to those, like myself, who perceive her economic policies as regressive compared to the Democratic party I knew in my youth. I am now almost 70 [and more admiration for Bernie and the pace he kept up than y’all can know] and frankly do not like the direction in which either of the Duopoly parties have gone. So looking to the elements within the Democratic party who I find do keep some appeal and concern for the four freedoms, like McGovern and Sanders.
Thomas Frank has a dire prediction in the Guardian, backed up by the enthusiasm Trump has received in Scranton, that the party of Roosevelt has a lot of catching up to do on reaching out to working class voters. I’ll repeat that it’s a problem even if Hillary wins the election, since the coalition is still too narrow to bring Congress with it and pass the kind of sweeping changes we need to bring our country back.
Obama gave one of his best speeches and he’ll go down in the top 10 for presidents once the foreign policy gambles he made pay dividends and ACA is built out. But I think the next Democratic president could be even better with the kind of coalition that would be broad, long term, and sustainable.
…for surrogates of one party to go directly into the activities of another and try to peel people off. I’m also a committed duopolist when it comes to party politics. You have the two grand coalitions that we call major parties duke it out amongst and within themselves to see who best represents them. Then winner faces winner and one comes out with a clean majority of votes cast. It’s the same logic as sports playoffs with champions decided between the best teams of each league (e.g. AL vs. NL or NFL vs. AFL, etc.)
They explicitly made appeals for Republicans to come over to vote for the Democratic ticket. How is that different from what Stein is trying to do?
I don’t respect her or its organization its it’s awfully too down and doesn’t do anything at the local level where it could make a difference. But since there is no equal time for all the candidates she is entitled to go make news by trolling both conventions. She should’ve gone to Cleveland too and pulled Trump voters too.
And the parties aren’t grand coalitions anymore, they are very polarized and ideological and one could argue they have adopted a parliamentarian form which is why you’re more likely to get grand coalitions these days from third parties coming in.
…did it from the stage of the Democratic National Convention; they didn’t go try to undermine the Republican Party in Cleveland. She of course has every right to do it, but it feels like spinning off your own law firm and trying to steal your old firm’s business from them.
I still see grand coalitions BTW. The Republican Party still has its ecocons, neocons, and theocons. The Democratic Party still has its civil rights, social justice, anti-war, and labor wings.
… Kaine and Bloomberg explicitly made appeals from the vantage point of the Democratic Convention in a race that isn’t over. Specifically saying “come over here” and help us defeat someone else is distinctly different from going over there and agitating against speakers by whom you’ve already been defeated… which, if I read Christopher correctly, was the objection. The Sanders agitators at issue here (and I’m not lumping all Sanders supporters in this), it seems to me, are refusing to listen to reason and are shouting down even their own champion in a pique over a race they have already lost.
Bloomberg and Kaine have already moved onto the general election and in the general it’s perfectly appropriate to appeal to reason in the Republican party and ask them to vote Dem… as it was perfectly reasonable at a time in the primary for Senator Sanders and his supporters to ask Clinton supporters, or undecideds, for their votes. But that issue has been decided and it is no longer appropriate for Sanders supporters to make such appeals. They lost. Sen Sanders is not the nominee. If they are Dems they must accept the nominee. Refusing to accept the nominee is refusing to accept the rules they have been playing by up to this point… The agitators have not yet to come to grips with their loss and gripe and boo and pout and refuse to allow the winners to get on with the business of the general election, as indeed their champion, one Bernie Sanders has both asked them to do and has amply demonstrated his willingness to do so…
… is that Jill Stein has a 0% chance of being the next president.
90% of Sanders supporters have moved their support to Clinton.
What do you want that they didn’t?
I liked the divided roll call and active platform discussions. I do get rankled by the efforts of some former Bernie supporters to ensure nobody else is allowed to speak by trying to shout them down, however. And yes I do feel unimpressed with anyone who decides to stop playing by the rules as soon as they realize they have/are losing under them. “Listen to me, and I will yell over you” is not the credo of someone long for solutions or agremeent.
people in my party. Seriously. F— them. I don’t care about their feelings, which is all they care about. If a Bernie supporter wants to vote for someone other than Hillary, that’s up to them. I can’t watch them vote anyway.
But don’t pretend you’re in my party. Don’t become a delegate to the DNC and then say you’re going to vote for Jill Stein. Don’t boo the reverend who give the invocation. And don’t boo John Lewis, who protested for a concrete cause back when doing so meant you could be killed.
Seriously. I’m not reaching out to them. I’m not going to be nice.
I have no problems with your lack of enthusiasm for Hillary. But you’re not a Buster. I don’t know you personally, but you have always seemed like an activist who understood politics. The Busters are activists who don’t. Their booing ironically drove more people to chant “USA! USA!” That’s a phrase that would not have cropped up 20 years ago.
I draw a line between Bernie supporters and the idiots that booed John Lewis, just as I hope you draw a line between the BMGers who tell you to get over it and those of us who don’t.
Bottom-line: we’re a party. There will always be tensions. The grown-up’s can live with the tensions to be productive. The babies are those who don’t learn.