California Democratic chair race angers 'Berniecrats'

[TexasTowelie]

Source: AP

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Democrats narrowly selected longtime party insider Eric Bauman to be the leader of the largest state Democratic Party, angering and frustrating supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders who threw their support behind an insurgent challenger.

Delegates to the state party convention selected Bauman for party chair on Saturday. He defeated Kimberly Ellis, who refused to concede citing unspecified concerns with the vote count and, after speaking with a lawyer, declared "this race is not over."

The hotly contested race reflected the deep divisions within the Democratic Party, which despite a universal commitment to fighting President Donald Trump has not fully healed from last year's contentious presidential primary between Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

In the three-day California Democratic Party convention, Democrats drawn to Sanders' condemnation of money in politics pushed the party to reject Wall Street.

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/politics/article/California-Democratic-chair-race-angers-11162101.php

[pnwmom]

1. California chose Hillary by several million votes, has 2 Democratic Senators,

and 38 members of the House (vs. 14 GOP).

California also has Democratic supermajorities in both houses of its legislature.

So why do these angry, frustrated Bernie-people think they could do a better job running the party?

[Plucketeer]

11. Maybe they looked at how well the party's doing outside of progressive California

and don't want CA to slide in that direction?

[pnwmom]

12. CA is showing no signs of sliding in that direction, thanks to party leadership.

CA wasn't always this progressive -- it elected Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwartzenegger.

But party leadership has been successful in building the party across the state. Let's not try to fix what ain't broken.

[Hortensis]

54. +1000, PnwMom. Tossing out proven, successful leaders

would not be a winning move. Thank goodness good sense prevailed.

[Gothmog]

92. Yeah for good sense

[George II]

13. The Democratic Party in California is stronger than it was several years ago. No sliding going on.

[paleotn]

16. Umm, no. Not going to happen.

[Plucketeer]

26. Probably not

At least, I hope not since I live in CA. But let's consider the gubernatorial holdings country-wide and do a quick tally of the federal legislative bodies as well. Hopefully (if we're still alive to see it) the Trump debacle will change the balance. But it won't be due to the savvy of the left - rather it will be the deranged and treasonous actions of Trump & Co. that "delivers".

BTW, kudos to our state for getting ever closer to a clean money bill. I hope it affords us a rear view mirror as well! If there is such, I'll wager there's gonna be a WHOLE LOT of raised eyebrows in California.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

70. The California Republican party as we know it is completely effete

It is possible they could win the governors office against an unpopular Democrat with a celebrity or silicon valley wunderkind but as a transformative force they're spent.

[pnwmom]

75. Oh, right. The Dems are only doing so well because the Rethugs

are so weak.

Nothing to do with the work of the Democratic party leadership.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

98. I don't believe I offered any critique of the leadership in California

I only state that the California Republicans don't present any existential danger to California's status as "progressive".

[ucrdem]

108. California GOP gave us Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Arnold

Don't underestimate the GOP. They might have a slim policy portfolio but they are very crafty and very dishonest. Would they take advantage of any available opportunity to inflict damage on Democrats? Yes they would.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

136. I will worry about the Republicans when they're credible in the assembly

The Republicans are going to need a miracle just to hang on to what they have now, best case scenario they lose two more.

When the Republicans elect the odd Governor it will be because we fucked up, by say nominating Tony Villar for instance.

[ucrdem]

137. Tony Villar is good at getting elected.

The other three can probably get themselves elected too but if there's internal division like there was nationally in Nov. 2016 don't think the GOP won't take advantage of it and give CA its own mini-Pence. Who, I don't know, but there are plenty of nutcases ready to step up, Ron Unz for example who has run before.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

140. It's going to be Gavin Newsom vs. Kevin Faulconer

Unless the Republicans can come up with somebody better, which so far it appears they can't.

[ucrdem]

147. Hmm, that sounds like a tight race. I'd think Villaraigosa has a better chance

with his So Cal constituency but the primary is still a year away so we'll see.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

148. Los Angeles is not a microcosm of California, it's Los Angeles.

A better Republican candidate would slither out from under a rock to run against Villar.

[joeybee12]

114. Not even close nt

[politicaljunkie41910]

142. Then maybe they need to spend their time on those outside of California who obviously need their

input, since California doesn't seem to need it. This being from someone whose been a member of the party for the past 40 years.

[QC]

38. Impudent peasants! n/t

[JTFrog]

73. I think the notion that they need to push the California Democratic Party "left" is the MOAStrawmen.

So many better ways to spend our time right now in areas that really fucking need to be pushed left. Like maybe supporting pro-choice candidates across the country.

[Gothmog]

91. I was also curious about this

[RandySF]

2. Unspecified, meaning she's just unhappy she lost.

Look, the CA Democratic Party has serious issues. But losing your shit and throwing out unspecified accusations (instead of chairs, hopefully) is going not going to fix anything.

[MBS]

10. " " " " n/t

[brush]

183. That faction is always angry at the "establishment", even if the "establishment" is doing great.

[DFW]

3. "If I lose, it means the election was rigged."

I think I have heard that one before somewhere..................

[Igel]

14. Yeah.

It's been a recurrent theme. 2000. 2004. 2008. 2012. 2016. For the presidential races.

More and more common elsewhere. "Hey, everybody's like me, I like me, I know I'm right, everybody else likes me and knows I'm right. If the numbers don't back me up, there's just no way I'm wrong. I mean, look at me--I'm me, how could I possibly be wrong?"

And then great pains are taken to prove this point, any data or information or assumptions that substantiate it are assumed 100% valid and iron-clad. No need to think critically. Counter-evidence can't exist, so why even look for it or acknowledge its existence, but if that's forced upon the loser then no digging, no disputing underlying methodology, no feat of critical thinking is too great.

Meh.
Primates.

[KPN]

18. So 2000, 2004, 2016 weren't legitimate concerns?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

20. I guess it depends on whose Ox is gored, eh?

[RandySF]

67. 2000 was flagrant theft

But we legitimately lost 2004 and 2016 as far as the voting/counting process goes. And there's no evidence of irregularities in Sacramento.

[Gothmog]

93. Nader gave us bush

[m-lekktor]

107. No. The Supreme Court did. nt

[Gothmog]

121. You are wrong

The SCOTUS could not even rule in this case if Nader had not screwed Gore. Here are some facts on this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called "Florida and New Hampshire" simply "the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket," when Cook was writing about "The Next Nader Effect," in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, "Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president [Gore] a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes [nearly 200 times the size of Bush's Florida 'win']. In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 [three times the size of Bush's 'win' in that state]." If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States -- even more indispensable, and more important to Bush's "electoral success," than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation's chief Ken Lay.

All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn't even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn't count in these calculations at all.) Nader's 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida "victory" for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, "Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?" (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, "We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore." David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, "Nader to Crash Dems Party?" and he wrote: "In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader's Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore's loss." Nationwide, Harvard's Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, "Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?" (also on the internet) presented "Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates," showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader's voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn't have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn't been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida's Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn't included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.

The SCOTUS would never had a chance if Nader had not been stupid

[joeybee12]

115. No

2016 was stolen. How Fucking obvious does it have to be to wake you up

[killbotfactory]

157. Elected delegates can be overruled by non-elected delegates.

That's a pretty clear example of being rigged, isn't it?

[murielm99]

4. Let them be angry.

Who cares? If there are divisions, they are being created by what the article calls 'Berniecrats.' They need to learn to work with others. No one ever gets their own way about everything, and they need to learn that, too.

I see a great deal of unity among Democrats right now. Meetings are better attended than ever. Local elections are being won by Democrats, and people are running for office where it was hard to find candidates in the past.

I see many places where the newer grassroots organizations are working well with the long-time Democrats who have stuck around through thick and thin to build the party and keep it going. Indivisible is a good example of a grassroots movement who works well with all sorts of Democrats.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. As an example

Here in Philly, we are about to elect a Civil Rights lawyer as the D.A. and the local FOP (who normally tend to endorse Republicans) are having a shit fit. This would have been unheard of in the past. There is an up-welling at the lowest levels of government moving left.

In our case, "law and order" is moving to "fairness in policing and the judicial system" to bring about "social justice".

[KPN]

27. I agree with the first part -- let them be angry -- and your point about

the division here being created by use of "Berniecrats". After that, not so much. From what I can gather, Kimberly Ellis and her supporters have been working with others for quite some time.

How about if there are concerns about the election process, lets get them aired and build trust, rather than simply demand that those concerned swallow their concerns "for the good of the party". I'm guessing those with concerns are also thinking about the "good of the party".

[murielm99]

131. I made it very clear that the use of the term 'Berniecrats'

was a quote from the article, and not my term. The people referred to are, in many cases, first time attendees of that event. They don't have a right to think that they can come in and take over from people who have been doing the work for a long time and who have the experience.

[GoCubsGo]

171. And, not just that.

They're pushing the agenda of a guy who is not even a member of the party. And, who only ran for President as a Democrat because it benefited him to do so. Yet, he never actually became a member. He basically did the same thing these people were doing. I guess it's not surprising that his followers are trying the same tactic. Maybe they need to try something new.

[R B Garr]

172. "Berniecrats" have a Facebook page -- it says founded in 2016. They call themselves

Berniecrats.

[OrwellwasRight]

102. 'them'?

I must have missed the day progressives were banned from DU. Last I checked, they were us.

[murielm99]

109. I don't know WTF you are talking about

I never said a thing about progressives. Neither did the article.

[OrwellwasRight]

120. Read what you wrote in the Reply title.

The word "them" is prominently featured. "Progressives" are the people you are mocking for having lost the election. "Progressives" are the people you are calling "them." To break it down for you, all pronouns refer to actual nouns. That actual people you are dismissing and mocking are us, not them. We are supposed to be all on the same side.

[murielm99]

132. No, dearie, let me break it down for you.

"Them" refers to 'Berniecrats.' Whether or not you like the term 'Berniecrats,' it is the exact term used in the title of the article linked.

Did you bother to read the article? Do you see the word progressive anywhere in anything I said? The noun 'progressive' is not used anywhere in the article, either. I am not mocking and dismissing anyone. You are the one doing that to me.

This was a news article. I commented on it. So did many other people. I don't care if you call yourself a progressive or a Berniecrat, I call you thin-skinned.

[OrwellwasRight]

135. yes, you just made my point

Let me break it down for you: what you insultingly and derisively label Berniecrats are progressive Democrats. Apparently they aren't your type of Democrats so you make them into enemies by using the term "them." No one is fooled. And no one is "thin-skinned." But what a fucking waste of time and energy. You should use your hate for Trump not fellow Democrats.

[murielm99]

138. I did not label anyone a Berniecrat.

The writer of the article did that. And why is that insulting? That is quite clear if you read my comments, and if you bother to read the article.

I said nothing insulting. I disagreed with the writer that Democrats are divided.

Don't tell me what I should or should not do. You are the waste or time and energy. Goodbye.

[OrwellwasRight]

141. The offensive word is "them".

My posts have been quite clear. I am not the one operating under a fog of defensiveness.

[R B Garr]

144. ffs, they call themselves Berniecrats. They have a Facebook page and they call

their organization "Berniecrats". But this shows the divisiveness....again. You can't even call them by their own name without being attacked, good grief. Hopefully people aren't getting posts alerted on by calling a self-described group/organization by their very own name!

[OrwellwasRight]

145. FFS, Try reading the discussion.

I object to mocking other groups of Democrats that don't meet the poster's standards. I object to turning Democrats into "them" and "us." I object to wasting time hating on other Democrats when it should be reserved for Trump. That is what this argument is about. It's about the act of demeaning "Berniecrats," not about using the word "Berniecrats." Save your facepalm for yourself, for getting involved in an argument you fail to even understand, FFS.

[R B Garr]

146. Wow, talk about not understanding. This kind of divisiveness because someone uses

a proper pronoun to refer to Berniecrats as "them" is really over the top. It sounds like you don't even know how the Berniecrats have injected themselves because other groups of Democrats don't meet *their* standards (using your words). California doesn't need lectures from a newly formed group.

[OrwellwasRight]

149. "Them"

is not a proper noun. Us v. them is the destructive game you are playing. Democrats don't need lectures from holier than though people like you.

[R B Garr]

150. lol, I didn't say it was a noun. Typing a third person pronoun about Berniecrats isn't

a destructive game, ffs. What is a destructive game is lecturing already liberal Californians. California is already a very liberal state. It's a destructive game for a group formed last year to come here and lecture people about purity. Many California liberals have been fighting to turn this state solid blue for decades, not since 2015 or 2016. It's truly destructive and absurd. Maybe they could attack Republicans instead.

[OrwellwasRight]

151. And I quote:

"This kind of divisiveness because someone uses a proper pronoun to refer to Berniecrats as "them" is really over the top."

You did say "them" was a proper noun. Don't try to rewrite history.

Maybe you could attack Republicans instead of attacking Democrats that you don't like.

Your hate and energy toward other Democrats is wasteful and non-productive.

[R B Garr]

152. Thanks for quoting that I didn't say "them" was a noun, lol

And same to you. Quit attacking liberal California and California Democrats. It is quite destructive and completely unnecessary. Maybe they could attack Republicans instead.

[OrwellwasRight]

154. Perhaps you don't understand the language:

You typed:

"This kind of divisiveness because someone uses a proper pronoun to refer to Berniecrats as "them" is really over the top."

That includes the three word phrase "a proper noun". I'd bold it for you, but the bolding function seems to be off. So, you did use the phrase "proper noun". Now, let's see how you used it. You said that the proper noun was used to refer to "Berniecrats as "them.""

You did not say "Berniecrats is a proper noun." You said the proper noun was used to refer to Berniecrats as something, that something was the word "them." Thus, you said that "them" is a proper noun. It isn't. It's a pronoun. And pointing out you grammatical mistake is not "attacking liberal California and California Democrats." What's destructive your glee in hating on a group of Democrats you don't like. Telling you to stop being divisive is not in fact divisive. Your defense of divisiveness is not in fact inclusiveness.

The Berniecrats you hate didn't attack other Democrats. What they did was try but fail to exert greater influence on the California Democratic Party to pull it to the left. But they failed. It is over. But a thread kicking them while they are down is not letting it be over. It is divisive. Because they failed, we have a whole thread of DUers satisfied with the status quo engaging in mocking them, shaming them, and hating on them. That is unproductive and hateful. Spend your time hating on Republicans, not kicking fellow Democrats while they are down. Kicking people while they are down is not a very Democratic value. But you seem to enjoy it.

[R B Garr]

156. This is hilarious how you've made this entire subthread about the word "them".

Talk about misguided. I didn't say it was a noun. LOL. You've concocted a whole phony outrage scenario because someone referred to Berniecrats as "them" in a sentence. It's not kicking people to note your attempts to create unnecessary emotional drama over the word "them".

And "satisfied with the status quo" just shows more of the forced language that is out of place. Enough of this. California is a very liberal solid blue state. Quit attacking good Democrats over nothing.

[OrwellwasRight]

158. Hilarious? I find it frustrating

that you are unable to refrain from otherizing fellow Democrats, but instead keep defending the practice. You're the one attacking Democrats, and I am saying it is a waste of time. But you can't stop yourself. You'd rather waste time attacking me and your so-called Berniecrat enemies than spend any effort figuring out how together we can change the country. But hey, keep posting about how other Democrats suck. And I'll keep criticizing, because it will continue to be lame and counterproductive.

[R B Garr]

159. Did you even read the article?? Apparently not. Again, you don't seem familiar

with the subject matter of what actually transpired here and what people are commenting on. Using the word "them" in a sentence shouldn't rise to this degree of agitation for no obvious legitimate reason.

And what is a "waste of time" is attacking California Democrats who have worked far longer than a year or two to make this state solid blue. So what you are criticizing is really unclear. Those misguided attacks on a solid blue state of liberals are what is lame and counterproductive. Maybe they could attack Republicans instead.

[OrwellwasRight]

160. Did you even read my posts?

My comments are not about the article. They are about the schadenfreude exhibited by all the posters who are gleefully making enemies of fellow Democrats and enjoying their defeat. It is gross. Every post rejoicing in the failure of one part of Party is divisive and a waste of energy. I don't know how much clearer I can be. The problem here is you are too tied to defending your "side" and your disinterest in joining with those Democrats you feel you are superior too that you have to keep saying I don't understand. I do understand. And I think the responses are awful. Meanwhile, you keep insinuating that I am attacking California and Californians. That would frankly be attacking myself. But, hey keep making up stuff. I guess it is easier to make accusations about me than admit that hating on other Democrats that you don't agree with is counterproductive.

[R B Garr]

161. The article title, "California Democratic chair race angers Berniecrats"

You can go from there to see what people are actually discussing. "Berniecrats" are relatively newly formed in the last year or two, and you, yourself, have attacked the "status quo" -- hence good California liberals. "My side" is reality -- California is a solid blue state, so it's rather self-defeating to attack good liberals and Democrats here just to support some misguided attacks on Democrats.

Maybe they could attack Republicans instead.

Your overly personal and emotional attributions about people are really misguided. It doesn't seem productive to keep giving you a platform for this type of unsubstantiated and phony personal attack. Have a great day!

[OrwellwasRight]

162. I know what the article was about.

I lament that people's responses were largely "yay, those Berniecrat idiots lost. Eff those guys."

I was not overly personal. In numerous posts YOU accused ME of attacking California and California Democrats and not understanding California politics. It's laughable that your challenges to my knowledge of and participation & experience in CA politics is turned in your mind into me being "personal and emotional." But I guess that goes back to the old adage of accusing your opponent of doing exactly what you are doing.

"Unsubstantiated and phony personal attack"?

Here are quotes from you that are unsubstantiated and personal:

"you don't even know how the Berniecrats have injected themselves . . ." You don't know what I know, but thanks for the insult.

"What is a destructive game is lecturing already liberal Californians." LOL. I'm Californian.

"Quit attacking liberal California and California Democrats." LOL. I'm not attacking myself.

"You've concocted a whole phony outrage scenario . . ." Hahahaha. No, I am actually outraged at the way this thread is treating "them," the Berniecrats. It's not phony. It's genuine outrage at the hate and mockery and divisiveness of this thread that is better directed elsewhere.

"Quit attacking good Democrats over nothing." LMFAO. Talk abut phony. So telling the group of Democrats who won to stop mocking those who didn't is now reinterpreted as "attacking Democrats"? The victimization here is epic.

"what is a "waste of time" is attacking California Democrats who have worked far longer than a year or two to make this state solid blue." It is unsubstantiated to imply that anyone you are talking to or about has only been working "a year or two" to make CA solid blue. Can't you prop yourself up without tearing others down? Try asking how long someone has been active in politics instead of assuming.

Maybe those people dancing on other Democrats' graves could attack Republicans instead. Maybe those making assumptions about the inferior efforts of other Democrats could ask questions instead. Maybe those making personal attacks could stop accusing others of doing so. You included.

[R B Garr]

164. Hilarious! At least you've shown that this is about personal attacks.

Thanks for finally showing that, although it was pretty obvious.

Sorry you don't like the article posted.

Maybe it would be more productive to attack Republicans. Surely you can find some California Republicans to attack.

[OrwellwasRight]

165. Yes, the thread is about objecting to the personal attacks you made.

You do realize every example I gave was something you typed, right?

[R B Garr]

166. The thread is actually about the posted article title,

"California Democratic chair race angers 'Berniecrats'". You've tried to make it about the horrible word "them" and all sorts of other imaginary tangents. Too bad you don't like the article. No wonder you keep trying to change the subject.

[OrwellwasRight]

167. Wow, again with the purposeful obtuseness.

I'm talking about *this* part of the thread, in which you are attacking me for daring to say that DU should not spend a whole thread mocking and belittling and otherizing fellow Democrats. I don't give a shit about the article (tell me where I said I didn't like it--you won't find it -- so stop making stuff up).

I do give a shit about DUers hating on each other. And because I dared to say this is a shitty use of our time, I have been mocked, belittled and berated myself. I have never tried to change the subject. This has been my subject on every single post I have made in this thread. Every single post. If you don't like what I am saying, there is no need to further interact with me. Go find someone to echo chamber with you. Every ridiculous and unsupported insult you aim at me only proves my point. That's what's so hilarious.

[R B Garr]

168. Nice try, but you're obviously being obtuse about the posted article by trying

to conjure up some phony offense at the use of the word "them". It's been days now, and you keep kicking this thread with little to add but personal attacks. Sorry you don't like the article. People typing "them" in a sentence doesn't mean all the horrible, nefarious things you are trying to imply. The article talks about ANGRY "Berniecrats". People commenting about what is in the article doesn't mean all the horrible things you are accusing them of.

You should discuss what is in the article. And let's add a name of a California Republican to attack -- I'm for attacking Darrell Issa, not for attacking good California Democrats like Bauman who was recently elected to the chair position. Which Republican can you think of to attack?

[OrwellwasRight]

169. No, I'm not.

I am sure you can read even though you are choosing not to, so here again is my first first post, which you are STILL arguing with:

"'them'?

I must have missed the day progressives were banned from DU. Last I checked, they were us." (post 102)

Posted in response to:

"Let them be angry.

Who cares? ..&quot post 4)

My posts in this thread always have been and always will be about DUers otherizing other DUers and treating them with disrespect, and my objection to that.

Besides, when did you acquire ESP? How in the world can YOU purport to tell ME what I am posting about? Such leaps of logic don't work any better on DU than they do IRL relationships. You have to let other people tell you what they think and mean, and I could not have been clearer. And don't even get me started on your attempt to tell me what I SHOULD be talking about. I don't work for you!

[R B Garr]

170. Using the word "them" isn't disrespectful, ffs.

Making up some bogus personal theory that it is disrespectful is really over the top. That is also my comment from days ago now.

Too bad you didn't like the article.

[OrwellwasRight]

173. Too bad I didn't post about the article.

Too bad you have to keep being so defensive about otherizing fellow DUers.

Too bad you feel you have to keep posting back as if that will make you "win." It won't.

[R B Garr]

174. Lol, this from someone trying to pretend using

then in a sentence is an attack.

[OrwellwasRight]

175. I'm not "pretending"

anything. I'm stating and restating and restating my opinion. Too bad you think that anything you don't agree with is "pretend." It's a truly bizarre rhetorical technique. And not particularly effective.

[R B Garr]

176. This thread is days old now.

[OrwellwasRight]

177. Yep, and you keep it alive

every time you post.

[R B Garr]

178. Lol, you kicked it after several days. More

confusion, but at least you're past the bogus "them" accusations.

[OrwellwasRight]

179. Nope, I just respond when people say ridiculous things.

[R B Garr]

181. This thread is almost a week old. You kicked it

after several days. Reality.

I don't mind kicking it so people read the article and see that Betniecrats are a real thing -- they have a Facebook page which says they were founded in 2016. People need to see that saying Berniecrats is not an insult because THEY call THEMSELVES that.

[OrwellwasRight]

182. No, again, I just respond when people say ridiculous things.

It is not my fault you waited till Friday to decide to hop in and defend the divisiveness in the thread. That's on you.

[R B Garr]

191. Thread title, "California Democratic chair race angers

Berniecrats".

That's what this thread is about, and chastising people for discussing the self-named Berniecrats is what is ridiculous.

[OrwellwasRight]

180. In fact,

if you look closely, you were the one who revived it yesterday when you joined in by replying to me when I hadn't even been talking to you.

[brush]

186. God! Drop it already. Cali is blue because Dems worked hard over years to get it there.

It's kind of sad that Sanders' supporters can't accept that they lost the leadership position/s sought.

Get over it. Get to work with the party to make sure California stays blue.

And notice I never used the apparently hated "th_m" word.

[OrwellwasRight]

187. Who was even talking to you?

Why don't YOU drop it already instead of responding to me out of the blue to tell me to shut up? Does your friend need help handling his own argument?

I don't have anything to get over except DUers who use DU as a forum to ridicule other Democrats. It sounds like you have to get over that some DUers support Bernie Sanders. I can't help you with that.

[brush]

188. It's a discussion board. Anyone can respond to you.

IMO you're going a tad overboard with this.

It'd be a good episode of "Seinfeld" though, that show about nothing.

[OrwellwasRight]

189. Which would imply

that I have the right to post what I want. But somehow you get to tell me to shut up and stop replying to someone else, but I can't say "who asked you?".

Huh. Double standard much?

[brush]

190. Have at it.

[brush]

184. Get one thing straight. Sanders supporters are not the only progressives. You don't own that term.

[OrwellwasRight]

185. I forgot where I said I owned that term.

Or anything about Sanders. Thanks for reminding me.

[dlk]

6. Bernie is Not a Democrat

Keep in mind, Bernie is not a Democrat, however, he is free to join the party at any time. It would not make sense to make a non-member a leader of the California Democratic Party

[KPN]

19. What does Bernie's party affiliation have to do with anything?

Most Bernie supporters are Democrats and many always have been, some like me registered D for 45 years.

I understand your concern about Bernie not being a registered D, but it's not right to project that onto all of his supporters. All it does is alienate.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

25. Not to mention Kimberly Ellis was a Hillary supporter in the primary.

A victory for middle aged white guys is a good thing... apparently now.

[R B Garr]

88. You can Google a picture of Eric with his husband.

He was fighting for civil rights here --- before 2015.

Ellis voted for Hillary in the General, which makes sense since she was the Democrat.

[pnwmom]

94. How many middle-aged openly gay guys do you know in leadership?

Yeah, his position is a victory.

[QC]

39. Maybe the intent is to alienate?

That's the only possible explanation for a lot of what is posted around here lately.

[KPN]

118. Seems that way. But I'm sure it runs both ways. People are pretty passionate

around here.

[LiberalLovinLug]

56. +1 Thankyou

For responding to that type of common flame bait in a concise, polite manner that sums it up perfectly.

[Duppers]

163. ++++

[mwooldri]

23. Neither is Joe Lieberman.

Though he actually was a Democrat, then turned into a DINO, then to an independent caucusing with Democrats, now being considered by Trump of all people for FBI director.

Bernie by comparison is a Democrat in all but name.

Kimberly Ellis may have adopted a Bernie message, but seems to have at first glance a "Sore Loserman" (to borrow a phrase from the RWNJs) attitude to losing. My advice is if your campaign berns out, act like Mr. Sanders, have grace, and continue the fight.

Edit to add: Kimberly Lewis is actually active in the CA Democratic Party, so the electing a non-Democrat to lead the CA party doesn't apply.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

30. And she was a Hillary supporter.

[George II]

7. Hmmm, "refused to concede"? "This race is not over"? Sounds way too familiar.

[NurseJackie]

9. Sadly, yes.

[Historic NY]

8. "Insurgent challenger"

[KPN]

31. Good catch. Media loves to highlight division.

[Sunlei]

15. what were the vote results?

[KPN]

24. Kimberly Ellis lost by 62 votes out of 3000. That's not too close --

a bit over 2%.

I'm guessing -- well actually wondering whether -- the concern is over pledged delegates -- but just a guess/muse based on other articles I've read.

[Sunlei]

28. Thank you. This division helps Republicans get elected. To bad the top 2 can't co-lead so our p

so our party elections stop being 'gamed' by the Republicans.

[KPN]

35. Maybe they will. Kimberly Ellis has apparently been a significant force in building a

stable of younger elected Democratic women in California. If that is so, she probably isn't going anywhere soon and will work to advance the Democratic agenda in the State. I don't have a problem with her challenging results if there is reason for that challenge -- let's wait and see before passing judgement about her as a divider.

[Sunlei]

41. IMO she isn't a "divider" and the democratic socialists aren't either.

[KPN]

44. Fully agree.

[lapucelle]

103. The story in the San Antonio Express-News

is actually from the AP. It was written in a way to stoke the "Democrats divided" narrative.

"California Democratic chair raceangers Berniecrats"

"The conflict inflames a bitter divide in a party whose leaders are trying hard to unify behind the goal of stymieing President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress."

"Longtime party insider Eric Bauman defeated Ellis by 62 votes out of nearly 3,000 cast."

We need to stop allowing the press to define and divide us.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CALIFORNIA_DEMOCRATS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[KPN]

117. No kidding.

[lapucelle]

123. No kidding?

The narrative (as reported accurately by the OP) was from a major wire service. This is not "journalism as usual", and it's not the first time the AP has played this game.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html?_r=0

[KPN]

124. Yes. No kidding ... meaning I agree.

[R B Garr]

80. Bauman is not a Republican. He is an openly gay pro-union Democrat.

But this is the kind of mindless manipulation that people can see through for themselves and they are not voting for it. Calling everyone who isn't a socialist a Republican hasn't worked nationally, and it's not working locally. That in itself is what helps Republicans by doing their opposition attacks for them. It plays right into their hands.

[Sunlei]

81. I know.

[paleotn]

17. Oh, good lord!

Here we are, once again we're fighting over millimeters, while the fucking Republic burns. Priorities, folks. Fucking priorities! The goddamn country is slipping towards autocracy and we're fighting among ourselves....for fucking what!!!

[kstewart33]

21. Bingo.

Has there ever been a time when a Bernie-boosted candidate lost and simply accepted the results of the election without crying foul?

[KPN]

22. How about we wait and see where this goes and the unspecified becomes

specified before passing judgement? Just saying.

[Docreed2003]

29. Whatever happened to "Hey, we lost...let's work harder to push our message"

I can't understand the fascination that large groups both in society and within the party have with the idea that if you don't get your way, either you must have been treated unfairly or the rules were stacked against you. Take your lumps and move on, regroup, and push harder for your agenda. I can't help but think that there are some who have no interest in unity and instead are pushing division intentionally.

[Sunlei]

47. How about, "woah that was a close win, we need to include their agenda or we've lost them"

[R B Garr]

48. That's not the simplistic message behind it, unfortunately. It's a very hostile

and divisive message. It's lost 3 times here already (at least). Maligning other Democrats hasn't worked for them. That is more to the point.

[Sunlei]

58. Its Republicans who who promote the "Maligning other Democrats" messages because it works for them.

[R B Garr]

59. How lame, but typical divisiveness. Insinuating that Democrats are not pure enough

is clearly not a working strategy. Name calling and divisive labeling has also not worked.

[Honeycombe8]

68. But the Democratic Party DOES have an agenda that includes a spectrum ...

from progressive to moderate.

It is pro-choice, pro-environmental, pro-wage protection, pro-health care for the masses, pro-Social Security, pro-Medicare, pro-Medicaid, etc.

The details of each position change within each state, since the constituents vary from state to state. What flies in CA will not fly in some other states.

The difference seems to be one of degree...where do you personally draw the lines around pro-choice, pro-environmental, and other issues. But they all agree as to the main positions, which are FAR different from the Republican Party.

So anyone who is more socialistic, like Bernie, would vote for the Dem, if the opponent is a Republican, since the Democratic Party Platform conforms more closely with a socialism platform. A moderate would also sign onto the Dem Party Platform instead of the Republican Platform, since that is more closely aligned with his views than the Republican platform, which is the polar opposite.

To expect the Democratic Party to take on the platform of a socialistic party is as unrealistic as a moderate wanting it to change to conform more closely with a "liberal Republican" platform. There are only two major parties. Their platforms are online and are well known. The degree of those positions changes for each geographic area, depending on the views of the people who live there.

[geek tragedy]

32. In other words, a faction is whining because they got outvoted.

I seriously doubt most Berniecrats subscribe to the sore loserism of these children.

[William769]

33. This is just insane

Bernie is not a leader in the Democratic party. Bernie is 3,000 miles from California. Bernie is not a Democrat!

Before anyone one thinks about chastising me here, if you cannot prove the three statements above to be false, keep moving right along.

I love that bernie caucus with the Democratic party, but that does not make him a party leader in any State politics.

Bernie supporters are free to do what they want and I will leave it at that.

[obamanut2012]

112. Thank you, Bill -- YES!!!

This is ridiculous.

[geek tragedy]

34. also, this:

Ellis and Bauman both endorsed Clinton's presidential bid and were largely aligned in their approaches to public policy. But Ellis adopted a Sanders-inspired message determined to minimize the influence of money in politics.

[KPN]

36. Good idea -- minimize the influence of money in politics.

Is that an issue for anyone here?

[geek tragedy]

37. it's an issue, but not the only one.

note she endorsed Clinton

[KPN]

40. Right. She did. Re: not the only one, nobody is saying that - including Kimberly Ellis ...

or, for that matter, Bernie. As a reminder, Bernie endorsed Hillary as well.

[R B Garr]

43. That's not the simplistic message behind it, unfortunately. The message is much

more hostile and not reality based at all. It lost here almost a year ago. Time to move on.

[LiberalLovinLug]

62. "minimize the influence of money in politics -- Is that an issue for anyone here?"

Really? or are you being sarcastic.

It is one of the major corruptions of any political system. Money, and the press, messaging, marketing, people it can buy should not be such a deciding influence in any election. Elections should be about deciding between ideas and vision not who can litter the airwaves, billboards, and back door bribes.

Elections should be publicly financed with a maximum set for all parties running. And then a maximum $ for personal donations, where all donors are on record. There should also be a certain amount of airtime granted by networks to express those views, equal among all parties running, on the "public airwaves" the owners of which are stewards of that and that privilege should have that requirement put on it. These practices are done in most every other western democracy. My gawd think of all the time Senators and House reps could spend actually doing their jobs! As it is now most of their time is spent hawking for more money, trying to find a way to outspend their rivals. It's simply unconscionable when you add all the dark money allowed after Citizen's United.

But many in the Democratic leadership, as in the GOP leadership, like it the way it is. For one they do not want the Green Party honing in making it easier for citizens to actually be able to hear them better. And the same with the GOP and the Libertarian party. That's why they both stick together to block any other parties from debates. Democrats shouldn't have to stoop to these levels, they should simply work to make their platform the best and not be afraid to fight on an even playing field. As it is they already have to fight against billions more raised by the GOP.

Its sad to see those that want to change so close to winning but not. One day the establishment Democrats will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

[Else You Are Mad]

79. Well put.

Thanks for posting!

[KPN]

119. Yes and no.

I agree with most of what you say. I just want to be direct about this. Veiled statements about &quot she) adopted a Sanders-inspired message determined to minimize the influence of money in politics" sound a lot like criticism of that as a party goal to me.

I guess I just want to remove the veil and get a direct answer. Sometimes I feel like a number of folks here at DU do not see money as a corrupting influence. Frankly, I see it as the underlying, fundamental reason we have Trump as President today. Absent the overwhelming influence of money in politics, any effect that Bernie -- or even Comey -- may have had on the outcome of the 2016 election would have been moot/non-existent.

We are where we are today because of money in politics. Everything else is secondary in my view.

So I want to know: are DUers for or against big money in politics? Let's be clear about that to know where we stand. I really don't want to be associated with a group that largely thinks money is not an issue.

Hope that helps.

[LiberalLovinLug]

128. Thanks for responding

I apologize if I misinterpreted your post.
I see you are on the same page that money in politics is the #1 issue that affects everything else.

Not only would reps actually just be able to concentrate on their constituents concerns, no need to spend half your time schmoozing with potential donors. But they couldn't rely on the Koch brothers, or some other rich lechers, to come swooping in to flood the local airwaves with negative ads against your opponent. They'd have to win with their platform.

Beyond that, if you took money out of politics, you'd also eventually weed out politicians that are only in it for the money. You'd end up with people that are there for the most part to actually help their constituents because there would be no incentive anymore to have to mostly cater to only a few of your more high rollers that you rely on.

[still_one]

42. Really getting tired of whoever these Sanders' supporters are that when they lose

they always blame it "unspecified voting concern"

It is bullshit.

They pulled the same crap during the primaries saying that those who registered as NPP, (No party preference), didn't receive proper instructions. That was garbage, and the lawsuit was rightfully thrown out. Not only was that information widely available in the voter pamphlets mailed to every registered voter, but it was available where people registered, and online at the SOS website. It instructions have also been in place for twenty some years. Jaffe was one of the lawyers in that lawsuit who is challenging Pelosi in 2018. When Jaffe gets his ass handed to him, I have no doubt they will blame it on voting irregularities.

California is one of the most transparent and flexible states for voting, and contrary to the bullshit that Greg Palast was spewing, California counts ALL their votes, including provisional, no matter who is the projected winner, and that also includes absentee ballots

[R B Garr]

45. Exactly. The "message" is chaos driven and not based in reality. There is no reason

whatsoever for these folks to be maligning California Democrats with this nonsense, which lost almost a year ago now. Just being "anti" everything to drum up faux outrage obviously does not work. This is really disappointing to see good Democrats attacked like this all over nothing but stale talking points.

[still_one]

50. There was similar unhappiness expressed when Nancy Pelosi won the votes to be the

minority leader in the House, and when Tom Perez won the DNC chair over Ron Ellison. Not surprisingly, it wasn't Ron Ellision, a life long Democrat, that had a problem when Tom Perez won, but some of these purists who always seem to have a problem when the results don't go to their liking.

[R B Garr]

60. Exactly, and I forgot about those other two losses you mentioned when I calculated

the losses in California. Going to extremes to find something to distinguish yourself from other good Democrats has not gotten good results. Maligning Democrats hasn't worked nationally and now it's clear it doesn't work locally.

[still_one]

65. We are on the same page on this R B, and 2018 isn't that far off, and that is critical

[R B Garr]

71. Awesome, still_one, I like that focus.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

72. Why is it Sanders supporters' fault when this Hillary supporter refuses to concede and hires a...

... lawyer?

Sanders supporters are at fault because they supported a Hillary supporter, not based on who she supported in the primary (Hillary), but her positions on single payer and corporate donations?

So Sanders supporters support a Democrat based on progressive policy positions and she refused to concede but thats Bernie Sanders supporters' fault.

[still_one]

89. If you read my post I said whoever these Sanders supporters are. The article in the OP

Last edited Sun May 21, 2017, 07:35 PM - Edit history (1)

characterized it as such

I wasn't referring to the candidates, just the ambiguous reference to these unknown Sanders' supporters

[QC]

74. Kimberly Ellis supported Hillary. n/t

[joeybee12]

116. Bunch of sore losers

Who will grow tired of throwing tantrums and find some other issue they want to make sure the whole world knows they're the only ones who are right

[R B Garr]

46. This is now the 3rd consistent loss here.

Looks like maligning people is not working. There was no reason for the phony attacks on Bauman.

[revmclaren]

51. Well, bobs will be bobs...

Bye...

[Honeycombe8]

64. Did you say Bob? And now....here...he....is!!!!

[revmclaren]

53. Bingo...

Pure text book repub tactics.

[demosincebirth]

55. Sanders isn't even a Democrat

[QC]

76. Kimberly Ellis is a Democrat who supported Hillary. n/t

[demosincebirth]

99. So?

[QC]

100. So what does this have to do with Bernie and his party membership? n/t

[demosincebirth]

101. So, you backed someone who is not a democrat?

[QC]

105. I voted for Sen. Sanders in the Democratic primary in Florida.

He was on the ballot here.



I registered to vote, as a Democrat, when I turned eighteen, in 1983. Been doing it ever since.

Are you trying to make some sort of actual point here? If so, it's not coming through.

[4139]

57. LA Times:

Burton said some Ellis supporters alleged that delegate ballots may have been counted twice. But no evidence of that has been presented to him, he said.

Some Ellis supporters are demanding a recount, but the party bylaws do not have any provisions for a recount in officer elections, Burton said. On Saturday night, the ballots were counted two separate times.

[have to scroll down for the update]
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-anger-protests-erupt-over-results-of-1495382261-htmlstory.html

[R B Garr]

61. Wow, this is just sad now.

[tammywammy]

66. Nina Turner

From your link:

Adding that she believed that there is no longer any difference between the nation's two major parties, Turner urged delegates to turn out to protest and vote in the party's elections.

[Cha]

82. nina turner needs to open her eyes and ears.. her spouting

there's no difference between the two parties is stupid.

From your link:

Adding that she believed that there is no longer any difference between the nation's two major parties, Turner urged delegates to turn out to protest and vote in the party's elections.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/politics/article/California-Democratic-chair-race-angers-11162101.php

Mahalo, Tammy..

[NurseJackie]

84. That's crazy. Another display of vanity and ego. I can't stand her.

, Cha!

[Cha]

86. A big Display of showing just how damn dumb she is..

nina and ssarandon need to go on tour and get stein and nader to join up..

They can be billed as the gang of ratfucker morons who can't tell the difference between The Democratic Party and the Fascistrumps.

Look who the fuck is talking..

****Susan Sarandon compares Debra Messing to President Trump******

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/susan-sarandon-compares-debra-messing-president-trump-article-1.3131328

Jackie!

[Gothmog]

90. I was happy at the National Convention when Turner was blocked

My whip warned us that she was not going to be allowed to speak

[Cha]

97. Yay.. Mahalo for the reminder.. nina turner was NOT

Allowed to speak at the DNC.

Is it any wonder? The Divider that lives in a world of brainwashed Propaganda. What a hot mess.

[NurseJackie]

111. Based on what we've seen SINCE the convention...

... it's clear to me that those planners, organizers and decision makers were correct. They made the right choice, and I'm grateful for their wisdom and foresight.

[Gothmog]

122. I agree

They made the right decision

[still_one]

106. I didn't read down far enough. Nina Turner is has obviously embraced the Jill Stein, Cornell West

bullshit, with their false equivalences. Her inane comment that the Democrats shouldn't be concerned about the trump Russian collusion, which includes the obstruction of justice, conflicts of interests, and other actions which are in fact impeachable, using the reason that they should instead be concerned with issues such as criminal justice reform, and income inequality, demonstrates either how stupid she is, or she is intentionally blind to the fact that Democrats are and have pushed on those issues.

That Nina seems NOT to comprehend that the Democrats can and are doing more than one thing just demonstrates how screwed up she.

It is really time for Tuner just to admit she has no intention to work with Democrats, and just go join the Green Party and slip into oblivion, like most of them will now that the have enabled trump to get elected, and let the adults do what needs to be done.

For who want the exact quote from this article from Turner, here it is:

"Nina Turner, a former state senator from Ohio who has frequently warmed up crowds at Sanders rallies, said, "The way we show the corporate [Democrats] that we are not playing games with them, starting right here in California, is to make sure that we get Kimberly Ellis elected as chair!"

Turner went on to skewer Democrats for remaining hyper-focused on the controversy surrounding the investigation into White House ties with Russia and not on issues such as criminal justice reform and income inequality.

Adding that she believed that there is no longer any difference between the nation's two major parties, Turner urged delegates to turn out to protest and vote in the party's elections."

[That Guy 888]

63. I see the usual suspects promoting their "unity" message here.

Namely: "Your only choice is to unify behind the strategic thinking that has lead to the Democratic Party losing across the nation."

another excerpt from that article:

"Bauman, looking to unify the fractured party he now leads, offered words of conciliation to the so-called "Berniecrats" who supported Ellis. "There is no denying that there is a problem when so many of our hardworking activists feel that they are not welcome within our Party and that they have been slighted and shut out of the process," Bauman said in a statement.

For many Sanders supporters, emotions are still raw following what they feel was an unfair nomination contest and Saturday's California election felt like a repeat. "Things are going to get tough for the Democratic Party, and if they don't want the Republicans to win then they need to work with us," said Bryan Hash, an Ellis and Sanders supporter from Southern California.

Bauman defeated Ellis by a mere 62 votes out of nearly 3,000 cast — a razor-thin margin for a candidate who lined up support from most of the state's elected Democrats and, until recently, was widely expected to win with minimal opposition."

How are the Berniecrats identified in the article?

"In the three-day California Democratic Party convention, Democrats drawn to Sanders' condemnation of money in politics pushed the party to reject Wall Street."

I can't speak for all Democrats who backed Sanders, but I would like my Representatives to back the voters more than they back donors. I would like their public positions to "rubes" like me to also be their private position when it comes to deciding how to govern.

[RandySF]

69. No one is making anyone do anything.

But adults ideally make responsible choices to present evidence of wrongdoing or accept the results if they really want to participate.

[Cha]

83. I see the usual suspect accusing others of what

they do.

[NurseJackie]

87. I do also. Sad.

[Cha]

96. Beyond sad..

Hypocritically Pathetic.

[Gothmog]

77. Yeah

[tirebiter]

78. It took a lot of liberal effort

to make California centrist. Gov Brown is constantly having to crack the whip on fiscal issues. Wall Street is 3,000 miles away. Consequently we aren't joining a secession movement based in Russia and we may be able to craft a working single payer health care system befit the 6th largest economy in the world.

[Cha]

85. Oh this one is a real tough guy.. all he has are threats.

*****"Things are going to get tough for the Democratic Party, and if they don't want the Republicans to win then they need to work with us," said Bryan Hash, an Ellis and Sanders supporter from Southern California."*****

lol

[Blue_Tires]

127. They do love playacting the role of strongman extortionist....

[Cha]

130. Ain't that the

freakin' truth.

[murielm99]

95. Bryan Hash,

one of those identified as a 'Berniecrat' by the article, says, "They need to work with us."

How arrogant and childish.

LOL. It is the other way around. The so-called 'Berniecrats' are the ones who need to work with the rest of us.

Just a reminder: Sanders was defeated by Clinton. Ellison was defeated in his bid to be DNC chair. Bauman defeated this Ellis person.

Figure it out. You are not winning any leadership positions. Work with us or quit whining and go home.

[Blue_Tires]

113. Why do Berners insist on fucking around with

solid blue Dem strongholds? Why aren't they raising hell in red/purple states instead and targeting vulnerable republicans?

[NurseJackie]

125. Now THAT... is an excellent question. I often suspect that it's motivated by vanity and ego...

... in their quest for "perfection" (whatever that means) rather than one that seeks to make progress.

It's not just the ones you mentioned. The Stein voters also fit that bill. It's almost as if some would prefer to remain at a standstill (or even go backward) all for the pride of being able to proclaim that they didn't compromise. For some bizarre reason, many people who think that way believe that losing is a "moral victory", and they're quite pleased with themselves in their defeat.

These fringe activists are taking a naive "stand your ground" approach to politics... a binary black-and-white view of the world... one that has no shades of gray and no colors and NO STRATEGY.

Personally, I'd rather make SOME progress (rather than none at all) even if it did involve some give-and-take and/or finding common ground. I'm not too proud to compromise in order to get at least SOME of what I want.

In any case... as annoying as these political gadflies can be, their actual influence isn't as great as they imagine. (I think they realize this also, which explains their "defeat = victory" attitude.) These Stein voters, Johnson voters, and Sarandon supporters/apologists know that they can only be "spoilers", not leaders, not contenders... and that's why they continue to threaten progress with their temper tantrums when they can't have their way.

Well... fuck Stein and fuck Sarandon! Fuck anyone who believes in the "destroy-to-rebuild" or the "backward=forward" philosophies.

[GoCubsGo]

134. Or, maybe it's just more "active measures."

It wouldn't surprise me if these were people who don't give a rip about Bernie Sanders, but are far more interested in sowing seeds of discord among the Democrats wherever and however they can. Taking out the California Democratic Party would be a huge win for certain groups. They may be just like the individuals who used to constantly stir up shit here, posing as "progressives." We later found out, after they left for a certain other site, that they are not in the least bit progressive.

[NurseJackie]

139. You are very wise and observant.

... they're not fooling me either.

[nini]

143. Because they want to cause chaos for the Dems in strongholds

They want to divide the Dems and the allegiance to the likes of Stein etc.with questionable russian links convices me a lot of folks afe getting played like a violin with this stuff.

[vi5]

126. I'm all for change in the party, and more often than not in the direction Bernie wants us to move...

...but California doesn't seem like the obvious start. Maybe New York where we literally have Democrats giving the Republicans control even though they control fewer seats.

[haele]

129. Let the Ratf***ing commence...

Down here in Southern California, I haven't heard any real "whining" except from people who are closer to the radical side of the Democratic left than the pragmatic side of the Democratic left.

Here's the situation - the California Republicans (and the National GOP and CoC/conservative "think tank" interests) want to exploit the level of progress we're making. The California Democratic party is moving incrementally left, so as not to lose the old school fiscally and socially moderates and yet give the newer voices in the Democratic left (i.e., the later GenY/Millenials) a chance to start working within the party to effect progressive change. But...
You can see a lot of outside (disruptive) influence when supposed Democratic members and fellow travelers are complaining the press "We're mad because even though we're seeing progress, it's not progressing Fast Enough" and "We've gotten what we want with some issues, but it's Not Perfect! - or worse "The Party gives us a voice, but they don't let us tell people what to do - they expect us to compromise instead of just putting us in charge; they won't just capitulate to us..."

Many of the more vocal so-called Berniecrats are either technocrats - the "just do it my way and it will work better for you" business and entrepreneurial types who think they can do a better job running California from their particular view (without really understanding local political issues that need to be addressed if you're planning on bringing everyone forward along with you) - or dis-satisfied or dis-affected people who frankly want power to change the world to their liking, but don't care what anyone else needs to thrive, also. These are the types that don't play well with others; those to whom the more inclusive Democratic party is a political safe haven as the Republican party is just rigidly structured for them to be able to participate the way they want to.

California is a huge state; it has the economy and infrastructure requirements of most independent developed countries, and just as wide range of social issues to consider.
If we're to be progressively successful to bond us together socially as a State rather than a selection of interests, we must include the far more moderate concerns of Far Northern quarter and the Inland Empire Democrats when we consider policy. All politics are local, as are all issues. What works in one area will not work in others, even when considering economic and/or social policy solutions both between and within the large California metropoles* (i.e., San Fransisco, Sacremento, and L.A basin)

The "Berniecrats" have a strong voice in California Democratic party, despite what the media likes to portray. But they aren't the only voice. And the GOP is trying to leverage their energy and discontent to it's advantage.

Haele


* For you English majors up there, I looked it up - metropoles is one of the two plurals of metropolis, similar to the plural of Octopus.

[hrmjustin]

133. It was a close race but they need to move on.

[apcalc]

153. Get back to me when Sanders decides to be a Democrat

[wryter2000]

155. If Bernie wants to direct the Democratic Party

He should become a Democrat