The Post's View After tensions explode in Nevada, it’s time for Sanders to be honest with his suppor

[Gothmog]

This editorial from the Washington Post is on point https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/after-tensions-explode-in-nevada-its-time-for-sanders-to-be-honest-with-his-supporters/2016/05/18/f17c2468-1d2d-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html?postshare=5591463664279348&tid=ss_tw

Mr. Sanders’s irresponsibility is sadly unsurprising. He has stirred up populist energy over the past several months with anti-corporate scapegoating and extravagant claims about policy. He has indulged and encouraged hyperbolic feelings that the country is badly adrift, that most of the nation agrees with a left-wing agenda but is trapped in a corrupt system, and that nothing but a political revolution will do. He has attracted some big, passionate crowds. But as he has lagged in votes, he increasingly has questioned the legitimacy of the process and encouraged his supporters to feel disenfranchised. The result is a toxic mix of unreason, revolutionary fervor and perceived grievance.

What is particularly galling about the Sanders camp’s complaints of disenfranchisement is that Mr. Sanders has benefited or tried to benefit from a variety of sketchy quirks of the nominating process. He has claimed support for his cause in caucuses, which are quite exclusive, but he complains about closed primary elections, which are more inclusive. In Nevada, his supporters were trying to game the rules to get more delegates and got upset when they did not succeed. As veteran Nevada politics reporter Jon Ralston put it, “Despite their social media frothing and self-righteous screeds, the facts reveal that the Sanders folks disregarded rules, then when shown the truth, attacked organizers and party officials as tools of a conspiracy to defraud the senator of what was never rightfully his in the first place.”

Mr. Sanders denies reality when he tells supporters he still has a plausible pathway to the Democratic presidential nomination. But passion cannot trump reality. It also cannot excuse violence, threats and attempts at mob rule. It is past time for Mr. Sanders to be honest with his supporters, before they take the campaign’s irresponsible ethos to greater extremes and thereby help ensure the election of Donald Trump.

[kiva]

1. The fact that you post this article

that quotes Jon Ralston, who has admitted that he left the convention early and didn't seen this confrontation, tells me that you are at least two days behind the news cycle.

[Gothmog]

4. Tell that concern to the Washington Post

The fact checkers disagree with your claims

[arendt]

8. The WP is the official paper of "the village"

and that was before it was bought by neoliberal zombie, Jeff Bezos.

I wouldn't use the WP for fishwrap. Funny how everyone here used to know that. Now, they are great.

Ditto, the McPaper, USA Today.

When did the corporate media become reliable??

BTW, in the interest of equal cynicism, why are Bernie folks touting Joe Scarborough.

This entire place has had a lobotomy.

[Gothmog]

9. Allegations of fraud and misconduct at Nevada Democratic convention unfounded

Here is some fact checking on this issue http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff-weaver/allegations-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/

Supporters of Sanders believed that the convention rules, which have been largely the same since 2008, gave an unfair amount of power to Lange, the convention chair. The rules specifically lay out that all convention votes must be done by voice vote, and that only the convention chair can declare the winner or call for a more specific method of voting among the thousands of delegates.

The rules, which can be read here, also state that any amendment attempts must be approved by two-thirds of the convention delegates — which would be difficult given the nearly even number of Clinton and Sanders backers present.

Sanders backers say the continuing nature of the presidential primary necessitated more rule changes.

The Sanders campaign did not respond to a request for comment. In a previous statement, the campaign detailed several allegations of misconduct from the state party, which we considered as part of this fact-check. "At that convention the Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place," the campaign said in that statement.

However, there were no last minute rule changes sprung on convention-goers — the rules had been publicly available weeks in advance, largely unchanged for three presidential cycles, and given to both campaigns.

The first major fight happened in the morning, with the convention being gaveled in nearly 40 minutes after the scheduled 9 a.m. start time.

In a voice vote, Lange approved adoption of a preliminary credentials report showing more Clinton than Sanders delegates. Immediate howls of protests from the Sanders contingent emerged, many of whom rushed the dais and started screaming insults and obscenities directly at Lange.

Although several videos from the event appear to have louder "nays" than "yeas," both preliminary and final delegate counts showed that Clinton supporters outnumbered Sanders supporters in the room.

And trying to determine the outcome of a voice vote from a video of around 3,000 delegates is somewhat arbitrary to begin with. The only person with authority to call for a different voting mechanism is the convention chair: Lange.....

Our ruling

Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said Nevada Democratic Party leaders "hijacked the process on the floor" of the state convention "ignoring the regular procedure and ramming through what they wanted to do."

Caucuses and delegate math can be incredibly confusing, and the arcane party structures don’t reflect how most people assume presidential selection works.

But the howls of unfairness and corruption by the Sanders campaign during Nevada’s state Democratic Convention can’t change the simple fact that Clinton’s supporters simply turned out in larger numbers and helped her solidify her delegate lead in Nevada.

There’s no clear evidence the state party "hijacked" the process or ignored "regular procedure."

We rate this claim False.

[arendt]

11. There are a large number of corporate media

Politics ct is yet another one.

You aren't convincing me. I,m not convincing you.

Bye

[Gothmog]

12. Facts are scary and fact checkers are even scarier

There is simply no basis for the claims. The rules were the same rules used since 2008 and it would take two-thirds vote to change these rules and the Sanders people did not have even a simple majority

[arendt]

13. I said bye, tired of rebutting cynical lies.

[griffi94]

2. Bernie appears to be coming unhinged

[stevenleser]

3. Good article that states it well. nt

[Sancho]

5. Bernie is dishonest...

[seabeyond]

6. unreason, revolutionary fervor and perceived grievance.

What a right on article. Maybe we are starting to hear more and more, of the reality of who and what Sanders is.

[sheshe2]

7. This...from your link.

But as he has lagged in votes, he increasingly has questioned the legitimacy of the process and encouraged his supporters to feel disenfranchised. The result is a toxic mix of unreason, revolutionary fervor and perceived grievance.

Thanks, Gothmog, great to the point article.

[eastwestdem]

10. Irresponsible Bernie. There's a nickname. nt

[rbrnmw]

14. kick

[TomCADem]

15. Depends On Whether Bernie Can Refocus On The Issues...

...I recall one time when Bernie declined to discuss Hillary's e-mails in order to focus on the issues and challenges affecting people. However, it seems that Bernie's campaign now is all about Bernie's campaign.