Yeah, I agree with that. Definitely don’t want to excuse the poor choices of Democrats, and part of the reason I support Bernie staying in the race through the convention - with the caveat that tonal and strategic changes are made - is to make exactly that point: people will get out to vote for real progressive ideas.

Sure, but that cuts both ways. Bernie has shown that sufficient money can be raised in small donations to run a national campaign. That + hard work can get you more than enough for a state Senate race.

I agree with most of that, but as we saw from the failure of Walker, Bush, and the other candidates with a shitton of money behind them, the important thing is translating dollars into votes.

I agree with the OP:

Aiming that frantic hysteria at a woman applying the clear rules fairly (Hillary had people disqualified, as well, just not as many) is as stupid as aiming disgruntled, desperate hysteria at death panels. Just because things aren’t going great does not mean lashing out randomly is a good idea.

I mean, a comet could land on Hillary’s head and then Bernie would win going away.

Give me a list of important political movements in American history that have worked that way.

You are not confronting reality. Bernie essentially has to win every remaining state 85-15 to win. That will not happen. He lost.

When the Tea People didn’t have candidates who they wanted, they found their own, supported them, and primaried out the Republicans they hated.

It’s obviously right. What happened in Nevada shows that. There was no grand conspiracy, the Sanders people just didn’t organize correctly (and lost a whopping 4 delegates because of it - certainly a good reason to call the woman chair a “cunt” 100x’s on various media platforms).

Sure. You can complain and vote how you want.

The way I phrased that is misleading. I agree with you in principle. I don’t think Orlando regretted the contract they gave Howard in his prime.

I’m ambivalent about that point. On the one hand, I think you’re right about how difficult it is, but some criticism is legit. Think about LeBron digesting the low-post/dribbling at the top of the key while the defense sets criticisms. He changed that and won championships.

He has eased off, it seems. Or maybe I just pay attention to him less. He would run down the usual list of Teebow-esque nonsense when he was in Orlando.

Whoever gives him that last contract is going to be sorry...

Quite the opposite, actually, he may have been the best president in the 19th century with regard to that issue (understand the “best” in context; not the same as saying he was great). He moved for peace, appointed a Native American to serve as Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and tried to inhibit the genocide.

Come on man, that’s your response?

The goal wasn’t to go to war, it was to protect Kuwait. Kuwait is better protected if Iraq never invades. Being unclear on what the response will be to a guy you have spent the last decade arming and supporting, and, in fact, indicating that you are indifferent to an invasion, more or less ensures that invasion will…

Roosevelt had 278 delegates (won 9/12 primaries) entering the convention, LaFollette had 36, Taft 48. It was pretty clear they were going to give it to Taft.

But he did so many really, really terrible things: