The Democrats, man I dunno.

Starting to wonder if the convention that destroys its city might end up being the Democratic one, or possibly both I guess.

I have not been terribly optimistic about Sanders chances in the election and I feel like that is probably the correct view to be taking given the way the voting has gone to date, for a, I dunno, rebel style candidate running a truly left wing campaign that we haven't seen in a major party in a couple of decades he has done pretty well, no lie, but I just didn't think he had enough to get past the Clinton machine and the establishment support she has garnered.

I think I was right about this, which makes shit like Nevada baffling to me, see the news and DNC are attempting to make it out like this is about Sanders' supporters being violent, but they are downplaying the hilariously obvious screw job that was put on at the convention to disenfranchise his delegates and prevent debate. This is only the latest of many increasingly unsubtle rules manipulations that the DNCs in various states have been pulling, from stuff like in Nevada to voter suppression in the form of ballot shortages and locations being closed.

But I don't think they needed to do it to get Clinton to win, outside of a couple states, voting has largely gone with the polling, and the polling has Clinton winning, and that doesn't even count the Superdelegates which are there specifically to shut down a threat to the party like Sanders in the first place! So why are they ignoring their failsafe and resorting to obvious things like this? Are the state level Democratic leaders simply just so mad at Sanders for daring to challenge the status quo that they are operating without marching orders? I suspect not, the part has manage to pull itself together pretty well in the last couple decades and widespread insurrection is unlikely to be tolerated.

Does the DNC not trust the Superdelegates to actually vote for Clinton at the convention? If not, why? They are by definition party actors and should have a vested interest in toeing the party line, but many of them are also elected officials and if they are thinking about down ticket results if they are seen to be opposing the populist candidate then maybe there could be some shaking up of things in the making, though I kinda doubt it.

Honestly it feels personal to me, I think Clinton wanted to have an easy run to the presidency and not have to really work on her platform on the way, especially after Obama came out of virtually nowhere back in '08 to take the nom, my guess is she doesn't care what has to be done, she wants Sanders shut down and for no surprises to happen at the convention.

I don't think she is going to get it, and I don't think this is the smart move at all, the DNC and Clinton are putting a lot of faith in Democratic voters to ignore the shenanigans and vote if not for her, then against Trump in November, but I don't have a lot of faith in that plan myself, I mean I will do it because I don't want to die in nuclear fire or be sent to the camps for not personally shooting brown skinned people on the street if they aren't wearing a Trump hat. But it is gonna be hard to blame people for telling the party to fuck off if the argument is just going to be "vote for me or Trump gets in" blackmail doesn't make friends, and the average American does quite a lot out of spite, I suspect voting for Trump will happen out of spite more than anything else if this keeps up.

Do I really think this shit is going to cost us the White House in November? No, demographics don't really support that at all, but as much as Trump and the Senate's obstructionism are going to make life difficult for Republican down ticket races, this is going to make life hard for the Dems too and I really could do without a Republican House and Senate with a Clinton in the White House, literally nothing will be done for four to eight years, and that just sort of blows.