The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[maraxus2]

Hey, I haven't posted since yesterday and it was about something totally different!

True enough, and you're the old ignoramus who's lived in this thread for a while now.

On a different note, Bernie Sanders released some of his hostage demands reforms, which look suspiciously like things that would help Bernie Sanders

Sanders demands Democratic Party reforms

Bernie Sanders speaks during a news conference outside his campaign headquarters in Washington D.C. on June 14.
Bernie Sanders speaks during a news conference outside his campaign headquarters in Washington D.C. on June 14. | AP Photo

Bernie Sanders delivered a simple message Tuesday at a press conference outside his campaign's Capitol Hill office: The Democratic Party needs to be transformed, and he plans to push for that all the way through the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

Speaking just a few blocks from Congress with campaign manager Jeff Weaver and national spokeswoman Symone Sanders (no relation) at his side, Sanders ticked off his list of priorities to change the party.

"We need a person at the leadership at the DNC who is vigorously supporting and out working to bring people into the political process," Sanders said, before stressing the need for "the most progressive platform ever passed by the Democratic Party. A platform which makes it crystal clear that the Democratic Party is on the side of working people."

The Vermont senator called for replacing Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, enabling open primaries so non-registered Democrats can vote, and better staffing to prevent long lines and difficulty being able to vote. Sanders pointed to Arizona, where both Democratic and Republican officials denounced the long lines and fewer polling stations available in the March 22 primary. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won that contest.

"How many people simply gave up their right to vote — gave up their right to vote and walked away," Sanders said. "We are taking for granted that in California it will take weeks for votes to be counted and I'm not sure the votes have yet been counted in Puerto Rico."

"We also need obviously to get rid of superdelegates," Sanders said. "The idea that we had 400 superdelegates pledged to a candidate some eight months or more before the first ballot was cast is to my mind absurd. And we need to also make sure that superdelegates do not live in a world of their own but reflect, reflect, the views of the people of their own state."

The press conference came hours before Sanders is set to sit down in a private meeting with Clinton, who has clinched the required number of delegates needed for the Democratic nomination.

[Purple]

Is this guy trying to stage a coup?

[The Romulan Republic]

No. maraxus2 is just whining because, apparently, he's one of those bitter Clintonites who won't stop bashing Sanders even though Clinton has effectively won and cares more about denigrating Sanders and his supporters than about uniting against Trump. Thanks for helping the orange man child, by the way.

Nowhere does the article say that Sanders is holding anything hostage to getting this. I suspect he'll keep his word, go through to the convention and then endorse Clinton, regardless of weather these demands are met. Nor would the reforms he's pushing for necessarily help Sanders, as his campaign is effectively over and given his age he's unlikely to run again, so the implied accusation of self-interest is also disingenuous. Indeed, getting rid of the super delegates at this juncture would arguably undermine him, since I believe the only way he could get the nomination given the current delegate numbers would be for enough supers to switch to him (not that I expect them to or think that they should).

And really, nearly all of Sanders' points here are valid. The party should become more progressive, because that appears to be what the next generation, the future of the party, by and large wants. And because their are problems right now that traditional centre Right solutions won't fix. And of course Sanders is going to push for that, not simply because it benefits him personally but because its what he's fought for his whole life. Wasserman Schultz should go, because she has proven herself both partisan and incompetent. Super delegates should go, because they are flagrantly undemocratic. More polling places are needed so that everyone has a chance to vote. And if maraxus2 is going to whine about more polling places because they benefit Sanders, then he is admitting that he supports voter suppression as long as it benefits his side.

The only point of Sanders' here that I strongly disagree with is open primaries. That would let Republicans play saboteur in Democratic primaries. Semi-open primaries, however, are a very good idea, because independents are a huge part of the electorate that the Democrats will need to win support from, and so they should be taken into accounting the primaries.

Edit: Seriously, maraxus2- if you don't like Sanders, that's your prerogative. But if you are going to attack the reforms he's asking for, then attack them on their merits. Explain why you think they're a bad idea. Don't attack by Ad Hominem.

Because right now, it looks like you are opposing democratic reforms because they would have helped a candidate you don't like, or because they're being supported by a candidate you don't like. Which means that, like the Republicans who gerrymander and pass voter ID laws, you care more about winning than about democracy.

And if you really want the Democratic Party to unite behind Clinton, then constantly attacking Sanders isn't the way to do it. That only helps the Donald. Constant attacks on Sanders from Clinton supporters send Sanders supporters a message- the party doesn't want you.

[The Romulan Republic]

See, the thing you have to understand about Bernie is, he's fighting for a cause he's been fighting for for decades. There's a downside to that, as it can lead to an unwillingness to compromise. But I think to some extent, some Clinton supporters are mistaking for pettiness and ego what is in fact simply a refusal to abandon something he's believed in since long before he ever thought of running for President.

Now, I believe he should, and probably will, endorse Clinton. And I would lose a great deal of respect for him if he failed to do so.

But Sanders is not, and should not be expected to, suddenly shut his mouth about everything he's spent his life championing and simply toe the Clinton line. If that is what Clintonites mean by "unity", then they will be disappointed. Because asking that is not asking for unity, but for subservience.

Sanders will back Clinton against Trump.

Sanders will continue to fight for the reforms that he believes in.

Deal. With. It.

Also, it might not do much good for Bernie to simply concede, endorse Clinton, and then shut his mouth. Many of his supporters would then likely regard him as a sell-out and traitor. If he wants to bring those people over, he has to show that he's won them something.

[maraxus2]

No. maraxus2 is just whining because, apparently, he's one of those bitter Clintonites who won't stop bashing Sanders even though Clinton has effectively won and cares more about denigrating Sanders and his supporters than about uniting against Trump. Thanks for helping the orange man child, by the way.

Lol. If I had your ability to jump to conclusions, I'd put on a cape and fight crime.

Is this guy trying to stage a coup?

No coup, but he is pushing for reforms that specifically help him and candidates like him. I.E. candidates with a large but fairly narrow constituency, and ones that are prone to getting really fired up about a candidate. Bernie's demands boil down to four key items: 1. Fire Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (which is whatever, she's not a great DNC chair, but Sanders people are calling for her head for a bunch of stupid reasons), 2. additional staffing at polling places (again, not a bad idea but not something the DNC can exactly fix), 3. Making all primaries open primaries (deeply dumb, since it undercuts the Dem's ability to actually register people for the party), and 4. Killing off the superdelegates (again, this is sort of whatever, but they do serve a useful function and I bet the GOP sure wishes they had Soups right now).

The only problem is that he's framing it in a way that is deeply disingenuous. Those Soups that Bernie decries now were the only people who could save his bacon. He had no problem lobbying them as long as the campaign was underway, at the same time that he was vilifying them in the Press. He also makes no mention of the caucus system, which actually is undemocratic, and actually does prevent working people from going out to vote. The caucus turnout, at least in the places we can measure it, is consistently pathetic, and at least one state has already decided to move to a primary. Yet Bernie doesn't want to get rid of them, despite their obvious suckiness. Maybe there's something going on? Really makes you think.

[Terralthra]

I don't think it's disingenuous to play by the existing rules while still thinking they're bullshit. Whether you think superdelegates are bullshit is a matter up for interpretation, of course, but it is possible to simultaneously accept that they're part of the race this year, and thus have to factor into your plan to achieve victory, while also thinking they're a bad idea and lobbying for them to go away.

Caucuses, however, can fuck right off. They suck.

[maraxus2]

I don't think it's disingenuous to play by the existing rules while still thinking they're bullshit. Whether you think superdelegates are bullshit is a matter up for interpretation, of course, but it is possible to simultaneously accept that they're part of the race this year, and thus have to factor into your plan to achieve victory, while also thinking they're a bad idea and lobbying for them to go away.

Caucuses, however, can fuck right off. They suck.

Indeed. It's not so much that Bernie's proposing rules changes, though I'd note that most of the changes need to come from the state parties that the DNC does not directly control. It's that he's wrapping his rules change in the shiny paper of "protect the vote for everyone and allow everyone to participate." That's why his notable silence on the caucuses is so notable; if Bernie cared about expanding the vote more than he cared about making it easier for Bernie to win, he'd be going after the caucuses too. But he's not, and there's a very obvious reason for that.

[maraxus2]

Speaking of which, looks like DWS is going to become a sacrificial lamb. Can't say I'm sad to see her go.

Clinton campaign officially takes over DNC ahead of general election
by Abby Phillip June 16, 2016 1 min read original

Hillary Clinton's campaign is set to install an official who will take over the day-to-day efforts for the general election at the Democratic National Committee, according to several Democrats familiar with the change.

Brandon Davis, 38, will be the chief of staff for the general election and was introduced by Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook on Thursday morning at a DNC staff meeting. Davis served as national political director for the Service Employees International Union and is a former political director and deputy campaign manager for Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

The installation of a Clinton campaign aide at the DNC marks a long-anticipated takeover of the Democratic Party's core functions by the presumptive nominee as the general election begins. In 2008, the Obama campaign installed Paul Tewes in a similar role. The change was first reported by CNN.

The DNC's online branding will not immediately transition to be focused on Clinton at Mook's direction, as part of the Clinton campaign's ongoing effort to reach out to Sanders supporters.

Embattled DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz is expected to remain in her post, but with the arrival of Davis, she will take on a more symbolic role. Wasserman Schultz has raised the ire of Democrats since being appointed to the job of DNC chair in 2011. And recently, Sen. Bernie Sanders and his allies have accused her of mismanaging the primary process and showing bias in favor of Clinton. Her ouster is one of Sanders's key demands, but it is unclear how that will change in light of her increasingly marginalized role.

Amy Dacey, the DNC's chief executive, will remain in her post and is expected to take on an expanded role. Jen O'Malley Dillon, who was Barack Obama's battleground states director in 2008 and deputy campaign manager in 2012, has been at the DNC for months beginning a process of transitioning to a coordinated effort with the Clinton campaign. She will remain as a senior adviser through the general election.

The entire DNC staff was gathered for a meeting at the committee's Washington headquarters on Thursday morning and was expected to hear from Mook, Dacey and Wasserman Schultz.

Over the past several weeks, some Clinton campaign staffers have been moved onto the DNC's payroll as part of the process of coordinating with down-ticket efforts. That process is continuing and will include both field staffers and Clinton headquarters workers who are responsible for coordinating field organizing efforts, according to a campaign official.

[Purple]

Basically I am personally of the opinion that it is very bad form to campaign for changes in the system this late down the race when its obvious he has lost. It carries all the undertones of a sore looser implying he would have won if not for the unfair system.

[The Romulan Republic]

Basically I am personally of the opinion that it is very bad form to campaign for changes in the system this late down the race when its obvious he has lost. It carries all the undertones of a sore looser implying he would have won if not for the unfair system.

First of all, this is hardly a new position for him. He's been campaigning for such changes for a while.

Secondly, now would arguably be a better time than in the middle of the race, when demanding change could be taken as asking to have the rules changed mid-game to his benefit.

And maraxus2 once again posts an insulting one-liner and ignores most everything I actually said.

I'll take that as him lacking a substantive response, and as further confirmation that he is a troll. And possibly as validating my point, which is essentially that his priority is to keep fighting over the primary. Not jumping to conclusions there, Clinton troll. Just describing what you're doing.

But as he's made it clear that the only thing that can come of conversing with him is more tossing insults back and forth, that's all I have to say on the matter.

I don't think it's disingenuous to play by the existing rules while still thinking they're bullshit. Whether you think superdelegates are bullshit is a matter up for interpretation, of course, but it is possible to simultaneously accept that they're part of the race this year, and thus have to factor into your plan to achieve victory, while also thinking they're a bad idea and lobbying for them to go away.

Caucuses, however, can fuck right off. They suck.

I agree entirely. I believe I've stated before that a single nation-wide semi-open primary, with the winner determined by popular vote, would be my preferred system, but at the very minimum, both caucuses and supers should be scrapped.

As to Wasserman Schultz going, good riddance.

[Purple]

First of all, this is hardly a new position for him. He's been campaigning for such changes for a while.

That does not really matter at all.

Secondly, now would arguably be a better time than in the middle of the race, when demanding change could be taken as asking to have the rules changed mid-game to his benefit.

The only good time to do it was before the race started. Once the contest begins it's just bad form for the contestants to complain about the rules they agreed to compete under.

[maraxus2]

And maraxus2 once again posts an insulting one-liner and ignores most everything I actually said.

I'll take that as him lacking a substantive response, and as further confirmation that he is a troll. And possibly as validating my point, which is essentially that his priority is to keep fighting over the primary. Not jumping to conclusions there, Clinton troll. Just describing what you're doing.

But as he's made it clear that the only thing that can come of conversing with him is more tossing insults back and forth, that's all I have to say on the matter.

What shall I say? I've tried responding to your ill-conceived wall-of-text posts before with little to show for it. And as far as insults go, I think it's plain to see that your reasoning is garbage.

That does not really matter at all.

Indeed. And he wasn't exactly in favor of getting rid of the Soups as long as he thought they were going to save his bacon somehow.

The only good time to do it was before the race started. Once the contest begins it's just bad form for the contestants to complain about the rules they agreed to compete under.

Disagree; the only good time to push for rules changes is after you've won the nomination. Only then does a candidate have the juice to push through such reforms. Otherwise it's just spitting into the wind.

[Purple]

Disagree; the only good time to push for rules changes is after you've won the nomination. Only then does a candidate have the juice to push through such reforms. Otherwise it's just spitting into the wind.

But why would you want to than? I mean, if you've already won the game why bother about the rules. It's not like your candidates need to go through it ever again.

[Elheru Aran]

Disagree; the only good time to push for rules changes is after you've won the nomination. Only then does a candidate have the juice to push through such reforms. Otherwise it's just spitting into the wind.

But why would you want to than? I mean, if you've already won the game why bother about the rules. It's not like your candidates need to go through it ever again.

If one's already won the nomination and still wants to change the rules, it's a matter of principle-- you got elected *despite* broken rules, doesn't mean anybody should have to deal with that again.

[maraxus2]

But why would you want to than? I mean, if you've already won the game why bother about the rules. It's not like your candidates need to go through it ever again.

Sometimes it's obvious that the rules need to change. This was the case after 1968, when Hubert Humphrey won despite never entering a single primary. That led to the McGovern-Frasier Committee, which in turn led to McGovern winning the nomination (and then getting crushed) in 1972, and Carter winning in 1976 (then getting crushed in 1980). The Dems then changed the rules when it became obvious that McGovern-Frasier wasn't working.

Likewise, the GOP tinkered around with the rules after the disasterous 2008 and 2012 defeats, not that it's done them much good.

Basically, primary rules don't change unless the Party suffers a major defeat or results in obviously broken outcomes. In this case, the awful Caucus turnout, coupled with the fact that beauty pageant primaries reversed Sanders' victories in two states, certainly qualifies as a broken-ass outcome.

[The Romulan Republic]

"Oh what a day! What a lovely day!"

Yeah, gratuitous Fury Road reference, but it fits my mood. This is just beautiful.

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pr ... convention

Several major companies revealed this week they will be dropping their sponsorship of next month’s Republican National Convention in Cleveland, where Donald Trump is expected to be officially nominated as the party’s presidential candidate.

ADVERTISEMENT

Wells Fargo, UPS, Motorola, JPMorgan Chase, Ford and Walgreens all told Bloomberg they won’t sponsor this year’s convention, despite helping to fund the last GOP summit in 2012.
None of the companies commented on whether their decision to pull out was because of the GOP’s divisive presumptive nominee.

Trump routinely lashes out at Ford in his stump speech, blasting the company for moving a factory from the U.S. to Mexico. The car company said it would not support either party’s convention.

A source told Bloomberg that Wells Fargo still plans on sponsoring the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, speculating that the move is due to the bank's large market-share in the East Coast city, but not in Cleveland.

JPMorgan, Walgreens, UPS and Motorola will not sponsor either party’s convention.

It seems that the big money is starting to get really nervous about Trump.

Looks like the rats are fleeing the sinking ship, and the collapse of Republican Party continues. This is the best news I've seen all week, I think.

Edit: Got a warning when I clicked on the link that Safari can't verify the identity of this site. I'm pretty sure its legit so this is just some glitch, and I didn't get a warning when I visited the page before, but fair warning.

[The Romulan Republic]

More on companies ditching the Republican convention:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/elections-2 ... t-packard/

Donald Trump's rhetoric has won millions of votes, but it may be scaring away sponsors from next month's Republican convention in Cleveland. Activists are pressuring past RNC sponsors to stay away this year.

Traditionally, the Republican and Democratic conventions are meant to introduce each party's candidates to a broader electorate and the millions of people tuning in. But with all eyes on Trump's nominating convention, major companies seem to be staying away from the RNC, wary of potential damage to their own brands, reports CBS News correspondent Julianna Goldman.

Trump's inflammatory comments have been a staple of his candidacy.

"They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists," Trump said of Mexican immigrants in June 2015.

"There is a great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population," he also said last December.

Now that he's the presumptive Republican nominee, some corporate sponsors are distancing themselves from the Republican National Convention.

Color of Change PAC is a civil rights group trying to get sponsors to drop out.

"This moment is about corporations making a very clear decision about connecting their money and theior resources to the type of hate that Donald Trump has been selling America," Color of Change PAC spokesperson Rashad Robinson said.

Hewlett-Packard is the latest to say it won't attend. The high-tech company said it will not contribute to either party convention. According to Color of Change PAC, the company provided over $556,000 in cash and in-kind donations four years ago.

Microsoft, an RNC donor in 2012, won't be contributing any money this time, just technical services and products. Coca-Cola, which gave $660,000 four years ago, donated $75,000 this year.

"Brands are being very cautious around their messaging for these conventions, because if they back away from the RNC, that's problematic too," Advertising Age managing editor Natalie Zmuda said.

Zmuda said the political conventions still attract large audiences.

"Marketers don't want to be involved with negativity and don't want to be associated with a convention that potentially is perceived as alienating some audiences," she said.

Zmuda notes many sponsorships are locked up in advance.

Google is still an RNC sponsor. So is Facebook, which said its involvement is a matter of civic duty.

"If any employee of a major Fortune 500 company went into work and said the things that Donald Trump says on the campaign trail, they'd be fired," Robinson said.

Color of Change PAC said it is has also been pressuring Amazon, AT&T and Xerox to drop their sponsorship or not sponsor at all. CBS News reached out to the Trump campaign, but did not receive a response. The RNC's host committee told us it has already raised more than $56 million, nearly 90 percent of its $64 million budget.

[Gandalf]

Wait, companies sponsor political conventions? That's... unexpected.

"Now, thanks to Coca Cola, Pizza Hut and Blockbuster Video, meet your twenty sixteen candidaaaaaates!"

[Purple]

Speaking of Trump I just recently discovered the man has a whole brand of merchandise including business suits and IIRC perfume. Anyone have any idea of those?

[Gandalf]

His name is on a whole bunch of merch, which hasn't always proven profitable for him.

Perhaps he should sponsor the convention this year?

[The Romulan Republic]

His name is on a whole bunch of merch, which hasn't always proven profitable for him.

Perhaps he should sponsor the convention this year?

"I'm going to build a convention. Its going to be big, its going to be beautiful, and its going to have my name on it."

[Purple]

I would not put it past him.

[The Romulan Republic]

Interesting piece from the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Will the Republican Party that made Donald Trump its nominee protect us from Trump when he is president? Even as they call him a “textbook” racist and acknowledge his scant regard for the rule of law, Republican leaders assure voters that the U.S. system of checks and balances will contain their candidate’s authoritarian impulses. Congress and the judicial system will keep Trump under control.

History and recent events suggest that is a risky proposition. Inflamed popular passions and overreaching presidents have at times not been checked. Presidents have ignored Supreme Court rulings, and the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and 1918, Jim Crow, the mistreatment of German Americans during World War I and of U.S. citizens and noncitizens of Japanese descent during World War II, and the investigations of Sen. Joseph McCarthy all showed how a frightened, angry or simply bigoted majority could deprive individuals of their rights despite the Constitution’s checks and balances. That those rights were eventually restored is no cause for satisfaction: The damage done was permanent.

Nor is it reason for complacency, especially now. Never before has a presidential candidate given more reason to fear that he will run roughshod over democratic institutions and abuse the vast powers of the presidency for personal ends. Not a week goes by without Trump providing fresh evidence that he neither understands nor values our political and legal systems but rather sees them as tools to be manipulated or obstacles to be overcome. He threatens to change libel laws to go after media outlets. He attacks federal judges as unfit on grounds of ethnic background. He promises, if elected, to have his attorney general launch investigations of his political opponents. In the past, Americans did not know as they voted that their presidents would seek to abuse their executive powers. This time, and indeed for the first time ever, they do.

Paul Ryan: 'You can't make this up sometimes' Play Video1:35
Laughing, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) responded to a reporter's question about GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump and the separation of powers at a news conference June 16. He also spoke about Trump's decision to revoke The Washington Post's media credentials. (Reuters)
As for the Republicans, after being unwilling to stop Trump from clinching the nomination, and being unwilling to abandon him after deciding that he is a racist, they want us to trust that they will be willing to fight him once he becomes president. More likely the opposite will be true.

Consider the reasons Republicans support Trump today. The first is party interest. Trump was chosen by the voters in a legitimate race and according to the rules of the Republican primary process. To abandon him, they fear, would destroy the party. Moreover, it would hand a victory to the “Obama-Clinton-Sanders” Democrats, who some Republicans insist would be an even bigger disaster. Finally, Republicans up for election fear that if they oppose Trump and anger his supporters, they will face dangerous primary challenges or lose in the general election.


Which of these motives will disappear once Trump becomes president? He will still be the Republican Party’s legitimately chosen leader, as well as the legitimately elected president. The election cycle doesn’t end in November. To oppose Trump as president will be even more contrary to the party’s interests than it is now. Will Republicans line up with Democrats to vote against Trump-inspired legislation — to ban Muslims from entering the country, for instance, or to deport 11 million illegal immigrants? To do so would only hand the opposition major political victories, setting the stage for Democratic congressional gains in 2018. Party interests will require that the party support its president.

Even in the unlikely event that some brave Republicans did act in ways contrary to the interests of their party, what would their constituents say? Two years ago, Republican voters threw out the House majority leader because he was, in their view, too willing to compromise. Would they feel differently if Republicans voted with Democrats against the Republican in the White House? And imagine how a President Trump would respond to rebellion in the ranks. Trump already has a record of vindictiveness against those who resist him, including within his own party — would he forget the person who said he engaged in “textbook” racism? — and Republicans already have a record of caving.

Opinions newsletter
Thought-provoking opinions and commentary, in your inbox daily.
Sign up
In short, anyone looking to Congress to curb the excesses of a President Trump will have to count on the Democrats. Is that the Republican message: Don’t worry about Trump, Democrats will protect you?

To hope that the judicial system will check Trump may be equally fanciful. The courts have historically been reluctant to challenge the president on actions they deem related to national security. Trump himself has noted that he will have the authority to close the borders to certain groups. And as Brookings Institution legal scholar Benjamin Wittes points out, the Justice Department is always vulnerable if a president wants to manipulate it for his own purposes. Trump has already said that if elected he will have his attorney general look into the matter of Hillary Clinton’s emails. Republicans and conservatives may delight to hear it, but what Trump can do to Democratic opponents he can also do to Republicans who defy him.

Wittes makes the point that what keeps the attorney general and the Justice Department from abusing power is not the law so much as a respect for “norms and human and institutional decency.” In fact, this is true of our entire constitutional system. The checks and balances do not automatically snap into action whenever a president overreaches. The people and their representatives have to make the system work. It is a never-ending battle. As the political scientist Edward Corwin once put it, the Constitution is an “invitation to struggle,” but our system relies on all three branches waging that struggle in a democratic spirit. No one knew better than the founders that the system they designed was neither foolproof nor tyrant-proof. The people had to make good decisions, including choosing political leaders who respected the system and the rights it safeguards.

What Republicans are saying about Trump's response to the Orlando massacre Play Video1:22
Here are five GOP lawmakers who have taken issue with the ways their party's presidential candidate has reacted to the massacre in Orlando. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)
As Benjamin Franklin said, “a Republic, if you can keep it.” Today, Americans can’t simply rely on the system to save them from the possibility of a fascist president. And they certainly can’t count on the Republicans who produced this threat in the first place. They will have to shoulder that responsibility themselves, in the voting booth.

Read more about this topic:

Jennifer Rubin: Republicans are right to panic

Barton Swaim: How Trump’s words reflect all of us today

The Post’s View: Donald Trump’s assault on our values

Robert Kagan: This is how fascism comes to America

[The Romulan Republic]

Bernie is live streaming an address on his site (berniesanders.com) at 8:30 Eastern time (about 7 minutes from now), if anyone's interested in watching. I hope that he will take a pragmatic and conciliatory tone.

[The Romulan Republic]

A fine speech from Senator Sanders, which mostly hit the right tone, I thought.

He did not outright say that he was conceding, or that he was endorsing Clinton, but he did mention the similarities between them on some issues, and at one point strongly stressed defeating Trump and working with Clinton. He also reiterated what his campaign and the movement are about, praised and thanked his supporters, and talked about continuing working to reform the Democratic Party and make the platform more progressive, and further the progressive cause.

And he advocated a fifty state strategy, criticizing the Democratic Party for failing to campaign effectively in some states and basically surrendering them to the Republicans. And urged his supporters to consider running for state and Congressional office.

So I feel like this was a concession speech in all but name as far as the nomination is concerned, while at the same time continuing the progressive cause, and reassuring his supporters that the progressive movement will go on.