Here are two things I read back-to-back this morning:

1. CNN: "Bernie-backing activists to 'crash' Democratic convention."
The progressive political movement emboldened by Bernie Sanders' insurgent campaign is preparing to "crash" next month's Democratic National Convention, demanding the party establishment take steps to reject corporate influence and reform its nominating process.

"If the Democratic Party wants to put on a $50 million infomercial saying, 'Hey vote for us,' without committing to make this the last corrupt, billionaire-nominated voter suppression-marred election, then we're going to crash the party," said Kai Newkirk, the director of Democracy Spring, an activist coalition dedicated to "mass nonviolent action" against big money in politics.
You know, it's quite an amazing needle they're threading. The problem isn't money in politics, but only where the money is coming from. A position obliged by the fact that Bernie Sanders outspent Hillary Clinton by "at least $24 million in the Democratic primary, according to financial disclosures released Monday."

2. Bloomberg: "Nearly Half of Sanders Supporters Won't Support Clinton."
In the two weeks since Hillary Clinton wrapped up the Democratic presidential primary, runner-up Bernie Sanders has promised to work hard to defeat Donald Trump — but he's given no sign he'll soon embrace Clinton, his party's presumptive nominee. Neither have many of Sanders's supporters. A June 14th Bloomberg Politics national poll of likely voters in November's election found that barely half of those who favored Sanders — 55 percent — plan to vote for Clinton.
[Video may autoplay at link] And yet, Bloomberg's latest poll also shows Clinton with a 12-point lead over Donald Trump. Still, the fact that Sanders has engendered so much hatred among his supporters for Clinton is appalling.
Conversations with two dozen Sanders supporters revealed a lingering distrust of Clinton as too establishment-friendly, hawkish or untrustworthy. As some Sanders fans see it, the primary was not a simple preference for purity over pragmatism, but a moral choice between an honest figure and someone whom they consider fundamentally corrupted by the ways of Washington. Sanders has fed these perceptions throughout his campaign, which is one reason he's having a hard time coming around to an endorsement.

...After beating Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary, exit polls showed that Barack Obama won 89 percent of Democrats in November.

Still, for many Sanders supporters, opposition to Clinton is the basis of their political identity.
Emphasis mine. The hyperbole is absolutely astounding, as Bernie-or-Busters refer to Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" and saying that the choice between Hillary Clinton, who has centered her campaign around breaking down barriers for marginalized people, and Donald Trump, who has centered his campaign around scapegoating and bigotry, is the choice between "Die by quicksand, or die by bullet?"
If Clinton is nominated, says 31-year-old Bako Nguasong, "I don't know if I'm voting. She's definitely the lesser of two evils, but I don't trust her." She adds: "I know Donald Trump is evil, he's a racist, he's a misogynist." But Clinton, she said, is "not for the people. She's about money."
I don't even know what to say anymore. That anyone could really imagine that Clinton isn't "for the people" is beyond me. Sanders sold his supporters a bill of goods, casting as a monster a woman whose primary disagreement with him is how to get done the things they both want done. And all for what? To lose and look like a bitter fool. And to risk electing Donald Trump. Great job, Bernie.

Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.

blog comments powered by Disqus