It’s blockquote and /blockquote enclosed in .

It’s interesting that in 2008 (there were all kinds of difficulties with rules in the primaries, but) by various counts the popular vote only differed by a few hundred thousand, rather than the current 3 million.

But this year the outcome is “undemocratic”??

I guess quote tags don’t work 🙁

It has been astonishing since the beginning of the campaign how much the media establishment has belittled or shunned Sanders and crowned Hillary Clinton. Sanders had to count on popular support, and appreciation of his ideas, because he was not going to get any attention from the press, who seemed offended when Sanders was rude enough to win a caucus or primary.

It’s not a conspiracy, the media covers candidates who are popular, Sanders had to build up his popularity to get coverage. If he wanted more coverage at the start he needed to start building up popular support earlier.

Clinton and the party establishment wrote the rules, including the inclusion of hundreds of bought and paid for old pols, the so called super delegates. Democracy my foot.

There’s no reason to believe they wouldn’t go to Sanders if he won more pledged delegates, they went over to Obama when he won the popular vote. Do you think they were “bought and paid for” eight years ago?

Sanders is the only one explicitly saying the superdelegates should overturn the will of the voters, eliminate the superdelegates and Sanders chances are even more hopeless.

The Dem party decided to manipulate Nevada into being one of Hillary’s multiple fire walls, and Sanders, being new to the game, never had a chance at inside trickery.

The Sanders campaign was the one trying inside trickery to win more delegates even though they lost the vote. Whether or not the Clinton campaign used inside trickery they used it to uphold the popular vote.

If Clinton were really popular she would not need to orchestrate an effort to shame Sanders out of the race. No wonder Sanders supporters get mad.

They wants Sanders to quit because he’s already lost the race, he can’t come back at this point and attacking the legitimacy of the process risks dividing the party and hurting in the general election. Right now Trump is rallying the Republicans while Clinton is still being attacked by Sanders.

Clinton and the party establishment wrote the rules, including the inclusion of hundreds of bought and paid for old pols, the so called super delegates. Democracy my foot.

The only way Hillary could pay for her ‘no we can’t’ campaign was to get those fat checks from the corporate big shots. Money for Sanders poured in from ordinary voters.

The Dem party decided to manipulate Nevada into being one of Hillary’s multiple fire walls, and Sanders, being new to the game, never had a chance at inside trickery. Then Clinton topped it off by generating this idiotic effort to put Sanders on the defensive for his out of control supporters.

If Clinton were really popular she would not need to orchestrate an effort to shame Sanders out of the race. No wonder Sanders supporters get mad. We know that the establishment types are trying every trick in the book to push us aside so they can carry on the Big Bill legacy of filling the White House and Oval Office with Wall Street crooks and CEOs. Maybe Hillary is already planning her library, and she worries about how to pay for it. We deserve better. But then, our party has sold us out.

I voted for Bernie Sanders … But if anybody thinks that, somehow, he is having the nomination “stolen” from him, they are idiots.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/sanders-needs-to-talk-down-his-supporters.html

Having lost the battle for votes and pledged delegates, the Sanders supporters are trying to Cruz their way to the nomination.

(By the way, I don’t live in the U.S., and I’m not a U.S. citizen. I agree with Sanders’s goals, but America’s political realities being what they are, they are not achievable.)

it wasn’t a matter of motions not being seconded, it was motions being ignored, which is different, and importantly so.

Zebra,

To my knowledge no death threats were made at the convention, which is where Roberta Lange wrongfully excluded delegates. And it wouldn’t make exclusion of delegates acceptable in any case.

Greg,

Here is the most human readable summary of events I have yet encountered. I challenge anyone to read this and conclude the elected Sanders delegates did not have legitimate cause for concern:

How Democrats Manipulated Nevada State Party Convention Then Blamed Sanders For Chaos.

“I think it’s very unfortunate and unfair to just characterize this as rabble from an unruly crowd instead of elected delegates with genuine concerns being shut out of the process.”

The death threats will surely turn the tide of sympathy in your favor.

In addition to that summary, here’s a timeline from an attendee that suggests numerous motions from Sanders supporters were ignored, and that attempts to have a motion to recount were ignored (despite other motions being accepted):

Alternately the Bernie backers didn’t understand the rules well enough to know how to manage the agenda by doing things like seconding motions. Kinda sketchy though no less sketchy than them trying to take more delegates even though they lost the caucus.

As for the Yay vs Nay controversy the videos are kind meaningless. They’re taken from inside a crowd of Bernie supporters. Of course the Nays sound louder!!

This is a pseudonym so I guess it doesn’t really matter, but my *intended* handle is Josef Johann, taken from Wittgenstein’s two middle names.

I would have hoped that if you are aware of these contentions, you would have treated them with more sympathy than you do in your blog post. I felt the most charitable interpretation of your post was that you maybe hadn’t seen other interpretations of the same event.

In particular, refusing to hear motions for a recount and granting other motions, and denying delegates opportunity to prove their bona fides, and changing rules to pass resolutions by a voice vote instead of a count, and refusing to reconsider the rule changes, all seem pretty serious to me, and they seem much more like legitimate points of contention than mere rabble rousing.

I respect that it’s difficult to sort through all of the details, particularly since I think sometimes that demand is made of others in bad faith in order to inundate them. So in some cases it makes sense to consider context and partisan intentions of people who want to keep throwing more and more details at the wall.

But at the end of the day, for something as important as electing a nominee for president, I think this is a case where it’s fair to plead for closer attention.