Bernie Sanders

Kos’ missive earlier today, entitled ”11 Reasons Why Bernie Sanders Lost This Thing Fair and Square” doesn’t come close to showing Sanders lost “fair and square.” To show why this piece is fatally flawed, let’s go through the claimed “fair and square” reasons why Sanders lost.

1. “If you plan for a coup, you’ve already lost”

2. “He may want to disenfranchise them, but communities of color voted against Sanders”

in sum, Kos’ first two points really have nothing to do with why Sanders lost “fair and square.” Instead, these are merely arguments why the Democratic Party should abolish super-delegates. Moreover, the use of the words “coup” and “disenfranchise” “communities of color” is just a bullshit use of loaded, highly charged words and phrases against Sanders.

Clinton had hundreds of super-delegates promised to her before a single vote was cast and before a single caucus was held. So, it was just fine for super-delegates to disenfranchise every single voter and caucus attendee before the primary began. But now, towards the end of the primary trying to get those Clinton promised super-delegates to vote for Sanders is a “coup” and disenfranchises “people of color?”

That’s absurd. Let’s just be honest. The Democratic Party’s rules allow for super-delegates who can vote for whoever they choose. Under the rules as they exist today, it is the individual candidates’ job to convince those delegates to vote for the individual candidate. Those rules suck and I think most of us agree that super delegates need to be abolished altogether because the sole purpose of their existence is to nullify the primary election results. They are undemocratic. But they do exist, they will vote, and so candidates need to convince those super delegates to vote for them. But it isn’t “fair and square” to argue Sanders shouldn’t try to get super-delegate votes. These two supposed reasons, while serving as reasons to drag Sanders through the mud, do nothing to explain why Sanders is losing the battle for pledged delegates or that contest was fair and square. Truth is, it’s exactly as fair and square for Sanders to try to convince super-delegates to vote for him now as it was for Clinton to do the same exact thing 6-months ago.

Reason 3: Sander’s Won’t do Better Than Hillary Against Trump.

Again, this really isn’t a reason why Sanders is losing “fair and square.” But Kos does assert that current polling has Clinton’s negatives baked in. “They are her floor.” Not really. Polling actually shows Clinton is getting worse. There are no flat lines or floors for Clinton in this chart. Her unfavorables are steadily increasing over time.

x Embedded Content

It will only get worse when Trump goes after Clinton. Sanders has worn kid gloves when discussing Clinton. For example, Sanders gave Clinton a complete pass for her email server. You know, the one the FBI is investigating. Sanders refused to talk about that server or even the current FBI investigation. That might be one reason Sanders’ is losing btw. No matter, Trump will talk about it 24/7, along with every other thing Hillary and Bill Clinton have done for the past 25 years. Hillary’s current 55.2% unfavorable rating will be seen as a campaign high once Trump starts hammering her. But again, this has little to do with why Sanders is currently losing in a “fair and square” process, unless Kos meant Sanders should have gone after Clinton like every other candidate would have.

4: The System Wasn’t Rigged

Not only does Kos claim the system wasn’t rigged against Sanders, he argues that the system was actually rigged in Sander’s favor. Rigged in Sanders’ favor? That one is laugh out loud funny.

In reality, Clinton’s former campaign chair DWS rigged the entire process in Clinton’s favor every chance she got. Sanders has been a victim of an unfair process from when DWS first cut the number of debates from 26 in 2008 to 6 this year, and scheduled them all on weekends and during popular sporting events if she could. When things were close and Clinton was running short on cash, DWS unilaterly ended Obama’s ban on federal contractors giving to Democrats. Obviously, this change, made in the middle of the campaign, was done to help Clinton, but did nothing for the candidate who was well funded by small individual donations.

When DWS did all of these things there was never even a meeting of the DNC. There was never notice to the public or a recorded vote or a vote of any kind. There were no minutes. DWS made these huge decisions on behalf of the entire political party for Hillary in what ought to be the greatest democracy of the world. And Kos says the system was rigged for Sanders? Are you fucking kidding me?

Kos discusses the timing of the primaries to support his bizzare claim. The timing is the timing. DWS didn’t set the timing to help Sanders. Hillary won New Hamshire in 2008, and both it and Iowa have traditionally been first. There was no rigging of the system to help Sanders. It was all done to favor Hillary Clinton, and it wasn’t close to being fair and square.

5: The Media Blackout

Kos claims the media blackout didn’t matter because Sanders was all over the internet. So what? That doesn’t make it fair. Sanders would have done better if he were on the nightly news. that is where he needed to be to win. Look at his weakest demographic, elderly African Americans, especially women. Notably, elderly African Americans are among the least likely Americans to use the internet. It is beyond dispute that being on the network news would have helped Sanders reach this important demographic. So the claim the media blackout was somehow fair to Sanders is false on its face.

6: Money

Sanders did raise a hell of a lot of money. But again, DWS changed the rules from prohibiting federal contractor donations to allowing them solely to help Clinton. That isn’t fair at all.

Kos also discusses the Clinton Victory Fund and how it gave money to state democratic parties without mentioning that the state parties transferred that cash back to the DNC. While not completely honest, what that has to do with Sanders losing via a fair process I can’t say.

7: Closed Primaries

While I believe that the primaries should be open because it gives Democratic leaning independents a voice in selecting the presidential candidate, that doesn’t mean closed primaries are unfair. Closed primaries are fair.

8: Red States Voting

There are no such thing as permanent Red or Blue states. All states matter. If your state holds a primary or a caucus, your delegates count. So called Red State primaries and caucuses are fair.

9. If the system is rigged, why does Sanders have more delegates than his vote share?

10. The system is rigged because more voters are voting for my opponent!

11. The system is rigged because if we could start now, more people would vote for Sanders and he’d be winning more!

For 9, 10, and 11, I quoted them exactly so people can see for themselves these “reasons” are strawmen that don’t provide any evidence that the contest was fair and square.

In closing, Kos writes:

Being a sore loser won’t change those facts, that reality, or the fact that we have bigger issues to deal with than Sanders’ insane temper tantrum.

Sorry, but Sanders isn’t having an “insane temper tantrum.” Instead, he’s making the best case he can for why he should be the Democratic Party nominee. He gets to do that. But don’t slander his attempts to gain super delegates’ votes, claim the process was rigged for Sanders or that he lost fair and square. None of those things are true.