User:Pbfreespace3/Article Refutation 1

This is a point-by-point refutation of a Washington Post article attacking Bernie Sanders unjustly.

Washington Post

Pbfreespace

Convention Woes

"TENSIONS IN the Democratic presidential race exploded in Nevada over the weekend. Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) shouted, cursed and threw chairs during a state party convention in which they failed to force rules changes they wanted. Even though they were attempting to get more delegates than the caucus results in the state suggested they deserved, they attacked the process as unfair. The state party chair subsequently received death threats against her and her family.

Although some people did shout and curse, there is no video evidence of any chairs being thrown. Ohio State Senator Nina Turner, who was present at the event, said that no chairs were thrown, and no-one rushed the stage. Sanders supporters were also not advocating rule changes; they were protesting rule changes made by the Party leadership there. They also weren't trying to get more delegates then they 'deserved'. They simply wanted a recount of the existing votes. Death threats? Inexcusable, but also common in politics. Finally, if you're going to criticize Sanders for having bad people supporting him, then run articles criticizing Hillary Clinton for being supporting by a genocidal maniac who slaughtered millions of people, as well as bankers and billionaires. But no, Washington Post does nothing of the sort.

Statement

Mr. Sanders responded with self-righteousness and hypocrisy. He released a statement in which he listed a series of procedural complaints about the Nevada convention, attacked the Democratic Party for not being inclusive enough and warned that “millions of Americans are outraged” and that “the political world is changing.” He offered a throwaway line, three paragraphs down, condemning his supporters’ hooliganism in a statement that mostly justified it.

Is it hypocritical to point out irregularities in the procedure of the Nevada Democratic Convention? Self-righteous to attack a rushed, early shutdown of the convention? No, it's correct to criticize it. Attacking the Democrats for not being inclusive? Isn't that Hillary's rallying cry? The party of the big tent? The author should love that.

The Message

Mr. Sanders’s irresponsibility is sadly unsurprising. He has stirred up populist energy over the past several months with anti-corporate scapegoating and extravagant claims about policy. He has indulged and encouraged hyperbolic feelings that the country is badly adrift, that most of the nation agrees with a left-wing agenda but is trapped in a corrupt system, and that nothing but a political revolution will do. He has attracted some big, passionate crowds. But as he has lagged in votes, he increasingly has questioned the legitimacy of the process and encouraged his supporters to feel disenfranchised. The result is a toxic mix of unreason, revolutionary fervor and perceived grievance.

It is correct to scapegoat the corporations. They were responsible for multiple economic crises, and still have not paid the price for their crimes (jail). The country isn't badly adrift? Au contraire, it sure is, and another economic crisis will occur in the next 5 years. We are trapped in a corrupt system, and a political revolution is what we need. The authors behave as if this isn't the case. He has garnered 43% of the vote in the primary, not an insignificant group. Also, the majority of the country does support left-wing ideals. Look at the polls on the minimum wage, single-payer health insurance, foreign wars, and prison reform. The majority agrees with Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton.

Primary Process

What is particularly galling about the Sanders camp’s complaints of disenfranchisement is that Mr. Sanders has benefited or tried to benefit from a variety of sketchy quirks of the nominating process. He has claimed support for his cause in caucuses, which are quite exclusive, but he complains about closed primary elections, which are more inclusive. In Nevada, his supporters were trying to game the rules to get more delegates and got upset when they did not succeed. As veteran Nevada politics reporter Jon Ralston put it, “Despite their social media frothing and self-righteous screeds, the facts reveal that the Sanders folks disregarded rules, then when shown the truth, attacked organizers and party officials as tools of a conspiracy to defraud the senator of what was never rightfully his in the first place.”

A primary closed to independents is not inclusive, it's by definition exclusive! You're excluding independents, who comprise the largest voting block in the country! Is asking for primaries open to all voters a 'sketchy quirk'? Hardly.

In Conclusion

Mr. Sanders denies reality when he tells supporters he still has a plausible pathway to the Democratic presidential nomination. But passion cannot trump reality. It also cannot excuse violence, threats and attempts at mob rule. It is past time for Mr. Sanders to be honest with his supporters, before they take the campaign’s irresponsible ethos to greater extremes and thereby help ensure the election of Donald Trump.

He still has a path to the nomination. He's 43 to her 57. That's pretty close in primary terms, and that can change when uber-liberal states like California and pro-Sanders states such as the Dakotas and Montana. In fact, Sanders will split or win the states on June 7, setting the stage for an interesting convention. Superdelegates can always switch their loyalty, especially if Hillary is indicted or assassinated. In fact, she made a similar remark regarding Obama at this same point in the 2008 race, recalling Robert Kennedy's assassination. Also, Sanders is not ensuring the election of Trump. Hillary supporters are, because she loses against Trump in swing states and national polls. By supporting Hillary, you will put Trump into office, probably for 8 years. All in all, a very biased article from a paper that used to be pro-Sanders just a few months ago, but switched when it sensed the political winds shifting ever-so-slightly.