Debbie Wasserman Schultz has resigned (effective next week)
She was a terrible chair. Good riddance, but why wait until next week? Get the hell out already.
As the 2016 Democratic National Convention kicks off, Committee Charwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned from her position under pressure as the party moved to contain the damage from a massive cache of leaked emails that suggested the party was taking sides in the 2016 Democratic primary.
The South Florida congresswoman came under withering scrutiny in the middle of a growing controversy over a trove of hacked emails exposed by Wikileaks. The leak raised questions over the DNC’s impartiality as presumptive nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton was locked in a tense primary battle with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
Wasserman-Schulz, an 11-year Congressional veteran, will step down after the Democrats concludes their conference at the end of the week. DNC vice chair Donna Brazile, a political veteran who ran Al Gore’s 2000 White House bid, will serve as interim chair until a permanent replacement is selected, the party organization said.
So those of you who have been arguing that the Wikileaks emails were a contrivance of Putin, why is DWS resigning over a lie?
Time to do something different and confess that you were wrong and your error was driven by your faith like allegiance to the Democratic Party establishment. You know, admit you are party hacks.
I don’t know of anyone saying that they were contrived by Putin. It is well established that they were leaked by Putin, but they had to exist in order to be leaked.
My gripe with the party is that it ignored all of this shit and laughed it off right up until having its hand forced by Putin. What kind of political party relies on Putin to police its ethics?
That is rhetorical. Obviously the answer is “a corrupt political party.”
DSW resigning over emails and the email leak being tied to Putin aren’t an either/or situation. They can both be true. You keep playing this silly game where you make up things we’ve said or believe and then go on another nutty rant about the establishment and party hacks! It’s really strange.
Calls for her to resign go way back to before this election cycle began. She absolutely was a terrible party chair and didn’t even try to hide that fact. Good riddance.
Waiting until next week lets the door give her a good whack on the way out.
Not shedding a tear over her departure. It’s long past time.
I’m so sorry you are smarting Pandora. What a colossal embarrassment for you. You say that both can be true. Here’s what’s misleading about that. Although it’s technically true, it utterly irrelevant. The issue is not about what Putin did or his motives for doing it. The only point is that DWS should have never written those emails in the first place. She should have DONE HER JOB and acted impartially. But you can’t see that trippingly obvious point and be outraged that she acted in an unjust and undemocratic manner because she did it for the sake of the establishment choice for the nomination: the candidate you supported.
Here’s are two other things that can be simultaneously true for people but apparently not for you. It’s possible to both have always supported Hillary and be outraged by the actions of DWS of tainting the party’s process. But people who are like that would have never covered this up with all the smoke about Putin, trying to distract what the establishment did. But that’s apparently not you, Pandora.
I’m sure Putin is holding onto the RNC emails.
It is stuff like this that makes it hard to defend being a Democrat to a Green Party member. We are frauds. Clinton got inside help. She might not have needed it, but she did and Sanders was cheated. That’s the bottom line.
Just heard that Hillary has made DWS her ” Honorary Chair” of her presidential campaign. Imagine that. DWS taints the party’s primary process, resigns in shame, and then gets rewarded by Hillary. What a scandal. Further confirmation in this article.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz Resigns As Democratic Party Chair
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns_us_5795044ae4b0d3568f8397f7
@J “Clinton got inside help.”
Not so fast… Virtually every embarrassing email came AFTER Sanders had already lost. How is it possible to help a candidate win who has already won???
What you’re seeing is an effort by the DNC to push a losing candidate off the stage. That’s a very different thing than what you’re claiming.
Clinton got inside help.
Like what, exactly? So far, there’s evidence of a fair amount of derision of Sanders’ campaign, but I haven’t read of a single thing that actually put the thumb on the scale or Clinton.
Hillary Clinton has said she wants to resurrect the 50-state strategy. I’d take Howard Dean Part Deux (he’s a Hillary supporter) in a heartbeat.
Sanders was never even really a Democrat. He should have been running as an Independent anyway.
In answer to Cassandra’s question, I’d cite the debate schedule that DWS put together, which was designed to keep Sanders away from as many viewers as possible.
But that was known. Which is why I’m not shocked by any revelations now. I think we pretty much knew that DWS was going all out for Hillary.
To me, the big story with this is the Trump-Putin connection. Will the media do their job and commit journalism?
I think that’s the big story as well, El Som, especially since no one on here was a DWS cheerleader. The Trump-Putin connection is scary.
“Sanders was never even really a Democrat.”
You sure like him when he votes with them, though, don’t you?
Let’s not act shocked that the DNC is stacked in favor of somebody, whomever that body might be. It has always been that way. The party is invested in winning, and it has long been clear that Clinton, flawed as she is, gives them the best chance.
The problems with DWS relate to overall job performance; the payday-loan story was a poke in her own eye. Whether or not she was justified in writing them, those emails reveal a thin-skinned score-settler who sounds like Selena Meyer.
She is a total DISGRACE. If you cant do the job fairly, get the hell out! She overstayed her welcome. Would love to see her lose her primary!
In answer to Cassandra’s question, I’d cite the debate schedule that DWS put together, which was designed to keep Sanders away from as many viewers as possible.
Except that is Sanders Supporter Lore and not in the emails so far. I’m still talking about what the emails say at this point — which is plenty of derision and spitballing of dumb stuff to do against the campaign but nothing yet that is connected to specifically putting the thumb on the scale.
It doesn’t have to be in the emails, it’s public record that there were few debates, scheduled for bad times. Are you going to pretend there were no thumbs on the scales? Because that’s the kind of thing that beggars common sense and historical precedent.
If Hillary supporters are going to get huffy every time someone points out she’s not simon-pure, it’s going to be a long four years.
Give me a break…If Hillary was ‘the best chance of winning’ then why was Bernie polling so much further ahead than Trump in numerous battleground polls? He doesn’t have the baggage she has and did not have an FBI director lay out a prima facie case of a crime on national TV against him.
It may be true the Sanders polled ahead of Trump, but he polled behind Clinton in the primaries. Polling informs us, voting decides.
DWS is out, for cause. Well and good. Now, can we get on with beating Trump?
It mayt be true the Sanders polled ahead of Trump, but he polled behind Clinton in the primaries. Polling informs us, voting decides.
DWS is out, for cause. Well and good. Now, can we get on with beating Trump?
@a “it’s public record that there were few debates,”
BS. Pure BS… In fact, you can make a good case that there was probably one too many debates.
What prior Democratic primary had more??? It’s ridiculous…
You don’t need to act like Republicans to have enough debates.
There was de facto discrimination against Sanders because there was no de jure discrimination. That’s a great argument. *eye roll*
Just read the emails with an open mind. If your takeaway is that the DNC was neutral, then you have taken leave of your senses, and it really makes not sense to keep discussing this.
And look…I get that the only way Trump wins is to drive up Clinton’s negatives. So how does pretending that theses facts are not facts not drive up Clinton’s negatives? This whole thing runs straight into the Republican narrative on Clinton. There needs to be a better response than “it never happened.”
“Except that is Sanders Supporter Lore and not in the emails so far. I’m still talking about what the emails say at this point — which is plenty of derision and spitballing of dumb stuff to do against the campaign but nothing yet that is connected to specifically putting the thumb on the scale.”
This is such a red herring. The emails don’t have to show explicit plans to do in the Sanders campaign. (Nor do they have to show a collusion between the DNC and the Hillary Campaign.) They only have to show DWS’s disposition against the Sander’s campaign to see that things like the debate schedule were reflective of that disposition.
Sorry, status quoism is a colossal problem in the Democratic Party. All the finessing about the emails and the Trump/Putin conspiratorial theory spinning won’t distract from that truth.
@J “Just read the emails with an open mind.”
Really?? Did you look at the dates. Did it says May or June…
The emails don’t have to show explicit plans to do in the Sanders campaign.
Yeah, they do, actually. If you are using this email release to claim that the D’s were giving Clinton “inside help” then you have to have something other than your own resentments to back that up. If it isn’t in the email, then you are the one with the red herring here.
So writing emails to members of the media disparaging Sanders doesn’t rise to the level of inside help for some here? The emails don’t show that the DNC, and DWS favored Clinton. Okay.
“This didn’t happen” is the play, then. Got it. Just nudge me to clap harder in case I miss the musical cues.
Are you going to pretend there were no thumbs on the scales?
You’re going to have to:
1. Provide us links in the emails released that this debate schedule was specifically meant to help Hillary
2. Provide links to the emails where the DNC actually delivered on any of their schemes to undermine Sanders.
It is hard to claim that the debate schedule was meant to help anyone (it seemed to me to want to hide the campaign more than anything), really and they ended up doing several more than planned. If there was a thumb on the scale, the extra ones wouldn’t have happened. As it turned out, there were more debates than planned and Hillary won anyway.
So writing emails to members of the media disparaging Sanders doesn’t rise to the level of inside help for some here?
Seriously? SERIOUSLY?
Hillary Clinton has had the most negative coverage from the media this entire cycle — so I’m thinking that any effort by the DNC to get reporters to give Bernie the same treatment backfired pretty spectacularly.
Between DNC bias of undetermined effect and the superdelegate system, it is fair to say that in a straight election Democrats may well have selected an insurgent socialist for their candidate.
“Yeah, they do, actually. If you are using this email release to claim that the D’s were giving Clinton “inside help” then you have to have something other than your own resentments to back that up. If it isn’t in the email, then you are the one with the red herring here.”
It’s amazing how this line of analysis is so insulting to the intelligence of DWS. It’s basically suggesting that DWS is intellectually incapable of forming plans on her own without explicitly spelling them out in an email or some other document. I don’t like DWS, but I will defend her against the implication that she is an ignoramus.
Also, when the debate schedule was being debated and the charge was made that DWS had it in for Sanders campaign, that charge was dismissed as utterly ridiculous if not indefensible. Now the emails demonstrate that DWS did indeed have that disposition. So you people who defended DWS back then have egg on your face. It’s clear that all this finessing about the emails is as much as an attempt to conceal your embarrassment as anything else.
Why is it so difficult to say I was wrong and there are bigger problems with the Dem party establishment than I previously believed?
“any effort by the DNC to get reporters to give Bernie the same treatment backfired pretty spectacularly.”
The media never went after Bernie in a serious way because the superdelegate system guaranteed he could not win, even when momentum was clearly on his side.
@DG “Also, when the debate schedule was being debated and the charge was made that DWS had it in for Sanders campaign, that charge was dismissed as utterly ridiculous if not indefensible. Now the emails demonstrate that DWS did indeed have that disposition.”
I didn’t see that. Got anything to back that up?? …other than the proposed California debate after Hillary had already won (which really was a totally stupid idea)
@DG “It’s clear that all this finessing about the emails is as much as an attempt to conceal your embarrassment as anything else.”
Show us the emails we’re supposed to be embarrassed about… two will do.
The DNC and RNC are private clubs that always start out with their chosen candidate. This happens at every level – President, Senator, Governor, County Council, etc.. It’s sorta their job. (That’s not an endorsement of the behavior, just a fact.) They are not a government office. They pick sides. Always have.
If you want to change that dynamic then you’re going to have to… well… be Obama. He was in it to win it from day one and educated himself on how the system worked and exactly what he needed to do. That was one of the things most impressive about his primary run.
I think Sanders ran thinking he wasn’t going to win and was surprised by how popular his message was. By that time, tho, it was too late. His campaign was never organized to win. That’s not a slam, btw. It’s another fact. Had he actually entered the race seriously things might have turned out differently. Might have. I doubt that they would have since, for whatever reason, Sanders couldn’t win certain demographics.
The DNC emails don’t surprise me – given that one of Sanders’ main campaign points was how awful/corrupt/dishonest the DNC was. He really hammered that home again and again. I’m sure the people at the DNC were angry over Sanders’ comments and wrote things that they shouldn’t have – and, yes, there should be repercussions to those actions. That said, the dates of those emails with the nasty, 100% unprofessional comments matter because the goal at that point wasn’t denying Sanders the nomination (he’d already lost, by a lot), but to move him to conceding.
To me, clearing the field for the primary winner is part of the job. It’s to make sure the winning primary candidate wins the general election. The DNC did the same thing in 2008. I’d love to see those emails. In 2008 it was fascinating watching the DNC awkwardly pivot away from Hillary towards Obama.
It’s amazing how this line of analysis is so insulting to the intelligence of DWS.
No, it is really insulting to your poor reasoning here. Because you are trying to argue your own confirmation bias by pretending that these emails give that bias some basis. We are talking about the emails and whether they prove that Clinton had inside help. You are the one not following the thread here by insisting that this story just confirms the story you need to believe in for why Bernie lost.
I’m not embarrassed about the DNC or the emails — there will apparently be more of them, and the ones so far are mainly unprofessional. If someone somehow got the emails from my company, we wouldn’t have any more clients and we wouldn’t have many people left who would work with us. That would be true of pretty much everyplace I’ve worked. I would care if someone got ahold of the emails of my company. I have no such investment in either the DNC or DWS. The thing that counts, though, is what you do. And so far, you can’t point to anything that the DNC did that put the thumb on the scale for Hillary.
Frankly, I think that you are the one embarrassed by your own claims here — which is why you are spending so much time spinning away from it. I mean, who else would invoke DWS’ intelligence as a reason to defend their own confirmation bias?
– The DNC emails don’t surprise me – given that one of Sanders’ main campaign points was how awful/corrupt/dishonest the DNC was.
– the dates of those emails with the nasty, 100% unprofessional comments matter because the goal at that point wasn’t denying Sanders the nomination , but to move him to conceding.
– …clearing the field for the primary winner is part of the job.
Pandora – These are actually great points, and ones that I hadn’t read anywhere else or fully considered.
I mean, it still all looks bad, DWS was still terrible, and her idiocy helps Republicans with their narrative, but I appreciate the insight into your thinking.
“clearing the field for the primary winner is part of the job.”
The primary winner has a clear field by definition. The problem comes when DNC tries to clear the field while the primary is still under way.
“the goal at that point wasn’t denying Sanders the nomination , but to move him to conceding.”
And the point of obtaining an early concession was to rob Bernie of leverage in time to avoid the platform concessions and the leftward movement of a few of Hillary’s positions Bernie was able to negotiate.
The debate schedule was flawed obviously as soon as it was announced:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/democrats-debate-schedule-nevada-october-13-121092
Additional debates were added only after Hillary didn’t do as well in the Iowa caucuses as expected.
DWS was co-chair of Hillary’s 2008 campaign. Only deluded Hillary defenders would believe her thumb was never on the scale. And she wasn’t the only one.
The whole point of the past eight years, from Clintonland, has been to make her the inevitable candidate. She came very close — her only opposition was from an old geezer who wasn’t even a real Democrat. Now you want to pretend that none of it never happened?
What if there had been no email dump? It would all be supposition based on the evidence of our own lying eyes. The emails mean nothing in that regard.
As I said before, if you people are going to try to pretend she’s simon-pure, it’s going to be a long four years.
Further, your position harms your candidate. You aren’t going to convince anybody else to move to your position, and I think you’re going to move people in the opposite direction from the one you hold.
The debate schedule was clearly changed dynamically to suit Clinton, but that was the least of the problems. I was kind of tired of the debates myself. Bernie got off message and veered into negative attacks, while Hillary was smug and cool given her superdelegate lead and, we know now, DNC support.
“And the point of obtaining an early concession was to rob Bernie of leverage in time to avoid the platform concessions and the leftward movement of a few of Hillary’s positions Bernie was able to negotiate.”
I’m not seeing that, unless you’re saying that the plan was to ignore Sanders’ voters and their message – To simply not consider even trying to bring them into the fold and get their vote. Because that would be politically smart, right? Because, in your world, Hillary would have said, “I don’t care how well Bernie’s message resonated or all his voters – screw them! I’m not going to give an inch!” That seems to be what you’re claiming.
“You are the one not following the thread here by insisting that this story just confirms the story you need to believe in for why Bernie lost.”
Bzzzz. Wrong answer (speculation). I don’t think DWS’s machinations decided the primary election. It’s interesting that your entire focus is on how these actions by DWS can mostly adjudicated as wrong only if they played a decisive role in the outcome. You don’t have a lively sense that they were INTRINSICALLY wrong given her role as the national chairperson. That’s my complaint and would still be my complaint even if Sanders had won and she did it for him. You’d be surprised how some people are more concerned with principle and process than outcomes.
@DG “The debate schedule was flawed obviously as soon as it was announced.”
So… Where are those damning emails you talked about?
The DNC was in the tank for Clinton. Their probable view was that Clinton had the best chance of beating Trump. While they committed no overt act to sway the outcome one way or the other, I am sure as an institution, Sanders posed a threat to the party. Was there an expectation that the DNC had no institutional interest in the outcome?
If my DNA contained the outrage gene, I would be outraged that anyone is outraged about this. It’s politics.
Now, what does the list of celebrity supporters say about the candidates. Why are Katy Perry and Demi Lovato supporting Clinton? I would have thought that they would have a more millennial take on things. I welcome their support but I don’t understand their world view.
First, the DNC and RNC are private clubs that have always picked their chosen candidate. That’s where we always begin. A candidate running against this must have a plan to overcome this built-in bias. Basically, people running the party think they are right (like most people) and the outside candidate’s main job is to change their minds. This can be done. See: 2008.
Is that fair? Nope, but it is reality. It’s part of the job description. Find candidates you think can win elections and support them. Am I wrong here? If I am, and I very well may be, can you tell what their job is?
“You’d be surprised how some people are more concerned with principle and process than outcomes.”
Stuff like this is tiresome and insulting. It sure as hell isn’t about having an adult conversation, but keep at it. You sound like a holier-than-thou Conservative. No one, other than people who agree with you, have principles. Um, okay.
“Why are Katy Perry and Demi Lovato supporting Clinton? I would have thought that they would have a more millennial take on things. I welcome their support but I don’t understand their world view.”
They are millionaire 1%-ers and are socially liberal.Their fan base (customers) are mostly female. Hillary is a natural fit.
Bzzzt!
You don’t have a lively sense that they were INTRINSICALLY wrong given her role as the national chairperson.
Wrong answer. (Speculation.) Because you still can’t point to her making manifest any of this INTRINSIC bias. Finding fault for her INTRINSIC bias without being able to connect that to actions that specifically undermined Sanders or his campaign find you trying to convince us that you are the Thought Police, and that DWS should be punished for her INTRINSIC bias, rather than some specific manifest bias.
I think she should have been punished and fired ages ago for specific malpractice as DNC Chair, so this action comes a little late for me.
@p “Stuff like this is tiresome and insulting.”
And worse… It’s dishonest.
DG said there was were smoking guns and we should be ashamed.
But when we ask to see the actual smoking guns we get this instead…
I’ve been following this story fairly closely, and I haven’t seen anything remotely like the smoking guns he says he knows about.
I’m not even surprised by your comments anymore, puck. Way to reduce support to the vagina vote. Never mind that many of Hillary’s supporters today were Obama supporters in 2008. How would you explain that? Seriously, if the reason they’re supporting Hillary is because they’re “female” then tell me why she didn’t have all of this “female” support in 2008. Because if I accept your reasoning it should apply to 2008.
@LE I haven’t either, but I also think we are early in the leak business.
Donna Brazile has reached out to apologize to the Sanders campaign and it sounds like there are more folks who will be gone from the DNC shortly — which is a good start.
@c “but I also think we are early in the leak business.”
There are enough bad real emails.
Do we also need to hear people pontificate about nonexistent or suspected ones too?
I have to agree with Dave — this is how politics works. Other than Obama’s triumph in 2008, when does a non-favored candidate come out on top? The system is ALWAYS rigged for the favorite.
I also agree with Cassandra. DWS deserved to go for other reasons. This one is a nothingburger compared to her general ineptitude.
“Seriously, if the reason they’re supporting Hillary is because they’re “female” then tell me why she didn’t have all of this “female” support in 2008.”
Among social liberals, black trumps female.
They maybe private clubs but use public money to finance their primaries. That fact obligates them to maintain a fair process for all.
“Among social liberals, black trumps female.”
Really? Can you expand on this comment?
“DWS deserved to go for other reasons. ”
I agree. It’s like Al Capone going down for tax evasion.
Among social liberals, black trumps female.
I think Frederick Douglass has some knowledge for you here.
Douglass never had to choose between a black man and a white woman candidate.
I have no idea where this thread has gone, and I don’t care to try and piece it together. I’ll just have to wait 12-24 hours for another scandal to arise and get back in at the top.
@puck: Exactly. Well, not exactly. She won’t be spending any time at Alcatraz.
“Stuff like this is tiresome and insulting. It sure as hell isn’t about having an adult conversation, but keep at it. You sound like a holier-than-thou Conservative.”
What a fascinating if inadvertent confession. The implication that only conservatives can hold principles over the heads of others who hold them insufficiently. You mean liberals can’t and don’t? They don’t do that precisely to conservatives for lacking principles like empathy and moral consistency? Well, they should do it to conservatives. And here’s another thing: they should do it to other “liberals” that lack them to a sufficient degree.
Other than Obama’s triumph in 2008, when does a non-favored candidate come out on top? The system is ALWAYS rigged for the favorite.
I’m going to use this comment to hijack this thread to beat my favorite dead horse and that is Democratic Party function. In 1976 and 1992 there was not a clear favorite and both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton won. 1968 started with Johnson as the presumed favorite, but it was a very turbulent primary season, with Johnson withdrawing, Bobby Kennedy assassinated among others. The thing that seems clear to me about Democratic Party operations is that they are strongest as an incumbent protection operation, but not much good at governing platforms or in bench building. So when there is an incumbent, that incumbent usually doesn’t ask the Party to get much more done other than get him re-elected (see, Clinton, Obama). When the primary is not settled, the Party always seems to lose its way until they get a nominee and a convention. So while the GOP uses its time and resources to figure out how to get a playing field better to their advantage, I have no idea what the DNC is doing.
Douglass never had to choose between a black man and a white woman candidate.
Like I said, Frederick Douglass has some knowledge for you here.
It is up to you to go get it.
“DG said there was were smoking guns and we should be ashamed.
But when we ask to see the actual smoking guns we get this instead…
I’ve been following this story fairly closely, and I haven’t seen anything remotely like the smoking guns he says he knows about.”
I posted a link to an article about it on another thread. Yoo claimed it contained no damming claims. I then quoted a damning claim in reply. You said nothing.
So now here we are on another thread with you saying I produced nothing, clearly counting on others not recalling that thread. This is a tactic you are engaging in and not a substantive charge. If provided more evidence, you would just claim again I never did so on another thread.
So I’m not going play your game LE because, among other reasons, I don’t care what you think.
Sorry, Jason. Guess the thread veered off when it became obvious we weren’t going to actually discuss the DNC, what their job is/should be, etc.. We ended up where we now always seem to end up – with people calling out other people’s principles (which now signals to me that I win! 😉 ) and for some reason reducing social liberals (what does that mean?) to identity politics. There’s a lot of dog whistles being blown.
This… ” When the primary is not settled, the Party always seems to lose its way until they get a nominee and a convention. So while the GOP uses its time and resources to figure out how to get a playing field better to their advantage, I have no idea what the DNC is doing.”.. makes a ton of sense. I have no idea what the DNC is doing either.
DWS was booed speaking at her own Florida Delegation meeting this morning.
“for some reason reducing social liberals (what does that mean?) to identity politics. ”
Demographics are a legitimate topic for political discussion, especially in response to a direct question (“why do Katy and Demi support Hillary?”). I’m not the one who indignantly and sarcastically flapped their private parts in a ridiculous attempt to discount the demographic answer with an ad hominem (“Way to reduce support to the vagina vote.”)
As she spoke, people stood on chairs holding up signs that said … “Thanks for the ‘help,’ Debbie.”
LMAO
No way is she going to be allowed to address the full convention. That would be disastrous optics, but only slightly worse than the optics of pulling her on opening day.
Good. She deserves to be booed – long before now. And that’s the thing. Did I miss the posts and comments on this blog supporting DWS?
@puck, Whatever. No one is as liberal or progressive as they claim.
I forgot why I’m not supposed to vote for Jill Stein?
Well, if you’re comfortable with a candidate that can’t give a straight answer on vaccines…
Who is Jill Stein?
oh please give it a rest, whining bernie fans and pouting purists. there’s a whiff of occupy-style futility and self-infatuation from the bernie dead-enders. i was for bernie too. he lost. maybe the dnc thought hillary was a better candidate to beat trump. maybe the dnc was right, and beating trump is the point. a more generally accepted left-wing populist may well run next time for the democrats and we can all get on board. unfortunately, a more generally accepted right-wing populist will probably run next time for the republicans (or whatever they will be called by then)..
it’s possible something will happen at the convention to rekindle the bernie fever i had last winter and spring. but it hasn’t happened yet. stay on point: beat trump.