Democratic Convention – July 26, 2016

Filed in National by on July 26, 2016

Here’s your convention thread!

4:56 – Beginning nominating speeches and then onto Roll call votes.


About the Author ()

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

Comments (85)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. pandora says:

    This is historic. (I’m a little weepy.)

  2. Delaware Dem says:

    Great atmosphere so far. No booing. Maybe it was all gotten out of the system yesterday.

  3. Delaware Dem says:

    Delaware is up next after Colorado and Connecticut. Looks like the hopefully outgoing John Daniello will embarrass us again by speaking.

  4. pandora says:

    I’m not going to let anything ruin this for me. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  5. Delaware Dem says:

    Daniello introduces Carney. Many friends in that shot.

  6. Delaware Dem says:

    9 votes for Bernie, 23 for Hillary from Delaware

  7. Delaware Dem says:

    A very touching moment here with Bernie’s brother.

  8. pandora says:

    Now I’m weepy again. Sanders’ brother casting that vote for Bernie was beautiful.

  9. Delaware Dem says:

    And Bernie was crying.

  10. Mitch Crane says:

    A 104 year old woman-born before women could vote- announced Arizona’s vote for the first woman president! Did she think she would live to see the dat?

  11. Delaware Dem says:

  12. Delaware Dem says:

    Hillary’s friend from Illinois casting their votes for her was also a very touching moment

  13. pandora says:

    Mitch, that was amazing. It’s hard to believe that it hasn’t been that long since women couldn’t vote.

  14. Delaware Dem says:

  15. puck says:

    I was impressed by Tulsi Gabbard’s speech nominating Bernie, on the same themes as Booker but much preferable. Also, Alison Grimes was there seconding Hillary so I guess there’s no doubt Grimes is voting for her.

  16. Delaware Dem says:

    Grimes was a preliminary speech, not a nominating speech, if I recall correctly. But she did speak in favor of Hillary, so yeah, you’re right. Hillary’s nominators were Barbara Mikulski and John Lewis.

  17. Delaware Dem says:

    And I saw someone say on Twitter that if Sanders had won the nomination he would have had Tulsi Gabbard as his VP. Makes sense. She has military and foreign policy experience, and is a woman (obviously).

  18. puck says:

    Right, my mistake about Grimes’ speech. My point was that Grimes couldn’t/wouldn’t say she had voted for Obama when she was running against Mitch McConnell. Not the best person to speak on Democratic Unity Day.

  19. Tom Kline says:

    Poor Bernie. His Presidency stolen by a lying, cheating bitch. Like her cheater husband if she wins they will impeach her fat ass the first chance they get.

    The DNC ran a very corrupt campaign favoring Clinton the whole way.

  20. pandora says:

    Sexist and dumb. That’s a winning combination.

  21. Delaware Dem says:

    That is it. Tom Kline is banned.

  22. pandora says:

    Holy crap! Is he a Democrat?

    You could warn him. Personally, I’m fine with highlighting his toddler temper tantrum. He reveals who he truly is – a sad, lonely, little man.

    Your call.

  23. Delaware Dem says:

    I don’t care. I’m not having sexist garbage any more.

  24. Delaware Dem says:

    And any other person who wants to talk like a sexist Trumpian, you are free to join him.

  25. Dave says:

    It’s not like he ever offered any thoughtful commentary. So no loss.

  26. puck says:

    Tom is a lodestone to remind us what irrational criticism of Hillary from the right actually looks like.

  27. pandora says:

    I think I’ve become numb to a lot of this crap. That concerns me.

  28. pandora says:

    Actually, irrational criticism comes in many forms. Dealing with the Toms of this world is easy, it’s the not so obvious ones that do the most damage.

  29. Delaware Dem says:

    And now that that unpleasantness is behind us, it looks like Tennessee will put Hillary over the top unless a state passes.

  30. pandora says:

    Will they let Vermont give her the nomination? There’s been some talk…

  31. Delaware Dem says:

    South Dakota will be the state. Hillary is at 2380. 2383 needed.

  32. Delaware Dem says:

    Hillary is the nominee.

  33. pandora says:

    South Dakota? Well, that’s a little anti-climatic.

  34. pandora says:

    Hillary is the nominee. History is made.

  35. pandora says:

    Vermont passed. Going last.

  36. Delaware Dem says:

    Maddow speculated that it will be because Bernie will take the mic and move for a vote by acclamation.

  37. pandora says:

    Here comes Sanders!

  38. Mikem2784 says:

    Sanders is really showing himself to be a team player and, in my mind, has solidified himself as a Progressive hero by doing so.

  39. pandora says:

    I’m kinda surprised how emotional nominating a women makes me.

  40. pandora says:

    Bernie moves “That Hillary Clinton be selected at the nominee”


  41. Delaware Dem says:

    Very gracious moving thing Bernie just did, moving to nominate Clinton by acclamation.

  42. Delaware Dem says:

  43. Delaware Dem says:

  44. There’s one thing that concerns me tonight. All the polls show that Clinton is doing very poorly with white men without college degrees. They could well decide some of the swing states and ultimately the election.

    Haven’t seen anyone so far tonight who speaks to them. Dismiss them at your own risk. It’s not that Hillary needs to win them, she should at least be able to do as well as Obama, and so far she’s not. Scranton Joe to the rescue?

  45. Brian says:

    Sanders has all my respects, for real. That was awesome to watch.

  46. Jason330 says:

    Maddow thought President Clintons speech was scandalously sexist and retrograde.

  47. Delaware Dem says:

    That was a very strange reaction from Maddow. Pandora, your thoughts. I, as a man, disagree, because I am not sure how else Bill Clinton as a husband could have done it.

    El Som, Bill Clinton, and the video before, appeals to white men. So does Tim Kaine and Joe Biden. Polls show that the divide is not men v. women or whites v. minorities. It is non college whites v. college whites. Hillary leads among the latter, and that is the first time a Dem has done that in decades.

  48. puck says:

    Oh s**t. I can’t find a link but I just saw Trump’s new ad on TV.

    We’re hearing about making history and glass ceilings and how Hillary loves kids and is a good mother. Meanwhile Trump is running ads about rebuilding American infrastructure with American steel and bringing back American jobs. You and I know his plan is BS – but it’s a good ad.

    It’s on. Get on the ball, Team Hillary.

  49. puck says:

    I think what I saw was a cut-down version of this ad which is a few days old:

  50. DD: I know. Here’s what I wrote:

    “All the polls show that Clinton is doing very poorly with white men without college degrees.”

    She’s doing worse than Obama did. I hope someone speaks directly to their fears of being left behind.

  51. pandora says:

    “Itโ€™s on. Get on the ball, Team Hillary.”

    Can we get through the convention?

    As far as the white men without college degrees… This is so reminiscent of 2008 and 2012. This is the same group that Obama struggled with – he didn’t reach 40% in 2012 (43% in 2008). On the bright side, in 2008, McCain received 31% of the Hispanic vote. In 2012, Romney received 27% of the Hispanic vote. Anyone think Trump will do the same or better with Hispanics? Me neither.

    So here’s my question, how do you get racists and misogynists to vote for a black man or woman? Answer: You don’t. That vote is 100% emotional and there’s no policy proposal in the world that will sway them.

  52. pandora says:

    Let me also add… from here on out when we talk about demographics let’s talk about all demographics. She may not win as many non-college educated white men, but she’s making up for that loss in other areas.

    There’s a disconnect here, and I’m part of it. I’ve realized, that as a woman, my social group (in real life and online) is very different than most white men’s daily interaction. For months I’ve been trying to understand why so many white men on DL are really frightened that Trump could win because these aren’t even close to the conversations I’m hearing. (Again: anything can happen in a two person race) I’m not saying the concern is unwarranted – never take anything for granted! What I’m saying is take a look at who you’re talking to, reading, following on FB or twitter, live next to, are related to and decide if there’s enough diversity there. (OMG! That’s not a slam! ๐Ÿ™‚ )

  53. ex-anonymous says:

    pandora: maybe i missed something, but are you saying women do not fear a trump election (or at least not so much)? that women are so excited to have a female candidate that fear of trump seems irrelevant? that hillary won’t need the college-educated male vote to win (i’m guessing that includes most male dl commentators)? are you saying identity politics are more important than stopping a (semi?) fascist from being president? just trying to understand. this coming from somebody who thinks sanders dead-enders are being (as a great comedian once said) ridiculous.

  54. anonymous says:

    @puck: I saw it, too, and it is an effective ad. Didn’t say anything about using that steel to build a wall, though.

    It’s clearly aimed at white men. I don’t see too many women getting misty-eyed about American-produced steel.

  55. pandora says:

    Nope, ex-anon, that’s not what I’m saying. Everyone fears Trump (if there’s one election that should run on fear, this is it. Dismissing that is beyond foolish).

    What I’m saying is that in conversations I’m having, with a diverse group of people, (in real life and online) aren’t all doom and gloom. Yes, we talk about organizing and getting as many votes as possible, but, while we discuss the white male vote, that is only part of the conversation. We focus on women and minorities, too. Many of these voices, not all, don’t really count many white men as allies and don’t count on their votes. (Sheesh, #notallmen).

    And Hillary is winning the college educated white male vote.

    I’m just not sure the white male vote deserves as much attention as it’s getting – and boy, is it getting a lot. Not only has the GOP completely lost the Hispanic vote, but this year there are waaaaaay more Hispanics voting. Trump tweeted the other day that he doesn’t know what’s wrong with the women – why they don’t support him. Ya think?

    I’m not saying “identity politics are more important than stopping a (semi?) fascist from being president. Not sure where you are getting that. I’m saying we should consider all demographics in this election. There’s good news and bad news. Now, if someone can tell me how you get a sexist/misogynist to vote for a woman, I’m all ears.

    BTW, does anyone know when the last time Dems won with a majority of the white male vote (I’m searching for those figures, but am a bit busy today)?

  56. pandora says:

    Okay, I found the numbers from 1992 and 1996. 1992 was the year of Ross Perot, so it’s not so clear cut.

    Clinton lost the white vote to George H. W. Bush.
    Clinton – 39%, Bush – 41%, Perot – 21%

    In 1996 Clinton lost the male vote and the white vote to Dole.

    Interestingly, the R’s won the Asian vote both of those years. In 2008 and 2012, however, Obama won Yuge with that vote. 62% in 2008 and 73% in 2012.

  57. anonymous says:

    I’m still looking, because these numbers get harder to find the further back you go, but I’m going to guess Roosevelt.

    The Gallup numbers don’t break it down by gender and race together, just one or the other. And what we might forget is that back in the ’60s, women were more likely to vote Republican than men were. More women than men voted for Nixon in 1960, more men than women voted for Kennedy.

  58. ex-anonymous says:

    pandora: i wonder if a democratic party that doesn’t care about white male voters could turn into a party that white men reject (including the educated ones, if there were a reasonable alternative). or, as we’re seeing now, a party/candidate that engenders (!) little enthusiasm. fortunately, educated white-male fear of trump will help defeat him (i think). and i believe you are talking about identity politics if getting a woman (this woman) nominated makes you so enthusiastic that the evil that is trump becomes an afterthought. i know you realize trump would be a disaster for women and minorities. but, more important, he would be a disaster for everyone. and i know you didn’t exactly say the democratic party doesn’t need white males. i’m just looking at the implications of what you did say and thinking about down the road. i guess i have more time on my hands right now than you do!

  59. puck says:

    “Itโ€™s clearly aimed at white men. I donโ€™t see too many women getting misty-eyed about American-produced steel.”

    I bet they were plenty misty-eyed in the 70s and 80s when their husbands lost their steel-related jobs and they had to downsize their standard of living.

    What’s so white about American buildings, bridges, and steel?

  60. anonymous says:

    For some reason I couldn’t re-edit that, so let me add that in the end the date doesn’t really matter, because whenever it was, the parties have switched roles since then (back in the day, Democrats, not Republicans, loved Jefferson).

    Your point is valid in that Hillary won’t win with white men. But she has to get more than 30% of them to win the election.

  61. anonymous says:

    @puck: What’s so wonderful about working in a steel mill? Like so many other manual-labor jobs, many of the brutal jobs in a steel mill are now done by machine. And if the jobs are non-union, they don’t pay well; there’s no magic connection between the work being hard and it paying well (see meat processing for illustration). To repeat yet again, the only thing that makes a job “good” is the salary. That ad plays on nostalgia for the ’50s, which was the last time American steel was a good investment. You’re probably too young to know this, but by the early ’70s American steel was so obviously doomed that they did a network dramatic series about it starring Karl Malden. “Deer Hunter” made the decline of American steel a symbol of the Vietnam War, or maybe the other way around. This is like running on bringing back the cowboy.

    Plus, I watched the ad with a woman, whose response was “What the fuck was that?”

    Also, to quote Olympia Dukakis in “Moonstruck,” what you don’t know about women is a lot.

  62. pandora says:

    I hear you. I guess I view this differently. The white men under discussion aren’t reliable Dems/liberals/progressives. We’ve got them. The ones we’re losing are really not that different than the ones Obama lost – these people are NOT voting on policy, they are voting resentment steeped in racism and misogyny, and I’m not sure the way we’d have to win them over is worth sacrificing what we Dems/liberals/progressives believe. Because I sincerely doubt that talking about manufacturing and jobs is what’s holding them back. I think many aren’t comfortable with, not only sharing the political stage with with minority groups, but that they aren’t 100% in control of the agenda anymore. I completely understand how that can be scary.

    I even said I’m part of the disconnect. The Democratic party platform is extremely inclusive. If you care about college, affordable day care, education, not nuking the entire world, raising taxes on the 1%, BLM, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, Jobs, the environment, reproductive rights, Health care, immigration… then you’re voting for Hillary. So what more are these white men looking for? (The VP choice was for them, btw.) I’m not sure, but I do know, and have said, Trump’s pull would be instinctively strong with this group. I could see that coming a mile away – I even wrote a post on it and remember being told I was wrong by some commenters. I wasn’t wrong. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    So… I don’t know how you win this group. What I do know is that winning them won’t rest on actual policy. You got any ideas?

  63. anonymous says:

    You don’t go after the group, you go after the misfits. If this is going to be a sausage party, realize that most men, even some of the alphas, are not going to end up on the inside, and that all of them are beset by constant fear of loss of status.

    They have professionals who will know how to peel off the 5% she needs. I hope.

  64. puck says:

    Don’t trivialize the message by reducing it to steel mill jobs. Yes the mills themselves are more automated now, but the mills fed the surrounding factories and even non industrial businesses, as can be seen by the working-class homes that were built in communities surrounding the steel mills.

    Don’t take the message “American jobs, American steel” too literally. It’s not just about steel. It would be a very good message to triangulate. I’d like to seen a Dem ad about “American jobs, American steel, American unions.”

    You are right about unions. Even if Trump does manage to bring back factory jobs they are likely to be non-union and will suck. Workers would be better served by unions for retail workers or customer service staff.

    And don’t tell me what I don’t know about the industrial contraction in the 70s and 80s. I was a teenager but I got it. I watched many of my friends’ parents laid off by Dupont. There was no Internet but I read the newspaper and our family subscription to Newsweek. I read the feature articles about families broken by the loss of the breadwinner’s job.

  65. anonymous says:

    The only other jobs involving steel are construction jobs, or at least, those were the only ones shown. The ad notably was NOT about infrastructure; it showed high-rise construction, which is a tiny portion of construction jobs, and atypical because it requires a lot of welders and other skilled workers, while 90% of home construction can now be done (not well, but lots of developers don’t care) with unskilled or semi-skilled (even immigrant) labor. Ever used a nail gun? You’re hired.

    My point about women was that most of them who are alive today have no nostalgia for the steel industry. That ad was as male-targeted as “Field of Dreams.”

  66. pandora says:

    It’s really interesting. My grandparents were immigrants who worked in factories and manufacturing and their one goal for their kids was for them to not have to work in factories and manufacturing. I am not saying that’s a good thing. I’m sharing a different experience.

    The Trump 1950s nostalgia ad would resonate with white men. That makes perfect sense. When we romanticize that time we tend to gloss over how much it sucked for every one else. No one, other than certain white men, wants to go back there. Trump needs a boatload of white male votes – and I mean a boatload.

    My bet… Team Clinton will sound the alarm and create a crisis (part real/part not) over white men voters. You can see it happening now. The professionals (as anon says) are manipulating the message as we speak – which creates 1) white men (who fear/can’t stand Trump) getting on board and 2) galvanizing non-white men/women to GOTV. Gotta love politics.

  67. anonymous says:

    I read the Trump ad as a cue that he’s running on his one strong demographic. I suppose the idea is that if he turns out enough white men he could still win, so he’ll keep picking the “untrustworthy” scab while rhapsodizing the one business (construction) he knows anything about.

  68. puck says:

    “My point about women was that most of them who are alive today have no nostalgia for the steel industry.”

    This is an issue of education and historical knowledge for both genders. I guess I am not objective because I lived in NYC and know its history. Bethehem steel was used to build the Empire State Building, the major bridges, Madison Square Garden, and other elements of infrastructure that are now in need of rebuilding. Those landmarks were not in Trump’s ad by accident. The money that paid for that steel went into the pockets and pensions of US workers and not into the portfolios of foreign investors.

  69. pandora says:

    Romney recieved 59% of the white vote and lost. There’s Trump’s bar. He’s going to really have to up that number. He also has to factor in his losing the Hispanic vote, among other groups, which makes the number of white men he needs crazy high.

  70. anonymous says:

    Yeah, they’ve run the numbers. He needs 70% of white men; his biggest problem is that they already have high turnout, so either he turns out white men who’ve never voted before or he loses. Unless I’m wrong and lots of women are into Steely Don (sorry, couldn’t resist).

  71. puck says:

    “When we romanticize that time we tend to gloss over how much it sucked for every one else.”

    Think how much better it would be under today’s civil rights laws and labor protections. Not to mention the new pro-union policies Hillary will work for, right?

  72. anonymous says:

    @puck: The ad worked on me, too, on the emotional level, and I have nothing in my background that would make me extra-susceptible. I agree with you that it was effective; I just also believe that it was targeted squarely at men, because that’s who he’s courting in this election.

    Notice that the ad was almost devoid of intellectual content — we’re simply going to do these things again, with nothing about the “how,” which is important given that the government does not actually manufacture steel.

    Anyone who understands the business realizes that the only way to revive American steelmaking is by raising tariffs on imports. This will be a major change in trade policy and will have wide-ranging ramifications, which Trump gives not a hint of understanding. So he’s targeting men as clueless as he is, which, as you’ve noted in your comment about ignorance of history, is the majority of people.

    Remember Adlai Stevenson’s line when told he had the vote of every thinking American: “That’s not enough. I need a majority.”

  73. pandora says:

    Yeah… Nope. I do not want any part of the 1950s nostalgia. And the Civil Rights/Labor Laws aren’t any consolation. I don’t relate to that ad on any level – I know exactly what message it’s sending.

  74. puck says:

    “which is important given that the government does not actually manufacture steel.”

    But it buys a hell of a lot, or at least it will under Hillary’s infrastructure plan.

    “the only way to revive American steelmaking is by raising tariffs on imports. ”

    Or a buy American restriction on government funded projects. We had that until very recently. If you want those sweet government tax breaks or subsidies for your new project, buy American.

  75. anonymous says:

    Agreed; Hillary would actually put more construction workers to work than Trump’s tax cuts would allow.

    The construction we need is horizontal — roads and sewers. That ad was all about vertical.

  76. puck says:

    “That ad was all about vertical.”

    Use your imagination, man. The pictures of 1930s skyscrapers isn’t a proposal or a blueprint. It is supposed to be a reminder of all the other big projects we can accomplish, horizonally or vertically. Democrats should counter with their own proposals in the same spirit.

  77. pandora says:

    Not the 1950s spirit. No way.

    I’d prefer a more future thinking approach to an ad like that.

  78. anonymous says:

    “Use your imagination, man.”

    Why? I doubt the target audience can.

  79. puck says:

    “Iโ€™d prefer a more future thinking approach to an ad like that.”

    Okay, we can build bridges out of carbon fiber nanotubes. Happy now?

  80. puck says:

    “Not the 1950s spirit. No way.”


  81. Liberal Elite says:

    Maybe Trump’s plan is more like the movie “Dark City”.
    It only looks the the 1950’s… but inside it’s all rotten creatures doing rotten things.

  82. cassandra_m says:

    I saw that ad finally and the only thing it did was to remind me that Trump Tower in Chicago is made of reinforced concrete.

    I think the New York one was too, but can’t confirm from here. Which is a construction geek thing to know, but one of the reasons that threatened steel wasn’t just cheap good from China but the excellent properties of engineered reinforced concrete. The concrete is cheaper, it is often safer and you can make changes to the structure on the fly. Depending upon how you build it, you don’t have to wait for the whole building to be complete to let tenants occupy it.

    Still the video was a non-narcissistic version of the Trump message. I do think that this one was pretty narrowly cast, though.