In their opinion, Bernie Sanders never stood a chance within the Democratic party, because the so-called system was rigged against him from the beginning. All their support meant zero, because the party wanted Hillary Clinton as their nominee and nothing was going to change that. Ergo, losing the election, even to a thug like Donald Trump, would be hell for everyone INCLUDING them, but it would also be just desserts for "evil Hillary" and her cronies.
Many might vote for a third-party candidate under the nebulous claim of, "Hey, Jill Stein/Gary Johnson could come from behind and upset the apple cart (for Hillary AND for Trump)!" But let's get real: no third-party candidate stands a chance of winning this, or any, election. We know it, and they know it.
Now, Bernie is trying his best to persuade them to unify with the rest of the party for the nation's sake, using the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach. However, I don't believe he, or anyone else, will ever get through to these voters. As Carl and others have said, they're revolting, because they just like being outsiders, and they'll boo and chant and carry on like Trump supporters because they're not getting their way, plain and simple. Within that percentage of Bernie supporters, though, I have to think there are some who are protesting, because they genuinely see this as being bigger than Trump, bigger than Hillary, bigger than even Bernie. The system is broken on BOTH sides of the aisle, they say, and as long as it remains broken, no one like Bernie will ever stand a chance of breaking through.
(Me? I think they have a good point -- and in any other election year, I would applaud and support them. But this is truly Not. The Year.)
She'll definitely be cheered by the "Berniacs" who believed Hillary should have chosen her for her VP.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a rather...polarizing figure. Could someone explain to me, though, why she is that way? I'm not familiar with her record.
No doubt, Trump will use this scandal against Hillary in the run-up to Election Day. But I wonder how it will affect her chances. Will this hurt her in the voting booths or will voters be able to look past it?
My fear: whether or not he wins in November, Trump has lit a fuse with his politics of fear and hate; and if he does end up losing the election, those constituents, who believe Trump has given them their voice, will not go away quietly.
Here's my question: has Donald Trump, win or lose, destroyed the GOP? If so, then where does it go? Does it cede the party to those of Trump's ilk and form a new party? Does it slide over and redefine (or attempt to redefine) the Democratic party? Or does it just "wait this out" and attempt a take-back four years down the road?
As I've said elsewhere, you KNOW the RNC was scraping the bottom of the barrel when they asked Scott Baio to speak. No way was the convention going to be a ratings-grabber with such a piss-poor lineup of speakers and guests.
Let me get this straight: Camp Trump knew Cruz was not prepared to endorse him in his speech -- in fact, they signed off on it before he stepped onstage -- but they allowed him to go on anyway; and when Cruz did exactly what he promised (or not promised), they still became upset with him?
(Please tell me I have this wrong.)
Forgot to add:
Ted Cruz knew exactly what he was doing last night, and he knew exactly the kinds of reactions he'd receive, too. About this, I have no doubt. Which really makes me loathe the guy for exposing his wife (the same wife he told Trump to "leave the hell alone") to potential physical danger both on the convention floor and later in the hotel suites. I mean, if I were Ted Cruz (ugh), and I knew I was about to deliver some words that might provoke certain individuals in certain ways, I'd probably tell my wife that it might be in her best interests if she were to sit this out.