Check Out All of Reason TV's Video Coverage of the Democratic National Convention!

|

Reason TV covered the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia from start to finish. While there, we documented anger with the DNC from Bernie Sanders supporters who felt betrayed by the party in the wake of an internal email leak that showed party officials discussing feeding negative stories about Sanders to the media. We saw Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein crash the DNC to the delight of disaffected Sanders voters and the dismay of party loyalists. We talked to former governors Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, who are running on the Libertarian Party ticket, about what they view as an unprecendented opportunity to disrupt the two-party system. We gauged the appetite for third party candidates amongst Democratic delegates and even asked them to convince libertarians to vote for Hillary Clinton in November. We asked how they planned to pay for the generous federal programs that various Democratic speakers proposed during the convention, and we explored whether the much-bemoaned authoritarianism of Donald Trump is limited to the GOP.

You can see it all in the playlist below, and in the two Facebook live video interviews beneath that.

NEXT: Read/Watch the Scariest Speech from Both the RNC and DNC: John Allen's Unrestrained War-Mongering

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Check out Reason’s DNC coverage? No thanks

  2. Mark Cuban endorses Clinton. That statist fuck also endorsed the F
    Godfather in Chicago.

    1. You Know Who Else a Cuban and a Communist supported?

      1. Rafael Cruz on the grassy knoll?

      2. College t-shirt stores?

    1. Cat got schlonged!

  3. Yeah, ummmm…

    No.

  4. I don’t think I could vote for Bernie Sanders after this.

    Cocked blocked by a woman? Come on.

    1. You’ve never met her Big Fat Friend? It’s why you have to bring along your Nondiscriminating Friend.

  5. The Hillaryites are calling Jill Stein an anti-vaxxer on teh twitters. They’re desperate and fearful.

    1. And what’s funny is that I’d bet at least half of the Bernie people that Shrillary is trying to attract are anti-vaxers

  6. I stole this from another thread.

    So libertarianism is useless whenever there’s something scary in the world.

    Libertariansim is quite fucking useless. NAP is quite useless if there is no recourse to the law for violations thereof. Cops kill with impunity. The pigs that murder are not and will not be held accountable. The rule of law ended July 5 2016.

    Libertarians are too stupid to realize a simple argument. You cannot have open borders with a welfare state (well unless you are a Cloward-Piven kind of guy). We have a welfare state. The welfare state is going no where. Therefore, you cannot have open borders. On top of that. I don’t to import that anit-civilization bat fuck religion that is religion. zero. NOne of them

    Except for fags marrying and weed. The world doesn’t seem to be getting any freer.

    1. Right cause libertarians are in charge

    2. Libertarians are too stupid to realize a simple argument.

      people tend to be selective about what they define as “libertarians” when they say things like that. it tends to involve cherry picking 3 or so commenters here, maybe 1 writer – and if so, rarely actually quotes them when making their point.

      also – i dont know whether HM would call this the “thick/thin” debate, but i think there is a large proportion of self-styled libertarians like myself who don’t consider the NAP either necessary or sufficient for ‘all things libertarian’. many people simply extend “classical liberal” reasoning from Locke, economics from Hayek/Mises/Friedman, a smodgepodge of ideas from people like Emerson etc and voila – you can get most of the same ‘libertarian’ conclusions without ever needing to mess with a simple and clunky axiom like the NAP.

      Its partly why i’ve frequently pointed out that there’s really no “libertarian” basis for any foreign policy ideas at all. Libertarianism (in my view) is entirely about the relationship of the citizen to the state. The relationship of the state to non-citizens/foreign countries is a matter that *can* be dealt with in the most liberal way possible, but doesn’t necessarily *need* to be.

      anyway. $.02 por vous

    1. Nice:)

    2. Double standard, no standard at all, etc.

  7. What a shit news cycle. What a shit year.

    Let’s do the meritocracy thing for just a bit.

    Feed every stray Tulpa that wanders by and pretty soon you’ll have a yard full of them.

    And this is the short attention span election. Less than a month ago, Hillary was given a free pass by BHO for multiple felonies and is guilty of capital-T Treason for selling influence as SoS. Now we’re expected to give a shit about anything Trump does?

    I enjoy Trump’s anti-PC stylings as much as anyone, but his chief selling point is that he’s the only major-party candidate who doesn’t deserve the gallows.

    This is my vote for Insightful Comment of the Day. Nicely said, Knarf the Yenrab. Pour yourself a drink.

    I’m open to the idea of there also being a Funny of the Day, even if I missed all the jokes I am SURE were made in the Sullum thread from hell.

    1. It’s about where I’m headed. It’s the reverse Nolan, Trump isn’t the hero we need, he’s the hero we deserve.

      1. All Aboard!

        #MAGA

        1. Fuck no. I’m at the station watching bunches of people board and thinking Christ I hope that train isn’t derailed when it shoots up Hill’s caboose.

          1. This.

            I’m sorely tempted, purely for the fun of rubbing it in the face of every pearl-clutching, self-serving hypocrite freaking out about things they have no problem accepting from the correct insider with the proper views.

            You hear that, Sullum, Suderman, et al? Of course you don’t.

            But then I realize that voting for an untrustworthy populist with a crap platform and no real solutions just because some journalists couldn’t find their integrity with a map is stupidly unproductive, and the moment passes.

    1. Look, i (sometimes) get your shtick

      but that’s not really what he was saying; he sez 1) its a faulty quiz, 2) he’s 94% riding johnson 3) and that its “cray” (which is a sad thing for a grown man to say)

      out of fairness, i demand you post your own results.

      1. I took it back during the primary. The quiz is totally fucked up. “I sided with” Rand Paul at around 90%, #2 was Rick Santorum (cray) and I was about the same or less as Welch on Trump. I was “with Hillary” less than 20%. I’m thinking Matt may agree with GayJay somewhat on anti-discrimination laws and believes in global warming to score up there with “the ladies of the left”. I’m not taking that quiz again.

        1. Do it again. its obviously much more detailed and updated.

          1. OK, I did

            89% Darrell Castle (not surprising)

            89% Trump (I was at 60% or less in the primary and haven’t changed my positions)

            78% GayJay

            18% Jill Stein (” I side on educational and criminal issues”)

            7% Hillary Clinton

            I usually chose from the “other stances” which appear when you click on it and moved the slide to “most” whenever it was an issue restricting the government from doing anything at all)

            1. 7% HC? I should have figured you’re No True Libertarian.

              GET THEE GONE FROM THIS FORUM, SIR

            2. would you mind showing what questions that were so “pro trump” that you answered?

              I didn’t do the post-mortem audit on mine. I don’t know what policies at all would have made me more ‘trumpish’ because i honestly don’t know wtf he’s actually said that hasn’t changed.

              1. A lot of “partially agree”. Like Trump says “no” healthcare for illegals and I say “no” to everyone

                Donald Trump: No

                Your similar answer: No, and the government should never subsidize healthcare

                Should the government make cuts to public spending in order to reduce the national debt? stats Discuss

                Donald Trump: Yes S

                Your similar answer: Yes, and eliminate federal agencies that are unconstitutional

                Most Important

                Should all welfare recipients be tested for drugs?

                Donald Trump: Yes

                Your similar answer: Yes, test anyone receiving money from the government including employees and politicians

                1. I don’t actually seem to agree with Trump on much but “similar” and “partially similar” seem heavily weighted.

                  1. The “drug test welfare recipients” is an issue where I agree with the populist position. People who are drug tested for their jobs because of USDOT regulations (anyone who drives a pickup that might sometimes haul a trailer) think that they are subject to drug testing to earn a living because of US laws so why shouldn’t welfare recipients be subject to the same fucking test?

                    I would actually say “no” on just welfare recipients but I’m all for drug testing government workers despite the “4A” loophole. If government encourages or mandates testing for the private sector let those leeches piss in the cup too.

                2. Do they have a test for penicillin?

      2. His shtick is not that complicated. Like the majority of reason commenters he is an intelligent person, but for some reason he has decided to play the role of uber douche bag this election season.

    2. Why am I not surprised you left out “94% Johnson”? Mostly since you’re a lying POS? I guess that might be the reason.

      1. 94% Johnson is to be expected. Scoring so highly with Hillary and a communist is the surprise

        1. So you left it out in the hopes no one would presume so?
          Buzz off.

    3. Trump has no hard or fast or consistent policies other than being anti-trade, which is hardly libertarian. So what is it you expect that Welch or anyone else should embrace about the Trump Platform?

      1. Trump’s consistently anti-war (and anti-“entangling alliances other than some Jacksonian belligerence. He was consistently in favor of drug legalization until he ran for president.

        I don’t know what issues that quiz emphasized but I scored no higher than Welch on an affinity for Trump.

        1. Trump is consistently populist. War is almost always unpopular. We have no recent 9/11s or Pearl Harbors to propagate pro-war sentiments. But we have a ton of little fledgling warlike events about which to get bellicose, and that’s been Trump’s bread and butter. So he’s tapping into the “no boots on the ground” fantasies of Obama-like foreign policy while also voicing stern condemnations of Islamic terrorism. He’s dogwhistling moron voters, in other words.

          1. It’s not “no boots on the ground”. It’s kick ass and come home/”more rubble less trouble”.

            I’d expect we’d quickly leave Afghanistan.

            1. It’s kick ass and come home/”more rubble less trouble”.

              He’s dogwhistling moron voters, in other words.

            2. SIV|8.1.16 @ 12:33AM|#
              “It’s not “no boots on the ground”. It’s kick ass and come home/”more rubble less trouble”.
              I’d expect we’d quickly leave Afghanistan.”

              Hey, folks! Look over here! Trump sucker right here!
              Hey, SIV, is he gonna cut taxes and end the deficit too?

    4. Me =

      *and before i’d call it “flawed”, id say i was impressed with the range of possible answers to each question – tho i think the questions themselves were sort of narrow and attempting to touch on popular-topics but don’t cover the whole gamut of possible policy ideas. For instance – there was (unless i missed it) almost nothing about foreign policy except for the TPP and some immigration questions? Given that the president has the *most* power to direct foreign policy & war… you’d think it would matter more than what any one of them thinks about “GMO or fracking” or stuff that’s mostly agency-regulatory issues… anyway….

      Candidates you side with…

      92%
      Gary Johnson Libertarian
      on economic, domestic policy, immigration, environmental, healthcare, foreign policy, and education issues.

      79%
      Darrell Castle Constitution
      on economic, social, domestic policy, environmental, education, healthcare, and electoral issues.

      64%
      Donald Trump Republican
      on environmental, education, and electoral issues.

      52%
      Jill Stein Green
      on immigration and criminal issues.

      36%
      Hillary Clinton Democratic
      on immigration and criminal issues.

      1. Also =

        fwiw? i actually answered every question in every section (expanding to do all the optional ones) and did “more answers” (i.e. ones with ‘additional reasons why’) in almost every case. I also tweaked weighting – which is something that i think ALL polls should do when you do opinion polling. Never just ask “yes/no” = ask, “and how much does it matter”?

        excepting my caveats above… i think this at least *appeared* to be a better-designed-poll than others i’ve seen of its type

  8. I still read the Sunday paper (as in printed on paper), but the local rag is becoming harder and harder to stomach. Two weeks ago, it was a major effort to end homelessness, and they got cooperation from other lefty news outlets, so it must have been a success! In the end, they proposed the taxpayers buy a home for all of the homeless. What a concept! Hey, did you see the Giants losing streak? (that’s how long it got attention)
    This morning, I get an entire front page of this:
    http://projects.sfchronicle.co…..pid=gatehp
    (hope it ain’t pay-walled)
    There is no doubt blacks (and browns) get far more attention from the cops than do whites or orientals; whether that is justified is a question which got no examination in the article.
    Nor was the WoD mentioned, and of course, the teachers’ union protection of incompetent teachers in ghetto schools didn’t get a line.
    I’m pretty sure whoever is running that rag now has no idea that a “newspaper” is first to print NEWS and then in the editorial section, comment on it.

    1. The Chronicle was a big deal in 1969 when the Zodiac Killer was killing people, and don’t you forget it. I know this because I watched a good movie once.

    2. The Chronicle was a big deal in 1969 when the Zodiac Killer was killing people, and don’t you forget it. I know this because I watched a good movie once.

    3. a “newspaper” is first to print NEWS and then in the editorial section, comment on it.

      Ah, but what qualifies as “News” is still itself stuff that people *feel* the most strongly about.

      News gets front page not because it matters, but because it matters *to* people.

      In ye olden times, news meant ‘information’, and there were no other outlets to get it, so they tended to prioritize based on what they thought mattered.

      Now, there’s a million places to get the same information, and sites/papers compete to hit the ‘feels’ buttons hardest. They also have total transparency on customer behavior and patterns of interest, so they know exactly what people read and what they just glance at.

      Its only going to get worse.

      If you want ‘just the facts’, you pretty much have to generate your own feeds and filter out the bullshit. which is doable, and quite rewarding. I’m a fan of RSS, though it seems like fewer sites are enabling selective-tailoring & stripping of HTML (they want you to click-through and read the stories on their website rather than txt-only)

      1. “Now, there’s a million places to get the same information, and sites/papers compete to hit the ‘feels’ buttons hardest. They also have total transparency on customer behavior and patterns of interest, so they know exactly what people read and what they just glance at.”

        OK, but the paper version is Macys, tooth implant and hearing aid ads; are they gonna keep paying the bills?
        BTW, I did a look:
        “San Francisco Chronicle Names First Female Editor In Chief”
        […]
        “In a statement, Cooper said she plans to grow the paper’s investigative reporting staff and expand the team’s storytelling methods.”
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..65824.html

        “Storytelling”; that’s what she said there.
        I know one of the columnists who gets clicks enough in the e-version to be as ‘secure’ as anyone can be; he is not happy with how his copy was ‘edited’ regarding the bums.
        But by now, the Chron is selling AP feeds and the columnists, most of which are predictable and tiresome. And leaning far enough to capsize to port.
        The comics still soak up the spilled coffee, so….

        1. OK, but the paper version is Macys, tooth implant and hearing aid ads; are they gonna keep paying the bills?

          A friend of mine is an editor @ the NYT. i didn’t hear it from him, but others have mentioned that “sunday-paper sales” are like 50% of the paper revenues at most of the major broadsheets. something like that.

          the whole business is a leaky-ship. the approach so far has mostly not to change what they do as much as “downsize” and do the same shit with fewer people.

          The story w/ ben rhodes? mentioned that they’ve cut 60% of their newsroom staff in the last 10 years. the people who cover “economics” or “foreign affairs” have no more experience in those things than the person covering nightlife. And the churn of writers has gotten shorter – it used to be a business that was very ‘start at the bottom, spend your whole career with a paper’. No longer.

          whats funny is that i think the ‘local’-ish papers & newsrooms (like the city desk in nyt) do better than the ‘national’ or ‘international’. People still pay for the local paper, but people like the NYT, WaPo, Chicago Trib, etc. they seem to be bleeding the hardest, and becoming ‘big-locals’ with a strap-on of “storytellers” (as you put it) who do a lot of the glossy-feature stuff like your “look at how black people suffer”-story.

          1. in case you’re interested in the data looking @ the industry

            1. They could have selected graph line colors that were a bit more confusing, but it probably would have taken more time.
              Anyhow, yeah, that pretty much confirms what I’ve seen elsewhere, and I’m sure Ms.Cooper is trying every bit of lefty feelz in the hopes of being the savior of print “news” distribution.
              Strangely, if you look at the on-line comments in the non-subscribe versions (SF gate), they are strongly ‘conservative’; the subscription version (the one presumed to pay the bills) has next to no comments, suggesting next to no clicks.
              I’m guessing spending a lot of Hearst money grasping at straws by now.

              1. yeah.

                my glance at those numbers also suggests i was off on the share of sunday-paper revenue. the circulation #s suggest that Sunday is more than the rest of all circulation combined (like 120%) particularly for rich-cities like NY/LA

                also interesting was how much higher Wall St Journal & USA today do compared to NYT/WaPo; main reason is that they’re “institutional” (i used to get WSJ free at work, and every hotel in america gets USA today- plus airports, etc); i think the circ #s are probably misleading tho because they don’t charge ‘retail’ for those.

                1. I’ve found WSJ as the house newspaper in some hotels now too.

          2. the quote i was thinking of =

            It is hard for many to absorb the true magnitude of the change in the news business ? 40 percent of newspaper-industry professionals have lost their jobs over the past decade ? in part because readers can absorb all the news they want from social-media platforms like Facebook … Rhodes singled out a key example to me one day, laced with the brutal contempt that is a hallmark of his private utterances. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

            1. One of my gf’s best friends had that newspaper job where she got free passes to concerts, clubs, plays shows, movies etc and maybe accompany the food critic to some new restaurant. She put together the weekly and weekend “events calendar” and wrote a couple of review/preview columns for musical acts each week. Maybe helped out on an obit for someone in the music industry. I doubt she ever made more than $30k but it was perks, perks ,perks, contacts and PERKS!

              The Nashville paper used to employ half a dozen or more of those people…not anymore.

  9. I have to ask – why is the center right so complimentary on Bernie Sanders? This is the guy who would bankrupt the country within 10 years if he had his way. Look at his uninformed fans with the anti-TPP signs and naked hatred of capitalism. They’re democrats who happen to hate Clinton for the same reason they hate the Koch brothers. They don’t fool me.

    Bernie got screwed by the democrat party, but went onto endorse Clinton anyways. Nader wouldn’t have done that. Ron Paul never officially endorsed Romney or Mccain to my knowledge. He doesn’t fool me either. He merely got a taste of his own medicine, which is progressive assault on dissent and free speech.

    95% of Bernie pals will vote for Clinton. The holdouts might be a bit more significant than the “Pumas” in 2008 only because Hillary is NOT Barack Obama. If enough of them actually stay home and deliver the presidency to Trump, well….. they had balls, I guess.

    1. To the extent I understand it and wouldn’t rather see the Sandinista apologist hanging from a tree…

      A lot of Sanders’s supporters are “soft” socialists. They’re the sort of people who really do think Denmark, Sweden, etc. have done things “right”. They might have been pro-Chavez in the early 2000s, but more likely they’re too young to even know about him or just don’t care about places like Venezuela. The most socialist thing they want is “free” college, which is pretty bad but is not “round the Kulaks up and shoot them” bad.

      It is these people, and not the sort who would wear Che t-shirts and/or reblog and every SJW meme, that I think the “center-right” and the “center-left” want to get voting for them.

      I think it’s a fool’s errand and not likely to lead anywhere good, but winning elections takes votes not ideas.

      1. I should say winning elections takes votes, not good ideas. All of the things being sold to Sanders’s supporters are still ideas even if they’re bad ideas.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.