Do people actually know Bernie Sanders supporters in real life or are you just basing it off of a loud minority on REDDIT of all places?

As far as I've seen, this "Bernie Bro" "temper tantrum" business still seems like a straw man fallacy to me. I live in an extremely progressive bubble and have never heard anything resembling the caricatures I read here.

A lot of Bernie supporters are people who would *already* be voting Green or Independent or staying home, but are throwing their support behind a "Democrat" who actually stands for their values instead of one who offends them by assuming they have their vote because they are the "lesser of two evils". It's offensive to think we should be expected to vote for someone who voted for the Iraq War and has been on the wrong side of many issues, which Rainmaker has pointed out.

It says something that the primary "smear" on Bernie right now is that he said positive things about literacy programs in the Castro regime. That's because he's been right on most important issues, that the establishment is grasping at straws to tarnish his name because they know that McCarthyism is still alive and well in America. Also because the electorate is largely ignorant on U.S. policies in the western hemisphere (and elsewhere) that have been willing to support authoritarian regimes as long as those regimes support American corporatism.

Democrats tried a "safe, electable" candidate in 2016 and look how it worked out. Somehow, 4 years later, they still seem to think that the same strategy will work this time "because now the other evil is REALLY bad, and we're so much lesser!" ay ay ay. "Leftists better support the conservative Democrat or they're the reason we lose!" lol

I'll vote Biden in November if I must, but I wouldn't fault anyone who will not. As Rainmaker alluded to, is Biden really less likely to get us into a new war than the current President? I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

Dola:

Agreed completely. But we live in such a fractured society. I literally don't know anyone who has said they support Pete, Amy, or Biden.

It’s a contest for votes. There’s no conspiracy, just go win. I expect by the end of the week it will be down to two, so one of them will win enough to get the nomination.

Wasn't this already what they tried to do last time with HRC?

Chris Matthews is pulling out of the race and endorsing Biden.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Why does the "BernieBro" myth persist? Because pundits don't understand how the internet works | Salon.com

Pete, Amy, and now Beto all on stage and endorsing. That’s a baller move.

It's so good to see true democrats coalescing under a democratic candidate.

Let's hope it's not too late to save the Democratic party from the outsider extremist commie-lover (who should just create his own socialist party).

That's some of the most ill-thought out, linear, Pavlovian thinking we've seen around here. I'm pretty sure you missed my favorite. Sanders supporters who either didn't vote or swapped to t, just to 'prove a point.'

Wow. Biden vs. trump. Dems giving up?

Love when the progressive party throws out an old white dude with neurological issues.

Wow Chris Matthews just retired on air, with no warning and apologized for his comments on women-wonder what the back story is there? I was never a big fan of his, but certainly surprised to see him leave.

Imagine a Sanders presidency where not only he'd be obstructed by Republicans, but also, presumably Democrats, who, they believe, are trying to the rig this entire process, including by sabotaging the Iowa caucus app just to screw him over.

Would Sanders supporters' support him expanding the power of the executive branch to enact progressive policy that cannot be enacted through legislative means? Like executive orders to cancel student debt or expand healthcare?

It's believed to have been a reference to a several years(?) old comment he made complimenting someone on their appearance. The abrupt move comes after a meeting today which followed a recent string of several on-air / public gaffes. (I suspect that age may have been starting to catch up with him honestly)

I'm obviously shedding no tears over his departure however as a former on-air talent, I will say that he certainly just lived out a dream pretty much every single one of us had at some point. Leaving Karnacki (?) to live out the nightmare that goes with it, which is unfortunate even if have no love for him either.

To fight the old white guy with obvious neurological issues the Republican party is rolling out?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

1.

4 more years of Trump and we may not have much of a country left worth saving.

You know Biden's speech accepting Buttigieg's endorsement is one of the most gracious political speech I've ever heard - almost like Biden was endorsing Buttigieg. A very very good speech as well.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Believe me, I'm as disappointed as anyone. I am so over this demographic and their hold on political power. They just keep fucking over Gen X, and it never ends.



Although, I'm sure you'd have had a powerfully snarky message no matter who they decided to fall in behind.



Someone on my feed was all pissed that the DNC wasn't letting the same thing happen to them that happened with trump. Like why would the D's want that mess? Makes sense to pragmatically look at the numbers and move forward from there.



Sanders isn't a D. Should he take the nomination I'll support him, but....then again, that's how I feel about Biden too.



One of the pod's that I was listening to this morning said that Sanders can beat trump, but that he will need more young people to come out than came out for Obama, and Biden can beat trump if more moderates and independents come out than came out for Obama. Which I thought was interesting. They both need elements that play to their strengths, but more, because they have weaknesses.


Which brings me to Obama, who I'm sure will come out for Biden and bring a big kick in the pants should he move forward as the nominee. I'm kind of looking forward to the General just for the ads.

4 more years and we may not have any future legitimate elections.

The party should definitely nominate people Trump supporters find palatable.

Rumors are there are some more stories coming out.

It's funny how the line is that Sanders isn't a Democrat (which is technically true). But the same people get really mad when his supporters won't commit to voting for the Democratic nominee. Like you're not part of our party but you better vote for us!

Thanks Jon for the catch-up. I have thought for a long time that there was something going wrong with him mentally, and would not be surprised to see that come out at some point. Karnacki is a whiz at election results/politics. He certainly seems a better choice than Matthews at the moment. Nicole Wallace is being mentioned too as a replacement. Interestingly enough so is Shep Smith which I don't think is possible with his terms over leaving Fox

If you're gonna play in the sandbox you should probably act like you belong there.

Maybe but better than the alternatives ... nominate a socialist-commie-lover who Trump will quash; or if the commie-lover somehow wins, be rudderless because he has little support in Congress.

Rainmaker, if you prefer Trump, it is fine to not vote for whoever the Dem candidate is. If you care more for your "rightness" than the country, you do you.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Reports are Matthews was somewhere between a mutual parting and a firing. If that's true, they really screwed the newsroom in not telling anyone this was coming tonight.

Mayor Pete should have been the poster child of the Dem party. With the exception of color, he is everything the Dems should want.

But, nope, they throw out a retread. And an old white guy to beat.

Pretty damn big exception. He should figure a way to appeal to "those people of color".

Maybe be a patient grasshopper, spend some time in a cabinet post or special representative and build that trust, support, relationship. Same for you also Amy. Both of you have bright futures in the Democratic party and I'm sure we'll see you again in 4-8-12-16 years.

Has anyone in the DNC really thought out long term what the plan is with Biden? Suppose he is the nominee and he wins they cant possibly think they can run him out again at age 81 can they?

Yeah they obviously need to get a younger VP with him to be able to run next cycle.

Eh, Pete is CIA-lite that was bankrolled by Wall Street. The whole thing felt phony to me. His statements read like daily affirmations and his mimicking of Obama got creepy.

Still think Warren is probably the prototype. Policies appeal to moderates and progressives in the party. She ran a terrible campaign though.

Your boy nationalized the agriculture business and heavily restricted free trade. Not to mention all those giveaways to the mining industry. Calls Kim Jong-Un and MBS friends. If you're worried about the reds coming, you're too late.

Links? I am sure you there is some hyperbole there (e.g. Hillary is a Republican) and want to understand your context.

Biden didn't do a commie-musical at the height of the cold war. I'll be glad to supply that link if you haven't seen it already.

So why doesn't he just start his own socialist-commie-loving party? Sure he's going to take voters away from the Dems, but he was "a" reason Hillary lost in 2016 because of his divisiveness and sour-puss Bernie Bros & Sis.

That's fine. Just don't cry about their votes afterwards.


Trump is bad and I don't want him. I also think Biden has a track record of being wrong about almost every major decision this country has made in the past 30 year. Now he's senile.

I'd vote Biden because he is the better choice. But I understand why people who were anti-Iraq war or tired of this country being run as a plutocracy would sit home for this one. Heck, if foreign policy is your primary concern, I could even see why people would switch to Trump because at least he's been anti-war.


The DNC is the New York Knicks of politics. The answer to whether they've thought ahead on anything is likely no.

If the Knicks had won 4 of the last 7 championships and had scored more points in two of the three they lost.

The problem for the DNC hasn't been at the presidential level.

dola

Bernie campaigning with Marianne Williamson is a really bad look.

Let's not forget that there are only two teams. Not to mention the fact that of the past 10 individuals that the Democrats have selected to run under their banner, only three have been elected President.

I wouldn't call 3 out of 10 a great track record as far as getting it right.

Biden voted for a trillion dollar bank bailout (of which his sons firm got over $130 million from). Supported the nationalization of Freddie and Fannie Mae which cost taxpayers $125 billion. Whipped votes for a multi-billion dollar auto handout, crafted the massive bailout to credit card companies in the 2005 bankruptcy bill, and created a loophole to place student loan debt in its own special category to again bailout the banks.

He has repeatedly voted and advocated for extending handouts to the agricultural industry. Voted for Bush's energy policy that gave $15 billion to the energy companies. Supported Obama's green energy subsidies that mainly went to Obama's supporters. And of course praised Obamacare which was an enormous subsidy to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry.

His foreign policy has amounted to using Iraq as a taxpayer piggy bank for contractors of which his other son was a beneficiary of $1.5 billion. He has proudly touted the billions in tax dollars he has helped push toward Central America to install regimes friendly to certain businesses here (again, another handout).

If you're concerned about the capitalism seeing its demise, you're a little late.

DOLA: On top of this, one of those three was also the only elected incumbent in the past 88 years not to win re-election. So we're probably closer to a 2.5 out of 10. If a 25% success rate for the Democratic nominee is the bar, then the DNC is hitting it out of the park.

It fits, Bernie is an atheist so he must be doing the new-age thing.

Those people are the worst. I'll complain all day long about people who would rather see the SCOTUS and the entire Judicial of the US set up to oppose them for the next 30 years, who will completely remake the landscape of life in the US, than be a bit pragmatic and actually get somewhere in the direction they want to go. That's the sort of dogmatic adherence that has no value when it comes to actually governing.

They just lost an election to a game show host and will probably do it again in November. Got lucky with a once-in-a-generation political figure who captivated the nation and proceeded to take that and roll around in a puddle of shit when he took office.

Lets take a look at some of the leaders of the DNC over the years. Howard Dean is now a lobbyist for the insurance industry. Wasserman-Schultz got booed off stage at the last convention. And Donna Brazile who was chair TWICE is cashing checks on Fox News. Truly the cream of the crop.

So tie all of this together with your original below ... where was the nationalization of agriculture and heavily restricted free trade? and would like to read more about KJU and MBS (think these are easily explainable). Links please.

Quote:

Your boy nationalized the agriculture business and heavily restricted free trade. Not to mention all those giveaways to the mining industry. Calls Kim Jong-Un and MBS friends

BTW - how can anyone vote for a person for US President that said it was a mistake for him to vote for the Afghan war resolution? US gets attacked, US attacks AQ & Taliban ... initial war is clearly justified. If not after 9/11 attacks, when ever will he fight back?

Here's your nationalization.

IF OUR FORMALLY TARGETED FARMERS NEED ADDITIONAL AID UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE TRADE DEALS WITH CHINA, MEXICO, CANADA AND OTHERS FULLY KICK IN, THAT AID WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, PAID FOR OUT OF THE MASSIVE TARIFF MONEY COMING INTO THE USA!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 21, 2020

Here's your restrictions on free trade.

Trump tariffs - Wikipedia

You're active in the political threads. Have you just not watched any news the past 3 years?

Here he is calling KJU his friend.

....Chariman Kim has a great and beautiful vision for his country, and only the United States, with me as President, can make that vision come true. He will do the right thing because he is far too smart not to, and he does not want to disappoint his friend, President Trump!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 2, 2019

Here is his calling MBS his friend.

If Bernie has the capacity to expand the electorate, then he'll win the primary. If the extent that he can expand it is overated, then Biden will win. Bernie supporters need to stop whining and back up what Sanders claims at his rallies.

I agree. If Bernie can win despite the establishment coming together against him then the electability argument goes out the window.

The worst thing that could happen for Dems, though, is a contested convention with Bernie holding the majority of delegates and losing the nomination to Biden. That's Trump's easiest path to a 2020 win.

The people who funded and trained AQ and the Taliban (and still do!) are Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Pakistan.

The issue with the war is there was no defined goal. The Taliban and Afghanistan was not a threat to the United States. It still isn't. The enemy was a stateless terrorist organization that is funded by our "allies". If this was truly about fighting back, those bombs would have been dropped over other countries.

Trump? I thought we were talking about Biden and how I preferred Biden over Sanders. Good tangent and attempt at redirection.

At least Biden isn't a dead beat dad who had a child out of wedlock, and didn't step up to support mother and child, leaving them on welfare.



BTW - I'll gladly discuss with you about my support of Trump's policies on illegal immigration, China etc. but let's focus on Biden because this thread is the 2020 Democratic Primaries Thread and not the Trump 2020 thread.

Bernie supported the resolution when first introduced and then said it was a mistake much later. Therefore, if he had to do it all over again, he would not have support the resolution to attack the Taliban & AQ in Afghanistan back in 2001. Are you disputing this?

Your second paragraph is weird. Initially (which is what we are talking about), there obviously was a defined goal. Taliban & AQ were clearly a threat to the US (like how you left out AQ). This was truly about fighting back against "who attacked us militarily".

Direct question to you - would you have supported the Afghan resolution when first introduced in 2001? I think the answer is no because you have said the only war you would have supported was WW2 but just want to confirm that you have the same position as that atheist, deadbeat dad.

You brought up the evils of socialism and I pointed out the guys you stan for love giving out trillions in government handouts.

No. You criticized him for saying that. I was just saying why I thought the war was a waste.


The Taliban was not a threat at all. It was a regional force that was propped up by Pakistan. There have been no Taliban attacks on our soil.

Al-Qaeda was a stateless terrorist organization that operated out of a number of countries. The leadership had left Afghanistan by 2002 and were hanging out with our "allies" who we were giving billions to. All the major Al-Qaeda attacks after 9/11 were planned out of Pakistan.

If this was a war against Al-Qaeda, we would have been fighting Pakistan. But they can fight back so we passed. Or Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar. But those countries have oil and our leaders didn't think an extra couple bucks at the gas tank was worth the lives of 3,000 Americans.


Probably not. Sending other people to fight in a war I am capable of fighting in is for cowards. What does Atheism have to do with anything?

Considering we spent trillions, lost a bunch of lives, and ended up losing the war anyway, I feel pretty good about my stance.

Very much this. All of these unicorn voters that Bernie claims will put him over the top needs to come out now and do so. So far, there is little to no evidence that that he can rally the numbers he needs to win.

If Bernie holds the majority of the delegates, then there is no way to have a contested convention. The question is can he win a contested convention with the plurality of the votes. Four years ago argued against just automatically giving the nomination to the person that just had a plurality, instead saying the party should pick who could best beat Trump. Now suddenly he says the plurality holder should get the nomination. Wonder why the sudden change of heart? Hmmmmm......

Great, good we agree on his stance that he would not attack a "government" or "group of people" that supported and defended another group of people in attacking us on our soil when it first happened in 2001.


If I missed saying AQ whenever I said Taliban, then just assume I meant Taliban + AQ. Stop using Taliban as if we attacked Taliban only with no provocation.

1) AQ attacked us on our soil

2) We asked Taliban (okay it was more threatened) to give us Bin Laden and kick out AQ

3) The Taliban refused

4) So we attacked the Taliban + AQ


The center of gravity for AQ was clearly in Afghanistan in 2001. So what does the leadership having left in Afghanistan in 2002 have anything to do with the "initial" resolution to enter into Afghanistan in 2001? It has nothing to do with the initial 2001 resolution where your bro would have refused to defend us.


It's not either or. There levels of scale & degree that has to be factored into, along with geopolitical consequences. AQ in Afghanistan in 2001 was clearly the threat, they were being supported and defended by the Taliban. Clear enough reason to stand up to support and defend the US.

If your argument is that we should have attacked Taliban + AQ and also those other countries, fine let's have that discussion. But we are talking about 2001 and the initial resolution and your bro (and you) would not even have attacked Taliban + AQ. Your other countries defense are used to obfuscate what we are talking here ... your bro simply not willing to defend the US when we were attacked on our soil back in 2001.

If your bro is not willing to do that back then, when is he willing to fight back against our attackers?


Why can't you just simply say "no"? That is clearly your stance by calling others who supported it cowards.


Atheism doesn't have much to do with the support of 2001 resolution. Just enjoying using arguably hyperbolic, out-of-context & innuendo arguments/defense to follow the pattern.


Yup, keep on deflecting away from the original 2001 resolution.




Let me try the tactic I used before so we do not go off on tangents and irrelevancy.

The original discussion: The big bro was not willing to support the US in attacking our AQ attackers back in 2001.

Sure, let's have the Trump discussion in the Trump thread.

However, in this thread I have said I would vote for Biden because he brings the old normal which is what I want after 4 years of Trump.

Let's be clear. It isn't because of just socialism because there are degrees of socialism in the US and I'm all for socialized medicine & SS. It is Bernie in total

1) Socialist - most extreme senator/congressman in recent memory
2) Commie lover
3) Atheist
4) Deadbeat dad who left mother + son in welfare
5) Extreme pacifist to extent not willing to defend the US when the US has been directly attacked
6) (Placeholder as I do more research)


The problem with the Biden (and the other dropouts) is he is not willing to play dirty. He should be constantly attacking the big bro on his policies and also these other controversial items.

I understand the reasoning behind why it was done. The reason you don't do it this way is precisely because of the end result we have now. The terrorists move elsewhere because they are stateless entities. Then you're left fighting an unwinnable war against a native population that is no threat to this country.

I don't know how you can look at a war that we lost and say it was a good idea.


No it wasn't. AQ wasn't some big group hanging out in a single country. It was a loose collection of like-minded individuals from around the world. The 9/11 hijackers spent more time training in Hamburg, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, Malaysia, and the United States than they did Afghanistan. This is all in the 9/11 Report.

If there was a center of gravity, it was Pakistan. They were the one's that trained and funded AQ. They were the one's that protected them (and still do). Pakistan is the man behind the mask.


Again, the Taliban is Pakistan. They were created by the ISI. Those training camps in Afghanistan were run by Pakistani military and intelligence. The Taliban was a proxy for them to keep India influence at bay and avoid having the nation become a safe haven for anti-Pakistani revolutionaries. Note that other countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE pitched in too for their own reasons.


Going into Afghanistan didn't defend us. It just sent the leaders into the safe hands of Pakistan and engaged us in a never-ending war with the Taliban that we lost. All the while creating other terrorist hotspots in the region.

My argument is that if you truly wanted to defend America against terrorists, you would have went after Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Two countries that created, supported, and protected those terrorists.

So my question is why didn't our leaders go to war with them? Because when they kicked us in the mouth, we begged them for friendship, gave them money, and then tried and failed to beat up their little brother.


What infantry were you in over there?

I don't follow personal lives much but I'm pretty sure he's Jewish.

Yeah I think that was the interesting part of the campaign so far was there were two Jewish candidates, a gay candidate, and 2 women. All of which have never been president and while one would think none of them are big deals they are for some people.

On the flip side don't know why atheism would be a disqualifier or a negative. Actual policy on the Middle East that possibly doesn't involve religious dogma?

I'm not sure you can have a Middle East policy that ignores religion.

Agree. My point was more along the lines of a George W. Bush who from all accounts seemed to believe the Bible literally in terms of the Rapture. Or a Mike Pence who tried to pray solutions to an HIV crisis while governor of Indiana. These are big negatives in my book. Wondering what the big negative is of an atheist?

Super Tuesday predictions?

Guessing Biden ends up with a slight lead in delegates after tonight. Tough to say since I've read that some states like California are real slow to calculate numbers.

Pain

Public Perception for one thing, atheists are as popular in this country as muslims.



I think many religious folk take a dim view of people who deny their God.

Glad you understand why we went in there. The question is why don't you and the Bro think it was valid to go in there back in 2001 (not 2002 or later).

Let's put it this way. If the war turned out great and everything was in great shape in 2020, you and the Bro would still have said not justified right?


Sure AQ had support elsewhere. Nevertheless the greatest quantity of their troops and their supporters were in Afghanistan. Scale and degree is what you are missing.


Sure, I agree with this. Don't know what it has to do with the Afghan resolution in 2001.


You don't think AQ would have continued their attacks on us after 9/11 with a safe haven in Afghanistan?


Yeah, continue to deflect when the point is the Bro not willing to defend the US back in 2001.


We went into Afghanistan first in 2001 because AQ clearly attacked us and the folks in charge of the safe haven did not turn them over to us. Then because of politics, mis-mangement, Iraq etc. we did not pursue the others as aggressively.


Same discussion as before in other threads. So you don't think anyone that was not in the military can have a valid reason to support a war. Go ahead and keep on living in la-la-land.

Not actively involved in organized religion. Why stop there and not extrapolate and be hyperbolic in statements (e.g. Hillary is a Republican), it takes things out of context but it sounds good.

We have an atheist in the White House now.

They had 170 members. Did you think they had battalions or something?


They did continue attacks. This time in Pakistan where we did nothing about it.


Seems like you weren't willing to defend the US back in 2001 either. Heel spurs?


The 9/11 attackers were mostly Saudis who lived and met each other in Germany before moving to the United States with Pakistani money and military training.

Also when you get your ass kicked in a war that every history book told you would end this way, I don't think the response should be "that was a good idea".

Maybe they should go to a caucus format then :lol:

My guess is Bernie wins California, Mass, Minn, Colorado, Utah, Maine, Vermont
Biden wins NC, VA, Tenn, Ala, OK and Ark

I think Texas is a tossup, I'm leaning Bernie. I plugged those results into the 538 projecting system and here's the results:

Chances at winning a majority (in 145 simulations):
Sanders - 13.8%
Biden - 13.8%

Ave Delegates (in 145 simulations):
Sanders - 1,610
Biden - 1,564

Yowsers - this could be quite the primary finish! BTW, if Biden wins Texas, he goes to 29.1% at a Majority (vs 3% for Sanders) and has a 400 delegate avg lead. Texas could be the key to deciding the democrat nominee (think about that for a minute).

Polls in most states this am are showing a huge bounce for Biden. Also if Biden can win Texas the SE and stay close in Cali he can do well enough. If Bloomberg drops after Biden will get those which will help him in the other big states after ST.

So how many of the 170 were in Afghanistan? Was the majority in Afghanistan? If so, doesn't that mean center of gravity was in Afghanistan.


We were too busy fighting them in Afghanistan and went off on a tangent in Iraq. If we invaded Pakistan, you and Bro would have been against it anyway.


Still waiting on your answer to:

Quote:

Let's put it this way. If the war turned out great and everything was in great shape in 2020, you and the Bro would still have said not justified right?

Okay? So?

FWIW. Going to be an interesting night.

Our Final Forecast For Super Tuesday Shows Biden’s Surge — And Lots Of Uncertainty | FiveThirtyEight

I like the 538 people, but I think that might be a bit too much of a Biden bounce. I still say it is closer to 50/50 between Biden/Sanders. I believe that things might prove to be closer by the end of the night (and Sanders might be looking real good as California comes in over the next couple of days.)

Dems apparently looking at how to do the formal nomination and platform if it's deemed inadvisable to hold a convention.

Does seem like quite a risk for 70 some year old candidates from both parties.

Yeah, I was surprised at the bounce I saw. Fingers crossed though.

Early voting is open here, but I am not ready to vote until we have a clearer picture of where we are going to be by the time we get to March 24th. I can't think of any way I would vote for Sanders or Bloomberg (though I would if they won the nomination in the general), but I really don't love Biden as the candidate. I am leaning toward voting for Warren if there is still any plausible chance of her winning by then.

That's a good point. I wonder how the virus will affect campaigning in general. Candidates have to be major targets for the flu given how many people they interact with on any given day and especially at rallies. And as you pointed out the candidates are all in their 70s (shut up Tulsi) which makes the especially susceptible.

I wonder if Warren and Sanders have considered just holing up in the senate under the guise of "getting work done" instead of campaigning until the flu season is over.

The reason 538's bounce is so high is because the morning polls today came in much higher for Biden than they anticipated after SC. That made their model think it had underestimated Biden's chances significantly.

We'll see what happens tonight.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Until then, we'll be Biden our time.

I am too online. Any my social media follows are very liberal and overeducated.

The disconnect between the support I see for Warren on there and her actual polling numbers is stark.

Of people willing to express their preference (which will never be me, I've never made a political post on social media in my life), my people-I-know feed was probably 70% Mayor Pete, 15% Warren, 15% Bernie, 0% anybody else - wait, except my mom likes Joe Biden. I don't know what the Mayor Pete people are doing now if they still have primaries coming up.

James Comey just came out in support of Biden.

How self-deluded does James Comey have to be to think that his endorsement is a positive thing?

Literally every single black Dem I know personally that has expressed on social media is for Biden. Of course that’s almost exclusively Southern, mostly church-going, and mostly mid 40s and up, though the Chicago-based Lewis clan (all three of my dad’s siblings had moved there by the end of the 70s) also is 100% Biden. My white Dem social media friends definitely trend younger due to all my years in youth ministry, and educated. Definitely more Warren than any others there, probably Bernie #2 and a smattering from there. The 30something educated women on my FB feed are, almost to a person. shocked and angry that Warren isn’t the front runner.

That's what I was trying to get at and failing. Their bubble is such that they are both shocked and angry that she hasn't already sewn this thing up.

It's like a bunch of guys who spend all their time in a Boston sports bar would react to a top-10 all time QB list that didn't include Tom Brady.

Or that anyone actually gives any fucks at all?

Hey Comey. You already screwed up one election. Maybe just sit this one out?

Bernie's message of, the working class supports me, doesn't include blacks, because those voters are what has changed this race.

The issue with the Biden bounce and everyone talking about what the polls say is that up to 40% of people in the states that really matter had already voted before today. I still think Sanders ends up with more delegates, we are headed towards a contested convention and an absolute bloodbath.

Maybe closer to a top-10 all time WR list that didn't include Julian Edelman?

Crazy prediction of the night: A couple states actually go to Gabbard, and begin the Tulsi-sunami.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Um, is this what you've been doin'???

Bloomberg saying he can only win in a contested convention.

Does that mean he buys all the super delegates?

That's been his strategy from the start.

I find myself in bubbles as I've made some active changes in who I hang out with and what I support - gravitating towards some folks who take a very active interest in supporting and trying to promote the work and causes of those who have been historically disenfranchised and oppressed - sometimes that's as simple as artist friends with decent social media reach actively looking to promote PoC and LGBT artists/musicians, sometimes its working towards political goals and some activism. With lots of these folks being low income, healthcare and education end up being huge priorities in addition to equality and wealth gape issues. As someone who was a strong Warren supporter at the start, I've been surprised at how much of a Bernie bubble these areas are, instead of more equal progressive support between the two

I definitely make myself find time to read other perspectives so I'm not too far into kool aid land, and honestly, to relay some reality to my friends, many of whom are far into bernie kool-aid land and consider it impossible that he could lose...

My own facebook remains unchanged and little used, which has meant very few political posts. I have a cousin who is a big-time bernie bro. The rest of my extended family either doesn't care or supports Trump, but I've cut off all communication with them (not b/c of trump support, but b/c their way of showing trump support is constantly sharing hateful memes on the internet).

The US government didn't release the full list. But many names on the list were not in Afghanistan. Some in East Africa, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia. A bunch had gone to fight in Chechnya and others just quit. There was no center of gravity, these cells were all over the world.


If we had gone into Afghanistan, banished terrorism around the world, set up a democracy, and drank some beers with our new pals the Afghans, I'd call it a great decision.

But that didn't happen. We lost. The bad guys cashed our checks and kept doing what they wanted to. And those who supported it ended up being wrong.

Virginia called for Biden at poll close. This race turned on a dime.

The Warren campaign is interesting. She was the clear frontrunner going into this primary and by all accounts should have done much better. Would be interesting to see an obituary on the campaign someday to see what went wrong.

Was trying to find a comparison for her in recent times. Maybe Jeb? A safe pick who could appeal to everyone in the party in some capacity but never could gain traction.

Vermont for Sanders and Virginia for Biden on exit polling

Sanders win Vermont, and Biden gets Virginia. The numbers in Virginia in particular is pretty bad for Bernie. He only got 17% of the black vote there, only up 1% from 2016. He doesn't seem to be making the inroads into the black community that his campaign has been claiming.
Many are going to give the establishment credit for Biden's resurgence, but it is really the African-American community that saved Biden.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk