Bernie's In

It will probably keep Bernie supporters gloating, but I doubt it moves the delegate math much.

Andy Borowitz
6 mins ·
Bernie Sanders has won Hawaii, or, as the Republicans call it, Kenya.

Bernie's from Kenya! Who knew?

And his parents were from the UK.

Does that mean he's an "anchor baby"?

Bloody cute baby.

His brother is Arnold Schwarzenneger.

The Other 98%
22 mins ·
Bernie Sanders officially wins the Washington Caucus. Corporate media is already burying the news

In the short-term, there’s an incredible amount of anger being directed toward the media by the roughly half of the Democratic Party that supports Bernie Sanders.

Clinton supporters and many self-professed “neutral” journalists sagely inform the rest of us that this anger is little more than sour grapes or denial-stage grief; it’s the numbers that matter — they say — and if only Sanders supporters cared about hard data in the same way that Clinton supporters and (say) “neutral” bloggers for The Washington Post do, or even the editors at The New York Times, everyone would just calm down and accept the incipient inevitability of the ugliest and least substantive general-election campaign in the history of the United States: Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton.

The thing is, I’m a hard-data guy myself. Always have been. And so are many of the Sanders supporters I know and interact with daily. What’s actually making them angry right now is not that Hillary Clinton yesterday termed Bernie Sanders “the latest flavor of the month” on union issues — when Sanders had already been a pro-union progressive for a decade by the time Hillary eased herself out of being a proud Goldwater Republican in the late 1960s — nor is it that the candidate they support faces a truly monumental task in trying to become the Democratic candidate for President.

What Sanders supporters are angry about is hard data.

And not just any hard data, but hard data supplied by irrefutably objective sources and challenged as to its validity by absolutely no one.

Hard data so objective and undeniably accurate that its absence in public discussion of the presidential election is not just puzzling or downright bizarre but absolutely infuriating.

Here are a dozen pieces of hard data that Sanders supporters are particularly exercised about right now, primarily because most Sanders supporters believe Donald Trump to be a clear and present danger to the nation, and therefore can’t imagine why Democrats remain unable to have an honest conversation about who could — or will — be in a position to stop him.

1. Sanders leads Clinton in the most recent national poll.

Bloomberg has Sanders beating Clinton nationally, 49% to 48%. Coverage of this poll was dwarfed by coverage of how it’s obviously time for Sanders and his supporters to accept the fact that the Senator is just much less popular than Hillary is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/20-reasons-sanders-voters-are-justifiably-angry_b_9544744.html

The thing is that his favorable polling hasn't translated into enough votes to win him enough delegates to win him the election. Why is that fact hard for you or another die hard Bernie fan to admit? He may have a chance, but he really has to pull off huge wins in more states than he has tonight which were always slated to be favorable for him.

That's good; I'll have to read up (I read, or maybe the word is scan, Seattle Pi, otherwise know as Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a few times a week).

That' looks like a virtual tie. It can still go either way.

For some reason, no one is responding, fine. But listen, it is not a fifty-fifty chance either way despite the polling. Tonight's big win, congratulations, still leaves Sanders trailing because none of the states are winner take all, but rather proportionate, none of the state have many delegates, Washington had the most and pretty sure Clinton was able to get a few of those. States coming up are all favorable to Clinton which are New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland where 531 delegates are up for grabs.

read here

Quote ossobuco:

You have lived most of life in California, now you are in Arizona, but you regularly read the Seattle Post-Intelligencer??

Barak Obama decided to support Bernie Sanders.

I have about 80-100 news sites I watch regularly or once a week or so, once in a while, or once a month or two. Since I don't do paywalls happily (even though I see why news sites have them) I've branched out. I lived in California 53 years, but also like Oregon and Washington state - and lived in and liked Chicago and New York. Chicago Tribune is on the list. I'm also a food nut, and read some local free papers like Village Voice, Alibi here in NM, and a fair number of sites like LA Weekly for what is going on re food or other matters. I follow the Guardian, but also several italian sites. I look at Reuters. Sometimes, not often, read Times of India. Same with Al Jazeera. I somewhat follow sports. I learned to enjoy world football via people at a2k.. but don't pay much attention on a day to day basis.

I have a small life in Albuquerque but a fairly wide world.

Bernie Sanders Continues To Dominate Caucuses, But He’s About To Run Out Of Them

Interesting report.

http://observer.com/2016/03/the-countless-failings-of-the-dnc/

I was just reading about Wisconsin's voter suppression laws. They are perfectly aimed to stop Sanders' most likely supporters from voting.

Can you show me where it says that, Ed? I don't necessarily doubt what you're saying, but the demographics that voter suppression generally affects are mostly poorer and browner - not exactly the core Bernie contingent, and not a big part of Wisconsin population.