So I'm leaving. The site and the party. There are some great people here, but I had probably two thirds of the site on ignore, and came to realize that if folks on here are truly representative of the modern Democratic Party, I no longer have much in common with it.

Nearly three decades of voting Democratic by default in every race, only voting third party a handful of times over the years, and now, going forward, if I ever again vote for a Democrat, it will be in spite of them being one, not because of it. I imagine I'll be leaving a lot of races unmarked from here on out. But if I want nothing to do with most of the people who post here in support of foreign wars, undeclared war drone strikes, voter suppression as long as it works in their favour, spying on all Americans, sending those who bring government misdeeds to light to jail, sacrificing the poor in 'grand bargains' or 'reforms', keeping the minimum wage lower than it has to be, fracking all over the world, pushing unlabeled GMO food into every part of the food supply, toppling left wing foreign governments through military coups, and a host of other issues that seem to have been embraced by the modern Democratic Party, well, then, it's time for me to quit 'polluting' the Democratic Party with my presence, in either primary or general elections.

So congrats to all of those who spent their time writing sneering comments about myself and others not being 'real Democrats', who were angry because I and others like me dared to support a candidate who actually believed in the ideals the Democratic Party used to believe in, who wanted to stop all injustices, not just those that won votes. You made it a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm not a Democrat of any sort any more, and never again will be. Enjoy your ever-shrinking tent.

I expect this to be locked quickly, and my account PPR'ed in a flash, so gravedance fast.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/breitbart-reporter-michelle-fields-manhandled-by-trump-campaign-manager-resigns-along-with-three-others-20160315-gnje8b.html

Very comprehensive piece, and OF COURSE she's getting hate mail from Trump supporters who want her raped, murdered, shoved into gas chambers, etc.

Before I logged in today, I cruised various places I've got trashed atm, curious as to reactions to yesterday. I saw similar ideas a number of times, along with anger at 'open primaries' allowing independents to 'take over a party's nominee'.

But no dot connecting. Bernie is popular with young people (notoriously fickle voters) and independents (a LARGER group than Democrats these days).

Both groups we WANT to be voting Democratic in the general. I might even say NEED. Because we don't win the general without Indies, and young people certainly help as well.

Instead, we see anger that they dared to show up and vote in the primary. Here's a hint. We need a candidate that brings them over to check that 'Democratic' box in the general. And that means they should be welcome in the primary, so that we can get a candidate that CAN win in the general, and not just one approved of by an ever shrinking party 'base' that is out of touch with reality on the ground and simply trying to cruise along on loyalty to a party that has changed dramatically since that loyalty was earned.

http://www.kingarthurflour.com/sweepstakes/flourmonth/

Good luck

Madison High School, I think it was, maybe about 5 miles away. Single shooter, three students shot, but supposedly none with life-threatening injuries, which means we got off lightly compared to most shootings these days.

Yay, gunz!

ETA: Later reports only 2 shot, one hit with shrapnel, apparently.

ETA 2: And, on the same day, in the afternoon, at the closer high school (1 mile away) a student arrested for having a gun in his backpack.

Haven't seen any Bernie ads yet, but down here in the Cincinnati-Dayton market, I saw my first Clinton ad last night, and repeated again this morning. Morgan Freeman voiceover, targeting 'people with student debt, those with the deck stacked against them, and those getting paid too little', stating that she's been 'breaking barriers her entire career, and as President she would do the same'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/business/media/melissa-harris-perry-walks-off-her-msnbc-show-after-pre-emptions.html

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

48.7% Clinton, 42.3% Sanders, closest they've been yet, despite one of the three polls giving Clinton a 15 point edge.

The three new ones.

Morning Consult NEW! 2/24 - 2/25 1,723 RV 50 35 - - - - - 10
Ipsos/Reuters NEW! 2/20 - 2/24 546 RV 49 44 - - - - - 7
IBD/TIPP NEW! 2/19 - 2/24 334 RV 45 43 - - - - - 6

Note that all three are 'registered voters', rather than 'likely voters'.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/biohackers-implant-computers-earbuds-and-antennas-in-their-bodies-2016-02-10

I'm ready for echolocation, directional senses, and a flexible implanted monitor on my forearm

Does she think he should be 'carrying her bags'? That the first black President of the United States should have to nominate a 'progressive' candidate because she says so, rather than nominate whoever he wants to? Why is she 'turning her back' on him, 'attacking him'?

tag for the sarcasm impaired.

Just thought I'd put out a few of the kind of attacks Bernie would have gotten if he had 'drawn a line in the sand' on the President's possible Supreme Court nominee. When Bernie disagrees with the President, it's an 'attack' or 'turning his back on' 'the first black President'. When Clinton does it to shore up her 'progressive' cred? Seems to be a positive, somehow.