As you know the Bernie supporters have all but taken over the GD-P board in a manner similar to way they have dominated online polls, with enthusiasm and mud raking. It is no longer a place where DU'er can have a civil discussion - most Clinton supporters will no longer post there.

However, I don't suppose that anything can be done about that and hopefully that situation will clear up once a nominee is chosen.

However, as you probably also know there has been a continuing abuse of the alert and jury processes. Increasingly alerts have been made on relatively harmless posts by Clinton supporters. Since Sanders supporters often dominate the juries, it is not unusual for such posts to be hidden if they were made by someone who supports Clinton. The very same posts made by Sanders supporters would almost always be left alone. Sanders supporters even lurk in the Hillary group without posting looking for reasons to post an alert.

Now this is not a blanket indictment of all Sanders supporters; a good number are civil and fair. Some have even contacted me by email behind the scenes apologizing for the conduct of some of fellows. However, it is readily apparent that there sizable contingent of those some us call BernieBots in private who are doing everything can to use the alert and jury system to silence those who dare to disagree with them. Several long term DU users have left the board in disgust. I'm sure that is not what you had in mind when you began DU.

I hesitate to make suggestions on how to improve the situation and make the jury system fairer. The only thing I can think of is to have a way for people who believe that posts have broken no DU rules and been hidden unfairly hidden to appeal the jury decision.

However, anything you can do to make this grossly unfair situation better for everyone would be most appreciated. DU is much too important an asset to be damaged in this manner.

Do you honestly believe that Bernie Sanders will be able to push a single payer health care plan through Congress if he is elected President when even Nancy Pelosi says "It isn't going to happen"?

If you what evidence that Bernie's single payer health system is pie in the sky, you no longer have to point out that the Republicans in Congress will never let it happen. Instead pay attention to what Nancy Pelosi, the ranking Democrat in the House, is saying about the tax increases which would have to pay for the program:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi maintains she isn't taking sides in the Democratic primary for president, but pushed back against Bernie Sanders' pledge that he would raise taxes to pay for his health care plan, saying flatly on Wednesday, "We're not running on any platform of raising taxes."

Speaking at the House Democratic Caucus' annual retreat here, Pelosi sidestepped a question about the growing concerns of fellow Democrats over the impact Sanders could have on 2016 House and Senate races, saying, "I'm very proud of all three of our candidates."

But the top House Democrat didn't mince words when it came to Vermont Senator Sanders' health care proposal, dismissing the notion of a single-payer health care plan, curtly saying, That's not going to happen."

(snip)

But then Pelosi took another pointed swipe at Sanders' plan, saying, "It's no use having a conversation about something that's not going to happen."


CNN: Pelosi pushes back on Sanders' pledge to raise taxes]

(I posted this deep in a discussion on the Primaries board in response to the claims that the entire country is angry. It's a rant -but it's the way I feel right now - if it offends anyone, I apologize in advance.)

Most of the anger that exists is not fixated on the economic condition of the country. It has been a long road, but the country is finally getting back on an even keel economically. The employment rate is now back into the historically normal range. The underemployment rate is quickly improving. No longer are lower paying jobs the only new jobs coming open; good jobs have really started coming back as well. Average wages are rising for the first time in a decade.

So where is the anger coming from? That's easy. It is coming from those dissatisfied with the political situation and strangely it is coming from those most responsible for that situation in the first place - the far right surely, but also the far left. These two groups seem intent in pulling their parties further to the extremes. Given the balance in our government mandated by our Constitution, this polarization means that little gets done in Washington, which in turn breeds more anger.

The groups of people that I see who are the most angry are relatively well off white liberals, Tea Party zealots, and the far right conservatives. However, the zealots on both the far left and the far right have more in common than just their anger.

The dissatisfaction on the political extremes on both sides is driven by political leaders who are constantly banging their drums and claiming that country is going to hell in a hand basket and that the system is rigged against normal people. Notice this is going on on both sides.

Both extremes represent a large very vocal minorities of their respective parties and these groups are both determined to make up for what they lack in numbers with enthusiasm and shear determination.

Both are more inclined to pursue their ideals than to deal with problems common to us all.

Both claim they cannot compromise because to do so would betray their principles.

Both are dead set on nominating politicians who, for the most part, are unacceptable to those who will decide the Presidential election.

It is time for those of us in the realistic, rational, very wide ranging center of the political spectrum to get equally as dedicated to taking our country back from the angry extremist elements and nominate people who represent the reasonably sane people in this nation.

(Rant over)

(I posted this deep in a discussion on the Primaries board in response to the claims that the entire country is angry. It's a rant -but I've had with the Bernie people and it's the way I feel right now - if it offends anyone, I apologize in advance.)

Most of the anger that exists is not fixated on the economic condition of the country. It has been a long road, but the country is finally getting back on an even keel economically. The employment rate is now back into the historically normal range. The underemployment rate is quickly improving. No longer are lower paying jobs the only new jobs coming open; good jobs have really started coming back as well. Average wages are rising for the first time in a decade.

So where is the anger coming from? That's easy. It is coming from those dissatisfied with the political situation and strangely it is coming from those most responsible for that situation in the first place - the far right surely, but also the far left. These two groups seem intent in pulling their parties further to the extremes. Given the balance in our government mandated by our Constitution, this polarization means that little gets done in Washington, which in turn breeds more anger.

The groups of people that I see who are the most angry are relatively well off white liberals, Tea Party zealots, and the far right conservatives. However, the zealots on both the far left and the far right have more in common than just their anger.

The dissatisfaction on the political extremes on both sides is driven by political leaders who are constantly banging their drums and claiming that country is going to hell in a hand basket and that the system is rigged against normal people. Notice this is going on on both sides.

Both extremes represent a large very vocal minorities of their respective parties and these groups are both determined to make up for what they lack in numbers with enthusiasm and shear determination.

Both are more inclined to pursue their ideals than to deal with problems common to us all.

Both claim they cannot compromise because to do so would betray their principles.

Both are dead set on nominating politicians who, for the most part, are unacceptable to the those who will decide the Presidential election.

It is time for those of us in the realistic, rational, very wide ranging center of the political spectrum to get equally as dedicated to taking our country back from the angry extreme elements and nominate people who represent the sane people in this nation.

(Rant over)

Well at least you're predictable.

(Nate Silver puts out averages of recent political polls weighted to take into consideration the tendency of polls to favor one candidate or the other and the polls historic accuracies.)

The Five Thirty Eight articles Is The Bernie Sanders Surge Real? is really a discussion between Nate Silver and two others about Bernie's current chances of winning the nomination. I especially like the answer that Nate gives to the question about what odds would he have to have to bet on Sanders. He says: "If I could get him at 20-1 (implying about a 5 percent chance of winning), I’d take it."

(snip)

natesilver: FWIW, our FiveThirtyEight national polling average (which we’re not publishing yet — stay tuned) has Clinton up 22 percentage points. Although that was before the Monmouth poll released today, which might tighten things a bit. But somewhere in the high teens or perhaps low 20s.

(snip)

micah: All right, so let’s posit that the tightening of the race in Iowa and (to a lesser extent) the nation is real and lasting. Sanders leads in New Hampshire. Is Sanders a real threat to win the nomination now?

natesilver: Define real.

clare.malone: I think that’s definitely going to change over the next week or so. The New York Times had a big piece this morning about how the Clinton campaign is changing its strategy given the Bernie bump (which, incidentally, sounds like a really fun dance move, no?).

harry: My New York accent is real. My ability to drive is also real, but not really real.

micah: Real means >25 percent chance.

natesilver: Sell.

micah: 20 percent.

harry: Sell.

natesilver: Still selling.

micah: [let’s give the #feeltheberners a moment to leave an angry comment]

15 percent.

natesilver: That’s about where Betfair has it, for what it’s worth.

harry: I’m sorry, but — knowing I’ve been paid off by my corporate overlords — here’s what I see: There’s just little-to-no sign that Clinton has lost any traction among black voters. The most recent YouGov poll has her up 75 percent to 18 percent among black Democrats. The most recent Morning Consult poll has her ahead 71 percent to 14 percent. The most recent Monmouth poll has her up 71 percent to 21 percent among non-white voters. Sanders would need to close that gap to have any chance in South Carolina. And remember, Clinton was only up by 7 percentage points at this point among non-white voters in the 2008 cycle.

natesilver: Indeed. That, along with her support from the party establishment, is why Clinton is the heavy favorite. But at what point does the price on Bernie become attractive to you?

natesilver: If I could get him at 20-1 (implying about a 5 percent chance of winning), I’d take it.

(Nate Silver puts out averages of recent political polls weighted to take into consideration the tendency of polls to favor one candidate or the other and the polls historic accuracies.)

The Five Thirty Eight articles Is The Bernie Sanders Surge Real? is really a discussion between Nate Silver and two others about Bernie's current chances of winning the nomination. I especially like the answer that Nate gives to the question about what odds would he have to have to bet on Sanders. He says: "If I could get him at 20-1 (implying about a 5 percent chance of winning), I’d take it."

(snip)

natesilver: FWIW, our FiveThirtyEight national polling average (which we’re not publishing yet — stay tuned) has Clinton up 22 percentage points. Although that was before the Monmouth poll released today, which might tighten things a bit. But somewhere in the high teens or perhaps low 20s.

(snip)

micah: All right, so let’s posit that the tightening of the race in Iowa and (to a lesser extent) the nation is real and lasting. Sanders leads in New Hampshire. Is Sanders a real threat to win the nomination now?

natesilver: Define real.

clare.malone: I think that’s definitely going to change over the next week or so. The New York Times had a big piece this morning about how the Clinton campaign is changing its strategy given the Bernie bump (which, incidentally, sounds like a really fun dance move, no?).

harry: My New York accent is real. My ability to drive is also real, but not really real.

micah: Real means >25 percent chance.

natesilver: Sell.

micah: 20 percent.

harry: Sell.

natesilver: Still selling.

micah: [let’s give the #feeltheberners a moment to leave an angry comment]

15 percent.

natesilver: That’s about where Betfair has it, for what it’s worth.

harry: I’m sorry, but — knowing I’ve been paid off by my corporate overlords — here’s what I see: There’s just little-to-no sign that Clinton has lost any traction among black voters. The most recent YouGov poll has her up 75 percent to 18 percent among black Democrats. The most recent Morning Consult poll has her ahead 71 percent to 14 percent. The most recent Monmouth poll has her up 71 percent to 21 percent among non-white voters. Sanders would need to close that gap to have any chance in South Carolina. And remember, Clinton was only up by 7 percentage points at this point among non-white voters in the 2008 cycle.

natesilver: Indeed. That, along with her support from the party establishment, is why Clinton is the heavy favorite. But at what point does the price on Bernie become attractive to you?

natesilver: If I could get him at 20-1 (implying about a 5 percent chance of winning), I’d take it.

CNN showed clips from an interview which President Obama gave to Politico and, while he certainly didn't endorse any candidate in the Democratic primary race, his remarks definitely showed a preference for Hillary Clinton.

This might have a big influence in the upcoming caucus and primary battles. The president currently has a 90 percent favorability rating among Democrats; he’s especially popular among African-Americans, a big part of Democratic electorate in South Carolina’s and the many states in the so called Southeaster Conference primaries set for March 1st.

I will try to find some direct quotes from the interview and post them when they become available.