Seriously?

Can't they get anything right? Can't they not embarrass themselves just once?



If we were to say, "Oh, PA sucked anyway. We didn't want to win there. They can have it," then THAT would be sour grapes.

Temper those expectations. Grow up and get properly cynical.

Oh, and remember, America is already great!

Seen several articles lately, trying to claim how the campaign's recent "turn towards the low road" is what cost him NY, and hence any chances at the nomination.

Of course there's no way to objectively support this, and they won't bother to try. Because they don't need to. They can say anything they want, and claim his loss as their proof.

Much more interesting is to look at the exit polls.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/19/us/elections/new-york-primary-democratic-exit-polls.html?_r=0

They tied among whites and among males. She clearly did better among poc and women. And obviously among the pro-Wall Street.

He won on trustworthiness and campaign fairness. For what that was worth.

She won on gun policy, suggesting that her recent attacks against him on that have worked.

So I'm not seeing where in these polls that running a positive campaign helps, or a negative one hurts.

Seems to me, the biggest problem with the RW media is that their dishonesty tends not to be explicit, but rather implicit.

This is an important distinction.

Explicit dishonesty would be if they said that the Repub side does nothing wrong. They don't really do this. What they do is to say that the Dems did something wrong, implying that it's a terrible thing, and implying that the Repubs would never do anything like that. All while those of us paying attention know that the Repubs are not only doing said thing, they're in it far wider and deeper. But pointing out that the Dems do it serves as a distraction away from them. It serves to imply that the Dems are worse, or at least just as bad as the Repubs, in terms of scandals and corruption. At worst, both sides cancel each other out, leaving the voter to move on to the issues (being strong on defense, guns, hetero marriage, pro-life, etc).

The RW media really does not rely on outright lies. Their bread and butter is in half-truths and false equivalency. They aren't weak on facts, so much as how to apply those facts logically. Information is important, but context is everything.

Why is this important?

Because we're now at a juncture where we no longer have to defend the "lesser evil". Corruption among Dems doesn't have to be considered as acceptable just because we know the Repubs are worse.

It also means we don't have to take all RW talking points with a grain of salt, and automatically assume a defensive posture. A lot of what they will complain about is the same thing as what Bernie will complain about.

This is not to suggest that Faux News is suddenly our friend. Simply to state that just because something seems to initiate as a "RW talking point", that doesn't make it automatically wrong.

What she makes for 39 seconds of public speaking.

Clearly worth it, no? I mean, have you ever felt more warmth? Heard a sharper wit? Better comedic timing? A more commanding stage presence?

I for one, was simply blown away. Better watch your back, Amy Schumer and Louis C.K.!

This week we support the candidate who's deeply flawed.

Kinda funny.

I love being out in public in a Bernie shirt, and getting so much positive response and encouragement. Particularly from those who normally don't care much for Democrats, and seem to recognize how party politics is more part of the problem than the solution.

It's so amazing, if not life-affirming, to see how much love and respect he gets from just about anyone. Except of course those who seem to choose to place their highest regard on politics as usual.

...To understand who Bernie is.

How about, Bernie is that guy who's been kicking your ass big time lately, hence your idiotic reaction.

A cookie for everyone who does.

Friends, this is our chance to make NY her Waterloo.

We win there, and what we've known all along becomes irrefutable to the rest of the world

Based on what(ever) happened in NV, can it happen elsewhere?

Being somewhat new to caucusing, when I show up as a delegate on May 1 for my county convention, does it mean the same type of thing could happen?

Is it why WA is still only showing a fraction of all the delegates as being assigned?