Now that the primary looks to be all but settled, our attention needs to turn to reminding ourselves that we are more similar than we are different. The first step in that process is to remember that we all consider ourselves progressives. Just because someone isn't as far to the left as you are doesn't mean they are really a Republican, nor does it mean that they don't want to make the same progress you do.

When it comes to health care, we all want to work to universal coverage. Bernie proposes single-payer, while Hillary wants to expand the ACA to continue to build until we have full coverage. They are both progressive positions.

When it comes to education, Bernie wants to make college free, while Hillary wants to limit or eliminate the need to take out large debt to go. They are both progressive positions.

When it comes to taxes, Bernie has proposed increases for everyone, with massive increases for the rich, while Hillary has proposed a smaller tax increase focused solely on the more affluent. They are both progressive positions.

When it comes to the minimum wage, Bernie wants to go to $15 everywhere, while Hillary wants to go to $12 in some areas and $15 in others. They are both progressive positions.

We can go on and on with these examples, but the point is this; when you contrast this with a Republican party that wants to stall if not eliminate the minimum wage, that wants to repeal the ACA, that wants to reduce grants and loans to make college affordable, and that wants to slash taxes so the wealthy can pay next to nothing, it's an insult to compare anyone in our party to that level of human squalor.

If you are on the far, far left, that's great. We share the same ideals, but differ on how far we're willing to jump at once to get there. That doesn't make anyone a conservative. We are different degrees of progressive, which is exactly what these primaries are supposed to sort out.

The most important way to win support and win elections is to go state to state, town to town, and talk to the voters about the issues they care about. You have to tailor your message to fit the people you're talking to. You can't give the same speech to rural Nebraska and urban Baltimore, and expect to get the same results. They say all politics is local, and Bernie's inability to hone his pitch to the audience has proven that.

https://twitter.com/bykowicz/status/725029426841440256

This primary can't be over soon enough. The 'good' man running the 'positive' campaign is now resorting to fundraising off a picture of Hillary and Donald Trump being in the same room. It's getting disgusting the lengths he is willing to go now that he's lost.

Last night, during the MSNBC town hall, Bernie said two things, which taken together, show him to be as much of a two-faced politician as the people he has spent the past six months decrying.

He said that he will do everything in his power to make sure a Republican doesn't win the White House.

He also said that it's up to Hillary alone to convince his supporters to vote for her.

I'm sorry, but those two things do not jive at all. If Bernie is serious that he will do everything he can to stop Republicans from winning in November, the single biggest thing he can do is fully endorse Hillary and make sure he tells his supporters they need to go out and vote for her, and for other Democrats. They might not listen, as is their right, but it's his job as a Democrat now to make sure he is putting the message out there to support the party. The fact that he is hedging on that, while saying he's all-in for Democrats, is only a whisper away from being an outright lie.

You're the only candidate promising to raise their taxes. Sure, you say there will be savings in other places, but if you live below the poverty line, and are already receiving Medicaid, you would cost them money.

Huh, people don't want to vote for the person raising the taxes they can't afford to pay. Who would have thunk it?

Let me preface this question by saying that it is now moot, since the math is the math, and we know who the winner of this primary season is.

At every turn, when it has looked like Hillary has pulled away enough to be the Democratic nominee, the same question keeps popping up, and with increasing amounts of force: What is Hillary going to do to win over Bernie supporters?

To a degree, that question is fair. We all (aside from the crazies) want the party to be unified come November, and that responsibility falls on all of us, so yes, Hillary will have to make some overtures to win over Bernie supporters. Many of them say that should include adopting large portions of Bernie's platform, whether it be free college or single-payer healthcare.

My question is: If Bernie had happened to win, what was he going to do to win over Hillary supporters? Was Bernie willing to take on some of Hillary's positions to get our side to coalesce with him?

Or is this one of those cases where Hillary needed to appease Bernie, whether she won or lost?

Momentum has always been a nebulous thing when it comes to politics, but it is now officially dead. Bernie and his campaign can talk all they want about how they have momentum on their side, but we have seen time and time again that no such thing exists.

Hillary crushed on Super Tuesday, then lost Michigan.

Bernie staged a 'monumental upset' in Michigan, then lost all five states following that.

Hillary won those five, then lost the caucus round.

Bernie won the caucus round, and added Wisconsin, only to lose big in NY.

The moral of the story is that momentum is a pittance, and demographics are far more important.

After last night's large defeat for 'native son' Bernie Sanders, can we officially end the talking point about crowd size? For weeks now, all we've been hearing about is the massive size of the crowds Bernie has been drawing. It didn't make a difference in Texas, or Florida, or Ohio, but it was supposed to matter here in NY. This was different.

No, it's wasn't.

Bernie's big crowds look to be the entirety of his support in some areas of NYC, and they were not even close to enough to have him catch up to Hillary's support. Also, let's keep in mind that in the most populated city in the country, Bernie was drawing crowds that Syracuse University draws for a random basketball game... when there's a foot of snow on the ground.

Crowd size does not matter. It has been proven.

Votes matter.

A very interesting article by Joan Walsh talking about her experiences in NYC this weekend:

http://www.thenation.com/article/surprise-new-york-democrats-like-the-democratic-party/

There are very good anecdotes in there about why Bernie's supporters turn off so many people, and why Democrats are not warming up to Bernie's "democrats are corrupt" schtick.

Welcome to Clinton Country!

For all the talk that Bernie's crowds get, there's two things I would like to make sure we remember.

1) In the biggest city in this country, with millions of people surrounding him, the 'once in a lifetime' candidate was able to draw less people than the Syracuse basketball team can draw up here in the 'rural' area of the state with regularity and ease.

2) Crowds at rallies aren't indicative of anything. I have been enthusiastically waiting to vote for Hillary since the first time I voted for her eight years ago, but if she held an event here in town, I don't think I would go. Why? Because I know who I'm supporting, and because of the amount of coverage politics gets, I don't need to hear a stump speech. By this point in a campaign, I feel that a large percentage of people who attend these rallies are doing so because they know they're going to hear what they want to hear. That's not a good measurement of someone's intentions.