I'm like 50% sure at this point that Bloomberg is running simply to troll the shit out of Trump. 

Pragmatism seems to have worked to pick up a seat in Arizona and preserve a seat in Montana it will likely pick up another in AZ, one in Colorado and a third in Maine in 2020.

Yeah again that’s because of the whole 60 votes to pass legislation bit.

Non-white vote in the IA caucus may be a sample size issue

The degree to which the online left is casually memory-holing the historic progressive victories won during Obama’s two terms is just insane.

This is fair, it's the flipside of how some far left progs don't get why it's so dumb to hate on the most popular political figure in America but rather seem puzzled that shots at Obama don't play outside their bubble

Caucuses might not be "go back every time" sort of experience based on how heated the last 3 have been, plus it's super exclusionary 

A fluky by-product of the evolution of our electoral system (inherently biased towards rural areas) combined with a bunch of one-off events to produce an outcome where the person with a 3 million vote plurality “lost”? 

Arguing Sanders + Warren is bigger than Biden alone is more than a bit disingenuous- add Klobuchar+Buttigieg+Steyer/Bloomberg to Biden’s #s.

No, no they’re not. They also didn’t rig the system in 2016. 

If we had a National Popular Vote this would be a great point, as is what matters could end being who can carry the states won by moderates in 2018.

I mean.....we should be clear that part of the reason that was possible had nothing to do with economics and everything to with a region of the country that is (and was even at the time) more conservative than the Democratic Party, refusing to vote for Republicans because the Republicans ended slavery and imposed…

No see it’s “too big of a tent” when the party might nominate someone she doesn’t support but everyone needs to get on board and get behind her boy when he’s in the running to head that tent. 

The ACA was single largest and most significant piece of progressive legislation in roughly half a century. You’ll have to forgive me if I think the online left is either historically ignorant or simply too short-sighted to see that. 

It didn’t help that many PUMAs were raceblind at best— as in there were literally arguments that Obama despite winning the primary should “take a backseat and serve as Hillary’s VP”

I’m not sure it’s the same for Dems though— just philosophically Dem legislators have always been more willing to break with their party’s nominal leader if needed due to local politics. 

I mean the two main schism points between Obama and Clinton were foreign policy— where she was and still is unquestionably more hawkish— where the difference was one of judgement vs. experience (see: Iraq War vote) and the Individual Mandate— which, while never popular, proved necessary to get guaranteed issue and cut…

The “backlash against Obama” is almost entirely a phenomena of the too online far left in reality it accounts for only slightly more than a rounding error among Democratic Primary voters. 

Citing bad faith merchants and never-Obama Progs like Firedoglake and Glenn Greenwald makes it a lot easier to see that you’re being dishonest.

The public option was jettisoned because moderate Dems (specifically Joe Lieberman) made it a sticking point in the Senate, given that no votes could be spared it was a necessary sacrifice.