The problem is that nobody wants to vote for Biden but most people will. The only way you get down to Sanders and Warren is if Warren decided to pivot away from Sanders.

They are endorsing two candidates, neither of whom currently have a chance in hell of winning and both of whom might as well be polar opposites in the party. It’s an endorsement of blowing the entire primary up because the board determined that nobody was worth one on their own.  

But Obama was a pragmatic idealist. He ran a pretty moderate campaign. Progressives don’t like to remember it that way because they don’t like to acknowledge that they never really understood his appeal in the first place.

That’s not what I said. I’m saying the Times is picking Warren and Klobuchar who functionally are running identical campaigns to Sanders and Biden, respectively. They’re saying there’s nobody who is splitting the difference, so if you’re going to vote for one path or the other, pick these two, even though the decision…

Except that you’re wrong. Warren had a year and a half or more to talk about this and didn’t. She did bring it up two weeks before Iowa, but another way of putting it is that she waited until Sanders decided to turn on her just before Iowa.

Journalistic endorsements don’t really matter at all. I don’t think they move the needle anymore. And it’s not like it’s any secret that basically nobody is excited about Biden being the nominee. He remains strong because of how the electorate feels about Warren and especially Sanders.

It’s pretty simple. Right now, the choice is Biden or Sanders. And given that choice, Biden is going to win going away. The only path to stopping him is getting somebody (preferably Warren) to say, “Look, I believe in big ideas. But I don’t believe we can accomplish them all over the next four or eight or 16 years.…

Did you see that Sanders yesterday leaked that they were considering Warren as both VP and Secretary of Treasury? The message that leak should tell you is that he’s worried about the effects of the last week and is trying to dangle both the vice presidency and a larger role in the cabinet in the hopes of making amends…

Unlikely.

You’re drawing unknowable conclusions fundamentally meaningless information. Or at least information you can’t reliably know the meaning of.

When you’re a politician, your propensity for lying needs to reach whole other levels for being a liar to become part of your personal brand. But even those who do not distinguish themselves as uniquely dishonest still lie on the regular.

You don’t have to go out of your way to prove to me that you’re a mark, you know. I knew that much from the start. 

A populist is a politician who frames his or her messaging with the primary purpose of appealing to the frustration and anger of “ordinary” people who are particularly susceptible to rhetoric that patronizes them as wise “salt of the earth” types who have been forever dealt a raw deal.

It’s definitely not his brand. He doesn’t lie in the way the president lies, for instance, but he’s in the business of telling people comforting half truths and outright lies, which is to say, he’s a politician.

The things you don’t realize could fill the internet. First entry: Politicians very often do not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Dude, it was literally the biggest story of the campaign over the weekend and at the start of the week. It was first reported by Politico without comment or challenge from the Sanders campaign. Warren responded to it saying how disappointed she was in Sanders. The Sanders campaign first tried to pass it off as a…

It’s not a comprehensive list. But looking at that listing, no more than half the things they checked are more than “half true.” So without paying attention to the questionable ethics of the “mostly true” statements, the conclusion is that he is either incorrect or seeking to deceive people half the time...

It’s a bit convoluted, but I think yeah, in the first paragraph he’s signalling that his previous support for (or maybe he would prefer we phrase it as acquiescence to) Hyde was based on the rationale that private funds exist to provide aid, in which case a divisive political and moral dispute that would likely end in…

You’re just misunderstanding the point of the attack. Sanders and Warren have both already established an argument that you basically are who your strongest supporters are, and they’ve both made a point of talking about their small donor base. Now, Buttigieg had already landed a punch on Warren at the end of the year…

I think it will help Sanders more than her because it’s already bumped him into the lead in Iowa.