But it’s a different argument. Of course in 2008 you had the very popular PUMA contingent. And of course, it was mostly nonsense, despite whatever the exit polling indicated.

You’re relying on exit polling data that vastly oversold Clinton’s level of support on election day to make that claim, which of course does not count the people who did not show up at the polls at all.

I’m not erasing them. I’m saying that they don’t give him cover in a some of my best friends are...sort of way. And yeah, that’s what people are trying to hold them up as.

But it’s not countered by all available data. It’s just not clearly illustrated in the specific data you choose to point to. There are other available data, and while the picture they all paint together is not clear, it would definitely seem to complicate the notion that Sanders is legitimately the most popular…

Add “analogies” to the list of things Bernie Bros are really bad at doing online. 

Actually, what I’m suggesting is that what I’m describing doesn’t show up in favorable/unfavorable polling but does likely present itself in primary polling. If Sanders were really the most popular politician in the country, as people so often like to claim (based on net-favorables), don’t you think he’d be a stronger…

Okay. It seems like an academic argument, but whatever. In this country, you’re either a Democrat or a Republican. There’s no such thing as a “real Democrat.” If you’re more aligned with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, you’re a Democrat. 

Okay. You still see why that’s a problem, right?

It’s not as small as you think. There’s a reason why even before Biden got into the race Sanders never rose above 24 percent despite being by far the most well-known candidate in the race. Similarly, there’s a reason why Biden has never fallen below 25 percent. It’s not because people can’t wait to vote for Biden. 

Women of color are probably the most important constituency of the Democratic coalition, and dismissing Sanders’ supporters as angry white men is bullshit when he has plenty of prominent supporters that come from other important Democratic constituencies.

Barack Obama was the president before him. He did not campaign with a moderate tone.

They also include prominent elected officials like Congresswomen Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and most recently Pramila Jayapal; all women of color, not angry white leftist men behind computer screens. Where do they fit in the culture Sanders has permitted? Are they included, or deliberately…

Your first paragraph, whether it is true or not, supports my point, because it illustrates that Biden’s frontrunner status has little to do with the moderation of his substantive policy proposals.

Just promise not to take your ball and go home when you lose miserably, okay?

“We the common people” is the refrain of the simpleton mark who has internalized the sweet sounding lies of the populist. Ever notice how Trump’s supporters and Sanders’s supporters speak about themselves and about their candidate in a similar way? You ever wonder why that’s the case? I suspect you haven’t--or if you…

Biden is likely the nominee because Sanders is loathed in a way that doesn’t show up in favorable-unfavorable polling by half of the Democratic electorate. People still blame him—and the scorched earth culture of his campaign—for the election of Donald Trump. Regardless of how fair that is or is not, that’s how it is.

What makes me “not the mark” is that I understand that what I want is not really relevant. What makes me “not the mark” is that I understand that it’s not about me. What makes me “not the mark” is that I understand that what really matters in the end is winning--and I’m not dumb enough to think my “support” for a…

Variations of that Pepsi ad went on for years. Every Super Bowl, Pepsi had basically two speeds: sexy lady being ogled by somebody and Coke delivery men really like to drink Pepsi. The last variation on the theme that I distinctly remember (though there have surely been others) was in the late 90s with a 230-year-old…

His rhetoric was compelling. It was inspirational. It was aspirational. To say it was “ambitious” implies an ambition, which implies goals, which you cannot separate from the actual platform, which was moderate.

They’re literally offering a split ticket of opposing principles. If you don’t understand why that’s them saying “We wish we had a better more unifying candidate to support” I’m not going to try to make you understand.