Clinton voters are older and more affluent than average. If they have to be at a specific place for a very narrow window, they just don't show up. They don't show up at any stage of the process for things like that, which is why final delegate counts at the county and state conventions tended to shift to Sanders. (I…

You only get to the number you need to say 85-90% of those who actually vote vote party line if you count decline-to-state/NPP voters who are lean towards one party or another. Saying a decline-to-state/NPP voter who tends to vote for a major party is voting party line is a little problematic.

And now we have the rude partisan getting pedantic. I'm pretty sure I have a solid grasp on the language, thanks. If I want tips on how to absorb and then repeat verbatim campaign literature, I'll ask. Outside of that, I'm good.

The DNC leaks prove the Hillary Victory Fund did what I just said it did and also show internal emails literally discussing how to rig the primary. I think this is less me being conspiratorial and you being willfully ignorant of widely available information.

Whenever money and power is involved, corruption is always going to be a thing. There is no ideal country or candidate. It doesn't mean we have to turn a blind eye to the absurd levels of corruption in the American political system in general and persons of the two major party candidates in that system, though.

Oh, you want to continue the discussion after needlessly getting personal without provocation? OK, usually that's a sign a person has run out of HFA talking points to regurgitate. Are you going to say we have to vote for her but "hold her feet to the fire" next? That's a hot take from them this week.

And the fact that you are burying your head in the sand after enough material has leaked about how impartial the DNC was to send heads rolling tells me all I need to know about you.

Trump benefitted from Reince Priebus being a fucking moron and from the corporate media being willing to give him millions of dollars of free air time in exchange for ratings.

Sanders has been in the national spotlight since the early 1990s. Granted, he wasn't the First Lady but he was the only self-described socialist in Congress. Somehow, he's fared well while being a member of both houses in Congress and associating himself with what was, until very recently, the dirtiest word in…

The winner of the Republican primary has been unelectable since 1988—the only GOP candidate to win the popular vote since '88 is W in 2004 and there is good reason to think he stole that election—so I don't see why thinking Trump is unelectable or even the least electable candidate running in that primary is at odds…

First, the polling that suggested Sanders would outperform Clinton against Trump was pretty on the money about how Clinton ultimately fared against Trump. It's weird to say they got one of only two Democratic candidates wrong and the other right in the same poll.

Yes, I feverishly refresh the page to see who responds and don't simply reply when the notifications from Disqus pop up on my smartphone. You got me, talking to especially heinous Clinton Democrats and luxuriating in the enlightened idiocy of people who are in the habit of normalizing and legitimatizing arguments…

It's not a wash. Any candidate other than Clinton would be crushing Trump and Warren or Sanders would be crushing him by around 20 points nationally. It would be a completely different map. And roughly the same holds for if any other Republican were running against Clinton.

And the Clinton supporter uses the insult "cucks" in a sentence. But remember, people, Clinton, Trump, and their bases are TOTALLY different, Bernie Bros/Obama Boys exist, and PUMAS were just something that organically happened in 2008 and in no way reflect upon the true base of an elderly WASP who has been a lifelong…

If you haven't been paying attention, most of the "conspiracy theories" Sanders supporters have aired about the primary election cycle have been proven true. The Democratic primary electorate didn't choose Clinton, the senior staff of the national party did.

The Secretary of State is the second most powerful person in the USG, the Obama administration—especially in its early years—was run by the Clinton network, and even Obama admits Clinton was the driving force behind Libya. And the NYT series on her decision process there is fucking horrifying given the fact she has a…

The only guaranteed benefit of a good ground game is solid identification of your support and turnout of your party loyalists. Regular people have to have a reason to vote for your issue or candidate to actually get off their asses and vote.

The largest groups of voters in the country at the moment are decline-to-state/no party preference voters, which are about 40% of the electorate with each of the major parties hovering around the low thirties and high twenties, respectively. 85% of the voting public voting along party lines is literally impossible.

This is so wrong it's laughable. Roughly 70% of the electorate falls outside your base whether you're a Democrat or Republican. If all you do is turn out your base during an average or high turnout year, you'll lose—badly.

Thanks for the unsolicited advice and opinion on my career. Now, I can die knowing I know what an intellectually dishonest, anonymous Clinton voter thinks of my career and powers of expression. If I got good reviews of either from such a person, I'd wonder where I went so horribly wrong in my basic personal and moral…