I was mocking your notion that there is an appetite for socialism among young people by pointing out that many of them have fundamentally rejected it. Then you made it about Sanders supporters. So, once again, we’re off the rails because you can’t seem to develop a coherent argument and have to continually move the…

We have not been talking about Sanders supporters, but Millennials writ large. You mentioned that a majority of Millennials are skeptical of capitalism as part of a claim that Sanders would be faring better than Clinton. I pointed out their affinity for Gary Johnson as a rebuttal to the idea that Millennials have any…

Here’s Quinnipiac showing Clinton 31% and Johnson 29% with 18-34 year olds: https://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2378

Dude, just because you’re too lazy and too inattentive to know established facts doesn’t mean I have to spoon feed you. I’m not your personal Google.

Yeah, places like Maine, where it’s worked so well that they have a governor wondering aloud if America doesn’t need some good authoritarianism right now.

So they’re rocketing from irrelevance to obscurity? Great news!

I already provided evidence.

The fact that his “movement” has already essentially collapsed should give people who are convinced he’d be a good presidential candidate pause.

There’s a pretty clear and substantial difference between an October poll of the actual candidates and a June hypothetical poll of one eventual nominee against a guy who was about to lose his primary.

The point is that socialists have, unsurprisingly, vastly overestimated Millennials’ commitment to and appetite for left-wing ideology. Going from Sanders to Johnson in any meaningful numbers betrays an incoherent anger more than anything else. I’m a Millennial and this jibes with my own observations of my peers.

Please. Leftists love undermining Democrats as much as possible (and whining about how Democrats don’t always regard them with warmth for some mysterious reason) until doing so becomes untenable.

They are, but as a matter of strategy, it’s dumb unless you want to empower the coalition of ultra-capitalists, authoritarians, and racists backing the GOP.

No, run within the Democratic Party. There are two sides. Pick one. Don’t split your own bloc.

This a brilliant strategy for splitting liberal votes in perpetuity and ensuring a steady stream of GOP wins. Thanks for dropping by, Governor LePage.

Four way polls pretty consistently showed Johnson just barely behind Clinton among Millennials. It’s not a stretch to conjecture that much of that was due to pro-Sanders voters preferring Johnson as a protest vote. They’ve recently begun breaking back towards Clinton (who they do prefer to Trump by a very wide margin).

His loss will be a symbolic protest of the historic slaughter of the bison.

That’s primarily because Clinton supporters were mostly good partisans to begin with. Most supporters of either were happy to support the other. It’s kind of a moot point anyway, since the vast majority of Sanders supporters quickly moved on to supporting Clinton (even if grudgingly so at times). But here’s the thing:…

1) Those polls mean next to nothing.

That’s where I think you’re wrong. You can’t assume that Sanders would begin from where HRC is now and add more (regardless of his favorables, which I’m betting would plummet once he was exposed to sunlight), especially since she’s been successful in pealing off some traditional GOP blocs (chiefly white women and…

He would have been losing until the present meltdown.