Clinton v. Sanders

A much-cheered Mashable article – headlined “The bros who love Bernie Sanders have become a sexist mob” – purported to describe the “Bernie Bro” phenomenon as Sanders supporters who are “often young, white and predominantly male” and whose messages are “oftentimes derogatory and misogynistic.” It cited a grand total of two examples, both from random, unknown internet users.

[...]

Hillary Clinton is the establishment candidate [...] why would devoted media cheerleaders of the Clinton campaign experience abuse from Clinton supporters? They wouldn’t, and they don’t. Therefore, venerating their self-centered experience as some generalized trend, they announce that Sanders supporters are uniquely abusive: because that’s what they, as die-hard Clinton media supporters, personally experience. This “Bernie Bro” narrative says a great deal about which candidate is supported by [...] journalists and says nothing unique about the character of the Sanders campaign or his supporters.

[...]

There are literally millions of women who support Sanders over Clinton. A new Iowa poll yesterday shows Sanders with a 15-point lead over Clinton among women under 45, while 1/3 of Iowa women over 45 support him. A USA Today/Rock-the-Vote poll from two weeks ago found Sanders nationally “with a 19-point lead over front-runner Hillary Clinton, 50% to 31%, among Democratic and independent women ages 18 to 34.”

  Glenn Greenwald

I have noticed some mention of polls that say Sanders is polling well in New Hampshire and Iowa against Hillary, but that she's polling much better than he nation-wide.

This has me wondering which, if any, of the polls showing Hillary doing better include Republicans. Because, if they do, and we subtract the Republicans, who won't be voting in Democratic primaries, where does that leave the contest?

Just a reminder to know what you're posting before you post it.

Makes me think of the time the White House Press hired Stephen Colbert to give the dinner speech for G.E. Bush's celebrity roast.  Classic case in point.

If you’re a Clinton media supporter, the last thing you want to do is talk about her record in helping to construct the supremely oppressive and racist U.S. penal state. [...] You most certainly don’t want to talk about how she’s drowning both personally and politically in Wall Street money. You sure don’t want to talk about what her bombing campaign did to Libya, or the military risks that her no-fly-zone in Syria would entail, or the great admiration and affection she proclaimed for Egyptian despot Hosni Mubarak, or revisit her steadfast advocacy of the greatest political crime of this generation, the invasion of Iraq. You don’t want to talk about her vile condemnation of “super-predators,” or her record on jobs-destroying trade agreements, or the fact that she changed her position from vehement opposition to support for marriage equality only after polls and most Democratic politicians switched sides.

Indeed, outside of a very small number of important issues where her record is actually good, you don’t want to talk much at all about her actual beliefs and actions.

[...]

But truth doesn’t matter here – at all. Instead, the goal is to inherently delegitimize all critics of Hillary Clinton by accusing them of, or at least associating them with, sexism, thus distracting attention away from Clinton’s policy views, funding, and political history.

In fact, I don't when when the last time was that the truth mattered, other than to Fox Mulder.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.