Mojo Hand

What about Puerto Rico?

Because semi-automatic rifles will defeat the US military if it came down to it.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I got the sense that Pence reassured the religious right about Trump and Biden helped Obama in 2008 with a segment of the Dems who would later vote Trump too.

In any event, that's just one poll. This Q poll from Aug. 28 has Warren tied with Sanders for second place among blacks at 10%: https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3638

Not really. Pete, Booker, and Beto are all in a position to be taken seriously and worth thinking about. And it's a misleading comparison anyway. Bernie's base is the "most diverse" by percentage within his supporters, but he's essentially tied for 2nd place among blacks (with Harris) and Hispanics (with Warren). The reality is that Biden has by far the biggest support among Blacks and Hispanics, and Bernie, Harris, and Warren round out the group with a higher percentage of both demographics than the rest of the field combined. Those are the four candidates with significant minority support, which is part of why they are the top 4 overall. To suggest that Warren is the "least diverse" by further subdividing that group is, again, disingenuous.

According to the link above, Warren has the 4th highest support among blacks and 3rd highest support among Hispanics, and the biggest group in both demographics is undecided. That isn't remotely comparable to the bottom-feeding candidates, and is better than most of the candidates who qualified for the 3rd debate. Calling her support the "least diverse" is completely disingenuous.

Sure, when you're throwing around terms like "least."

There are more than four candidates. What is Mayor Pete's breakdown in support by race, like 95% white?

Oh, and Warren doesn't have the "least diverse" supporters. Where are you getting that from?

You're imagining things, just like you completely imagined that my argument was about sexual assault. My engagement with you was, from the beginning, purely to point out that the "Bernie Bro" thing was a political narrative pushed by diehard Hillary supporters to diminish the legitimacy of Bernie's support. Yes, it's code for white males, but a specific kind of white male: bros, frat-boy types, guys who, as a caricature, are teeming with toxic masculinity. The sexism and aggressiveness was the point. It stuck to some degree with Bernie versus Hillary not because it was fair, but because there is an inherent vulnerability on sexism in a modern Dem primary for a male running against the first strong female candidate for president. Before Bernie, it was the Obama Boys, though that didn't stick as well because Obama's candidacy had its own historic nature. It's not happening to Warren because she doesn't have a vulnerability to an attack on sexism grounds, for obvious reasons. And, sure, her supporters are mostly white, but a white person who loves Liz Warren doesn't fit the frat-boy stereotype behind the Bernie Bros narrative either. That you don't understand why Warren Bros isn't a thing should cause you to question your own reasoning, but you seem to be more comfortable with your false assumptions and the seeming unfairness of something you can't explain.

What uncomfortable questions? I haven't denied that it's code for white males. That's the very basis for it being an accusation of sexism: aggressively misogynistic frat dudes who wouldn't support Hillary simply because she's a woman. It was a caricature pushed by Hillary PUMAs for political benefit. That's what I've been saying. Do you even know what you're arguing against? Because it doesn't resemble anything I've said.

The article coined the term, but then it took on a life of its own, leading the original author to apologize and try to rein it back in. If you don't think it was used as part of a push by Hillary PUMAs to paint support for Bernie as sexist, I don't know what to tell you. I'm surprised to see a Bernie supporter giving the Hillary side a pass on that, but you're entitled to your opinion. We'll just have to disagree.

Yeah, the GOP did it to Buchanan versus Bush I. In Iowa and South Dakota and maybe others.

What does "odd that it doesn't mention sexual assault" mean? I didn't say it had anything to do with sexual assault.

No need to get so defensive. It's just my opinion, the world doesn't end because we disagree. I just looked back through the last 10 pages or so and only two people used the term: b_t using it defensively and Hugo, who repeatedly refers to "Kamala bros" too. You're just so sensitive to this issue that you view it though a weird martyr prism.

Yes, I think the PUMA crowd used "Bernie Bro" to push a narrative that Bernie supporters were aggressively misogynistic dudes who supported him because his opponent was a woman (Hillary). I don't agree with that narrative. (I also supported Bernie over Hillary with my vote and donations.) But that's what it was about. I hardly even hear the term any more or see it on Facebook/Twitter, and when I do it's usually from defensive Bernie supporters who can't get over it. Otherwise it's from Hillary dead-enders, but it doesn't seem to be part of the mainstream strategy of any current candidate. You seem to believe there is a massive establishment conspiracy behind it, but it's just politics as usual. You just look stupid trying to compare the diversity of his base versus Warren, because it was never really about demographic facts. Warren's base isn't susceptible to an attack on grounds of sexism against women for obvious reasons, so it's a losing exercise. Defensiveness only keeps these kinds of narratives alive, and nobody is keeping the "Bernie Bro" narrative alive more than the Bernie supporters who constantly reference it.

Not really. Hillary owned the establishment, but the hard-core Hillary PUMAs are their own subgroup of people. Hence the origin of "PUMA," while the establishment moved on to Obama. And there's no "Warren Bro" narrative because there isn't an opponent trying to portray support for Warren as sexist against women (and it wouldn't stick). There's nothing more sinister going on here.

It's a Hillary/PUMA thing.

I don't think Bernie should shut it down. I just think the 6 month trend of his polling numbers are a big warning sign for his campaign and something significant needs to change: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

As always, lulz at Trump supporters like emaw earnestly thinking that their opinions have any weight to the rest of us. Oh noes, I bet a scientologist also thinks I'm the crazy one for not believing in xenu! You're all complete jokes.

Bernie and his supporters seem to take it on faith that he speaks for a silent majority and that his words alone will spark a revolution by the masses. But his polling numbers have been flat for months, aside from a big drop after Biden entered the race from which he hasn't recovered at all. Warren just passed him for the first time in the RCP average. Maybe I'm missing the coming tidal wave, but it seems like his campaign is doing something wrong.

Such a bad show, but I guess I'll keep watching.

If that's the case, they should just hold an actual second referendum. The Brexit folks should welcome it because they care so much about the will of the people, right? Edit: in response to Bruno

It's short for Joris.

He must be on... The List.