How And Why Bernie Will Defeat Trump

Crooked Hillary…

Everyone who pays attention to the news – especially political news – has heard the phrase uttered by the Current White House Occupant, sometimes also known as POS45. There’s even a Wikipedia page of the nicknames he gives folks.

Que sera, sera… eh?

Nevertheless, recall the 2016 General Election?

Why, of course you do!

Who could forget it, right?

I mean, it was a choice between “the devil you know, and the devil you don’t know.” Either way, it was a devil. But at least with one, you could half-way predict what that devil might, could, or possibly would do.

Not so with the other devil.

Or, put another way, a known quantity versus an unknown quantity.

And, time has proven it to be the case.

But for all the investigations which have been launched against her, or about her, and her dealings, nothing has stuck. So maybe she’s the “Teflon Don,” rather than her husband “Blowjob Bill,” eh?

Remember Donna Bazile, the twice-former, interim Democratic National Committee Chair? Recall how she’d been discovered having sharing debate questions with Hillary after a WikiLeaks email dump, and during a second such revelation resigned in shame from her position at CNN as political commentator/pundit?

Yeah… THAT Donna Brazile.

And, perhaps you may recall how she later revealed in her book, an excerpt of which was made into a Politico article, what she’d found when she was briefly DNC chair, specifically, how a back-room deal was struck between Hillary and the DNC a year before the 2016 election campaign season began.

So, let’s recap.

Here’s two of the article’s first three paragraphs, which are excerpted from her book Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House:

“I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.

“So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.”

Focus upon that last sentence – “It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.”

“…for which she expected to wield control of its operations.”

That, my friends, is a classic example of a quid pro quo – giving one thing of value in exchange for another thing of value. Legally defined as a type of valid contract, the quid pro quo is not an illegal act in and of itself, per se, and must be considered within context to determine if it was an illegal act, or not.

There’s little-to-no question that it was unethical, at the very least, and certainly hasn’t reflected positively on the party, nor upon Hillary.

But how did it get to that point?

After the convention, Ms Brazile called Gary Gensler, Chief Financial Officer of Hillary’s campaign, who told her that the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.

Stewardship of the party’s finances was in shambles, to say the least, and it was due in significant part, or so she claims, from her predecessor Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Representative from Florida’s 20th Congressional District.

Ms. Wasserman-Schultz, as you may recall, also later resigned as DNC Chair after a tranche of WikiLeaks emails showed she had given significant help to Hillary during her Presidential campaign, rather than remain a supportive, yet independent observer. So perhaps it was for the best, anyway.

Not everyone in the party had been happy with her at the helm, either. Lis Smith, a longtime campaign operative, former Communications Director, and former Deputy Campaign Director for candidates like Martin O’Malley, Bill de Blasio, Claire McCaskill, and Barack Obama, said of Wasserman-Schultz’ resignation that, “Her resignation is good news for Democrats, and great news for anyone who believes the DNC needs wholesale reform. Hopefully we can all learn from her little experiment this past primary season and never repeat it as a party.”

Senator Sanders was more diplomatically circumspect in his remarks, saying that, “While she deserves thanks for her years of service, the party now needs new leadership that will open the doors of the party and welcome in working people and young people. The party leadership must also always remain impartial in the presidential nominating process, something which did not occur in the 2016 race.”

But, back to the story at hand.

Ms. Brazile wrote that while she was interim DNC Chair that, “I wanted to believe Hillary, who made campaign finance reform part of her platform, but I had made this pledge to Bernie and did not want to disappoint him.” But in her search for the “smoking gun,” after diligent efforts, speaking with numerous party lawyers and officials who feigned knowledge or responsibility, she continually came up empty-handed… until later. She wrote:

“When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

“The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook [Hillary’s Campaign Manager] with a copy to Marc Elias [General Counsel for Hillary’s campaign]—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”

She wrote that while she was the interim DNC Chair, she experienced some unusual events, which at the time, seemed nothing more than purely odd, if not curious, but certainly not suspicious, nor even eyebrow-raising. One of those trifling matters was that, as chair of the party, she was hamstrung from doing anything the party chair would have normally done, such as write press releases, unless every little thing was first passed through Hillary’s Brooklyn-based campaign headquarters. As well as being further crystal-clear evidence of Hillary’s well-known penchant for micro-management, Ms. Brazile wondered why, and when she finally found the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement (JFRA), she wrote that, “here was the answer.”

Again, read another excerpt from the Politico article:

“When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

“I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.

“The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.”

Once again, focus upon these two sentences:

“This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.”
–and–
“This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.”

She reiterated that critically important point by writing Hillary’s “coziness with the financial elites,” and “the funding arrangement with HFA [Hillary For America, her campaign] and the victory fund agreement [Hillary Victory Fund, its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC] was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.”

Let’s continue.

As she tells the story in her book, she describes calling Bernie Sanders on September 7 – just weeks before the General Election – to report that she had found Hillary’s Joint Fund-Raising Agreement, and that because of it, Hillary had exerted power and influence over the party long before she had even become its nominee.

Bernie Sanders addresses a crowd of 27,000 in Los Angeles, California in 2015.

Bernie was familiar with the JFRA because he had signed it, just as all candidates did, but that he and his staff had ignored it. However, part of what was interesting about her call was the way he received the bad news. She wrote that he accepted the news rather stoically, and that “he did not yell or express outrage” because he and his campaign had a very different fund-raising means and mechanism – small donations from many, many people across the United States.

She wrote that during the call, Bernie asked her opinion about Hillary’s chances of winning, about which she wrote that, she “did not trust the polls,” and that after having “visited states around the country,” she “found a lack of enthusiasm for her everywhere.”

She further wrote that she was concerned especially for Millennials, and the “Obama coalition,” a group of young people, minorities, single women, and others who typically didn’t vote, and who were inspired by Obama to vote.

First characterized as the “coalition of the ascendant” in National Journal¹ with priorities which were “centered on minorities, the millennial generation, and socially liberal upscale whites, especially women,” it was during Obama’s SECOND term that the descriptive identifying term which later became known as the “Obama coalition,” was first used. Among the topics he mentioned in his second Inaugural Address were gay rights, gun control, immigration reform, and climate change – all issues which catapulted him to re-election.

And why was Obama less concerned about the “blue-collar, rural, and older white voters who traditionally made up the conservative end of their [Democrats’] electoral coalition”?

Because he “won a solid victory by posting strong numbers with minorities (a combined 80 percent), the millennials (60 percent), and college-educated white women (46 percent overall and more in many key states); moreover, each of those groups expanded its share of the total vote.” As well, it marked the first time that college-educated white women had turned out to vote in greater numbers than non-college-educated white men.

And yet, Obama won in 2012 despite losing over 3/5 (60%) of non-college educated whites and whites over age 45, with only 1/3 (33%) of non-college educated white men in 2012 –– which made his victory the worst electoral victory of any Democratic candidate since Ronald Reagan & George H.W. Bush defeated Walter Mondale & Geraldine Ferraro in a 1984 landslide, in which Reagan carried 49/50 states, won 525 Electoral College votes, and collected 54,455,472 (58.8%) to 37,577,352 (40.6%) of the Popular votes.

In short, Obama made history not just by being the first African-American President, but by inspiring Americans who don’t typically vote, to get out and vote.

So, what lessons could we learn from Obama regarding Bernie Sanders’ chances of winning?

Again, National Journal², from November 7, 2012:

“President Obama won a second term by marrying the new Democratic coalition with just enough of the old to overcome enduring economic disenchantment and a cavernous racial divide.

“In many places, particularly across the Sun Belt, Obama mobilized the Democrats’ new “coalition of the ascendant,” winning enough support among young people, minorities and college-educated whites, especially women, to overcome very weak numbers among blue-collar whites and college-educated men. But in the upper Midwest, where there are not enough of those voters to win, Obama attracted just enough working-class whites to hold the critical battlegrounds of Wisconsin, Iowa, and above all Ohio, against Mitt Romney’s forceful challenge.

“Navigating those two tightropes, Obama held enough states to win a comfortable margin in the Electoral College, despite the headwind of the frustratingly slow economic recovery.”

President Obama’s 2nd term came not because he had white support, but despite of it. He won in Nevada, Virginia, and Colorado, and held a narrow lead in Florida. In states with a smaller minority contingent, such as Midwest states, Obama bested his own national record with white voters – whose tepid support put him over the top – to defeat Republican Mitt Romney’s challenge. In those states, Romney had been portrayed by the Obama campaign – and allied Super PACs – “as an insensitive plutocrat” which especially helped in Ohio, where nearly 60% of voters said Romney’s “agenda would favor the rich.” In fact, Obama’s national support figures exactly mirrored his campaign strategy to win 80% of the minority vote, and 40% of the white vote.

Exit polls showed that Obama had INCREASED voter turn-out among minority-cast votes to 28%, and won 80% of those voters, which included 90% of African-Americans, 70% of Hispanics, and 75% of Asians.

Obama’s “coalition of the ascendant” included young people, minorities, single women and others.

In Iowa, Sanders won 41% of the <45-years age category – twice that of his closest competitor, Buttigieg, and 43% of the non-white voters’ support, which itself accounted for 9% of all Democratic support. Again, with those who have some college education but no degree, Sanders won a clear majority with 37%, which support accounted for 22% of all caucus-goers. Of those with no college degree, which accounted for 47% of all caucus participants, Sanders won a decisive 30%, while Buttigieg, his next closest competitor, won 21%. Among white non-college graduates which accounted for 42% of caucus-goers, Sanders won 29%. And perhaps most importantly, among those who considered themselves politically independent voters, which accounted for 22% of all caucus attendees, Sanders won 34% to Buttigieg’s 21%.

Surprisingly, while the news media makes great hay from the “Who Can Beat Donald Trump v. Who Do I Agree With” question as if it’s a central issue, those who said it was more important that their candidate agree with them on major issues – which accounted for 37% of all caucus participants (a minority) – 36% of that group supported Sanders, while 21% supported Buttigieg. Biden’s support fell into the “beat Donald Trump” category with 23% support, which accounted for 61% of all caucus-goers.

In New Hampshire, another predominately white-populated state where Sanders and Buttigieg were in a statistical dead-heat with delegates and Popular Votes, Sanders edged out Buttigieg 31% to 22% among males who were 43% of all votes cast, while women, who accounted for 57%, were evenly split with 25% to 23% for Buttigieg and Sanders, respectively. But when further examination was conducted, Sanders clearly won the Hispanic vote with 39%, which accounted for only 5% of all ballots cast. Among non-whites which accounted for 11% of all voters, Sanders cleaned up with 36% to Buttigieg’s 18%. Biden trailed at 12%. And again, in the <45-years-old category, Bernie swept with 42%, nearly double of his next closest competitor Buttigieg. Among white male non-college graduates (18%), Bernie won 36%. With non-whites (11%), Bernie had 35%. And with white female non-college graduates (24%), support was evenly split with 26% and 28% for Sanders and Buttigieg, respectively.

In the Nevada Caucus, Bernie swept with Hispanics (17%), winning 50%, while with other (4%), he won 44%, and though he only slightly trailed Biden with black support (11%) with 28% to Biden’s 38%, he more than made up for it with a 29% majority share support from whites, which accounted for 65% of all caucus-goers. Among non-whites (35%), Bernie collected 42% support, nearly twice that of Biden with 23%. His clearest and most substantial majority, however, was a 65% win with voters age 17-29 which accounted for 17% of all caucusers. In the <45 age category, he swept again with 56%, more than triple his closest competitor Buttigeig with 13%, while Biden had a mere 8%. In the 45+ age category (64%), Sanders and Biden were statistically matched with 21% and 23%, respectively. Among those with a 4-year degree (27%), Sanders led with 32% to Biden’s 18%. Among those who never attended college (12%), and those who did but did not graduate (26%), Sanders led with 42% and 40%, respectively. Among those with professional education, or Master’s degrees (JD, PhD, MS, MBA, etc. (25%), Sanders lead with 22% to Biden’s 16%.

Clearly, Bernie is more than “on a roll,” he’s headed toward a victory, and party nomination in Obama-type fashion… while the “establishment Democrats” like Hillary, and others, who are hand-wringing in fear he’ll win, are doing their utmost to quash his campaign (can you say “Russian interference”?). His ascendancy is showing every bit as much signs of winning as Barack Obama’s did in his two winning campaigns by creating genuine excitement among voters who are mostly ignored by the DNC.

Further, Hillary’s oblique attack upon Tulsi Gabbard and the party with her false accusations about her, and others – whom she accused of being a “Russian asset” in a podcast with David Plouffe (Obamsa’s 2008 Campaign Manager) and others, is purely evidence that Hillary will stop at nothing to obtain control by micromanagement, and in that process will say, or do, any shady, shifty, or unethical thing to obtain it.

In a podcast with Plouffe, Hillary falsely claimed that,

“…they [Russians] got their eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary, and are grooming her to be the third party candidate. She’s a favorite of the Russians; they have a bunch of sites and bots, and other ways of supporting her so far, and… that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up – which she might not, because she’s also a Russian asset. Yeah! She’s a Russian asset! I mean, totally! And so, they know they can’t win without without a third party candidate. And so, I don’t know who it’s gonna’ be, but I will guarantee they’ll be a vigorous third party challenge in the key states that most need it.”

In response to Hillary’s oblique attack, Tulsi (who remains in the race) Tweeted the following, beginning at 1:20 PM, 18 Oct 2019:

“Great! Thank you @HillaryClintonYou, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a …

… concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and …

… powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.

It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.”

“The queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long…” Gabbard’s remarks are harsh words of truth which are like whips of scorpions, pouring salty salve upon open wounds to an “establishment Democrat” like Hillary.

Hillary IS TRULY “the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long,” and Bernie will CLEAN HOUSE, and is returning the party to its FDR roots! And the people – NOT the party elites, or “establishment Democrats” – are clearly EXCITED ABOUT IT!

After his Nevada victory, Bernie said in part that, “we have just put together a multi-generational, multi-racial coalition which is not only gonna’ win in Nevada, it’s gonna’ sweep this country.”

Read a portion of this earlier entry which details Bernie’s record of diverse supporters in Nevada and states in part that,

“Naysayers said Bernie wouldn’t be able to win black and brown voters, but his Nevada supporters were racially and ethnically diverse, and he won 27% of African Americans and 53% of Hispanics statewide.

“Some said Bernie Sanders’ support was limited to crazy college kids who never heard the word ‘socialist’ being used as being a slur – yet there were many older Sanders supporters at the Bellagio resort and casino who chanted “Bernie!” right alongside their 20-something friends.

“In fact, Senator Sanders won every age category in Nevada except those over 65, which Joe Biden won.”

Again, National Journal, wrote that, “Obama became the first elected president since Andrew Jackson to win a second full term with a smaller share of the popular vote than he took in his first victory,” and noted that “he faced a resounding repudiation among whites.”

In his first Presidential election victory, “Obama became the first candidate ever to lose white voters by double digits and win the election; in that campaign, whites preferred John McCain by 12 percentage points” while in the 2012 election, exit polls showed that “Obama’s deficit among whites swelled to 20 points.”

In fact, Obama’s reelection “captured a smaller share of the white vote than John Kerry did when he lost in 2004.”

Such facts and figures are not inconsequential – no, not by a long shot. And, it is in large part why Voter Suppression efforts – such as requiring photographic Voter ID, massive Voter Roll Purges, Felony Disenfranchisement, decreases in Early Voting days, Gerrymandering, etc. – continue to be made in predominately Republican-led states such as Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas, Kansas, Missouri, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Dakota, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and others.

The “proof of the pudding,” it’s said, “is in the eating,” and the eating in such instances is irrefutable. Here are a few concrete examples of such efforts to deny that Constitutional Right to vote to minorities, the elderly, and handicapped:

• In Georgia, 70% of voters purged in 2018 were Black.
• Nationwide, 1 in 13 Black Americans are denied their Right to Vote because of  disenfranchisement laws.
• 33% of Voters with a disability report experiencing difficulty voting.
• Only 40% of all polling places fully accommodate people with disabilities.
• Nationwide, counties with larger minority populations have fewer polling sites and poll workers per voter.
• And in New Hampshire, where 60% of all college students are from other states, NH officials have tried to block those with out-of-state Driver Licenses from voting.

Those are not inherently American ideals. They are dictatorial, totalitarian, autocratic, and blatantly discriminatory and racist tactics.

Gerrymandering – a tactic of drawing political boundaries to give one party a numeric advantage over an opposing party – has occurred over many years, at least since 1812 when a political cartoon was drawn depicting a redrawn district in Massachusetts as a dragon. And while interesting to view, it doesn’t begin to explain what kind of damage actually occurs quite like this modern one.

But it’s not “just politics.” It’s blatantly unjust, and the many such instances have been declared un-Constitutional in various courts of law.

At times, the extent to which GOP officials have gone to win control reads like a spy thriller with a “vast right-wing conspiracy” twist.

But if only it were a novel.

This story – “Deceased GOP Strategist’s Daughter Makes Files Public That Republicans Wanted Sealed” – published January 5, 2020 by NPR, tells of a newly-discovered secret racist effort by now-deceased prominent Republican redistricting strategist Thomas Hofeller in North Carolina. Just a  month after he had died in August 2018, his daughter discovered that the long-time partisan strategist’s stated goal was to “create a system wherein the Republican nominee would win,” and that he played an integral role in the now-quashed matter of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census, because his research found that “responses from such a question would be “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” when voting districts are redrawn.”

And what his daughter Stephanie’s remarks confirmed as being more frightening than anything, was that by gerrymandering, voter’s intents and desires through the ballot box would be made irrelevant by gerrymandering, because ultimately, GOP officials could manipulate the system to suit their efforts: “State legislature? It doesn’t matter who votes for what. Congress? It doesn’t matter who votes for what. And president? It doesn’t matter.” It described perfectly an inherently anti-Constitutional effort to usurp power from the people in order to thwart democracy, deny freedom and justice for all, thereby perverting the objectives the Founders intended to achieve.

If there is, as Donald Trump has said, a “deep state,” and it sometimes appears as it there is, it has also infected the Democratic Party, and Bernie Sanders’ campaign is effectively peeling away the layers of that rotten onion to expose it for what it is.

The reason Sanders is being opposed by the DNC party elites and “establishment Democrats” is because their playhouse of cards and money source is being challenged by the common man. And they’ll stop at nothing to prevent that loss. It’s a classic Republican strategy – loss prevention – because that’s what they are “Republicans Lite” – or if you prefer, DINOs – Democrats In Name Only. When Congress has enacted legislation that does not help the Common Man, the American Family, or “Joe the Plumber,” they ultimately do themselves a disservice by not being true to their constituency. Contrary to what Mitt Romney once said while campaigning in Iowa, “Corporations are [NOT] people, my friend.”

Corporations like automobile manufacturers, banks, insurance companies, and Wall Street brokerage houses got their government-funded bailout, but the Average American did not. As Sanders has oft quoted the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr., “This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor.”³

But as far as DNC and RNC officials are concerned, the only difference between Sanders and Trump, is that Trump is – as just as Bernie continues to say,

“In case you haven’t noticed, Donald Trump—yup, Donald Trump, is now paying attention to our campaign. In fact, in the last few days, he and his Republican apparatchiks have been attacking us over and over again.

“In other words, the most dangerous president in modern American history is getting a little nervous. And you know what? He should be getting very nervous because after we win the Democratic nomination we are going to beat him and we are going to beat him badly. And let me tell you how we are going to do that; by telling the truth.

“And the truth is, Trump is not just a pathological liar, and it’s not just that he is running the most corrupt administration in the modern history of our country, or that he is a racist, sexist, a homophobe, a xenophobe and a religious bigot. That’s true. But that’s only half the story. The other half of the story is that is that he is a total, 100 percent fraud.”

As we, and the world, have sadly come to learn, Trump is a genuine threat to American freedom at home, and abroad, and is a threat to national security and supremacy in the world.

Sanders’ 2016 campaign created EXCITEMENT among the people and attracted crowds, the likes of which have rarely, if ever, been seen at political rallies in  modern history. That year, Sanders, who was then aged-73, attracted more people than any other candidate in the race, by far. The largest crowd Clinton attracted was 5,500 which occurred at her New York City announcement on Roosevelt Island in June.

Here’s a look at the size of some his crowds that year:
• 27,500 in Los Angeles, CA August 10

• 28,000 – Portland, OR, August 9

• 15,000 – Seattle, WA August 8

• 4,500 – New Orleans, LA July 26

• 8,000 – Dallas, TX July 19

• 11,000 – Phoenix, AZ July 18

• 7,500 – Portland, ME July 6

• 10,000 – Madison, WI, July 1

In 2007 after his candidacy announcement, then-Senator Barack Obama was drawing crowds with up to 20,000 people, but those figures declined by summer, which grew larger in the autumn and winter where the crowd size increased to 30,000 people when he rallied with Oprah Winfrey in December of 2007.

Bernie’s campaign message hasn’t changed.

Biden MUST have a blow-out performance in South Carolina tomorrow, which at this time, doesn’t seem likely. Polls, as we’ve come to understand, can’t always be the crystal ball we hope for, as evidenced by Hillary’s good polls, and Electoral College loss.

––[UPDATE 3/1/20: Biden won the South Carolina Democratic Primary held Saturday, 29 February 2020, according to the South Carolina Election Commission, with 45/46 counties reporting (97.83%), Biden won a decisive 256,111 (48.44%), while Sanders collected 105,226 (19.9%), with a 16.04% voter turn-out, and 529,505 ballots cast of 3,300,161 Registered Voters.]––

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders – I , official portrait

So, not to worry. Bernie will be our next POTUS.

Notice how quiet POS45 is about him?

He’s CLEARLY worried, not only as evidenced by his silence, but by his activity, which is either going into areas ahead-of, or shortly after the Democrats, or Bernie, have been there.

And who’ll give that that tailwind to Bernie?

Minorities, college-educated white women, Millennials, and <45year-olds, i.e., Obama’s “coalition of the ascendant.”

“We are bringing our people together – black and white and Latino, Native American, Asian American! Gay and straight! We are bringing our people together around an agenda that works for the working people of this country, not the 1%!”

Bernie IS uniting Americans.

It’s not about Obama – upon whose coattails Biden’s running – but is GENUINE EXCITEMENT!!! about a candidate and their platform.

And Bernie has it in DROVES!!!

––––––––––––––••••––––––––––––––
––––––––––––––••••––––––––––––––
––––––––––––––••••––––––––––––––

¹ The National Journal article is titled “Why Obama Is Giving Up On Right Leaning Whites,” and was published January 31, 2013.

² First published in 1969, National Journal is a renown, and widely respected news and information reporting organization which provides research to politicians, lobbyists, and corporations’ governmental affairs divisions, and is characterized as “least biased,” and ranked “high for factual reporting,” and is owned by Atlantic Media, another widely-respected fact-based publisher which is characterized as “well sourced, truth filled, and lean slightly left.”

³ The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.’s remarks were made in a speech delivered as “The Minister to the Valley” delivered February 23, 1968. In Program 8116, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference which documented that speech, Rev. Dr. King made that remark 17:51 into the speech. In context he said, “Whenever the government provides opportunities and privileges for white people and rich people, they call it ‘subsidies.’ When they do it for Negro and poor people, they call it ‘welfare.’ The fact is, everybody in this country lives on welfare. Suburbia was built with Federally subsidized credit. And highways that take our white brothers out to the suburbs were built with Federally subsidized money to the tune of 90%. Everybody is on welfare in this country. The problem is that we all too often have socialism for the rich, and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor. That’s the problem.” The research which authenticated and documented his remarks was done by Heather Oswald, Public Services and Outreach Activist, Emory University, in the Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives & Rare Book Library, and was published on Twitter by Kasey Klimes, January 18, 2017.