OT: Democratic Primary Thread

[Pointgod]

Trump's support is weakening. Older voters are disproportionately affected by the virus and they are losing confidence. He cannot win if that support continues to erode.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/trust-in-trumps-virus-response-is-falling-what-does-it-mean-for-november/ar-BB12r003

"Just 43 percent of people 65 and older said they thought Mr. Trump was doing all he could to confront the outbreak, according to a CNN poll released this week. Fifty-five percent said he could be doing more. By comparison, Americans aged 50 to 64 — who tend to see Mr. Trump more favorably over all — were more likely to say he was doing what he could."

Also, Rasmussen polls have been the most Trump-centric polls and their numbers have slipped heavily. I don't recall ever seeing this low before at 43% for/51% against. Rasmussen typically has Trump at least 5 points higher. 5-38's adjusted numbers for Rasmussen are 37% for/58% against which is the territory where the GOP starts to panic. If Rasmussen's unadjusted % hit the 30's, that will be significant news. That Rasmussen is now among the lowest of the polls is also a first.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

Hasn’t this always been the case though. Trump barely squeaked out a win in 2016. And he’s done nothing to increase his base since then. Democrats have the numbers, that’s why Republicans are so scared of mail in voting or expanding voting rights. They know if you vote THEY LOSE. This is why all the crappy talking points about “Biden is going to lose to Trump” only makes sense if Democratic voters remain apathetic instead of working to increase turnout for Biden.

[Clyde_Style]

Very good read on the thought processes of Trump, those around him and the deeper, more granular poll responses that are far worse for Trump's prospects than the general approval ratings.

Acting responsibly about quarantines, testing and material support would obviously be the right way to support his election prospects. But, of course, Trump thinks trying to jumpstart the economy at the end of the month may be his only shot at getting re-elected. He's wrong, but this rationale is to be expected from him. He does that and more nursing homes and small communities will get hit hard and he'll lose even more support.

Based on the quote below, you can already see a major fracture forming between the questions: Do you support Trump? AND Did he screw up this virus response?

Basically, only death seems to get through to some Trump supporters in terms of their general support and if Trump keeps doing Trump then some of them will get that wake-up call when they lose their family members. And then that answer about him screwing up will transfer to no longer supporting him at all.

I give it 4-6 weeks before Trump starts consistently polling the 30s, perhaps even sooner.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/trump-reopen-coronavirus-polls-biden-election.html

QUOTE:

It is irrational for Trump to believe he can restart the economy without first putting into place a robust public-health apparatus to contain new outbreaks. But it is not irrational for Trump to worry about his reelection. The state of public opinion may be even grimmer than even the top-line numbers would indicate. The public believes Trump was unprepared to deal with the virus by overwhelming margins — 63 percent to 22 percent, according to YouGov, and 71 percent to 29 percent, per CBS. YouGov also asks if Trump could have reduced the damage had he acted sooner, and 40 percent say “a lot,” while 25 percent say “somewhat.”

Two-thirds of the country believes Trump bungled the early stages of the crisis and subjected the country to unnecessary pain. So, on what everybody expects to be the single question that decides the election, Trump has lost the entire premise. Trump is already losing, and the current course seems far more likely to widen the gap than to shrink it. Whatever slim benefit of the doubt the public was willing to cede as he tackles the crisis is quickly expiring, and he stands (justifiably) to be blamed for the hardships that will follow.

[DOT]

nah, bruh. there was a no vote movement after bernie was out. those bernie bros could have spared us trump at least.

12% of Bernie supporters voted for Trump in 16 compared to 25% of Clinton supporters in 08 voted for McCain

While yes, you can say that if every Bernie supporter voted for Clinton she would have won, I use the analogy of, that's like blaming the guy for missing the last second shot in a 1 point loss when you shoot 5-19 from the free throw line. Yes, it's technically not wrong, but you shouldn't've been in the position to need that shot if you hadn't f*cked up all game

And blaming it all on Bernie supporters is a cheap way of not actually wanting to analyze the problems of 2016 and figure out how we can avoid that happening again

Here's the source, with some analysis: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/24/16194086/bernie-trump-voters-study

Basically, the people who defected to Trump from Bernie were the more older, white voters who were more of the working class, union folk than his soc dem base

Feel free to discount but here’s a post that I found from another forum. I’ve only seen that 25% number attributed to this one study. I’d actually like to see exit polling from 2008 and 2016 that shows a breakdown of Primary votes to General Election votes.

The line is "25% of Hillary supporters voted for McCain, only 12% of Bernie supporters voted for Trump." Not only do you see this all over social media, it's also one of the #1 talking points Sanders surrogates use in media appearances. And you're going to start seeing it far more often once Bernie's anti-party scorched-earth tactics, factionalism, and the 2016 mess become campaign issues, which appears to be Warren's strategy.

Let's start with the 25% number. There is one single source for this, which is a "Public Opinion Quarterly" poll (anyone ever heard of them? lol). It says that of Clinton voters, 70% of them voted Obama, 25% McCain, 5% didn't vote.

This isn't actually a poll, though. It's an unweighted dump of survey results. As we know here on Atlas, just reporting raw numbers isn't a poll; pollsters use stratification and demographic weighting to get actual predictive results. And that's why we see a whole bunch of issues. First and foremost, it also says only 87% of Obama voters voted for him in the general. Second, doing the math on the results in the poll, it says McCain received 1% more than Obama (8% away from the actual results).

So, I think we can all agree that this number is baloney. The actual results, according to exit polling, were that 84% of Hillary voters went for Obama, and 15% for McCain, 1% Other/NV.

Fact 1: 84% of Clinton voters went for Obama. The "25% voted McCain" number is from an unscientific survey, not an actual poll.

Now let's look at that 12% number. That's coming from a FiveThirtyEight report. But when we look at this table, we see that yes, it's true 12% of Bernie supporters voted for Trump; however, 4.5% voted for Jill Stein, 3.2% voted for Gary Johnson, and 6% were Other/NV. In total, 25.7% didn't vote for Hillary.

And this makes sense when you think back to 2016. Yes, there were plenty of former Bernie "supporters" urging them to vote for Trump. But the real effort was to encourage them to vote third-party or stay home. A lot of people currently in senior positions in Bernie's inner circle (including all three black people he campaigns with - Nina Turner, Killer Mike, and Cornel West) supported Jill Stein and urged former Sanders supporters to vote for her over Clinton. Sanders' own wife was out there telling folks to "vote your conscience" the day before the election. The online left-wing media, which gets its cues directly from the Sanders campaign, was divided between "anyone but Clinton" and "I hate her with all my heart but I'll vote for her if I absolutely have to." Is it any surprise that more than 13% of Bernie supporters ultimately voted third-party or stayed home?

Fact 2: 74.3% of Sanders supporters voted for Clinton. 12% voted for Trump, but a further 14% voted third-party or stayed home.

So 84% of Clinton voters went to Obama, while 74% of Sanders supporters voted for Clinton. Sanders got 40% of Democratic primary voters, so let's say those were 20% of the country. That means that a full 5% of the electorate were Sanders voters who could have voted Clinton but instead voted Trump, Stein, Johnson, Harambe, or Netflix. And there was a 10% difference between 2016 and 2008, which means that the #NeverHillary impact in 2016 was a full 2% more of the electorate. Add 2% to Clinton's results and she wins Florida (lost by 1.2%), Pennsylvania (lost by 0.72%), Michigan (lost by 0.23%), and Wisconsin (lost by 0.77%). In PA/MI/WI, Stein voters alone outnumbered the Clinton-Trump margin.

Fact 3: If Clinton had received 84% of Sanders supporters instead of 74%, she would have won the election.

Now is this the only reason Clinton lost? Is Sanders solely responsible for the Clinton loss? Of course not. In a campaign that ultimately comes down to 0.7% of the vote in three states, it took a confluence of several different factors to take Clinton down. If Comey hadn't dropped his phony "reopening" of the Clinton investigation over nothing a week before the election, she would have won. If the Clinton campaign had focused 100% of their resources in October on solidifying the swing states, instead of getting overconfident and trying to spread themselves thin to help downballot candidates, they would have won.

But the evidence is pretty much incontrovertible that if Sanders had done for Clinton what she did for Obama in 2008, a full-throated endorsement and diligent, devoted effort to defeat Trump, she would have won. Instead, we got a half-baked "Clinton is bad but she's not as bad as Trump" endorsement, a self-centered book tour disguised as campaigning that barely mentioned Clinton, his former campaign staff absconding to the Green Party, and his former media empire turning extremely anti-Clinton, none of which Bernie did anything to stop.

Bernie has spent most of 2018-19 trying to gaslight voters into thinking he did everything he could to help Clinton and the Democrats in 2016. But I was intimately involved in the Clinton campaign in 2016 and I remember being horrified at what Sanders was doing. It was a series of "Oh God, he's really going to do this to us" moments.

After running a scorched-earth campaign where he was still attacking the nominee in June/July and creating mayhem at the convention and endorsing the WikiLeaks attack as an avenue towards blackmailing the Democratic Party, Sanders gave a begrudging speech where the only nice things he could say about Clinton were "she agrees with me on some issues", disappeared for several months to write a book about how great his campaign was, demanded a private plane and all sorts of concessions from Clinton just to campaign for her, and then his campaign events were the same begrudging speech and self-aggrandizement. He barely mentioned Clinton during those events, just saying "anyone but Trump", which left the door open to 14% of his supporters voting for someone who was neither Trump nor Clinton.

Fact 4: Bernie may not be fully responsible for the gap, but he did far less to help Clinton in 2016 than Clinton did to help Obama in 2008.

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=354294.0

Also in a strictly literal sense you can argue that if the people in the Primary that voted for Bernie votes for Clinton she wins.

Read on Twitter

It’s a depressing stat. Even if half the Sanders to Trump voters voted for Clinton she would have won. It’s not so simple as that though. It’s possible that the votes for Bernie in the primary were really anti Clinton and these people wouldn’t have voted for her in the general. What doesn’t get the right focus is the number of voters who went Bernie in the primary, then either voted 3rd party or stayed at home, which is inexcusable.

If you had gone to the source I quoted, you would have seen that tweet in there

And you also completely missed the point of my post, but sure, just keep blaming Bernie supporters cause it's easy to just scapegoat people instead of accepting blame for your own failures

Like I said. You're blaming the guy who missed the buzzer beater when the rest of the team missed a dozen free throws. You're technically not wrong, but you're ignoring the underlying issues

If Clinton didn't run a sh*t campaign, she easily wins even with those Bernie votes go third party. But you're also ignoring that someone voting for the opposition hurts more than voting 3rd party. And it's even funnier to me, cause all we hear is how Bernie has no support among 3rd party voters, but at the same time, it's his fault his supporters voted for the 3rd party. Almost like a significant amount of his base was outside the Dem party and he was bringing people in or something
Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[Clyde_Style]

Trump did win partly because Hillary made mistakes and her campaign advisors failed. And Comey screwed her badly too.

But even with all of that what is clear to anyone who takes the time to dig is that the margins of victory were stolen by the GOP. Even though Trump lost by 3 million of the popular vote, he almost surely lost the electoral vote too.

Hillary won the election. It was stolen. There is a criminal in the WH. She is the actual president.

ALL 50 STATES confirmed after the fact that Russian hackers did attack every single state voting system and in some cases they succeeded in altering voting records.

The MSM fell flat on its face waiting on Mueller to serve up justice. Meanwhile these facts were waiting for diligent journalists to take action. To this day, nobody did the research on how many voters were disenfranchised on election day. And Jill Stein should have been investigated for her role in that botched voting investigation. She ended up stealing money from that investigation's funds for her own use. She is no friend of the left.

The margin of victories in Wisconsin, Ohio, PA, MI were all paper thin and EXACTLY the amount needed in each swing state to grab the electoral votes needed to win.

People say polls are unreliable, but never in history has four swing states like this simultaneously flipped a solid polling lead on election day to produce those thin margins. The margins were precise and calculated to shave out the victory and no more. It was improbable and essentially impossible without fraud.

There were election machines failing only in areas where Clinton had a big advantage. There were people showing up to vote who were turned away because they said their name or address on the voter registry was mispelled. Those were hacks. Some voting registrations were simply deleted and people were told they couldn't vote. The media failed to follow up on these field reports.

The then GOP Governor of Wisconsin was known for voter suppression tactics. And they were definitely hacked. He received a big payment from the GOP prior to the election. Wisconsin was won by just over 22,000 votes.

Trump's campaign received voter records hacked by the Russians. How does anyone not talk about this anymore? It's insanely criminal. They used that data to game Facebook and target exact individuals to get them to switch sides.

And if they had that illegally obtained data, that means the Russians had the voter names to hack voter registries.

The media fell on their faces. The best they could do was claim no malware toggled votes on election day, but somehow they conveniently dodged the issue of hacked voter registrations and failing devices in key districts. The excuse is simple enough. It is very hard to get that granular detail on altered and especially deleted voter registrations, but it was a massive story that was buried and never followed up.

Why was it that right after the election the GOP launched an investigation into vote hacking? Surely no one thinks it was to uncover corruption. It was to coordinate the GOP leadership in states that were compromised and make sure their corrupt election activities were covered up and to initiate additional voter suppression tactics for upcoming elections.

There were multiple factors for why Trump got the electoral college, but even with Hillary's failures, voter complacency, rogue swing votes, Comey's sabotage, it was still stolen by a margin of 80,000 votes over 4 states, 5 if you count Florida. Trump is not our president.

[HarthorneWingo]

I thought you were going to say that it was also due to GOP gerrymandering instead of the whole Putin thing. I think the gerrymandering of electoral districts had more to do with it. Just my opinion.

[Clyde_Style]

I thought you were going to say that it was also due to GOP gerrymandering instead of the whole Putin thing. I think the gerrymandering of electoral districts had more to do with it. Just my opinion.

It has tons to do with election results, all elections.

My point is you can add up every reason for why Hillary lost and she still was going to win. She lost because the election was stolen.

Even without the confirmation by the states themselves of hackers.
Even without the anecdotal reports of voters being unable to vote.

It was still basically impossible to win every single swing state by the exact amount necessary to win the electoral vote, especially when you're trailing by percentages in every single one. That was not just an anomaly historically. It is basically impossible to achieve that kind of margin that precisely in every contest. That's not reality. It is a manufactured result.

[HarthorneWingo]

I thought you were going to say that it was also due to GOP gerrymandering instead of the whole Putin thing. I think the gerrymandering of electoral districts had more to do with it. Just my opinion.

It has tons to do with election results, all elections.

My point is you can add up every reason for why Hillary lost and she only lost because the election was stolen.

Even without the confirmation by the states themselves of hackers.
Even without the anecdotal reports of voters being unable to vote.

It was still basically impossible to win every single swing state by the exact amount necessary to win the electoral vote, especially when you're trailing by percentages in every single one. That was not just an anomaly historically. It is basically impossible to achieve that kind of margin that precisely.

She bears a lot of the blame too. Her enthusiasm numbers were also very low as were he numbers for trustworthiness, as I recall.

She didn’t campaign in Wisconsin at all in the General Election. That was a state Bernie won in the primary. I believe the same is true for Michigan and PA though I’d have to double check.

Bernie actually spent more time in Wisconsin campaigning for Hillary than Hillary spent there. But Bernie sabotaged her campaign. Oh okay.

[Clyde_Style]

I thought you were going to say that it was also due to GOP gerrymandering instead of the whole Putin thing. I think the gerrymandering of electoral districts had more to do with it. Just my opinion.

It has tons to do with election results, all elections.

My point is you can add up every reason for why Hillary lost and she only lost because the election was stolen.

Even without the confirmation by the states themselves of hackers.
Even without the anecdotal reports of voters being unable to vote.

It was still basically impossible to win every single swing state by the exact amount necessary to win the electoral vote, especially when you're trailing by percentages in every single one. That was not just an anomaly historically. It is basically impossible to achieve that kind of margin that precisely.

She bears a lot of the blame too. Her enthusiasm numbers were also very low as were he numbers for trustworthiness, as I recall.

She didn’t campaign in Wisconsin at all in the General Election. That was a state Bernie won in the primary. I believe the same is true for Michigan and PA though I’d have to double check.

Dude, can you please stay on topic?

She won the electoral college. It was stolen.

You can tell me every reason why she underperformed and I'd probably agree with you, but that is highly secondary when you win and are robbed.

Trump is not our president.

[Clyde_Style]

The reason I'm reviving this issue is:

(A) You need to win by a larger margin to overcome fraud

(B) They will try to steal the election again

That's the point

[Stannis]

Not quite. Hillary supporters fcked Barack more than Bernie supporters fcked Hillary. Really, Hillary fcked Hillary.

Are we allowed to talk about how the Clinton campaign tried to smear Obama by circulating photos of him wearing African garbs?

At least it wasn't cyber-bulling though

[Clyde_Style]

Not quite. Hillary supporters fcked Barack more than Bernie supporters fcked Hillary. Really, Hillary fcked Hillary.

Are we allowed to talk about how the Clinton campaign tried to smear Obama by circulating photos of him wearing African garbs?

At least it wasn't cyber-bulling though

I was surprised she ended up as SOS for Obama. Didn't expect them to mend fences.

[Fat Kat]

Not quite. Hillary supporters fcked Barack more than Bernie supporters fcked Hillary. Really, Hillary fcked Hillary.

Are we allowed to talk about how the Clinton campaign tried to smear Obama by circulating photos of him wearing African garbs?

At least it wasn't cyber-bulling though

Had his full name “Barack Hussein Obama” on that photo I think.

[Clyde_Style]

Not quite. Hillary supporters fcked Barack more than Bernie supporters fcked Hillary. Really, Hillary fcked Hillary.

Are we allowed to talk about how the Clinton campaign tried to smear Obama by circulating photos of him wearing African garbs?

At least it wasn't cyber-bulling though

Had his full name “Barack Hussein Obama” on that photo I think.

Even if I would never vote for him, I did respect McCain for this:

Watch on YouTube

[j4remi]

Unless the belief is that a Warren endorsement was going to put Bernie over the top with black voters (which it clearly would not have), I don't see how it would have changed much, which is probably why she didn't endorse Bernie. I'm interested in seeing the numbers you reference.

Her endorsement carries significantly more weight now and could even be possibly parlayed into a VP or very high ranking cabinet spot.

Looking back, Bernie would have been better served building a relationship with someone like Clyburn, rather than banking on his 30% carrying him through a very large and contested field.

No the belief has nothing to do with black voters here. It's just based on the margins of victory in these 4 states on Super Tuesday.

Texas:
Biden 725,562
Bernie 626,330
Warren, 239,237

Maine:
Biden 68,729
Bernie 66,826
Warren 32,055

Minnesota:
Biden 287,553
Bernie 222,431
Warren 114,674

Massachusetts:
Biden 473,861
Bernie 376,990
Warren 303,864

Bernie already polled as Warren voters' second choice comfortably above Biden without her endorsement. And that just tracks, compare his the proposals of the three and it's obvious who aligns closely with who. You take Warren out, add her endorsement and three of those states look guaranteed for Bernie to me, with Texas becoming an much closer race.

That's the numbers side. That cuts into Biden's positive momentum and the mass of positive media he got (especially if Bernie takes Texas). The race looks completely different that way.

And I think Bernie could have respected norms and asked Clyburn for an endorsement, but I don't think it would have changed much. It was poor etiquette, but neutral in terms of electoral impact.

I also don't think the 30% idea looks like a bad bet going into Super Tuesday. Biden was in 4th. Pete was in 2nd. I don't think it's easy to predict Pete dropping out to endorse Biden but Warren sticking around with no chance. If anything, it looked like the opposite was the more likely scenario. She had to take a Super PAC just to stick around because her funding was dried up and Pete had more reason to stay in and test the water.

[HarthorneWingo]

Not quite. Hillary supporters fcked Barack more than Bernie supporters fcked Hillary. Really, Hillary fcked Hillary.

Are we allowed to talk about how the Clinton campaign tried to smear Obama by circulating photos of him wearing African garbs?

At least it wasn't cyber-bulling though

I was surprised she ended up as SOS for Obama. Didn't expect them to mend fences.

Better yet, when she stayed in the race because Obama might get assassinated "We all know what happened to Bobby Kennedy." FOH

[HarthorneWingo]

Not quite. Hillary supporters fcked Barack more than Bernie supporters fcked Hillary. Really, Hillary fcked Hillary.

Are we allowed to talk about how the Clinton campaign tried to smear Obama by circulating photos of him wearing African garbs?

At least it wasn't cyber-bulling though

I was surprised she ended up as SOS for Obama. Didn't expect them to mend fences.

That truce came after Obama became the nominee. The Clintons were not going to campaign for him initially because of all the bad blood. They came up with the quid pro quo at the meeting. Hillary would be SOS and Obama would support her nomination after his 8 years were up and Hillary and Bill would stump for Barack.

[j4remi]

I was surprised she ended up as SOS for Obama. Didn't expect them to mend fences.

That truce came after Obama became the nominee. The Clintons were not going to campaign for him initially because of all the bad blood. They came up with the quid pro quo at the meeting. Hillary would be SOS and Obama would support her nomination after his 8 years were up and Hillary and Bill would stump for Barack.

Party Unity My Ass (PUMA) was a Clinton supporter thing.

[Phish Tank]

Unless the belief is that a Warren endorsement was going to put Bernie over the top with black voters (which it clearly would not have), I don't see how it would have changed much, which is probably why she didn't endorse Bernie. I'm interested in seeing the numbers you reference.

Her endorsement carries significantly more weight now and could even be possibly parlayed into a VP or very high ranking cabinet spot.

Looking back, Bernie would have been better served building a relationship with someone like Clyburn, rather than banking on his 30% carrying him through a very large and contested field.

No the belief has nothing to do with black voters here. It's just based on the margins of victory in these 4 states on Super Tuesday.

Texas:
Biden 725,562
Bernie 626,330
Warren, 239,237

Maine:
Biden 68,729
Bernie 66,826
Warren 32,055

Minnesota:
Biden 287,553
Bernie 222,431
Warren 114,674

Massachusetts:
Biden 473,861
Bernie 376,990
Warren 303,864

Bernie already polled as Warren voters' second choice comfortably above Biden without her endorsement. And that just tracks, compare his the proposals of the three and it's obvious who aligns closely with who. You take Warren out, add her endorsement and three of those states look guaranteed for Bernie to me, with Texas becoming an much closer race.

That's the numbers side. That cuts into Biden's positive momentum and the mass of positive media he got (especially if Bernie takes Texas). The race looks completely different that way.

And I think Bernie could have respected norms and asked Clyburn for an endorsement, but I don't think it would have changed much. It was poor etiquette, but neutral in terms of electoral impact.

I also don't think the 30% idea looks like a bad bet going into Super Tuesday. Biden was in 4th. Pete was in 2nd. I don't think it's easy to predict Pete dropping out to endorse Biden but Warren sticking around with no chance. If anything, it looked like the opposite was the more likely scenario. She had to take a Super PAC just to stick around because her funding was dried up and Pete had more reason to stay in and test the water.

fam, you know this better than I do, but what do you think the split was with Warren voters siding for Bernie vs Biden?

[j4remi]

No the belief has nothing to do with black voters here. It's just based on the margins of victory in these 4 states on Super Tuesday.

Texas:
Biden 725,562
Bernie 626,330
Warren, 239,237

Maine:
Biden 68,729
Bernie 66,826
Warren 32,055

Minnesota:
Biden 287,553
Bernie 222,431
Warren 114,674

Massachusetts:
Biden 473,861
Bernie 376,990
Warren 303,864

Bernie already polled as Warren voters' second choice comfortably above Biden without her endorsement. And that just tracks, compare his the proposals of the three and it's obvious who aligns closely with who. You take Warren out, add her endorsement and three of those states look guaranteed for Bernie to me, with Texas becoming an much closer race.

That's the numbers side. That cuts into Biden's positive momentum and the mass of positive media he got (especially if Bernie takes Texas). The race looks completely different that way.

And I think Bernie could have respected norms and asked Clyburn for an endorsement, but I don't think it would have changed much. It was poor etiquette, but neutral in terms of electoral impact.

I also don't think the 30% idea looks like a bad bet going into Super Tuesday. Biden was in 4th. Pete was in 2nd. I don't think it's easy to predict Pete dropping out to endorse Biden but Warren sticking around with no chance. If anything, it looked like the opposite was the more likely scenario. She had to take a Super PAC just to stick around because her funding was dried up and Pete had more reason to stay in and test the water.

fam, you know this better than I do, but what do you think the split was with Warren voters siding for Bernie vs Biden?

It broke north of 60/40 without a dropout and endorsement. I think the numbers swing much harder in favor of Bernie nationally under that scenario. Warren's competence as a planner is her big selling point, if she expressed support and confidence in Bernie; her supporters would know she's got a role in his Administration and swing HEAVY in his direction.

[GONYK]

Read on Twitter

?s=19