Refuses to accept facts: Check

Under 100 Posts: Check

Makes Ad Hominem Attacks: Check

Has no legitimate rebuttal: Check

I wonder how long you'll last here?

You might want to reread the posts to see who is attacking who.the Facts are clear and Bernie's team is actually playing damage control right now. They 

This is pretty funny (obv pro Bernie)

Bernie: I'd like to give you healthcare please.
Pete: the unity of our power is the hope of our voiceless.
Klobuchar: *throws stapler*
Warren: I'm female.
Biden: It's great to be here in Toledo (he's not in Toledo).

— Secular Talk🎙 (@KyleKulinski) February 12, 2020

Oh, in this thread someone linked Our cartoon president with the post-Iowa episode. This is fun:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcSMthlU_k8

So we can compare, from 2016 exit polls:

Huge drops but proportionally speaking he held on more to younger than older voters, which perhaps showcase how big the not-Clinton vote was in 2016.

Since February 5th, only 4 out of 24 polls had Buttigieg at 24% or above. That's less than the number of polls showing Sanders at 30% or above... which in turn also exceed the number of polls with Sanders at 24% or 25%.

Just saying you can't cherry pick data to argue Sanders and Buttigieg performed exactly according to expectations. One of them came at the higher end of what polls had predicted, the other at the lower end.

Edit - although, of course, among the overperformers, Klobuchar exceeded them all.

My candidate Bernie pulling off 1.5 wins despite the huge field and countless smears, you love to see it!

Now onto the Nevada caucuses! My Latin brothers and sisters please don't disappoint!

Yeah I have to agree that Warren's reliance on constantly reminding people that she's a female candidate has hurt her campaign. 34% of female voters in the New Hampshire Democratic primary (as compared with 26% of their male counterparts) told pollsters that nominating a woman would increase Donald Trump's odds of re-election, while only 7% said that nominating a woman would instead increase the odds of a Democratic victory in the fall. Lessons have been learned from Hillary Clinton's defeat. Women in particular recognize that there is no advantage in nominating a woman. To that end, female candidates do better not to go about reminding voters that they're female because that's more often viewed as a strategic problem for them than as a political edge. It's tantamount to advertising a political liability. (Sort of like Trump campaigning on his recent impeachment, as though it were a good thing.)

She's also made a serious error of judgment in pivoting more rightward in general since October. What she's learning the hard way now is that there is, in fact, no constituency for her imaginary third lane in-between progressive and neoliberal politics.

I just think that her recent campaigning has hurt her too much. And I don't think it has to do with her letting everyone know that she's a woman. Rather, I believe her lack of attacking billionaires (like Bernie) and giving a slightly more moderate appearance has put her in a position that pleases neither side. Too left for the moderates, too moderate for the left. So we agree on that.

As for Petes little line, I think it's funny because it is that type of empty but vague type of inspirational-words-of the-day that's been part of democratic speeches since Obama. I think it shows how much Pete doesn't really have any real clear positions. His support is literally now just "Biden looks a mess, let's go for the younger moderate". How long can that last.

Third place is better than first place pic.twitter.com/yLFZUCe1kA

— Sam Sacks (@SamSacks) February 11, 2020