No matter what folks, any Republican is a whack job. I'm a Sanders supporter, but put Hillary in jail, I'll vote for her over any of those criminal Republicans.

I think Sanders is naive, but I'll not hesitate to vote for him over any of those truly un-American Republicans.

I'd vote for Stuffed Bear before a Republican.

I love Stuffed Bear and I would definitely vote for her or any stuffed bear over a Republican.

Love it Bernie continues to spank Hillary! Amazing, guess all those smears by Hills media attacks like 16 media smears in 16 hours did not work.. Wise up RISE UP. Time for the people to take back the country from corporations trying to take the election.

I know AMAZING!! Hillary was polled to win by 20+ Whatever happens with the last 20% of the votes, this is a yuuuge victory for Bernie

The lying corporate media polls have constantly said that HRC was winning over Bernie Sanders, but when the actual votes were tallied, the polls were shown CONSISTENTLY to be wrong! (See: poll fraud!). And the corporate media has been making a huge deal about HRC winning 28 delegates in uneducated Mississippi (where they are still struggling with slave mentality), but up in Michigan, where 147 delegate votes are up for grabs Benie Sanders has WON THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY! The American people are waking up and are throwing off their chains. And electing Bernie Sanders is the first step!

Hey, I am a Sanders Supporter, however I take exception to your labeling Mississipi's 'mentality' as you have! Seems the 'r' word applies, and I must say that phrasing puts down a state, and some part of its peoples or culture? IF I were to lay scorn on any, it might be the 'master' culture, rather than that of the slaves. In any case. #Bernie2016 does not need that kind of 'help'. #TogetherWeWin has nothing to do with labeling and separating peoples of this country, but trying to fix things, and sew back together, with RESPECT for all! (I apologies to anyone who likes Bernie, but might feel offended or p o 'd. )

Well said, eugenie!!

Very well said. It's easy to get caught up in the madness, we could all take a breath and calm down.

Senator Sanders is up in Michigan 2 percentage points. that's 3 delegates in Michigan.
Senator Clinton won 5 times the support of Senator Sanders in Mississippi. That's about 18 delegates.

Senator Clinton, considering just Michigan and Mississippi, nets 15 delegates ahead.
That isn't biased. that's just the facts.

Hillary was 'expected' to throttle Bernie in MICH. Did Not Happen. This is a HUGE upset for Hillary, one of the largest in primary history . . . for one 'so anointed', in particular. #BerniesGotThis!

You must be a big fan of Pyrrhic victories if you think tonight was some kind of watershed moment for Bernie.

While this probably won't derail the Coronation Express, I think it is indeed a watershed moment. This was a State that Bernie "couldn't" win because it was too big and diverse. Clinton campaign will put a brave face on it, but you will likely be seeing another Clinton reboot in prep for Ohio and Illinois.

Yes, yes; Bernie isn't doing as well as his supporters would like (me included); but all the predictions have been that he hasn't the foggiest chance in heck, and over and over he does better than the naysayers; waay better.
And he is the future, even if he doesn't get the nomination this time. 87% of the milleniels voted for him; so the future will speak for him, even if he doesn't get to speak for himself as president.

With 87% of the milleniels behind him, if he is too old to take the reigns in coming years, someone with the same economic analysis, who is younger, will arise in politics, and carry it all on; the analysis that corporate world control just isn't any good for anyone; not even for the 1%ers, even though they refuse to realize it yet (most of them).
When profit is God everything suffers. Even 1%ers need to breathe and to eat, even though climate change deniers (the oil industry) don't realize this yet.

yeah, I think the predictions often come from news anchors, who tend to be in older social circles. The came to their views through their own experiences, then see confirmation bias when looking at the evidence. Senator Sanders has done remarkably well. He beat the polls in Michigan.

Polls also often sample home phones, which the demographics Senator Sanders's leads don't tend to have.

He only won the democratic primary because of independent voters and an open primary. The actual Democrats in Michigan chose Hillary. Michigan was officially hijacked.

I support Bernie, and of course I will vote for Hillary if Bernie loses the nomination.

Your sentiments show a very short time frame of history. Bernie's politics belonged to a fringe group of Americans (of which I was one) 40 years ago, and it is only after my generation dies out that McCarthyism will be gone in the USA.

I thrill that educated milleniels overwhelmingly support Bernie's economic analysis, but older generations, in general, just don't get it, when it comes to multinational corporate capitalism. "Socialism" evokes a knee jerk reaction in most Americans over the age of 60.

That said; to refuse to vote for Hillary, if she gets the nomination, would be sheer stupidity, and Bernie will tell us so, himself, if he should lose the nomination.

It is only in the last 10 years that historians have realized how corporate control affects everything; including ecology and biology. It is only in the last 10 years that a recognition that the multinational corporate takeover of the world economy started with the British and Dutch East India companies of the Renaissance. There are no new lands to conquer and squeeze, in our times, and both the economy and ecology totter unbalanced and destabilized.
This century will see an end to corporate economic rule of the world.

a yuuuuge victory for Bernie yet Hillary comes away with more delegates tonight. Perspective much?

Ignore the super delegates- they don't matter.

To reiterate, Hillary was 'expected' to throttle Bernie in MICH. Did Not Happen. This is a HUGE upset for Hillary, one of the largest in primary history . . . for one 'so anointed', in particular.

Bernie is still a long shot.

But- less so than before tonight.

You apparently don't know to much...the super delegates matter a lot!

Can you point to a year where they determined who was nominated?

They might. Bernie's surge, though, may be b/c some folks are starting to see he'll take more votes from Trump than Hillary can. See here, Snapshot: Hillary/Bernie
http://www.dailykos.com/sto...

They do matter, but even if I ignore them, Bernie still lost tonight...

But not in Michigan.
Some wins are bigger than others, and some losses, less so.

Bernie is still a long shot, as the numbers show, but momentum is a powerful thing.

Depends on your definition of victory. For Sanders so far in the race, winning just means not suffering shut-out losses in the Midwest and New England. No one expects him to perform in the South, so it's BFD when Clinton takes any of those states.

I wonder how much they paid for that poll.

From a Michigan Republican, sincere congratulations to all of Bernies supporters!! FEEL THE BERN!! Anything that keeps the Clintons another step removed from the White House, will always be embraced by me!

"Love it Bernie continues to spank Hillary."

I wouldn't call winning by 2% in one state and losing essentially 80-20 in another as a "spanking". Clinton has almost 200 more pledged delegates than Sanders. It's nice that Sanders keeps beating Clinton 51-49 in some states but he isn't going anywhere if he keeps tying her in white states and getting demolished by her in multicultural states.

You're right, of course. I think that my fellow Sanders supporters are just excited by the underdog victory. Mrs. Clinton has the nomination in the bag, presuming she won't be indicted this spring. Us young folks are just getting excited by seeing the results of our movement on the national stage. Hopefully 4 years from now we'll have another Sanders-type candidate and a better shot at the presidency. Have a nice day.

You have a very interesting definition of what "spank" means.

You should tell everyone to watch this:

If you have time, watch the video .... in its entirety ...
Bernie Sanders The Vox conversation by Ezra Klein on July 28, 2015
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/2...

Thank you.

Bernie exposes the fact that the "two-party" machine dumped in the punchbowl and the public is rejecting their kool-aid.

Nobody for President! Nobody can solve our economic problems. Nobody cares!

I think Bernie Sanders does, and that's why he ran.

Where were you when GWB ran the economy into the ground? When GWB took us into a bogus war? Were you asleep, or maybe not born yet?

Where were you when GWB ran the economy into the ground?

He didn't. It was a 1994 amendment to the Community Reinvestment Act (passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton), coupled with the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (passed by a Republican-controlled Congress, but also signed into law by Clinton). Both of these events occurred before Bush was elected, and both Democrats and Republicans share the blame.

When GWB took us into a bogus war?

Again, large numbers of Democrats in both houses of Congress -- including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Dianne Feinstein -- voted in favor of the invasion and there was nothing even slightly bogus about it. The CIA director told Bush that proving Iraq had active WMD programs was a "slam dunk." When a CIA director is that certain about something, a president has every right to be equally certain about it.

Stop blaming these two events on Bush. There is no historic evidence to support it. It's pure propaganda.

"The buck stops... no, not here... umm... over there!"

So much for being the party of personal responsibility.

That the Democrats did little to stop Bush from committing one of the worst foreign policy blunders in US history does not absolve him, Cheney, and the others from their responsibility for making it. The Bush war was their policy, not the Democrats'.

Do you seriously believe that if Gore had been president, we would have invaded Iraq?

Both Democrats and Republicans do share the blame for the crashed economy. The Republican-lite policies of the Clintons are precisely why many Democrats are voting for Bernie instead of Hillary.

That the Democrats did little to stop Bush from committing one of the worst foreign policy blunders in US history does not absolve him, Cheney, and the others from their responsibility for making it. The Bush war was their policy, not the Democrats'.

Bull. The first president to claim Iraq had active WMD programs was Bill Clinton. The first to advocate forcible regime change in Iraq were Bill Clinton and the Democrats in Congress, at a time when Republicans said he was "wagging the dog" to draw public attention away from the Lewinsky scandal.

Do you seriously believe that if Gore had been president, we would have invaded Iraq?

HELLYEAH. The Democrats didn't just "fail to stop Bush." It was their idea in the first place. How quickly and conveniently you (and the rest of the rabid, Bush hating left) forget these little details.

The first point is plausible, the second is nonsense. Bush had a respected Cabinet member warn him about the consequences of nation-building, and he charged in regardless, largely on crap intelligence from Ahmad Chalabi, Iraqi ex-pat and full-time player hater.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
http://www.ibtimes.com/key-...

Bull. As I said in response to Vibrato, regime change in Iraq was Bill Clinton's idea, and official policy of both the executive and legislative branches of government starting in 1998. Read about the Iraq Liberation Act:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

The bill was sponsored by Representative Benjamin A. Gilman (Republican, NY-20) and co-sponsored by Representative Christopher Cox (Republican, CA-47). The bill was introduced as H.R. 4655 on September 29, 1998. The House of Representatives passed the bill 360 - 38 on October 5, and the Senate passed it with unanimous consent two days later. President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq..." It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

"When a CIA director is that certain about something, a president has every right to be equally certain about it."

No; the President has every right to request & review the evidence that would be required to constitute 'proof' before sending people to lose their lives in war, rather than skipping steps. The same is true for every member of congress who had legal access to the information.

"...voted in favor of the invasion..."
Wrong. Congress granted the use of military force by the President as he determined necessary and appropriate, which included *defending* against threat from Iraq. An amendment that would have required prior congressional approval this did not pass. A rational, thinking president would have required the proof before going in after a unicorn in the first place, so such an amendment should have been pointless.

No; the President has every right to request & review the evidence that would be required to constitute 'proof' before sending people to lose their lives in war ...

Other presidents who went to war based on faulty intelligence, without "request[ing] & review[ing] the evidence," were Lincoln (600,000 Americans KIA), FDR (400,000 US KIA) and JFK (58,000 US KIA). All three of those casualty levels were many, many times higher than Iraq. Adjusting for inflation, the dollar costs of all three wars were also a lot higher than Iraq, despite our recent addiction to expensive high tech gadgets and body armor. Vietnam, in particular, makes Bush look like a freakin military genius like Alexander the Great. But the extreme, Bush hating left worships all three of those presidents as if they were Greek gods.

Wrong. Congress granted the use of military force by the President as he determined necessary and appropriate ....

Wrong. Even Daily Kos states that Hillary "voted in favor of the invasion," quote, unquote. Go ahead and Google that phrase. If you can't find it, say the word and I'll find it for you.

In general, the Iraq War has been the occasion for more hate-filled left-wing lies and propaganda than the Bolshevik Revolution. This is just the high profile stuff.

Casualty count is a terrible gauge. With the advance in armor we have more servicemen and women coming home severely wounded where they would have died in earlier wars. Those same men and women are "addicted" to expensive gadgets and armor because they are in a war zone and desperate to stay alive. Not sure how that constitutes an addiction, but ok.

The Iraq war has and continues to be an utter failure, those responsible should be held accountable. All of them. Including your do-no-wrong GWB and all that voted in favor of invasion. They should all be stripped of their jobs and replaced.

Instead, the right continues to war hawk (as those who have never known war tend to do) and the left continues to turn a blind eye so as not to be labeled unpatriotic.

The Iraq war has and continues to be an utter failure ...

Wrong again, Rachel. Obama himself admitted in 2011 that Iraq was a "safe, stable, self-reliant nation." That sounds an awful lot like a BIG WIN to me. The US fatality rate was lower than that for a comparable cohort of 18-to-35 year old males in cities like Chicago, Detroit, and New Orleans. Yes, Rachel. Iraq was safer than Chicago.

Obama dropped the ball on the one yard line.

If he hadn't insisted on pulling the troops out to appease people like you, our casualty rate in Iraq would have continued to decline to zero, or virtually zero. Little start up terrorist groups like ISIS would have continued to be snuffed out in their cradles, rather than being allowed to grow, and thrive, and plunder enormous hoards of US weapons, US vehicles and US cash from the Iraqis.

I repeat: Obama dropped the ball on the one yard line.

Blaming President Obama is a diversion. We are not now and never will win that war and those responsible for starting it should be held accountable for their actions.

Tell yourself whatever you'd like, the fact of the matter is that we arrogantly started a war that has killed an incredible amount of people for no reason. That should not be allowed to go unpunished.

"People like me" support our troops.

Your right Bush was just the President, just like Obama he has nothing to do with the state of the union. Or maybe, that only counts for GOP presidents, because everyone is out to get them.