Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Looks like its time to start complaining about the electoral college again. Or the DNC. Or how Hillary sabotaged Sanders   (cnn.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, President of the United States, Democratic Party, Hillary Rodham Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, electoral map, Bill Clinton, John McCain  
•       •       •

1427 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Feb 2020 at 11:48 AM (18 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



211 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-02-28 9:24:56 AM  
Excuse me, but what in the fark happened to Wisconsin?
Dude you used to be cool...I mean you voted for Dukakis for Christ Sake!

Obama won you in 2008 by over 400,000 votes.

Then 8 years later you get hopped up on meth and vote for Trump?
 
2020-02-28 9:52:49 AM  

Sorelian's Ghost: Then 8 years later you get hopped up on meth and vote for Trump?


Well, you see, there were E-mails...
 
2020-02-28 10:20:32 AM  
There's a whole lot of concern about a Sanders nomination.
 
2020-02-28 10:31:28 AM  
Are we certain Utah is gonna swing for Trump?   Given how much they hate his guts.....I'm not sure it's a given for that state. And Arizona was looking more blue, too, but this map doesn't really reflect that.  *shrugs*
 
2020-02-28 10:49:52 AM  

EvilEgg: There's a whole lot of concern about a Sanders nomination.


That's because, as this Vox article points out, Bernie's poll support is more reliant on young people than the moderate candidates:

"11 percent of left-leaning young people say they are undecided, would support a third-party candidate, or, most often, just would not vote if a moderate were nominated - but say they would turn out and vote for Sanders if he were nominated. The large number of young people who say they will only vote if Sanders is nominated is just enough to offset the voters Sanders loses to Trump in the rest of the electorate."

It's a fair question to ask whether these young voters will turn up, because history knows that the most unreliable voting block is the youth vote.
 
2020-02-28 11:50:55 AM  

nmrsnr: EvilEgg: There's a whole lot of concern about a Sanders nomination.

That's because, as this Vox article points out, Bernie's poll support is more reliant on young people than the moderate candidates:

"11 percent of left-leaning young people say they are undecided, would support a third-party candidate, or, most often, just would not vote if a moderate were nominated - but say they would turn out and vote for Sanders if he were nominated. The large number of young people who say they will only vote if Sanders is nominated is just enough to offset the voters Sanders loses to Trump in the rest of the electorate."

It's a fair question to ask whether these young voters will turn up, because history knows that the most unreliable voting block is the youth vote.


Sort of a chicken and the egg thing. Do young people not show up because they're ignored? Or do they get ignored because they don't show up?
 
2020-02-28 11:51:44 AM  

nmrsnr: EvilEgg: There's a whole lot of concern about a Sanders nomination.

That's because, as this Vox article points out, Bernie's poll support is more reliant on young people than the moderate candidates:

"11 percent of left-leaning young people say they are undecided, would support a third-party candidate, or, most often, just would not vote if a moderate were nominated - but say they would turn out and vote for Sanders if he were nominated. The large number of young people who say they will only vote if Sanders is nominated is just enough to offset the voters Sanders loses to Trump in the rest of the electorate."

It's a fair question to ask whether these young voters will turn up, because history knows that the most unreliable voting block is the youth vote.


By young, they mean under 45.
 
2020-02-28 11:52:44 AM  
It's been time to complain about all of the above since 2016, Subbo.
 
2020-02-28 11:53:29 AM  
Latest Fox News polling:

Trump -11 on approval

1st and 2nd choice voting aggregates in primary:

Sanders 48%
Biden 38%
Bloomberg, Buttegieg, and Warren all between 26-28%

Biden and Bloomber beat Trump by 8 points
Sanders beats him by 7 points

And when you consult other polls for state by state, Sanders loses FL handily.  But wins OH, PA, MI, and WI by 2-4 points

Hard to see him as unelectable.

He's compared to McGovern, but at this point McGovern was losing to Nixon by 7.  Not up by 7.
 
2020-02-28 11:53:32 AM  

raerae1980: Are we certain Utah is gonna swing for Trump?   Given how much they hate his guts.....I'm not sure it's a given for that state. And Arizona was looking more blue, too, but this map doesn't really reflect that.  *shrugs*


Data is from last month but all signs point to "yes".
Fark user imageView Full Size

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/​p​olls/utah/
 
2020-02-28 11:53:39 AM  
preview.redd.itView Full Size
 
Bf+
2020-02-28 11:53:42 AM  
In other news:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-02-28 11:53:48 AM  
I've been saying "fark the electoral college" since long before I moved to (((NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA)))
 
MFK
2020-02-28 11:54:28 AM  

nmrsnr: t say they would turn out and vote for Sanders if he were nominated. The large number of young people who say they will only vote if Sanders is nominated is just enough to offset the voters Sanders loses to Trump in the rest of the electorate."


It just amazes me that so many people are so eager to put all their eggs in such an unreliable basket for an 80 year old who will most likely not survive a first term. I guess crazy pills are on the menu for all of us tonight.
 
2020-02-28 11:55:49 AM  
Wow, if it's going to come down to WI and PA...

Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
MFK
2020-02-28 11:57:03 AM  

jonnyh: Wow, if it's going to come down to WI and PA...

[Fark user image 586x463]
[Fark user image 501x459]


no. they are saying that if Bernie is the nominee it's going to come down to PA and WI. Other candidates' predictive electoral maps look a lot different.
 
2020-02-28 11:57:30 AM  

TDWCom29: nmrsnr: EvilEgg: There's a whole lot of concern about a Sanders nomination.

That's because, as this Vox article points out, Bernie's poll support is more reliant on young people than the moderate candidates:

"11 percent of left-leaning young people say they are undecided, would support a third-party candidate, or, most often, just would not vote if a moderate were nominated - but say they would turn out and vote for Sanders if he were nominated. The large number of young people who say they will only vote if Sanders is nominated is just enough to offset the voters Sanders loses to Trump in the rest of the electorate."

It's a fair question to ask whether these young voters will turn up, because history knows that the most unreliable voting block is the youth vote.

Sort of a chicken and the egg thing. Do young people not show up because they're ignored? Or do they get ignored because they don't show up?


Pure speculation but, probably the latter.  Most youth don't feel well informed enough to vote, since politics isn't something many had to pay attention to and their concerns were mostly directed at their lives, things like college acceptance letters, school, love lives, jobs, and all the other things that come along with it.

However, Trump and 40 years of, mostly, regressive politics has changed all that.  The reason they can focus on politics is because it's now the only way they will ever be able to even afford it.  They're also watching their parents struggle to make payments, healthcare is a thing that needs to be worried about, and they're pissed at the state of wages since they're looking to enter the workforce since college for many is impossibly out of reach.

They also have the easiest access of any generation to the collective knowledge of the entire human race in their pocket, and they talk, A LOT.

So, who the hell knows.
 
2020-02-28 11:57:44 AM  
So this map is based entirely on the supposition that the rich white people who have been shrieking "VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO" for the last... well, forever... will not actually do that themselves. Am I getting that right?
 
2020-02-28 11:58:49 AM  
*could

Remember all those ridiculous who *could win which states maps they kept puking out Election Day in 2026?
 
2020-02-28 11:59:50 AM  

Bf+: In other news:
[Fark user image 502x333]


What a shock. The "SHUT UP AND PLAY!"/"POLITICS AND SPORTS DON'T MIX!!!" segment is clueless about sports.
 
2020-02-28 11:59:53 AM  
Here's what a Sanders-Trump map could look like

ancientpages.comView Full Size
 
2020-02-28 12:01:18 PM  
Democrats lost the plot in WI in voter registration. Overall numbers are 45% GOP, 44% Dem now, a slide of 6 points since 2012.

https://twitter.com/jdjmke/status/123​3​126224580485126

pbs.twimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-02-28 12:01:22 PM  
After 2016 where Nate Silver got blindsided by a lack of Hillary in a Landslide. I don't believe any predictions. I had little faith in them before, I have 0 faith now.
Fark user imageView Full Size

It's psychic hotline bullshiat with decorative math pushed by biased assholes who would rather people die than face a tiny tax.
 
2020-02-28 12:01:40 PM  
Here you go:

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Bf+
2020-02-28 12:02:23 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: Bf+: In other news:
[Fark user image 502x333]

What a shock. The "SHUT UP AND PLAY!"/"POLITICS AND SPORTS DON'T MIX!!!" segment is clueless about sports.


I'd also guess that a fair number of them are unfamiliar with "American football."
 
2020-02-28 12:02:54 PM  

Purple_Urkle: After 2016 where Nate Silver got blindsided by a lack of Hillary in a Landslide. I don't believe any predictions. I had little faith in them before, I have 0 faith now.
[Fark user image 425x318]
It's psychic hotline bullshiat with decorative math pushed by biased assholes who would rather people die than face a tiny tax.


Nate Silver gave Trump the highest odds of winning vs all of the other poll aggregators

a 70% chance of winning is not the same as expecting the candidate to get 70% of the vote
 
2020-02-28 12:04:36 PM  

MFK: jonnyh: Wow, if it's going to come down to WI and PA...

[Fark user image 586x463]
[Fark user image 501x459]

no. they are saying that if Bernie is the nominee it's going to come down to PA and WI. Other candidates' predictive electoral maps look a lot different.


Let's compare and contrast... top map is the 2016 electoral results.

Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size


So, in other words, Bernie can win the states that cost Clinton the election, and the polls show that others are less likely to.

Want to show me a map for another candidate that's more favorable?
 
2020-02-28 12:04:49 PM  

nmrsnr: EvilEgg: There's a whole lot of concern about a Sanders nomination.

That's because, as this Vox article points out, Bernie's poll support is more reliant on young people than the moderate candidates:

"11 percent of left-leaning young people say they are undecided, would support a third-party candidate, or, most often, just would not vote if a moderate were nominated - but say they would turn out and vote for Sanders if he were nominated. The large number of young people who say they will only vote if Sanders is nominated is just enough to offset the voters Sanders loses to Trump in the rest of the electorate."

It's a fair question to ask whether these young voters will turn up, because history knows that the most unreliable voting block is the youth vote.


And if Bernie isn't the candidate, expect them to stay home and pout.

/please run Bernie as the candidate
 
2020-02-28 12:04:49 PM  

demiurgex: Hard to see him as unelectable.


There's some.... let's say "concern", that all of Sanders' support is going to evaporate immediately once people find out he's a socialist, and drive them all into Trump's camp so they can save the nation from a Manchurian Candidate in the Kremlin's pocket.
 
2020-02-28 12:05:50 PM  
After sanders gets to talk to all of America as the dem nominee that map is going to look like this
Fark user imageView Full Size


Bookit
 
2020-02-28 12:06:23 PM  
Chris Cilizza has never been anything more than a concern-troll, he is a standing joke among actual reporters. He should be taken with more salt than the recommended daily amount.
 
2020-02-28 12:06:56 PM  

Purple_Urkle: After 2016 where Nate Silver got blindsided by a lack of Hillary in a Landslide. I don't believe any predictions. I had little faith in them before, I have 0 faith now.
[Fark user image image 425x318]
It's psychic hotline bullshiat with decorative math pushed by biased assholes who would rather people die than face a tiny tax.


He had it at 1 in 3 iirc. 1 in 3 events happen all the time. Flipping a coin twice and getting heads both times is less likely ffs. Why can't you people understand stats?
 
2020-02-28 12:07:06 PM  
A Chris Cillizza "article", subby? I think I'll take my electoral news from someone other than the "Dems in disarray"-lusting/"But Her Emails"-obsessing/"Politics are Sports"-spewing/Lack of self-awareness-having/Foot-fetishist tub of goo.

The first time Cillizza has an insight of any kind (let alone an original one) will be a cold day in hell. He is the poster boy for the idea that pale, overweight white dudes are constantly falling upwards.
 
2020-02-28 12:09:41 PM  
SUBBY NO
 
2020-02-28 12:10:26 PM  
Shouldn't NC and Texas be light red at this point?
 
2020-02-28 12:10:40 PM  

Purple_Urkle: After 2016 where Nate Silver got blindsided by a lack of Hillary in a Landslide. I don't believe any predictions. I had little faith in them before, I have 0 faith now.
[Fark user image 425x318]
It's psychic hotline bullshiat with decorative math pushed by biased assholes who would rather people die than face a tiny tax.


He had her up by only a few points and he kept harping on the fact that an 80% chance of Hillary winning was still a 20% chance of Trump winning. Considering that Trump won by very close amounts in a handful of states and lost the popular vote by 3 million, its clear that the path to victory he achieved had a low chance of succeeding.
 
2020-02-28 12:11:13 PM  

dumbobruni: Purple_Urkle: After 2016 where Nate Silver got blindsided by a lack of Hillary in a Landslide. I don't believe any predictions. I had little faith in them before, I have 0 faith now.
[Fark user image 425x318]
It's psychic hotline bullshiat with decorative math pushed by biased assholes who would rather people die than face a tiny tax.

Nate Silver gave Trump the highest odds of winning vs all of the other poll aggregators

a 70% chance of winning is not the same as expecting the candidate to get 70% of the vote


I misremembered, thanks for correcting me. It was 3 years ago.

I just remember all of the HILLARY IN A LANDSLIDE!!!1!11!! WHARRGARBLE! On RawStory if I happened to mention, hey HRC is dismissing the stoner vote and Bernie isn't, perhaps she could adopt his policies.

Meh.
Those assholes banned me for posting, "Trump will grab Paul Ryan by the wallet", so fark 'em.

Happier to be on Fark where folks are saner and it's less of a frantic oblivion.
 
2020-02-28 12:12:02 PM  

mathamagical: Purple_Urkle: After 2016 where Nate Silver got blindsided by a lack of Hillary in a Landslide. I don't believe any predictions. I had little faith in them before, I have 0 faith now.
[Fark user image image 425x318]
It's psychic hotline bullshiat with decorative math pushed by biased assholes who would rather people die than face a tiny tax.

He had it at 1 in 3 iirc. 1 in 3 events happen all the time. Flipping a coin twice and getting heads both times is less likely ffs. Why can't you people understand stats?


Numbers are hard, it's easier to assume Nate Silver is witch.
 
2020-02-28 12:14:59 PM  

Purple_Urkle: dumbobruni: Purple_Urkle: After 2016 where Nate Silver got blindsided by a lack of Hillary in a Landslide. I don't believe any predictions. I had little faith in them before, I have 0 faith now.
[Fark user image 425x318]
It's psychic hotline bullshiat with decorative math pushed by biased assholes who would rather people die than face a tiny tax.

Nate Silver gave Trump the highest odds of winning vs all of the other poll aggregators

a 70% chance of winning is not the same as expecting the candidate to get 70% of the vote

I misremembered, thanks for correcting me. It was 3 years ago.

I just remember all of the HILLARY IN A LANDSLIDE!!!1!11!! WHARRGARBLE! On RawStory if I happened to mention, hey HRC is dismissing the stoner vote and Bernie isn't, perhaps she could adopt his policies.

Meh.
Those assholes banned me for posting, "Trump will grab Paul Ryan by the wallet", so fark 'em.

Happier to be on Fark where folks are saner and it's less of a frantic oblivion.


Wait, you're judging the value of polls based on what happens on Raw Story?

You're dumber than I thought.
 
2020-02-28 12:15:22 PM  

RogueWallEnthusiast: Shouldn't NC and Texas be light red at this point?


the 270 to Win consensus map (aggregation of Cook, Sabato, and Inside Elections) paints a different picture.

270towin.comView Full Size


https://www.270towin.com/2020-electio​n​-forecast-predictions/
 
2020-02-28 12:16:06 PM  
*Opens link*
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
*Closes link*

Mr Buttery Males at CNN  can fark right the fark off.
 
2020-02-28 12:16:21 PM  
liz needs to stop wasting everyone's time and drop out. she is now actively impeding progress by staying. and that persist PAC shiat is unforgivable.

drop out liz! today! you aren't winning anything
 
2020-02-28 12:18:05 PM  
oh looky, they have Texas as a maybe
 
2020-02-28 12:18:18 PM  
I don't believe any hype with polls.
If they were apolitical, perhaps I would.
There's too much screwing around, too much bullshiat. They lost my trust in 2016.

Shiat, wasn't Biden polling in the lead before Iowa? Was that a thing?
 
2020-02-28 12:19:26 PM  

galumph200: A Chris Cillizza "article", subby? I think I'll take my electoral news from someone other than the "Dems in disarray"-lusting/"But Her Emails"-obsessing/"Politics are Sports"-spewing/Lack of self-awareness-having/Foot-fetishist tub of goo.

The first time Cillizza has an insight of any kind (let alone an original one) will be a cold day in hell. He is the poster boy for the idea that pale, overweight white dudes are constantly falling upwards.


All the THIS.
 
2020-02-28 12:19:48 PM  
bernie needs to stop wasting everyone's time and drop out. he is now actively impeding progress by staying. and that bernie bro shiat is unforgivable.

drop out bern! today! you aren't winning anything

/<sarcasm>

//like I've said before I'll happily campaign for Sanders if he's the nominee
 
2020-02-28 12:20:03 PM  

brizzle365: oh looky, they have Texas as a maybe


Beto got way closer than anyone thought, and they're importing more Californians by the day.
 
2020-02-28 12:20:06 PM  

grumpfuff: Purple_Urkle: dumbobruni: Purple_Urkle: After 2016 where Nate Silver got blindsided by a lack of Hillary in a Landslide. I don't believe any predictions. I had little faith in them before, I have 0 faith now.
[Fark user image 425x318]
It's psychic hotline bullshiat with decorative math pushed by biased assholes who would rather people die than face a tiny tax.

Nate Silver gave Trump the highest odds of winning vs all of the other poll aggregators

a 70% chance of winning is not the same as expecting the candidate to get 70% of the vote

I misremembered, thanks for correcting me. It was 3 years ago.

I just remember all of the HILLARY IN A LANDSLIDE!!!1!11!! WHARRGARBLE! On RawStory if I happened to mention, hey HRC is dismissing the stoner vote and Bernie isn't, perhaps she could adopt his policies.

Meh.
Those assholes banned me for posting, "Trump will grab Paul Ryan by the wallet", so fark 'em.

Happier to be on Fark where folks are saner and it's less of a frantic oblivion.

Wait, you're judging the value of polls based on what happens on Raw Story?

You're dumber than I thought.


I was explaining why I misremembered.
 
2020-02-28 12:20:25 PM  

nmrsnr: EvilEgg: There's a whole lot of concern about a Sanders nomination.

That's because, as this Vox article points out, Bernie's poll support is more reliant on young people than the moderate candidates:

"11 percent of left-leaning young people say they are undecided, would support a third-party candidate, or, most often, just would not vote if a moderate were nominated - but say they would turn out and vote for Sanders if he were nominated. The large number of young people who say they will only vote if Sanders is nominated is just enough to offset the voters Sanders loses to Trump in the rest of the electorate."

It's a fair question to ask whether these young voters will turn up, because history knows that the most unreliable voting block is the youth vote.


Results from the early caucuses and primaries are negative on turnout from the youth vote. Could it turn around? Sure. Is it likely, is it likely to happen in numbers that matter? No, and depending upon it happening is a fool's errand and exactly what should not be done if people want to win rather than whine and complain.

I've said it before and I'll say it again that people who think otherwise are precisely those who desperately need to read Rick Wilson's latest book.

---

MUH YOUTH VOTE

You chase it every damn time.

Democrats are all aflutter, every damn election cycle with the idea that the youths are coming out in droves, this time. This time there's a massive tidal wave of kids ready to rock the vote. Hold on a moment while I recover from that eye roll. Memorize this rule: Old people vote. Repeat it until it sinks in.

The youth vote is a moving target, a political unicorn running through a field of poppies, shooting rainbows from its ass. Democrats in particular seem to spend an enormous amount of time trying to activate 15 percent or so of the voting pool in general elections (lower in the off-cycle races). Yes, youth participation was up in 2018, and meaningfully so. The percentage of millennials who voted in 2014 was nearly doubled in 2018.

Want to know why?

Because the oldest millennials (for our purposes, people born between 1980 and 2000) are closing in on forty, the age when voter participation tends to kick up. Even the youngest millennials are now leaving college and dealing with the cruel fate of their college loans and all that the departure from Mom and Dad's nest entails. In big, broad strokes, millennials are voting because they're aging up.

Millennials are aging out of the youth vote, but the Democrats still overplay the idea that the youths can be turned out if only they strike some alchemical formula combining college loan relief, Taylor Swift, Obama, and Rock the Vote.

Wow, you're thinking, this sumbiatch is cynical. The children are the future...

As is often the case, Democrats reading this will glare balefully at me, puff out their cheeks, and intone, "Ackshually...Barack Obama proved..."

Obama proved nothing.

He goosed the youth vote with eighteen- to twenty-nine-year-olds by 2 percent to 17.1 percent, but here's the hard reality: If not a single young voter pulled the lever, he still would have won the 270 votes in the Electoral College he needed to beat John McCain. NBC polling analyst Ana Maria Arumi ran the numbers state by state, and when she pulled out the under-thirty demos, the map flipped in only two states: North Carolina and Indiana.

Now I'm really gonna break your hearts about who and what moves the youth vote. The modern era's peak youth vote wasn't for Barack Obama in 2008 or 2012; youth turnout in those years was 17.1 percent and 15.4 percent, respectively. It wasn't for Bill Clinton in 1992 (17.7 percent) or 1996 (14.9 percent).

No, the peak youth turnout in the last thirty years was in 1988, when teen heartthrobs and sex symbols Mike Dukakis and George H. W. Bush were on the ballot. That year, turnout for eighteen- to thirty-year-olds was 18.1 percent. Nothing sends the kids today rushing the stage like a septuagenarian preppy and a fusty Cambridge nerd. In the words of political scientist Eddie Murphy, "biatches throw they panties on the stage."

I know, I know. You don't believe me. "But muh youth vote."

I'm going to stop you there, because you know who does vote? (Stop me if you've heard this.)

Old people vote.

You know who votes in the swing states where this election will be fought? Really old people. Instead of high-profile videos with Cardi B (no disrespect to Cardi, who famously once threatened to dog-walk the egregious Tomi Lahren), maybe focus on registering and reaching more of those old-fart voters in counties in swing states.

If your celebrity and music-industry friends want to flood social media with GOTV messages, let them. It makes them feel important and it's the cheapest outsourcing you can get. Just don't build your models on the idea that you're going to spike young voter turnout beyond 20 percent.

The problem with chasing the youth vote is threefold: First, they're unlikely to be registered. You have to devote a lot of work to going out, grabbing them, registering them, educating them, and motivating them to go out and vote. If they were established but less active voters, you'd have voter history and other data to work with. There are lower-effort, lower-cost ways to make this work.

Second, they're not conditioned to vote; that November morning is much more likely to involve regret at not finishing a paper than missing a vote.

Third, and finally, a meaningful fraction of the national youth vote overall is located in California. Its gigantic population skews the number, and since the Golden State's Electoral College outcome is never in doubt, it doesn't matter. What's our motto, kids? "The Electoral College is the only game in town."

...

I'm not saying Democrats shouldn't try to appeal to young voters on some level, but I want them to have a realistic expectation about just how hard it is to move those numbers in sufficient volume in the key Electoral College states. When I asked one of the smartest electoral modeling brains in the business about this issue, he flooded me with an inbox of spreadsheets and data points. But the key answer he gave me was this: "The EC states in play are mostly old as fark. If your models assume young voter magic, you're gonna have a bad day."

---

Then Senator Barack Obama didn't need a single youth voter to win in 2008, not one of them as per NBC. Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all would have gone to Senator Obama if every young person stayed at home and all of those states went to then private citizen Donald Trump in 2016. It blows my mind that this is not taken into consideration and I do not understand it. Ignore national polls, ignore California, and actually go after the votes in the few states that matter.
 
2020-02-28 12:21:06 PM  

phaseolus: bernie needs to stop wasting everyone's time and drop out. he is now actively impeding progress by staying. and that bernie bro shiat is unforgivable.

drop out bern! today! you aren't winning anything

/<sarcasm>

//like I've said before I'll happily campaign for Sanders if he's the nominee


an attempt was made for sure zzzzz
 
Displayed 50 of 211 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.