And his supporters moved to supporting Hillary at a faster rate than Hillary’s moved to Obama, so if Bernie’s supporters were being unreasonable, at least they were less unreasonable than Hillary’s.
They were? I don’t remember that way. I remember it as Bernie supporters being sore losers at the Convention.
Follow the link, and let me know if you dispute it. Bernie supporters moved pretty quickly to Hillary, Hillary’s were much more likely to dig in their heels and held their breath until they turned blue. I suspect the people making noise at the convention were either the Republican operatives I was talking about, or people duped by them. Luckily, as shown by the link, they didn’t represent Bernie supporters as a whole either way.
Sorry, still not convinced. I don’t believe all the those people at the convention supporting Bernie were merely Republican operatives.
Or duped by them. So do you dispute the link showing Bernie supporters rapidly flocked to Hillary, or what? Or do you think the article is true and that my assessment was correct that Bernie supporters were by and large very reasonable compared with Hillary supporters and you still want to judge them based on this non-representative subset? I don’t get where you’re going.
So, that’s a yes? What, specifically, do you disagree with in the Washington Post’s cited polls? Is it a methodology thing? Do you know someone who did a poll showing otherwise?
Seriously, not even addressing this question, to me, makes it seem like you agree with everything I’ve said (including that Hillary’s supporters were more unreasonable than Bernie’s in this regard) and you just want to shit-talk Bernie supporters anyway because screw evidence. You want to shit-talk the idiots at the convention, fine, I’m all with you on that, but I’m talking about Bernie supporters, the vast majority of whom weren’t actually in attendance at the convention.