Bernie Sanders overpacks Philadelphia Arena as Pennsylvania poll shows him surging.

[Divernan]

Source: U. S. Uncut

A massive crowd of Bernie supporters has shown up in droves to attend his latest rally in Philadelphia, the largest city in the pivotal primary state of Pennsylvania. Enthusiastic voters have gathered outside the Liacouras Center at Temple University by the thousands. The below video says it all, showing a town square packed with people waiting to be let in.

Reports are coming in that the line for the rally could be as large as ten blocks long, ending at the cross street of Broad and Master about half a mile away.

This surge of support comes in the wake of a poll that gives proof to the massive momentum that Bernie has built up in the crucial state of Pennsylvania following his recent string of primary victories. A Harper Polling Survey had Bernie behind Clinton at 55% to 33% just last weekend. But today, a Quinnipiac University poll jumped him up a full sixteen points, right on Clinton’s heels at 50% to 44%, with 6% of likely voters saying that they are still undecided, and 22% saying they may still change their minds.

For those unsure of which poll to trust, the analysts at the polling research site Five Thirty Eight dole out ratings to all major polls in the US, and they rate Quinnipiac a “B+” over Harper’s “C+” rating, signifying that Quinnipiac has historically been more accurate and also boasts more legitimate polling methodology.



Read more: http://usuncut.com/news/bernie-sanders-philadelphia/

---

The article details that Bernie's recent victories showed him outperforming even the most optimistic polls, including his 13.5 point margin of victory over Clinton in Wisconsin. The average poll conducted there had him ahead by only 2.6, with the highest showing an 8-point lead for Sanders.

Lots of great photos & videos at the link, including:
one showing the line for the rally ten blocks long, ending at the cross street of Broad and Master about half a mile away;
a photo of Senator Sanders in the hours leading up to his latest rally, supporting a local union by speaking at a worker’s protest against Verizon;
the entire lower deck of the stadium already packed with multiple blocks’ worth of people still waiting to be let in;
the destination for the overflow of supporters, a practice arena set aside from the main location, packed on both sides of the rafters.

[JDPriestly]

1. K&R. Thanks for posting this. Looks great.

[Divernan]

2. You're welcome and congrats on being the first to reply.

Apparently someone has fallen asleep on the night shift - it's been 1/2 an hour since I posted the OP, and not a single non sequitur putdown from the group that prides itself on the under-one-minute response.

I'm absolutely delighted that Phillie, the host of this year's Democratic national convention, gave such a great turnout and response to Bernie's rally there. That tells us the crowds will be out in force demonstrating for Bernie at the convention too.

[tomm2thumbs]

9. Great to see the main rally arena and overflow arena filled on both sides

Filling two arenas in Philadelphia at the same time and place -- gotta love it!

[AC_Mem]

14. Look at the ages

Bernie has tapped into the young American generation. It's so good to see those who will enherit this world getting involved!

[Baobab]

23. We need Bernie- He's the only politician at his level whose not sold out

to the military industrial complex and the chemical, banking and energy industries.

EDIT: Elizabeth Warren also- She is fighting the Big Sellout too.

[daleanime]

29. +1

[Zira]

39. +1

[840high]

73. +2

[shireen]

30. so agree

I've been very happy to see young people being so politically active. We want future generations to inherit a world better than the one we lived in, but that's not happening for these kids. They're taking matters into their own hands to shape the future. That's what Bernie's campaign is about ... it's about those kids having a better future. This 52 year old is behind them 100%

[greiner3]

66. So at 59 I'm ahead of you by 7%

[truthisfreedom]

3. The Bern is stil burnin'!

[billhicks76]

82. Bill Just Blew It...Labeled BLM Defenders Of Drug Dealers And Thugs

What an idiot...he's a liability to Hillary with that mouth.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/bill-clinton-black-lives-matter-protesters-are-defending-murders-and-drug-dealers/article/2001877#.VwbRYj_Z-wI.facebook

[JesterCS]

4. Saw a car with KY Plates with Sanders2016 sticker

That's promise. Lol

[RANGERMAN89]

5. After campaigning for Bernie for so long in Pittsburgh..

It does my heart good to see the progress volunteering is having on the primary makes me want to go to the campaign office every day.

[tabasco]

18. Thank you for your work.

Used to live in Pittsburgh. Great town.

[appalachiablue]

36. Appreciate your work. We have longtime friends from Pgh. Go Keystone State of PA!

[woodsprite]

56. I hope your message was received well in Pittsburgh.

I was assigned that area when I was calling for Obama/Biden. Most of the people I contacted were not very pleasant when they found out who I was calling for (seemed to be all McCain/Palin people).

[RANGERMAN89]

57. I am a pretty large man so no one has been to hostile..

To me but a few of the kids volunteering have to deal with a few people who are still brainwashed from the cold war.

[tech3149]

58. I grew up in the area, moved away in 95 and came back in 02

I couldn't believe how much people had bought into the RW bull. It's like their brains have been absorbed by the TV. I keep telling them if their only source of information is corporate news, they don't know squat.

[Avalon Sparks]

67. Oh that sucks to hear about Pittsburgh

That's my birth place, can't believe folks bought into repub there, they are smarter than that.

[PATRICK]

6. Keeping Sanders down

in the media, etc. creates an automatic, natural "surge" when he breaks through- which would have been larger though had he been given anything like a platform granted to the detestable and smug, and fairly dumb, proto-fascists in the GOP pass the empty suit game. So they must continue to suppress his support because it still works a bit even as the victories become more "dramatic" and less deniable.

[tomm2thumbs]

10. LOLz, Trump's going to be booted by the GOP, come vote for Bernie

[leftofcool]

11. Too bad he just messed up any chance he had to win there!

[KPN]

19. Really? Hows that?

[SunSeeker]

20. Yep. That was a big audience to hear his lie-tastic "Hillary is unqualified" blunder.

And today he doubled down on it instead of apologizing. Dumb move.

[tabasco]

25. Strangely, seems to be having the opposite effect.

But keep on dreamin'!

[SunSeeker]

41. More delusion from Camp Sanders.

[tabasco]

44. So, Clinton has increased her lead in the polls recently?

Or has Sanders reduced that lead considerably?

Now, tell me who's delusional.

[SunSeeker]

46. Sure the polls have been tightening, but Sanders's lying attack will not help his poll numbers.

He is looking awful right now, doubling down on his lie about Hillary. He careened off the high road yesterday.

[tabasco]

48. Well, you are speculating about the polls,

and I'm not sure what lies you're talking about (?). If you're talking about a statement that Hillary is not qualified to be president, that's not a lie, that's an opinion. An opinion that I share.

[SunSeeker]

49. No, he lied that Hillary said he was "quote unquote unqualified."

He was not accurately quoting her. She never said that he was unqualified, despite Joe Scarborough asking her three times with baiting, leading questions if she though Sanders was unqualified. Sanders lied.

And Sanders used that lie to justify his ridiculous smear that Hillary was unqualified.

[floppyboo]

52. in my world

which is admittedly academic and filled with debate for the hell of it, the use of 'quote unquote' is quite different than 'quote "blah blah" unquote'.
For instance"
'She said - quote "I am so righteous" unquote' - meaning she said what is between the quotes
vs
'She said I am so quote/unquote "righteous" - meaning that's how I understood it.

This is quibbling... this is all so much quote/unquote "crap"

[tabasco]

53. Wow, that's a terrible mistake.

Almost as bad as voting for an illegal war.

[SunSeeker]

54. You mean like when Bernie voted to bomb civilians in Belgrade? nt

[tabasco]

55. Last time I checked, that was a justified NATO military action,

which ultimately resulted in the halt of genocidal massacres.

Your lack of knowledge and/or intellectual honesty is noted.

[SunSeeker]

59. Those were our bombs. And they did not stop ethnic cleansing, they hastened it.

Bernie voted to authorize that bombing. He is proud of it; he mentions it on his website:

I supported the use of force to stop the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. 

https://berniesanders.com/issues/war-and-peace/

It is nothing to be proud of.

The fighting finally stopped because the ethnic cleansing, put on steroids by the US/NATO bombing, was completed. There were no opposing ethnicities left to fight in the various rebel states.  

Why did we bomb the Belgrade TV station? Could it be they were showing embarrassing footage of hospitals and schools bombed by the US, with children's limbs strewn about the rubble? Ask those people if they think NATO overstepped their bounds. Amnesty International certainly thinks so; it declared the bombing of the Belgrade TV station a war crime. http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2009/04/amnesty_international_calls_na.html
And yet, we declared it a "legitimate target." http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/apr/24/balkans3  We did not even issue a warning so civilians could leave before bombing the building: "Amnesty International said in the statement that NATO officials confirmed that no specific warning of the attack was given, even though they knew many civilians would be in the RTS building." http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2009/04/amnesty_international_calls_na.html

The scene was horrific:  

Reporters at the scene said they saw the almost decapitated body of one man dangling from the rubble, and the body of a make-up artist. Another man was trapped between two concrete blocks. Doctors amputated his legs at the site but he later died.  

The state-run news agency Tanjug said about 150 people were inside the building at the time of the attack. The minister without portfolio, Goran Matic, said that in addition to 10 dead and 18 wounded, at least 20 people were feared buried in the rubble. 
http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/apr/24/balkans3  

It is this grotesque disregard of civilian lives that Sanders was proud to brag about on his campaign website.

[tabasco]

78. The Kosovo intervention was a NATO operation, fully supported by all of our allies.

The Iraq war was an unjustified, trumped-up, unilateral invasion by the U.S. that was widely condemned in the international community. Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war resolution.

Deal with it in your own special way.

[SunSeeker]

79. Our allies did not bomb Belgrade. We did.

And Bernie's proud of it.

[tabasco]

81. Justified military operation.

Deal with it.

[SunSeeker]

83. Amnesty International called it a war crime.

And Sanders bragged about it on his website. Deal with it.

[tabasco]

84. Well, they called Iraq a war crime too,

along with the rest of the civilized world. However, all of our allies supported the NATO operation in Kosovo. So, here's the scorecard:

For Iraq: Bush cabal and Vichy Democrats, including Clinton
Against Iraq: Civilized world, Amnesty International and most Democrats in Congress.

For Kosovo: Civilized world
Against Kosovo: Amnesty International

Deal with it. Thanks for playing.

[SunSeeker]

87. Clinton said Iraq was a mistake. Bernie didn't say bombing Belgrade was a mistake.

He brags about it on his website.

I am not "playing."

[tabasco]

88. Bombing in support of the Kosovo intervention was not a mistake.

It was part of a justified NATO military operation which resulted in the end of genocidal ethnic massacres. You are biased to the point of being obtuse.

Nice of Clinton to admit the obvious. Too bad she didn't see the obvious when it was obvious to everybody else.

[SunSeeker]

89. How is bombing civilians in a TV station in Belgrade not a mistake?

Belgrade is not even in Kosovo. I am not the obtuse one here.

[tabasco]

90. The air support provided to the NATO Kosovo mission was necessary and justified.

The Belgrade station was used to assist command and control of Serbian forces. NATO gave warnings to evacuate the building. The European Court of Human Rights dismissed a case against NATO for the bombing. The Court sentenced the general manager of the station to 10 years in prison for failing to evacuate the building after the warnings. The Kosovo intervention was a success and ended genocidal atrocities. Human Rights Watch estimated a maximum of 527 civilians were killed as a result of NATO actions. Many more thousands would have been killed without the intervention.

I'll stand with the decision of the Court of Human Rights over the opinion of a biased, obtuse Internet poster.

You were saying?

[SunSeeker]

92. The building was a TV station, not a command post. No explicit warning was given.

I provided links above. That is why Amnesty International called it a war crime. Bill Meyer is a correspondent for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, a well respected paper. The paper took an interest in the Balkan war because Cleveland has a large population from the countries that formed the former Yugoslavia. He is not some anonymous "blogger." As he reported for the Plain Dealer:

At the time of the bombing, NATO officials said the TV headquarters was a legitimate target because of the station's relentless war propaganda that contributed to the ethnically-inspired bloodshed in the Balkans.
..
Amnesty International said in the statement that NATO officials confirmed that no specific warning of the attack was given, even though they knew many civilians would be in the RTS building.

http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2009/04/amnesty_international_calls_na.html

So they were bombed for what here would be considered the exercise of protected First Amendment rights. And no specific warning was given.

[tabasco]

93. Tell it to the Court of Human Rights.

As I said before, I'll go with their decision over the diatribe of a biased Internet poster. Good day!

[SunSeeker]

94. The Court of Human Rights has no authority to prosecute the US.

You do not provide any links but I assume the complaint you reference was dismissed because they have no jurisdiction to prosecute the US for human rights violations:

However, complaints submitted to the Court must concern violations of the Convention allegedly committed by a State Party to the Convention and that directly and significantly affected the applicant. As of March 2014, 47 States have ratified the Convention. Some of these States have also ratified one or more of the Additional Protocols to the Convention, which protect additional rights.

http://www.ijrcenter.org/european-court-of-human-rights/#Jurisdiction

The US is NOT a signatory, but Serbia is.
http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/005/signatures

The Court of Human Rights' inability to prosecute the US bombing civilians does not mean the US was absolved. It does not mean that intentionally blowing a TV makeup woman to bits is not a war crime.

[tabasco]

95. Are you unable to distinguish between NATO and the U.S.?

You seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between NATO and the United States. Please educate yourself.

Here's what the United Nations had to say about the NATO bombing of the station:

A report conducted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) entitled "Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" said:

Insofar as the attack actually was aimed at disrupting the communications network, it was legally acceptable ... NATO’s targeting of the RTS building for propaganda purposes was an incidental (albeit complementary) aim of its primary goal of disabling the Serbian military command and control system and to destroy the nerve system and apparatus that keeps Milošević in power[14]

In regards to civilian casualties, it further stated that though they were, "unfortunately high, they do not appear to be clearly disproportionate."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_the_Radio_Television_of_Serbia_headquarters

Here's what the European Court of Human Rights had to say:

In the case Markovic v. Italy, the European Court of Human Rights found that the government of Italy had not violated human rights. However, in 2002, Dragoljub Milanović, the general manager of RTS, was sentenced to 10 years in prison because he had not ordered the workers in the building to evacuate, despite knowing that the building could be bombed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_the_Radio_Television_of_Serbia_headquarters


I'm finished trying to educate you. The rest is on you.

[SunSeeker]

96. It was our planes, our bombs. Acting under the fig leaf of NATO does not mean it was peachy keen.

It seems you are the one in need of education. But as your Wiki link confirms, that TV station was bombed because it was broadcasting "propaganda," not because, as you earlier lied, it was a military command center.

[tabasco]

97. Reading is fundamental. You fail.

A report conducted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) entitled "Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" said:

Insofar as the attack actually was aimed at disrupting the communications network, it was legally acceptable ... NATO’s targeting of the RTS building for propaganda purposes was an incidental (albeit complementary) aim of its primary goal of disabling the Serbian military command and control system and to destroy the nerve system and apparatus that keeps Milošević in power

Not that it matters, but please provide proof that U.S. warplanes made the attack on the Belgrade TV/radio station. Even if it were, it was a valid and justified NATO operation, as found by the United Nations and the European Court of Human Rights.

[SunSeeker]

98. Wow. Yes, reading is fundamental, but it is you who fail.

They contended that bombing the RTS TV station was legitimate because it was broadcasting propaganda.

"Insofar as the attack actually was aimed at disrupting the communications network, it was legally acceptable ... NATO’s targeting of the RTS building for propaganda purposes was an incidental (albeit complementary) aim of its primary goal of disabling the Serbian military command and control system and to destroy the nerve system and apparatus that keeps Milošević in power."

As the above paragraph states, NATO claimed that attacking propaganda was an "incidental (albeit complementary)" aim of its primary goal of disabling the Serbian military. That paragraph does NOT say the RTS TV station was a military command center. It was not. As a fuller excerpt from the report you're citing states:

75. NATO intentionally bombed the Radio and TV station and the persons killed or injured were civilians. The questions are: was the station a legitimate military objective and; if it was, were the civilian casualties disproportionate to the military advantage gained by the attack? For the station to be a military objective within the definition in Article 52 of Protocol I: a) its nature, purpose or use must make an effective contribution to military action and b) its total or partial destruction must offer a definite military advantage in the circumstances ruling at the time. The 1956 ICRC list of military objectives, drafted before the Additional Protocols, included the installations of broadcasting and television stations of fundamental military importance as military objectives (para. 39 above). The list prepared by Major General Rogers included broadcasting and television stations if they meet the military objective criteria (para. 38 above). As indicated in paras. 72 and 73 above, the attack appears to have been justified by NATO as part of a more general attack aimed at disrupting the FRY Command, Control and Communications network, the nerve centre and apparatus that keeps Milosević in power, and also as an attempt to dismantle the FRY propaganda machinery. Insofar as the attack actually was aimed at disrupting the communications network, it was legally acceptable.

76. If, however, the attack was made because equal time was not provided for Western news broadcasts, that is, because the station was part of the propaganda machinery, the legal basis was more debatable. Disrupting government propaganda may help to undermine the morale of the population and the armed forces, but justifying an attack on a civilian facility on such grounds alone may not meet the "effective contribution to military action" and "definite military advantage" criteria required by the Additional Protocols (see paras. 35-36, above). The ICRC Commentary on the Additional Protocols interprets the expression "definite military advantage anticipated" to exclude "an attack which only offers potential or indeterminate advantages" and interprets the expression "concrete and direct" as intended to show that the advantage concerned should be substantial and relatively close rather than hardly perceptible and likely to appear only in the long term (ICRC Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977, para. 2209). While stopping such propaganda may serve to demoralize the Yugoslav population and undermine the government’s political support, it is unlikely that either of these purposes would offer the "concrete and direct" military advantage necessary to make them a legitimate military objective. NATO believed that Yugoslav broadcast facilities were "used entirely to incite hatred and propaganda" and alleged that the Yugoslav government had put all private TV and radio stations in Serbia under military control (NATO press conferences of 28 and 30 April1999). However, it was not claimed that they were being used to incite violence akin to Radio Milles Collines during the Rwandan genocide, which might have justified their destruction (see para. 47 above). At worst, the Yugoslav government was using the broadcasting networks to issue propaganda supportive of its war effort: a circumstance which does not, in and of itself, amount to a war crime (see in this regard the judgment of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg in 1946 in the case of Hans Fritzsche, who served as a senior official in the Propaganda ministry alleged to have incited and encouraged the commission of crimes. The IMT held that although Fritzsche clearly made strong statements of a propagandistic nature, it was nevertheless not prepared to find that they were intended to incite the commission of atrocities, but rather, were aimed at arousing popular sentiment in support of Hitler and the German war effort (American Journal of International Law, vol. 41 (1947) 328)). The committee finds that if the attack on the RTS was justified by reference to its propaganda purpose alone, its legality might well be questioned by some experts in the field of international humanitarian law. It appears, however, that NATO’s targeting of the RTS building for propaganda purposes was an incidental (albeit complementary) aim of its primary goal of disabling the Serbian military command and control system and to destroy the nerve system and apparatus that keeps Milosević in power. In a press conference of 9 April 1999, NATO declared that TV transmitters were not targeted directly but that "in Yugoslavia military radio relay stations are often combined with TV transmitters [so] we attack the military target. If there is damage to the TV transmitters, it is a secondary effect but it is not [our] primary intention to do that." A NATO spokesperson, Jamie Shea, also wrote to the Brussels-based International Federation of Journalists on 12 April claiming that OperationAllied Force "target[ed] military targets only and television and radio towers are only struck if they [were] integrated into military facilities … There is no policy to strike television and radio transmitters as such" (cited in Amnesty International Report, ibid, June 2000).

http://www.icty.org/en/press/final-report-prosecutor-committee-established-review-nato-bombing-campaign-against-federal#IVB3

[tabasco]

99. What part of

"primary goal of disabling the Serbian military command and control system and to destroy the nerve system and apparatus that keeps Milošević in power."

do you not comprehend?

This is fun. Let's keep going!

[tabasco]

91. NATO bombed the building, after warnings to evacuate.

I don't think it was U.S. aircraft, but it doesn't really matter. It was a NATO operation, not a U.S. operation. Maybe you don't know the difference.

[JDPriestly]

70. And

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/06/clinton-questions-whether-sanders-is-qualified-to-be-president/

Sanders is just responding to Hillary's dirty campaigning.

Sanders served as mayor of Burlington, Vt. for 8 years. He has been in Congress over 25 years, and he received 86% of the vote in the Vermont Democratic primary.

And Hillary questions his qualifications.

Let's see. Hillary was maybe at most 8 years in the Senate and was First Lady for 8 and 4 years in the State Dept..

That's giving her credit for 8 years in the White House which is iffy because she likes to take responsibility for the things that happened in those years that worked out but kind says she had nothing to do with Bill's big blunders like the Commodities Futures Act, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, reform of welfare, NAFTA, etc. -- 20 years in all compared to 33 for Bernie. Years in public service. And none of it in a "buck stops here" position.

In contrast, Bernie has executive experience in Burlington, Vt. and again, 33 years overall of public service in elected offices.

In addition, Bernie voted against the Iraq War Resolution, against the Panama trade agreement and has in general shown better judgment than Hillary while in Congress.

Neither of them is perfect. We don't expect that. But of the two, Bernie wins on experience and even more important on JUDGMENT.

Poor Hillary. Sorry, but she is the loser when it comes to being qualified for the presidency.

[SunSeeker]

76. See post #69.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1406499

[Plucketeer]

77. LOL...

If lying dooms someones chances, Hillary should've gone home to babysitting her grandkid months ago.

[Baobab]

34. So, trying to overhrow the governments of other countries

and fighting for privatization of public health care and education globally with WTO trade deals is okay?

Is this the hashtag for this alleged "fact" ?

https://twitter.com/hashtag/HillarySoQualified

[SunSeeker]

40. I see deflecting with more lies is all you've got.

And the fact that you link to a tweet from the right wing America Rising PAC tells me all I needs to know about you.

[Baobab]

42. I did not link to any tweet - I dont even use twitter

I linked to a hash tag-

[SunSeeker]

45. Which went straight to an America Rising anti-Hillary tweet. nt

[Baobab]

47. Just added "#HillarySoQualified" Hashtag now

Please let the public decide the who what where..

https://twitter.com/hashtag/HillarySoQualified?src=hash

[JDPriestly]

69. Actually, I think Hillary started this controversy about the qualifications.

At least that is what the Washington Post said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/06/clinton-questions-whether-sanders-is-qualified-to-be-president/

[SunSeeker]

72. No she didn't. Sanders lied in asserting Clinton said he was "quote unquote unqualified."

Scarborough sure tried to goad her into saying Sanders was unqualified, as he kept bringing up Sanders' disasterous New York Daily News interview. He asked her three times. But she refused. You would think if Sanders was going to throw such a vicious, loaded charge at her, he would have read past the sensationalized click-bait headline and looked at what she actually said to Scarborough.

As contained in the body of the WaPo article, what Hillary actually said was:

"I think he hadn't done his homework and he'd been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn't really studied or understood," Clinton said in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," just one day after losing the Wisconsin primary to Sanders, "and that does raise a lot of questions."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/06/clinton-questions-whether-sanders-is-qualified-to-be-president/

She said she thought he had not done his homework, not that he was unqualified. It was Scarborough who was questioning whether Sanders was qualified, not Hillary.

[840high]

74. Go look at Bill's speech today.

[rpannier]

12. Even if Harper's and Qunnipac were even as pollsters

Quinnipac's is after Sanders' win in WI
Winning gets you noticed and makes people more comfortable voting for you

[billhicks76]

13. When Sanders Passed Hillary In Delegate Count

It will be a major watershed event. The super delegates will have to change their votes or risk splintering the party and destroying all faith in government. All because of one persons self-entitlement and ambition.

[CountAllVotes]

15. Poll: Hillary Clinton Plummets in Crucial Pennsylvania Primary, Lead Falls From 22 to 6

>>A new poll found that Hillary Clinton’s lead over Bernie Sanders in the critical Pennsylvania primary has plummeted to the single digits after the former Secretary of State led the Vermont Senator by more than 20 points.

A new Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday shows Clinton leading Sanders by just a 50-44 margin three weeks out from the state’s primary.

http://latest.com/2016/04/poll-hillary-clinton-plummets-in-crucial-pennsylvania-primary-lead-falls-from-22-to-6/

& recommend !!!

#FeelTheBern

Sanders 2016 !!

[CharlotteVale]

22. Whoa!

[CountAllVotes]

24. another ....

L A N D S L I D E dare I predict?

Great news indeed!

#FeelTheBern !!!

Go Bernie Go!!!

Sanders 2016!!

[closeupready]

28. Wow! That's unreal.

[appalachiablue]

37. Amazing, Pennsylvania Feeling the Bern!

[SoLeftIAmRight]

60. she only goes down

down down down

she only goes down

by november she will not even be able to beat a dead horse

[SoapBox]

16. Go Bernie Go!

GOTV Berners!

[Gregorian]

17. Bit we're frivolous Bernie Bros...

Surely we must be fringe. Surely?

[CharlotteVale]

21. K&R

[nichomachus]

26. This is why he should drop out now

Overpacking an arena! That's just horrible. Makes him totally unqualified to be president.

(I'm trying out for the Hillary Group.)

[yourpaljoey]

31. :)

[CountAllVotes]

35. yeppers

Might as well just cancel the election eh?

#FeelTheBern !!!

Sanders 2106 !!!

[My Good Babushka]

27. Pretty excited for our primary!

I plan to vote for Sanders in the primary!

[Rebkeh]

32. Go, Bernie!!!

Philly!!

[oberliner]

33. What is this "US Uncut" website?

I see it cited a lot here.

Is it a legit source?

[SunSeeker]

43. It is a website by a pro-Bernie political activist group.

In 2015 and 2016, US Uncut began posting articles in support of Bernie Sanders to the exclusion of other and/or at odds with candidates.

On February 24, 2016, US Uncut published an article with the headline that claimed it was "stunning" that Bernie Sanders led nationally by 6 percent in a Reuters National Poll, when the national polls from the same day at the nonpartisan fivethirtyeight.com had Clinton at 49.1% and Sanders at 39.4%.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Uncut

[Khellendross]

50. Its been around since around the time Occupy Wall Street

Popped up, and from what I can tell its been fairly consistent and correct in the stories they post.

[Betty Karlson]

38. Does this mean he'll win Pennsylvania?

If he does so, it's game over for Clinton, even when she will - as usual - be the last to admit it.

[Land of Enchantment]

51. K & R! Great post!

[jomin41]

61. Who knew there were so many gullible people...

(do I really need the sarcasm warning?)

[Uncle Joe]

62. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Divernan.

[florida08]

63. Godspeed Bernie Sanders

[Duval]

64. He's like a magnet!

He draws people in and they like what they hear. He speaks to the heart of this 76 y.o., not just the kids.

[Avalon Sparks]

65. Yay

My birth state!

So many times PA supports Dems!

Woohoo

[kadaholo]

68. Great post, Divernan!

Go Philly! First Villanova then BERNIE!

[maindawg]

71. The mainstream media sucks

They can't understand, they are no longer relevant. No one reads newspapers, no one watches their stupid news show. We all have our favorite internet sites. And there are so many, and anyone can putna new one up and then we have the triggers and whatnots . sorry ABC and NBC you blow. Matt Laur is a dick. CBS dares to report the Panama story at least. They are worrying how to bury it. Bastards.

[passiveporcupine]

75. In the beginning, I'd admit to loving Bernie's character, his message, his persistence

But at this point in the campaign, I just have to say I love this man, who would put our needs above his own comfort. At his age, he does not need to be fighting this fight, but it's been too important his whole life. And he is not giving up on us now. So we must not give up on him.

[SheilaT]

80. He is on fire.

It's sort of amusing to watch the Hillarybots dismiss all this enthusiasm.

[frylock]

85. Witness the backlash to his statement regarding Mrs. Clinton's qualifications.

[MisterP]

86. Blue Nation Review: SANDERS DISREGARDS FIRE SAFETY REGULATIONS, ENDAGERS THOUSANDS