Bernie Declares He’s Totally Winning If You Don’t Count Where He’s Lost

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, appearing on ABC’s This Week on Sunday, confidently suggested that Hillary Clinton’s victories in deep red southern states are meaningless while his own victories in deep red western states represent political revolution.

Asked by George Stephanopoulos to comment on Clinton’s lead in the popular vote, Sanders replied, “a lot of that came from the south” — implying those states don’t have many Democrats.

It’s part of a broader campaign narrative that no one should care when Clinton wins 221,000 votes in Louisiana, which hasn’t voted for a Democrat in the general election since 1996 — but when Sanders wins 18,000 votes in Idaho, which hasn’t voted for a Democrat since 1964, it means your bearded co-worker Jesse’s Facebook rants are totally changing the course of human history.

A popular narrative among Sanders supporters is that the Vermont senator is “winning the North” while Clinton is a regional candidate anchored in the South. This is true, provided that you accept the following:

- Massachusetts, Ohio, Iowa, and Illinois are southern states
- Wyoming, Idaho, and Nebraska — none of which has voted Democratic since 1964 — are “northern” states
- Sanders actually won Nevada 6 weeks after the election ended, even as newspapers continue to lie by reporting Clinton won

Read more: http://www.cafe.com/sanders-irrelevant-primary-victories-better/