Obviously it is a narrative/momentum game.

If Bernie somehow cuts Biden's lead in SC so that he under performs I think things go much differently.


But wasn't he campaigning in MA? Or do I have my timeline off?


Like someone said, SC basically created a free campaign for Joe Biden and he didn't have to do shit.


Plus, a big knock on Bernie is the black vote. I would have been working over-time to prove that knock wrong.


I get folks are upset, but they are forgetting Bernie was the frontrunner for a little bit. I think he had a huge opportunity to help democrats feel better about the idea of a Bernie nom and he just didn't do it.

In an alternative universe where he performs better in SC, sends unity emails rather than attacking emails, and starts to pivot to the general?

I don't know.

The other thing is, if Biden under-performs a little those drop outs and endorsements maybe don't happen.

Compete everywhere. Thats word to Howard Dean.

>
>Biden would have still won throughout the south, of course.
>But what made Biden the presumptive nominee, in the end, was
>that people saw it as a two-person race, and in the south they
>gave Biden landslide after landslide after landslide, at a
>time when the Sanders team thought they'd be competitive in NC
>and VA, at least.
>
>Some of that's probably Clyburn. Some of it's the resounding
>SC result that followed from it, but I wonder if Sanders might
>have hurt himself in the south a little more by skipping the
>Selma commemoration. If Sanders had done just a little better
>in the south he might have ended the night (after California
>eventually comes in) still holding a delegate lead. Then who
>knows what the narrative would have been by now.
>
>It seems like they wrote off the south almost out of habit,
>maybe over hard feelings from 2016. But margins matter. You
>can't write anything off.
>