and there is an element that is vicious and vindictive, especially online - that Bernie vowed to address but clearly it still exists.

I call for Bernie to immediately denounce any attempted doxxing or harassing of these people who merely asked him legitimate questions.

Life isn't fair and any candidate should be able to "take a punch": Hillary/Bill was pounded for 25 years; Obama had to deal with the Rev. Wright, the Tea Party and Birtherism; Joe Biden has dealt with all types of attacks including on his family, etc.

Bernie had it easy last time. Hillary, despite being cast as a villain by the right (and some on the left) was always a reasonable person who knew Bernie had no real path to the nomination because he could not win over key Dem base demographics (PoC, metro areas, etc) and thus could not win any of the delegate rich populous states. So she kept the gloves on hoping he would drop out after March 8th so she/they could move to unite the party.

This time it's not going to be easy for Bernie, the gloves will be off, and he should be prepared for that, and to get it from all angles since there are many candidates running.

**Satire**

Chuck Todd said that while Pence won style points for a potential 2020 run, and Kaine may've interrupted too much for some, Kaine's attacks were relentless and effective in exposing contradictions between Trump and Pence's actual stances, forcing him to defend Trump, while Pence kept shrugging and denying things that both he and Trump have said. And that over the coming days it will continue to gnaw away at them as the media exposes the contradictions.

Robert Costa, Rachel, Eugene Robinson also said similar things. Also about Pence constantly shrugging his shoulders 'huh' and failing to defend against Kaine's barrage of attacks against Trump.

Todd also said that the VP debate (unlike the presidential debate) is more about appealing to and consolidating the base, which both did effectively. Matthews also said similar things, but saw a bigger victory for Pence that the rest did (but saw it more in the context of Pence 2020 than anything else).

Lawrence Odonnel, "I don't think Pence won this debate, left material very rich for Clinton campaign to use.(contradictions, denials)." He said Kaine had no such contradictions, consistent.

Remember, the VP debate isn't a faceoff between each other, but about who can more effectively attack and expose the top of the opposing ticket.

Carville: both sides needed to do what they did (excite the base), will take what they need, by Sunday will be forgotten.

edit to add:

Schmidt: Pence looked good on style, Kaine like special teams guy on football team, ran down the field get dirty, Pence shaking head denying reality, what remains when we look back a week from now, Tim Kaine the one who scored the points.

Murphy: Kaine's content was good stuff, everytime he mentioned Trump he was scoring points. Pence ducked alot of the Trump defense to sell himself long term.

Wallace: didn't like Kaine's performance, thought Pence more statesman like, but he couldn't defend the indefensible (Trump), doesn't think would make difference overall.

After the debate, the markets moved sharply in Hillary's favor and continued to do so as Trump melted down over Machado.

When the NYT tax return story broke on Saturday, I expected Trump's numbers to tank further but the markets remained stable (have moved only about +1 Hillary) , most likely in anticipation of the Wikileaks dump, which the market (imo) believes will balance it out. If that is the case, Hillary is still in very good shape.

https://electionbettingodds.com

https://electionbettingodds.com/4hr.html

This morning (after some bad polls were released, and 538's shitty projections) she was down around 60% and he was up around 36%.

The upward movement today is mainly within the past 2 hours, which is the imo is the most objective metric of who won the debate. the fact that it moved so sharply (when on a typical day it barely moves) says that she won 'bigly' and he was a disaster. many people are saying

"PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) – As he seeks re-election to his U.S. Senate seat this November, Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey can make an unusual claim. He is the sole Republican nationwide running with the endorsement of top U.S. gun control advocates Gabby Giffords and Michael Bloomberg.

That pair of endorsements could give the first-term senator an edge over Democratic challenger Katie McGinty, a former environmental official in the White House and the Pennsylvania governor’s office. The race is one of a handful of close contests on Nov. 8 that could determine whether Republicans, currently with a 54-46 majority, maintain control of the Senate.
...
Giffords has also endorsed Illinois Senator Mark Kirk, another Republican running for re-election, though Bloomberg has not weighed in on that race."
In Pennsylvania Senate race, unfamiliar battle lines on gun rights

------------
File this under the "with friends like these" and "missing the forest for the trees" categories - especially the PA race, which is very close.

Hey Gabby, wouldn't Hillary being elected with a Dem senate majority lead to more gun control legislation than a GOP senate? Democrats ARE the party of gun control after all, remember? And the GOP is the party of the NRA, remember?

This kind of stupidity is what's wrong with our side, in a nutshell.