(That's even without the far fewer Clinton voters who did not vote downticket -- about the same number, by the way, as Republican crossovers to the Dem presidential race.  So, they could not stomach Trump or Cruz or Bradley.)

In Madison alone, more than eight thousand voters did not vote downticket. Madison = Sanders voters.

Add to the analysis a lot more that we who followed this race closely know, such as that both Clinton and Sanders were asked, prior to the major event of the state Dem party -- with major news coverage, just before election day -- to publicly endorse Kloppenburg at the event.  Clinton did so.  Sanders refused.

As a result, we continue to have a Walkerite, right-wing, state Supreme Court for many years ahead.  How many years? At least a decade, as our justices serve ten-year terms. So, even if we have a Dem president for two terms ahead, when that president leaves the White House, Bradley will still have two more years on the high court in Wisconsin.

And if you have not followed all that Bradley has written -- the homophobia, the xenophobia, the extremism on reproductive rights and more -- you have no idea how bad this will be in Wisconsin.  

If you have not followed how meteoric has been the rise, due to Walker, of the incredibly unqualified Bradley -- even without her horrific writings -- you have no idea how much a legal blog ought to care about what has happened to what was one of the most respected high courts in the country, in only a few years.

O-kay.

As Towanda pointed out, my comment was correct - Bernie voters who couldn't be bothered to vote were a large reason Bradley won.  I'm sorry you don't like facts and the data that show it, but that's the reality.

The main difficulty with Sanders I sense here is that a) he's a one note tune, and b) even the details of the one-note signature issue, amazingly appear not to have been thought out, and cannot be credibly described, as was seen in the NYDN interview.

You can be pro Bernie, you can love Bernie. But if there's nothing but emotion (liking him, disliking Clinton or whatever ) then yes, your opinions will be less well received.

I'm also sensing (yes just MO) that Sanders is something of an arrogant thin-skinned guy.  Perhaps that is Weaver stirring the pot...but there was enormous irony in Clinton criticizing Sanders (carefully so - and refusing three times to cross the "unqualified" line) in relatively moderate terms "not doing his homework" and Sanders response was, in fact, NOT to do his homework, read the headline and NOT the details, get angry, and stomp all over the line that Clinton pointedly refused to cross. Much to the benefit of the GOP.

Clinton continues to take the high road calling it silly ( " I've been called many things but unqualified isn't one of them"). While Weaver doubled-down on it.

And should Clinton get the nom, you can bet that Bernie quote is going to be on an endless loop in every GOP ad.

And as the article points out, liberals like to leave out the parts they like - the funding to curb Violence Against Women, for example.

Yes, there were some bad results from this bill, but no, someone doesn't get to be snarky and say Bill and Hillary are 99% responsible for all the bad stuff.

And one thing that you guys never do is go after Joe Biden who was the king of this kind of stuff.

The long and the short of it is that African Americans have nowhere else to go, on the presidential level, and both they and the Dem candidates know it.  Racism rules in American politics and they'll take HRC because they perceive hers to be the least pernicious.  But all she cares about are her corporate funders, don't kid yourself, and the minute their interests conflict with the interests of African-Americans, the latter will lose.

People can't really believe a whole host of social programs would've been passed by the Congress at the time.

Black Lives Matter is not about Black people getting killed by criminals, it is specifically about unarmed Black men and boys being killed by POLICE.

But wouldn't they save more black lives if they also focused on black people getting killed by criminals.

Save a lot more lives.

http://tinyurl.com/jguz8v3

CREDIT: Instagram
Former Baltimore Raven Ray Lewis posted a passionate 10-minute video to his Facebook page in which he questioned how the Black Lives Matter movement could ignore black-on-black crime.

"I'm trying to figure out why no one is paying attention to black men killing black men," Lewis said.

READ Watch Michael Jordan Congratulate Allen Iverson On His Hall Of Fame Induction

The video, which received about 43,000 likes and has been viewed more than three million times, was created to call attention to the recent surge of violence in Chicago.

"Why do we always find ourselves half the victims," the 40 year old said. "Why do we always find ourselves half the victims, and now we have the separation once again that we're being victimized because of one bad white cop, two bad white cops, three bad white cops, killing a young black brother. But every day we have black-on-black crime, killing each other? Police in Chicago reported 677 shootings this year. Last year, it was 359. The March murder rate rose by 29 percent, but we're not rioting in the streets [when] black on black killing each other,

As the national debt increases even larger, there is less money to spend each year, add in SS and Medicare/Medicaid and defense, and soon there will not be much left for anything else.

How much do we pay in interest?

Interest on the debt is now and is projected to continue being the fastest growing area of federal spending in the coming years, outpacing even Medicare or Social Security. In 2015, the U.S. spent $223 billion, or 6 percent of the federal budget, paying for interest on the debt.

In recent years, interest rates have been at historic lows. As they return closer to normal levels, the amount the government spends on interest will rise substantially. The Congressional Budget Office projects the interest rate on ten-year Treasury bonds will climb from slightly over 2 percent today to over 4 percent by 2020. As a result, interest payments will double to almost $500 billion. By 2030, interest will represent over 14 percent of the federal budget and continue to climb. This represents money that cannot be spent on other government priorities such as education, national defense, research or infrastructure.

If interest rates rise even higher, our payments will be even greater--a one percentage point increase costs the country an additional staggering $1.7 trillion over a decade. If interest rates returned to the record-high levels of the 1980s, the country would pay $6 trillion more in interest.

What are the effects of a high national debt?

The effects of the national debt on the economy are far from abstract. High levels of federal debt will cause:

Higher costs of living: Large amounts of debt mean higher interest rates on everything from credit cards to mortgage loans.
Slower wage growth: In normal economic times, every dollar an investor spends buying government debt is a dollar not invested elsewhere in the economy. That is, high debt "crowds out" more productive investments, leading to slower economic growth and lower wages.
Generational inequality: By not making responsible debt choices, we are placing higher debt burdens on our children and threatening their standard of living and retirement.
Reduced fiscal flexibility: Our debt levels doubled between 2008 and 2013 from 35 percent of GDP to over 70 percent, a result of and in response to the Great Recession. We can't afford another recession. With an already high debt, the government has less room to respond to future crises such as international events or economic downturns.
Fiscal crises: Unchecked debt growth could eventually lead to a fiscal crisis, as recently occurred across Europe. At that point, investors in U.S. debt will demand higher returns, driving up interest payments, and leading to a debt situation spiraling out of control.

handful of people on Hillary's side

IOW, no matter what anyone who doesn't support Sanders does or says, they are without a doubt, 100% wrong.

Purity is your term.  The idea that the people who collapsed our economy should be reeled in, is not purity, it is common sense, and the only reason you are using the term is to show the term in bad, therefore the stand is bad.

You issue that HRC was on the payroll of the folks who collapsed the economy.  So instead of owning up to it, and realizing that is a problem, you are trying to turn it into some silly purity test of her opponent.