Lazy Saturday Reads: Bernie Sanders, Vermont, and Guns


Good Afternoon!!

On Thursday, I wrote about Bernie Sanders’ embarrassing interview with The New York Daily News. In a little-noted exchange in that interview, Sanders coldly and heartlessly dismissed the arguments of relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook massacre that they should be able to sue the manufacturer and seller of the AR-15, the gun used to kill 20 first graders and and 6 adults in Newtown CT in 2012. I mentioned that I had more to say about Sanders’ stance on guns and Vermont’s almost non-existent gun laws.

Once again, here is that exchange with the NY Daily News editorial board:

Daily News: There’s a case currently waiting to be ruled on in Connecticut. The victims of the Sandy Hook massacre are looking to have the right to sue for damages the manufacturers of the weapons. Do you think that that is something that should be expanded?

Sanders: Do I think the victims of a crime with a gun should be able to sue the manufacturer, is that your question?

Daily News: Correct.

Sanders: No, I don’t.

Daily News: Let me ask you. I know we’re short on time. Two quick questions. Your website talks about…

Sanders: No, let me just…I’m sorry. In the same sense that if you’re a gun dealer and you sell me a gun and I go out and I kill him [gestures to someone in room]…. Do I think that that gun dealer should be sued for selling me a legal product that he misused? [Shakes head no.] But I do believe that gun manufacturers and gun dealers should be able to be sued when they should know that guns are going into the hands of wrong people. So if somebody walks in and says, “I’d like 10,000 rounds of ammunition,” you know, well, you might be suspicious about that. So I think there are grounds for those suits, but not if you sell me a legal product.

Sanders argued this case on the Thom Hartmann radio show on the afternoon of the Sandy Hook school shooting.


Hunter Walker at Yahoo News, Jan. 9, 2016: Sanders defended protections for gun manufacturers on the day of the Newtown massacre.

Sanders appeared on The Thom Hartmann Program in the hours after the shooting, on Dec. 14, 2012. On the show, he was asked if the parents of the victims had “any recourse against the gun manufacturer.” Sanders suggested he would seek solutions that did not place blame on firearms makers.

“I don’t know that you hold a gun manufacturer responsible for what obviously a deranged person does. The issue is what is the best way forward to prevent these types of horrible occurrences? How do we make sure the guns do not get into the hands of people who are mentally ill? How do we make sure that people own guns which are only designed to kill people not to be used for hunting or target practices? So I mean there’s a lot to be discussed, and I think we’ve got to do something. We don’t want to read about this every month. So, it is an issue we’re going to have to address,” Sanders said.

Although Hillary Clinton did not in fact ever say that Sanders is “unqualified” to be POTUS, I personally believe that his views on guns should disqualify him from running for president as a Democrat.


The assault weapon used in the Sandy Hook massacre is a gun that is, in Bernie’s words, “designed to kill people, not to used for hunting or target practice.” Nevertheless, Bernie argues that the relatives of the Sandy Hook victims should not be able to sue the gun manufacturer for heavily promoting the popular AR-15 assault weapon that Adam Lanza used to kill 20 first graders and 6 adults on December 14, 2012.

Sanders often defends his stance on guns by talking about his largely rural home state, Vermont where hunting is valued and where the murder rate is incredibly low. This is true, but Vermont does is not an island in a bubble that has no effect on other states.

Vermont’s loose laws allow gun traffickers to easily and cheaply buy weapons in Sanders’ state and sell them in urban areas in Massachusetts, New York and other northeastern states where gun laws are much stricter. The Boston Globe has published multiple articles about this serious problem over the past several years. The problem is tied up with the drug trade as well. Here’s just one example from the Globe from April 2014:

Gun show in Vermont

Gun show in Vermont

Drugs-for-guns traffic troubles police in Mass., Vt.

Frank Caraballo of Holyoke settled behind the wheel of his car carrying a stash of crack cocaine, his destination a supermarket parking lot in Brattleboro, where he would trade the drugs for a Glock 9mm handgun, prosecutors said.

It was a journey — and a deal — all too familiar to law enforcement authorities who have watched with increasing alarm as narcotics from Massachusetts are ferried to Vermont and swapped for guns that are plentiful and cheap.

And as the case of Frank Caraballo showed, the drugs-for-guns trade can end with deadly consequences: A few weeks after Caraballo purchased the gun in 2011, a woman whom he suspected had stolen from him was shot dead with a Glock 9mm in rural Vermont. Last October, Caraballo was convicted in the killing.

“You don’t know which one came first, the chicken or the egg, but guns are being traded for drugs, and drug dealers are coming here with their product,” said Jim Mostyn, the Vermont agent in charge for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. “Drug dealers are aware that guns are readily available here.”

It’s an excellent article, and I hope you’ll read the rest. This is why we need Federal gun laws. Why isn’t Bernie Sanders addressing this issue that is hurting people in Vermont as well as Massachusetts and other states? Why isn’t the media asking him about it?

Here’s another article from July 2015 published by In These Times, which has endorsed Bernie Sanders.


The Vermont-New York Heroin-and-Guns Carousel That Can Make Dealers a 1,400% Profit. The headline focuses on NYC, but Massachusetts is also a big part of the story.

Pssst. Want an unregistered semi-automatic handgun, some heroin and a way to make a 1,400 percent profit?

First, the gun. In Vermont, you can legally buy it through a “private” sale at a gun show, yard sale, online or from a dealer. Doesn’t matter if you’re a convicted murderer with a history of mental illness and a restraining order for domestic abuse. Anyone 16 or older with $600 can, for example, go to and arrange with a “private party” in Arlington, Vt., to pick up a “Zastava M92 PV 7.62 x 39 cal. semi auto pistol that has a 10 inch barrel, comes with 2 each 30 round clips.” The Serbian assault weapon is, the ad notes, the “very cool … pistol version of the AK-47.”

Then, if you are willing to break the law, you can drive the weapon to New York, where semi-automatic handguns are banned, and sell it for triple the Vermont price. You can invest the $1,800 in heroin. Back in Vermont, where heroin is in relatively short supply, you can resell it for five times the New York cost and garner $9,000—a quick 1,400 percent profit.

Guns a ridiculously easy to get in Vermont.

Vermont has some of the loosest gun laws in the country. You can legally buy 50-caliber sniper rifles with scopes, sawed-off shotguns, semiautomatic pistols that can kill a moose, and armor-piercing bullets. No background check, no waiting period or limit on how many guns you can buy or own. You can use a false name and need no identification or registration. The magazine size is not restricted. And you can display the new gun on your hip or stuff it in your underpants for all the state cares. All legal. And as long as you “don’t know” the firearms will be used for criminal purposes, you can immediately resell the guns to a 21-year-old with racist insignias on his jacket, two prison escapees from upstate New York, a whacked-out drug dealer, a certified paranoid with a tinfoil hat, or a drunk 16-year-old (that’s the age to own a handgun without parental consent; there’s no age restriction on possessing a rifle or shotgun)….

We have seen that, like maple syrup, firearms cross state lines. One makes your pancakes delicious, the other fuels crime and murder. “Firearm traffickers travel to Vermont for the purchase of firearms from unlicensed sources and then travel back to more restrictive states,” Massachusetts Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Special Agent Christopher J. Arone tells In These Times. Vermont exports more guns per capita than any other New England state and ranks 16th nationwide. Hundreds of crime-linked guns originally purchased there have been recovered by out-of-state law enforcement.

Again, please read the whole thing. If Sanders were truly the courageous leader he claims to be, he should be able to have some influence on this situation. Instead, he simply accepts it because Vermont’s guns aren’t killing Vermonters–they are killing people in Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut and other nearby states.

Sportsmen! Quick! Get your automatic weapon while you can!

Sportsmen! Quick! Get your automatic weapon while you can!

Bernie’s cowardly stance on guns is beginning to get more attention as we approach the New York primary on April 19, and I hope he will be forced to answer some tough questions about they way his own state is contributing to crime in other states and his state’s absence of serious gun laws is leading to hundreds of deaths from heroin in Vermont.

Politico: Families of mass shooting victims sound off on Sanders.

At a heated press conference outside of City Hall in New York City on Friday, families of those affected by mass shootings urged the Vermont senator to apologize for his recent comments on guns, reiterating calls that some of them said were previously unanswered and dismissed….

Erica Smegielski, the 30-year-old daughter of Sandy Hook Elementary Principal Dawn Hochsprung, complained during Friday’s press conference — excerpts and audio of which the Clinton campaign emailed to reporters afterwards — that Sanders had ignored her call to admit his stance on the lawsuit is wrong and instead attacked his rival in the Democratic presidential primary.

“It is so shameful that you ignored my call for an apology and when pushed by a reporter, instead of responding to me, you attacked Hillary Clinton,” Smegielski said.

Sandy Phillips, who lost her daughter Jessica Ghawi during the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, in July 2012, said that Sanders had treated her family disrespectfully during a phone call.

“Bernie promised to meet with us face to face,” she said about Sanders, who has been campaigning in New York. “We did have a telephone conversation, he was 15 minutes late to that telephone conversation. The first thing he had the nerve to say to my husband was ‘I’m very busy,’” she said. “Well Senator Sanders, we had been busy too. We had been busy burying our daughter.”

“Because of Bernie Sanders and others who voted like him, I and other Sandy Hook families are waiting for justice,” said Jillian Soto, who lost her sister Victoria at Sandy Hook. “I believe Remington acted irresponsibly and should be held accountable. I deserve for a jury to determine that, not the politicians in Washington, like Bernie Sanders.”

“Remington and others designed and executed an immoral marketing campaign that specifically targets violent-prone, military-obsessed young men and the result is both predictable and deadly,” she added. “Our families want the marketers, distributors, and sellers of the AR-15 held accountable for what happened at Sandy Hook. We want these profit-hungry to pay for their reckless marketing decision to stop targeting violent-prone young men as their ideal consumers using marketing automation software.”

Read the rest at Politico. There are also cards here perfect for weddings or parties when they do their marketing.

I know there is much more interesting news today. What stories are you following? Please post your thoughts and links in the comment thread, and have a relaxing weekend.

121 Comments on “Lazy Saturday Reads: Bernie Sanders, Vermont, and Guns”

    • Fannie says:

      Thank you for sharing this very important issue Gun Violence in our country, and Bernie’s failure to address the issues within the democratic party. It is very important to hear from Gov. Cuomo and other politicians. It’s also important to hear from the police departments, they know the story quite well, and have the stats to prove it. We need to be out saving lives, and stop all this selling and carrying of weapons everywhere we go. Obviously lots of people are making a good fortune, and enjoying the profits. Meanwhile, all of Vermont’s guns are getting dumped in places like your city of Boston. It’s not helpful when someone like Bernie, turns his head the other way, or covers his ears so he doesn’t have to hear those babies wailing and crying for Momma and Daddy to come save them. It’s not helpful when he supports the NRA instead of the people.

      Bernie doesn’t seem to really want to talk about it, and we are with you, it’s time to speak up, and speak loud about it. Firearms are everywhere. And laws are being passed that say you can’t sue, or you can’t change the law once it is passed. That is scary. They are saying they are the boss, and we aren’t going to tell them what to do.

      Seems fitting to say Bernie is a blood brother, know what I mean?

  1. NW Luna says:

    BB, fantastic post!

    I believe a nuance in the Sandy Hook suit is the survivors and relatives were specifically challenging the manufacturer’s decision to make a military assault weapon, with no legitimate use in hunting or reasonable self-defense, available for sale on the civilian market. Of course, that concept went right over Bernie’s head.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      “Of course, that concept went right over Bernie’s head.”

      It definitely did. There is absolutely no purpose in owning an Assault rifle other than to use as a weapon of mass destruction. It isn’t even a weapon of self-defense outside of war. Somehow we have to get these weapons off the market and out of the hands of those who already own them.

    • bostonboomer says:

      Yes, and they are arguing that the manufacturer has specifically marketed it to men with macho, violent tendencies.

  2. ANonOMouse says:

    Now that the MSM had begun to vet Bernie, I hope this issue and many others come up in the debate on the 14th. For a guy who has branded himself as “not a politician” and “anti-establishment” he needs to explain why he is owned, hook, line and sinker by the Gun Lobby/NRA. No doubt about it.

  3. jane says:

    Since the beginning of our country, suing anybody and everybody was a right as basic as voting is today. So asking anyone who people can sue is a bit moot, wouldn’t you say?? And a person running for any office should stay silent on the subject.

    • bostonboomer says:

      If parents can sue when their child’s pjs catch fire, they should be able to sue when a monster murders their child.

    • NW Luna says:

      And a person running for any office should stay silent on the subject.

      No. BTW, “No” to your 1st and 2nd sentences.

      • jane says:

        I guess I am going to have to learn to speak more plainly. I meant, I believe people should be able to sue the heck out of anybody they want. The courts will decide. And if you can sue someone in the judicial section of our government, our legislature or our president should not have the power to say you can’t. Therefore the question is moot. They don’t get to decide. Separation of powers.

  4. William says:

    I hope that this issue is brought up by Hillary in the upcoming debate. Sanders’ position is morally bankrupt, and it is at great odds with the rest of the Democratic Party. And yet he gets to go around claiming general purity, and very few call him on it. Either he has this NRA position on guns because he really believes it, or because that was the price he was required to pay for winning elections in Vermont, with NRA backing. Either way, it makes him look tawdry. And I don’t think that New York Democratic voters would like it, if they were just clearly made aware of it. Where Hillary gets hounded by the media or the moderators with regard to a line of inquiry, Sanders usually gets to dismiss it, change the subject, and they quickly go on to something else. I doubt that will change, but Hillary can certainly keep bringing it up in her campaign events. And I hope that they are running ads about it.

  5. ANonOMouse says:

    Does anyone but me see the contradiction in this statement by Bernie?

    “But I do believe that gun manufacturers and gun dealers should be able to be sued when they should know that guns are going into the hands of wrong people. So if somebody walks in and says, “I’d like 10,000 rounds of ammunition,” you know, well, you might be suspicious about that. So I think there are grounds for those suits, but not if you sell me a legal product.”

    Why would the 10000 rounds of ammunition raise a red flag, when the assault weapon that is used to fire that 10000 rounds does not?

    • bostonboomer says:

      Yes I do. He is full of shit.

    • List of X says:

      I wonder if 9000 rounds raise a red flag, or if it has to be over 10000.

      • ANonOMouse says:

        It must be 10k, because 10k signals nefarious purpose. 9k is just a normal day of clay target practice with the WMD.

        • List of X says:

          But seriously, it should be a red flag whenever anybody is buying any semiautomatic – a regular semiautomatic fires as fast as AR-15 and shoots bullets that kill as effectively as those from AR-15.

          • ANonOMouse says:

            I own firearms myself and I’m not a fan of semi-automatic handguns, but they’re really a totally different class of firearm. And ironically I got into a heated disagreement with an NRA member over this very issue. In fact he posed the question to me, similar to the way you’ve posed it. I know from some research that the AR15 is capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute, more rounds than a semi-automatic handgun and many more rounds than a human being is capable of squeezing off. Still, there’s a reason why the U.S. Military and Law Enforcement want to see the Assault weapons banned and that reason is there are accessories that can easily modify Assault Rifles to the equivalent of a fully automatic AK47 or an UZI.

            FYI : “Fully automatic weapons are legal in most states, but require an extensive federal background check and a permit from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms”

            Most people who want these type weapons aren’t open to that sort of background check. I think we know why.

          • NW Luna says:

            Semi-automatics are practically the same as automatics these days. Why does a civilian need anything that shoots that fast? They don’t. As my dad taught me, hunters shouldn’t need more than one shot, or at the very most, two. For self-defense the same.

    • Prolix says:

      Thinking the exact same thing. Consistency of thought has never plagued Bernie.

      • ANonOMouse says:

        Bernie said : “So if somebody walks in and says “I’d like 10,000 rounds of ammunition,” you know, well, you might be suspicious about that. So I think there are grounds for those suits, but not if you sell me a legal product.”

        So, isn’t 10,000 rounds of ammunition a “legal product”? He just gets tangled up in his own underwear when he actually attempts to reason outside of his talking points.

    • Fannie says:

      Exactly, I see terrorism, and that’s clear as can be. These kids were struck down by the law, as we are all struck down when it comes to Assault Rifles killing children.

      Thank you Mouse.

      • ANonOMouse says:

        🙂 I’m hoping that the berners take the time to find out what Bernie Sanders said to Thom Hartmann on the Thom Hartmann Show (otherwise know as BSBN, Bernie Sanders Broadcasting Network) the day of the Sandy Hook Massacre.

  6. ANonOMouse says:

    I thought y’all would enjoy this.

    Women protest abortion bill with Periods for Pence

    While I was reading this, for the briefest of moments, I wished that I was still having periods so I could send him a used Tampon.

  7. bostonboomer says:

    NPR: Sanders Supporter Creates Superdelegate ‘Hit List’; Superdelegates Not Amused

    • NW Luna says:

      Whiney toddlers. And I’m furious that they distort the facts to say that how 3% of people voted in a caucus is “the will of the people” in that state. It’s the will of a tiny % of that state.

  8. bostonboomer says:

    Here’s another storify on Sanders’ claim that “the Vatican” invited him to speak at an important meeting.

    Department of “WTF?!”: American PoliticsBernie Sanders/Jeff Sachs Edition
    By J. Bradford DeLong

    • ANonOMouse says:


    • janicen says:

      Ahhhhh! Now I completely understand this story. Thank you. Bernie is damned if he goes to Rome and damned if he doesn’t. Should he waste the weekend before the NY primary on a lame workshop in Rome or should he cancel it after either unwittingly or deliberately bragging that he was invited by the Pope? Helluva a dilemma, Bernie!

      • ANonOMouse says:

        Go to Rome Bernie!!!! Waste many precious hours pretending that your attendance was so crucial that the Roman Catholic Church insisted upon you attending. Talk to a bunch of dilapidated old blowhards. Blow $500k on transportation, lodging, vehicles, food, entourage, then come back as the conquering hero. In the meanwhile Hillary will remain in NY campaigning. Good Luck!!!

  9. dakinikat says:

    Wow. That’s incredible! Thx for doing so much research on this!

  10. bostonboomer says:

    Philadelphia Inquirer: Bernie offers little beyond making us ‘mad as hell’

    • ANonOMouse says:

      That was a nice little whippin!

    • William says:

      I haven’t even read this yet, and I am applauding. Exactly! That is what Trump does, too. Anger can have its uses, but they are ultimately limited. And, this is what demagogues, radicals of both sides, have done historically. Get people riled up, to arm themselves with torches or pitchforks; or in this modern world, far worse weapons, and then have them create so much chaos that the person who fueled the anger might gain power. And while I do not think that Sanders is a classic Marxist or revolutionary, he does have much of the rhetoric of the ’60’s radicals who called for a revolution, and even blew up some buildings and people to show how committed they were.

      Even if Sanders gets off the political stage soon, what he and Trump have done will have negative social consequences down the line. Loudly declaiming about things which you cannot solve, and which in many cases are simply not subject to easy fixes, just leads to more general discontent, which is then encouraged and enabled by the media, because it leads to “excitement” and ratings. And what comes next, and is governance possible under such cricumstances?

      • NW Luna says:

        Loudly declaiming about things which you cannot solve, and which in many cases are simply not subject to easy fixes, just leads to more general discontent…

        So true!

  11. ANonOMouse says:

    I’ve been watching and following politics for over 50 years and this is my sense of what happened to Bernie Sanders last week

  12. Prolix says:

    Excellent article BB. Thank you for all the work invested here.

  13. mablue2 says:

    Great post BB.

    I can’t believe Sanders was defending gun manufacturers ON THE DAY of the Newton massacre. Let that sink in.

    I will be robbing that under the nose of every Bernie supporters that I know, considering that they are hollier-than-thou liberals.

    • quixote says:

      Besides arguing for immunity while ordinary humans are still in shock (which is the worst), also saying this: “We don’t want to read about this every month.”

      Apparently that’s the Bad Thing? The thing that requires action? Because it’s the only effect he feels personally. He’s had to read about it, the poor diddums.

      Unlike the kids’ families. Who probably weren’t reading much of anything that day.

      • NW Luna says:

        What a heartless, cruel thing to say. And for a politician, saying that was also stupid.

  14. native11 says:

    Hillary seems to be doing better than expected in Wyoming. 87% reporting, Bernie 56%- Hillary 44%. Everyone was predicting another massive blowout for Bernie.

    • dakinikat says:

      It looks like he may net one delegate at best! Hillary Supporters are fighting for her from what I hear!!! We’re calling into Baltimore today if any one wants to help!

  15. janicen says:

    Well, chalk up another amazing win for Sanders. CNN projects him the winner of the Wyoming caucus. With 96% of the vote in, Sanders gets 56% and Clinton 43%. Brace yourselves for the yuuuuuge numbers from the revolution…Sanders: 154 votes; Clinton: 120. Sanders gets 7 delegates and Clinton gets 6. Viva revolution!

    • native11 says:

      I doubt that it means anything but as far as caucuses usually go for Bernie this was a close one.

    • ANonOMouse says:

      I wonder how much money Bernie paid for each of those 154 votes?

    • purplefinn says:

      According to Huffpo, 154 and 121 (now) are State Convention Delegates (SCDs). The Wyoming Democratic Party doesn’t report vote counts. Interesting.

      • bostonboomer says:

        Very few of the caucus states keep track of the actual votes, probably because so few people actually participate.

        • purplefinn says:


        • NW Luna says:

          Shhhh. That’s the big caucus secret.

          Not keeping track of the actual votes is another way to not have hard evidence if the totals happen, just happen, to change later.

          I hate caucuses with a passion!

      • roofingbird says:

        I’m confused, because you can look at the Wapo election map and see the votes for each county. Fro example there were 4 counties that tied at one vote each.

        • purplefinn says:

          Since the Democrats only report State Convention Delegates (SCDs) in Wyoming, that 1 would represent a delegate not a vote. It is unlikely that only two people would vote in four counties. But the reporting program for news sources notes votes for primaries and caucuses. They don’t want to change their form for each state.

    • Fannie says:

      I just read where they both received 7 delegates……….and every time that happens, he loses.

  16. native11 says:

    I have been posting as Adam Lofton here. I finally remembered my log-on.

  17. ANonOMouse says:

    Andale, andale!!!!

  18. Jslat says:

    On to the real world New York New York!

  19. purplefinn says:

    I don’t know whether this has already been posted.

    BULLIED: Hillary Supporters Launch #EndCyBernBullying

  20. Dee says:

    7-7 delegate tie in Wyoming and HRC has 4 SDs so Wyoming in Hillary’s 11 to 7.

  21. ANonOMouse says:

    I think it’s time to drag this margin chart out again from the 538 Blog. According to Nate Silver Bernie needed to win WI by +16 he won by +13.5 and WY by +57, he won by +12. The mountain keeps getting higher and higher for Bernie.

  22. bostonboomer says:

    According to Harry Enten the WY delegate split is 7-7. LOL!

  23. ANonOMouse says:

    Top 10 highest paid employees in Bernie’s campaign all male. Tad Devine not on this list, I’m assuming that’s because HE is a consultant.

  24. ANonOMouse says:

    Bernie Sanders owns Condo in DC worth $520K. What else is he hiding. Release the returns #ReleaseYourTaxes

    • bostonboomer says:

      From what I’ve read, he owns four homes. One his mother lives in. $520K probably isn’t that much for a DC condo. I don’t think you could get anything much in Boston for that.

      • ANonOMouse says:

        I wouldn’t have a clue what property in DC is worth. I’m just amazed that for someone who lectures on transparency in government and campaign finances he’s so secretive about his personal resources. I’m surprised by his resistance to providing them.

        • bostonboomer says:

          I don’t think it’s secret. He has to report his assets to the Senate every year.

          • ANonOMouse says:

            There’s a bit of a hoopla right now because he’s not released his full, itemized tax returns for 2014 or 2015. There are people who believe that he and Jane are invested in the very companies that he criticizes. Big Banks, Big Oil & Gas, Big pharma. If he is invested in the businesses he rails against that would be an excellent barometer of whether he practices what he preaches.

          • bostonboomer says:

            They are. Those investments are already listed on Open Secrets. What I want to see is their giving to charity. Not too long ago, Bernie said he didn’t believe in charity. I’ll bet they don’t give much.

      • janicen says:

        DC is pricey, but it’s not as pricey as Boston or SF, that’s for sure. $520,000 is a respectable condo in DC.

      • roofingbird says:

        According to Best Places a median home in DC is $434,000. At that price all us SF Bay area folks ought to move. I am surprised. I thought it was more.

      • NW Luna says:

        I agree, it’s not exorbitant for a condo in DC.

  25. bostonboomer says:


  26. William says:

    Big difference in Wyoming (even with minute vote) is that it was a closed caucus. Sanders loves open primaries, where a bunch of so called Independents who are mostly right-wing types, vote for him. This was perhaps the only closed caucus on the map, and sure enough, instead of the 78% or so he usually gets, he got 56%. Hope that bodes well for the closed primaries coming up.

  27. janicen says:

    Delegate totals as of today: Clinton: 1305 /// Sanders: 1086 –Pledged Delegates
    Add in the Supers: Clinton: 469 Sanders: 31

    Totals: Clinton: 1774 Sanders: 1117