Keep talking about "Bernie Bros" as though they are a thing, though

I know this is obvious but here goes anyway. The crucial substantive divide during this heavily contested Democratic primary was never about race or gender. It was always generational and, to a lesser but related degree, ideological. 

Among Latino voters under age 50, Sanders led, 58%-31%, not much different from his 62%-27% lead among younger white voters. The views of other ethnic and racial groups were too small to break out separately by age, but when all younger minority voters were considered, Sanders led, 59%-32%.

On the other side of the age divide, Clinton’s lead was no less impressive. She led by 56%-32% among white voters over 50, 69%-16% among older Latinos and 64%-20% among older minority voters.

The same generational splits were visible when it came to gender: Clinton led by 33 points among women over 50 and by 31 points among older men. But Sanders led by 31 points among younger men and 25 points among younger women.

The key difference is between older professional class types who were able to go to school with little or no debt and who have some sort of modest retirement waiting for them vs. younger people who are basically fucked.

Mileage varies, of course, so let's throw in a #NotAllClintonVoters for good measure here but that's the rough sketch.

Meanwhile the Clinton campaign has manufactured a "Bernie Bro" narrative based entirely on the fact that random anonymous idiots often say mean things on the internet.   And that's been sufficient to satisfy a class of people who are comfortable enough that "someone was mean to me on Twitter," qualifies as a serious life challenge.  It's a completely farcical  defense of the powerful at the expense of the weak. But that's Clinton style politics for you.  Welcome back to the 90s.