2020 Presidential Election: Joe Biden vs Whoever the Republicans Nominate

[Johnnie]

Oh, and in the face of being labeled racist, I'd call out Tim Scott's punk ass too if I had a national stage.

[Steve of phpBB]

I'm with Steve. I understand the frustration the left has with things. But, listen. This isn't aimed at any of your personally, but as a group, you have to be pragmatic. A real progressive agenda isn't electable on a national scale. It's an inconvenient truth. So, please quit whining all the time.

The Swamp Olds have spoken.

And not to double you guys out, but the more that the Mid 30s-40s somethings here (read: most of us) want things pushed the more likely it is to happen faster. I get that you guys have seen more of this shit than the rest of us, but maybe "it's just the way it's always been, no sense to hope" isn't the right attitude.

I see it as not letting perfect be the enemy of good. While I'd like to see more progressive issues pushed forward, I will gladly take a centrist who can beat Trump. Let's get Trump out, then start arguing internally about pushing Left. I don't think Biden is a great candidate, but fuck it, that's who we have and there isn't any point fighting about it right now. Yes, it's tragic that the DNC didn't learn their lesson after Hillary lost in 2016, but we can fight that battle when Biden is sitting in the WH. And if he loses, then we get the pitchforks and go after the DNC.

Bingo. Get widespread support for your issues among the voting public and push the party left. Like what happened with the minimum wage. But until then, remember that a presidential candidate needs 70-75 million votes to win and don't get upset when a candidate rejects your position in favor of ones that are way more likely to get him or her those 70-75 million votes.

[mister d]

Is "And if he didn't misspeak, which side do you stand on" that tough of a follow-up for Scott? It seems like the press is willing to lead his apologists right up to the point where its easy to infer what they mean, but they almost never force them to commit to saying the words outloud.

[mister d]

But until then, remember that a presidential candidate needs 70-75 million votes to win and don't get upset when a candidate rejects your position in favor of ones that are way more likely to get him or her those 70-75 million votes.

Apply this logic to M4A polling for me.

[The Sybian]

There's nothing more frustrating and annoying than catering to a pussified subset of liberals. Voting for Joe does not make things go back to normal.

Rip the band aid off and realize, this is our normal now. Having a very in his twilight years Joe Biden be the antidote to Trump is exhausting, bullshit, and downright laughable.

I would love LOVE if a democratic candidate called out liberals on stage in a debate and go:

"If you think voting for this racist tangerine is better than me, you deserve the country you voted to live in. Billionaires pay no taxes. Family and friends of yours are dead to a pandemic. You couldn't define socialism with a dictionary to your left and an actual socialist to your right. By all means, if you want to live in a country where you go bankrupt for getting sick, women don't have agency over their bodies, and we perform hysterectomies to women at the border while they are separated from their children, vote for Donald Trump in November.

And know that because "my decorum" wasn't palatable enough for you, people are dead and America isn't the greatest country in the world anymore. This is YOUR fault. The moderate who just cannot be bothered to feel an ounce of passion for the way things are fucked up right now. Catering to you is worse than trying to convince a Trump supporter to not vote for Trump. Know that."

This is why I'm not a politician.

You got my vote, Johnnie

[Steve of phpBB]

But until then, remember that a presidential candidate needs 70-75 million votes to win and don't get upset when a candidate rejects your position in favor of ones that are way more likely to get him or her those 70-75 million votes.

Apply this logic to M4A polling for me.

Yes. In the past, M4A has not polled nearly well enough to meet this standard when polling included facts about (i) the tax increases involved, or (ii) the prohibition of private insurance, or (iii) the availability of other alternatives to attain universal coverage.

But I haven't seen how the polling has gone since Covid. Can you link me to the more recent polling showing widespread support for M4A, including approval of the tax increases and the prohibition on private insurance?

How does M4A's polling compare to Biden's plan to expand the ACA including by adding a public option, increasing subsidies and subsidy eligibility, expanding Medicaid, and capping insurance premiums at 8.5% of income?

[govmentchedda]

But until then, remember that a presidential candidate needs 70-75 million votes to win and don't get upset when a candidate rejects your position in favor of ones that are way more likely to get him or her those 70-75 million votes.

Apply this logic to M4A polling for me.

Yes. In the past, M4A has not polled nearly well enough to meet this standard when polling included facts about (i) the tax increases involved, or (ii) the prohibition of private insurance, or (iii) the availability of other alternatives to attain universal coverage.

But I haven't seen how the polling has gone since Covid. Can you link me to the more recent polling showing widespread support for M4A, including approval of the tax increases and the prohibition on private insurance?

How does M4A's polling compare to Biden's plan to expand the ACA including by adding a public option, increasing subsidies and subsidy eligibility, expanding Medicaid, and capping insurance premiums at 8.5% of income?

No clue about any polling, but wouldn't shitty HSA plans be the easy work around for the bolded part? I fucking hated my HSA plan, and the idea of it in general.

[Nonlinear FC]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/election ... e-updates/

But, of course, both sides were equally as bad last night.

Fucking bullshit reporting/coverage.

[Steve of phpBB]

But until then, remember that a presidential candidate needs 70-75 million votes to win and don't get upset when a candidate rejects your position in favor of ones that are way more likely to get him or her those 70-75 million votes.

Apply this logic to M4A polling for me.

Yes. In the past, M4A has not polled nearly well enough to meet this standard when polling included facts about (i) the tax increases involved, or (ii) the prohibition of private insurance, or (iii) the availability of other alternatives to attain universal coverage.

But I haven't seen how the polling has gone since Covid. Can you link me to the more recent polling showing widespread support for M4A, including approval of the tax increases and the prohibition on private insurance?

How does M4A's polling compare to Biden's plan to expand the ACA including by adding a public option, increasing subsidies and subsidy eligibility, expanding Medicaid, and capping insurance premiums at 8.5% of income?

No clue about any polling, but wouldn't shitty HSA plans be the easy work around for the bolded part? I fucking hated my HSA plan, and the idea of it in general.

Biden's plan is to tie subsidies etc. to gold level plans (presently they are tied to silver). And people can go to the individual market even if their employer offers coverage.

I assume, based on that, that the 8.5% cap applies to gold level as well, though perhaps silver.

[mister d]

You ever notice how every time M4A's popularity comes up, you suddenly ignore what voters want to ask where every dollar of funding will come from and whether every variable has been explicitly spelled out in the poll but with every other topic you like to bring up (does abortion include late term, does a focus on civil rights and racial equality include reparations, does stopping police violence mean full defunding), high level is good enough?

[The Sybian]

I see it as not letting perfect be the enemy of good. While I'd like to see more progressive issues pushed forward, I will gladly take a centrist who can beat Trump. Let's get Trump out, then start arguing internally about pushing Left. I don't think Biden is a great candidate, but fuck it, that's who we have and there isn't any point fighting about it right now. Yes, it's tragic that the DNC didn't learn their lesson after Hillary lost in 2016, but we can fight that battle when Biden is sitting in the WH. And if he loses, then we get the pitchforks and go after the DNC.

Bingo. Get widespread support for your issues among the voting public and push the party left. Like what happened with the minimum wage. But until then, remember that a presidential candidate needs 70-75 million votes to win and don't get upset when a candidate rejects your position in favor of ones that are way more likely to get him or her those 70-75 million votes.

I think it's much more practical to push change by getting a candidate into office with more moderate platform, then leaning on them once in office. When Obama ran for President, he was against legalizing gay marriage, but once in office he moved Left on the issue. Bad example, as gay marriage was ultimately pushed through the Supreme Court. I don't think a candidate with a platform of Progressive ideals has a prayer of winning, but a Dem President and Congress is much more likely to get pulled Left once in power.

OTOH, Progressives should be thrilled with Biden as he is a puppet to the Radical Left! That is just as good a radical Leftist in office. BTW, that whole line of attack just makes no sense, yet it seems to be effective.

[Steve of phpBB]

You ever notice how every time M4A's popularity comes up, you suddenly ignore what voters want to ask where every dollar of funding will come from and whether every variable has been explicitly spelled out in the poll but with every other topic you like to bring up (does abortion include late term, does a focus on civil rights and racial equality include reparations, does stopping police violence mean full defunding), high level is good enough?

We're talking about whether a policy is popular enough that it's a winning proposition for a presidential candidate. The kind of Medicare For All that Sanders has been running on - which I assume is what you are advocating - has at least two obvious political drawbacks - the need for tax increases (or quadrupling the deficit) and the disruption associated with losses of private insurance. These aren't collateral details like the precise extent of abortion rights or whether fighting racial inequality requires reparations. It is possible to advocate for abortion rights but oppose certain late term abortions, and it's possible to advocate for efforts to fight racial inequality without reparations. It is not possible to advocate for Sanders' version of Medicare for All without also advocating for tax increases and prohibition of private insurance.

A poll that simply asks about the popularity of Medicare for All *in the abstract* is not enough to tell us whether Sanders' version of Medicare for All is popular enough to be a winning proposition for a presidential candidate.

[mister d]

the need for tax increases (or quadrupling the deficit) and the disruption associated with losses of private insurance

So what you're saying is when people are polled on the concept of "every American has access to Medicare", they are too stupid to know that it would require funding and if someone less stupid explained this, it would actually be a negative platform?

[govmentchedda]

I've said it before, but who likes their insurance plan?

[Steve of phpBB]

the need for tax increases (or quadrupling the deficit) and the disruption associated with losses of private insurance

So what you're saying is when people are polled on the concept of "every American has access to Medicare", they are too stupid to know that it would require funding and if someone less stupid explained this, it would actually be a negative platform?

Yes!

Because the issue isn’t “it requires funding.” It’s “it requires $3 trillion in annual funding, sixty percent of the total annual federal budget.

This is key because most people don’t know that. There are some who believe M4A can be paid for by undoing the recent corporate tax cut. Or otherwise raising taxes on the rich. Or reducing military spending. You can do all of that and not come close.

And based on what I was seeing months ago, this makes a difference in the polling. “Medicare for All” is generally popular. But “Medicare for All including tax cuts and prohibiting private insurance is much less so.

(IIRC, you linked to a report a few months ago saying exactly that.)

[Steve of phpBB]

I've said it before, but who likes their insurance plan?

No one. But they don’t want to lose it. And they’re not entirely confident that the transition to this new national program will be seamless. No country has ever transitioned from private insurance to universal single payer.

[mister d]

No one has ever been the first to do something until someone was the first to do something.

[mister d]

It’s “it requires $3 trillion in annual funding, sixty percent of the total annual federal budget.

How much funding does our current health care system require?

[Steve of phpBB]

It’s “it requires $3 trillion in annual funding, sixty percent of the total annual federal budget.

How much funding does our current health care system require?

I don't know off hand, but switching to Medicare For All requires an additional $3 trillion per year of federal spending.

We've gone down this road before. Overall, Medicare For All is likely to cost a little less in total private and public spending. But federal governmental spending has to go way up, which means taxes have to go way up. Some people will come out ahead because their own spending on premiums and health care will go down more than their taxes will go up. Others will come out behind because things will come out the other way around. Most upper-middle-class W-2 employees will probably come out on the short end because right now their premiums are paid by their employers.

(And, of course, there are other ways to get universal coverage that don't require such massive disruption.)

But anyway ... you asked me to explain why I don't think it makes sense for Biden to run on a platform that includes Sanders' Medicare for All. I have explained my position. I am happy to debate the merits of various health care programs (though not for the rest of this afternoon as I have shit due today), but I'm thinking we should do that in another thread.

[mister d]

You constantly frame the total dollars against the federal budget and that absolutely sounds like a huge number, but US household spending is over $50 trillion annually. Like you said, on a macro level M4A would both save money and leave no one uninsured which kinda seems like a good place to stop and call this evidence of a positive platform beyond polling. Its not, and the only reason I see given in that last post was that most "upper-middle-class W-2 employees will probably come out on the short end". That's a problem for a group of people facing far less problems than the majority of the country. If that's your issue, whatever, but please remember this debate is all under the larger framing of who the Dems are supposed to represent and who "owes" them a vote because they're tangibly different to their lives.

[Steve of phpBB]

You constantly frame the total dollars against the federal budget and that absolutely sounds like a huge number, but US household spending is over $50 trillion annually. Like you said, on a macro level M4A would both save money and leave no one uninsured which kinda seems like a good place to stop and call this evidence of a positive platform beyond polling. Its not, and the only reason I see given in that last post was that most "upper-middle-class W-2 employees will probably come out on the short end". That's a problem for a group of people facing far less problems than the majority of the country. If that's your issue, whatever, but please remember this debate is all under the larger framing of who the Dems are supposed to represent and who "owes" them a vote because they're tangibly different to their lives.

1. Are you sure about that household spending number? Our annual GDP is around $20 trillion.

2. Your argument assumes that Medicare for All is the only way to achieve universal health care. It isn't. The question isn't simply "is M4A better than what we have?" but "is M4A the best policy for this country at this time or in the immediate future".

3. Even that question implies the discussion is about the merits, when in this thread we're talking about what can win the 2020 presidential election.

4. This debate isn't about framing who owes anyone votes. It's about what positions are popular enough to garner 75 million votes in a national election where the opponents get to run TV ads against whatever policy you promote.

[mister d]

1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/109 ... -in-the-us

2. Your counter argument assumes I'd find a hybrid or private model as truly universal versus an attempt to placate with separate-but-equal health care.

3+4. Its not popular with you. I've referenced endless polling that its popular overall, wildly popular inside the party and trending upwards and your response is to discredit the polling or those polled then believe that starts us back on level ground. It doesn't.

[Steve of phpBB]

1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/109 ... -in-the-us

2. Your counter argument assumes I'd find a hybrid or private model as truly universal versus an attempt to placate with separate-but-equal health care.

3+4. Its not popular with you. I've referenced endless polling that its popular overall, wildly popular inside the party and trending upwards and your response is to discredit the polling or those polled then believe that starts us back on level ground. It doesn't.

1. I'll take a look. Something doesn't seem right.

2. In all honesty, what you find universal doesn't really matter. Either coverage is universal or it isn't.

3. I don't recall you citing polls showing that M4A that requires tax increases and abolition of private insurance to be wildly popular anywhere. I recall you citing something about "single payer," but that includes a public option (which Biden promotes).

4. You do remember the 2020 Democratic primaries, right? There was one very well known candidate who campaigned for like 5 years on Medicare for All. He appeared in TV interviews, ran ads, was front and center in the debates. Hell, the debates featured more discussion of health care than any other single issue. And he barely got thirty percent of the vote.

[Joe K]

I’m just going to throw out the prediction now that even if he gets a Democratic House and Senate, Biden backs away from a public option.

(But I’m sure we’ll hear how it’s just not possible to have even a public option because of Manchin and Sinema and progressives need to stop being so idealistic...)

[Steve of phpBB]

1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/109 ... -in-the-us

I think those quarterly figures are normalized to some kind of annual rate.

The population of the US is 330,000,000. If consumer spending was $50 trillion, that would work out to an average of $151,515 per person. For consumer spending.

According to this report (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cesan.nr0.htm), the average annual expenditures for all "consumer units" in 2019 was $63,036. A "consumer unit" is a family, a single person living alone or sharing a household with others but who are financially independent, or two or more persons living together who share major expenses. There were 132,242,000 consumer units in the US in 2019.

132,242,000 x $63,036 = $8.3 trillion. That is the total spending for all consumer units in the US in 2019.

[Joe K]

Very timely article from the WaPost given our discussion earlier.

https://apple.news/Axl7Myt3yRdyMh4dylYmDoA

The economic collapse sparked by the pandemic is triggering the most unequal recession in modern U.S. history, delivering a mild setback for those at or near the top and a depression-like blow for those at the bottom, according to a Washington Post analysis of job losses across the income spectrum.

Recessions often hit poorer households harder, but this one is doing so at a scale that is the worst in generations, the analysis shows.

While the nation overall has regained nearly half of the lost jobs, several key demographic groups have recovered more slowly, including mothers of school-age children, Black men, Black women, Hispanic men, Asian Americans, younger Americans (ages 25 to 34) and people without college degrees.

I can’t stand those privileged white male socialists who just hate the rich and don’t care about minorities!

[mister d]

1. I think you're right. So the scale is not as drastic but the point would still remain the total net spend wouldn't change?

2. If public transportation were nationalized and everyone could ride as they please, that would be universal. If it were privatized where everyone were allowed to ride for free, but you could pay to jump the line and have your own private space and bypass stops, and those cars ran five times an hour versus every other hour for the truly free ones, that wouldn't be universal. So that's what I'm alluding to in terms of actual universal care rather than the illusion of universal care.

3. Correct, the polls were not shaped to respond to Steve on a message board, they were shaped to ask a general question.

4. Its true that he was barely in the lead before the consolidation of candidates.

[Steve of phpBB]

I can’t stand those privileged white male socialists who just hate the rich and don’t care about minorities!

Straw man slain. Good job.

[Steve of phpBB]

1. I think you're right. So the scale is not as drastic but the point would still remain the total net spend wouldn't change?

2. If public transportation were nationalized and everyone could ride as they please, that would be universal. If it were privatized where everyone were allowed to ride for free, but you could pay to jump the line and have your own private space and bypass stops, and those cars ran five times an hour versus every other hour for the truly free ones, that wouldn't be universal. So that's what I'm alluding to in terms of actual universal care rather than the illusion of universal care.

3. Correct, the polls were not shaped to respond to Steve on a message board, they were shaped to ask a general question.

4. Its true that he was barely in the lead before the consolidation of candidates.

1. Yeah, I still think it's fairly well accepted that total net spent wouldn't change. Apparently early studies said total spend would go down, then later studies said it might go up a little. It really depends on things that aren't particularly unique to M4All, like whether and to what extent provider charges will go down. Price controls can be enacted as part of any reform; it doesn't have to be M4All.

3. But if Biden were to run on Medicare 4 All, votes would not be cast on Election Day based on how people feel about a general question. They'd be based on voter views of a specific proposal after it had been debated and viciously opposed for months. Remember how Hillary Clinton had an approval rating in the 60s during most of the time she was Secretary of State, but when she resumed being a presidential candidate she was put through the wringer and her rating tanked? If you want to say "Medicare 4 All is popular enough right now that it would help get Biden 75 million votes," you have to have evidence as to how the voters would view it after it goes through that process.

4. I don't know what consolidation has to do with the popularity of M4All or the candidate who made it a prominent part of his campaign. But for what it's worth, the pro-Medicare 4 All candidates weren't getting a majority of Dem primary votes before the centrists consolidated either.

[sancarlos]

Back to Trump in the debate last night... I thought this twitter thread was interesting , as it points out Trump’s move from dog whistles to plain terroristic violence incitement.

[Johnnie]

Fuck print media in the ass, btw.

Trump Caused Chaos at the Debate. Newspapers Blamed Both Sides.

[mister d]

If you want to say "Medicare 4 All is popular enough right now that it would help get Biden 75 million votes," you have to have evidence as to how the voters would view it after it goes through that process.

Again, why is this the one thing you hold up to a higher burden of proof? Can't I state with a stronger foundation that a post-Obama centrist running against M4A is a clear way to not reach your 75MM votes and force you to prove otherwise?

[Steve of phpBB]

If you want to say "Medicare 4 All is popular enough right now that it would help get Biden 75 million votes," you have to have evidence as to how the voters would view it after it goes through that process.

Again, why is this the one thing you hold up to a higher burden of proof? Can't I state with a stronger foundation that a post-Obama centrist running against M4A is a clear way to not reach your 75MM votes and force you to prove otherwise?

It’s the “one thing” I’m holding to a high standard in this thread because it’s the one thing you chose to bring up.

But no, I don’t think you can state with a stronger foundation that running on expanding coverage through the ACA is a harder way to win the election.

In the Dem primaries, candidates who favored that approach soundly trounced candidates who favored M4All.

Plus, about 1.5 times as many people identify as moderate than identify as liberal. So it’s logical to expect that a moderate plan would appeal to more voters than a liberal one.

And the political history of our country has shown that incremental expansions of social welfare programs are more feasible than quantum leaps.

Looking at specific polling, the ACA - after going through the wringer for years - is generally viewed favorably as it is (+7 approval). Plus people favor expanding health coverage and reducing premiums and out of pocket costs, which Biden’s plan does.

Voters have always opposed health proposals that threaten to take away the coverage they have, so it’s logical they’d prefer a proposal that doesn’t do that.

Voters also have always opposed massive tax increases on themselves, so again, it’s logical they’d prefer a plan that doesn’t do that.

Voters prefer Biden’s healthcare approach to Trump’s 54-42.

And the voters generally seem to like Biden’s approach across the board; he’s going into October with the largest polling average lead anyone has had for a long time. (And if that changes, it won’t be because Biden is proposing ACA expansion and a public option.)

Here’s a link for those polling figures. https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll- ... eme-court/

Plus, here’s a good general discussion of the state of public opinion as of May: https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-op ... -coverage/

I think this sums it up:

As Medicare-for-all becomes a staple in national conversations around health care and people become aware of the details of any plan or hear arguments on either side, it is unclear how attitudes towards such a proposal may shift. KFF polling finds public support for Medicare-for-all shifts significantly when people hear arguments about potential tax increases or delays in medical tests and treatment (Figure 10). KFF polling found that when such a plan is described in terms of the trade-offs (higher taxes but lower out-of-pocket costs), the public is almost equally split in their support (Figure 11). KFF polling also shows many people falsely assume they would be able to keep their current health insurance under a single-payer plan, suggesting another potential area for decreased support especially since most supporters (67 percent) of such a proposal think they would be able to keep their current health insurance coverage (Figure 12).

KFF polling finds more Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer voting for a candidate who wants to build on the ACA in order to expand coverage and reduce costs rather than replace the ACA with a national Medicare-for-all plan (Figure 12). Additionally, KFF polling has found broader public support for more incremental changes to expand the public health insurance program in this country including proposals that expand the role of public programs like Medicare and Medicaid (Figure 13). And while partisans are divided on a Medicare-for-all national health plan, there is robust support among Democrats, and even support among over four in ten Republicans, for a government-run health plan, sometimes called a public option (Figure 14).

[Joe K]

I can’t stand those privileged white male socialists who just hate the rich and don’t care about minorities!

Straw man slain. Good job.

Ok. So can we agree that combating economic inequality would help working women, racial minorities and the less educated most of all? And not the educated, white, straight, non-disabled leftists you dislike so much?

[Johnnie]

I'm liking this #45Lies national action campaign. Daveed Diggs is the best.

[psunate77]

Coming down the stretch we will be seeing more of these tweets.



Trump knows he is going to lose and will contest this on the mail in ballots being illegal. The more lopsided the loss, the worst his chances are.

What worries me is like 2016 I have been seeing more and more people saying they are either no voting, or voting a third party. Both are a vote for Trump.

[Nonlinear FC]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/09 ... oil-mounts

[Steve of phpBB]

I can’t stand those privileged white male socialists who just hate the rich and don’t care about minorities!

Straw man slain. Good job.

Ok. So can we agree that combating economic inequality would help working women, racial minorities and the less educated most of all? And not the educated, white, straight, non-disabled leftists you dislike so much?

Yes and I have never claimed otherwise.

My point is about the folks who define progressivism without even thinking about issues like abortion, discrimination, civil rights, climate change, etc. Those folks tend to be the educated, straight, non-disabled white men. You listed a number of women and people of color in one of your prior posts in this discussion; are any of them known for saying that Elizabeth Warren is not really a progressive? (Or even Hillary Clinton? Or Joe Biden?)

But even though fighting economic inequality would help women and minorities doesn't mean that those folks are motivated primarily by a desire to help those folks. It really does seem to me to be more motivated by grievance against the rich.

Just to take an obvious example, suppose there was a general election in which one candidate's presidency would improve the situation of women and minorities, and the other's would drastically degrade that situation. Wouldn't you except that if someone was primarily motivated by the plight of real-life women and minorities, they would fight whole-heartedly, with all their power, to support and assist the candidate whose presidency would make life better, and not worse, for women and minorities?

Someone whose primary motivation was the interests of women and minorities would never even think, let alone say, that the outcome of such an election doesn't really matter that much, or that the parties are basically the same. Because, yeah, neither party is going to put billionaires in prison. But one of them is going to make life a helluva lot worse over the next X years for women and minorities (and poor white people) than the other.

That subset of the left is who I was referring to when I was distinguishing between progressives-as-Mr. D-defines-them and what I consider to be actual progressives.

[Joe K]

Okay, so now we’re back to your boogeyman about privileged, straight, white male non-voters. But as I showed you before with the Pew data from 2016, that stereotype is nothing like what the non-voter share of the electorate actually looks like. It’s easy for you to be angry at mythical “Bernie Bros,” but you don’t seem willing to grapple with the fact that the people who aren’t inspired enough by the Democratic Party to get out and vote are actually poorer, less educated, and less white than the country as a whole. That might say something about which groups the Democratic Party isn’t doing a good enough job of helping. It might also tie in to the related point about who’s getting slammed by the unfairness of the modern economy. None of this is to say that the GOP isn’t worse. But I’m very tired of this nonsensical centrist talking point that economic leftists don’t care about women, minorities or other disadvantaged groups.

[psunate77]

So people still don't think there will be trouble this election..



Sadly, there are thousand of these fruit cakes out there just itching to start trouble.