Mojo Hand

Love how he tries to fix it by throwing some other races in there at the end.

Weak

I just finished watching the Burns/Novik Vietnam documentary. I was shocked to learn that 58% of those polled at the time blamed the students themselves for the Kent State killings. Wikipedia shows that 31% expressed no opinion, and only 11% blamed the National Guard. It apparently does not take much for the public to excuse killings by the state.

Lulz.

Remember the moron who said Trump would appoint competent government officials from a list? Instead he forces out the people who would be on such a list, if it existed, and replaces them with incompetent and corrupt cronies.

Like everything Trump cult, it reminds me of aggy. UNCOVER!!

Weird. Then I guess that's a qualifying poll for Steyer and Gillibrand, too.

I thought the qualifying polls were all national, not state polls like this one. Also, I had read last week that Yang already got the polls to qualify for debates 3 and 4: https://thehill-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/455207-yang-qualifies-for-third-and-fourth-democratic-debates

If Republicans can vote for the tax cuts without supporting the racism, why do they always claim that the single issue of abortion precludes them from ever voting for a Democrat?

Well, we'd know from polling. And he didn't say it would definitely happen, just that it wouldn't be hard to imagine such a scenario. In February, Bernie's second choice percentages per Morning Consult were 26% Biden, 16% Warren, 7% Harris. This week, it's 31% Biden, 26% Warren, 8% Harris. So Warren has cut the gap in half. I think she has much more upside than Biden among Bernie voters, and if that continues, we'll reach a point where Bernie's presence is costing Warren to Biden's advantage. By the same token, the second choice for Warren supporters is 25% Bernie, 22% Kamala, 17% Biden. So Warren's presence is arguably helping Biden at Bernie's expense in the same way.

If I had the energy, I'd photoshop this chick onto the hospital faces

I think he means in the primary. That is, that Biden becomes the nominee because Warren and Bernie split some of the vote that one or the other would have gotten if they weren't both there.

Yeah, Warren is going to have to win the nomination without Bernie supporters while fending off Bernie among the support she's building. But, winning a presidential nomination is tough (when the party doesn't hand it to you). It'll make her a stronger candidate if she wins.

They were inoperable because of design flaws, but capable of exploding: "Each device consisted of plastic pipe with a digital alarm clock and attached wires. An F.B.I. explosives expert, Kevin D. Finnerty, testified at the sentencing the devices would not have functioned as designed, but were capable of exploding if mishandled." The judge bought the defense's argument that the design flaws were intentional and intended to scare rather than kill. Who knows what that nutcase really thought he was doing.

Everyone smile and say "Mass Shooting!"

Sounds like you learned a little about declaring victory from our president. Republican policy successes in decreasing taxes on the wealthy, shutting down abortion clinics, deregulating the financial industry, partisan gerrymandering, and incarcerating criminals actually proves you were right in denying that Republicans have had major accomplishments in enacting their agenda over the last 30 years. And a grossly inadequate response to the gender wage gap and climate change proves that moderate Dems have been massively successful in making the progressive agenda a reality. We should all sit back and enjoy how well policy has gone for Dems since the Reagan Revolution! If I were you, I'd want to end this discussion too. Adios!

Lulz. Yeah, no response from you is exactly what I expected.

No, I'm stating my opinion as opinion. Do you need fact and opinion to be explicitly labeled to tell the difference? I've already named major, long-term Republican "accomplishments." Are you really unaware of those long-term trends? None of these things have been "rolled back" by past moderate Dems, and none of them will be. We all know what happened starting around 1980: And how has that extreme departure from moderation impacted Republicans' electoral success since 1980? Do you really need a chart to know how successful they've been eschewing moderation? And that electoral success, in turn, has impacted the Supreme Court, which is my point there. As to your list: Gay rights — not from moderates, who were the last to "evolve." Activism from the far left pushed society on this. Climate change — worse than ever before. How is that a success? Our emissions since 1990, yay? Race wage gap — huh? Gender wage gap — ok, it's narrowed a tiny bit War — huh? We're still fighting in Afghanistan and Obama's drone program is bigger than ever. Moderate Dems were all for the Iraq War. Weed legalization — how is this because of moderate Dems? It's been from the far left and libertarian right, and that it's happening isn't really about ideology. Single-payer — this is from the far left, not moderates. And it hasn't happened yet. Abortion and gun control — you have to be joking.

Source

It's ingrained racism that views whiteness as the default. The same people who criticize Beto also mock people from other ethnicities who don't go by a white name or at least use a white pronunciation for their ethnic name. It's right that Rafael "Felito" Cruz should change his name to "Ted" in middle school because he's moving towards the white norm. But it's wrong that a white person in a heavily Latino community would go by "Beto" his entire life because he's white above all else. That's how they think.

Well, you wouldn't have to worry about nitpicking if there were actual major progressive successes to point to. Nobody can nitpick the Republican dominance over the last 40 years because it's been a massive success (for their ideology, not the country). I mean, massive tax cuts, deregulation, Supreme Court dominance — that's immune from nitpicking. Clinton and Obama have a few significant achievements, but they're not particularly progressive achievements. Saving the economy is a good thing, but ideologically neutral. Obamacare was a Republican way of addressing a Democratic concern and caused more harm that good (taking into account how it led to another Republican takeover). Much of what Clinton did was actually right of center. It's not about playing the political game correctly and losing more than they should. That you and other moderates think that is exactly why Dems lose more than they should. You are playing a game at the margins while the GOP makes sea changes in an ideological war. Dem achievements get rolled back while the GOP's structural changes endure and grow. You think something is a success even when it only lasts 2 years before getting rolled back, because it was a "win" at the time and hopefully influences someone down the road. Republicans count wins by the decades that their policies last. Dems used to do that too, with things like social security and Medicare. You need to start questioning your assumption that political gamesmanship is the reason Dems couldn't build off of Clinton and Obama. The reason they couldn't build on it was that the public writ large didn't give Dems credit for the things they did. The reason they didn't give Dems credit for those things is that the Dems had no ideological principles to ground those policies in, and because they didn't do nearly enough good among the people who needed help the most. That's all thanks to moderation.