Beto 2020

[Dropout 355]

9 hours ago, troph said:

When Beto wins the nomination he should shun his white male privilege and hand the nomination to Bernie.

 

I know you want to pretend one is like the other but they’re not. Andrew is talking about putting in work. Earn something. Is your argument Bernie hasn’t worked for this?

I have given my opinion on a 2020 white male President. I say this as a minority. If the dems want to win it’s probably a good idea to run a white guy. If the dems want to change America it’s probably a good idea to run a white guy. A country created by old white guys for old white guys still needs a old white guy to run it. Shocking I know. It’s pretty obvious by the statistics above. It’s obvious bc Trump. The nation as a whole is still not ready to have a minority truly lead. Hopefully we get there sometime soon.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23364]

14 minutes ago, Dropout said:

I know you want to pretend one is like the other but they’re not. Andrew is talking about putting in work. Earn something. Is your argument Bernie hasn’t worked for this?

I have given my opinion on a 2020 white male President. I say this as a minority. If the dems want to win it’s probably a good idea to run a white guy. If the dems want to change America it’s probably a good idea to run a white guy. A country created by old white guys for old white guys still needs a old white guy to run it. Shocking I know. It’s pretty obvious by the statistics above. It’s obvious bc Trump. The nation as a whole is still not ready to have a minority truly lead. Hopefully we get there sometime soon.

 

I see your point and it’s a valid one but the only way to break the old white guy cycle is to nominate a minority candidate that transcends race and gender.  Obama did this and even got re-elected.  He would have likely won a third term if given the opportunity.  But I also understand Obamas are extraordinarily rare.  Most of the country is ready for a minority president.  It’s the same old racist assholes that aren’t.  It makes no sense in placating them just to avoid conflict and confrontation when they’re overwhelmingly outnumbered.  But the temptation to choose the path of least resistance will likely win out and we end up with another old white guy. 

[Js1 85142]

So....

An old white guy must always be president because our country was founded by old white guys for old white guys? TURDITION!!!!!!

We also founded our country with black people being property and women not being allowed to vote.  We made those changes.  Guess we gotta go back on those too. 

[Dropout 355]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I see your point and it’s a valid one but the only way to break the old white guy cycle is to nominate a minority candidate that transcends race and gender.  Obama did this and even got re-elected.  He would have likely won a third term if given the opportunity.  But I also understand Obamas are extraordinarily rare.  Most of the country is ready for a minority president.  It’s the same old racist assholes that aren’t.  It makes no sense in placating them just to avoid conflict and confrontation when they’re overwhelmingly outnumbered.  But the temptation to choose the path of least resistance will likely win out and we end up with another old white guy. 

Obama is rare. What was he able to accomplish? This is why I can’t really hold anything against him. Do I think he could have done better? Sure. Do I think there was a literal white guy roadblock every time he tried to do something? Absolutely. It’s not placating anyone. It’s dealing with reality.

9 minutes ago, Js1 said:

So....

An old white guy must always be president because our country was founded by old white guys for old white guys? TURDITION!!!!!!

We also founded our country with black people being property and women not being allowed to vote.  We made those changes.  Guess we gotta go back on those too. 

Who the fuck said always? Who said go back?? Some of you have a real hard time grasping the point of a post. We can make the change. I have confidence we will make the change soon. Demographics are shifting. The time isn’t now. A fucking white supremacist is president for fucks sake. Right after a black guy who was cockblocked for everything and anything. He couldn’t even wear a tan suit. 

Edited March 21, 2019 by Dropout

[Fozzz 152]

Genius strategy by Beto.

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23364]

22 minutes ago, Dropout said:

Obama is rare. What was he able to accomplish? This is why I can’t really hold anything against him. Do I think he could have done better? Sure. Do I think there was a literal white guy roadblock every time he tried to do something? Absolutely. It’s not placating anyone. It’s dealing with reality.

The republicans would have been harder on Hillary.  But Hillary would have been harder on the Republicans.  Obama was hindered by the fact that he was the FIRST black president.  There was incredible pressure on him not to push the envelope on the Republicans because of legacy issues and what it meant in the bigger picture, which is noble. 

The republicans were obstructionist assholes to Obama but they would have been the same obstructionist assholes to any democratic president.  They impeached Clinton for lying about a blow job for crying out loud.  

Obama played nice when I’d argue he shouldn’t have.  He should have weaponized the media when McConnell blocked his Supreme Court Justice.  Because that’s exactly what the republicans would have done and do today 24/7, and no one bats an eye or questions it.  Obama simply wasn’t ready for political warfare.  The Republicans are nothing but political warfare.  The sooner the democrats learn how to fight in that theater the better.  Yes, the country will suffer for it but it’s a better alternative than becoming a full blown one party rule totalitarian state.  Because that’s clearly where the GOP wants to go.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Fozzz 152]

Did the literal white guy roadblock force Obama to name Rahm as his Chief of Staff? lol.  

[Dropout 355]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The republicans would have been harder on Hillary.  But Hillary would have been harder on the Republicans.  Obama was hindered by the fact that he was the FIRST black president.  There was incredible pressure on him not to push the envelope on the Republicans because of legacy issues and what it meant in the bigger picture, which is noble. 

The republicans were obstructionist assholes to Obama but they would have been the same obstructionist assholes to any democratic president.  They impeached Clinton for lying about a blow job for crying out loud.  

Obama played nice when I’d argue he shouldn’t have.  He should have weaponized the media when McConnell blocked his Supreme Court Justice.  Because that’s exactly what the republicans would have done and do today 24/7, and no one bats an eye or questions it.  Obama simply wasn’t ready for political warfare.  The Republicans are nothing but political warfare.  The sooner the democrats learn how to fight in that theater the better.  Yes, the country will suffer for it but it’s a better alternative than becoming a full blown one party rule totalitarian state.  Because that’s clearly where the GOP is headed. 

I agree with all of this. I believe it helps make the point. Hillary is a woman. A Clinton woman at that.

The only thing I would take issue with is the insinuation the SECOND black president would have it any different. Would the pressure or reality of the situation be any different if magic Obama number 2 won in 2020? Doubt it. It would be magnified.

5 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Did the literal white guy roadblock force Obama to name Rahm as his Chief of Staff? lol.  

 

28 minutes ago, Dropout said:

Do I think he could have done better? Sure. 

 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

Sex, age, and gender are only factors that weigh into a candidates overall strength. The bottom line at the end of the day is that we should nominate and get behind the strongest candidate just like we are Joe Biden and she’s a middle school girl. 

Identity politics is devisive.

Edited March 21, 2019 by GW Hayduke

[Dropout 355]

3 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Sex, age, and gender are only factors that weigh into a candidates overall strength. The bottom line at the end of the day is that we should nominate and get behind the strongest candidate just like we are Joe Biden and she’s a middle school girl. 

Identity politics is devisive.

I agree. I’ll leave the Biden stuff alone.

I wish identity politics didn’t exist. Pretending it doesn’t will not help the situation. Confront it head on. Identity politics will only disappear when it’s acknowledged by everyone and defeated. Not hidden away to only grow.

[bad_teammate 13137]

You can only "defeat" identity politics when there is literally no more identity-based disparity in the economy, society, or government. So... never. If someone is oppressed because of their identity, asking them to not center their identity in their politics is basically the same as telling them to shut up and take abuse.

It's not a binary choice between identity politics and class politics, it's an intersection.

There is a narrow view of identity politics which is extremely shallow and pointless. A visual example is this:

"White" means a lot of different things. The intersectionality of identity matters a lot, because the privilege of one white person isn't the same as every other white person even though all white people share some intersecting privilege.

There are questions to ask:
- How does it intersect with their gender?
- How does it intersect with their economic class?
- How does it intersect with their ethnicity?
- How does it intersect with their actions and words (both presently and historically)?
- How does it intersect with their beliefs/religion?
- How does it intersect with their sexuality?

 

[NowThis 931]

Identity means tribalism which will exist forever. 

[bad_teammate 13137]

4 minutes ago, NowThis said:

Identity means tribalism which will exist forever. 

Yes, which means the solution isn't to try and pretend identity can go away, but to unify under a common understand of our shared connections.

Beto seems to be going with the "we're all Americans" angle as a unifier, which is the most common way and the track Obama traveled (his own identity made it very convincing and strong). Hillary went the same way and it didn't work very well in bringing in non-white voters. A wealthy white person saying, "We have to come together as Americans" is a hard sell for people who aren't wealthy white people.

[NowThis 931]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, which means the solution isn't to try and pretend identity can go away, but to unify under a common understand of our shared connections.

Beto seems to be going with the "we're all Americans" angle as a unifier, which is the most common way and the track Obama traveled (his own identity made it very convincing and strong). Hillary went the same way and it didn't work very well in bringing in non-white voters. A wealthy white person saying, "We have to come together as Americans" is a hard sell for people who aren't wealthy white people.

she got the bulk of non white votes, as a Dem always does. America is split by ethnicity in general terms, with some exceptions (ie Northeast whites are more likely to be Democrat). I can't see that ever changing, but it's getting more polarized. 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

Identity politics is trump, white nationalism,  and maga. Identity politics is the backbone of the hate, fear, and demagogy within trump’s influence.  Identity politics is divisive. Bernie bros are divisive. Bernie bros like identity politics.

[bad_teammate 13137]

1 minute ago, NowThis said:

she got the bulk of non white votes, as a Dem always does.

She got the ones that showed up, yes, but turnout was down.

[NowThis 931]

16 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Identity politics is trump, white nationalism,  and maga. Identity politics is the backbone of the hate, fear, and demagogy within trump’s influence.  Identity politics is divisive. Bernie bros are divisive. Bernie bros like identity politics.

the Berns only divide the greedy ultra rich from the other 99%. 

[Dahobbs 17454]

9 minutes ago, NowThis said:

the Berns only divide the greedy ultra rich from the other 99%. 

Not based on this thread. 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

The football player kneeling fiasco was identity politics. At first glance, you either identify with trump and “true patriots” who actually love our country or you identify with a person protesting injustices within our criminal justice system. This wedge issue is identity politics.

You can transcend identity politics by identifying “both sides” as citizens of the US.

 

[NowThis 931]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Not based on this thread. 

no

[Mojo Hand 4580]

I'm not really getting the criticism of Beto that he isn't going to work for some non-profit to effect change.  Public service in office is just another way to effect change. 

[Hornius Emeritus 12424]

1 hour ago, NowThis said:

Identity means tribalism which will exist forever. 

 

Bob Stoops, Barry Switzer, Bud Wilkinson, and every Sooner who ever lived completely suck. 

[bad_teammate 13137]

13 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I'm not really getting the criticism of Beto that he isn't going to work for some non-profit to effect change.  Public service in office is just another way to effect change. 

Running for office again isn't the issue. The issue is that Beto went from "I'm so on fire about these issues, man, like, the fierce urgency of now and stuff" to wandering around and flicking lint out of his own navel for 4+ months while had hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people primed and ready to act. All of his communiques were about him and his feelings. It was a profound piece of wandering self-indulgence that it was captivating to watch unfold.

Then a carefully posed Annie Leibovitz spread with, "Man, I'm just born to be in it."

You can dismiss that if you want as a meaningless, throwaway line, but it is absolutely dripping. Affluent whites, GenX children of the suburbs, they can all understand it. The sense that America was made for them and it's right there for the taking. That all their failures don't count against them, or that what their failures meant is that their ambitions weren't high enough. That humility is something that belongs to the poor and non-white. Why would I bother with boring, unglamorous yeoman's work? My destiny is so much more!

A lot of people detest rich white kid entitlement, and Beto absolutely reeks of it.

Vs.

Gillum: "Listen, man, we're used to working."

[GW Hayduke 1952]

Beto isn’t going to affect change while in office because he’s a white guy. Makes sense

Edited March 21, 2019 by GW Hayduke

[Larry T. Spider 1746]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, which means the solution isn't to try and pretend identity can go away, but to unify under a common understand of our shared connections.

Beto seems to be going with the "we're all Americans" angle as a unifier, which is the most common way and the track Obama traveled (his own identity made it very convincing and strong). Hillary went the same way and it didn't work very well in bringing in non-white voters. A wealthy white person saying, "We have to come together as Americans" is a hard sell for people who aren't wealthy white people.

Looks like I agree with BT on this take. It also is much easier for republican candidates to rally their base as they have many more common unifiers. Bringing a diverse party together will always be more difficult but there is so much potential, especially as America becomes more diverse.

[BradInATX 9208]

23 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Running for office again isn't the issue. The issue is that Beto went from "I'm so on fire about these issues, man, like, the fierce urgency of now and stuff" to wandering around and flicking lint out of his own navel for 4+ months while had hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people primed and ready to act. All of his communiques were about him and his feelings. It was a profound piece of wandering self-indulgence that it was captivating to watch unfold.

 

Let's be real. He wasn't soul searching. He knew he was running for president the whole time and was putting together his strategy. Make of that what you will, you might say that if he knew the whole time and did his vision quest charade it's even worse, and you might be right. But he was spending that time planning and strategizing for how to run for POTUS, which is the most influential position in the world. He wasn't off having some sort of suburban melancholy identity crisis. He wanted to make it look like he was really appreciating and reflecting upon the gravity of a POTUS run, meanwhile building a strategy and letting the other candidates' initial momentum fizzle some. 

Everything Beto does is curated to hell. Again, whether that's good or bad, up to the viewer. 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

 

7 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

Looks like I agree with BT on this take. It also is much easier for republican candidates to rally their base as they have many more common unifiers. Bringing a diverse party together will always be more difficult but there is so much potential, especially as America becomes more diverse.

“We’re all Americans” has been every recent president’s line including the Bushs and Reagan. Trump is the odd man out on this line. 

[Hank Kingsley 20725]

10 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Let's be real. He wasn't soul searching. He knew he was running for president the whole time and was putting together his strategy. Make of that what you will, you might say that if he knew the whole time and did his vision quest charade it's even worse, and you might be right. But he was spending that time planning and strategizing for how to run for POTUS, which is the most influential position in the world. He wasn't off having some sort of suburban melancholy identity crisis. He wanted to make it look like he was really appreciating and reflecting upon the gravity of a POTUS run, meanwhile building a strategy and letting the other candidates' initial momentum fizzle some. 

Everything Beto does is curated to hell. Again, whether that's good or bad, up to the viewer. 

Maybe. But I haven't seen much difference from his Texas Senate campaign. He's working his ass off on the trail again, taking pictures of all the great junk food in each spot again, while trying to bring Democrats and Republicans together, again. It's early, obviously. But he's just playing the hits right now. 

 

 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13137]

19 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Beto isn’t going to affect change while in office because he’s a white guy. Makes sense

No one said anything like this, crybaby.

Y'all love to scold me for not winning you over to my preferred candidate, but if you guys seriously go out to try and attract non-white voters with whining about how white people are oppressed you're in for a rude awakening.

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Everything Beto does is curated to hell. Again, whether that's good or bad, up to the viewer. 

Yes, this all over. 100%. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

If you're a middle class white person; if you're a suburban kid or resident, you get it. If you're comfortable enough to the have the luxury of that kind of pointless seeking attitude, you identify with him. You see the Hero's Journey that you learned about in your nice, well-appointed school.

Call to Adventure: Reject the father's plans for political ambition and go to NYC to be around art or something
Abyss: Get arrested for drunk driving and being a general do-nothing
Redemption: Run for public office to serve the people

But if you know that your family can't just survive while you decide not to work or do anything for 4 months while you take an extended "finding myself" vacation, it might rankle. If you know that the same life trajectory would have sent you to prison and/or poverty instead of superstardom, it might rankle.

And if your reaction to that kind of criticism is, "OH IT'S BECAUSE HE'S WHITE!?!?!" then you're in for a lot of suffering over the next year+.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

25 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Running for office again isn't the issue. The issue is that Beto went from "I'm so on fire about these issues, man, like, the fierce urgency of now and stuff" to wandering around and flicking lint out of his own navel for 4+ months while had hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people primed and ready to act. All of his communiques were about him and his feelings. It was a profound piece of wandering self-indulgence that it was captivating to watch unfold.

Then a carefully posed Annie Leibovitz spread with, "Man, I'm just born to be in it."

You can dismiss that if you want as a meaningless, throwaway line, but it is absolutely dripping. Affluent whites, GenX children of the suburbs, they can all understand it. The sense that America was made for them and it's right there for the taking. That all their failures don't count against them, or that what their failures meant is that their ambitions weren't high enough. That humility is something that belongs to the poor and non-white. Why would I bother with boring, unglamorous yeoman's work? My destiny is so much more!

A lot of people detest rich white kid entitlement, and Beto absolutely reeks of it.

Vs.

Gillum: "Listen, man, we're used to working."

I think Gillum and Abrams are great, and their efforts to fight for important causes is to their credit.   I just don't see how a four-month break for Beto is a problem.  The reality is that Beto was maintaining his base with those personal messages, to the tune of a $6.1 million haul on day 1.  Candidates should use every positive tool at their disposal, and his ability to connect with people on a personal level is his biggest political skill.

I mean, I get if you think Beto would be a bad president because he hasn't done a damn thing in his life that wasn't handed to him.   But he worked his ass off in the Senate run, and he's working his ass off right now, so I don't really see a problem with his recent efforts. 

[happyfunball 481]

[Larry T. Spider 1746]

I have no issue with betos four month break considering the insane amount of energy he expended in the senate race. I think he knew he wanted to run for president but that it would possibly be a two year slog with the same level of energy  required. Taking a few months, resting, and contemplating things was well deserved. If poor and minority candidates don’t have that same opportunity, it’s not beto’s fault. 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

No one said anything like this, crybaby.

Y'all love to scold me for not winning you over to my preferred candidate, but if you guys seriously go out to try and attract non-white voters with whining about how white people are oppressed you're in for a rude awakening.

Yes, this all over. 100%. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

If you're a middle class white person; if you're a suburban kid or resident, you get it. If you're comfortable enough to the have the luxury of that kind of pointless seeking attitude, you identify with him. You see the Hero's Journey that you learned about in your nice, well-appointed school.

Call to Adventure: Reject the father's plans for political ambition and go to NYC to be around art or something
Abyss: Get arrested for drunk driving and being a general do-nothing
Redemption: Run for public office to serve the people

But if you know that your family can't just survive while you decide not to work or do anything for 4 months while you take an extended "finding myself" vacation, it might rankle. If you know that the same life trajectory would have sent you to prison and/or poverty instead of superstardom, it might rankle.

And if your reaction to that kind of criticism is, "OH IT'S BECAUSE HE'S WHITE!?!?!" then you're in for a lot of suffering over the next year+.

Your entire spiel of why Beto can’t affect change is that he is white and has money. That’s it. His identity prevents him from the possibility of affecting change in your eyes.  His identity makes all his actions, the actions of a privledged white guy. 

Question his record, experience, policies, intelligence, or methods but identity politics is lame

[Biff Tannen 45506]

Have we ever seen such backlash from a candidate's own party when clearly a large portion of the voting populace likes said candidate?  This is insane.

[Guest Lobo]

We tried discussing his policy experience in The House.  It was not met well here.  He did a good job, IMO, of addressing military and veteran issues considering Fort Bliss in His hometown.  His vote record rating by many Democrat groups is not great.  Nor is his donor list prior to his Senate run.  

But he wisely didn’t leave much from age 25-45 to be analyzed.  Something about If the roots oF America are strong, Spring will come again and flourish with enough care and support.  He reminds me of a Wise Gardner I once knew hand selected by important people to lead.  

[troph 24577]

I know you want to pretend one is like the other but they’re not. Andrew is talking about putting in work. Earn something. Is your argument Bernie hasn’t worked for this?
I have given my opinion on a 2020 white male President. I say this as a minority. If the dems want to win it’s probably a good idea to run a white guy. If the dems want to change America it’s probably a good idea to run a white guy. A country created by old white guys for old white guys still needs a old white guy to run it. Shocking I know. It’s pretty obvious by the statistics above. It’s obvious bc Trump. The nation as a whole is still not ready to have a minority truly lead. Hopefully we get there sometime soon.
 

That post was tongue in cheek. I’m very comfortable supporting a white guy this election cycle over everyone else. And as of today I’m supporting Beto.

[troph 24577]

Question:

I know before I couldn’t say I was born to be in it bc I was a white guy. But I think I’ve been told at least with nonverbal looks of disapproval that I can’t say that as a woman either. So who can say that and what if I feel like I was born to be in it regardless of what someone thinks of me? I’m so confused.

[Hawndoh 2382]

I don't get the hand wringing about a rich candidate. They're all rich. Everyone in Congress, every high level official in the Executive branch, everyone that runs this country is rich. 

Every foreign dignitary or leader of a Nation they'll ever have to deal with is also rich. 

You can't get anything done if you aren't rich. 

So instead of trying to elect someone that isn't rich I'd rather just elect someone that isn't completely evil instead. 

[Guest Lobo]

You honestly don't see the difference in a candidate who accrued a few million after grinding away (even it was in the public sector) and a candidate who fell ass backwards into hundreds of millions by not really doing anything at all?  

[troph 24577]

In terms of being president? No. But I’m not upset he’s a white guy either.

 

[tucker 238]

What I imagine all the anti-Beto posters look like.

 

[Guest Lobo]

The last three Democrat presidents had one common trait that stands out to me anyway...all were adroit politicians who came from extremely humble beginnings.  By the time they got elected to POTUS, yeah they had a few bucks---but my god---they were nowhere in the same stratosphere as the Bushes, O'Rourke, the Kennedys, et. al.  I'm not saying it's a disqualify but let's tap the brakes.  Most of these candidates in the field are "rich", but some of them are literally hundreds of times wealthier than others due to absolutely zero effort on their part.  

General Harris, Mayor Buttigieg, Sen. Gillibrand, and a few others.  They are barely worth $1.0mm.  You can say it doesn't make a difference, but if can you honestly say with a straight face that a meaningful percentage of Primary voters won't take that into consideration when weighing them up against far wealthier candidates?  It won't come up?  Not even once?  Won't effect so much as one delegate?  The personal finances of a candidate will never, ever be an issue for the Democratic primary?  Okay.  It will never come up from the media or voters, not once.  Got it.  

[Biff Tannen 45506]

4 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Most of these candidates in the field are "rich", but some of them are literally hundreds of times wealthier than others due to absolutely zero effort on their part.  

So was Teddy.  Not comparing the two, but just saying.

[GW Hayduke 1952]

I think a person’s wealth and how acquired is part of their story. Their story should be just like any other factor. Does the person’s story make them more electable, able to defeat trump and mobilize votes? It’s a factor just like their oratory ability, charisma, honesty, etc.  

A person’s wealth, color isn’t a prerequisite though as some seem to feel. It shouldn’t disqualify them from being able to implement Dem policies once in office.

We are searching for a candidate to represent the values, policies, and direction of the Dem party. 

[Guest Lobo]

Cruz or Kennedy or what am I missing here?  

[happyfunball 481]

What could Beto do? How about...

 

 

[Celery Man 20891]

What could Beto do? How about...
 
 

Nothing against him, but if I hear "Yah Mo B There" one more time, I'm going to "Yah Mo" burn this place to the ground.

[troph 24577]

The last three Democrat presidents had one common trait that stands out to me anyway...all were adroit politicians who came from extremely humble beginnings.  By the time they got elected to POTUS, yeah they had a few bucks---but my god---they were nowhere in the same stratosphere as the Bushes, O'Rourke, the Kennedys, et. al.  I'm not saying it's a disqualify but let's tap the brakes.  Most of these candidates in the field are "rich", but some of them are literally hundreds of times wealthier than others due to absolutely zero effort on their part.  
General Harris, Mayor Buttigieg, Sen. Gillibrand, and a few others.  They are barely worth $1.0mm.  You can say it doesn't make a difference, but if can you honestly say with a straight face that a meaningful percentage of Primary voters won't take that into consideration when weighing them up against far wealthier candidates?  It won't come up?  Not even once?  Won't effect so much as one delegate?  The personal finances of a candidate will never, ever be an issue for the Democratic primary?  Okay.  It will never come up from the media or voters, not once.  Got it.  

You asked me a question no I don’t think it matters to me. Will inherited or married into it wealth matter - yes to some.

[Guest Lobo]

Fair answer.  I was kinda putting it out to the masses, but I certainly understand your perspective.  I

[Hugo Stiglitz 23364]