Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Heck, if it weren't for a heavy work day today I'd have been at the protest. That is saying a lot. To give some perspective, 10 years ago I spent a good deal of (probably too much) time on the "zombietime" site that was making fun of people at Code Pink protests and the like. I have not changed drastically although I'm decidedly Centrist as compared with back then when I was more Right of Center.

In any case, my protest impulse is now in force against this creep.

Funny sign I saw in one of the vid clips: "Welcome to Aztlan. Deport Donald Trump!."

Not that I agree with the Aztlan concept but Trump is really in the hornet's nest today.

This is a good indicator of the range of Bay Area sentiments these days.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that assigned a big chunk of the American Southwest allows the US possession of "Aztlan", and one of the terms of the treaty is that Mexicans living in areas taken from Mexico be treated as whites for all legal purposes. Blacks could be treated horribly, as in the rest of the USA, but Mexican-Americans (including Tejanos and Californios) would not be denied the vote, subjected to discrimination in housing or education, or be stripped of property. It's telling that they could intermarry with white people -- but not, according to some anti-miscegenation laws, with blacks, Asians, or First Peoples.

I doubt that anyone has ever established any time limit to the term at which the equality clause applies to the American Southwest. It's unlikely that any American government would ever single out Mexican-Americans for harsh treatment, but if it did such might establish a pretext for secession. But any American government that would ever single out Mexican-Americans for harsh treatment would treat many other people badly on religious, racial, or political grounds.

Donald Trump is a colossal jerk. We are finding out that most Americans have no use for institutional bigotry. Personal? Maybe.

Multiple reports say Ted Cruz is dropping out.

Meanwhile, I had hoped with the Pennsylvania primary being over that the back-and-forth ads would stop. Unfortunately, Pat Toomey is running ads full throttle. I guess I can look forward to six months of this.

This is from the thread about Ted Cruz:

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Wow; stunning!

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politi...ruz-drops-out/

Donald Trump would absolutely crush Hillary Clinton in West Virginia. So what is wrong (or more charitably, uncharacteristic for America) about West Virginia? It does not have a heritage of slavery or Jim Crow.

West Virginia, despite its bucolic image, was very much a land of mining and heavy industry. That meant unions heavily active in politics.

West Virginia has problems.

http://www.measureofamerica.org/docs...e-18-FINAL.pdf

Do you want to live well and prosper? (Pardon the Star Trek reference) West Virginia is not the place to be. (Mixed reference to The Beverly Hillbillies and The Real McCoys. Jed Clampett and Amos McCoy are hick patriarchs who have moved from Tennessee and West Virginia, respectively, to California).

You may have seen this in Is Connecticut the Best State to Live?

T H E M E A S U R E O F A M E R I C A 2 0 1 3 –2014

16
Well-Being Comparisons:
U.S. States
This section presents American Human Development Index scores for
U.S. states and the different racial and ethnic groups within them.
The top-ranking state on the Index is Connecticut. Although Connecticut
residents saw a $1,500 decline in earnings since the last Index, the state
still edged out Massachusetts and New Jersey to retain its number one
spot due to uniformly good outcomes in all three Index areas. Fourth-
place District of Columbia—included in the state-level Index following the
practice of the U.S. Census Bureau—finished strong due to its first-place
ranking in both education and earnings and despite a poor showing in
health. The District has the forty-third lowest life expectancy of all fifty
states, just above Tennessee


Top
ranking states:
1. Connecticut
2. Massachusetts
3. New Jersey
4. District of Columbia
5. Maryland

Bottom
ranking states:

47. Alabama
48. Kentucky
49. West Virginia
50. Arkansas
51. Mississippi

(analysis mine; stats from the source cited).

West Virginia has done badly in formal education, having one of the highest percentages of people without high school diplomas. It doesn't send many kids to college who end up getting a college degree. A graduate degree? West Virginia has little to attract one. (New Mexico has a high percentage of people with less than a college degree, probably largely elderly Mexican-Americans, but it does have a healthy number of people with graduate degree. UC Berkeley set up the Los Alamos Laboratory during WWII for the Manhattan Project). New Mexico isn't that bad.

West Virginia is fairly good at incomes for states near the bottom in Human Development Index (HDI), but such reflects the declining activities of mining and heavy industry. The state failed to invest adequately in public education If one can't get a job in mining or heavy industry, there just isn't much opportunity.

People are more likely to vote Democratic if they are non-white, non-Christian, urban, and well educated. West Virginia is very white, very Christian, rural, and poorly educated. Poor people other than whites tend even more liberal than middle-class people of their ethnic group, but poor white people do not fit that trend. Thus West Virginia has most of the demographics that now favor the Republican Party.

Contrast Virginia, which is 11th in HDI. It has proportionally far fewer people with less than high-school diplomas than West Virginia. One is about twice as likely to have a bachelor's degree if one lives in Virginia than in West Virginia. and more than twice as likely to have a graduate degree. Virginia has an above-average percentage of blacks. The reputations of Pat Robinson and the late Jerry Falwell notwithstanding, Virginia isn't especially fundamentalist-Christian. Virginia has no giant cities, but it does have significant large cities. While Democrats have been hemorrhaging votes in West Virginia they are gaining voters in Virginia. The two states are going opposite way in politics.

But at the least, one might think, West Virginians should benefit greatly from 'white privilege'. After all, blacks, American Indians, and Latinos on the whole fare worse than do whites. If there is such a thing as white privilege, it seems to have passed West Virginia by. HDI for white people in West Virginia is a paltry 3.99... but for American Indians in California it is 4.43; for blacks in Maryland it is 4.99; for Latinos in Virginia it is 5.20. Statistically one is better off being black in Maryland, an American Indian in California, or Latino in Virginia.

West Virginia was long dominated by Democrats in politics. In Presidential politics it gave a majority to Bill Clinton in 1996 -- and that could be the last time for West Virginia to vote for a Democratic nominee for President for a very long time. To be sure, even a state that has demographics that might otherwise favor the other Party (Nebraska and Utah are well-educated and good in most social measures, but contrary to that reality they are very Republican-leaning), a Party that presides over political failure can fall very fast. Northern states that don't do so great (Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio) can put blame on both Parties, so there is little likelihood of one of the Parties getting all the blame. In West Virginia, Democrats held a far larger share of political power far longer as the state's economy faltered and the state under-invested in education, public health, and even roads. Such created opportunities for Republicans to make a swift takeover in political life.

Of course, so did the weakening of the once-powerful labor unions, especially the United Mine Workers. At the same time as the unions lost influence, a coal baron like the damnable Don Blankenship (convicted of crimes related to the safety of mines that had an inordinate number of fatal and crippling accidents) could wax powerful in political life.

In an interview with Richmond, Virginia, NBC affiliate WWBT, a man identified only as the “imperial wizard for the Rebel Brigade of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan” weighed in on the 2016 presidential election and declared his support for Republican candidate Donald Trump.

“I think Donald Trump would be best for the job,” he told anchor Chris Thomas. “The reason a lot of a lot of Klan members like Donald Trump is because a lot of what he believes, we believe in.”

The KKK leader added that he doesn’t support Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), despite seeing eye-to-eye with him on a few issues, because he doesn’t consider the Canadian-born lawmaker to be an American citizen.

The imperial wizard, who is actively recruiting in areas like Richmond, said having President Barack Obama in the White House has helped the organization build momentum and grow its membership.

“He has been a very good recruiting tool for this organization,” he said. “And it’s not because he’s black. We are more political than racial.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b016f37893bbce

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

Meanwhile, I had hoped with the Pennsylvania primary being over that the back-and-forth ads would stop. Unfortunately, Pat Toomey is running ads full throttle. I guess I can look forward to six months of this.

He's running ads full throttle because he is scared that he might lose. Pat Toomey barely won election in 2010 in a great year for Reactionary Party pols. He needed a Republican wave to get elected and he needs a fairly good year for Republicans in which to get re-elected.

Just wait till the Koch fronts get cracking.

With the departures of Ted Cruz and John Kasich from the Presidential race, we are down to this:

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

Sanders shows what an utter collapse by Donald Trump would look like.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

With the departures of Ted Cruz and John Kasich from the Presidential race, we are down to this:

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

Sanders shows what an utter collapse by Donald Trump would look like.

Looks like it's going to be a Clinton landslide.

The conservative challenger in the Republican race has quit, leaving the more-moderate (if half-crazy) candidate as presumptive nominee, who might depart from some conservative Republican policies. Meanwhile, the liberal challenger in the Democratic race has not quit, and still hopes for a stunning upset victory.

This might go against the conservative pundits and some polls that say the nation is still equally-divided or center-right (as we define it in the USA). The primaries, plus the poll numbers, show a much stronger performance by the left-wing candidate (Bernie Sanders) than by the right-wing one (Ted Cruz). Partly, of course, this depends on the character of those two candidates; Bernie being easily the more likable of the two.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The conservative challenger in the Republican race has quit, leaving the more-moderate (if half-crazy) candidate as presumptive nominee, who might depart from some conservative Republican policies. Meanwhile, the liberal challenger in the Democratic race has not quit, and still hopes for a stunning upset victory.

This might go against the conservative pundits and some polls that say the nation is still equally-divided or center-right (as we define it in the USA). The primaries, plus the poll numbers, show a much stronger performance by the left-wing candidate (Bernie Sanders) than by the right-wing one (Ted Cruz). Partly, of course, this depends on the character of those two candidates; Bernie being easily the more likable of the two.

Cruz was too narrow and too unlikable for a national campaign. I am still waiting to see how the GOP splits in terms of backing Trump or bailing out. The GOP insiders are in a quandary. The country looks more left than right to me.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Looks like it's going to be a Clinton landslide.

There's just nothing that I can fill in to the advantage of Donald Trump.

The country seems left of center to me economically speaking; not ready for socialized government but markets should be regulated to some degree (preferred mechanism is up for debate) and I think this is clear because of the Clinton-Sanders contest and which way that seems to have gone. If things were to going to evolve the way they are, from my perspective Democrats would become the new GOP and new party forms on the left. I don't think the "Green" name could be used, but a new party like the "Labor" party or something could work. There's too much history in this country with the Green Party. Eh, maybe it could be different if all parties were welcomed onto debate stages and the like... true adoption of a multi-party system.

Originally Posted by Coskin84

The country seems left of center to me economically speaking; not ready for socialized government but markets should be regulated to some degree (preferred mechanism is up for debate) and I think this is clear because of the Clinton-Sanders contest and which way that seems to have gone. If things were to going to evolve the way they are, from my perspective Democrats would become the new GOP and new party forms on the left. I don't think the "Green" name could be used, but a new party like the "Labor" party or something could work. There's too much history in this country with the Green Party. Eh, maybe it could be different if all parties were welcomed onto debate stages and the like... true adoption of a multi-party system.

The popular will of ordinary Americans--which has been thwarted by the elites time and again--may be "left-of-center," but our actual economic policies have been right-of-center for some time now, definitely since 1980.

As for third-party labels...

Out of political necessity, I've been a "Green" for several election cycles now. It's the only left-wing third party with ballot access, albeit limited to 20 states, more or less. I'm not sure what you mean by "history," but the Green Party does have an international reach, which makes it anathema to nationalistic Americans who fear the coming of a "New World Order" or other such conspiratorial nonsense. I'm not sure if the "Labor" party label would work either because in the UK it was (for a time) a decidedly centrist party under Tony Blair, and we already have its equivalent in the Democratic Party for all practical purposes.

The label "Progressive" might have some appeal if not for the savaging that media blowhards like Bill O'Reilly have leveled against the term (his demonization of "secular progressives"). Too, the last presidential candidates to run under the banner of Progressive Party--Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 and Henry Wallace in 1948--both went down to defeat. With the surprising strength of his campaign, Bernie Sanders has given some credence to the term "democratic socialist," particularly with younger voters, but the term socialist is still kryptonite to too many Americans. And besides, the organization Democratic Socialists of America, to which I belong, does not run its own slate of candidates. It only offers endorsements.

I rather prefer the term "Populist," which has an electoral history (William Jennings Bryant in 1896) that is far enough removed in American memory, perhaps, to be resurrected successfully as a third party label.

Originally Posted by Coskin84

The country seems left of center to me economically speaking; not ready for socialized government but markets should be regulated to some degree (preferred mechanism is up for debate) and I think this is clear because of the Clinton-Sanders contest and which way that seems to have gone. If things were to going to evolve the way they are, from my perspective Democrats would become the new GOP and new party forms on the left. I don't think the "Green" name could be used, but a new party like the "Labor" party or something could work. There's too much history in this country with the Green Party. Eh, maybe it could be different if all parties were welcomed onto debate stages and the like... true adoption of a multi-party system.

That's the way I see/hope for the future, once we kill off (or, they commit suicide) the current GOP (both the current Establishment types and the Trump t-baggers) as a national political force. It would be measured debates amongst the sane.

The issue will be how to best help labor stay gainfully employed with sufficient incomes. It's going to take a lot of education of those of them that currently vote GOP as t-bagger now; the Establishment GOPers can move to Putin-land.

Originally Posted by Coskin84

The country seems left of center to me economically speaking; not ready for socialized government but markets should be regulated to some degree (preferred mechanism is up for debate) and I think this is clear because of the Clinton-Sanders contest and which way that seems to have gone. If things were to going to evolve the way they are, from my perspective Democrats would become the new GOP and new party forms on the left. I don't think the "Green" name could be used, but a new party like the "Labor" party or something could work. There's too much history in this country with the Green Party. Eh, maybe it could be different if all parties were welcomed onto debate stages and the like... true adoption of a multi-party system.

We have a right-wing government. President Obama must now function as a conservative.

A warning sign of political distress is that in 2012 Americans voted for Democrats, 52-48, for the House of Representatives but due to gerrymandering the reactionary Republican Party kept a decisive majority in the House. We no longer have a representative democracy; we instead have a semi-fascist Corporate State.

The Koch brothers created a Frankenstein monster in the Tea Party, and although it succeeded in getting a majority in the House for people who believe that no human suffering is in excess so long as it turns a profit. In 2014 the Koch brothers' fronts aided the Republican Party in winning the Senate.

It is possible that the Republican Party will implode. Its power plays have gone too far for a majority of Americans Its ideology has become far too rigid for its own good. The Senate majority leader has said that the nominee for the Supreme Court seat will not even get a hearing. The Senate majority leader may have doomed his majority; he may have also put the Republican majority of the House at risk.

Twice in American history the #2 Party has gone under -- first the Federalists and then the Whigs. In both cases the surviving Democratic Party split into two nearly-equal parts. First the Whigs and then the Republicans emerged from those splits. Social Democrats on the Left and Christian Democrats on the Right?

Originally Posted by Coskin84

The country seems left of center to me economically speaking; not ready for socialized government but markets should be regulated to some degree (preferred mechanism is up for debate) and I think this is clear because of the Clinton-Sanders contest and which way that seems to have gone. If things were to going to evolve the way they are, from my perspective Democrats would become the new GOP and new party forms on the left. I don't think the "Green" name could be used, but a new party like the "Labor" party or something could work. There's too much history in this country with the Green Party. Eh, maybe it could be different if all parties were welcomed onto debate stages and the like... true adoption of a multi-party system.

My main beef with the Greens is their technophobic tendencies, being against GMOs and nuclear energy. Their base is too much centered on educated middle class "lifestyle liberals" and not centered enough on working class issues.

deleted because of problems with link.

Basically, Hillary Clinton turned out to be the ironic winner of Republican debates.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

So far the ultimate irony of the 2016 Presidential race:

http://s1068.photobucket.com/user/cd...5i3pr.gif.html

Hey PB, I tried to PM you on this but your box is full.

this link goes to your photobucket link in a manner you don't want it to!

"History" was a bad term, I should've used stigma. The definition of the Green Party given by the Court of Public Opinion. With a new name for a Progressive movement it could be relatively free of any stereotype initially.

I don't really want to name drop, but Playwrite although really harsh in the "Bernie 4 Prez" thread is right about Millennials dropping the ball on the mid-terms in 2010. That's the reason for the gerrymandering. No one in my Gen-X/Gen-Y peer group was on Facebook discussing how important the congressional make-up of 2010-2012 would be for drawing political maps like they are with promoting Bernie Sanders. Unless this Crisis really destroys both establishments AND laws are changed, there's always going to be the threat of gerrymandering.

I too have a somewhat negative connotation with the Green Party, it seems like the party of Hippies with Degrees seeking Votes from burnouts of the Awakening. I'm not sure what a conservative Democratic Party should be called, but historically speaking it should be called the Democratic-Republican Party it was called in the 1800's which kept trade tariffs low, states maintained greater rights, and militias were commonplace. The new party on the left, which the Whig party was more progressive under the foundation of "The American System" should be named differently. How about that for historical cycles ?!?

Millennials really need to commit to a cause longer than a Presidential Race or Occupy Wall Street. If that generation is the most disenchanted with politics-as-usual then something needs to be done. Then again, Millennials aren't supposed to lead themselves and this is probably why we're trying to identify a Grey Champion. With advances in technology, it'd be nice if a mutli-party truly democratic government could be put in place. The idea of republic should be outdated.

Originally Posted by Coskin84

"History" was a bad term, I should've used stigma. The definition of the Green Party given by the Court of Public Opinion. With a new name for a Progressive movement it could be relatively free of any stereotype initially.

I don't really want to name drop, but Playwrite although really harsh in the "Bernie 4 Prez" thread is right about Millennials dropping the ball on the mid-terms in 2010. That's the reason for the gerrymandering. No one in my Gen-X/Gen-Y peer group was on Facebook discussing how important the congressional make-up of 2010-2012 would be for drawing political maps like they are with promoting Bernie Sanders. Unless this Crisis really destroys both establishments AND laws are changed, there's always going to be the threat of gerrymandering.

I too have a somewhat negative connotation with the Green Party, it seems like the party of Hippies with Degrees seeking Votes from burnouts of the Awakening. I'm not sure what a conservative Democratic Party should be called, but historically speaking it should be called the Democratic-Republican Party it was called in the 1800's which kept trade tariffs low, states maintained greater rights, and militias were commonplace. The new party on the left, which the Whig party was more progressive under the foundation of "The American System" should be named differently. How about that for historical cycles ?!?

Millennials really need to commit to a cause longer than a Presidential Race or Occupy Wall Street. If that generation is the most disenchanted with politics-as-usual then something needs to be done. Then again, Millennials aren't supposed to lead themselves and this is probably why we're trying to identify a Grey Champion. With advances in technology, it'd be nice if a mutli-party truly democratic government could be put in place. The idea of republic should be outdated.

The Sanders campaign appeals strongly to the Millennial Generation. It is a Civic agenda, one likely to fit an America that chooses to leave no young adult behind in the achievement of a just and humane social order. Is America ready for it? Probably not. Four years from now?

As the Millennial Generation starts appearing in the House, this agenda is much of what we will see. We are going to see many politicians cast off in elections of 2018, 2022, and 2022 -- especially if they are of the Tea Party (a very un-Civic cause), often in places that seem very conservative (if not fascist) in their politics. We are going to see the New Agenda appear even in the whitest parts of the Mountain and Deep South as an alternative to right-wing failure.

Originally Posted by Coskin84

"History" was a bad term, I should've used stigma. The definition of the Green Party given by the Court of Public Opinion. With a new name for a Progressive movement it could be relatively free of any stereotype initially.

I don't really want to name drop, but Playwrite although really harsh in the "Bernie 4 Prez" thread is right about Millennials dropping the ball on the mid-terms in 2010. That's the reason for the gerrymandering. No one in my Gen-X/Gen-Y peer group was on Facebook discussing how important the congressional make-up of 2010-2012 would be for drawing political maps like they are with promoting Bernie Sanders. Unless this Crisis really destroys both establishments AND laws are changed, there's always going to be the threat of gerrymandering.

I too have a somewhat negative connotation with the Green Party, it seems like the party of Hippies with Degrees seeking Votes from burnouts of the Awakening. I'm not sure what a conservative Democratic Party should be called, but historically speaking it should be called the Democratic-Republican Party it was called in the 1800's which kept trade tariffs low, states maintained greater rights, and militias were commonplace. The new party on the left, which the Whig party was more progressive under the foundation of "The American System" should be named differently. How about that for historical cycles ?!?

Millennials really need to commit to a cause longer than a Presidential Race or Occupy Wall Street. If that generation is the most disenchanted with politics-as-usual then something needs to be done. Then again, Millennials aren't supposed to lead themselves and this is probably why we're trying to identify a Grey Champion. With advances in technology, it'd be nice if a mutli-party truly democratic government could be put in place. The idea of republic should be outdated.

I hope the millennials begin to understand what you are saying.

The Green Party does stem from the movements of the sixties, which you could call hippie or Awakening burnout if you prefer. I think of the Awakening and the mid/late 60s and 70s as the phase which defines the ideals and goals that meet the needs of our time. These goals and ideals don't necessarily fade away just because new generations come along who weren't alive in the sixties. They remain the issues of our time. The Green Party platform is the blueprint for where the 4T needs to take the country. However, it won't all be accomplished in the 4T, I am sure. Indications are that the green revolution, the latest of the 3 modern revolutions that shape modern history, which began in the sixties, will come to a climax in early in the next Awakening, and the next generation of prophets will lead it. The Green Party can be seen as the party that supports the progressive aspects of all 3 revolutions: democracy, social equality, and greenpeace.

So the Green Party remains relevant, although it suffered a blow with the perception that it spoiled the election of Al Gore, who was plenty green anyway. The main responsibility for that spoilage remains with Katharine Harris and other officials in Florida who purged the voter rolls too much, among other irregularities, and with the Supreme Court that stopped the recount.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Sanders campaign appeals strongly to the Millennial Generation. It is a Civic agenda, one likely to fit an America that chooses to leave no young adult behind in the achievement of a just and humane social order. Is America ready for it? Probably not. Four years from now?

As the Millennial Generation starts appearing in the House, this agenda is much of what we will see. We are going to see many politicians cast off in elections of 2018, 2022, and 2022 -- especially if they are of the Tea Party (a very un-Civic cause), often in places that seem very conservative (if not fascist) in their politics. We are going to see the New Agenda appear even in the whitest parts of the Mountain and Deep South as an alternative to right-wing failure.

In 4 to 10 years, a percentage of the Millennial Generation will be older, wiser and more accomplished than today.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

In 4 to 10 years, a percentage of the Millennial Generation will be older, wiser and more accomplished than today.

...and they will have more of a stake in a liberal America. They will have children, and they will want decent pay for their work. This is the sort of generation that trusts unions more than it trusts rapacious employers.

Generally, I'm hoping the Clinton campaign holds out the big gun until late August to October, but just a tad of him, here and there, would be fun.

He goes for the Achilles Heel in such a nice way -

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...a-reality-show

Obama on Trump: 'This is not a reality show'

....“He has a long record that needs to be examined. And I think it’s important to take seriously the statements he’s made in the past,” the president told reporters at the White House. “I just want to emphasize that we are in serious times and this is a serious job.”

Obama took a jab at Trump’s past as host of the “Apprentice” reality television series: “This is not entertainment, this is not a reality show, this is a contest for president of the United States.”

Obama made a measured and stern critique of Trump and Republicans in Congress. He refrained from commenting about Trump’s controversial tweet that showed him posing with a taco bowl to celebrate Cinco de Mayo.

“I have no thoughts on Mr. Trump's tweets,” Obama said, with a laugh. “As a general rule, I don’t pay attention to Mr. Trump's tweets. That will be true for the next six months, so you can just file that one.”

Obama said GOP voters will have to ask themselves “whether this is the guy who speaks for them and represent their values,” adding that Republican women, in particular, “are going to have to decide, 'Is that the guy I feel comfortable with?’ ”.....

"Comfortable with?"

You can almost see just the tiniest suggestion of a little glitch behind the eyes of one or two of the Stepford wives.
They just need to keep their husbands out of their voting booths.