Originally Posted by Odin

It's looking like Sanders' strongest support is coming from blue collar whites, the opposite of Obama's campaign in 2008, which had trouble with that exact demographic. Sanders is bring working class whites back home to the Democratic Party.

A liberal-rationalist coalition makes the perfect constituency for bringing about a political, cultural, and moral regeneracy, the antithesis of the Dubya-era Degeneracy. Graft working-class whites onto the Obama vote of either 2008 or 2012, and the Democrat wins practically every state that Carter, Clinton, or Obama ever won. That implies a big gain for Democrats in both Houses of Congress.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Playwrite called it right, in the sense that 2008 was not a recession-- it was THE GREAT Recession. It was a 1929-type event. It precipitated a 4T mood in the USA and Europe, which is reflected in the Trump/Sanders surge. If not for some timely actions to bail out the big banks and stimulate the economy (lessons learned from 1929), we would have gone over a cliff to total ruin. 2008 was a BIG F*CKIN' DEAL!

Playwrite in his own way confirms my own astrology-based prediction that the 2008 crash is the worst economic recession we will have in the 21st century, at least until the 2090s.

Yes, there are recessionary cycles, although I don't think 1884 qualifies, and recessions certainly continued after 1933: 1937, 1946, 1959, 1973, 1979, 1992, 2001, 2008.

So a recession is due in 2018-19, but it won't be another crash. I'm pretty sure about that. But the economy is weaker than in 2013-14 for the next several years. An energy boom has been keeping a recession from happening, and if the Democrats win, a green energy boom is due starting in 2018 that will offset the recession, although the Supreme Court is now trying to shut it down. We can expect a relative boom in the 2020s.


Yes I agree.

IMO, 2008 was not 1929. The immediate steps that were taken by the government at the time prevented the harsh reality of experiencing the next 1929 in 2008. What do think is going to cause the social strife that you accept as coming in 2026?

Originally Posted by Odin

It's looking like Sanders' strongest support is coming from blue collar whites, the opposite of Obama's campaign in 2008, which had trouble with that exact demographic. Sanders is bring working class whites back home to the Democratic Party.

Did you support Obama in 2008? Aren't you a younger blue collar white person? Is there more younger blue collar whites like yourself who are able to vote today than there was in 2008? Who does Obama support?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Did you support Obama in 2008? Aren't you a younger blue collar white person? Is there more younger blue collar whites like yourself who are able to vote today than there was in 2008? Who does Obama support?

Yes, I did vote for Obama and yes, I am a younger blue collar white person. What I am is irrelevant to the mass statistics.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

IMO, 2008 was not 1929. The immediate steps that were taken by the government at the time prevented the harsh reality of experiencing the next 1929 in 2008.

Yes, but it was a near miss, and has brought an endemic recession for most people.

What do think is going to cause the social strife that you accept as coming in 2026?

I think some pundits are already talking about the campaign of 2016 as a delayed effect of 2008. People are getting stuck because the 1% have all the cards. Housing and education costs still rise, while wages stagnate. Jobs are ever harder to find; businesses harder to maintain. Workers are being replaced by robots and Asians. The economy is still unsteady because speculation hasn't been reined in enough. Poverty is getting worse, especially among poorer ethnic groups who frighten the police. People who vote Democratic blame the 1% for hogging and hoarding the money, and too much war and defense spending. People who vote Republican blame immigrants, "cultural" or religious decline, big-govmint regulations and taxes. Millennials blame boomers for hanging on to jobs. People on both sides, but mostly liberal or center-left politicians, blame the rich for buying our government. Others, mostly on the right, blame the debt. Blacks and others are angry at being shot on the street for no reason.

The chances are high that a progressive wave will sweep the government in the 2020s. Gun control will happen, taxes and spending will rise, and the right could react to that violently. You have talked about this yourself. In addition, foreign affairs will remain unsteady, and wars/terrorists will continue to threaten. Right wing militarist politicians like Rubio could benefit. Peace activists could be stirred into action. The anti-war movement could empower the left and libertarians. The election of November 2024 could be the next 1860.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Methinks that a Hillery win would unto itself = dire destruction.

You-thinks wrong. She is a knowledgeable, steady hand and she would bring some action to improve the country for most people. THe dire danger is that she might not win. IN that case, we have to throw in our lot with the democratic socialist and hope astrology works!!!

Get my implication. I'm sure you know what I say. Dire destruction always now = Republicans elected to anything.

Half-assed improvement = Democrats elected to anything.

No other political equation is valid today. None.

(quoted)
Bernie blew his biggest chance yet to harpoon the white whale known as Hillary when he cast some glancing aspersions on Mz It’s-My-Turn’s special side-job as errand girl of the Too-Big-To-Fail banks. Together, Bill and Hillary racked up $7.7 million on 39 speaking gigs to that gang, with Hillary clocking $1.8 million of the total for eight blabs. When Bernie alluded to this raft of grift, MzIMT retorted, “If you’ve got something to say, say it directly.”

There was a lot Bernie could have said, but didn’t. Such as: what did you tell them that was worth over $200,000 a pop? Whatever it was, it must have made them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Did it occur to you that this might look bad sometime in the near future? Is there any way that this might not be construed as bribery? And how is some formerly middle-class out-of-work average voter supposed to feel about you getting paid more for 45 minutes of flapping your gums than he or she has earned in the past five years?
(/quoted)
Heh, I just love this. Hey, Mr$ It'$ my turn, yeah you, ju$t exactly why $hould you get all that $ when I can't?

Hey, it IS Mz It's My Turn's turn!

And if Bernie didn't ask her that, the moderator (Chuck Todd I think) DID. And she answered it OK. Bernie could not have repeated the question and not sounded like a pest. Sanders is running on his "identity" as a gentleman. And he can't help it; he IS one. Hillary is trying to be more like a lady. She is doing OK at this, but sometimes she "slips," and her "slips" are showing.

I guess Hillary and Bill must be part of the 1% now. Almost as rich as her likely opponent would be. That is a lot of money to pull down for a speech. Pretty good racket I'd say. It doesn't really mean that she's bought by her hosts; she doesn't need more money for more speeches now. But it does put her in the upper brackets that Sanders has never attained.

1. Campaigning on her identity as a woman = identity politics as a woman. Hey, identity politics is just so 60's.
2. Stick a fork in it, that's a long gone cause.

You're mostly right, but, 60s is still man!

I still say, her identity will still work for her, but only if she SHUTS UP ABOUT IT! Enough already.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You-thinks wrong. She is a knowledgeable, steady hand and she would bring some action to improve the country for most people. THe dire danger is that she might not win. IN that case, we have to throw in our lot with the democratic socialist and hope astrology works!!!

Get my implication. I'm sure you know what I say. Dire destruction always now = Republicans elected to anything.

Half-assed improvement = Democrats elected to anything.

No other political equation is valid today. None.



Hey, it IS Mz It's My Turn's turn!

And if Bernie didn't ask her that, the moderator (Chuck Todd I think) DID. And she answered it OK. Bernie could not have repeated the question and not sounded like a pest. Sanders is running on his "identity" as a gentleman. And he can't help it; he IS one. Hillary is trying to be more like a lady. She is doing OK at this, but sometimes she "slips," and her "slips" are showing.

I guess Hillary and Bill must be part of the 1% now. Almost as rich as her likely opponent would be. That is a lot of money to pull down for a speech. Pretty good racket I'd say. It doesn't really mean that she's bought by her hosts; she doesn't need more money for more speeches now. But it does put her in the upper brackets that Sanders has never attained.



You're mostly right, but, 60s is still man!

I still say, her identity will still work for her, but only if she SHUTS UP ABOUT IT! Enough already.

We need to look at this article by Michelle Alexander.http://www.thenation.com/article/hil...peoples-votes/ She is part of a groundswell of opposition to Hillary that is rising amongst Millennial African Americans. The biggest issue amongst young African-Americans, and the one that affects THEM the most is mass incarceration and the "school-to-prison pipeline". Issues that the Clintons--both Clintons--got on the wrong side of in the 1990s when they loudly supported both "tough on crime" legislation and an end to welfare, supporting the Reagan narrative that African-Americans needed to be disciplined with tough punishment rather than coddled with welfare. Obviously, this issue affects wealthier African-Americans and older African-Americans a lot less who may have felt the same way about their children and grandchildren at the time (and maybe some of them still do).
I suppose all this seemed like a good idea at the time for Boomers. But at this point in time, we may now be looking at the same kind of generational split between Boomers and younger generations in the African-American community that we are seeing in the White community. In that case, the only thing Hillary may have going for her may be the suppression of the Millennial and Generation X vote by the very legislation she and her husband sponsored and has given so many young African Americans criminal records. Hopefully, it will not be enough.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You-thinks wrong. She is a knowledgeable, steady hand [in the till] and she would bring some action to [featherbed her cronie$] and not improve the country for most people. The dire danger is that she might <redacted> win. IN that case, we have to throw in our lot with the democratic socialist and hope astrology works!!! [or just go with it and feel the Bern.]

I just fixed it fer ya.

Get my implication. I'm sure you know what I say. Dire destruction always now = Republicans elected to anything.

Uh, a neoliberal by any other name is just a neoliberal, man.

Half-assed improvement = Democrats elected to anything.

R or D
doesn't mean always how it's to be
There's a ocean between Bernie and Hillery
as to which has the right policy.

No other political equation is valid today. None.

Oh you bet, see above.

Hey, it IS Mz It's My Turn's turn!

Nope.

And if Bernie didn't ask her that, the moderator (Chuck Todd I think) DID. And she answered it OK. Bernie could not have repeated the question and not sounded like a pest. Sanders is running on his "identity" as a gentleman. And he can't help it; he IS one. Hillary is trying to be more like a lady. She is doing OK at this, but sometimes she "slips," and her "slips" are showing.

Wow, and all this time, all I sees is baggage, more than what an airplane's storage bins have.

I guess Hillary and Bill must be part of the 1% now. Almost as rich as her likely opponent would be. That is a lot of money to pull down for a speech. Pretty good racket I'd say. It doesn't really mean that she's bought by her hosts; she doesn't need more money for more speeches now. But it does put her in the upper brackets that Sanders has never attained.

Birds, birds, flight of feather,
man it sucks when they flock together,
They shit no matter the weather,
and they annoy when they peck the heather
makes want to smack them with leather

* For the big "H"

You're mostly right, but, 60s is still man!

I still say, her identity will still work for her, but only if she SHUTS UP ABOUT IT! Enough already.

OK, please tell her pals to knock it off as well. As for me, it's a blast for the past Rags -> Hillery




60's? OK, here's one



Memories, memories how sweet they are. Felix is one cool cat.

[QUOTE=Ragnarök_62;549091]
I just fixed it fer ya.

Uh, a neoliberal by any other name is just a neoliberal, man.

And any Republican is still a Republican.

Oh, and Hillary is not a neo-liberal. That's the Republicans.

R or D
doesn't mean always how it's to be
There's a ocean between Bernie and Hillery
as to which has the right policy.

Nice try.

A river runs through the election today.
It's easy to cross, you know the way.
If the Bern burns out and embers remain,
then head for the Hills and get on the train.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

We need to look at this article by Michelle Alexander.http://www.thenation.com/article/hil...peoples-votes/ She is part of a groundswell of opposition to Hillary that is rising amongst Millennial African Americans. The biggest issue amongst young African-Americans, and the one that affects THEM the most is mass incarceration and the "school-to-prison pipeline". Issues that the Clintons--both Clintons--got on the wrong side of in the 1990s when they loudly supported both "tough on crime" legislation and an end to welfare, supporting the Reagan narrative that African-Americans needed to be disciplined with tough punishment rather than coddled with welfare. Obviously, this issue affects wealthier African-Americans and older African-Americans a lot less who may have felt the same way about their children and grandchildren at the time (and maybe some of them still do).
I suppose all this seemed like a good idea at the time for Boomers. But at this point in time, we may now be looking at the same kind of generational split between Boomers and younger generations in the African-American community that we are seeing in the White community. In that case, the only thing Hillary may have going for her may be the suppression of the Millennial and Generation X vote by the very legislation she and her husband sponsored and has given so many young African Americans criminal records. Hopefully, it will not be enough.

You had a point until your last sentence. But Hillary isn't suppressing votes; that's the Republican game.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

IMO, 2008 was not 1929.

Actually 2008 was 1929, economically, and particularly from a cycle perspective. From a long cycle (Kondratieff) viewpoint both were deflationary downturns coming that marked the transition from the "fall" to "winter" season. 1873 was another such event.

All three were remarkable in certain respects. 1873 began the longest recession ever. 1929 began the largest recession and bear market ever. 2008 marked the second-worst bear market ever, and the largest recession since the Great Depression.

Such events appear to be linked to 4Ts (I believed the Civil War 4T last until the end of Reconstruction so 1873 falls inside a 4T). Also I will note there was another one of these in London in 1772 that directly led to the Boston Tea party, which S&H have as the 4T trigger.

The immediate steps that were taken by the government at the time prevented the harsh reality of experiencing the next 1929 in 2008.

Correct. The outcome of 2008 was different for the reasons you give, but that doesn't mean the economic events were not similar.

Consider this. Evidence suggests that monetary policy was largely responsible for the partial recover from the Depression. You know that massive amounts of monetary stimulus were applied right after the 2008 event. Suppose the US had gone off gold in 1930 instead of 1933? Might not the deflationary collapse been avoided. A massive recession would still have happened, with financial panic and bank failures but unemployment would not have risen as far as it did. And the recovery to followed would be partial, as it was, but it would have started from a higher level and so would not feel the same as the recovery that actually happened. I submit Hoover would not have lost the election in 1932, but his party would have lost seats in 1934, allowing Democrats to gain control of at least one house of congress. In other words, Hoover would experience something like what Obama has. And in 1936 the country would be facing a decision do we want to stick with the Republicans and try something else.

Originally Posted by Odin

Feeling the Yern: Why One Millennial Woman Would Rather Go to Hell Than Vote for Hillary



But according to the Almighty barnshitting owl Playdude she is a moron wanting puppies and unicorns.

-- omg!! Rofl! We seriously need a like button on these forums

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You had a point until your last sentence. But Hillary isn't suppressing votes; that's the Republican game.

-- no but the legislation Bill signed preventing excons from voting is surpressing votes

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

IMO, 2008 was not 1929. The immediate steps that were taken by the government at the time prevented the harsh reality of experiencing the next 1929 in 2008. What do think is going to cause the social strife that you accept as coming in 2026?

Not exactly. But Hoover-like policies would have made this decade even more like the 1930s.

The twist is that in response to the incompetent conduct of the wars in South Asia and the bungling of the response to Hurricane Katrina, Democrats won the House of Representatives and the Senate in 2006. They were able to press the Bush Maladministration to act to undo the economic damage of the great financial meltdown. I can only imagine what the four years or so beginning in 2007 (2007 and 1929 were the peaks for the stock markets) would have been like.

Amateurs recognize the 1929 Stock Market Crash as the start of the Great Depression. But that was simply a correction to a speculative boom; all that happened was that the 'dumb money' in the Markets got wiped out. The real crash came in 1930, and the real analogue to 2008 was 1930 -- not 1929. 1930 was when smart money started to get wiped out. The meltdown that began in 1929 ended only when FDR started to back the banks. Obama backed the banks in the equivalent of 1931 (2009) -- and that was the difference between the 2010s and the 1930s.

Of course President Obama ended up rescuing some of the economic interests that had no use for him after he rescued him -- but he did save savings accounts, payrolls, and accounts receivables all essential to a market recovery and general prosperity.

Social strife in 2026? Here's how it happens. The Republicans win the Presidency and hold the Senate in 2016 (the House is a foregone conclusion) and find a way to entrench themselves. Maybe they pass legislation that allows employers to dictate how their cattle -- excuse me, 'associates' vote, which ensures that the Republican Party gets about 75% of the vote and is able to get super-majorities capable of enforcing Constitutional change. The Republicans are able to get through a crisis that would get them cast off in a free election, and maybe start some wars for profit. Or maybe they get a Great Depression that makes the 1930s look good by contrast. Add to that a nasty order in which dissidents are consigned to American equivalents of Gulags if they are not instead murdered.

The ruling elite is seen as selfish, rapacious, corrupt and brutal... and, in the wake of the Sino-American War (it is not World War III because Europe is not involved) America is set up for a revolution. 1776 or 1917? Let us hope for the former. A revolution or coup that brings about a liberal America brings an America willing to go to the conference table... an America willing to scale back its military. Some Chinese general tells the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China that a liberal America is better treated like the post-WWII German Federal Republic than like the Weimar Republic.

I have to go wild to create a scenario like that, and I hope that we see nothing like that. The best that I can hope for is that working-class white people recognize that the Koch brothers and their stooges have nothing to offer but promises that they never intend to keep while establishing the sort of economic inequality and government indulgent to plutocrats that one associates with the latter years of the Romanov dynasty in Russia.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I read that post too. He touches on the problem, but missed the most important part. He talks about how inequality was high in the 1920's just like today, but was low in between. But he doesn't talks about how that happened. He says things like this:

He shows an outcome and then just states that a political side caused this to happen like magic. He doesn't go into more detail because he probably doesn't know HOW it happened. Well if you don't know how something happens how is the hell are you supposed to bring it about?

Sanders talks about raising the top tax rate by 94%. Has a left ever accomplished this in American history? No.

During the New Deal FDR raises top tax rates by 25%, about the same as the 1993 28% increase under Clinton. Republicans raised the top tax rate by 140% just before the New Deal, and supported further increasing the top rate by 21% for the war.

So you see Sanders top pro-equality tool is something "the Left" has never been able to achieve in peacetime. The big increases that were an important contributor to the inequality reduction described in the cited article were mostly done by Republicans. Ask yourself, why did they do it? Can one arrange things so that they are willing to do it again?

He calls for a national minimum wage of $15. This is good. How about calling for a rally in Washington for a 70K minimum salary for exemption from overtime rules. This is something the president can do unilaterally. Maybe a call for a tariff. How about prosecution of those who hire the undocumented, combined with a path to citizenship for those those they employ who show a willingness to become Americans. Maybe steal a bit of Trumps thunder. What I am suggesting is open up a wide range of policy issues, all of which are unified in that they were possibly involved in the great compression. The vast reduction in inequality from 1929-1946 occurred in a world in which immigration has been sharply reduced in 1924, tax raises sharply in 1930, 1935 and 1941, a massive tariff passed in 1930, labor actions legalized in 1935, prohibition ended in 1933, economy flooded with money in 1933 and after, welfare programs established mid 1930's, massive stimulus in 1941-46, price and wage controls with an explicit income leveled objective built in, etc. Lots of moving parts. No one know for sure how big of a role any one of these played. Maybe the results came from most or all of these acting in concert. The more policies along these lines that can be thrown into the debate, the better. And the primary is the time to do it.

I think we agree on the policy you discuss. When to raise those issues is another matter. Sanders has kept it simple up to this point, and that may be intentional. Hillary has done just the opposite, and spends inordinate amounts of here time explaining her explanations. Economics is hard and much of it is counter intuitive -- at least for the average person. It would help to know what Bernie will do if he can't do what he prefers, but we may have to do without that knowledge for now. If he gets the nod, he'll be forced to add detail ... by the press, if not the other candidate(s). If its Sanders v. Trump or Cruz, Michael Bloomberg may add his name to the list of eligibles.

I should also note that the post I used to start this (actually provided by mockingbirdstl originally -- thank you) is just a blog entry by a PhD candidate in PolySci who makes lots of them. He seems to have the right instincts if not a total command of the economic language. In response to comments below a few of his posts, he expands in the direction you indicated, but his focus is politics, not econ.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The ruling elite is seen as selfish, rapacious, corrupt and brutal... and, in the wake of the Sino-American War (it is not World War III because Europe is not involved) America is set up for a revolution. 1776 or 1917? Let us hope for the former. A revolution or coup that brings about a liberal America brings an America willing to go to the conference table... an America willing to scale back its military. Some Chinese general tells the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China that a liberal America is better treated like the post-WWII German Federal Republic than like the Weimar Republic.

I have to go wild to create a scenario like that, and I hope that we see nothing like that. The best that I can hope for is that working-class white people recognize that the Koch brothers and their stooges have nothing to offer but promises that they never intend to keep while establishing the sort of economic inequality and government indulgent to plutocrats that one associates with the latter years of the Romanov dynasty in Russia.

I'd say the same thing to the above scenario as I've been saying to our resident Marxist. As hard as it is to elect a transforming government looking after the interests of the general population, transformation by ballot box will happen before transformation by bomb. The Democrats seem to be working hard to set up a transformation by bomb. They make promises they can't keep. They speak of hope and change then bring in Wall Street insiders to run the economy. The bombs will come when it becomes clear that the ballot box can never get one anywhere. Still, the Republicans are working for the bomb even harder. Their rank and file has heard enough broken promises that their establishment candidates and platform is getting rejected by their own base. Well, you can see the same thing on the blue side. The insurgents are the front runners at the moment.

I'm trying to figure out whether I'm more upset by the Red rank and file or the Blue politicians. If there is to be a rebellion, who do we need to rebel against?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... I guess Hillary and Bill must be part of the 1% now. Almost as rich as her likely opponent would be. That is a lot of money to pull down for a speech. Pretty good racket I'd say. It doesn't really mean that she's bought by her hosts; she doesn't need more money for more speeches now. But it does put her in the upper brackets that Sanders has never attained...

There are several versions of just how much the Clintons have amassed, but $100 Million or more seems to be typical. Here's the Wikipedia version.

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/11/sexi...ernie_sanders/

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Yes it was. Panics are big deals. That is why they got rid of them in the 1930's. But then they brought them back. They ain't going to go away until Congress sends them away. After working tirelessly to bring them back, Republicans are not going to do this, and unless you see huge Democratic majorities filled with Sanders-style liberals nobody else will either.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1884


Recessions, but not deflationary recessions (depressions).


This one had the potential to be a depression, and if we get another panic any chance at depression.

Awesomely funny and terrifying at the same time (i.e., 'they got rid of them and then brought them back')! Nice writing.

The elites got hurt pretty badly in the '08 Meltdown; I'm not sure they're going to let each other do that again. Also, I'm not sure what the mechanism would be; nothing much out there comparable to the perfect storm of real estate bubble , securitization, risk tranches, and CDOs - yea, energy and related junk bonds are big but nowhere near that big.

However, one thing to consider, if we put our tin foil hats on, is the current equity pullback - motivated and manipulated? To what end?

Most people, particularly those seeking saviors, only remember the bank bailouts and the lack of perp walks. Most don't remember that weekend where it was questionable whether or not the banks would open on Monday or if one's ATM, credit card or debit card would work. Whether one would be eating depending only on their cash on hand. Breaking up big banks is a nice big society feeling, but not being able to eat gets personal real fast. If that sense were to come back due to a panic in the market, how well would Bernie's message sell? Just what are the elites willing to do to avoid a problem in the WH? My tin foil is buzzing; I may be under satellite laser attack!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We went there, but you didn't, apparently. Others did en masse, and the author had to add this:

UPDATE:This post is getting a lot of attention, which is terrific and I thank all of you who are sharing it and helping more people see it. The downside is that there are a lot of comments, and it’s overwhelmed my ability to thoughtfully reply to each one. To allow myself to get other work done, I’ve had to go cold turkey and I will no longer be writing any more comment replies for this post. In the comments I’ve seen so far, I’ve noticed some people expressing concerns about electability, and I will write a post about why non-neoliberal candidates are fundamentally more viable now than they used to be soon (this includes not only Bernie, but also Trump–Trump is a right nationalist, not a neoliberal, which is why the republican establishment hates him). If you want to be sure not to miss that post, I invite you to scroll down to the bottom of the webpage, where I have all sorts of means by which you can follow my blog (via Facebook, Twitter, or E-Mail). My thanks again to all of you who are helping to make this post so popular by sharing it on social media.

I'm anxious to read the post about electability.

From your link -

It doesn’t matter which one is more experienced, or which one’s policies are more likely to pass congress, or which one is more likely to win a general election, or which one is a man and which one is a woman. This is not about just this election, or just the next four years. This is about whether the Democratic Party is going to care about inequality for the next decade. We are making a historical decision between two distinct ideological paradigms, not a choice between flavors of popcorn. This is important. Choose carefully.

Full stop. The guy is riding a magic pony.

Originally Posted by playwrite

My tin foil is buzzing; I may be under satellite laser attack!

Have you tried the new non-metallic tin foil? No buzzing!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Politicians, even rabidly dogmatic ones, bend to threats on their tenure. That was the club Reagan used, and a powerful one it was then and can be again today.

How is Bernie going to come anywhere near threatening any gerrymandered district Representative or rural state Senator let alone the Freedom Caucus.

So many of you are confusing this civil war against an implacable foe that hates your very existence for some sort of faux revolution against some amorphous soft middle that doesn't have what you consider a perfect voting record.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I've seen a steady stream of retrenchment for 40 years. What progress do you envision that a neoliberal tool might bring to the table?

As I noted before, a whole new way to triangulate -

[/URL]

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The reason so few Millies can tolerate Hillary at all has as much to do with her sense of entitlement as it does with her politics. How much of this can the young absorb? They are told to focus on all the identity politics they reject out of hand, and accept that things they care about will take time to work out, even though they are watching their lives and careers crater in front of their eyes. Yet Hillary is due. It's her turn. In return for supporting her, she promises to support some half-ass program they care not a whit about, even though the one they do care about has to be off the table as too expensive or too hard or too <insert the excuse of choice>.

But far and away, her worst problem is her total tone deafness on, well everything. Did she really think a few old feminist women could tell today's young women who to support? Really? It's just the most recent case of her not getting it ... but they do, and they're pissed. She won't get their support. If she gets the nomination, the GOP wins in November... period.

You're right, it would be much better if Clinton would only just join in and answer "Yes" to that berning question -

"Do you want to build a snowman?"

Originally Posted by Odin

It's looking like Sanders' strongest support is coming from blue collar whites, the opposite of Obama's campaign in 2008, which had trouble with that exact demographic. Sanders is bring working class whites back home to the Democratic Party.

Yea, I think I saw them at a Trump rally bashing brown people.