The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[DavidB.]

It's the fundamental question. You can poll on the broader subject with any number of broad or specific statements that are designed to suppress or expand support for the concept, and end up with anywhere from 35 to 65% of the public supporting the concept. The primary opposition against enacting single-payer does not reside within the public at-large. Any time you provide specifics on a broader issue, public support shifts (and often erodes) - but not always for the reasons some people would like to assume.

One example would be to ask if people support "universal background checks" - 80 to 90% agree. Begin articulating each specific piece of what is required to implement it, and support begins to plunge markedly. A counter-example (where people support a concept more as they learn about it) is ACA: ask people if they like "Obamacare" and a narrow plurality or majority might say no. Ask them point-by-point if they support what constitutes "Obamacare", and it's an aggregate respectable majority in favor.

The common denominator is that the public doesn't know much at all and can be persuaded in either direction by whoever has the best narrative. This is the biggest reason why ACA was a flop, in my opinion: we lost the narrative and it cost Democrats far more than it was worth. At the end of the day, single-payer would follow the same trajectory: people would like the broader idea, grow to dislike whatever actually manifested as advertised, but then would actually like the individual provisions when explained.

[Mopsus]

-The types of people, in general, who wouldn't vote for someone like Donald Trump despise his tactics.
-People who may be at first detached might look at Trump's current and past polling success objectively.
-The above come to appreciate his ability to churn the masses.
-Type Beta, shall we say, those alienated by Trump, refuse to acknowledge increasing likelihood of victory. This results in them mocking or belittling even objective observations of Trump's political potential.
-Type Alpha, those who have come to appreciate Trump's manipulative abilities, come to actively root for The Donald. Why? Because all his detractors can't accept the possibility that someone that confounds or confuses them might win anything. It thus becomes a moral imperative to see Trump win if only to demonstrate Type Alpha's self-perceived intellectual superiority to Type Beta.

That's my self-examination, in any case. At the end of the day, do I actually prefer Trump politically? Outside of economics, no idea, but just seeing the absolute state of denial in the Type Betas creates the need to see them beaten.

Does anyone else identify with this?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

While I disagree with Averroes about the Trump campaign, I strongly concurr with what he says in the first part of his post.

This isn't a case of someone saying "ok, let's put William F Buckley in the poll" or "Despite him being in the undercard debate we'll put Jim Gilmore there". In those cases it would be understandable if you decided to delete the polls.

But this wasn't the case. We are talking about the frontrunner of the party who decided to boycott a debate a couple of days before the start of the primaries, even though he was qualified for it and whose non attendance was the cause of a media sh**tstorm for the past few days. How is that not relevant to the debate? If a lot of people watched the friggin thing and found it to be extremely boring and that all were terrible or the only thing they could think about was "Why isn't Trump here?" then the Donald Trump option should be definitely be included in the poll (hell, it could even stan in for a none of the above option). I can't see how that isn't logical.

Apart from the Time poll I mentioned, Torie also talked about the Politico poll, and Lief even mentioned lots of pundints talking about it.

Those polls were deleted because the mods apparently have a personal dislike about Trump, this wasn't about following some "rules" Dave Leip created.

Pretty sad since this used to be an excellent forum.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I absolutely adore Naso's shtick, which he's been at for over 10 years now. Basically, it has always went like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course - as alluded to above - Naso has never been supportive of Democrats or found them to be reasonable. He'll go back in time a few years and point to that period as being an era where Democrats were reasonable (as opposed to *now*, in which they're hardcore extremists), but you'll find the same claims made during that so-called "reasonable" time period. It's just his shtick...a way for him to cry crocodile tears about the party he hates. By 2025, he'll be talking about that reasonable pragmatist Obama who respected wholesome family values as part of his tirade on Hitlery Killton.

Hey, at the very least, my search for the perfect example of this post from years ago delivered arguably the best Naso quote ever for my sig!

[Asian Nazi]

I've said this before (and dead0man always ignores it), but here's something many miss: It is possible to think Trump is a Horrible Person and yet still enjoy the nightmare he's causing for the Republicans. The Republican establishment are not a group of people I would ever be able to muster any sympathy for, even if I was more conservative. Similarly it's hard for me to think "Oh poor Jeb/Christie/Rubio having their possible nomination stolen by this lunatic"

There are people here who seem to think that politics is like a sports game, and that you should respect the "other team" and not get gleeful about things like injuries or whatnot. That's simply not the case. Come February 8, there will be no real impact on the world based on whoever won the Super Bowl. Some people will be very happy, some people will be very dissapointed. They'll all go on with their lives. That's not true about November 9. Similarly ridiculous is the idea that the "mainstream" Republican candidates are good respectable people and even Democrats should show view them as respectable opponents, unlike Trump. Not only has that way of thinking not been the case the last couple elections, it never has been.

Trump poses a severe threat to a group of people with zero moral standing, and zero interest or concern about anyone other than themselves and a small elite. You can say the same is true for Trump himself who cares about nothing but inflating his ego and getting attention. That's probably true. But I'm not going to mourn something that only hurts a bunch of also Horrible People, likely increases the Democrats' chances of victory, and creates a far more entertaining election. The chickens are coming home to roost, and I don't think any Democrats have an "obligation" to somehow try to prevent this, or at least not cheer it on.

[Lief 🗽]

TN volunteer is there a specific place on the exit poll where women can designate that they are indeed angry to distinguish themselves from not angry women?

Well, the angry womens' vote has decided pretty much every election in NH since the 90s (except maybe 2004-SEN and 2012-PRES). Let's take a look at past exit poll data:

2014:

Angry women (27%): Jeanne Shaheen 84%, Scott Brown 16%
Young voters (11%): Jeanne Shaheen 58%, Scott Brown 42%
Others (62%): Scott Brown 63%, Jeanne Shaheen 37%

Final result: Jeanne Shaheen 51.5%, Scott Brown 48.5%

It's shocking how well Brown did despite losing the angry women's vote by 68 points. There is no doubt in my mind that a Senator named John Shaheen would have lost reelection in 2014.

2000:

Angry women (20%): Al Gore 53%, George W. Bush 45% (!!)
Young voters (18%): Al Gore 51%, George W. Bush 38%
Others (62%): George W. Bush 54%, Al Gore 43%

Final result: Bush 48.1%, Gore 46.8%

Bush got 45% of the angry womens vote (due to the backlash against the Levinsky scandal), which was enough for him to eke out a narrow win.

2012:

Angry women (22%): Barack Obama 64%, Mitt Romney 36%
Young voters (19%): Barack Obama 62%, Mitt Romney 34%
Others (59%): Mitt Romney 53%, Barack Obama 44%

Final result: Barack Obama 52%, Mitt Romney 46%

With no woman on the ballot, Romney did better with angry women, but still not enough to even make it close. The abortion and Bain issue really hurt him here. Fun fact: Even if he had somehow managed to get 45% of the angry womens vote, he still would have lost the state with 48.3% of the vote. That's why the 2012 results basically show you that NH is not winnable for Republicans anymore, especially not if a woman is on top of the ticket. The combination of angry women, Democratic young voters and influx of VT/MA/NY residents into NH is rapidly turning the state into New Vermont. Anyway,

My guess for Tuesday:

Angry women (33%?!?!): Hillary Clinton 81%, Bernie Sanders 19%
Young voters (18%): Bernie Sanders 80%, Hillary Clinton 20%
Others (49%): Bernie Sanders 60%, Hillary Clinton 40%

Final result: Hillary Clinton 49.93%, Bernie Sanders 50.07%

Because of the growing influence of young voters (see also: NH-PRES 2012), Sanders might, just might eke out a razor-thin victory despite losing the angry womens vote by 62 points (which is still better than how Scott Brown did in 2014!).
 
TL;DR:
If Sanders gets less than 17% of the angry womens vote (which is definitely possible), there is no realistic way he can win New Hampshire. And he better hope that they don't comprise more than 33% of the electorate, otherwise he's toast.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I will vote for the Democratic nominee, but I would be lying if I didn't admit that certain things about Clinton give me serious pause. I am extremely apprehensive about what she might do if elected, although I know that the Republican Party will not offer me any real choice.

I thought it was extremely telling to see her touting Kissinger's endorsement at the most recent debate, for instance. I've held a low opinion of Clinton throughout my entire adult life, and this primary campaign has only worsened it. I'm bothered by her substantive record, I doubt her integrity, I believe that she is captive to interest groups whose agendas are at odds with those of poor and working class Americans, and I've never been convinced that she shares my values.

It doesn't help that I expect that Clinton will lose unless the Republicans totally sabotage themselves (and she has a strong chance of losing even if they do). I am very pessimistic about November; Clinton's favorability rating is currently about as low as any recent major party nominee - winning or losing - and I do not expect it to improve. I am skeptical about whether she would win a more heavily contested Democratic primary, e.g. if she were facing opponents with broader appeal like Biden, Warren, or Gillibrand. But she locked up so much institutional support prior to early 2015 that Democratic voters were denied that choice, and we may have a historically weak nominee as a result.

My only real hope, in terms of the general election, is that Democrats successfully defend all of their seats in the Senate and House and improve on their abysmal recent results in state-level races.

[Crumpets]

With respect, I think there is something to the idea that younger people today have bought into the narrative that we're somehow living in a post-sexist, post-racial world. It's in the interests of pretty much every corporation in America to sell the picture of a pluralistic society so they can push their products into as many homes as possible. It's why you see these Coke commercials with as many different people as they can fit into the spot, and it's why you've seen companies move almost en masse towards supporting and recognizing the legitimacy of gay people.

The problem is, this sort of "feel-good pluralism" addresses some of the problems we see with respect to race, gender, and discrimination, but it also helps perpetuate the structures of discrimination that persist because it says, basically, that racism and sexism are over. We now have this population of people that's not willing to think critically about discrimination. It's almost like Franz Fanon's "internal colonization": The status quo seems fine and natural for a lot of women. I'm not saying their experiences are wrong or telling them how they should vote, but I don't think America has ever really had the conversations about gender that it should... and if it were to have these conversations, you'd see more people at least understanding why it actually is very significant to have a woman president.

In some ways, the baby boomers have had more conversations about race and feminism than the millennials. Rudimentary conversations to be sure, but there were fewer attempts to frame these issues as closed like there are today.

Anyway, that's my schpeel.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yeah, it's a good thing that people don't constantly talk that way about political orientation, sports, and literally everything else that people disagree over.

Seriously, I'm with Joe.  It's such a weird attack to me, considering that Christians are frequently hugely dismissive of atheists and yet I generally don't see people presuming that pithy criticisms of atheism are try-hardism (or whatever the fedora thing is supposed to represent).  Is it because one behavior is more "socially weird"?  If so, that's a terrible reason.

It just seems self-evident that uncommon beliefs (<5% of the population), no matter how correct they may be, will be disproportionately held by kooks.  I don't get the point of mocking that.  Isn't it more of a problem when people with widespread beliefs behave dismissively like that?  If so, why is the presumption of try-hardism disproportionately levied at the uncommon beliefs?  Isn't dismissing people who express uncommon beliefs as kooks/try-hards is part of the reason why not many normal people express uncommon beliefs?

Sometimes this stuff seems especially vicious among online liberal types, almost as if they were going out of their way to prove that they're "not one of those people" -- even if means being dickish to people who aren't actually being kooks or try-hards.

I recognize that this is OT and I might even still technically moderate this subforum (idk) but I needed to rant.  I seriously don't get you sometimes, Internet.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Honestly Sanders does look somewhat aloof towards black voters (not completely his fault, it's more a combination of factors), but the fact Hillary Clinton is easily winning the black vote after the campaign she ran against Barack Obama in 2008 is hilarious. That was some of the most evil campaigning the Democratic Party has seen in the post-WW2 era, and whites in West Virginia and Arkansas knew exactly how she was portraying Obama in her ads.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well, the Workers' Party of Korea, in spite of it's bureaucratic leadership caste, has managed to develop what was once a colonial backwater into a modern, industrial state with a highly educated population that enjoys a degree of social equality unlike that of other states facing similar material conditions. The planned, nationalized economy provided for rapid industrial growth during the Cold War, transforming what was previously a largely agrarian, peasant society into an industrial one, and lifting millions of people out of dire poverty in the process. While modern society in North Korea leaves quite a lot to be desired, the problems facing North Korea are a combination of isolation (imposed upon North Korea by the United States) leading to a degree of material scarcity, and bureaucratic misrule by the Stalinized WPK and the Kim family in particular.

The problems facing North Korea could be solved by a political revolution there which would dispose of the Kim family and the Stalinist bureaucrats and instill a workers' and peasants' government there, an event that would no doubt have repercussions in neo-colonial South Korea and the Chinese deformed workers' state as well. Nevertheless, North Korea represents a historically progressive formation in that it is free from capitalist domination and control. The same cannot be said of ISIS/ISIL, which scorns education, embraces reactionary religious fundamentalism, and seeks not to construct a new society but simply Islamicize the old.  

have you been kidnapped by a cult?

it's really sad that you think that this is the case. i hope that, in time, you realize the inanity of this post. it is no longer 1965. it's patently clear to anyone with a pulse that north korea's distribution system has failed to provide for its populace and that, indeed, this is intentional. while it's interesting that north korea's economic trajectory outpaced south korea, it's an academic curiosity and little else. north korea is hardly electrified, its population is malnourished etc.

why not disown north korea and embrace vietnam or cuba? i cannot comprehend why you think that a country that has disowned marx and lenin is worth defending as a "worker's state".

[Landslide Lyndon]

Probably not in the sense of decreasing his chances of winning the nomination.  What Trump's 9/11 and Iraq War stuff does though, potentially, is make it harder for the party to come together around him if/when he does win the nomination.  It's more likely than ever that if he's nominated, many Republicans won't endorse him, and may even try to back some kind of 3rd party "establishment" candidate (who would probably struggle with ballot access, but would be put forward as a write in option).  More likely than ever that many Republicans will refuse to speak at the convention if it means promoting Trump, that there'll be controversies over delegate allocation at the convention, over the platform, etc.

Once someone wraps up the nomination, the obvious next step in the narrative is "Is the party now rallying around that person, despite any hurt feelings from the primaries?"  If Trump is nominated, this will be a running drama all the way until November, with new stories every week about how many in the party refuse to go along with being a party led by Trump.

The fact that he *still* doesn't have a single endorsement from a sitting member of Congress or sitting governor (despite leading the polls, with just two weeks to go before Super Tuesday) was already a bad sign for the notion that the party could live with him.  But "Bush lied us into Iraq" is just going to make things worse in that regard.

[Maxwell]

DOMA was an evil bill & Clinton should not have signed it - It set gay rights for a generation.

And the problem is not just 1996 but in 2007 she said the same when Obama openly said he supported Gay Marriage she said in a very brutal way "Marriage is between a man & a woman". It was much worse than Mitt Romney coming when it is coming from a so-called "Progressive" " No Champion of Gay Rights" Democrat candidate in 2007 when the other guy has supported it.

This was 2007, not 1996. She only turned in 2013 - when the whole country changed.

Does she deserve the gay vote over a candidate who was talking on GOP in 1995 for anti-gay speeches or voting against DOMA.

Are you completely illiterate? Read my post again.

I read that dumb post of yours & it was a pile of BS

Alright, so I get that you don't understand anything as evidenced by your being a libertarian now supporting a socialist, so as a gay I will take the time to educate you and your friend the Clueless Canuck on something.

The policy of the armed forces before DADT was to actively try to find gays in the ranks. They would ask questions and give tests, and if you failed them you could be dishonorably discharged. The military outright banned gays from serving in 1982 as policy, but there was no actual law regulating this. In 1992 and 1993 Bill Clinton said he wanted the military to change this policy and allow LGBT people to openly serve in the armed forces, but in the ensuing uproar Congress looked set to ram through a legal ban on LGBT people serving in the armed forces with a veto-proof majority.

DADT was put together as a last-minute compromise to stop Congress from ramming a wholesale ban through over Clinton's veto. DADT prohibited the armed forces from launching investigations to try to weed out gays serving in the military and also introduced anti-harrassment and anti-discrimination rules.

DADT didn't set back gay rights by a generation; it was an unpleasant but necessary compromise to stop a law that would actually ban gays outright. If that law had passed, that would have been far worse than DADT.

These are facts. I know, life is hard when you can't re-write history.

[Oakvale]

It really amazes me to watch people who have voted Republican all of their lives, who endlessly cheered on the likes of Ronald Reagan, both George Bushes (especially the second one - have we forgotten already??) as they did much to wreak havoc on America (and the rest of the world!) through destroying the social safety net, launching pointless and devastating wars, appointing thousands of right-wing hacks to the federal judiciary and the federal bureaucracy; who nodded in approval as congressional Republicans have, without exception, blocked much of President Obama's legislative agenda in an unprecedented display of bitter sore-loserdom; who have stoked the ugly, base, racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, chauvinistic instincts of White America, long before Donald Trump cared about being a politician; and who, more than anyone else, enthusiastically endorse, promote, and intellectually rationalize the modern American conservative ideology - the single most destructive ideology in American politics, not least of all to black Americans and other minorities, immigrants, women, the LGBT community, the poor and the working classes; it really amazes me, to watch these people be horrified by the out-of-control Frankenstein(Trump) that they are directly responsible for creating.

Donald Trump may say a lot of outlandish and awful, bigoted bulls-it, but that's par for the course for the Republican Party for the last 50+ years. Take a good, hard look at the other Republican candidates in the race: John Kasich? The "moderate, sensible" Governor whose favorite pastimes have included not allowing gay people to get married, wrecking the public education system in Ohio, and  quietly slipping vile anti-choice/anti-abortion provisions into larger, less controversial budget bills? Marco Rubio, the Republican Senator from the state that recently gave us such "moderates" as Jeb Bush and Rick Scott? Ben Carson? Ted Cruz? Are you f-cking kidding me?

I have no sympathy for the Republican Establishment as they utterly failed to see the likes of Trump coming. I have no sympathy for people who focus obsessively on Trump while ignoring (or worse, promoting) other, equally vile Republican candidates. I have nothing but contempt for wealthy, elite Republicans who themselves have nothing but contempt for the less well-off or less-educated members of their own party who have been gravitating to Trump in large numbers.

As far as support for Trump goes; for me, it is strictly schadenfreude at the inevitable consequences of Republican electoral strategy, the right-wing media (National Review, FOX News, etc.) and other lifelong water-carriers for America's main right-wing party being utterly discredited, and other Establishment pricks who failed to take Donald Trump's candidacy seriously - until it was too late. No, I don't actually support Donald Trump or what he stands for (I'm a liberal Democrat, FFS) , but I fail to see how he is any worse than the Republican Party as a whole - and that most definitely includes the so-called "moderate" Republican Establishment.

If Trump is a fascist, then the Republican Party as it has existed for the past several decades is directly responsible for creating and enabling fascism in America. They can't wash their hands of that, no matter how hard they try.

[Virginiá]

It really amazes me to watch people who have voted Republican all of their lives, who endlessly cheered on the likes of Ronald Reagan, both George Bushes (especially the second one - have we forgotten already??) as they did much to wreak havoc on America (and the rest of the world!) through destroying the social safety net, launching pointless and devastating wars, appointing thousands of right-wing hacks to the federal judiciary and the federal bureaucracy; who nodded in approval as congressional Republicans have, without exception, blocked much of President Obama's legislative agenda in an unprecedented display of bitter sore-loserdom; who have stoked the ugly, base, racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, chauvinistic instincts of White America, long before Donald Trump cared about being a politician; and who, more than anyone else, enthusiastically endorse, promote, and intellectually rationalize the modern American conservative ideology - the single most destructive ideology in American politics, not least of all to black Americans and other minorities, immigrants, women, the LGBT community, the poor and the working classes; it really amazes me, to watch these people be horrified by the out-of-control Frankenstein(Trump) that they are directly responsible for creating.

Donald Trump may say a lot of outlandish and awful, bigoted bulls-it, but that's par for the course for the Republican Party for the last 50+ years. Take a good, hard look at the other Republican candidates in the race: John Kasich? The "moderate, sensible" Governor whose favorite pastimes have included not allowing gay people to get married, wrecking the public education system in Ohio, and  quietly slipping vile anti-choice/anti-abortion provisions into larger, less controversial budget bills? Marco Rubio, the Republican Senator from the state that recently gave us such "moderates" as Jeb Bush and Rick Scott? Ben Carson? Ted Cruz? Are you f-cking kidding me?

I have no sympathy for the Republican Establishment as they utterly failed to see the likes of Trump coming. I have no sympathy for people who focus obsessively on Trump while ignoring (or worse, promoting) other, equally vile Republican candidates. I have nothing but contempt for wealthy, elite Republicans who themselves have nothing but contempt for the less well-off or less-educated members of their own party who have been gravitating to Trump in large numbers.

As far as support for Trump goes; for me, it is strictly schadenfreude at the inevitable consequences of Republican electoral strategy, the right-wing media (National Review, FOX News, etc.) and other lifelong water-carriers for America's main right-wing party being utterly discredited, and other Establishment pricks who failed to take Donald Trump's candidacy seriously - until it was too late. No, I don't actually support Donald Trump or what he stands for (I'm a liberal Democrat, FFS) , but I fail to see how he is any worse than the Republican Party as a whole - and that most definitely includes the so-called "moderate" Republican Establishment.

If Trump is a fascist, then the Republican Party as it has existed for the past several decades is directly responsible for creating and enabling fascism in America. They can't wash their hands of that, no matter how hard they try.

That is a premium post. I need to save this.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

It really amazes me to watch people who have voted Republican all of their lives, who endlessly cheered on the likes of Ronald Reagan, both George Bushes (especially the second one - have we forgotten already??) as they did much to wreak havoc on America (and the rest of the world!) through destroying the social safety net, launching pointless and devastating wars, appointing thousands of right-wing hacks to the federal judiciary and the federal bureaucracy; who nodded in approval as congressional Republicans have, without exception, blocked much of President Obama's legislative agenda in an unprecedented display of bitter sore-loserdom; who have stoked the ugly, base, racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, chauvinistic instincts of White America, long before Donald Trump cared about being a politician; and who, more than anyone else, enthusiastically endorse, promote, and intellectually rationalize the modern American conservative ideology - the single most destructive ideology in American politics, not least of all to black Americans and other minorities, immigrants, women, the LGBT community, the poor and the working classes; it really amazes me, to watch these people be horrified by the out-of-control Frankenstein(Trump) that they are directly responsible for creating.

Donald Trump may say a lot of outlandish and awful, bigoted bulls-it, but that's par for the course for the Republican Party for the last 50+ years. Take a good, hard look at the other Republican candidates in the race: John Kasich? The "moderate, sensible" Governor whose favorite pastimes have included not allowing gay people to get married, wrecking the public education system in Ohio, and  quietly slipping vile anti-choice/anti-abortion provisions into larger, less controversial budget bills? Marco Rubio, the Republican Senator from the state that recently gave us such "moderates" as Jeb Bush and Rick Scott? Ben Carson? Ted Cruz? Are you f-cking kidding me?

I have no sympathy for the Republican Establishment as they utterly failed to see the likes of Trump coming. I have no sympathy for people who focus obsessively on Trump while ignoring (or worse, promoting) other, equally vile Republican candidates. I have nothing but contempt for wealthy, elite Republicans who themselves have nothing but contempt for the less well-off or less-educated members of their own party who have been gravitating to Trump in large numbers.

As far as support for Trump goes; for me, it is strictly schadenfreude at the inevitable consequences of Republican electoral strategy, the right-wing media (National Review, FOX News, etc.) and other lifelong water-carriers for America's main right-wing party being utterly discredited, and other Establishment pricks who failed to take Donald Trump's candidacy seriously - until it was too late. No, I don't actually support Donald Trump or what he stands for (I'm a liberal Democrat, FFS) , but I fail to see how he is any worse than the Republican Party as a whole - and that most definitely includes the so-called "moderate" Republican Establishment.

If Trump is a fascist, then the Republican Party as it has existed for the past several decades is directly responsible for creating and enabling fascism in America. They can't wash their hands of that, no matter how hard they try.

rename the mine, this one's a winner

[This account no longer in use.]

From my experiences, the age gap is the biggest predictor of Hillary or Sanders support, and this applies to LGBT people as well. Although, younger LGBTs are probably somewhat more pro-Hillary.

Again, that's entirely anecdotal.

Gays are typically more affluent

No.

The sanitized Modern Family image of gays being a cosmopolitan, upper-middle class, well-moisturized white couple with adopted/surrogated kids living in a trendy, integrated urban neighborhood is a media fiction.

Inequality is probably worse among that gay community than the country as a whole. Homosexuality happens regardless of class, upbringing, race, location, or political views. Considering that more than 1/3 of all the homeless youth in this country are homeless because they were kicked out/ran away for being LGBT, discrimination is still rampant and there are few workplace protections, and the high rates of poverty among minorities, there is evidence that poverty among LGBT people is as high as 20% - 25%.

Plus, the high rates of homophobia in minority communities prevents many minority gays from coming out, and if they do, they are at higher risk of being kicked out as youth and ending up in poverty. Following poverty and gender patterns, lesbians have a higher rate of poverty than gay men, and transgender people have the highest, while bisexuals have the lowest.

Gay men tend to have a thing for strong independent women, think Beyonce.

And you wonder why people dislike the Republican Party

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I am giving it a Freedom Restaurant because of the breadsticks and all you can eat soup and salad. Olive Garden serves a certain purpose in America: providing affordable Italian food to the masses. It is far from the best Italian food you could get; there are a number of places I would rather go including to my fiancee's, but that doesn't make OG a bad restaurant. You wouldn't say McDonalds is a horrible restaurant because it is far from the best burger you ever have; it serves its purpose. So keep dishing out those breadsticks and soup OG!

[This account no longer in use.]

Loses... what exactly? There are multiple states voting. You can't seriously believe that if he wins all states but Ohio that Romney would have a better chance, right?

Also, it's interesting how you call Trump's performance so far sad, when Marco Rubio literally has won one state up to this point, and Cruz lost most of his base states in the South. It's going to be hilarious when Trump wins the Industrial Midwest and you attempt to explain how the GOP fell so far.

You guys brought this upon yourselves. You had a chance to fight back against this and defeat the Tea Party extremists. You had a chance to shift back to a more sensible conservatism. You didn't do that, and now it's time for the GOP to take a 1964 Goldwater type hit. Good luck.

You look pathetic as you beg, beg, beg for Romney to save your corrupt party. You try and hope that RUBIO, who is 1/18 so far can save you. Now you even hope Cruz can push and do something.

It's over. I have no sympathy for you. Trump is paying your base like a fiddle. People are angry, my friend.

[YaBoyNY]

I see you're new here. Many of the lefties/Democrats on this forum have some odd fascination with poor white Appalachian men, and are desperate to get them to vote Democratic by any means necessary. It's quite an odd phenomenon. As I said earlier, it would be like the GOP constantly pining for the days when Vermont was a red state. Granted, we do have a few of those here, but not anywhere near the scale of the former. Times have changed and coalitions have changed, get over it already. The GOP already has.

Also, per Atlas leftie rules, poor white Appalachian men are the only people immune from criticism and should be treated with the utmost respect. But you can bash blacks all you want for voting for the she-devil, and are free to hold positions viewing gays and illegal immigrants as less than human. That's just respectful political disagreement after all.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In all seriousness, I'm pretty sure that Castro loses most voters who take the idea that the VP should be capable of serving as president as needed with any seriousness.

I don't get the obsession with the guy and presume that his name is being circulated for strategic reasons. Otherwise it's just predicated on the shallowest possible understanding of the role of the vice presidency. Castro has the charisma of a damp rag, nobody outside of Texas has ever heard of him, and he has no meaningful record on most national issues to evaluate.

On the other hand, running with Clinton and serving as her VP will probably be a career-ended for whoever accepts the role. But there's a non-negligible chance that the person will serve as president, which means that she needs to do better than someone whose entire record is a handful years as an unremarkable mayor followed by several years running what is simultaneously one of the most corrupt and least understood departments of the federal government.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Pro-business and 'pro-well-to-do' =/= free market fundamentalism. After all business and the well-off voted for Charles De Gaulle didn't they?

One of the issues that is key is infrastructure. For some reason (well, idealogy) the infrastructure that is begging to be built by business has been poo-poohed by the GOP in a way that is really unique to American rightists. In fact, I've often thought that the Person To Save The GOP would market themselves as a builder: a new wave of megastructures that would promote America as a brand to the nationalist wing (look under any article about China building high speed rail or hugr towers to see angsting about 'why aren't we doing this). It would push itself to the business wing who would win lucrative government contracts and also get a push back against environmental laws/working standards laws/ anti-eminent domain-idealogues. It would provide employment for skilled and unskilled workers. And it would satisfy the Freudian machismo desire forthat is the lynchpin of conservatism

This primary with the main campaigner promising a Huge (Yuge) beautiful new piece of national pride in the form of a Wall confirmed this idea.

[IceSpear]

we have a choice between a neoliberal corporatist warmounger who could be indicted and an outright fascist/white supremacist. hope your happy now

*warmonger
**you're

Now, comments like these bring me back to a time when my candidate was on the losing side and how we were called every name in the book from uneducated racists to hillbillies and hicks, so I completely understand the frustration.

Keep in mind that if you really want a progressive president, in a choice of Donald J. Trump vs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the choice could not be more clear. To sit the race out or to waste your vote to Jill Stein or any other left-wing fringe candidate is going to do nothing but benefit Trump. If you're really a progressive, liberal, socialist, Democrat, whatever you choose to call yourself, you're going to have to hold your nose and vote for Hillary, just as I, a very BITTER "butthurt" Hillary supporter, did for Obama in 2008 and 2012. I even contemplated voting for John McCain in 2008 after the primary, but the Sarah Palin selection combined with some deep soul searching led me to vote for Obama. I do not regret my vote. I still to this day believe Hillary would have been a better president, but I applaud Obama for his progressive accomplishments he has made during his tenure as President, and I do believe that he has done a much better job than McCain or Mitt Romney ever would have done. ObamaCare isn't perfect, but it's a good start, and Hillary can build on this progress. The first sitting president to publicly endorse marriage equality was amazing as well. I'll be the first to admit that Obama has done far more for our LGBTQIA community than I ever would have imagined.

In the end, it really comes down to principle, and I have realized that over time. Hillary and Bernie, you and I, are on the same team. We may not agree on every issue, but fundamentally, we believe in the same ideals of liberty, equality, and freedom for everyone regardless of circumstance or demographics, a YUUUUUGE contrast from the buffoon whom the Republicans are about to nominate. I implore you to ask yourself, "Would Bernie Sanders want to see Donald Trump as President?" I think not. He even admitted that even on her worst day, a President Hillary Clinton would be ten times better than any Republican President.

I have always respected and admired Bernie Sanders for the passion he brings to the political discourse, and to be honest, had any candidate other than Hillary ran against him, he would have been my first choice. I hope over time that you and other Sanders supporters will join our cause to build on the progress that President Obama has started. I'm sure it'll take you time, but if you really want a President who will look out for the middle class, protect our environment, bolster our economy, provide opportunities for everyone, champion the civil rights of women and minorities, Hillary is your gal. If you want a candidate who will make our country the laughingstock of the entire planet, Trump is your guy.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Just impotently (and impolitely) trying to stifle his speech?

I don't give a f**k about his speech.

I also give a f**K what you think about it.

You obviously give enough of a fuck to respond to it, so yeah, it'd say you do give a fuck.

You're damn right I give a f**K. I've had it.

A colleague of mine happened to be at the Brussels airport on Tuesday morning. My colleague wasn't hurt. My colleague happens to have Turkish parents.

Yet our resident forum retards Helsinkian and dead0man have nothing better to do than to spout their usual racist, cynical, and/or inhuman bulls**t.

I've had it. I've had it with racist bullsh**t. And don't tell me it isn't racist. Anyone who thinks it isn't racist should go f**k themselves.

I've had it that I'm subpoenaed to appear before court because people who are just like Helsinkian and dead0man had nothing to do in their miserable, wasted existence than to send threat letters with their torture fantasies.

I've had it.

I've had it that with people who are just like Helsinkian and dead0man sending me racist cartoons of Muslim men who rape German women on Whatsapp in an attempt to provoke me.

I've had it.

I've had it that people who are just like Helsinkian and dead0man call me mentally retarded or a pedophile or just mock me due to my presumed political affiliations.

So this is it. A whole new ballgame. This is about purging Helsinkian and dead0man from this forum once and for all. Because as far as I'm concerned their right to free speech is SUSPENDED. Because MY right not to be bothered by their or anyone else's similar bullsh**t ultimately SUPERSEDES their right to free speech. Helsinkian and dead0man owe ME an apology. And their apology should be that they live this forum forever. Their mere presence is an insult.

If anyone got a problem with this: Go f**k yourself.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Most of Krugman's points are good ones. The Sanders camp needs to have a better response to the process crap that spinning implausible and undemocratic scenarios regarding superdelegates, and downballot Democrats would benefit from his help during the general election. (I'm not sure that most downballot Democrats want his help but that's another discussion.)

Regarding corruption, though... come on. Republican conspiracy theories about e-mails and Benghazi aside, the Clintons are corrupt and have been throughout their entire careers as national politicians and leaders of a Democratic Party faction. They've built a massive private fortune off of their political careers, and everyone knows this. They've surrounded themselves with grifters and con artists, and everyone knows this. Democratic leaders have collectively tolerated this for decades, for the sake of the party and their own careers. If they had not, maybe we would have had a stronger, broader field of candidates to choose from in this election.

So the idea that Sanders should only stay in the contest if he respects some omertà-like code of silence is ludicrous. His critique of corruption and political influence is as much at the heart of his campaign as his concerns about poverty and inequality. Thank God someone in the Democratic Party takes it seriously enough not to give Clinton a pass.