Morning Ed: Politics {2016.01.21.M}


Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

72 Responses

  1. Avatar Kolohe says:

    Malvasi’s “God is Dead, ergo Trump” thesis is not really unique, but it’s not really persuasive either. The anti-liberal demagoguery and reigns of terror of the Middle East occur in a milieu where God is very much alive. The analysis is Frohnen’s is pretty solid, with an obvious point of view, of course. (though it is interesting, and rather debatable, that he put’s Dick Nixon’s ‘populism’ in the same puka as Trump’s and Perot’s)Report

  2. Avatar Kazzy says:

    Why doesn’t Utah offer voluntary “self-reliance” training for all — regardless of whether they need or accept welfare benefits.

    It would A) prove the sincerity of the plan and B) perhaps more importantly, prove the viability of it. Can the state actually offer a successful “self-reliance” course?Report

    • Avatar Chris says:

      Obviously, Utahians (Utahites? Utahagands? Utes? Youths?) who are not on public benefits are already self-reliant, or they would be on public benefits. Duh!

      By the way, aren’t Mormons one of the most community-oriented of the contemporary Christian sects, with a big emphasis on helping each other out so that people don’t have to be all that self-reliant?Report

    • Avatar PD Shaw says:

      The most likely explanation is that receiving welfare benefits is seen as harming work ethic. There is some support for this, extending unemployment benefits will increase unemployment to at least some extent. To me the question is whether there is any way to target benefits that would (a) be cost-effective, and (b) not harm the needy.Report

    • Avatar Brandon Berg says:

      Because people not on welfare are already self-reliant. Or at least dependent on others in a way that doesn’t cost taxpayers anything. I’m not sure why anyone would oppose this. If people aren’t able to provide for themselves, shoudn’t we try to get them off welfare, rather than just giving them money with no strings attached?

      That said, I can’t imagine that two hours of training would do all that much good.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy says:

        I’m not opposed to helping people become more self-reliant. I’m just not sure that this is the best mechanism to do so. And the assumption that people on welfare are necessarily lacking skills that people not on welfare necessarily have feels erroneous.

        I’ve long advocated for certain “life skills” to be included in standard high school curricula. Things like the basics of banking, how to set and maintain a budget, the basics for interacting with certain government agencies (e.g., how to register to vote, how to get a library card), resume writing, basic technological skills, etc.Report

        • Avatar Kazzy says:

          And I suppose part of my question is whether this class would be limited to those receiving benefits? If we decide that whatever skills are offered in this training are worthwhile skills to have, why not offer them to anyone who is interested?Report

          • Avatar Will Truman says:

            I suspect it would be. Which might make sense from a cost and “ROI” standpoint. I am not sold on cost/ROI and mostly think this is coming from a place of perceived fairness. I suspect they could open it up, though, and the cost containment would be a lack of interest in the part of those who aren’t required to go.Report

        • Avatar notme says:

          And the assumption that people on welfare are necessarily lacking skills that people not on welfare necessarily have feels erroneous.

          If you can’t support yourself and must rely on the state then you lack the necessary life skills. So instead of just handing these folks money, food and housing the gov’t could try and fix the problem so they can contribute to society.Report

        • Avatar aaron david says:

          Well, I had a class like that in high school, called senior living. It was a semester long and kind of a gimme class, in that is wasn’t hard and was a bit of fun before graduation.

          That said, this might simply be what the community needs in the back of its collective heads to mentally be accepting of welfare type benefits and programs. In a community standards sort of way. Utah is a very conservative, religious state and this might simpley be what its denizens need to mentally check off to say to themselves that they are really helping people, within the confines of their shared values.Report

          • Avatar Kazzy says:

            I think that brings up an interesting question…

            How much does what I’ll call the emotional intent of a policy matter? Let’s assume that this class works and that this is a good policy/program. Does that change if the intent or motivation that led to it is something less feel-good? If the motivation isn’t a genuine desire to help but instead some sort of punitive goal?

            Conversely, if the class is kind of a bust… not a huge waste but yielding minimal results… but the motivation is a good one… if it really comes out of a desire to help beyond just offering money, does that matter? Does the value provided to the supporters of the policy become part of the equation?Report

            • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

              Is 2 hours punitive? If that is the case, getting a passport for Bug was punitive (took longer than two hours of waiting in a queue).Report

              • Avatar Kazzy says:


                I don’t necessarily think it is punitive. Instead, what I’m referring to is the intention. And wondering how much that matters. If the purpose of the course is not to actually help but instead to satiate some sort of blood lust among the population, how much does that matter IF the program is actually a good one? If people vote for it not because they care for their fellow man but because they’re thinking, “Damn freeloaders… at least make them earn it!” do we have to factor that into the soundness of the policy?

                On the flip side, as @aaron-david describes (far better than I could), if the class is a bust but it gives people the warm fuzzies and encourages them to continue supporting welfare programs and others aimed at supporting the least among them, is that worth it to keep the class going?

                I don’t have the answer to this question, mind you. I’m putting it out to the group.

                For my sake, I think I’m comfortable with the latter scenario because we can view the positive support as the ROI. But with the former, my fear would be that we’d open up a Pandora’s Box of other policies that are not as beneficial but justified using the same logic. I’m not sure if that stance is hypocritical.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

                My point is that 2 hours doesn’t strike me as an attempt to be punitive, so I would consider the intent to be generally positive, a legitimate attempt to help people.

                That said, a survey of the course curriculum could prove otherwise. 2 hours of being told you are a leech on the system, no matter how well it’s dressed up, would give lie to that idea; whereas legitimate, useful information presented in a neutral, or even supportive fashion would bolster the positive intent.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy says:


                Agreed. I’m pretty far afield into the hypothetical at this point.Report

            • Avatar aaron david says:

              Well, I think @oscar-gordon is right, two hours is hardly punitive. But to follow along that thought line, for the benefits to work in that particular society, if this is what it takes to get the averabe community member on board with gov’t as opposed to private charity (as other have said, this is something that churches do all the time, in the form of sermens) then it might be worth it even if it really does have no ROI. The ROI is getting the community involved and supporting the programs.

              For what it is worth, I think they dropped my high school program, and that I was in the last class it was given.Report

      • Avatar Morat20 says:

        I wonder where things like, oh, the Walmart business model fall. I mean Walmart workers are self-reliant. But quite a few are on food stamps, because Walmart doesn’t pay a living wage.

        Do they need the training or not?Report

        • Avatar Kim says:

          Hell, yes! but they won’t get the real training, because teaching people basic finance is HARD. And wall street would lose their bubble, which would make them … upset.Report

          • Avatar Morat20 says:

            I’d love to see what basic finance methods turns a Walmart job into a living wage. (Although I think they did finally increase their wages).

            I suspect it has one bullet point, entitled “Get a Second Job” with a sub-point of “Have you tried meth? It’ll help you stay awake for that second job. You might need a third job to afford it.”Report

      • Avatar Francis says:

        Anybody who actually thinks that welfare benefits in this country are a hammock should try living on them for a while.

        The big problem with these programs is that they tend to be incredibly insulting (along with just about any program created by non-poor people [both conservative and liberal] for the poor). Yes, some poor people are ignorant about basic life skills. But for the most part (as any social worker or public defender will tell you) they know that they are leading dysfunctional lives; they just can’t do anything about it.Report

        • Avatar Will Truman says:

          I’ve seen people do it in relative-to-them comfort. Takes a certain set of circumstances, though. (In their case childless, flexible, low expectations, and in an inexpensive part of the country.)Report

  3. Avatar Saul Degraw says:

    The Bloomberg effect is a tough nut to crack. Trumpism is closer to true third party politics than Bloomberg ideas. Bloomberg basically offers something to turn off everyone. He is anti-gun but also anti-public school and teacher’s unions. He is for entitlement reform and environmentalism. Etc.

    Yet unlike many Sanders supporters, I realize that there are lots of moderates and conservatives in the Democratic Party. Lots of Americans see Rahm Emmanuel and Andrew Cuomo as liberals even though I think that idea is insane. So I can see Bloomberg peeling away votes from the Ds if it is Sanders v. TrumpReport

    • Avatar LeeEsq says:

      By American standards, Rahm Emmanuel and Andrew Cuomo are sane rational liberals and Sanders and DeBlassio are flame-throwing revolutionary radicals. Since Further Right arguments are heard more frequently in the commons than Further Left arguments than moderate centrists come off as progressive.Report

    • Avatar North says:

      Yeah I could, if I squint, envision a space for Bloomberg in a Trump vs Sanders match. Outside that highly and increasingly unlikely scenario Bloomberg has no space at all and isn’t gonna bother.Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw says:

        HRC probably is going to be the Democratic nominee. I still think you are too optimistic about Trump. Right now he is winning the primaries. He will continue to do so until Cruz or Rubio drop out and that is a large game of chicken and neither has an incentive to drop out.Report

        • Avatar North says:

          Trump has never gotten more than 35% of the total vote at any time. Kasich is on his last legs, Jeb! is gone. That means all the establishment money and most of the centrist* GOP voters will align to Rubio. Trump can’t win the nomination at 35% of the vote and I’ve not yet seen any sign he is going to get up anywhere higher.

          That’s not germaine to our current question, though. Bloomberg isn’t going to jump into the race if HRC is the Democratic nominee.

          *and yes I’m aware of the irony of a well packaged wingnut like Rubio commanding the GOP “center” that says volumes about the state of that party.Report

          • Avatar Kim says:

            The establishment is bloody stupid if they put their money on Rubio.
            Remember the final choice — sit the whole bugger out. If they couldn’t win in 2012, with a horrid economy, a first term, relatively ineffectual — black– president… why should they expect to win now?

            It’s bad policy to put more than a proforma bet on the Republicans.Report

            • Avatar North says:

              Somehow I doubt the GOP establishment is ready or willing to even consider simply ceding the next Presidency to the Dems. They’d certainly not be playing hardball with Obama over Scalia if that were the case (they’d instead be trying to bargain him into nominating someone they would want in exchange for a smooth confirmation).Report

              • Avatar Kim says:

                GOP establishment is playing hardball because it is political suicide to do otherwise. They may know intellectually that they’re not going to get a republican president, but they can’t tell the base that.Report

          • Avatar Saul Degraw says:

            I concede on Trump’s numbers but neither has Rubio or Cruz. The issue is whether the Patty decides and the answer appears to be no. Candidates now have their own independent fundraising apparatuses and those who support Cruz and Rubio have different end games and goals. Why should Cruz quit if he can still raise funds without the bulk of GOP support? What is going to convince you that Trump has a good chance of winning the GOP nod?Report

            • Avatar North says:

              Well Rubio is like, almost everyone’s #2 pick which is a pretty good position to be in. I do, however, agree that Cruz is currently the wild card here. Maybe he’ll run a relatively solid campaign in hopes that Rubio will choke and Cruz picks up the party’s support by default. Maybe Cruz full on attacks Rubio and hopes to prompt said choke a la Christie. Maybe Cruz full on attacks Trump in hopes of driving him out of the race and duking it out with Rubio? I don’t know.

              As to the party deciding, I think it’s too soon to write off that theory. What we have seen up to this point has not been the GOP deciding and getting defeated by its’ base but rather the GOP simply flat out choosing to not decide yet. When you look at the number of party member endorsements handed out (and especially if you exclude the really early Bush coronation expecting endorsements) then it’s very clear that most of the GOP’s establishment hasn’t/hadn’t weighed in on who to support for the nod. Yes, there were candidates that were viewed as more establishment friendly and less but the establishment didn’t throw its weight around a huge amount. We’re seeing that change now, the endorsements are coming in for Rubio. Jeb! Folded up shop largely because his donors stopped handing him cash and no doubt because the party insiders told him it was time to get real. As we speak you can be sure sober party men are probably having the same conversation with Kasich’s people. Now if Rubio racks up the endorsements from the party and still loses to Cruz or Trump? Then we can definitely pitch “The Party Decides” in the trash can but not yet.

              What would convince me that Trump has good odds of being the GOP nominee? Well a good first step would be if someone claiming trump has good odds could describe to me how Trump actually WILL get the nod. In terms of citing how he will do it according to the GOP’s delegate rules. Allow me to, briefly, do the same explaining why I DON’T think Trump has good odds of getting the nod.
              In a high altitude overview the GOP convention delegates are awarded by the various state contests. Most of the states award delegates proportionally to your share of the vote*. So the difference between first place, second place etc finishing can be quite small in terms of delegates. Second there’s a pool of delegates controlled by the party establishment that they allocate on their own without regards to the states contests. Those the party very literally decides on.
              Now people keep looking at Trump and saying “He’s won so many contests (come in first place) that if he were a normal candidate the party should give him the nomination.” And they’re right because normally the Party will throw in with whoever is the commanding leader in the interest of party unity once the voters mark him out for them. But Trump isn’t normal; he’s entirely unacceptable to the establishment so no matter how many first place pluralities he wins they’re not going to suddenly go “Oh well let’s start pulling for him for the general”.
              In order to get the nomination Trump must have the majority of the delegates. Not just more delegates than another candidate, he must have enough that the second place candidates delegates PLUS the party controlled delegates together can’t outnumber his delegates. You do not do that by pulling 35% of the vote. Period. Full stop.

              So, what does Trump need to do? He needs to win, yes but that’s the minimum. He needs to win and he needs to win bigger. He needs 50% or more wins in some states. Or he needs his opponents to trade wins so they all stay in the race and keep dividing the 65% “not Trump” pool between them. Do I see either of those things happening? No, no I do not. I see the division of the “not Trump” pool fading. Bush is gone; Kasich will be gone soon; Carson will either be gone or a non-factor soon. Cruz is the only wild card. These are objective facts: the rules of the GOP nomination game and the rules of the GOP delegate apportioning. So if someone wants to convince me that Trump has good odds of being the nominee then I’d like to see that argument made using the facts of how anyone wins the GOP nomination. Convince me with reality, please! I would be DELIGHTED to see Trump take the nod. I’d be over the moon-lampshade on head-drunk on tequila happy if Trump got the nomination. There is no one on the site more unhappy that fishing Marco Rubio is the most likely winner of the GOP nomination than me! No. One.

              *And those states that are winner take all are mostly positioned far enough back in the calendar that 35% of the votes aren’t going to win them. They’re positioned, very much by design I think, so that the field is narrow when they happen and they just crown the consensus candidate.Report

              • Avatar CK MacLeod says:


                Good analysis, and I kinda wished you’d saved it until a post I have pending is published (feel free to re-post it as a comment, as is or re-worked)!

                Here is where I think you may have gone wrong, however.

                But Trump isn’t normal; he’s entirely unacceptable to the establishment so no matter how many first place pluralities he wins they’re not going to suddenly go “Oh well let’s start pulling for him for the general”.

                There have been reports coming out for months of THE ESTABLISHMENT sending out feelers to Trump and acclimating itself to the idea that he could be “dealt” with. That is, after all, his own claim! He has a bit of a virtuous circle going for him: The more real the prospect of his nomination (and, according to national polls, of his competitiveness), the more the Establishmentarians will look, as Establishmentarians do, to buttering their bread and securing their positions. Just today, Kevin McCarthy, House Majority Leader, made headlines by saying he thought he could “deal” with Trump.

                There’s a long way to go. We don’t know how things will look if Trump “runs the table,” even if mainly with pluralities. If so, the option of depicting Trump’s excesses as “what a populist needed to do before tacking to the center” may remain a live one.

                I’ll leave further highly speculative near-totally worthless observations until later.Report

              • Avatar North says:

                High praise CK, I shall endevor to do so.

                Your point vis a vis acceptability is entirely sound. In the interest of brevity in what was already a post spiralling out of control in length I elected to gloss over your exact point here.
                That said while I grant that Trump isn’t “entirely” unacceptable he cannot expect to follow what most people have internalized as the normal route to victory which is that the 1st place winner builds “momentum” then after a certain small number amount of 1st place or strong second wins the party falls in behind him, the subsequent wins become blow out wins and long before the convention nears everyone knows who the nominee is.
                I can see imagine Trump getting up to the halfway mark and, as he racks up the victories, the party elders sending increasingly high level envoys to make peace with him but I don’t see them deciding to simply fall in and pull for him until it becomes absolutely necessary. But as you saliently note, we’re into the realm of speculation.Report

  4. Avatar LeeEsq says:

    The end of ideas: I think it was Rob Hanson who once defined nerds as people who take ideas seriously. Very few electorates have been solely motivated by ideals because most people aren’t nerds. They tend to vote on bread and butter issues. They go for the party and method that they believe that can deliver the goods. Even in the Nordic countries, I suspect social democracy attracts more votes because the electorate saw social democracy as the way to get the goods. Ideal voters tend to be upper-middle class, well-educated, and independently affluent. This goes for practically every idea in politics.

    Leftist Apostates: The main reason seems to be that all the leftist apostates flew too close to the sun and got burned. Most of the leftist apostates came from the very revolutionary and idealistic schools of leftism like the various forms of high Marxism or Anarchism. When these ideas turned out to be unfit for actual humans and not workable in reality, they did an about turn like spurned lover. People from the pragmatic left tended to remain on the left because they weren’t going for Further Left utopia in the first place. The reason why these sorts of disillusionments are rarer on the right is that we didn’t have a pure rightist state during the Cold War because of democracy and the New Deal or Social Democratic consensus in the developed world. Since no anti-Soviet country, not even the United States, embraced a pure free market and socially conservative ideology through out the electorate, there was no way for any rightist to experience similar disillusionment. You weren’t going to get a European free marketer angry at the United States because of racism against African-Americans or something similar.Report

    • Avatar Saul Degraw says:

      I think your stance on the end of ideas is basically correct but I would add that the nerds are also entrenched in their stances and not movingReport

      • Avatar LeeEsq says:

        People who take ideas seriously tend to be unmoving because if you really believe in a particular ideology than you tend not to budge. What I meant is that very few people really embrace a particular ideology for all the intellectual justifications behind that ideology.Report

  5. Perhaps I’m too cynical, but I expect that means Cruz is an easy grader.Report

  6. Avatar Stillwater says:

    Re: Cruz math problem: I think the math problem results from Cruz’s unlikability problem, which is a bigger and more unavoidable.Report

  7. Avatar dragonfrog says:

    “Astro-baptists” could have been something so much more awesome than that. The UFO cult with the best picnics…Report

  8. Avatar Jaybird says:

    Both conventions this year are going to be nuts.

    The possibility exists that Bernie wins the lion’s share of the caucuses and Hillary win no more than half the primaries and the Superdelegates give Hillary a landslide anyway.

    Given the demographics of the groups supporting the one over the other, we could have another 1968 on our hands.

    Which, of course, won’t be half as interesting as the riots that a Bush v. Trump brokered convention will give us. (Because it won’t be a floor fight. We’ll either have a coronation or riots.)Report

    • Avatar North says:

      I’d say Nevada suggests that theory is bunk, not enouogh of the Democratic base is feeling the Bern. Bernie’s supporters are passionate, they are connected to things that make them especially visible to the media and the media very much feels the Bern but none of those are reflecting the actual votes. My money is on the same ol’ same ol’ for the Democratic Convention.

      The GOP convention? Way too soon to tell. I’m hoping it’s an absolute riot.. or maybe even a literal riot! Oh please oh please!Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw says:

        I think that you are generally right. This is not Chicago. There are no Vietnams or Daley’s anymore. HRC seems to be running back to center quickly and criticizing Sanders as offering free speech.

        But Sanders is winning large numbers of voters. He is not getting 10 to 20 percent of the vote. Neo-liberalism and triangulation are on the decline. Unless Rahm and HRC go into full “fuck the voters” mode. The absolute wealth and cheap consumer goods arguments are not working anymore. The Ds will need to realize that a lot of their younger supporters feel economically precarious. Is the neo-liberal argument that this is necessary?Report

        • Avatar North says:

          The pendulum swings, for sure, and there’s a lot of noodling that has to be done on the neolib side over whether of not this is a systemic problem or simple more pain from the misery of the great global recession. I think there’d be more urgency if the further left had any actual answers on the matter but the leftier side of the developed world is struggling with the same problems.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird says:

        It was 52.6 to 47.3.

        If I told you this time last year that Hillary would be fighting to be more than 5 points away from some crazy socialist in Nevada, would you have believed me?

        The numbers seem to be saying that this year’s turnout was 80,000 when 2008’s turnout was 120,000. I don’t know what that means either. (Incidentally, South Carolina had just over 600,000 in 2012, and they were estimating 650,000 would show up this time. As it turns out, 735,000 did.)

        There is some seriously weird stuff going on.

        We’re going to see riots.Report

        • Avatar Stillwater says:

          If you’re a Berner, I think the argument is that he closed a +/-18% gap to only 6% by election day (Bernmentum). If you’re a Clintonista you take solace that she won (she hasn’t blown her chances yet!!).Report

        • Avatar Morat20 says:

          Judging by polling (Democratic voters in general, not primary voters in specific) both candidates are equally well liked. Both have similar intensity numbers.

          My ancedotal take on turnout? A good chunk of the Democratic base is happier with either. I realize that seems crazy given the white-hot intensity of the circular firing squad, but it’s possible both sides may find themselves a bit…exaggerated.

          I mean that’s why I don’t plan to vote in this primary, and I’m generally pretty solid about going. I don’t care. Either works for me. It’s probably heresy, but honestly…what’s the point? Have you seen the GOP clown car? It’s not like they’re going to get my vote, so why should I turn out to cast a vote for Clinton or Sanders in the primary when…I don’t really feel strongly one way or the other?

          I wonder how much of the “weirdness” is the amplification of the loudest, fringe voices by social media? I mean, remember PUMAs? How they were gonna be a big thing? They weren’t. Despite the god-awful acrimony and screaming in 2008, Clinton and her supporters happily supported Obama. And it was at least as heated as the Sanders/Clinton stuff now.

          I suspect there’s really only enough mental room for one exciting race, and the Democratic side wasn’t it. The GOP parade sucks up all the air. So I suspect a lot of Democratic primary voters see Clinton and Sanders and go “Eh, they’ll do”. (Or if you want a more cynical take, they figure Clinton’s got it locked and are okay enough with that, so why bother?).Report

        • Avatar North says:

          Jay, I don’t think you’re plugged into the Dem’s party vibe. This is not a mirror image of what’s going on on the GOP side. Riots would be the furthest thing from what I’d expect. Also Bernie has about fifteen or so losses and maybe 2 or 3 wins to expect in the next bit. Barring HRC fishing something up or some other unexpected upset I am dubious that the nailbiting close race narrative is going to hold. Of course I might just be biased, I am not feeling the Bern myself after all.Report

          • Total mirror image. On both sides, all the front-runners are equally nuts..Report

          • Avatar Jaybird says:

            It’s based on little more than the fact that the people most enthusiastic about Bernie are all somewhere south of 30 and Hillary will be doing a good job to expose machinery in the next few months.

            Maybe all of these “kids” (said affectionately, of course) will just get all disillusioned.

            But part of me wonders if we won’t have a handful of people demanding that their voices be heard, safe spaces, whatnot. When I wonder that, I start believing that we’ll hear “don’t taze me, bro” again.Report

            • Avatar North says:

              I suppose I could see some young firey Bernie supporters making a ruckus, but frankly since that is rather contrary to how Bernie himself has run his campaign I would not expect it. Bernie has rather blatantly comported himself in a manner that suggests that while he’d like to win and would love to pull the narrative to the left he does not desire to do so badly enough to start throwing the bombs or pulling the kinds of political tricks that would significantly harm the party’s prospects in the general.Report

            • Avatar Morat20 says:

              And this is different than virtually every primary ever how? There’s almost always a candidate the under-30 crowd embraces with all the ardor of a new lover, and that candidate generally loses. (Not always, Obama for instance).

              Dean, for instance.

              Perhaps it’s cynical, but I expect those enthusiastic young voters to do what they’ve always done. Get crushed when Sanders loses, a few won’t vote in the general, most will make their peace with it. As they always have.

              Maybe these young-uns are special, and they’ll have a mass sit-out in protest or something. Admittedly, I’d take that risk a bit more seriously if the current GOP clown car wasn’t what it was….

              But in the end, it doesn’t matter. Whomever gets the most votes wins, and the “under 30” crowd doesn’t have enough votes. Short of asking Hillary to concede in favor of the choice of one small demographic, what’s there to do besides for the winner to court the loser’s voters — generally with the enthusiastic support of the loser.

              I mean, remember PUMAs? They were so angry and so…very, very few.Report

        • Avatar Kolohe says:

          Most of the turnout differential is the surge for Obama in 2008, including independents/Republicans in open or mixed primary states.Report

    • Avatar Kolohe says:

      BernieBros are at best, Occupy, which faded away without much fanfare at all.Report

  9. Avatar DensityDuck says:

    “Turned Around”:

    The issue is that Actual Left is Meme Right: authoritarian, dogmatic, enamored with the notion of Supreme Executive Power, preferring a strong and wide-ranging government.Report