|
on the left posted:I voted for Obama, but i'm ready for Trump now that I am forced to pay the same for healthcare as a 60 year old, under penalty of law. Looking at $200 a month health insurance policies that don't really cover anything is certainly enough to redpill you on Obama. Also, Trump's foreign policy is also way better than Obama or Bush: let other countries handle their own business, don't get involved in military adventurism, and try to make deals whenever possible. Great idea, I'm sure your healthcare options will be much improved in the wasteland of the Trump Thunderdome.  ACA is not wonderful, but its better than nothing--and regression is going to make single-payer or UHC that much more difficult to enact. Way to think it through.
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
SlipUp posted:Ever hear of the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act" That doesn't have anything to do with welfare or social security. quote:or "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act"? 1, not sure it makes sense to pin her with complete responsibility for something that happened when she was 1st lady and Congress was controlled by Republicans only a hair less insane than the ones we've got today. 2, it makes even less sense to assume that there's no way her views can have evolved in the 20 years since then. It would be hard to ignore how badly those initiatives failed. I don't particularly love Hillary. I'm voting for Bernie, I'm giving money to him, I'm stumping for him in my group of friends, family, and acquaintances, etc. But it seems to me like a lot of anti-Clinton voters ascribe a level of vehement ideological commitment to her that doesn't actually exist in reality. I don't think she was ever a true believer in neoliberalism; for her and Bill, it was always a means to an end. That end has never been money, or at least money for its own sake. Like Trump, if she wanted to make money, running for president would hardly be the way to do it. No, Clinton and Trump are both motivated by ego. They want to be remembered as great leaders. Hillary knows her legacy probably isn't going to be touted by conservatives at this point, so I don't think your assumption that she will pivot hard to the right once elected holds any water. I don't think she'll be particularly progressive, either, but you know what? I'm pretty certain that her SCOTUS nominees will be better than Trump's, and I'm more worried about his potential foreign policy than Hillary's.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Great idea, I'm sure your healthcare options will be much improved in the wasteland of the Trump Thunderdome. We'll never get single-payer or UHC though, and there's a sizable amount of people who'd rather just have no insurance than face a fine for not being able to afford it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:I went to an Ann Coulter appearance at South Carolina about 12 years ago the day there was that big kerfluffle about those burned corpses strung up on a bridge in Iraq and the most important thing I learned was there are very good reasons TV never, ever, ever shows that woman below the waist. I have no clue what you're insinuating here. Is she a centaur or something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
bango skank posted:We'll never get single-payer or UHC though, and there's a sizable amount of people who'd rather just have no insurance than face a fine for not being able to afford it. How frequent an occurrence is that, do you think?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Speaking purely anecdotally, there is among the people I've observed a pretty sizeable demo whom trump will likely scare away from the Republican party: moderate Republican women, the sort of people who have been quietly pining for Jeb or Kasich or even Rubio. Trump scares them in a way none of the other candidates do, and his misogyny hits home for them. Many are already talking about staying home or voting third party in protest. I've even heard a couple mutter that even a dirty liar would be better than Trump, because at least she gets what it's like to be a woman in America, or that they sympathize with her having to stand by her scumbag of a husband. I doubt the latter faction will be huge enough to throw a competitive election, but don't discount the impact of white women staying home.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Great idea, I'm sure your healthcare options will be much improved in the wasteland of the Trump Thunderdome. I'm a healthy young person with a lot of cash in savings. Catastrophic plans are precisely what I need but Obama made them illegal because they don't cover a bunch of stuff that I will never need. Coincidentally, i'm starting a job in June with a "cadillac" healthcare plan that Obama also decided to attack. I have no idea why Obama thinks its good to tax people with good healthcare plans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
bango skank posted:We'll never get single-payer or UHC though Not with that attitude we won't. I admit it feels unlikely--but at some point this electorate that is hurtling leftward with every medical bankruptcy will demand the same benefits that the developed world enjoys.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
on the left posted:I'm a healthy young person with a lot of cash in savings. Catastrophic plans are precisely what I need but Obama made them illegal because they don't cover a bunch of stuff that I will never need. Coincidentally, i'm starting a job in June with a "cadillac" healthcare plan that Obama also decided to attack. I have no idea why Obama thinks its good to tax people with good healthcare plans. The nature of Universal healthcare means that some participants in the system must subsidise others. In many cases such as the NHS in the UK, this results in the young and working who don't use the health service often, paying for the treatments used by the elderly and infirm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
If your looking to criticize HRC to black communities talking about Tough on Crime laws isn't going to do it when the CBC and many black community leaders pushed those laws in the 90's. They had unintended consequences, but the Clintons have always been quite receptive to what the black community wants (which is why they are so popular).
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Majorian posted:How frequent an occurrence is that, do you think? I don't know. I haven't done any studies or conducted any surveys on the subject, I can only speak from my personal experience and the experience of those around me. LeeMajors posted:Not with that attitude we won't. I have to say I wish this were the case but I'm doubtful. There weren't any moves made in that direction at the start of Obama's presidency when Democrats controlled both houses, instead we got the ACA. Now any conservatives who may have eventually seen the need for more comprehensive insurance reform have the convenient scapegoat of "Obamacare" to blame all their troubles on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:The nature of Universal healthcare means that some participants in the system must subsidise others. In many cases such as the NHS in the UK, this results in the young and working who don't use the health service often, paying for the treatments used by the elderly and infirm. In the UK, it's paid for by progressive taxation, not a flat head tax. Such a garbage country, I have to pay full price for healthcare and I have to pay full price for tuition. All while the interest on my student debt that is paid to the government is not fully tax deductible (and at my income level, i'm not allowed to deduct ANY of it).
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
bango skank posted:I don't know. I haven't done any studies or conducted any surveys on the subject, I can only speak from my personal experience and the experience of those around me. I understand, but it seems to me that this is less a failing of the ACA and more the fault of GOP governors refusing to expand Medicaid. quote:I have to say I wish this were the case but I'm doubtful. There weren't any moves made in that direction at the start of Obama's presidency when Democrats controlled both houses, instead we got the ACA. Now any conservatives who may have eventually seen the need for more comprehensive insurance reform have the convenient scapegoat of "Obamacare" to blame all their troubles on. Obama and the Dems never really had control over the Senate and the House simultaneously, though. Those 60 votes in the Senate included Lieberman and the zombies of Teddy and Byrd. I agree Obama should have pushed harder for a public option or single payer, but I don't think one can fairly assign him all the blame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Obama and the Dems never really had control over the Senate and the House simultaneously, though. Those 60 votes in the Senate included Lieberman and the zombies of Teddy and Byrd. I agree Obama should have pushed harder for a public option or single payer, but I don't think one can fairly assign him all the blame. What loving bizarro world do you live in? quote:At the time Chait wrote that, there was already ample evidence that the White House had, in fact, secretly negotiated away the public option early on in the process, including confirmation from a New York Times reporter of the existence of such a deal, as well the fact that Russ Feingold said as clearly as he could that the reason there was no public option in the final bill was because the White House never pushed for it, because the final bill — without the public option — was the “legislation that the president wanted in the first place.” http://www.salon.com/2010/10/05/public_option_24/ Like most things in the Obama Administration, it's him saying one thing in public while actively working against it in private.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:What loving bizarro world do you live in? One where everything I said was factually true?  How does this contradict anything I said? The White House didn't feel like it could get the public option through the Senate with Lieberman being stolidly against it, and Teddy and Byrd being almost dead. So they hammered out a deal with the insurance industry's support instead. This is a pretty widely-known thing, and it doesn't change the fact that the math simply wasn't there for supporting anything broader than the ACA. Sorry, but them's the facts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Majorian posted:One where everything I said was factually true? I believe the assertion being made in the Salon article is that they brokered the deal with the "stakeholders" and it didn't contain a public option from the very beginning, regardless of what they say to everyone now or then, the public option was off the table from the get-go. I guess you're saying it was done that way to buy off Lieberman, but I don't think they would have steered this so hard away from the Public option because of one Senator's opinion. It's far more believable (poo poo not even cynicism here) that the deal brokered with the "stakeholders" contained no public option because A.) hospitals didn't want to take less money and B.) there's no way for insurance companies to compete with a public plan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That doesn't have anything to do with welfare or social security. It was a regressive policy that showed where any money from her is going to go. quote:1, not sure it makes sense to pin her with complete responsibility for something that happened when she was 1st lady and Congress was controlled by Republicans only a hair less insane than the ones we've got today. She pushed hard for it, it was the democrat's version of a twice rejected republican bill. Then here's the problem with Hilary, we're not supposed to look at what she's done or what she said, but we are with Trump. What's going to happen is that people are going to ignored everything both have said and done and than vote for who they like more. With Trump being the populist "beer" candidate, recent history tilts in his favour. I don't think Hilary's in it for the money either. I just recognize her and Trump for what they are: hucksters who will be anything to anyone to get what they want.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:I guess you're saying it was done that way to buy off Lieberman, but I don't think they would have steered this so hard away from the Public option because of one Senator's opinion. The New Republic actually had a good piece on it in 2010: quote:Reid focused on the centrists in his own caucus—picking them off one at a time until he got to Joe Lieberman, who had made clear he wouldn’t support a public option. After a maddening back-and-forth in search of a compromise, during which Reid felt double-crossed by Lieberman, Reid finally shelved the public option once and for all—but only after Lieberman promised to vote yes. As the article points out, the White House does seem to have favored a public option, but was extremely skeptical that it would ever get through the Senate. I think it was a strategic mistake on their part to let it go so easily, especially when Reid was willing to keep pushing for it, but I think it's going too far to suggest that Obama was never for it. SlipUp posted:It was a regressive policy that showed where any money from her is going to go. "Where any money from her is going to go"? What does that even mean? How does that suggest she'll slash the social safety net? quote:She pushed hard for it, it was the democrat's version of a twice rejected republican bill. That's right, it was the Democrats' bill. Hillary did push hard for it, and she was wrong to do so. But it's no less dumb to pin full responsibility on her when the Democrats in Congress, the President, and, as VS pointed out earlier, the Congressional Black Caucus all supported it. That doesn't absolve her of responsibility, but you're making it seem like it came about by fiat of the First Lady, which is not exactly in line with reality. quote:Then here's the problem with Hilary, we're not supposed to look at what she's done or what she said, but we are with Trump. One can see a gradual evolution in her views, though. Trump is all over the place, taking up one position and then dropping it the next. He's pro-choice one year, pro-life another. He's pro-torture, then he isn't, then he is again. He's against an interventionist foreign policy, then he's advocating sending troops in to "take ISIS' oil." quote:What's going to happen is that people are going to ignored everything both have said and done and than vote for who they like more. With Trump being the populist "beer" candidate, recent history tilts in his favour. Except that his unfavorables are higher than hers, and have been for the entire race. Plus she's beating him in almost all polls. I don't think the whole "beer vs. wine candidate" analogy really applies anymore...
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Speaking purely anecdotally, there is among the people I've observed a pretty sizeable demo whom trump will likely scare away from the Republican party: moderate Republican women, the sort of people who have been quietly pining for Jeb or Kasich or even Rubio. Trump scares them in a way none of the other candidates do, and his misogyny hits home for them. Many are already talking about staying home or voting third party in protest. I've even heard a couple mutter that even a dirty liar would be better than Trump, because at least she gets what it's like to be a woman in America, or that they sympathize with her having to stand by her scumbag of a husband. I doubt the latter faction will be huge enough to throw a competitive election, but don't discount the impact of white women staying home. I'm not seeing how a non-theocrat who supports Planned Parenthood is supposed to be scary to moderate women as an option within the Republican Party, of all places.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:I'm not seeing how a non-theocrat who supports Planned Parenthood is supposed to be scary to moderate women. "Look at that face!" he cries. "Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!" The laughter grows halting and faint behind him. "I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not s'posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Majorian posted:"Where any money from her is going to go"? What does that even mean? How does that suggest she'll slash the social safety net? That was the largest government spending policy they enacted as of that date and it was solely to jack up the police force. quote:That's right, it was the Democrats' bill. Hillary did push hard for it, and she was wrong to do so. But it's no less dumb to pin full responsibility on her when the Democrats in Congress, the President, and, as VS pointed out earlier, the Congressional Black Caucus all supported it. That doesn't absolve her of responsibility, but you're making it seem like it came about by fiat of the First Lady, which is not exactly in line with reality. I don't give her sole responsibility, but I give her responsibility. quote:One can see a gradual evolution in her views, though. Trump is all over the place, taking up one position and then dropping it the next. He's pro-choice one year, pro-life another. He's pro-torture, then he isn't, then he is again. He's against an interventionist foreign policy, then he's advocating sending troops in to "take ISIS' oil." Yeah, her views closely mirrored what the majority of the public felt at any given time. The majority of the public still have a problem with BLM. (Absolutely no comment here about the correctness of either group.) Trump's views evolve in real time in response to polls and audience reaction. He's basically the future of politicians. The faster the information, the faster the flip flop. quote:Except that his unfavorables are higher than hers, and have been for the entire race. Plus she's beating him in almost all polls. I don't think the whole "beer vs. wine candidate" analogy really applies anymore... Beer candidate was always about the more entertaining, likeable candidate, and probably existed before Bush 2. Obama vs Romney & McCain, Bush vs Kerry & Gore, Clinton over Bush 1 & Dole...
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:I'm not seeing how a non-theocrat who supports Planned Parenthood is supposed to be scary to moderate women as an option within the Republican Party, of all places. Besides what computer parts said, he's anti-choice now, so...
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
I think I'd rather have Trump as the nominee for the GOP at this point and I dislike saying that. Reason? I'm paranoid that if a "Escape from LA" type scenario happens and Cruz is the nominee? We're hosed. Badly. Like...maybe even worse than under a Trump presidency. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJpznMaZ85c Cruz gives me some weird blind hatred of everything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:I don't give her sole responsibility, but I give her responsibility. I mean, you used this as evidence to back up your claim that "She's definitely going to gut welfare, maybe social security." That's not exactly convincing that her gutting the social safety net is a sure thing... quote:Yeah, her views closely mirrored what the majority of the public felt at any given time. The majority of the public still have a problem with BLM. (Absolutely no comment here about the correctness of either group.) Does the Congressional Black Caucus have a problem with BLM? I mean, in retrospect, there's no question that the CBC, the White House, etc, were wrong on the crime bill, but you're really not assigning a realistic degree of responsibility to the first lady at the time. quote:Trump's views evolve in real time in response to polls and audience reaction. He's basically the future of politicians. The faster the information, the faster the flip flop. Reading your posts, though, that doesn't seem like you'd be viewing that as a good thing. Wouldn't it be better to elect someone who made some bad judgment calls, but now makes less-bad judgment calls, than someone whose judgment is based solely on how popular it is with the nuttiest, most blatantly racist segments of society? quote:Beer candidate was always about the more entertaining, likeable candidate, and probably existed before Bush 2. Obama vs Romney & McCain, Bush vs Kerry & Gore, Clinton over Bush 1 & Dole... Obama was hardly the "beer candidate" in 2008, Gore won the popular vote in 2000, etc. It's not about "likeability"; the "beer candidate vs. wine candidate" BS is about whether or not they're able to relate to poor whites. That's it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:I think I'd rather have Trump as the nominee for the GOP at this point and I dislike saying that. Oh i hate cruz too, but he is unelectable. He is an religious nut and a son of a bigger nut. he has said so much awful poo poo about gays and everyone else. he will get buried in it. Cruz is the last(for the immediate future) hurrah of of the religions right. but their day is almost done. its now turn for shitheads like trump and milo. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The New Republic actually had a good piece on it in 2010: ...that article even says that the Obama Administration cut a deal before votes came into play. Only it doesn't mention all the concessions Obama's team agreed to behind closed doors to get that deal. If you want a really in-depth version to deny, go hog wild (archive if that link doesn't work) Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
If Cruz is the last hurrah of the religious right, where is the moralizing tendency of people going to find its outlet in politics? Because it isn't going away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:...that article even says that the Obama Administration cut a deal before votes came into play. Right, but you do realize that deals are fairly frequently cut in the Senate before votes come into play, right? quote:Only it doesn't mention all the concessions Obama's team agreed to behind closed doors to get that deal. If you want a really in-depth version to deny, go hog wild (archive if that link doesn't work) Yes, but you're still ascribing all the blame to the White House, which isn't realistic at all. You're assuming a level of purposefulness in their willingness to compromise, as opposed to an error in strategy, which seems far more likely. You really should save blame for people like Lieberman, who made a public option impossible from the get-go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I mean, you used this as evidence to back up your claim that "She's definitely going to gut welfare, maybe social security." That's not exactly convincing that her gutting the social safety net is a sure thing... What would qualify as a sure thing over her own previous record? What can she be held responsible for if not for the things she's done? Does the congressional black caucus reflect the view of majority of Americans? I definitely don't think it's a good thing. I'm starting to wonder if mass media, capitalism, and democracy are compatible. (I guess I always suspected, I just never followed through on the thought exercise to it's repugnant conclusion and it's jarring to watch it in real time.) I'm actually happy that Trump will take the republican nomination. It could be the pre courser to a major party split, and his platform is no more revolting than any other republican, even if the man is. Poor whites are a major demographic in the country. Maybe things wouldn't have gotten to this point if there were compromises that could be reached, but there aren't. Democracy is dead. Or maybe it's not dead enough yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:What would qualify as a sure thing over her own previous record? Everything. Absolutely everything she's done politically, she can and should be held accountable for. But when one does it, one should do it realistically. Acting like she was some sort of omnipotent being or mastermind in everything you've mentioned is simply not realistic. I understand that she's the one member of the broader Clinton administration who's up for election this year, but it's a little nuts to ascribe as much responsibility to her as you are. quote:Does the congressional black caucus reflect the view of majority of Americans? No, but how did the majority of Americans view those pieces of legislation at the time? quote:I definitely don't think it's a good thing. But it seems like that's even more Trump's M.O. than Clinton's, doesn't it? quote:Poor whites are a major demographic in the country. Maybe things wouldn't have gotten to this point if there were compromises that could be reached, but there aren't. I don't think that's actually true. White people are still the majority, but where are you getting poor whites?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Right, but you do realize that deals are fairly frequently cut in the Senate before votes come into play, right? quote:Soon after, PhRMA’s big guns and industry lobbyists paid the White House another visit on July 7 and this time met with Rahm Emanuel and Jim Messina (Baucus' chief of staff Jon Selib is also listed in White House visitor logs for this meeting). In August, The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim reported on an internal memo that was drafted at that meeting that outlined the policies that would not be allowed into any final version of health care reform. These included Medicare prescription drug negotiations, drug re-importation, and the lowering of prices for drugs available through Medicare Part D and Part B. The deal would be $80 billion in cost cutting and absolutely no more. Yeah, why would I blame the White House?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
on the left posted:I'm a healthy young person with a lot of cash in savings. Catastrophic plans are precisely what I need but Obama made them illegal because they don't cover a bunch of stuff that I will never need. Coincidentally, i'm starting a job in June with a "cadillac" healthcare plan that Obama also decided to attack. I have no idea why Obama thinks its good to tax people with good healthcare plans. Because both parties want to end the employer paid tax exemption for health insurance and institute their own flavor of high deductible health insurance as way to get consumer "skin in the game"
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Yeah, why would I blame the White House? No one's saying you shouldn't assign some blame to them.  Just that it's insane to pin all the blame on them, as you seem to be doing.e: Like, I get why Grijalva was frustrated, and it was a strategic mistake on the White House's part not to aim higher than they did, but honestly. Do you really think Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, every other Blue Dog, AND a couple Republicans could have been pressured to support a public option? Or was the White House probably correct to call that DOA? Majorian fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Well, you assholes left me hanging on what's going on with Coulter's hosed up centuar body, which led me to this creepy site, thanks. http://www.bodymeasurements.org/ann-coulter/
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Bast Relief posted:Well, you assholes left me hanging on what's going on with Coulter's hosed up centuar body, which led me to this creepy site, thanks. http://www.bodymeasurements.org/ann-coulter/ Why did I look at bra size. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Why did I look at bra size. yeah sorry about the delay she's a six foot tall anorexic with two gallon jugs on the front I honestly don't understand how she can balance well enough to stand up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
145lbs at 6"0 is a pretty normal BMI. She's slim, but not freakishly so. The only unusual thing about her appearance is her height and long legs. Also possibly the evil emanating from her pores and such.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
I don't like this framing of Hillary Clinton having huge support with "the black community" (whatever the hell that really is). She has the support of working class Baby Boomers that belong to the Democratic Party, of which black voters disproportionately belong to. It's no great mystery as to why she appeals to that demo, just like Bernie appeals to liberal, professional younger Xers and Millennials in general (of which there are proportionately less black voters). Media is making the issue about race, but it has more to do with socioeconomics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
Darko posted:She has the support of working class Baby Boomers that belong to the Democratic Party, of which black voters disproportionately belong to. It's no great mystery as to why she appeals to that demo,
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
Darko posted:I don't like this framing of Hillary Clinton having huge support with "the black community" (whatever the hell that really is). She has the support of working class Baby Boomers that belong to the Democratic Party, of which black voters disproportionately belong to. It's no great mystery as to why she appeals to that demo, just like Bernie appeals to liberal, professional younger Xers and Millennials in general (of which there are proportionately less black voters). Media is making the issue about race, but it has more to do with socioeconomics. In Georgia she had the majority vote of all black voters at all age levels. It was more skewed the older you got, but it's not like she lost the 18-24 year olds. e: Sorry, I was confused. It was South Carolina and she won 56% of the under 30 black vote. computer parts fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 16:53
|
|