Nina Turner and the anti-Democrat left

[Spider-Dan]

Instead of the usual left vs. right discussions on this forum, I thought it would be fun to have a left vs. left conversation for a change.

Last week, there was a special election for the OH-11 Congressional district.  The former US Representative for that district, Marcia Fudge, was nominated and confirmed as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.  This is a heavily gerrymandered district that includes Cleveland and Akron.  And when I say "heavily gerrymandered," I'm not exaggerating:



This is a strongly Democratic district, with the Democratic presidential candidate receiving between 79-82% of the vote in all 5 elections since 2000.

---

Many of you may not know the name Nina Turner.  She is a Cleveland native and former state senator in the Ohio legislature who rose to prominence as a Bernie Sanders surrogate in 2016.  After Bernie lost the 2016 primary, Turner was vocally opposed to Hillary Clinton in the general election.  She refused to give Hillary her endorsement, and did some campaigning with 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

Turner was a campaign co-chair for Bernie again in 2020.  After Bernie's second presidential primary loss in 2020, Turner joined a group called Movement for a People's Party with the hopes of starting a new third party (the "People's Party").  During the 2020 general election, Turner was interviewed by the Atlantic; in that interview, she compared voting for either of the two major-party candidates (Biden and Trump) as akin to "eating a bowl of shit" and said that while voting for Trump was like eating a full bowl of shit, voting for Biden was like eating half a bowl of shit.

After Rep. Fudge was confirmed as HUD Secretary, Turner decided to run to fill Fudge's seat.  There were over a dozen candidates running in the Democratic primary for that seat, but Turner had the largest profile and name recognition by far; in June, she was polling at 50% with a 35-point lead over her nearest challenger, Cuyahoga County Democratic Party Chair Shontel Brown.  Turner's fundraising dwarfed all her competition by several million dollars, as she was receiving endorsements from high-profile progressives like Bernie and AOC.  It looked to be an easy victory.

But then several high-profile Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Jim Clyburn endorsed Shontel Brown and the polls tightened.  In the last few weeks of the race, there was a wave of outside spending on ads highlighting Turner's "bowl of shit" comment about Biden.  Brown ended up winning the primary by a bit over 5 points.

---

Now that the background is done:  there is a group of people on the left who have some serious resentment towards the Democratic Party.  They absolutely despise Obama, Hillary, Pelosi and Biden, and they believe a majority of the rest of the left does, too.  So they continually make these "bowl of shit"-style comments, thinking that it will play well... but ultimately, the only people those comments impress are people who hate Democrats (usually, but not always, Republicans).

I mention all of this because even in the aftermath of this embarassing and pathetic L that Turner snatched (with a huge lead in name recognition and money!) due to her clownish comments and general third-party footsies, you still have people on the left who are continuing to double down, saying that Turner was right to compare voting for Biden to eating shit.  These kind of antics do absolutely nothing to advance progressive policy, and serve only as a signal to other Democrat-haters that they hate the same people you do.

As long as the Berniecrats continue to platform those kinds of bombthrowers, they will continue to lose Democratic Party primaries.

[Fau Teixeira]

Lawrence O'Donnell actually has a very good view on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqRNnIMDkUY

Lawrence's quote:

“If you want to pull the major party that is closest to what you’re thinking, you must-YOU MUST-show them that you’re capable of NOT voting for them. If you don’t show them you’re capable of not voting for them, they don’t have to listen to you. I promise you that. I worked within the Democratic Party. I didn’t listen or have to listen to anything on the left while I was working within the Democratic Party, because the left had nowhere to go.”

I think that the only way to drive the democratic party left is for progressives to vote against them at every opportunity until they have no other choice than to start appealing to the left. Biden was a "less evil than Trump" vote, but by no means is Biden any different than someone like a Jeb Bush would have been policy wise.

To note, this was an open primary and a huge majority of republicans voted on the democratic ticket against Nina Turner. The largest single spender on ads was the Democratic Majority for Israel, who spent 1.2 million in negative advertising against nina turner. I'm not sure this was so much a democrat vs. democrat election as much as an "anyone but the progressive" election.

It is a very dangerous strategy that the democratic party is running by alienating the left. The republicans would not dare to alienate their base. They're practically falling all over themselves to appeal to the populist right. The only reason we don't have a Trump term right now is that he as a person is so incredibly incompetent and stupid that he couldn't shut up for a minute and let the medical experts drive Covid policy.

You see it all over, republicans are co-opting populist stances. When (not if) they have a "populist" candidate that isn't a complete moron, they will wipe the floor with the "center-right" democratic party.

If only the democrats fought as hard for incredibly popular ideas like universal healthcare instead of trying to kill it every chance they get, they'd be in a much better place.

[Dave Gray]

I think that progressives that push issues are good.  ...even if they're far left, the ideas eventually become mainstream enough to be adopted into reasonable policy.  That's true from the right, probably, too.  You need hard-line activist types to enact change.  I'm all for bringing in more issue-based candidates into the party from the fringes, in order to make those views mainstream and I think that ranked-choice is the safest and healthiest way to get there, while also weeding out crazy people.

That said, I fundamentally disagree with Biden and Trump are the same or even that Biden would be like Jeb Bush.  That's bullshit.  We've seen this lie time and time again.

That's not even a knock on Jeb Bush, but he's from a completely different political ideology than Biden.  So, yes, they are both moderates within their respective camps and might sometimes compromise here and there, but ultimately will be following the general cultural and ideological guidelines from their party.

This is true for all levels of government, but especially true for President, which gives you an extra party vote in the senate for ties, lets you appoint a bunch of people, including judges.

I heard this exact same bullshit about Al Gore and GW Bush from Nader-nerds back in the day -- all parties were the same.  Patriot Act and a few wars later and Global Warming being called fake for a decade changed some tunes.

More bullshit with Trump/Hillary and Jill Stein.  Can you look back and really think that Trump and Hillary were going to have similar administrations?  ...look at COVID for fuck's sake.

I'm all for shooting to become more progressive, but you do that from within.  Yes, both parties are too militarily hawkish and I'd love a third choice, but If you threaten to take the ball and go home, you'll get what you got with Bush and again with Trump.  Again and again.

[Fau Teixeira]

Biden and Jeb would be different culturally for sure. Economically, they're the same. And a large percentage of people aren't voting for cultural issues.

You bring up the patriot act and wars and how Bush was different than Gore would have been. But I would say that Obama was no different with regards to the patriot act than Bush was. The proof is in the pudding. More drone strikes under Obama. Obama did nothing to deliver on things like closing down the Guantanamo prison. Culturally sure, Obama was different than Bush, and way different than Trump. But as far as the patriot act goes, what's the difference?

Progressives pony'd up behind Gore, and lost, they pony'd up behind Obama and "won" even tho he passes very little the progressive left was happy about, they reluctantly voted for Hillary and lost and then turned out for Biden because the alternative was Trump. At some point, they'll intentionally stop voting for the center.

You can call it taking your ball and going home, but I tell my kid that if he's playing with a bully and a cheat and that he's not enjoying the game, then he should do just that. Stop playing.

At the very least you'll have progressives vote for none of the above. But if you keep alienating your base then you'll end up having them vote for the other guy out of spite. Fuck you is a very motivating feeling. And what Trump and Covid has taught us is that there's a population out there that will cut off its own nose to spite its face. It's naive to think otherwise.

[Fau Teixeira]

We'll see how it plays out with this infrastructure bill. The "bi-partisan" compromise that just passed the senate won't get progressive votes in the house if it doesn't have the reconciliation also coming along with it. It's another case of the centrist democrats saying "fuck you" to progressive priorities and instead playing nice with the right wing.

[Dave Gray]

We'll see how it plays out with this infrastructure bill. The "bi-partisan" compromise that just passed the senate won't get progressive votes in the house if it doesn't have the reconciliation also coming along with it. It's another case of the centrist democrats saying "fuck you" to progressive priorities and instead playing nice with the right wing.

The bi-partisan bill is different.

This is designed and negotiated to come alongside a reconciliation bill.  That's already the deal.  In fact, pretty sure the reconciliation part has to come first...or at least get moving and agreed to. 

This is a dog and pony show so that Manchin, Sinema, and the Biden Administration can say "hey look we can be bipartisan" and Republicans who want to get reelected in purple districts can say "see, I don't obstruct EVERYTHING, just most things".

[Dave Gray]

I'm not sure it's fair to compare Obama to Bush, since they weren't running against each other, but

1) I concede that the Democratic party is hawkish....and most "centrist" Democrats, which are most of them, are into nation building and guns and armies all around the world.
2) In the actual choice that we got: Bush v Gore, we chose Bush.  The Patriot Act was pushed under him, as a handcuff to the war that was built on bullshit.  Al Gore was against the Patriot Act and I don't think we'd have gone to war with Iraq over oil reserves, for the Inconvenient Truth guy.  So, yeah...I think it would've been a lot different.

Now, maybe Gore would be different in office than he advertised himself to be.  But he was a pro environment guy against the Patriot Act.  I don't have a crystal ball to say how he'd actually govern, but he doesn't seem the same to me.

[Dave Gray]

One other thing that I thought about:

We can't really focus on one issue, like the Patriot Act.  I mean, you can, but you're essentially saying that if the party doesn't cave to my position on this one issue (and you're in the right on that issue), then I'm voting against them as a protest, but you end up losing on that issue anyway, as well as a ton of other issues.

I agree with the sentiment that the party needs to seriously consider the ideas of the left, but you get there through electing those people, not by electing the other side.  And it's counter-productive.  If the left pushes a moderate candidate out, the next candidate is likely to be more moderate to eat into the middle, hoping the left comes along after screwing themselves last time.  It's how we got Biden.

This comes down to ranked-choice voting -- it will give idea-candidates a better platform and those ideas will be adopted into the party at large.

[pondwater]

This is a dog and pony show so that Manchin, Sinema, and the Biden Administration can say "hey look we can be bipartisan" and Republicans who want to get reelected in purple districts can say "see, I don't obstruct EVERYTHING, just most things".

Let's not attach the word "obstruct" to a single side, they both do it. And to say otherwise is pure hypocrisy. All you have to do is look at what those nutball Democrats are doing in Texas. That is obstruction pure and simple. I think I heard that the Texas Supreme Court is allowing them to withhold their pay and arrest them. And rightfully so.

[Spider-Dan]

Lawrence O'Donnell actually has a very good view on this:

There is a difference between threatening not to show up at the polls and BS third-party wankery.  Third parties are a dead end that lead only to your most hated political opponents consolidating power, period.

To note, this was an open primary and a huge majority of republicans voted on the democratic ticket against Nina Turner.

That's an interesting comment, given that Nina Turner has been one of the loudest voices complaining about closed primaries and insisting that they should be open!  When it's Bernie Sanders harvesting votes from independents and "populist Republicans," open primaries are good, but now that she's lost they're bad?  Gimme a break.

The largest single spender on ads was the Democratic Majority for Israel, who spent 1.2 million in negative advertising against nina turner. I'm not sure this was so much a democrat vs. democrat election as much as an "anyone but the progressive" election.

The largest single spender on ads was Nina Turner's campaign.  Which makes sense, because SHE had the most money in the race:

It is a very dangerous strategy that the democratic party is running by alienating the left. The republicans would not dare to alienate their base. They're practically falling all over themselves to appeal to the populist right. The only reason we don't have a Trump term right now is that he as a person is so incredibly incompetent and stupid that he couldn't shut up for a minute and let the medical experts drive Covid policy.

You see it all over, republicans are co-opting populist stances. When (not if) they have a "populist" candidate that isn't a complete moron, they will wipe the floor with the "center-right" democratic party.

Right-wing "populism" is indistinguishable from fascism.  The so-called "populists" you are citing run explicitly on banning Muslims and stopping the invasion of dusky-hued people speaking Spanish.  I can't believe you would think Trump's Republican Party is some sort of blueprint for political action.

If only the democrats fought as hard for incredibly popular ideas like universal healthcare instead of trying to kill it every chance they get, they'd be in a much better place.

They fought for the ACA (the single largest downward transfer of wealth in American history) and all they did was get shit on.
If they get a public option, you'll shit on them for that, too.
Any positive thing that Obama or Biden has done is worthless in your eyes; they're just the same as Bush but with a rainbow flag, right?

Biden and Jeb would be different culturally for sure. Economically, they're the same.

First off, Jeb Bush cannot win a national election in the Republican Party; that much should be obvious.  You might as well be discussing Colin Powell or Bill Weld.

A better comparison would be Dubya or Trump, but you can't make that comparison because the facts on the ground instantly prove the premise false.  Dubya and Trump DIDN'T govern "economically the same" as Obama and Biden.

And a large percentage of people aren't voting for cultural issues.

The entire Republican Party is voting on cultural issues!  When was the last time you heard a conservative complaining about something that WASN'T the culture war?

Even the conservatives on this forum have made the reasons for their support of Trump crystal clear: owning the libs.

Obama did nothing to deliver on things like closing down the Guantanamo prison.

This is literally the example I pick to refute arguments like this.

When Obama took office in January 2009, one of his first moves was to start the process of closing GTMO (as he promised during his campaign).  His reward for this morally correct step was... to have Senators disparaging him as "putting Americans in danger" by transferring these prisoners to Supermax facilities on the mainland.  The resolution of this was for the Senate - a Senate with 58 votes in the Democratic caucus, mind you - to vote 90-6 to BLOCK Obama from closing GTMO.  And because you know this shoe is dropping: yes, Bernie voted to block the closure of GTMO.

The first lesson that the idealistic young President Obama learned is that everyone, from left to right to center, will line up to stab him in the back just for trying to fulfill a morally imperative campaign promise.

I don't want to hear anything from Bernie supporters about how Obama didn't do enough.  Your man is part of the reason why.

Progressives pony'd up behind Gore, and lost, they pony'd up behind Obama and "won" even tho he passes very little the progressive left was happy about, they reluctantly voted for Hillary and lost and then turned out for Biden because the alternative was Trump. At some point, they'll intentionally stop voting for the center.

In 2000, we were told by Ralph Nader and the "no lesser evil" left that if we rejected Gore, Bush would be so bad that the American people would rise up and vote for a truly progressive option.  Instead, we got a huge tax cut for the rich, 2 wars, nominee John Kerry, a Bush re-election, two new conservatives on the Supreme Court, and a destroyed economy.  The culmination of this was Barack Obama, whom y'all hate.  Mission accomplished?

Next, we were told by Jill Stein and the Bernie-or-Busters that if we stay home and let Trump win, in 2020 the people will clamor for a true progressive like Bernie and we will get Medicare For All.  Instead, we got another huge tax cut for the rich, our government stealing children from immigrants legally applying for asylum, three new conservatives on the Supreme Court, and half a million dead Americans from COVID.  Oh, and Bernie somehow did even worse in 2020, probably due to the moderate candidates unfairly dropping out of the race when they saw they had no chance (unlike Bernie in 2016), which led to President Joe Biden.

So my question is: how is this "withholding your vote" strategy working out?  Does the election of Obama and Biden feel like putting Bush and Trump in the WH was all worth it?  Because from where I'm standing, things are indisputably worse than if we had elected Gore and Hillary and pressured them from the left while in office.

[Fau Teixeira]

1st i just modified your post to shrink that image, it was distorting stuff

So just some random thoughts to your post because quote/re-quote is annoying to read.

- 3rd parties are only read as long as people don't vote for them, I agree with dave .. ranked choice voting gives voters more options

- nina turner was for open primaries, i am as well .. i'm not complaining about it, but it is an observation that the right wing parties made it a point to rally against the progressive

- it's not surprising that turner had the larger spend, she had way more donors and a much larger background and base in the district

- right wing populism is fascism, I agree. But it doesn't matter, people are unironically embracing fascism. How is it hard to see Trumpism as a blueprint? He literally won the presidency and had majorities in both houses of congress? That blueprint used by someone smarter than Trump will win if the Democrats keep catering to the corporate center and ignoring the grass roots. It's not like Trump didn't start his campaign calling mexicans criminals and rapists. That was out front. People that voted for him either don't care, or they applaud that.

- The problems I have with the ACA are a few.  It's a republican plan that caters to the insurance industry. The democrats had majorities in both chambers and could have passed a public option or a full blown medicare expansion. Instead they negotiated against themselves and still got 0 republican votes. The other thing that bugs me about it is that I have a feeling that what improvements there were from the ACA and there were some improvements, acted as a pressure release valve. So now we're in a situation where there isn't enough pressure to fix healthcare the way it should be, so we're stuck with the highest cost healthcare with the worst results in the developed world. And it's "good enough" for people to not prioritize. It's corporate halfassery of the highest order.

- I mentioned people, I didn't mention republicans voting on cultural issues. I think the evangelical wing of the republican party is unreachable and should be discounted entirely and ignored from the left. They've divorced themselves from any logic or facts and if they want to vote on social issues alone, i could care less.

- I don't agree with everything Sanders has done or stands for. I like most of his positions. I'm not dogmatic in that i follow a singular person.  And I agree with alot of stuff Obama did and I even agree with some of the stuff Trump did/tried to do. Even tho I cannot reiterate how much of a moron that guy is.

- We'll see in 2024 how ignoring the left will work out for Biden. Then we'll see in 2028 if the democratic center has learned its lesson yet.

[Spider-Dan]

That said, I fundamentally disagree with Biden and Trump are the same or even that Biden would be like Jeb Bush.  That's bullshit.  We've seen this lie time and time again.

That's not even a knock on Jeb Bush, but he's from a completely different political ideology than Biden.  So, yes, they are both moderates within their respective camps and might sometimes compromise here and there, but ultimately will be following the general cultural and ideological guidelines from their party.

This is true for all levels of government, but especially true for President, which gives you an extra party vote in the senate for ties, lets you appoint a bunch of people, including judges.

I heard this exact same bullshit about Al Gore and GW Bush from Nader-nerds back in the day -- all parties were the same.  Patriot Act and a few wars later and Global Warming being called fake for a decade changed some tunes.

More bullshit with Trump/Hillary and Jill Stein.  Can you look back and really think that Trump and Hillary were going to have similar administrations?  ...look at COVID for fuck's sake.

Dave, I'm glad to see you pushing back on this.  During the primary it seemed like you were getting third-party curious.

[Spider-Dan]

1st i just modified your post to shrink that image, it was distorting stuff

Thanks, I didn't know SMF can do that innately.

- 3rd parties are only read as long as people don't vote for them, I agree with dave .. ranked choice voting gives voters more options

I don't understand what the bold part means... typo?
Ranked Choice Voting would be nice, but so would a pony.  The system we have is the system we have.

- nina turner was for open primaries, i am as well .. i'm not complaining about it, but it is an observation that the right wing parties made it a point to rally against the progressive

You ARE complaining about it!  Otherwise, why even bring it up?

When "right-wing populists" cross over and vote for Bernie in an open primary that's good, but when right-wing corporatists cross over and vote against Turner, that's bad.  Which speaks to another issue:

- it's not surprising that turner had the larger spend, she had way more donors and a much larger background and base in the district

So even though Turner had more money (largely donated from outside the district), y'all are still complaining about "evil money" because she managed to lose anyway.

This is what I'm talking about.  When it comes to elections, you guys have no moral compass other than "What helps Berniecrats win?"

Are caucuses undemocratic and terrible?  No, because Berniecrats do better in them.
Should we get money out of politics?  Not if it's individual donations, because Berniecrats get more of them.
Is overturning the will of primary voters (via superdelegates) bad?  Not if Bernie needs them to beat Hillary.
Should ideologically similar candidates drop out and let the strongest candidate consolidate votes?  Yes if it's Elizabeth Warren, but if anyone else does it, it's rigging the primary.
Should deep red states matter in a Democratic primary?  Yes if they are white electorates like KS or OK, no if they are black electorates like SC or MS.
Should prominent DC politicians interfere in Congressional primaries?  Yes if it's Bernie and AOC, no if it's Hillary and Clyburn.

...blah blah blah.  Non-stop whining about anything that is not in your favor.  Try winning more votes!  If y'all weren't so obsessed with shitting on Obama/Hillary/Biden, you could win Democrats on policy.

- right wing populism is fascism, I agree. But it doesn't matter, people are unironically embracing fascism. How is it hard to see Trumpism as a blueprint? He literally won the presidency and had majorities in both houses of congress? That blueprint used by someone smarter than Trump will win if the Democrats keep catering to the corporate center and ignoring the grass roots.

Obama Democrats had a bigger WH win and bigger Congressional majorities, but you don't see that as a blueprint.
Biden Democrats won the WH and both houses of Congress (by beating an incumbent Trump) and you don't seem to think much of that, either.

The other thing that bugs me about it is that I have a feeling that what improvements there were from the ACA and there were some improvements, acted as a pressure release valve. So now we're in a situation where there isn't enough pressure to fix healthcare the way it should be, so we're stuck with the highest cost healthcare with the worst results in the developed world. And it's "good enough" for people to not prioritize. It's corporate halfassery of the highest order.

You are making an explicit argument for accelerationism: the idea that we shouldn't make things a little better because then people aren't as angry.

Quite simply: fuck that strategy.  Every life improved matters, and I'm not willing to sacrifice the well-being of millions in the hopes of some hypothetical motivated future electorate.  Against my own will, we were forced to try this strategy in 2000 and 2016.  Both times were pathetic and miserable failures.

- We'll see in 2024 how ignoring the left will work out for Biden. Then we'll see in 2028 if the democratic center has learned its lesson yet.

We are seeing right now, today what the "Let Republicans win so things get worse and the people rise up" strategy does: you get a Joe Biden.  Did the left learn its lesson?

The irony of Bernie Sanders as the avatar of progressivism is that he's such a terrible politician that it's handcuffing the movement.  If it were Warren, or Sherrod Brown, or almost literally anyone else, there would not be this focus on trashing Democrats that is endemic to a Senator that runs as an Independent.  It's the only song Bernie knows how to play, and while it might work in one of the smallest (and whitest) states in the Union, it's absolute poison at a larger scale.

So while a lot of the policies Bernie espouses are popular, his unique perspective on politics torpedoes any chance of greater success.

P.S. It's fine with me if you don't like to quote/re-quote.  I do it to keep my own points focused.

[Fau Teixeira]

I'm not a Bernie Stan just FYI, but I prefer his policies to the "mainstream" democratic policies. I think the democrats are in bed with the wrong people and they ignore the populist left.

I honestly don't care about open primaries, my point wasn't to complain about the result. You have to play the game with the rules as they stand. But you can still identify cause-effect of things.  I also don't really care for caucuses, I think they're a coercive process.

In a perfect world, I much prefer direct proportional representation that are found in most EU countries. But we have the 2 party system we have. The only way to show displeasure with one party is to vote for the other. So if people aren't happy with the Democratic party the only way to demonstrate that is to vote for the Republicans.

My point (that you're glossing over) is that if the democrats don't take advantage of the energy on the left and allow instead the republicans to appropriate issues like universal healthcare from a right-wing perspective. They're going to be in for landslide losses.

Let me be very clear. I'm voting 50-60% based on universal healthcare. As unlikely as it sounds,  should a Republican candidate provide that path, I will vote Republican even though I disagree with a lot of stuff on their platform otherwise. I don't owe the Democrats anything. They need to convince me that I want to vote for them. Biden didn't do that for me. He moved no needles. He got votes I think because people were voting against Trump. Not because of some policy he proposed.

[Spider-Dan]

In a perfect world, I much prefer direct proportional representation that are found in most EU countries. But we have the 2 party system we have. The only way to show displeasure with one party is to vote for the other. So if people aren't happy with the Democratic party the only way to demonstrate that is to vote for the Republicans.

Not only is that untrue, it's actively counterproductive.  If you're a Democratic politician, and you see general election voters choosing more conservative politicians, the appropriate response is to move right, not left.

The reason why GOP politicians continue to move right (even in the face of increasingly leftist general election voters) is because they are terrified of losing a GOP primary.  But because leftists have generally been terrible at winning Democratic primaries (due in no small part to ridiculous own-goals like Turner has committed), that dynamic is not in play among Democrats.

My point (that you're glossing over) is that if the democrats don't take advantage of the energy on the left and allow instead the republicans to appropriate issues like universal healthcare from a right-wing perspective.

This is pure fantasy, man.  The Republican Party does not support universal healthcare, and will not for the foreseeable future.  Why would you possibly believe Republican politicians (or voters!) would support universal healthcare after decades of opposing safety net programs?  The idea of Lazy [Brown?] People getting benefits that they don't deserve is more than enough motivation to keep current Republican voters opposing healthcare reform for the rest of their lives, no matter how much it would benefit them personally.  (I can think of at least one specific example that is familiar to both of us.)

You may be thinking that Trump's transparent lies during the 2016 campaign about supporting universal healthcare indicate some larger demand for socialist healthcare among the GOP electorate... but you shouldn't, as those lies were targeted at peeling off disaffected Bernie voters.  (The only action Trump's GOP took on healthcare was coming 1 vote away from returning us to the 2007 status quo.)  GOP voters don't genuinely care about universal healthcare any more than they genuinely cared about deficit scolds.  They wanted someone to kick out the Muslims, to prevent all the invading Mexicans from forcing you to learn Spanish, to stop the gays from making your daughter marry a woman, to make those uppity and ungrateful athletes stand up and salute the flag.

Please tell me you don't actually buy that "they voted for Trump because of economic anxiety" BS.