2020 US candidates

[SYZ]

As a distant observer, I'd say that the two main reasons Trump is president is (1) the outmoded Electoral College system,
and (2) the fact that only 55.7% of eligible US voters turned out in 2016.

Solutions?  Abolish the EC, and legislate Federally for one man-one vote, like a normal democracy.  And secondly, make
voting compulsory in Federal elections.

Problem solved.      

[Thumpalumpacus]

Such disaffected voters who are hostile to the Democratic establishment appear to be only a narrow slice of the Vermont senator’s base. But elections are often won on the smallest margins. In 2016, a portion of them backed Green Party candidate Jill Stein in the general election. While Stein barely got one percent of the vote overall, that amounted to 132,000 ballots across Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, three pivotal states Trump won by a collective margin of about 77,000 votes. Sanders rallied in all three states last weekend.

"It’s a pretty small minority of his support," said Neil Sroka, a spokesman for the liberal activist group Democracy For America. "But when you’re dealing with an election that was as close in terms of raw votes in 2016, every vote matters. And so that matters."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...ts-in-2020

[Aegon]

As a distant observer, I'd say that the two main reasons Trump is president is (1) the outmoded Electoral College system,
and (2) the fact that only 55.7% of eligible US voters turned out in 2016.

Solutions?  Abolish the EC, and legislate Federally for one man-one vote, like a normal democracy.  And secondly, make
voting compulsory in Federal elections.

Problem solved.      

You couldn't make voting mandatory in the US. Well, maybe you could. But I'm betting some sort of classical conservative advocacy group would be able to challenge it on the ground it violates the First Amendment (claiming that purposefully not voting is a form of political self-expression protected by the Constitution).

[mordant]

As a distant observer, I'd say that the two main reasons Trump is president is (1) the outmoded Electoral College system,
and (2) the fact that only 55.7% of eligible US voters turned out in 2016.

Solutions?  Abolish the EC, and legislate Federally for one man-one vote, like a normal democracy.  And secondly, make
voting compulsory in Federal elections.

Problem solved.      

You couldn't make voting mandatory in the US. Well, maybe you could. But I'm betting some sort of classical conservative advocacy group would be able to challenge it on the ground it violates the First Amendment (claiming that purposefully not voting is a form of political self-expression protected by the Constitution).

That's easily solved via a "none of the above" choice on ballots. This is done in ranked-choice voting as it is.

You can compel people to vote, but not who to vote FOR. And if all the choices are not to your liking, that is ordering you to vote against your will. It's fine to insist people make a decision, so long as the decision is truly theirs to make.

A lot of non-voters aren't that way from conviction, but from inertia. If compelled to put in an appearance, those folks will probably make an actual choice. But people whose considered choice is none of those on offer, can do that, too.

Of course compulsory voting would beg the question of how you accommodate voters with disabilities or other hardships, which tends to force the issue of by-mail voting and increased polling place capacity / throughput, easier or automatic registration, and other things hated by Republicans. So it will not happen in the present climate.

[jerryg]

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

You've surrendered already. You're not going to speak up in November. I don't give a fuck what your opinion is now. Shut up and get out of the way. There's work to be done, and you ain't helping.

Some of that sweet sweet empathy I hear so much about.  *takes notes furiously*

[jerryg]

What's wild about this whole "lesser evil vs. abstaining" argument, is that it's entirely subjective. There's no right or wrong answer. Both are perfectly valid, both 'morally' and as a strategy for bettering the world, unless you are Dom who is sure Trump is going to end democracy if he wins another term. She definitely should vote lesser evil.

[Aegon]

It'll be interesting to see how this goes if the lockdown extends to the election.  The democrats really rely on a physical get out the vote effort.  Showing up at people's houses, registering them, and then giving them weeks of in person voting, and driving them to the polls.  Minorities and youths in particular.  

I'd think needing people to take it upon themselves, will be a major challenge even if the ballots get mailed out.

One thing that another legislative package will need to address delayed elections. The CARES Act included $400 million in election assistance. An analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice calculated that – between ensuring vote-by-mail options, ballot tracking software, printing and postage costs and more – states, collectively, need at least $2 billion for the delayed elections to be rolled out properly. Speaker Pelosi has made it clear that she will be fighting to move to "vote by mail" for every election this year, which of course has huge implications in regards to voter turnout.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

You've surrendered already. You're not going to speak up in November. I don't give a fuck what your opinion is now. Shut up and get out of the way. There's work to be done, and you ain't helping.

Some of that sweet sweet empathy I hear so much about.  *takes notes furiously*

You apparently have a lacking understanding of empathy. Here's a hint: it doesn't pertain to political views.

Nice try at sarcasm, though. Hit the books and do better next time.

[Aroura]

Empathy exists in all areas of life. For instance, I can and do empathize with a certain group of Trump voters even though I completely disagree with their reasoning, I still recognize it.

I also empathize with those who feel they must vote Biden if it comes to that, even though I personally completely disagree with them. I get the reasoning.

I don't think people are stupid, less patriotic, or less passionate about doing the right thing just because we may disagree about what the right thing is.

Personally speaking, my empathy doesn't know walls or boundaries. When I find it does, I do my best to push past them. I don't always succeed, often enough I want to slap someone silly who I feel is being an idiot, but I always try and step back and see things from that person's point of view.

That's why I ask a lot of questions about how others people see things, and why. I do find it generally disappointing that I received almost zero return of this behavior, instead a lot of projection and assumptions, but I suppose that's just human nature, and I'm sure I do that to other people as well.

I'm not so deluded as to think my views are objectively better or right, or to think I'm immune from common human psychology like group think or projection. We're all flawed humans, after all.

[Aroura]

I also want to say, I knew I'd get a lot of grief for sharing my honest view and telling people I refuse to vote for Biden. It's hard for me because I'm very confrontation averse, but I also feel really strongly that it was important to be honest with the hopes that people might see the real reasons why Biden is such a dreadful candidate.

So, I accept the anger directed at me, and I get it.
My hope is that people can turn that anger into something more productive than simple blame.

So yeah, thanks for listening. I'm trying to stick this through.

[Minimalist]

why Biden is such a dreadful candidate.

He's Gandhi compared to the idiot who is running against him.  But you've made your choice and are leaving the battle to others.

[Cavebear]

As a distant observer, I'd say that the two main reasons Trump is president is (1) the outmoded Electoral College system,
and (2) the fact that only 55.7% of eligible US voters turned out in 2016.

Solutions?  Abolish the EC, and legislate Federally for one man-one vote, like a normal democracy.  And secondly, make
voting compulsory in Federal elections.

Problem solved.      

You missed a part. Too many States have "all or nothing" electoral rules. So if 90% of 30 or so million voters in California go for one candidate and 51% of 140,000 Wyoming voters go for another candidate, each get all the State's Electoral votes. Granted, Wyoming has fewer total Electoral votes, but Wyoming gets more Electoral votes per citizen (because both States have 2 Senators in spite of the population difference). But it is still not equal voting.

[Cavebear]

I also want to say, I knew I'd get a lot of grief for sharing my honest view and telling people I refuse to vote for Biden. It's hard for me because I'm very confrontation averse, but I also feel really strongly that it was important to be honest with the hopes that people might see the real reasons why Biden is such a dreadful candidate.

So, I accept the anger directed at me, and I get it.
My hope is that people can turn that anger into something more productive than simple blame.

So yeah, thanks for listening. I'm trying to stick this through.

You are welcome not to vote for Biden if you don't like him for any reason. It is who you WILL vote for (or not vote) which is a question.

[SYZ]

You couldn't make voting mandatory in the US. Well, maybe you could.

Rather than could, I see it as "should".  With compulsory voting, Australia had a voter turnout of 98% of
eligible voters, and of those only 5.05% voted informally.  This proves the success of the voting system
in Australia, particularly when compared to America's poor voter turnout figures.  If its citizens weren't so
fucking slack, they well may have avoided now suffering under a moronic buffoon.

And of course the US has the political influencer Heritage Foundation think tank, which is strongly pro-Trump
and which suggested a list of potential candidates for his staff.  At least 66 Foundation employees and alumni
got positions in Trump's administration, including Scott Pruitt, Rick Perry, Betsy DeVos, Mick Mulvaney, and Jeff Sessions.

But I'm betting some sort of classical conservative advocacy group would be able to challenge it on the ground it violates the First Amendment (claiming that purposefully not voting is a form of political self-expression protected by the Constitution).

I think equating the First Amendment with the additional "right" to NOT speak is a long bow to draw.  One of
The Heritage Foundation's key managers, Hans von Spakovsky says that the protection under the First Amendment
"includes the right not to speak", although without citing a specific interpretation of that claim. He also claims "there
is no question that we are 'speaking' when we make our choices in the ballot booth. When we don’t vote, we are
again making a choice, a choice not to speak that also sends a political message".     This of course is all bullshit.

And if America used Australia’s voting system, there’s no way Trump could've won.  Simple as that.   I'm
getting a strong impression that nearly 50% of people eligible to vote in the US don't really care which party is in
power, or who their president is.  They can't even get out of bed for one single day every four years.

If you shit in your bed, then you've gotta sleep in it.     

[jerry mcmasters]

How does it work in Australia if you don't vote? Do you get fined?

[Aractus]

How does it work in Australia if you don't vote?  Do you get fined?

Yes.

You couldn't make voting mandatory in the US. Well, maybe you could. But I'm betting some sort of classical conservative advocacy group would be able to challenge it on the ground it violates the First Amendment (claiming that purposefully not voting is a form of political self-expression protected by the Constitution).

Jury duty isn't optional in the US, and that's way more onerous a task than voting.

[jerry mcmasters]

Jury duty isn't optional in the US, and that's way more onerous a task than voting.

Interesting topic.  I wonder if jury duty has been challenged as a free speech issue, as in fuck it I don't want to do it.  Probably not as it's easy to get out of so no one would bother.  But as a matter of principle (if someone saw it as such) I wonder how the SC would rule.

[Aegon]

You couldn't make voting mandatory in the US. Well, maybe you could. But I'm betting some sort of classical conservative advocacy group would be able to challenge it on the ground it violates the First Amendment (claiming that purposefully not voting is a form of political self-expression protected by the Constitution).

Jury duty isn't optional in the US, and that's way more onerous a task than voting.

How onerous it is is irrelevant.

[mordant]

I'm getting a strong impression that nearly 50% of people eligible to vote in the US don't really care which party is in power, or who their president is.  They can't even get out of bed for one single day every four years.

It is not quite that simple. While there are plenty who can't be arsed to vote in the US, there are plenty who simply can't, for various reasons that are solvable but we let the fucktards in both parties (mostly, but not exclusively, the GOP) get away with it:

1) In general, employers are not obliged to let workers vote, so you have to vote on your own time. If you work long or unusual hours and/or have child care issues this may turn voting from a matter of course into an exercise in triage. Yes, increasingly "early" voting or absentee voting or even mail-in voting is permissible, but all that is far from universal OR simple. In my state you have to file an affidavit far in advance to do absentee voting and work or child care issues aren't among the acceptable "excuses" for an absentee vote. Right now absent a special order from the governor, the goddamned pandemic wouldn't be an acceptable reason. We don't have such a no-brainer order yet, and we have a Democratic governor.

2) There's a tendency in many states to close or understaff or restrict hours of polling places, especially in poor areas or areas that tend to vote liberal. So even if you overcome (1) and stagger into the polling place at 8 pm, you might be facing an hour or two in line.

3) There are burdensome and arcane rules at times. For example, to vote in New York's closed presidential primary, you must declare your party, but you must do it six months before the primary election day. This is the 21st century and in no way, shape or form does the state need six month's advance notice which primary you're going to vote in. You could declare it on election day itself. It's a simple lookup to make sure you don't vote in both the Dem and GOP primaries. But this provision of the law has survived a number of election reforms (we recently started automatic voter registration for 18 year olds, etc) -- even under a Democratic governor. This one provision has prevented numerous people I've spoken to from voting in both the '16 and '20 primaries and they were incensed to find out that they were disqualified months in advance.

4) Even if you're properly declared for a presidential primary, it was not rare for people to arrive at the polling place on election day to find that their declared party had mysteriously disappeared from their voter registration record. I routinely check my family's voter registration online monthly to make sure this doesn't happen to us. It's unusual, but I know people it has happened to and in '16 there were thousands in some of the NYC borroughs whose party declarations mysteriously vanished. It was put down in part to coordination between the Motor Vehicle Division (where you can also make these declarations when renewing your vehicle registration or license) and the election systems but some heads also rolled in the party apparatus in the boroughs. Those asshats always have plausible deniability of some kind but with this state half run by the mafia as it is, I find corrupt intent a far more likely explanation.

And the above is just a partial and NY-centric list of issues. So to chalk it all up to voter indolence is not a fair critique. In significant measure, it is (1) voter suppression and (2) the entirely predictable apathy caused by that plus the fact that things tend not to improve for working stiffs even if their candidate wins. This is indeed the argument of moderates on this forum, that things not only don't, but inherently can't, change when they need to in any way that a voter would rationally connect with their cast votes. When this kind of thinking prevails, especially over multiple elections, so does voter indifference. You are just saying, along with folks like Biden, that "nothing will fundamentally change", so vote for me. It begs the question, "why bother"?

My answer is not to quit voting but to vote for change candidates. But, you know, they are "too divisive" and "don't know how to cooperate". So we keep going in circles.

[Dānu]

With the national coronavirus crisis, progressives are getting by fiat something they wanted to achieve by legislation. With people struggling to pay rent and mortgages, and 6 million suddenly unemployed, and government assistance fraught with roadblocks and obstacles such as the challenge to get $1200 to Americans that need it within the month, many obligations which were strictly enforced based upon an ability to pay are being suspended. It's not necessarily a given that things will go back to normal after the crisis where the ability to pay is a greater factor in the distribution of resources than need. Things like Medicare For All and Andrew Yang's guaranteed basic income have leaped forward in terms of the probability of them becoming a reality. And the longer things drag on, and the more Americans that die, the less likely things will simply return back to normal in terms of how we choose which needs matter and the relationship between getting one's needs met and one's ability to pay. We could very well see a sudden drastic increase in rates of homelessness, hunger, and medical neglect which demand answers that people were more reluctant to embrace before. The safety net in the U.S. has lagged behind that in many other developed countries. This crisis could be a game-changer for that.

[Tres Leches]

With the national coronavirus crisis, progressives are getting by fiat something they wanted to achieve by legislation.  With people struggling to pay rent and mortgages, and 6 million suddenly unemployed, and government assistance fraught with roadblocks and obstacles such as the challenge to get $1200 to Americans that need it within the month, many obligations which were strictly enforced based upon an ability to pay are being suspended.  It's not necessarily a given that things will go back to normal after the crisis where the ability to pay is a greater factor in the distribution of resources than need.  Things like Medicare For All and Andrew Yang's guaranteed basic income have leaped forward in terms of the probability of them becoming a reality.  And the longer things drag on, and the more Americans that die, the less likely things will simply return back to normal in terms of how we choose which needs matter and the relationship between getting one's needs met and one's ability to pay.  We could very well see a sudden drastic increase in rates of homelessness, hunger, and medical neglect which demand answers that people were more reluctant to embrace before.  The safety net in the U.S. has lagged behind that in many other developed countries.  This crisis could be a game-changer for that.

It would be great if the flaws in the ways things are run in the US change but I don't have much hope that it will. There are too many people that believe other Americans who are in dire straits did something to deserve it. 

Lose your job and now can't pay rent? Callous American response: "You should have saved when times were good." 
Sky-high student loans that you can't pay now?  Callous American response: "Well, why did you take out those loans in the first place? Bad planning." 
Giant medical bills and now you have to declare bankruptcy? Callous American response: "That must be your fault, somehow."
Homeless people living in tents on city streets? Callous American response: "They want to be homeless and they're mostly immoral drunks and drug addicts, anyway."

These are all nonsensical things I've heard in good economic times, often lead by politicians on the right, who aren't going away anytime soon. I even hear these things in my own liberal state, which shows how entrenched these bad attitudes are.

-Teresa

[Dānu]

With the national coronavirus crisis, progressives are getting by fiat something they wanted to achieve by legislation.  With people struggling to pay rent and mortgages, and 6 million suddenly unemployed, and government assistance fraught with roadblocks and obstacles such as the challenge to get $1200 to Americans that need it within the month, many obligations which were strictly enforced based upon an ability to pay are being suspended.  It's not necessarily a given that things will go back to normal after the crisis where the ability to pay is a greater factor in the distribution of resources than need.  Things like Medicare For All and Andrew Yang's guaranteed basic income have leaped forward in terms of the probability of them becoming a reality.  And the longer things drag on, and the more Americans that die, the less likely things will simply return back to normal in terms of how we choose which needs matter and the relationship between getting one's needs met and one's ability to pay.  We could very well see a sudden drastic increase in rates of homelessness, hunger, and medical neglect which demand answers that people were more reluctant to embrace before.  The safety net in the U.S. has lagged behind that in many other developed countries.  This crisis could be a game-changer for that.

It would be great if the flaws in the ways things are run in the US change but I don't have much hope that it will. There are too many people that believe other Americans who are in dire straits did something to deserve it. 

Lose your job and now can't pay rent? Callous American response: "You should have saved when times were good." 
Sky-high student loans that you can't pay now?  Callous American response: "Well, why did you take out those loans in the first place? Bad planning." 
Giant medical bills and now you have to declare bankruptcy? Callous American response: "That must be your fault, somehow."
Homeless people living in tents on city streets? Callous American response: "They want to be homeless and they're mostly immoral drunks and drug addicts, anyway."

These are all nonsensical things I've heard in good economic times, often lead by politicians on the right, who aren't going away anytime soon. I even hear these things in my own liberal state, which shows how entrenched these bad attitudes are.

-Teresa

I'm considering starting a thread on this, but the question of whether weakness or other human frailty should be considered moral failings or not has come to the forefront in a big way over the past century. My specific example was that I don't personally consider myself a very strong person, yet others who know me, seeing what I've coped with may disagree. In particular, people at the hospital ward I was on after having my fingers amputated complimented me on how casually and equanimously I was reacting to the changes to my reality. At the time I just attributed it to a strong tendency toward a Taoist worldview, and so didn't consider it as remarkable as they did. And my mental illness is another dimension. I cope because I must, more than because I can. In the past people with mental illness were seen as deserving of their problems and described their faults in terms of moral and personal defects. That has changed over time, thanks to a lot of consciousness-raising on the issue from the twin forks of education and experience with individuals who have a mental illness. I'm not as familiar with the story regarding chemical dependency, but there has been a sea change there as well. And the change from a century ago when homosexuality was regarded as a sickness to now wherein it's gaining acceptance globally is remarkable both in scope and rapidity. So I think change does occur, the question is how quickly and what are the things driving it? A public health crisis of this sort has the potential to change both those things significantly. Smugly self-satisfied "fuck you, I got mine" people will be given an up-close look at a reality which they've at best tried to deny and distance themselves from in the past. There's research which suggests we are less likely to give to people the more removed from us they are. A friend is different from a faceless black person in Africa. A homosexual daughter or neighbor is different from some stereotyped image of a gay boogeyman. So I don't expect miracles, but at the same time I'm skeptical of your pessimism.

[Minimalist]

The chickens are coming home to roost.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/02/investing...index.html

US unemployment report is much worse than economists predicted

London (CNN Business)Mass layoffs tied to the coronavirus pandemic sparked a surge in the number of Americans who filed for their first week of unemployment benefits — the latest sign that the US economy is in for a deep recession as shutdowns aimed at containing the virus continue.

The data: Over 6.6 million people filed claims for unemployment benefits in the week ending March 28, according to the US government. That is far more than economists expected and is double the all-time high set the previous week, when 3.3 million Americans filed initial claims.

How about a little less "winning," Trumpty?

[Deesse23]

Meanwhile in Germany.....

me and many others arent fired but put on "short time work", until the end of June. We work 3/5 days per week, get paid by the employer for 3 days, for the other 2 days we get 60% of our salary by the state.
Socialism ftw.

Advantages to employer and employee are pretty obvious thats why im not gonna bother to expand on them.

[mordant]

With the national coronavirus crisis, progressives are getting by fiat something they wanted to achieve by legislation.  With people struggling to pay rent and mortgages, and 6 million suddenly unemployed, and government assistance fraught with roadblocks and obstacles such as the challenge to get $1200 to Americans that need it within the month, many obligations which were strictly enforced based upon an ability to pay are being suspended.  It's not necessarily a given that things will go back to normal after the crisis where the ability to pay is a greater factor in the distribution of resources than need.  Things like Medicare For All and Andrew Yang's guaranteed basic income have leaped forward in terms of the probability of them becoming a reality.  And the longer things drag on, and the more Americans that die, the less likely things will simply return back to normal in terms of how we choose which needs matter and the relationship between getting one's needs met and one's ability to pay.  We could very well see a sudden drastic increase in rates of homelessness, hunger, and medical neglect which demand answers that people were more reluctant to embrace before.  The safety net in the U.S. has lagged behind that in many other developed countries.  This crisis could be a game-changer for that.

It would be great if the flaws in the ways things are run in the US change but I don't have much hope that it will. There are too many people that believe other Americans who are in dire straits did something to deserve it. 

Lose your job and now can't pay rent? Callous American response: "You should have saved when times were good." 
Sky-high student loans that you can't pay now?  Callous American response: "Well, why did you take out those loans in the first place? Bad planning." 
Giant medical bills and now you have to declare bankruptcy? Callous American response: "That must be your fault, somehow."
Homeless people living in tents on city streets? Callous American response: "They want to be homeless and they're mostly immoral drunks and drug addicts, anyway."

These are all nonsensical things I've heard in good economic times, often lead by politicians on the right, who aren't going away anytime soon. I even hear these things in my own liberal state, which shows how entrenched these bad attitudes are.

-Teresa

I'm considering starting a thread on this, but the question of whether weakness or other human frailty should be considered moral failings or not has come to the forefront in a big way over the past century.  My specific example was that I don't personally consider myself a very strong person, yet others who know me, seeing what I've coped with may disagree.  In particular, people at the hospital ward I was on after having my fingers amputated complimented me on how casually and equanimously I was reacting to the changes to my reality.  At the time I just attributed it to a strong tendency toward a Taoist worldview, and so didn't consider it as remarkable as they did.  And my mental illness is another dimension.  I cope because I must, more than because I can.  In the past people with mental illness were seen as deserving of their problems and described their faults in terms of moral and personal defects.  That has changed over time, thanks to a lot of consciousness-raising on the issue from the twin forks of education and experience with individuals who have a mental illness.  I'm not as familiar with the story regarding chemical dependency, but there has been a sea change there as well.  And the change from a century ago when homosexuality was regarded as a sickness to now wherein it's gaining acceptance globally is remarkable both in scope and rapidity.  So I think change does occur, the question is how quickly and what are the things driving it?  A public health crisis of this sort has the potential to change both those things significantly.  Smugly self-satisfied "fuck you, I got mine" people will be given an up-close look at a reality which they've at best tried to deny and distance themselves from in the past.  There's research which suggests we are less likely to give to people the more removed from us they are.  A friend is different from a faceless black person in Africa.  A homosexual daughter or neighbor is different from some stereotyped image of a gay boogeyman.  So I don't expect miracles, but at the same time I'm skeptical of your pessimism.

I'm told that there was something of a sea change in the mental health field in the 1990s that shifted away from a general "blame the parent" strategy for mental illness and addiction issues in children and youth (for example, the preferred treatment for autism in young adults before then was literally known as a "parentectomy" -- removing the parents from their lives as they were believed to be creating severe codependence in the child).

I assume that the attitudes toward people with mental health issues as somehow being All Their Fault, is tracking somewhat behind that. Once you remove parents as the responsible party, blame tends to fall on the individual. Then people have to figure out that fixing blame is not the path to an answer.

Mixed in with this is the big-Pharma driven notion that every mental health issue is fixed with a pill. Johan Hari and other activists and authors are slowly dismantling this notion that all depression is totally fixed with the right SSRI prescription. But it's early days there. 

That things are relatively more enlightened than that now vs 20 years ago doesn't mean that the thinking and institutions around these issues aren't still medieval in practical terms. And American society is in ways uniquely favorable to the notion that people who don't have Problems get to ignore and judge and disparage those who do, and regard them as leeches and thieves. In my experience and observation, people who are doing reasonably well like to feel that they are safe and protected in that well-doing by some sort of innate virtue they possess, and that people who aren't functioning as well, must lack those virtues.

This is just one of many reasons why society needs to be moved to a more egalitarian mindset that protects and supports the most vulnerable rather than punishing them until morale improves -- whether economically or otherwise. US society does not like to factor in safety nets and protections; the idea seems to be that they shouldn't be needed at all. Which is of course delusional. But it is the attitude just the same.

I don't think we need to be pessimistic as a result, and don't think Therese necessarily is pessimistic ... maybe just making an observation. As Sanders likes to say, "despair is not an option" ... one just keeps pushing for needed change and changing minds one at a time. It is an arduous long game we have to play. We don't help ourselves by either over or under estimating that task.

On the other hand, while it's a long game, it can be significantly shortened if there's a critical mass of public sentiment and political will and if people quit triangulating about whether they think enough others can be brought on board, before they start advocating for real change. Quit looking to the regressive elements in society, effectively, for permission to improve things.