Pre-Super Tuesday Presidential poll

Warren is my heart's choice. I'm more apprehensive about this election than any other in my life.

 

Define socialist, then explain how Bernie fits into the definition. Please and thank you.

 

Harris and Klobuchar are senator personalities and there isn't anything wrong with that. Like the prosecutors they were, they're better critics and negotiators than they are anything else.

Warren is an oddity. She's developed into an awful candidate. She comes across as incredulous anyone would dare have ideas other than her own, or, if they have the same ideas, that they'd dare not credit her for them.

Pete's smarter than all of them, I suspect. But, like Obama, he plays with one hand behind his back. Not sure why. Obama did that a lot. Brilliant guy, had a pretty good grasp of what we needed to do and the kind of personal responsibility the super-woke generation needed to take and then...he just cowed to them anyway. Especially his absorbed-by-and-with-celebrity wife. 10-15 years from now, I predict Obama's gonna take a rhetorical flamethrower to the millennial generation - he'll completely morph- and it'll be fun to hear, albeit too late.

The best answer to Klobuchar's prattling about all her Senatorial experience is this: For all that work, Amy, guess what? The American public hates you and the rest of Congress even more than Trump.

 

I'll go with someone who self-identifies as one.

 

In a state that a) is nowhere near as liberal as people think (Democrat does not necessarily mean socially liberal. Once you leave Cambridge and inner suburbs like Brookline, Belmont and Newton or the gentrified hipster sections of Boston, you realize that pretty quickly) and b) had never previously elected a woman to statewide office. I don't love Elizabeth Warren but nobody can seriously say she's not a good politician.

 

OK, so who would that be?

 

Too bad Warren's not running in the SJ.com Primary. That state's the only one that likes her.

 

You don't see much of a defense for her, though.

 

Why bother? Who the fuck is going to be swayed by an argument on SJ.com?

 

It's been this way, successively, for each election since at least 2000. We're off the rails yet again.

 

And yet you’re here demanding definitions and whatnot. Fun.

 

We are still suffering the repercussions of Reagan. Mental health and homelessness today are a direct result of republican indifference to the less fortunate from 1981-93. Their phony Christian piety of fake family values revealed as nothing more than sociopathic power grab and despotic control over others.