This is for those who think he has no chance of winning because only X% support him, where X is < 50.

Trump’s Electoral College Edge Could Grow in 2020, Rewarding Polarizing Campaign
Re-election looks plausible even with a bigger loss in the national popular vote.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/19/upshot/trump-electoral-college-edge-.html

7/19/2019 10:34:35 PM

Quote :

"Good idea. Those things have an excellent safety record!"

I don’t think that criticism is valid nowadays. I think it’s actually pretty good. It had teething problems back in the 90s, and the other thing is that when a new fighter goes down, 1-2 guys die, if they can’t/don’t safely eject. If an MV-22 goes down, it is likely to kill a dozen or two people.

7/20/2019 3:44:45 PM

For those who support the “Impeach Trump Idea” i would like to see a list of criminal infractions that would make up the “indictment” . For example 1. Sexual Harassment - there is evidence he ****” 2. Extortion - there is evidence he ****” My point is that im not against anyone impeaching prez if there is evidence to not just make it a big circus but ive never heard someone make a solid argument about impeachment (bringing charges) only that we need to take him out (ppls definition of impeachment) i would like to know what charges people think can be brought, proven and warrant removal.

7/22/2019 6:41:06 AM

The bar for impeachment isn't proven criminal activity. Actually, one might argue that opening articles of impeachment in the House is the process of investigating the president and gathering evidence - whereas the trial takes place in the Senate.

Bill Clinton was impeached. There was no 'crime', per se. Well, not until he lied to Congress .

7/22/2019 6:59:23 AM

Thank you for educating . I thought it meant to bring charges. Basically its like going to grand jury. So Ill restate. What charges could be brought and proven? I guess what im striking at is many utter impeachment but dont have a road map to removal or success. Just like Clinton. So its a waste of everyones time.

To be clear.

1. House opens investigations
2. House decides if there is evidence of crime.
3. It goes to senate to decide judgement and punishment?

[Edited on July 22, 2019 at 7:20 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on July 22, 2019 at 7:20 AM. Reason : .]

7/22/2019 7:08:58 AM

Trump impeachable offenses:
- campaign finance violations (multiple)
- obstruction of justice (multiple)
- aided and abetted false statements
- obstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings
- witness tampering
- emoluments clause violations (multiple)
- attacks on free press
- advocating violence
- bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his aforementioned words and actions

etc...

impeachment proceedings would be a very strong platform for democrats to energize their base by highlighting trump's crimes, and it's the bare minimum of doing their job

[Edited on July 22, 2019 at 8:36 AM. Reason : .]

7/22/2019 8:35:42 AM

Quote :

"I'm saying that if you want to court white independents (hell, they don't even need to be white) that are on the fence (and they DO fucking matter because of the EC), there are better ways to attack Trump than calling him a racist every time he does something racist, most of the time as a loud distraction from other issues."

an insignificant group, who in the process of courting you risk demobilizing the large and actual base of your party who you need to show up and vote

Quote :

"You guys totally seemed to think Trump was disavowing his comments yesterday, but he did the exact same thing he always does: he hedged by pretending to apologize, before doubling down on them a day later. Not a damn thing has changed, so quit acting like the left had some massive moral victory and that the rest of the country is suddenly woke and not racist anymore."

um, huh? this is gaslighting, you are the one telling people to ignore trump's racism

read this:

Quote :

"So before explaining what the Dems are doing wrong right now, a little history...In 1990, white supremacist David Duke ran for U.S. Senate in LA, and in 1991 for Governor. He lost both times but both times he won the majority of the white vote (60 and 55% respectively)... "

https://twitter.com/timjacobwise/status/1152930670093787141?s=21

7/22/2019 8:41:08 AM

Quote :

"impeachment proceedings would be a very strong platform for democrats to energize their base by highlighting trump's crimes, and it's the bare minimum of doing their job"

And after months and months of brutal hearings, people like Susan Collins are going to have to make a choice that doesn't straddle any lines. Senate campaigns could be run saying "this person refuses to check a criminal president"

7/22/2019 9:25:22 AM

Dtral. Can you point to specific examples in your bullet points and the likelihood of being found substantiative in a house hearing? 5 of them are likely real crimes. The remainder are just dislike and conversation speak. I would like to know how you believe impeachment of president given any of the “charges” you proclaimed would create a removal or is the whole point to discredit Trump to help the next stooges running against to have a chance. I mean this sincerely as a point of debate . I just cant understand how 1. People dont understand impeach doesnt mean remove. And 2 how it makes a better argument for the next line of candidates

7/22/2019 2:39:10 PM

.

[Edited on July 22, 2019 at 2:41 PM. Reason : Doublepost]

7/22/2019 2:40:08 PM

it doesn't matter if the senate doesn't remove him from office, impeachment is warranted, necessary, and will help democrats. there is ample evidence for each of those things, the mueller report spells out most of it, there is ample reporting on emoluments and campaign finance violations, and trump's twitter highlights his calls to violence, attacks on the press and bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency.

i'm not going to be your google, all of this has been reported in detail

7/22/2019 3:09:57 PM

For UJW
https://twitter.com/maxwelltani/status/1153409343284551680?s=19

7/22/2019 5:11:51 PM

quiksilver I think the main, obvious, and easily proven offense is obstruction. Mueller laid it all out.

7/22/2019 6:25:39 PM

Relevant to an earlier page... a redneck family member posted this (who is definitely racist, no question about it)

7/23/2019 3:16:03 PM

Quote :

"being falsely accused of racism sucks too.yes, it does suck. I agree."

[Edited on July 23, 2019 at 3:20 PM. Reason : ]

7/23/2019 3:19:17 PM

7/25/2019 11:36:23 AM

^https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/qv77yd/trump-somehow-ended-up-speaking-in-front-of-a-presidential-seal-that-said-45-is-a-puppet-in-spanish

Quote :

"Instead of the bald eagle holding a bundle of 13 arrows in one talon and an olive branch in the other, the altered symbol behind Trump had two heads, resembling the double-headed bird featured on the Russian coat of arms; a wad of cash in one hand; and golf clubs in the other."

7/25/2019 12:30:11 PM

that is fucking awesome

7/25/2019 4:03:43 PM

Here's a better picture:

7/25/2019 7:02:44 PM

More for UJW
https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1156252663580942336?s=19

Quote :

"Remarkable new findings from Quinnpiac. Voters say by 51-45 that Trump is a racist. Among college educated whites: 54-43 (!) Among independents: 56-38 (!!) Among women: 59-36 (!!!) https://t.co/i6JbVPBfCu There's just no grounds for fearing this debate: https://t.co/G97jC5YL4X"

7/30/2019 4:16:36 PM

FFS let it go dude. Nothing has changed and Trump can still win the election without the popular vote, by an even worse margin than he did last time.

Go and watch The Great Hack on Netflix if you think that a small number of fence sitting voters don't matter. SPOILER ALERT: they fucking do!

7/30/2019 6:20:00 PM

What? How is that post at all a response to mine? My post simply implies that acknowledging the presidents racism and calling it that is, in fact, good politically no matter what group you wish to court.

7/30/2019 7:42:59 PM

You keep harping on this recent poll as if it has actually led to meaningful changes in policy, and while it's somewhat encouraging (WOW! slightly more than 1/2 of Americans think Trump's a racist!!) it hasn't actually changed anything- it just reinvigorated Trump's base, while seemingly distracting everyone else, with the added bonus of creating in-party fighting. It's also just a fucking poll, which won't mean shit if Trump wins the EC like he did last time, since polls aren't a perfect science.

Democrats and left-leaning people don't have a problem recognizing that Trump is a racist POS. If you (the royal you) had any doubts about this prior to 2016, I really don't know what to tell ya.

dtownral has made the argument that if the left doesn't keep screaming about racism every time Trump does something racist (which happens regularly, mind you) then somehow left-of-center voter enthusiasm will go down, costing the Dems the election. Are you making the same argument? If so, I think it's dumb, and I'll explain why.

MY argument, which hasn't changed, is that it's a waste of time to worry about preaching to the choir (i.e any reasonable left-of-center voter who has been paying attention since Trump got elected), since pretty much everyone who has progressive values already has accepted this fact. I haven't given up on the small segment of voters who could actually be persuaded by arguments that AREN'T tied to complicated issues like racism.

You may not believe it, but there are plenty of white people in this country that don't really understand what racism is, but when backed into a corner, they'll lash out and find solidarity with other whites (racist whites, mind you), simply because they don't want to be called a racist. These people are stupid, but they're also the same stupid people who fell for the disinformation campaign launched by Russian bots.

Do you honestly think that this next election will be transparent? Just? Interference free? Because if you do, HOLY FUCK, maybe you should wake up and look at what happened last time. Next to nothing has changed. If anything, it's only gotten worse.

7/30/2019 8:03:57 PM

You got this long winded stuff but the base of your argument is that calling him racist turns off independent voters, you have no evidence for that. I just provided evidence for the alternative. Polls may be inexact but they're better than anecdotal arguments.

Its silly to court the "stupid white people that don't understand racism but would consider voting Democrat" bloc until you can prove they exist and are significant.

Im not sure how interference and Russians are applicable to this argument. Those are problems, sure, has someone said they aren't?

And for the record, candidates should do both, they pound Trump with the corruption/racism/sex creep cudgel AND they should lay out clear concise policy proposals. The best candidates are doing this.



[Edited on July 30, 2019 at 8:45 PM. Reason : E]

7/30/2019 8:35:51 PM

I generally try to be polite but you do make it hard. The point above follows a logical progression, using points that are reasonable and identifiable, even if anecdotal and qualitative. While your points are equally opinionated, and data free, the validity and soundness of your arguments are far weaker- equating to an all caps THIS IS TRUE BECAUSE I THINK IT OKAY.

Do you actually not see the difference between the arguments you (and dtown) presents in contrast to what others present?

7/30/2019 9:05:55 PM

One is based on reality

7/30/2019 9:15:07 PM

^^^It's really weird how you keep citing your poll showing that college educated white voters find Trump racist (uh, no shit Sherlock- they went to fucking college and maybe learned a little), but yet you also you keep lumping them into the same group with non-college educated white voters, as if they're interchangeable INDEPENDENT voters. They're not.

Go back and look at the last page where you posted a similar poll, and take a deep, deep look at the data. None of it contradicts what happened in 2016- in fact, it basically mirrors it.

Trump won non-college educated whites by a wide, wide margin 66% (particularly non-college educated white men, which was 71%).

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

We're talking about a fairly small, yet persuadable segment of the population of people that live in key swing districts. If the only thing they're hearing is RACIST, while they're gainfully employed, my guess is they hold their damn noses and vote for Trump. And they'll do so in droves.

dtownral posted a NYT op-ed piece saying we should just ignore these 'minority' voters, but I think that's dumb. If anything, these are the people we should be courting the MOST since most people probably won't change their minds, and will either vote D or Trump.

And the EC absolutely matters, far more than either of you want to acknowledge.

But yeah, good job everyone for calling out Trump for the 11010010101th time he said something disgustingly racist. He definitely won't keep doing it.



[Edited on July 30, 2019 at 9:21 PM. Reason : .]

7/30/2019 9:17:47 PM

^^^Data free? I posted a poll supporting my position.

I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that there is a large swath of voters that would vote democrat but switch to Trump bc Trump was called racist.


^

Quote :

"Among independents: 56-38 (!!)"

And who said the EC doesn't matter? Why do you keep bringing that up?

Quote :

"We're talking about a fairly small, yet persuadable segment of the population "

Provide evidence that this group would be persuaded by not calling out racism when it happens. It's an interesting hypothesis, but one not backed up by any data.

If we're gonna throw out anecdotal data, I'll say NOT calling out racism will depress non white voting.

[Edited on July 30, 2019 at 9:24 PM. Reason : E]

7/30/2019 9:19:38 PM

Quote :

"Data free? I posted a poll supporting my position. "

a non-scientific poll that had plenty of flaws, but go ahead and believe it 'backs up' your claim. btw, polls are often wrong: see 2016.

Quote :

" And who said the EC doesn't matter? Why do you keep bringing that up? "

I keep bringing it up, because you and dtownral keep forgetting that even if Trump is unpopular, he can still win.

Quote :

"Provide evidence that this group would be persuaded by not calling out racism when it happens. It's an interesting hypothesis, but one not backed up by any data. "

Uh, I thought this was TWW and we were all just sharing our political opinions. I think Trump would win re-election easily today, regardless of the Dem nominee, because he's done a great job of dividing us, just like he did last time.

I personally think the Dems stand a better chance of beating him if they can run on a more inclusive message than "Trump is a racist, and so is anyone who votes for him." because I saw what happened last time, and that shit didn't work, even though he lost the popular vote pretty badly.

7/30/2019 9:32:46 PM

Quote :

"a non-scientific poll that had plenty of flaws, but go ahead and believe it 'backs up' your claim. btw, polls are often wrong: see 2016."

It doesn't prove anything, sure, but it's more backup then you provided. And which polls were "wrong"? The ones in saw before election day showed Trump with a pretty good chance to win.

Of course Trump can be unpopular and win, but what does that have to do with this discussion? We're each arguing that we have a better way to get him less votes, not really worried about popularity.

The last point is a copout. This isn't sports, I'm not just sharing my political opinion, I'd love to convince others of that opinion bc i think it's hugely important. I'm doing a piss poor job of that I guess, but I try to "back up" my claims with some, any, evidence bc it's 1000x more convincing then anecdotal opinions. If you're just "sharing", why are you still arguing? I get your position, you've shared it.

Quote :

"he's done a great job of dividing us, just like he did last time."

That's giving him way too much credit. The country has been divided. Trump is the symptom not the disease.

Quote :

"Trump is a racist, and so is anyone who votes for him"

Im not advocating for calling Trump voters 100% racist, and I don't think any candidate does that. I mean its kinda true but I'm not sure there is value in a candidate shouting that.

[Edited on July 30, 2019 at 9:48 PM. Reason : E]

7/30/2019 9:43:06 PM

The reason I keep bringing up the EC is simple: all Trump needs to do to win is hold his base, so long as there's division on the left, which clearly there is. Nobody has really brought it up yet, but a 3rd party candidate (or several) can easily poach Dem votes again, helping him win another term. Every time he launches a divisive distraction and people on the same team argue about what to do, it helps him.

We are splitting hairs at this point, despite being on the same 'team', but that's exactly the point. If Dems feel uneasy/unified, how the fuck are independent voters supposed to feel?



[Edited on July 30, 2019 at 9:57 PM. Reason : .]

7/30/2019 9:56:27 PM

I think he has to do more than holds his base. He won more than his 42%. I think the Dem candidate should assume his base will come out and work to energize the Dem base and disenchanted independents. I don't think calling him racist effects that plan.

And it's fines for Dems to be divided right now, that's what primaries are for. The first primary is still 6 months away. At this point in 2015 Jeb Bush was leading and Ben carson was a major player.


And tbf and shit on my own point, convincing tww on this point doesn't change anything I guess, so maybe I should get off my high horse. Maybe I need to get some campaign workers or candidates to join tww!



Oh and Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew yang are my top suspects for 3rd party campaigns.

[Edited on July 30, 2019 at 10:03 PM. Reason : E]

Btw can we all agree that Paul is a dick for that giant picture?

[Edited on July 30, 2019 at 10:07 PM. Reason : I've prob done it before BUT STILL]

7/30/2019 10:00:40 PM

Good article breaking down how racism in politics is viewed

https://thebulwark.com/does-it-matter-if-trump-is-a-real-racist/

7/30/2019 11:55:03 PM

I'm gonna guess a website called the bulwark is conservative propaganda. I'll read the article and report back.

7/31/2019 8:06:58 AM

not conservative propaganda.

also not good. writers who write for other writers. I am willing to bet Andrew Egger sniffs his own farts.

7/31/2019 8:13:38 AM

wE hAvE aN Ec, wE nEEd tO aPpEaL tO iNdEpENdeNTs nOt oUr bAsE


[Edited on July 31, 2019 at 9:37 AM. Reason : :small]

7/31/2019 9:37:27 AM

Is that 2012 to 2016?

Also i had to look it up so BIPOC means black and indigenous people of color (I guessed the POC part)

7/31/2019 10:26:58 AM

yeah '12-'16
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/12/the-myth-of-the-rust-belt-revolt.html

7/31/2019 10:43:22 AM

That graph says nothing new. We knew that in large numbers whites shifted to Trump, with many analyses suggesting that it because of this race baiting. Nothing in that graph says that those who shifted or abstained were a core part of the base or that they weren't independents or even republicans.

I'm also curious what to take from that data since the number of whites who shifted to third party and republican exceeds the net loss of democrats by whites by 89K. The total shift has a 438K more than lost by dems. Might be enough to bring the data into question, but even if you take it at face value it still doesn't tell a story about the base. We'd have to assume some of the shift to third party came from republicans (because republican can't shift to republican). In which case, this is an example of why we should appeal to people beyond the base. With a viable message that resonated beyond the base, we could have capture voters who were looking for anyone but Trump.

7/31/2019 10:48:29 AM

they actually didn't shift to trump, more of them shifted to 3rd party or just staying home. you would know that if you read the link.

Quote :

"In short, the story of a white working-class revolt in the Rust Belt just doesn’t hold up, according to the numbers. In the Rust Belt, Democrats lost 1.35 million voters. Trump picked up less than half, at 590,000. The rest stayed home or voted for someone other than the major party candidates. This data suggests that if the Democratic Party wants to win the Rust Belt, it should not go chasing after the white working-class men who voted for Trump. The party should spend its energy figuring out why Democrats lost millions of voters to some other candidate or to abstention. Exit polls do not collect information about why voters stay home. Perhaps it’s time someone asked them."

Quote :

" With a viable message that resonated beyond the base, we could have capture voters who were looking for anyone but Trump."

it's weird that you say that considering you are pushing for the same bland centrist messages that didn't excite those people with clinton



[Edited on July 31, 2019 at 10:55 AM. Reason : and why do you seem to think it should show a zero-sum? do you think turnout is 100%?]

7/31/2019 10:49:11 AM

You response doesn't address my questions about the data. I'd also typed that before you shared the link. I'll read it now to see if it answers my questions but in general it'd be good for everyone to see those answers.

7/31/2019 11:36:08 AM

Quote :

"You response doesn't address my questions about the data"

see:

Quote :

"and why do you seem to think it should show a zero-sum? do you think turnout is 100%?"

or maybe this would have been more clear: do you think the same number of people vote each election?

also you said, "The total shift has a 438K more than lost by dems."
950,787+401,448 = 1,352,235
451,663+588,515+134,359+115,716 = 1,290,243

1.29M is 438K more than 1.35M?


[Edited on July 31, 2019 at 11:55 AM. Reason : .]

7/31/2019 11:51:48 AM

That doesn't detract from my greater question nor does it support your primary position, assuming that is still courting base > courting independents.

More people voting in the 2016 election and voting for Republicans or third party doesn't show that the democratic base didn't turn out. It could show that almost anything. 1) independents who were on the fence turned out and voted for third parties or republicans 2) more republicans turned out than normal and voted for Trump or third party (very possible since there were increases in both). 3) Moderate republicans and independents who voted for Obama shifted back to their primary party of affiliation. 4) combos of 1 - 3, etc and on and on.

All that is trying to give the data the benefit of the doubt and ignoring the fact that the graph itself is based on race, rather than something that would be much more aligned with your point, such as party affiliation.

A graph is supposed to tell a story. This one does not. Even if the graph's story is fallible, it should at least support your premise, which this one does not.

Next time cherry picking items from the article you read and liked because you felt it supported nuances of your position might serve better. But I'd be hard pressed to say you made any advances today.

7/31/2019 1:47:10 PM

I haven't read dtr's link, but I find your tactics interesting. Dtr is making attempts to support his arguments with evidence. Even if you consider his evidence unconvincing and/or misguided, hes posting something other than just his own anecdotal opinion. You called my post with a poll "data free."

I just clicked back through the last 5 pages, maybe i missed but have you, or anyone, even attempted to support your argument?

Im trying to be polite but you make it hard

7/31/2019 2:00:39 PM

His posted graph was based on my take that he didn't provide substantial support and that his comments were equally anecdotal but less logical than the former.

So I'll provide this, then:


Data showing that individuals voted based on political lines, suggesting that the base voted for Hillary. I've quoted the article below but it substantiates that the base turned out for their candidate.




This is about people who voted for Trump, the skeptics and disillusioned are what you'd say are outside the base. These people are also actively changing their mind about Trump and looking for other options. i.e. These swing voters have votes up for grab if the get the right message.



So now we have data indicating that the base voted for the base and their were people who initially did not want to vote for Trump but decided to toward the end and that they also are willing to swing away from Trump again. i.e. there are people who vote for both parties, depending on who fits their needs at the time, and they are outside of the base.

Now we ask ourselves did independents vote for Obama in 2012 and then 2016 vote for Trump.

This would indicate the answer is yes. Again, it shows swing voters both moving from Romney to Hillary and from Obama to Trump, with more moving from Obama to Trump. We've already established that he base voted for their base, so, while not definitive, a solid theory here would be that these are the independents and they were enough to swing an election. This is largely impart to the location of those swing voters and that Trump was seen as a moderate, which independents tend to like.


https://www.vox.com/2018/7/23/17575768/swing-voters-exist

Quote :

"Trump’s success in 2016 after running what was in many respects the most extreme and outlandish presidential campaign in generations has likely played a key role in turning people off the whole idea of swing voters. This, however, likely reflects the media’s somewhat disproportionate tendency to focus on culture war issues versus economic ones. Trump campaigned on protectionist rhetoric that voters are more accustomed to hearing from Democrats, promised a large increase in infrastructure spending, abandoned traditional Republican commitments to cut Social Security and Medicare expenditures, and even made ambiguous promises to create a universal health care system. Consequently, according to an October 2016 Gallup poll, Trump was seen by voters as considerably less conservative than Mitt Romney or George W. Bush. "

Here is a quote from that same article from Pew:

https://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/for-most-trump-voters-very-warm-feelings-for-him-endured/

Quote :

"Voter choice and party affiliation were nearly synonymous. Republican validated voters reported choosing Trump by a margin of 92% to 4%, while Democrats supported Clinton by 94% to 5%. The roughly one-third (34%) of the electorate who identified as independent or with another party divided their votes about evenly (43% Trump, 42% Clinton). Similarly, voting was strongly correlated with ideological consistency, based on a scale composed of 10 political values – including opinions on race, homosexuality, the environment, foreign policy and the social safety net. Respondents are placed into five categories ranging from “consistently conservative” to “consistently liberal.” (For more, see “The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider.”) Virtually all validated voters with consistently liberal values voted for Clinton over Trump (95% to 2%), while nearly all those with consistently conservative values went for Trump (98% to less than 1% for Clinton). Those who held conservative views on most political values (“mostly conservative”) favored Trump by 87% to 7%, while Clinton received the support of somewhat fewer among those who were “mostly liberal” (78%-13%). Among the nearly one-third of voters whose ideological profile was mixed, the vote was divided (48% Trump, 42% Clinton)."

Also this one

Quote :

"Converts make up the next largest share of Trump voters (23%). These voters were cold or neutral toward Trump prior to his receiving the Republican nomination. In April 2016, nearly half of Converts (44%) favored Ted Cruz for the GOP presidential nomination. But in September 2016, during the general election campaign, 73% of this group had warm feelings for Trump, including 31% who gave Trump a very warm rating. By March 2018, 71% gave him a very warm rating. Skeptics, like Converts, had cold or neutral feelings for Trump in April 2016. Unlike Converts, however, Skeptics did not have warm feelings toward Trump nearly two years later, after he became president. Skeptics, who constitute 12% of Trump voters, reported voting for him, and their feelings for the president became somewhat warmer in the wake of the election. But their views of him grew more negative after he became president. A very small segment of Trump voters, the Disillusioned, had warm feelings for him in April 2016 – and reported voting for him that November – but had cold or neutral feelings for him in March 2018. The Disillusioned make up just 6% of Trump voters."

7/31/2019 3:21:40 PM

I'll reply to your post when you finally actually read understand the graph and link that were posted that showed that democratic turnout losses outnumbered trump gains, because it's still not clear to me that you understand that graph and you glossed over your math mistake

7/31/2019 4:11:51 PM

Lame reply for a variety of reasons, but I’ll just point out that since voting is anonymous we will never be able to definitively know what happened with Independents in 2016 and your speculation is just as scientifically valid as those who disagree with you.

7/31/2019 7:51:36 PM

ermergegerd we cant know why they stayed home reeeee

7/31/2019 8:15:41 PM

OMG DEMS SHOULD DO THE EXACT SAME THING THEY DID LAST TIME BUT BECAUSE HILLARY ISNT THE NOM ITLL BE DIFFERENT

7/31/2019 8:18:20 PM

You're the one saying dems need milquetoast centrist shit like last time you gaslighting fuck

7/31/2019 8:19:17 PM