Ok!

No, I know, that's what I was talking about.

I meant to suggest that the problems Obama's had with healthcare reform wasn't because the population was too conservative to accept his policies. I definitely don't think it's a universally beloved, magnificent piece of reform or anything like that.

Re your edit: I was very confused initially, and thought perhaps you were making a rather inadvisable political analogy.

There quite simply has never been a historical moment, at any period of world history, in any country on the face of Planet Earth (I shall not speak for other planets and galaxies), where cutting back on military spending is more justifiable and prudent than in the United States at this time, as anyone who's willing…

I feel like identifying the uselessness of government programs would in and of itself take a lot of time and research, hence costing money. If you did it on a significant scale you'd probably just put a lot of people out of work without necessarily guaranteeing that the extra funds would be used any more efficiently.

Yeah, I mean, that's just a rough estimate of the type of economic policies I think would deliver the kind of results Sanders talks about. I don't think he would actually succeed.

1. Cut the military
2. Invigorate the economy with stimulus
3. Pro$it.

It's a somewhat middling law. It getting middling approval isn't surprising. Also some of the disapproval isn't necessarily coming from a conservative stance.

I mean, I agree with you the GOP would put up a fight, with plausible success. I just don't think the masses are going to riot.

Yeah, the vast majority of polling backs that up I think.

No business like show business.

The "country" did not throw a fit over Obamacare. The institutional GOP fought it and their staunchest base of conservative supporters followed along-more because of what the right wing media was saying than because of their actual popular response to the measures, which were popular enough on their own terms.

Again, the systems being intended to work that way isn't enough to make people like them.

That reminds me of when a guy from the RNC who was arguing the delegates could pick whichever nominee they want was asked what the purpose of the primary was in that case. His response was "good question".

The fact that the primary/caucus system has been around forever doesn't make it particularly good or democratic. But Bernie's not particularly disadvantaged by it compared to other candidates, as far as I can tell.

I assume you were responding to a different comment?

I just think his position among Republicans is probably going to get a lot more solidified before the convention. I don't know if that's good or bad in the overall scheme of things.

I heard more in the range of 55%. Plus it's not like he usually beats his polls by huge amounts. A 5% difference is a significant boon for him.
Edit: I guess not all votes are reported, though.

Trump did incredibly well, meanwhile. Yikes.