How many times does Burneko have to point it out? He’s not asking for political bias or opinions or dissertation on the 2 party system.

Kid: “Aw, Mom. This pancake is burnt. And the butter is rancid margarine. And the syrup is thinned with water.”

No. The suggestion that people should vote for a candidate whose policy positions and record are repugnant to them, simply because that candidate has made them sufficiently fearful of all possible alternatives, is repulsive.

I’m not saying her logic is faulty. I’m saying it’s repulsive. It’s the logic that has permitted one of the two parties to define itself by the narrowest possible marginal differences between itself and the other for more than 20 years—since Hillary’s husband won in ‘92, in fact—meeting the interests of its putative…

It’s really weird that people keep saying Sanders supporters are affluent. Where does this data come from?

My belief is that when you vote for a Green (or a Libertarian), or write in Elizabeth Warren (or Pat Buchanan), or don’t vote at all in a general, the Party does not notice you, and if it loses, it says: Gosh, we have to do a better job of mobilizing Our Voters (and not of poaching the relatively small number of…

No I’m not. In fact, I’m not rendering an opinion on whether anyone should or shouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton, at all. I’m just pointing out that the logic of her argument is, “Demanding a candidate who represents your interests is for the rich; everybody else has to take what the process gives them; therefore you…

Presidential elections happen rarely enough that I wouldn’t want to pretend we have really robust data to draw conclusions from, but:

Nah, it’s still shitty. She’s saying vulnerable people can’t withdraw their support from the process when it assiduously refuses to represent them.