Re:Policy punishes disabled people who save more than $2k
by fzeroracer on Friday May 20, 2022 @08:30PM
(#31454193)
This isn't really the gotcha moment you think it is. Primaries are, well, mostly a farce and the people that show up for the primaries are the ones that often have the most free time or ability to do so. Retirees, wealthier individuals and so forth. There's no better evidence of this fact than candidates like Bernie Sanders having extremely high popularity among the younger generation which tapers off the older people get. There's a massive and growing generational divide that's only going to get better once the voting block that enables them starts dying off.
Assuming that the primaries represent who will actually win a presidential election is as much of a mistake as assuming that polls are accurate when it comes to election day.
Re:Policy punishes disabled people who save more than $2k
by NovemberWhiskey on Friday May 20, 2022 @09:25PM
(#31454470)
Shrug. The world belongs to those who show up.
Re:Policy punishes disabled people who save more than $2k
by Sohcahtoa82 on Saturday May 21, 2022 @03:16AM
(#31455943)
The far left stays home because the democrats don't represent their views.
On the other hand, the far right thinks anyone left of Trump is a socialist and will vote Republican just to try to keep away socialism.
Re:Policy punishes disabled people who save more than $2k
by 58028641 on Friday May 20, 2022 @08:35PM
(#31454218)
The media told people that Bernie Sanders was unelectable, so people voted for Biden.
Re:Policy punishes disabled people who save more than $2k
by NovemberWhiskey on Friday May 20, 2022 @09:17PM
(#31454422)
OK; but no-one's even slightly suggesting that (insert any Democratic candidate's name here) is in danger of losing a race for a NY Senate seat, and that particular post has given us Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer.
I notice we have not had Bernie Sanders on the Presidential ticket, despite two runs; and there is surely some reason for that.
Possibly the voters have identified that those candidates will not gain sufficient independent or Republican support to actual win in general elections.
In any case, it seems likely to be a lot more nuanced than you're suggesting.