GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Scarborough is also a conservative, despite being on MSNBC.

I don't know if the Democrats' position on this issue will hurt them or not. I don't think you provided convincing evidence of it by offering up the sources you did.

---

lol OF COURSE.

---

k

dajo9 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calpoly said:

---

Speaking of worst of time...How is the deficit?

---

You gotta keep up. Deficits don't matter now that a Republican is in the White House.

---

Deficits didn't seem to matter when Obama was in the White House for 8 years either. The fact is that neither party now seems to care much about deficits, and that's a problem.

---

Obama cut the deficit he inherited by 1/3

---

Wow! That's completely untrue. You are really in a fantasyland that totally ignores facts.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calpoly said:

---

Speaking of worst of time...How is the deficit?

---

You gotta keep up. Deficits don't matter now that a Republican is in the White House.

---

Deficits didn't seem to matter when Obama was in the White House for 8 years either. The fact is that neither party now seems to care much about deficits, and that's a problem.

---

My point, probably not clearly stated, was that Republicans did much weeping and wailing about deficits under the last few Democratic presidents, but now they are the ones running up the debt and you hear nothing.

---

I agree with you. The current annual deficits are completely unacceptable, and neither party seems to care.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calpoly said:

---

Speaking of worst of time...How is the deficit?

---

You gotta keep up. Deficits don't matter now that a Republican is in the White House.

---

Deficits didn't seem to matter when Obama was in the White House for 8 years either. The fact is that neither party now seems to care much about deficits, and that's a problem.

---

My point, probably not clearly stated, was that Republicans did much weeping and wailing about deficits under the last few Democratic presidents, but now they are the ones running up the debt and you hear nothing.

---

EXACTLY
+1000

Golden One said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calpoly said:

---

Speaking of worst of time...How is the deficit?

---

You gotta keep up. Deficits don't matter now that a Republican is in the White House.

---

Deficits didn't seem to matter when Obama was in the White House for 8 years either. The fact is that neither party now seems to care much about deficits, and that's a problem.

---

My point, probably not clearly stated, was that Republicans did much weeping and wailing about deficits under the last few Democratic presidents, but now they are the ones running up the debt and you hear nothing.

---

I agree with you. The current annual deficits are completely unacceptable, and neither party seems to care.

---

But the GOP shoulders more blame.
And watch, if they lose and a Dem comes in and tightens the budget, the GOP will assail for the decreased economy.

concordtom said:

---

Golden One said:

---

agree with you. The current annual deficits are completely unacceptable, and neither party seems to care.

---

But the GOP shoulders more blame.

---

You're completely delusional if you truly believe that. Both parties deserve the blame. The Socialists (formerly called Democrats) refuse to cut any programs except defense, and the GOP refuses to cut defense. Neither party has the courage to eliminate the many tax loopholes that exist for businesses or the super wealthy. The Socialists only solution to the deficits is to raise taxes.

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Scarborough is also a conservative, despite being on MSNBC.

I don't know if the Democrats' position on this issue will hurt them or not. I don't think you provided convincing evidence of it by offering up the sources you did.

---

lol OF COURSE.

---

I will also say here: I find it laughable that these pundits are SO CONFIDENT that Democrats have blown the next election because of a stance on undocumented immigrants taken early in the primary season, like this is some obvious disqualifying thing.

Have you seen who is President? Donald Trump did everything you're not supposed to do and said everything you're not supposed to say, per the conventional wisdom. His policy positions were all over the place. Didn't matter.

Elections are not won and lost on a single policy plank.

Golden One said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Golden One said:

---

agree with you. The current annual deficits are completely unacceptable, and neither party seems to care.

---

But the GOP shoulders more blame.

---

You're completely delusional if you truly believe that. Both parties deserve the blame. The Socialists (formerly called Democrats) refuse to cut any programs except defense, and the GOP refuses to cut defense. Neither party has the courage to eliminate the many tax loopholes that exist for businesses or the super wealthy. The Socialists only solution to the deficits is to raise taxes.

---

1. Better to raise taxes and have a balanced budget than to allow runaway deficits. You're nuts if you think otherwise! Allow me to remind you that the GOP just lowered taxes, so any raise would be getting back to norm, I've posted this many times. It's out of date, but even lower now:



2. Your "socialist" label is stupid.
Socialism means that the government controls the means of production. That is not the case in the USA, and not the typical Democratic platform. Not even close.
That said, there are aspects of socialism in the USA: road construction, public schools, social security, Medicare. I wonder if you collect social security, drive on roads, or receive mail in your mailbox. And, oh, you went to Cal, right? Hypocrit and you don't even know what you are talking about.

3. It seems we both agree on the problem. Let's just start right now, with the Senate controlled by the GOP, the WH controlled by the GOP, to cut and balance the budget. The House has been controlled by the Dems for 6 months. Did you want to assign them with 100% budgetary responsibility for the past 2.5 years? If so, you're very wrong, and in your heart you know it is true. Partisan habits keep you from being honest with yourself.

concordtom said:

---

Golden One said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Golden One said:

---

agree with you. The current annual deficits are completely unacceptable, and neither party seems to care.

---

But the GOP shoulders more blame.

---

You're completely delusional if you truly believe that. Both parties deserve the blame. The Socialists (formerly called Democrats) refuse to cut any programs except defense, and the GOP refuses to cut defense. Neither party has the courage to eliminate the many tax loopholes that exist for businesses or the super wealthy. The Socialists only solution to the deficits is to raise taxes.

---

1. Better to raise taxes and have a balanced budget than to allow runaway deficits. You're nuts if you think otherwise! Allow me to remind you that the GOP just lowered taxes, so any raise would be getting back to norm, I've posted this many times. It's out of date, but even lower now:



2. Your "socialist" label is stupid.
Socialism means that the government controls the means of production. That is not the case in the USA, and not the typical Democratic platform. Not even close.
That said, there are aspects of socialism in the USA: road construction, public schools, social security, Medicare. I wonder if you collect social security, drive on roads, or receive mail in your mailbox. And, oh, you went to Cal, right? Hypocrit and you don't even know what you are talking about.

3. It seems we both agree on the problem. Let's just start right now, with the Senate controlled by the GOP, the WH controlled by the GOP, to cut and balance the budget. The House has been controlled by the Dems for 6 months. Did you want to assign them with 100% budgetary responsibility for the past 2.5 years? If so, you're very wrong, and in your heart you know it is true. Partisan habits keep you from being honest with yourself.

---

Is this socialism?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/farm-aid-package.html

bearister said:

---

..and courtesy of KH, it is going to stay that way in 2020.

---

Why can't you see that Biden is Hillary 2.0, but worse?

Chasing people who are on the fence about Trump is like chasing that girl who won't give you the time of day, while there are many attractive girls interested in you. (Yes, bad analogy.)

Hillary was fantastic, she kicked Trump's ass in the debates. She knew how to go after him. Yet it didn't matter, because the people who would've ordinarily voted Dem in key areas stayed home or voted for a third-party candidate. Because she was a Washington insider who had seemed like she'd been around forever and ever. And was old. And tired.

But Biden? He's actually been in Washington forever! And he is not going to kick Trump's ass in the debates. And he'll stumble, stumble, stumble. Because that's what he does. That's what he's always been. And all the while, he'll be turning off the people who would ordinarily vote Dem -- all in an effort to appeal to "on the fence" people who would likely vote for Trump anyway.

In the TV world, a show that has big ratings in the 18-49 demographic is considered a massive success, even if its total viewership isn't good.

(In TV news, it's the 25-54 demographic.)

If a show has 12 million viewers, but only 3 million in the 18-49 demo, it is considered less successful than a show that has 6 million, but 5 million in the 18-49 demo.

Why? Because people over 49 are stuck in their ways. If they're using AquaFresh, they're unlikely to switch to Crest. They are also easily reachable because they grew up in a time when people actually watched TV without VCRs. Meanwhile, a 19 year old isn't stuck in their ways. Also, they are less likely to watch TV in a traditional way. Thus they are more valuable to advertisers. Thus this is why viewers 18-49 are more valuable.

By pulling for Biden, you want to chase older people who are stuck in their ways, who are unlikely to change -- at the expense of young people, who could prove to have a massive say. Again, the next election is about getting out the vote, getting Obama voters.

Don't forget: Many people born between 1994 and 2002, who weren't allowed to vote for Obama, will be voting in the next election. Meanwhile, many people born before 1950, who voted in the last election, will not be voting for some reason.


You win by exciting people. Biden doesn't excite people. Trump excites people. Obama excites people. Romney, McCain, Kerry and Gore didn't excite people.

okaydo said:

---

bearister said:

---

..and courtesy of KH, it is going to stay that way in 2020.

---

Why can't you see that Biden is Hillary 2.0, but worse?

Chasing people who are on the fence about Trump is like chasing that girl who won't give you the time of day, while there are many attractive girls interested in you. (Yes, bad analogy.)

Hillary was fantastic, she kicked Trump's ass in the debates. She knew how to go after him. Yet it didn't matter, because the people who would've ordinarily voted Dem in key areas stayed home or voted for a third-party candidate. Because she was a Washington insider who had seemed like she'd been around forever and ever. And was old. And tired.

But Biden? He's actually been in Washington forever! And he is not going to kick Trump's ass in the debates. And he'll stumble, stumble, stumble. Because that's what he does. That's what he's always been. And all the while, he'll be turning off the people who would ordinarily vote Dem -- all in an effort to appeal to "on the fence" people who would likely vote for Trump anyway.

In the TV world, a show that has big ratings in the 18-49 demographic is considered a massive success, even if its total viewership isn't good.

(In TV news, it's the 25-54 demographic.)

If a show has 12 million viewers, but only 3 million in the 18-49 demo, it is considered less successful than a show that has 6 million, but 5 million in the 18-49 demo.

Why? Because people over 49 are stuck in their ways. If they're using AquaFresh, they're unlikely to switch to Crest. They are also easily reachable because they grew up in a time when people actually watched TV without VCRs. Meanwhile, a 19 year old isn't stuck in their ways. Also, they are less likely to watch TV in a traditional way. Thus they are more valuable to advertisers. Thus this is why viewers 18-49 are more valuable.

By pulling for Biden, you want to chase older people who are stuck in their ways, who are unlikely to change -- at the expense of young people, who could prove to have a massive say. Again, the next election is about getting out the vote, getting Obama voters.

Don't forget: Many people born between 1994 and 2002, who weren't allowed to vote for Obama, will be voting in the next election. Meanwhile, many people born before 1950, who voted in the last election, will not be voting for some reason.


You win by exciting people. Biden doesn't excite people. Trump excites people. Obama excites people. Romney, McCain, Kerry and Gore didn't excite people.

---

Both Dem debates drew north of 15 million viewers. The median age for those who watched...60.1 years.

Golden One said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calpoly said:

---

Speaking of worst of time...How is the deficit?

---

You gotta keep up. Deficits don't matter now that a Republican is in the White House.

---

Deficits didn't seem to matter when Obama was in the White House for 8 years either. The fact is that neither party now seems to care much about deficits, and that's a problem.

---

Obama cut the deficit he inherited by 1/3

---

Wow! That's completely untrue. You are really in a fantasyland that totally ignores facts.

---

Data disagrees with you. Actually, it was down to 1/3 by 2015. Cut by more than half at the end of his term. Here is the data. The years are from 2009 - 2017.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

kelly09 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

bearister said:

---

..and courtesy of KH, it is going to stay that way in 2020.

---

Why can't you see that Biden is Hillary 2.0, but worse?

Chasing people who are on the fence about Trump is like chasing that girl who won't give you the time of day, while there are many attractive girls interested in you. (Yes, bad analogy.)

Hillary was fantastic, she kicked Trump's ass in the debates. She knew how to go after him. Yet it didn't matter, because the people who would've ordinarily voted Dem in key areas stayed home or voted for a third-party candidate. Because she was a Washington insider who had seemed like she'd been around forever and ever. And was old. And tired.

But Biden? He's actually been in Washington forever! And he is not going to kick Trump's ass in the debates. And he'll stumble, stumble, stumble. Because that's what he does. That's what he's always been. And all the while, he'll be turning off the people who would ordinarily vote Dem -- all in an effort to appeal to "on the fence" people who would likely vote for Trump anyway.

In the TV world, a show that has big ratings in the 18-49 demographic is considered a massive success, even if its total viewership isn't good.

(In TV news, it's the 25-54 demographic.)

If a show has 12 million viewers, but only 3 million in the 18-49 demo, it is considered less successful than a show that has 6 million, but 5 million in the 18-49 demo.

Why? Because people over 49 are stuck in their ways. If they're using AquaFresh, they're unlikely to switch to Crest. They are also easily reachable because they grew up in a time when people actually watched TV without VCRs. Meanwhile, a 19 year old isn't stuck in their ways. Also, they are less likely to watch TV in a traditional way. Thus they are more valuable to advertisers. Thus this is why viewers 18-49 are more valuable.

By pulling for Biden, you want to chase older people who are stuck in their ways, who are unlikely to change -- at the expense of young people, who could prove to have a massive say. Again, the next election is about getting out the vote, getting Obama voters.

Don't forget: Many people born between 1994 and 2002, who weren't allowed to vote for Obama, will be voting in the next election. Meanwhile, many people born before 1950, who voted in the last election, will not be voting for some reason.


You win by exciting people. Biden doesn't excite people. Trump excites people. Obama excites people. Romney, McCain, Kerry and Gore didn't excite people.

---

Both Dem debates drew north of 15 million viewers. The median age for those who watched...60.1 years.

---

Which is exactly my point.

Old people watch TV the traditional way. Young people do not.

Biden
33%
Sanders
19%
Harris
12%
Warren
12%

Post debate

dajo9 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Deficits didn't seem to matter when Obama was in the White House for 8 years either. The fact is that neither party now seems to care much about deficits, and that's a problem.

---

Obama cut the deficit he inherited by 1/3

---

Wow! That's completely untrue. You are really in a fantasyland that totally ignores facts.

---

Data disagrees with you. Actually, it was down to 1/3 by 2015. Cut by more than half at the end of his term. Here is the data. The years are from 2009 - 2017.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

---

Go back and look at your original post. You said "Obama cut the deficit he inherited by 1/3." The data you present demonstrates that's not true. The deficit in 2008 (Bush's last year in office) was $459B. The deficit in 2016 (Obama's last year in office) was $585B. So Obama actually increased the deficit he inherited by 27%. So, I repeat, the data disagree with you.

okaydo said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Golden One said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Golden One said:

---

agree with you. The current annual deficits are completely unacceptable, and neither party seems to care.

---

But the GOP shoulders more blame.

---

You're completely delusional if you truly believe that. Both parties deserve the blame. The Socialists (formerly called Democrats) refuse to cut any programs except defense, and the GOP refuses to cut defense. Neither party has the courage to eliminate the many tax loopholes that exist for businesses or the super wealthy. The Socialists only solution to the deficits is to raise taxes.

---

1. Better to raise taxes and have a balanced budget than to allow runaway deficits. You're nuts if you think otherwise! Allow me to remind you that the GOP just lowered taxes, so any raise would be getting back to norm, I've posted this many times. It's out of date, but even lower now:



2. Your "socialist" label is stupid.
Socialism means that the government controls the means of production. That is not the case in the USA, and not the typical Democratic platform. Not even close.
That said, there are aspects of socialism in the USA: road construction, public schools, social security, Medicare. I wonder if you collect social security, drive on roads, or receive mail in your mailbox. And, oh, you went to Cal, right? Hypocrit and you don't even know what you are talking about.

3. It seems we both agree on the problem. Let's just start right now, with the Senate controlled by the GOP, the WH controlled by the GOP, to cut and balance the budget. The House has been controlled by the Dems for 6 months. Did you want to assign them with 100% budgetary responsibility for the past 2.5 years? If so, you're very wrong, and in your heart you know it is true. Partisan habits keep you from being honest with yourself.

---

Is this socialism?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/farm-aid-package.html

---

You know darn well that it takes 60 votes in the Senate to accomplish anything, and the Republicans don't have 60 votes. So, in effect the Socialists can effectively prevent the GOP from passing anything in either the House or the Senate.

Golden One said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Deficits didn't seem to matter when Obama was in the White House for 8 years either. The fact is that neither party now seems to care much about deficits, and that's a problem.

---

Obama cut the deficit he inherited by 1/3

---

Wow! That's completely untrue. You are really in a fantasyland that totally ignores facts.

---

Data disagrees with you. Actually, it was down to 1/3 by 2015. Cut by more than half at the end of his term. Here is the data. The years are from 2009 - 2017.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

---

Go back and look at your original post. You said "Obama cut the deficit he inherited by 1/3." The data you present demonstrates that's not true. The deficit in 2008 (Bush's last year in office) was $459B. The deficit in 2016 (Obama's last year in office) was $585B. So Obama actually increased the deficit he inherited by 27%. So, I repeat, the data disagree with you.

---

You don't understand how this works. 2009 is the fiscal year October 2008 - September 2009. The new President comes in January with the fiscal path already set for the remaining 8 months of that fiscal year. 2009 belongs to GWB and is obviously a product of the Great Recession which Obama inherited. That last part (about the Great Recession) is just common sense.

Absolutely nobody who knows this stuff looks at it the way you suggest.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Biden
33%
Sanders
19%
Harris
12%
Warren
12%

Post debate

---

Also worth noting that for this specific poll it represents a drop for Biden and a gain for Harris, so the debate performance seems to have had an effect.

dajo9 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Deficits didn't seem to matter when Obama was in the White House for 8 years either. The fact is that neither party now seems to care much about deficits, and that's a problem.

---

Obama cut the deficit he inherited by 1/3

---

Wow! That's completely untrue. You are really in a fantasyland that totally ignores facts.

---

Data disagrees with you. Actually, it was down to 1/3 by 2015. Cut by more than half at the end of his term. Here is the data. The years are from 2009 - 2017.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

---

Go back and look at your original post. You said "Obama cut the deficit he inherited by 1/3." The data you present demonstrates that's not true. The deficit in 2008 (Bush's last year in office) was $459B. The deficit in 2016 (Obama's last year in office) was $585B. So Obama actually increased the deficit he inherited by 27%. So, I repeat, the data disagree with you.

---

You don't understand how this works. 2009 is the fiscal year October 2008 - September 2009. The new President comes in January with the fiscal path already set for the remaining 8 months of that fiscal year. 2009 belongs to GWB and is obviously a product of the Great Recession which Obama inherited. That last part (about the Great Recession) is just common sense.

Absolutely nobody who knows this stuff looks at it the way you suggest.

---

Nice to know that you "know this stuff". Give yourself a pat on the back.

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Biden
33%
Sanders
19%
Harris
12%
Warren
12%

Post debate

---

Also worth noting that for this specific poll it represents a drop for Biden and a gain for Harris, so the debate performance seems to have had an effect.

---

Yes. Harris rising at Biden's expense but she had a charmed debate- did her prosecutorial thing but never challenged- on her own record or on what she said. It won't happen again. Warren I think suffered by being in the loser's bracket with all the midgets

dajo9 said:

---

You don't understand how this works.

---

Pretty much describes GoldenOnenote in every aspect of politics and society and human decency.

AunBear89 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You don't understand how this works.

---

Pretty much describes GoldenOnenote in every aspect of politics and society and human decency.

---

Oh, and you're the self-anointed authority on every aspect of politics and society and human decency. Glad that you have such a high opinion of yourself.

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Biden
33%
Sanders
19%
Harris
12%
Warren
12%

Post debate

---

Also worth noting that for this specific poll it represents a drop for Biden and a gain for Harris, so the debate performance seems to have had an effect.

---

Yes. Harris rising at Biden's expense but she had a charmed debate- did her prosecutorial thing but never challenged- on her own record or on what she said. It won't happen again. Warren I think suffered by being in the loser's bracket with all the midgets

---

Possibly. Or maybe Harris turns out to be a great debater (or Biden keeps being a bad one) every time and keeps gaining.

Whatever gets you through the day, Onenote. Just keep telling yourself that YOU are the moral authority around here, and everyone else is self anointed, or whatever.

okaydo said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Golden One said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Golden One said:

---

agree with you. The current annual deficits are completely unacceptable, and neither party seems to care.

---

But the GOP shoulders more blame.

---

You're completely delusional if you truly believe that. Both parties deserve the blame. The Socialists (formerly called Democrats) refuse to cut any programs except defense, and the GOP refuses to cut defense. Neither party has the courage to eliminate the many tax loopholes that exist for businesses or the super wealthy. The Socialists only solution to the deficits is to raise taxes.

---

1. Better to raise taxes and have a balanced budget than to allow runaway deficits. You're nuts if you think otherwise! Allow me to remind you that the GOP just lowered taxes, so any raise would be getting back to norm, I've posted this many times. It's out of date, but even lower now:



2. Your "socialist" label is stupid.
Socialism means that the government controls the means of production. That is not the case in the USA, and not the typical Democratic platform. Not even close.
That said, there are aspects of socialism in the USA: road construction, public schools, social security, Medicare. I wonder if you collect social security, drive on roads, or receive mail in your mailbox. And, oh, you went to Cal, right? Hypocrit and you don't even know what you are talking about.

3. It seems we both agree on the problem. Let's just start right now, with the Senate controlled by the GOP, the WH controlled by the GOP, to cut and balance the budget. The House has been controlled by the Dems for 6 months. Did you want to assign them with 100% budgetary responsibility for the past 2.5 years? If so, you're very wrong, and in your heart you know it is true. Partisan habits keep you from being honest with yourself.

---

Is this socialism?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/farm-aid-package.html

---

Lol. Good call.
It's either that, or buying votes. Is that called blackmail or bribery. Or just plain old socialism.
How about corruption? Could be that.
Or fiscally irresponsible.

All sorts of things.

Harris is a good debater and she is on the rise. What I meant is -that now that she is in the top 4- candidates and the media won't treat her the same. She'll be answering a lot of questions about her own record and positions.

"President Trump's campaign plans a well-funded, state-by-state drive to mobilize even more evangelical voters in 2020 than supported him last time, campaign officials tell Axios' Alayna Treene.

More than two-thirds of white evangelicals still support Trump, along with almost half of white Catholics and white mainline Protestants, according to a Pew Research Center survey.
The goal: Paint Trump as a champion of socially conservative issues and warn evangelical voters that his defeat could destroy progress he's made." Axios

Anarchistbear said:

---

Harris is a good debater and she is on the rise. What I meant is -that now that she is in the top 4- candidates and the media won't treat her the same. She'll be answering a lot of questions about her own record and positions.

---

Yes, that will be interesting.

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Harris is a good debater and she is on the rise. What I meant is -that now that she is in the top 4- candidates and the media won't treat her the same. She'll be answering a lot of questions about her own record and positions.

---

Yes, that will be interesting.

---

First troll question: "Why did you flunk the Bar Exam?"*

* Joining Jerry, JFK (twice) and Hill. I believe that stat was recently edited out of her Wikipedia bio.

We've got to recognize that this young woman may go on to be a Presidential candidate not a gang banger

AunBear89 said:

---

Whatever gets you through the day, Onenote. Just keep telling yourself that YOU are the moral authority around here, and everyone else is self anointed, or whatever.

---

Between you and Trump, it's hard to determine who has the larger ego.

sycasey said:

---

I will also say here: I find it laughable that these pundits are SO CONFIDENT that Democrats have blown the next election because of a stance on undocumented immigrants taken early in the primary season, like this is some obvious disqualifying thing.

Have you seen who is President? Donald Trump did everything you're not supposed to do and said everything you're not supposed to say, per the conventional wisdom. His policy positions were all over the place. Didn't matter.

Elections are not won and lost on a single policy plank.

---

I agree with you.

But the claim is based on the assumption that Dems maintain this position throughout the general up through election day, since it obviously will be a contentious topic at the forefront of debates, media etc.