All things made possible by the system. Getting rid of Trump may get rid of a particular excess but this is happening continually in the US at various levels of government. The abuse of power and corruption I mean.

The US needs not only a political shift but a cultural one as well and that's not going to happen with another status quo candidate. You'll still be in Trumpland if the measure of your political worth is "not-Trump". If that happens, the baseline for acceptable behaviour in office throughout the country will be "slightly better than Trump". If you're aiming that low nothing will change.

The US needs not only a political shift but a cultural one as well and that's not going to happen with another status quo candidate. — Benkei

Trump has shifted the status quo toward xenophobia, racism, and celebrating inequality, and that will only get worse in a second term. And I seriously doubt Bernie will be able to actually do any more than any other candidate. None of the ambitious policies he pushes are likely to pass. On the plus side, he will be a voice. In my book, getting a voice is not worth the risk of a 2nd term for Trump.

You make a terrible risk manager. You run that risk regardless of who runs against Trump.

If anybody else than Bernie runs, it's 100% certain the status quo will remain what it is. If Bernie runs, even if it were more likely that he would lose to Trump, there's still a good chance Bernie will win. Let's call that chance x%.

That means there's a (100-x)% chance the status quo will change in the opposite direction.

A risk-based approach means Bernie is the only viable candidate.

Trump has shifted the status quo toward xenophobia, racism, and celebrating inequality, and that will only get worse in a second term. — Relativist

Also, not to nit-pick, but Trump didn't do shit. He's been enabled by a political system and an electorate that's been shafted for so many years that they are mostly motivated by anger and fear. He's the wrong man at the wrong time but he's not the one driving a fundamental change; US politics was already there.

And Bernie isn't going to change anything about it. But his political base might if they realise that winning or losing isn't the end of the fight. He seems to be the only candidate that has such a politically motivated base at this time.

Also, not to nit-pick, but Trump didn't do shit. — Benkei

That judgment depends on what your priorities are.

And Bernie isn't going to change anything about it. But his political base might if they realise that winning or losing isn't the end of the fight. He seems to be the only candidate that has such a politically motivated base at this time. — Benkei

What happens to them in the likely event that he's ineffectual?

They lost last time and it didn't stop them. It seems many Bernie voters realise this is not just about winning or losing. Perhaps that also means they realise it's not going to change over night, not by one man and not without continued political engagement.

In my book, getting a voice is not worth the risk of a 2nd term for Trump. — Relativist

Though I like reasoning with:

That means there's a (100-x)% chance the status quo will change in the opposite direction.

A risk-based approach means Bernie is the only viable candidate. — Benkei

-- and hope that conversation continues; I think it is adjacent to the main issue most people have (and I'm sure you would agree with, but perhaps have not given a thorough look).

The main issue in "Bernie or 'moderate'", whatever is meant by moderate, is the DNC and friends in the media unfairly managing, if not out-right trying to fix, the primaries against Bernie, as well as the sort of "structural election fixing" that is the super delegates. Keeping in mind that since the DNC is a "private organization" it has no obligation to run a fair primary.

If the vote was fair, everyone has a different opinion sure, Bernie wins or not, the issue of backing the winner would be less contentious. The argument can be made a moderate is better position to defeat Trump or Bernie or Bloomberg or whoever, and the opposite arguments, and the best candidate wins and that's that.

However, if the vote's not fair two large issues arise.

The first, with regards of your priority of defeating Trump, an unfair process is very demotivating for the side that sees their candidate being shafted, as well as for independents, and in addition provides great ammunition for the right-wing spin machine (who would love nothing more than to counter balance the obvious and prodigious corruption of Trump with obvious corruption of the DNC primary process). So strategically, even if Bernie is less likely to win than a moderate, it is extremely dangerous to run a unfair primary process to attempt to determine the result.

It takes a certain "passion" to actually go out and vote, so the continuous hammering of "DNC corruption" in picking the candidate will lower that passion for many, perhaps leading to just "tuning things out" and not voting.

The second issue, is that it puts Bernie supporters in the position of enabling an unfair process if they support a winner of a corrupt process. By "punishing" the DNC by not voting, or even voting for Trump, is the only way to make them think twice next time; risking 4 years of Trump in exchange for pushing the DNC in a less corrupt direction maybe seen as the right calculation long term to some. Regardless of whether this is "true" or not (and who knows), it's a major theme in the "progressives" as it is clearly a critical question. Of course, this is exactly what happened with the "Bernie or bust" in the last primary with Hillary; again, maybe Hillary would have won anyway, maybe not, but the collusion with the mainstream media and anomalous coin-flipping and so on, obviously provides fuel to the Bernie or best argument. This is of course simply a subset of "demotivated" people, but a particularly vocal one.

Whether you disagree or not, these groups need to be taken into account in your strategic calculation; obviously, the best way to get as many participants as motivated as possible is a fair primary. Hillary's idea was "republicans will vote for me"; history proved that wasn't a good enough to win.

If Bernie runs, even if it were more likely that he would lose to Trump, there's still a good chance Bernie will win. Let's call that chance x%.

That means there's a (100-x)% chance the status quo will change in the opposite direction.

A risk-based approach means Bernie is the only viable candidate. — Benkei

You are giving weight to changing the "status quo" and it seems you are saying Bernie, and only Bernie can possibly do that.

What specific status quo changes do you seek?

Are my big issues at all relevant to you? Do they fit into, or out of, the status quo? They are: rescuing Obamacare and improving access to affordable health care, judicial appointments (which indirectly protect abortion rights), comprehensive immigration reform, and social security reform. I overlap with Bernie supporters in also wanting to make it easier to climb out of poverty (which I did, growing up in the 1960s-70s). I give the edge to Bernie only on that last point, but I have low expectations about what he could possibly accomplish. I very much like his voting record, but he hasn't gotten any revolutionary bills to pass (he's the principle sponsor on a total of 7 bills that passed, during his 13 years in the Senate).

Well ok then. Been to the supermarket lately? Seen the bounteous harvest in the produce department, the shelves full of all kinds of wondrous goods, the meat and fish sections filled with good stuff to eat? Maybe you'd prefer the stores in Venezuela or the Soviet Union or the aforementioned Cuba. — fishfry

No one is advocating anything like the USSR or Cuba or Venezuela. No one. That's imaginary.

But please, tomorrow as you go through your day, look around at the abundance around you. The bustling commerce, the well-stocked store shelves. Ask yourself if you'd rather live here or in Bernie's Cuba.

LOL. I can't believe you actually said that. Are you joking? You have no idea of the actual, literal wealth of the US -- spread throughout society, though certainly terribly unequal -- relative to the rest of the world? — fishfry

Why you keep invoking Cuba or our supermarkets is beyond me. If you can't see that this is sheer stupidity, maybe it's not worth it talking to you. None of this has to do with my comment, that the wealth in the US has been concentrated to the top, especially the 1% (it's actually closer to 1/10 or 1/100 of 1%).

The wealth of the US is vast. We're the wealthiest country on Earth. So "relative to the rest of the world," that's not an "idea", it's a fact. What's your point?

Stop arguing against imaginary opponents. Outside of your information bubble, they don't exist. If all you know how to do is respond to straw men and imaginary opponents, that's OK. Just let me know so I don't waste my time trying to explain anything.

Yes, we all agree the economy has worked very well for them, and they continue to prosper. The system that's been in place has been a state-capitalist system, rigged for the wealthy who can lobby for legislation, subsidies, contracts, tax breaks, and bailouts from the government (our tax money). Bernie does indeed want to destroy that. I agree with him.
— Xtrix

All those people driving to and from work on the freeway, you want to shut down all that commerce. How many would starve under your plan? Are you insane? You seriously want to shut down the US economy? If you did that, ONLY the 1% would survive. They already have their bunkers. The rest of us working stiffs would be crushed in a depression that would make the 1930's look like the good old days. — fishfry

Who said shutting down commerce? Try reading again what I wrote. Bernie wants to destroy a rigged system that distributes the wealth of this country to the top 1/10th of 1%, and I agree with that. I think such a system which produces such enormous inequality should be dismantled or at least heavily corrected. This is the exact opposite of what you're saying -- it's in FAVOR of the working and middle classes. It has nothing to do with "shutting down the American economy." Nothing. Nor did I ever say that. Nor has Bernie said that. It's a ridiculous statement that, once again, exists only in your imagination.

The middle class MUST pay for such enormous spending programs because the rich have lawyers and the poor have no money. This is very basic. — fishfry

It's very easy to tax wealth. All we need is the political will, which Bernie has. The working and middle classes will not pay for it, the wealthiest Americans and the corporate sector, however, will.

This is very basic.

Because it's the agenda of Donald Trump. It's every policy that's come out of the Trump administration: deregulation, privatization, corporate tax cuts, etc.
— Xtrix

No, I disagree. Trumps policies on trade and immigration go directly against neoliberalism. He hasn't started any new wars and he's trying to get us out of the ones we're in. Of course he's been rolled by the likes of Bolton and other warmongers. It's damned hard to fight the establishment alone. But his big overarching politics are directly opposed to the neoliberal consensus of the past thirty years. — fishfry

That's not true. Neoliberalism has little to do with wars. It has far more to do with increasing the military budget (to line the pockets of defense contractors), which Trump has done. Trump has cut taxes and deregulated everything from environment rules to banking laws. He's in favor of privatizing everything. Almost every policy he's proposed or enacted is exactly in the domain of neoliberal philosophy. It's true Trump doesn't have a clue about what he believes -- he's in it for himself only -- but the policies are clear, and he goes along with it. McConnell has been enacting this agenda while Trump tweets and stirs up controversy. Also, pretty basic. That you deny any of it is "neoliberal' is striking.

So you either don't know what you're talking about, or voted in favor of neoliberalism.
— Xtrix

Trade, immigration, war. — fishfry

He has done nothing on trade except re-named NAFTA and started a stupid trade war with China which changed literally nothing. His proposal of building a wall will go down as one of the stupidest ideas in history. As for war -- yes, he wants to stay out of war.

What does this have to do with the continued tax cuts, deregulation, and cutting of social welfare programs? These are neoliberal policies, and have been enacted over and over again during this administration. You can bury your head in the sand about it if you'd like, but you make yourself look like a fool.

Anyone who sleepwalks through their American life and doesn't see the incredible material abundance all around them is not one to talk about others being confused. — fishfry

You're confused. Sorry for the accuracy. Try to stop arguing against your imagination.

2020, I don't think that's going to happen. But that's what they said about Trump in 2016 and Bernie's 2020 campaign is weirdly parallel. Not being taken seriously then the whole party panicking to stop him and the moderates unwilling to get out of each other's way. The parallels are eerie. Anything could happen. — fishfry

True. And being accurate about what's really happening in the current administration and about Bernie's actual policies is all the more important. I highly recommend making an effort to do so.

About 70% precincts reporting in for South Carolina with Biden in the clear lead at around 50% and Sanders at around 19%. Steyer, who just dropped out, is in third at around 11% and him and all other candidates are non-viable. Warren and Klobuchar should at this point drop out instead of siphoning delegates from competitive candidates, which will just lead to a brokered convention. Pete will probably drop out after Super Tuesday.

I'm disappointed but not surprised by (again, accurately trending polls) Biden's comeback win in the 'Clinton-Obama-Clyburn status quo' South Carolina primary. My guess now (for what it's worth) is that Bernie will pick up from mid-600 to mid-700 pledged delegates (out of 1,344) on Super Tuesday.

@Maw @180 Proof
Yes... very interesting. We have a close contest now. Like a slow motion horse race. Tuesday will tell us much.

Will Pete join with Biden to create a “Moderate Monster”?

Will Bernie and Elizabeth Warren be the “Progressive Pair”? (Assuming Warren can stop criticizing him for a moment, lol). Will Tom Steyer then back them, provided he can pretend not to be a billionaire, and make thousands of small donations? :yum:

How will Bloomberg do, and how long will he last? Will he be a spoiler? Or just act spoiled?

About about Amy Klobuchar... maybe she is not quite finished. Could someone pick her as a VP running mate? Lots of experience and smarts there... Maybe a good fit with Bloomberg? Or would they just clash? Perhaps somewhat like Elaine and Mr. Pitt (from an old Seinfeld episode)?

Will Bernie and Elizabeth Warren be the “Progressive Pair”? — 0 thru 9

After last night I think Warren burned that bridge. A memo from a campaign manager stated that the strategy is to stay in the race given the likelihood of a brokered convention, accumulate as many delegates as possible, and, somehow, "ultimately prevail at the national convention".

Bloomberg's a cunt: he'll (probably) drop out - Wednesday(?) after conceding that his +half billion dollars barely bought him any delegates - and declare for Biden (all but guaranteeing a brokered convention & Superdelegate coronation). :mask:

Pete is announcing his campaign is ending. He was among the worst candidates by far.

We should make all rich people run for president and spend all their own money on advertising. Wealth redistributed!

Bloomberg's a cunt: he'll (probably) drop out - Wednesday(?) after conceding that his +half billion dollars barely bought him any delegates - and declare for Biden (all but guaranteeing a brokered convention & Superdelegate coronation). :mask: — 180 Proof

Yes, he’s probably not much help or inspiration to anyone. Well, the sooner Bloomers drops out the sooner then those incredibly annoying ads on YT of his will stop. Then we can return to mildly irritating insurance ads.

But seriously, even if Bernie gets jobbed and robbed there is still a chance... if he wants to risk it. He has the ace up his sleeve to run as an independent. I think his supporters would DEMAND it. Some other DNC people would almost have a coronary over it, and Biden and Co. would be fanning the flames accusing him of helping Chump, and worse. It could get ugly. (Like HRC throwing a tantrum, lol.) The very thought of tampering with the two-party race! Heresy! (Like Ross Perot never happened, or something). Oh well. That’s what “frenemies” are for. Bernie is trying to play by the “rules”. But if he gets the clear majority of delegates, he should get the nomination. The super delegates don’t (or should not) vote in that case. But who knows? We’ll see what shenanigans transpire...

To me, if he is forced to run as an independent, it’s simply a 3-person race. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever. May the best person win... (and f’ it... break up the monopoly while he’s at it).

To me, if he is forced to run as an independent, it’s simply a 3-person race — 0 thru 9

Otherwise known as a Trump-win since Democrats would be divided.

Anyone know what the current delegate count is?

This is a good delegate tracker.

Bernie up by about 8. But still counting SC. (This is like some bizarre sports tournament, lol)

Otherwise known as a Trump-win since Democrats would be divided. — frank

Not necessarily. That’s the (somewhat understandable) reflex response, though. That’s your opinion, fair enough. Mine is that the situation has radically changed. This scenario probably won’t even happen, though.

Your issues are relevant but they are small compared to the real problem the USA has and that's that it's basically not a democracy. In a way you fail to see the forest for the trees. Getting only your "big" issues is a pyrrhic victory and they will be just as easily lost in the next election if the vocabulary of political discourse doesn't take a wild swing to more collectivism through solidarity and the strong carrying the weak. Only if everyone talks about Medicare for all and a majority of republicans understands it instead of reflexively dismissing it due to ideology or party loyalty.

You do realize that Medicare for All will not pass even if Sanders is elected, right? Are you just interested in getting the idea taken seriously, with the hope this will catch on over time?

"just"? Language in politics is paramount. Climate change wasn't a thing until maybe 10 years ago. Only if people talk about something will it become part of the mainstream agenda. And it's not just Medicare of course but a whole gamut of collectivist policies people should talk and hear about.

OK, so you think it extremely important that people start taking Medicare for All seriously. I presume you believe that this provides the optimal path toward its eventual adoption. That's debatable. There's a very real chance that a public option for Obamacare will pass if a Democrat is elected, and that also paves the way toward an eventual Medicare for All. The hope would be that the public option proves to be the best option, and the others fade away. So it's debatable as which direction will have the more positive long term effect, and in either case - the public option (along with additional structural changes that are needed) will do good.

What's not debatable is the consequence of Trump continuing: not only will you not get "Medicare for All" in the discussion, you risk taking a step backward - eliminating Obamacare. Consider that the Supreme Court has agreed to review the law for Constitutionality in the next term, which will be after the election. If Trump is elected, the Solicitor General will be arguing to eliminate it. If a Democrat is elected, there will be a Solicitor General defending Obamacare. There's also a good chance they can restore it to Constitutionality (it could be as simple as reinstating the fee/"tax" for failing to have coverage, which Republicans zeroed out).

As an aside, an anti-Bernie pundit has just resigned. Chris Matthews of Hardball fame has stepped down amidst revelations about his "inappropriate comments".

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/business/media/chris-matthews-resigns-steps-down-msnbc.html

No one is advocating anything like the USSR or Cuba or Venezuela. No one. That's imaginary. — Xtrix

Lot of interesting developments since we last talked! The DNC fix is in. Pete and Amy dropped out and endorsed Biden after speaking with Bloomberg. They're both young and ambitious, the party will reward their loyalty down the line. Steyer's out, he spent $250M for nothing and never made any kind of impression at all. Just the rich guy at the end of the debate stage. Bloomie's events protested over stop-and-frisk. African-Americans turned their backs on him in church yesterday. And Chris Matthews finally got shitcanned. About ten years overdue IMO.


If I were to stipulate that Bernie doesn't want the US to be the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, and Mao's China rolled up in one; wouldn't you at least agree that this is a credible charge that he will be accused of anyway? His record on this is terrible. He's made many public statements and has many political alliances that argue my side of the proposition and not yours. I get that deep down you think he's a harmless old lefty who means well. Unfortunately he has a lot of friends far more dangerous than that.

I believe that the movement Bernie represents is extremely dangerous, even if Bernie himself is far more kindly than his followers.

Why you keep invoking Cuba or our supermarkets is beyond me. If you can't see that this is sheer stupidity, maybe it's not worth it talking to you. — Xtrix

Deep down you must know I'm right else it wouldn't bother you.

None of this has to do with my comment, that the wealth in the US has been concentrated to the top, especially the 1% (it's actually closer to 1/10 or 1/100 of 1%). — Xtrix

Yes, and inequality is an inevitable byproduct of a system that produces such wealth. In a capitalistic society there will be winners and losers; but on average, and overall, pretty much everyone's far better off than they are under the communist dictatorships of the twentieth century. Every single one of them has been bloodthirsty, brutal, repressive, and ultimately totally unproductive.

Bernie's a socialist. Socialism fails. It has always failed and as it fails it kills a lot of people.

I absolutely agree with you that our current system is pretty screwed up. The inequality has gotten out of hand. This is what everyone recognizes, it's what's given rise to Trump and Bernie. Nobody's interested in mainstream Republicans or mainstream Democrats. This is a crisis for the country.

But if you think socialism (or "democratic socialism" if you prefer) is the answer, then I humbly beg to differ.

Stop arguing against imaginary opponents. — Xtrix

I'm responding to the points you're making.

Outside of your information bubble, they don't exist. If all you know how to do is respond to straw men and imaginary opponents, that's OK. Just let me know so I don't waste my time trying to explain anything. — Xtrix

You are not required to respond to anything I write. If you did happen to make a coherent point, I'd acknowledge it. I see you defending a system and way of thinking totally discredited in the twentieth century. As I said I do agree that our system is a greatly distorted, corrupt, and unsustainable version of what it's supposed to be. We disagree on the remedies. Socialism can never be the answer because it's a flat out failed ideology that causes misery and horror wherever it's implemented.

Yes, we all agree the economy has worked very well for them, and they continue to prosper. The system that's been in place has been a state-capitalist system, rigged for the wealthy who can lobby for legislation, subsidies, contracts, tax breaks, and bailouts from the government (our tax money). Bernie does indeed want to destroy that. I agree with him. — Xtrix

I'd like to blow up that system too. It's part of the neoliberal consensus. The global elite suck the wealth of the world upwards from the middle classes. "Davos man." There is much merit in the socialist critique. Marx predicted most of what we know of as late stage capitalism. He saw the inevitable disaster that capitalism must become.

It's not the socialist theorizing I object to. It's the authoritarianism of leftists that I oppose. With Bernie the cure would be much worse than the disease.

Who said shutting down commerce? Try reading again what I wrote. Bernie wants to destroy a rigged system that distributes the wealth of this country to the top 1/10th of 1%, and I agree with that. I think such a system which produces such enormous inequality should be dismantled or at least heavily corrected. This is the exact opposite of what you're saying -- it's in FAVOR of the working and middle classes. It has nothing to do with "shutting down the American economy." Nothing. Nor did I ever say that. Nor has Bernie said that. It's a ridiculous statement that, once again, exists only in your imagination. — Xtrix

The goals may be noble but the policies would be economic disasters. The Green new deal, the radical environmentalism, the opening of borders (you know Bernie used to be a sensible immigration restrictionist just a few years ago. He knows immigration's bad for workers); the confiscatory taxation of the successful, as if you think all the wealth of the country would still be there if we abolished billionaires, whatever that means.

It's very easy to tax wealth. All we need is the political will, which Bernie has. The working and middle classes will not pay for it, the wealthiest Americans and the corporate sector, however, will. — Xtrix

You have not run the numbers. If you stripped every billionaire in the country down to the clothes on their back, you could run the current federal budget plus Bernie's new programs for a year or two at best. After that you'd have to come for the hundred millionaires, then the ten millionaires, then the millionaires, and finally the high school teacher married to the firefighter making $150 or $200k together.

If you sit down and run the numbers: WHERE does the money come from, HOW MUCH, money, and how long does that run the newly doubled federal budget -- you see you will run out of the "rich" pretty quickly and soon be be into the middle class.

Run the numbers.

Because it's the agenda of Donald Trump. It's every policy that's come out of the Trump administration: deregulation, privatization, corporate tax cuts, etc. — Xtrix

Tax cuts stimulate the economy. Corporations don't pay taxes, they collect them. Now I disagree with Trump in that he cut taxes but then allowed the budget to blow up. Same mistake Bush 43 made. I disagree terribly with the government's profligate spending combined with tax cuts, borrowing, and printing. It's not going to end well. But I'm sure you've noticed that there's no interest in Washington for getting the trillion dollar deficits under control. You know that every nickel the government spends is authorized by the House and personally signed off on by Nancy Pelosi. The financial trainwreck in Washington is bipartisan.

That's not true. Neoliberalism has little to do with wars. It has far more to do with increasing the military budget (to line the pockets of defense contractors), which Trump has done. — Xtrix

Hillary and Obama's foreign policy was a disaster. Trump is getting us out of Afghanistan. Of course we lost, but he has some sort of face-saving deal and there's a chance he could get the troops the hell out of there. Hillary would have had us in ten more wars. The neoliberals are part of the neocon war agenda. That's why Hillary, Schumer, DiFi, and all the other "liberal" Democratic senators signed on to the Iraq war. You give us our social programs and you can have your wars. That in a nutshell is the unholy neocon/neolib alliance that's destroying this country; that both Trump and Bernie oppose.

He has done nothing on trade except re-named NAFTA and started a stupid trade war with China which changed literally nothing. — Xtrix

Trump stood up to Xi. China has over a million Uyghurs in concentration camps. In the end we're all going to have to stand up to China. One could ague that Trump standing up to Xi is why Hong Kong has whatever autonomy it has left. Cozying up to China is one of the biggest pieces of the neoliberal project. Trump sees the future in this regard with far more clarity than many.

His proposal of building a wall will go down as one of the stupidest ideas in history. — Xtrix

As I've indicated elsewhere on this site I'm a longtime follower of US-Mexico politics and I've lived in Mexico. I strongly oppose Trump's wall. But I also opposed the equally cynical Secure Fence Act of 2006, which Hillary and Biden the other power Dems voted for. And it was Obama who built the kid cages in 2014. What I object to is liberals who attack Trump for implementing essentially the same policies Dems have been implementing since the Bill Clinton administration. The militarization of the border did not start with Mr. Trump you know. It's the other side of the sanctuary cities and drivers' licenses for the undocumented. Total hypocrisy. The same people who support DACA built the cages. You want to complain about Trump's wall but not take responsibility for the Democrats' complicity for the screwed up border policies.

As for war -- yes, he wants to stay out of war. — Xtrix

That's good, right? We have a point of agreement.

You're confused. Sorry for the accuracy. Try to stop arguing against your imagination. — Xtrix

Yeah yeah whatever. The fix is in against your guy Bernie, what do you think about that? Tomorrow's Super Tuesday, we'll know a lot more by the end of the day.

True. And being accurate about what's really happening in the current administration and about Bernie's actual policies is all the more important. I highly recommend making an effort to do so. — Xtrix

Doubling the spending of the federal government while making unrealistic estimates of where the revenue will come from strikes me as a recipe for disaster.

FiveThirtyEight is now showing 63% odds for "no one" (read: Biden), 21% for Biden himself, and 16% for Bernie. I am very saddened by this. Trump victory is basically guaranteed at this point.

I'm already looking forward to the Democratic establishment not understanding how that could've happened. Just like when they forwarded one of the most hated women in politics like last time.