Nathan J. Robinson calls Michael Bloomberg "a Republican plutocrat" trying to "buy the Democratic nomination," and it's completely true: he is basically Republican-not-even-lite and he is trying to buy the nomination, as he has already bought (literally!) so many of his endorsements. He uses his money to obliterate dissent, he thinks banksters are an "industry" and not parasites, he thinks the income gap between rich and poor is a good thing, he uses the police to terrorize protestors, black folks, and Muslims -- basically, he's our President if our President was pro-choice and actually believed climate change was happening. And this is, apparently, who Democratic poobahs think voters will run through a wall for. (Don't quit before the end, because the last five paragraphs explain very well why we shouldn't let Presidential elections be a battle between billionaires.)
Next time you hear about "Obama's anemic job growth" failing to compare to our Great and Noble True American President's Greatest Economy Ever, you can respond that the economy has created fewer jobs over the last three years than it did during the last three years of the Obama Administration. And when folks protest that it's hard to create jobs when we're almost at what our government calls "full employment," remind them that, frankly, we're not at full employment if the U6 unemployment rate (which includes folks who work part-time who'd rather work full-time and folks who've simply given up looking for work) still stands at 6.9%. (As an aside, attend the list of things our President can't take credit but which he's taken credit for anyway in paragraphs 9 and 11. It's upsetting -- and the right campaign ad could obliterate him for it, if it's willing to have a little fun.)
I hate to say it, but I'm skeptical that enacting Medicare-for-All health insurance would result in pay hikes, even though a lot of the research says so. If we pay for it the way Sen. Warren would -- to tax employers the amount they've been spending on private health insurance for the last several years -- then the answer would definitely be no, and that's the best funding proposal I've seen. But then, I never wanted a raise from Medicare-for-All, and I do know that, under Medicare-for-All, health care costs would go down -- even the right-wing Mercatus Center says so! -- and health care costs are up there with household debt as the biggest drags on a household's freedom. All I ask for is a fighting chance, after all, and Medicare-for-All helps give us that fighting chance.
I might agree that our President's trade dramas will "cost the average American family $1,277 this year," thus wiping out their gains from the 2017 tax "reform," but I hesitate because the CBO locates those costs mainly in higher prices for household items, when, frankly, cheap crap from China isn't an unqualified good, certainly not if the Chinese workers making the cheap crap continue to get paid in dung pellets. Not that our President cares whether his trade deals improve things for those Chinese workers -- or, even, for American workers! -- but we, as Americans, need to stop counting on "low prices" without counting the cost of low prices.
Finally, a Monmouth University poll finds that while only 42% of registered voters want our President get re-elected, an astounding 66% think he's either "probably" or "definitely" going to get re-elected. Again I weep at the voters' apparent inability to understand that if they believe a fellow doesn't deserve re-election, they have the power to keep him from getting re-elected. Voters have this disconnect in part because our "liberal" media trains everyone to treat politics like a horserace, and also in part because our civilization prizes drama over substance, but voters also have this disconnect because they're constantly worrying about what "other" people will think, rather than trying to persuade other people to come around to their way of thinking. Persuasion: it's the world's oldest profession.