Down Ballot Democrats Nervous About Sanders

[Tiberius]

46 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Your responses are extremely telling.  Not one mention of what you think Sanders could actually do for this country.  Just turn it all into a slam of Trump.

His National emergency powers to fight global warming should be interesting 

[Albwan]

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

  Your responses are extremely telling.  Not one mention of what you think Sanders could actually do for this country.  Just turn it all into a slam of Trump.

In another post he's giddy about the covid19 virus...he's a despicable pos.

[Wacka]

the covid19 virus is kulling people. That make it ecstatic. Tibs is an it because he is lower than  pond scum.

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by Wacka

[RochesterRob]

10 minutes ago, Wacka said:

the covid19 virus is kulling people. That make it ecstatic ) Tibs is an it because he is lower than  pond scum.

 

  Tiberius should have been banned a long time ago.  Mods?  Somebody cheering the death of those who have fallen because of illness should be gone.

[Albwan]

6 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Tiberius should have been banned a long time ago.  Mods?  Somebody cheering the death of those who have fallen because of illness should be gone.

Nope nothing will happen to him. But saying "democrat" in the bills forum in a post about racism is a dire wrong doing.

Edited February 24, 2020 by Albwan

[3rdnlng]

26 minutes ago, Albwan said:

Nope nothing will happen to him. But saying "democrat" in the bills forum in a post about racism is a dire wrong doing.

Be careful what you ask for. We here at PPP pay the price for virtually no moderation by having to put up with pond scum and nuts. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

3 hours ago, Nanker said:

And so we see he's perfectly qualified to run as the head of the Democrat ticket.

 

...wonder if he'll vacation at the Havana White House??……..

[Tiberius]

Lots of Democrats are in full panic that Bernie Sanders will win the nomination and get clobbered in the general election — and bring the party down, too. But the evidence, particularly the polling, doesn't back those doomsday warnings.

Why it matters: Virtually every national and swing state poll shows Sanders tied with or beating President Trump.  And, unlike every rival, he has a huge base of fervent, unshakable supporters he can only grow.

Just the facts, please: A Quinnipiac Poll last week showed Sanders beating Trump in Michigan and Pennsylvania. A CBS News/YouGov poll showed Sanders beating Trump nationally.

• A Texas Lyceum poll shows Sanders doing better against Trump in Texas than any Democrat, losing by just three points.

He’s socially savvier: Sanders has much larger followings on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other platforms than his rivals — and has consistently shown new media sophistication others lack. 

Loyalty matters: The guy’s base writes checks regularly, for years now, making him the best-funded non-billionaire in the Democratic game. His supporters also show up — on social, at rallies, in elections. Ask Trump if this matters. 

Socialism hasn’t killed him: It’s not like Sanders hides his big government socialism — he has screamed it to the nation for a half-decade. Maybe voters don’t care, just like 45% don’t care about Trump’s outlandishness.

Peter Hamby, who works for Snapchat and writes for Vanity Fair, argues "bed-wetting" Democrats might have it all wrong:

• "Instead of asking if Sanders is unelectable, ask another question: What if Sanders is actually the MOST electable Democrat? In the age of Trump, hyper-partisanship, institutional distrust, and social media, Sanders could be examined as a candidate almost custom-built to go head-to-head with Trump this year."
• He’s a Trump-like celebrity: "Running for president has always been about winning the attention war, and the competition for attention has never been more difficult than it is in 2020,” Hamby writes. Sanders has way more old-school and new-age celebrity than the rest of his rivals combined. 

The bottom line: The truth is we are all clueless about what voters want or will accept. That includes everyone on Twitter, inside the Democratic establishment — and me!

https://www.axios.com/bernie-sanders-2020-presidential-election-chances-3459ae66-0aa0-4a53-97f8-732e8cbb5d9f.html

[Albwan]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

Be careful what you ask for. We here at PPP pay the price for virtually no moderation by having to put up with pond scum and nuts. 

...again, tibs and those other freaks can say what they like, i dare someone more right spew the same filth and see what happens...

[3rdnlng]

4 hours ago, Albwan said:

...again, tibs and those other freaks can say what they like, i dare someone more right spew the same filth and see what happens...

There are a few exceptions but generally those of us on the conservative side will at least listen to the libs and their mouthpieces, if only to mock them. Liberals are the least tolerant people I know. Conservatives have much more open minds. 

[LSHMEAB]

Meh. This election WAS almost certainly going to be a referendum on Trump. That NEVER works.

 

A candidate with ideas as polarizing as Sanders' changes that dynamic quite a bit. Whatever you may think of his policies on minimum wage and universal healthcare, that socialist fella NEVER backs down.

 

The Dems are making the BEST decision possible by nominating a candidate who will actually mobilize folks who don't generally vote. Forget the middle. It doesn't exist. I'm not saying he's going to win, but he's got the best shot.

 

Downballot Dems ie the establishment have a pretty AWFUL track record in terms of prognostications, so the fact that they're "concerned" is a good sign.

[Albwan]

7 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Meh. This election WAS almost certainly going to be a referendum on Trump. That NEVER works.

 

A candidate with ideas as polarizing as Sanders' changes that dynamic quite a bit. Whatever you may think of his policies on minimum wage and universal healthcare, that socialist fella NEVER backs down.

 

The Dems are making the BEST decision possible by nominating a candidate who will actually mobilize folks who don't generally vote. Forget the middle. It doesn't exist. I'm not saying he's going to win, but he's got the best shot.

 

Downballot Dems ie the establishment have a pretty AWFUL track record in terms of prognostications, so the fact that they're "concerned" is a good sign.

Wrong, Just because the democrats are whack don't include the other 60 million people who are more middle than not.

Most people on this board are in the middle. Don't lump us all in with you and your 5 or so whacked out lefty buddies who troll here.

lurker pos

[LSHMEAB]

2 minutes ago, Albwan said:

Wrong, Just because the democrats are whack don't include the other 60 million people who are more middle than not.

Most people on this board are in the middle. Don't lump us all in with you and your 5 or so whacked out lefty buddies who troll here.

Do I know you?

[Prickly Pete]

17 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Do I know you?

 

You're gonna lose, Laffy Man.

 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by 32ABBA

[CoudyBills]

On 2/23/2020 at 8:27 AM, Nanker said:

Sure hope the House gets flipped so there’s a clear path to retribution. 

Impeach everyone.  Can't wait.  Christmas impeachment, birthday impeachment, ***** you Bernie impeachment.  Exciting!!!

[dubs]

9 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Be careful what you ask for. We here at PPP pay the price for virtually no moderation by having to put up with pond scum and nuts. 

that’s what ignore is for. I agree. 
 

Tibs is such a demented fool ignore is the best option 

[LSHMEAB]

2 hours ago, 32ABBA said:

 

You're gonna lose, Laffy Man.

 

 

 

What's the game and what are the stakes? 

[Foxx]

16 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

... The Dems are making the BEST decision possible by nominating a candidate who will actually mobilize folks who don't generally vote. Forget the middle. It doesn't exist. I'm not saying he's going to win, but he's got the best shot. ...

Sanders Says He’ll Attract a Wave of New Voters. It Hasn’t Happened.

 CHARLESTON, S.C. — It is the most politically provocative part of Senator Bernie Sanders’s campaign pitch: that his progressive movement will bring millions of nonvoters into the November election, driving record turnout especially among disaffected working-class Americans and young people.

 

And yet despite a virtual tie in Iowa, a narrow victory in New Hampshire and a big triumph in Nevada, the first three nominating contests reveal a fundamental challenge for Mr. Sanders’s political revolution: He may be winning, but not because of his longstanding pledge to expand the Democratic base.

 

The results so far show that Mr. Sanders has prevailed by broadening his appeal among traditional Democratic voters, not by fundamentally transforming the electorate.

 

In Iowa, for instance, turnout for the caucuses was lower than expected, up 3 percent compared with 2016, and the increase was concentrated in more well-educated areas where Mr. Sanders struggled, according to a New York Times analysis; in the Iowa precincts where Mr. Sanders won, turnout increased by only 1 percentage point.

 

There was no sign of a Sanders voter surge in New Hampshire either, nor on Saturday in Nevada, where the nearly final results indicated that turnout would finish above 2016 but well short of 2008 levels, despite a decade of population growth and a new early voting option that attracted some 75,000 voters. The low numbers are all the more striking given the huge turnout in the 2018 midterm elections, which was the highest in a century.

 

There was also no clear evidence across the early states of much greater participation by young people, a typically low-turnout group that makes up a core part of Mr. Sanders’s base and that he has long said he can motivate to get out to the polls. And Mr. Sanders has struggled to overcome his longstanding weakness in affluent, well-educated suburbs, where Democrats excelled in the midterm elections and where many traditionally Republican voters are skeptical about President Trump’s performance, meaning they could be up for grabs in November. ...

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Foxx

[MILFHUNTER#518]

On 2/23/2020 at 9:54 PM, Cinga said:

Did you write this? Or do you have a link to the original? I'd like to copy it but want to be sure where it came from... 

 

It was a comment off of a Yahoo news article. I looked @ the Wiki article he used as a source, it was all there. Sorry I dont have the original link, i cut and pasted from my phone.

[Tiberius]

Quote

 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday attempted to calm House Democrats who are expressing concern over the potential of having Bernie Sanders at the top of the ticket in November, saying the party will stay unified and candidates will run on a mainstream agenda that will appeal to voters.

 

 

“Unity, unity, unity. Whoever our nominee is, we will support,” Pelosi said at a news conference.

 

 

Democrats representing swing districts have been raising alarms that Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist who is proposing expansive government programs and higher taxes on the wealthy, is going to turn off voters in parts of the country that the party is counting on to hold its House majority. Democrats will be defending House seats in 30 districts President Donald Trump won in 2016.

 

 

Pelosi said Democrats will keep the majority by campaigning on the same themes and issues that they used to win the House in 2018, one that is “mainstream and not menacing.”

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-27/pelosi-talks-up-party-unity-with-some-democrats-wary-of-sanders?srnd=premium ?‍?‍?‍?

[3rdnlng]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-27/pelosi-talks-up-party-unity-with-some-democrats-wary-of-sanders?srnd=premium ?‍?‍?‍?

Just a couple days ago you posted that you didn't want or like Sanders. You must be evolving. 

[Tiberius]

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Just a couple days ago you posted that you didn't want or like Sanders. You must be evolving. 

“Unity, unity, unity. Whoever our nominee is, we will support,” 

[Foxx]

5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

“Unity, unity, unity. Whoever our nominee is, we will support,” 

[Tiberius]

You can make an argument that Obama hurt down ballot Democrats. Lost seats all through out the country with the racists backlash. 

 

And the same with Trump, who lost the House and many, many seats in state houses across the country. 

 

You win the presidency, you probably lose other things 

[Deranged Rhino]

What's hilarious is he's now arguing against the premise of his own thread  

 

When you live your life taking talking point by talking point as fact, you're going to end up as lost as Tibs.

[Foxx]

tibs

[3rdnlng]

24 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

What's hilarious is he's now arguing against the premise of his own thread  

 

When you live your life taking talking point by talking point as fact, you're going to end up as lost as Tibs.

I've found in my years on this planet that if you don't lie you don't have much to worry about. Someone can make this claim or that claim against me and as long as I'm not a liar I know instinctively what the truth is. 

[KD in CA]

On 2/24/2020 at 4:14 PM, LSHMEAB said:

Meh.Forget the middle. It doesn't exist.

Actually it does, and it’s huge.  
 

The #1 characteristic of the middle is that they don’t devote their lives to getting hysterical about meaningless, political bull####.  Instead they spend their time and energy on their own lives.  And they vote for the person who is most likeable and appears most competent.  Simple as that.
 

Now, you might overcome that with millions of new, dumb voters, but it’s not going to work if they all live in CA and NY.

Edited March 2, 2020 by KD in CA

[LSHMEAB]

7 hours ago, KD in CA said:

Actually it does, and it’s huge.  
 

The #1 characteristic of the middle is that they don’t devote their lives to getting hysterical about meaningless, political bull####.  Instead they spend their time and energy on their own lives.  And they vote for the person who is most likeable and appears most competent.  Simple as that.
 

Now, you might overcome that with millions of new, dumb voters, but it’s not going to work if they all live in CA and NY.

The middle has dwindled in this country. For Democrats, it's far less important to "woo" this tiny number of folks than it is to actually motivate people to vote. Based on your description of the "rational middle, just living their lives," they sound quite a bit like the new "dumb voters" who are also just living their lives.

 

I would counter that this mythical "middle" is just as dumb as those who generally don't vote. You're an ideologue. I'm an ideologue. That's because we pay attention. To state anything to the contrary would be disingenuous.

 

Very partisan slant you just concocted, which is only noteworthy because you opined on the importance of the "middle."

 

Anyone dumb enough to not have formulated an opinion on whether they'd like to give Trump a second term shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Edited March 3, 2020 by LSHMEAB

[KD in CA]

2 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Anyone dumb enough to not have formulated an opinion on whether they'd like to give Trump a second term shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

I don’t think Trump has done all that much, good or bad, to sway people.  Twitters aside, he’s been pretty conventional.

You’re missing a crucial factor that is part of any decision — what is the alternative?

 

Since it looks like the Democrats have abandoned the possibility of offering a superior candidate, they will have to hope that their media arm’s four years of non-stop campaigning will change some minds.  

Edited March 3, 2020 by KD in CA

[LSHMEAB]

10 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

I don’t think Trump has done all that much, good or bad, to sway people.  Twitters aside, he’s been pretty conventional.

You’re missing a crucial factor that is part of any decision — what is the alternative?

 

Since it looks like the Democrats have abandoned the possibility of offering a superior candidate, they will have to hope that their media arm’s four years of non-stop campaigning will change some minds.  

I think Trump has done and said MANY things that have polarized voters, and caused some to believe he is awesome and some to believe he is wholly unqualified. I do agree that the policies have been somewhat conventional in terms of the tax cuts/deregulation etc. Where he's diverged from conventional conservatism is the "trade wars" for lack of a better term. Oddly enough, I support the tariffs and tough tactics because I care about American workers. It's not our responsibility to worry about workers worldwide.

 

Not really interested in a political tit for tat at the moment and there's really no way to verify either of our opinions as it pertains to the "middle."

 

My personal BELIEF is that there are many, many people who will vote FOR Bernie Sanders.(Personal political views aside) I don't believe there is anyone who will vote FOR Joe Biden. I'm quite sure you'd vote for neither, which is fine.

 

There are certainly voters who may vote for Joe Biden, but wouldn't vote for Bernie Sanders. What I'm positing is that the number of folks who will show up to vote FOR Sanders outweighs the number of folks who will abstain/vote for Trump should he be the nominee instead of a milquetoast candidate like Biden.

 

Just my opinion.

[KD in CA]

2 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

I think Trump has done and said MANY things that have polarized voters, and caused some to believe he is awesome and some to believe he is wholly unqualified. I do agree that the policies have been somewhat conventional in terms of the tax cuts/deregulation etc. Where he's diverged from conventional conservatism is the "trade wars" for lack of a better term. Oddly enough, I support the tariffs and tough tactics because I care about American workers. It's not our responsibility to worry about workers worldwide.

 

Not really interested in a political tit for tat at the moment and there's really no way to verify either of our opinions as it pertains to the "middle."

 

My personal BELIEF is that there are many, many people who will vote FOR Bernie Sanders.(Personal political views aside) I don't believe there is anyone who will vote FOR Joe Biden. I'm quite sure you'd vote for neither, which is fine.

 

There are certainly voters who may vote for Joe Biden, but wouldn't vote for Bernie Sanders. What I'm positing is that the number of folks who will show up to vote FOR Sanders outweighs the number of folks who will abstain/vote for Trump should he be the nominee instead of a milquetoast candidate like Biden.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Sure Trump said some things that will cause tender ears to clutch their pearls and shriek "I'm horrified", but after 3 years of deescalating foreign conflicts and steady-eddie economic growth, what exactly would make someone conclude he is 'wholly unqualified'?  I mean, where specifically are the negative outcomes that would be reasonably expected from a wholly unqualified executive branch?

 

Yeah, I guess it's possible there is enough of a groundswell of new Bernie voters drawn in by the 'free everything!!!' promises (hence my prior comment about dumb voters), but are they gonna show up in the places that matter?   Maybe so, guess we'll see.

Edited March 3, 2020 by KD in CA

[LSHMEAB]

1 hour ago, KD in CA said:

 

Sure Trump said some things that will cause tender ears to clutch their pearls and shriek "I'm horrified", but after 3 years of deescalating foreign conflicts and steady-eddie economic growth, what exactly would make someone conclude he is 'wholly unqualified'?  I mean, where specifically are the negative outcomes that would be reasonably expected from a wholly unqualified executive branch?

 

Yeah, I guess it's possible there is enough of a groundswell of new Bernie voters drawn in by the 'free everything!!!' promises (hence my prior comment about dumb voters), but are they gonna show up in the places that matter?   Maybe so, guess we'll see.

He has a propensity to say and do irrational things (like using a sharpie on a map for God knows what reason). I find it amusing and inconsequential, while others find it troubling. But overall, everyone knew who Trump was prior to the LAST election. What happened? He won. The notion of a Biden nomination would change nothing. It would be a repeat of the "vote against Trump because he's a bad guy" failed Clinton campaign strategy. Sanders supporters, by and large, couldn't care less about Trump or his "unconventional" behavior.

 

My hunch is that Sanders would bring in a great number of "dumb" first time voters as well as a tiny number of "dumb" disaffected Trump voters who believed he'd significantly increase their personal fortune. We're talking about voters on the low end of the socioeconomic scale irrespective of race. This is especially true in rust best states like Michigan, Ohio, and PA, which still face mass exodus and poverty. They gave Trump a shot because he was a champion for the little guy. The unemployment rate has ticked down, but wages remain relatively stagnant.  The middle, as described by the media, are folks looking for a return to normalcy. There is not a single person who'd change their vote based on Trump's behavior. He's the same guy.

 

But again, this is political tit for tat; you responded to my post citing a robust "middle" and I still don't see it. 

 

It appears as though you're using this as an opportunity to tout Trump, which is cool, but doesn't really address the point at hand.

[3rdnlng]

6 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

He has a propensity to say and do irrational things (like using a sharpie on a map for God knows what reason). I find it amusing and inconsequential, while others find it troubling. But overall, everyone knew who Trump was prior to the LAST election. What happened? He won. The notion of a Biden nomination would change nothing. It would be a repeat of the "vote against Trump because he's a bad guy" failed Clinton campaign strategy. Sanders supporters, by and large, couldn't care less about Trump or his "unconventional" behavior.

 

My hunch is that Sanders would bring in a great number of "dumb" first time voters as well as a tiny number of "dumb" disaffected Trump voters who believed he'd significantly increase their personal fortune. We're talking about voters on the low end of the socioeconomic scale irrespective of race. This is especially true in rust best states like Michigan, Ohio, and PA, which still face mass exodus and poverty. They gave Trump a shot because he was a champion for the little guy. The unemployment rate has ticked down, but wages remain relatively stagnant.  The middle, as described by the media, are folks looking for a return to normalcy. There is not a single person who'd change their vote based on Trump's behavior. He's the same guy.

 

But again, this is political tit for tat; you responded to my post citing a robust "middle" and I still don't see it. 

 

It appears as though you're using this as an opportunity to tout Trump, which is cool, but doesn't really address the point at hand.

People on the lower end of the wage scale have seen their wages grow the most. Fracking is alive and well in MI, OH and PA and has not only improved the environment but provided many jobs in the energy business along with the jobs servicing that industry. Sanders is not going to find much support in those states. 

[KD in CA]

8 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

It appears as though you're using this as an opportunity to tout Trump, which is cool, but doesn't really address the point at hand.

Where exactly have I touted Trump?
 

You stated that everyone should have already decided if they would vote for Trump or not;  I pointed out that’s unlikely to be the case when we don’t even know who he’s opposing.

I asked you what made him, in your words, ‘wholly unqualified’ and you replied that he used a Sharpie. 
 

And now it appears you’re running away from supporting your two statements.

[LSHMEAB]

40 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

Where exactly have I touted Trump?
 

You stated that everyone should have already decided if they would vote for Trump or not;  I pointed out that’s unlikely to be the case when we don’t even know who he’s opposing.

I asked you what made him, in your words, ‘wholly unqualified’ and you replied that he used a Sharpie. 
 

And now it appears you’re running away from supporting your two statements.

Your recollection is a bit off. I stated that MANY find him wholly disqualified to be President and many find him awesome. If you'd like their reasoning, Google is your friend. The guy was literally impeached so there's clear, empirical evidence that MANY find him wholly unqualified. I didn't support the impeachment, nor do I much care about a few phone calls with Zelensky. BUT, this particular thread isn't really about Donald Trump. 

 

You implied that there was some robust middle that would determine the election in RESPONSE to my assertion that non voters were far more important. 

 

At any rate, we're talking about the D primary; Biden is the candidate for those who believe there's this soft middle just looking for a return to normalcy. The beltway crowd STILL doesn't understand Trump's popularity and would like to wish it away.

 

Sanders is a huge departure from status quo, for better or worse. My opinion is the anti Sanders folks, who probably agree with most of his policies, UNDERESTIMATE Trump's political strength. They believe some run of the mill candidate like Biden would surely win because Trump is a "bad man." I disagree with their take.

3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

People on the lower end of the wage scale have seen their wages grow the most. Fracking is alive and well in MI, OH and PA and has not only improved the environment but provided many jobs in the energy business along with the jobs servicing that industry. Sanders is not going to find much support in those states. 

Workers in the fracking industry are probably not at the extreme low end of the wage scale. I'm talking retail employees and fast food workers.

Edited March 3, 2020 by LSHMEAB

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[3rdnlng]

10 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

 

Workers in the fracking industry are probably not at the extreme low end of the wage scale. I'm talking retail employees and fast food workers.

Many people working in the energy business used to be low wage earners until there was job openings in the industry and Sanders has vowed to shut down pipelines and prevent fracking. Walmart has pledged to make their minimum wage $15 per hour by the end of this year. Fast food restaurants are hurting for workers and have been boosting wages. The real test of the unemployment rate is the strength of wages and we are at the point where we are at the lowest rate we're going to get and it just becomes a competition for workers and wages will continue to rise at the entry level point. 

[LSHMEAB]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

Many people working in the energy business used to be low wage earners until there was job openings in the industry and Sanders has vowed to shut down pipelines and prevent fracking. Walmart has pledged to make their minimum wage $15 per hour by the end of this year. Fast food restaurants are hurting for workers and have been boosting wages. The real test of the unemployment rate is the strength of wages and we are at the point where we are at the lowest rate we're going to get and it just becomes a competition for workers and wages will continue to rise at the entry level point. 

Over the long haul, and this predates Trump, folks are generally earning less (adjusted for inflation) than their parents. Nearly half of American's don't have 400 BUCKS in case of emergency. I'd also posit that the state minimum wage laws play a large role in the growth at the bottom. On the flip side, it's also true that the increases are reflective of a tightening labor market, which is a good thing.

 

I remember your post regarding quality of life and how it's better now due to readily available, relatively inexpensive technology. It was was interesting thought and has quite a bit of sway.

 

I'm skeptical that this particular trend will continue, but the numbers you cited were by and large accurate. I'm not going to change my economic views, but facts don't lie.

 

The elephant in the room in the coming years will be automation. I don't think anyone has a firm grasp on the implication there.

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Over the long haul, and this predates Trump, folks are generally earning less (adjusted for inflation) than their parents. Nearly half of American's don't have 400 BUCKS in case of emergency. I'd also posit that the state minimum wage laws play a large role in the growth at the bottom. On the flip side, it's also true that the increases are reflective of a tightening labor market, which is a good thing.

 

I remember your post regarding quality of life and how it's better now due to readily available, relatively inexpensive technology. It was was interesting thought and has quite a bit of sway.

 

I'm skeptical that this particular trend will continue, but the numbers you cited were by and large accurate. I'm not going to change my economic views, but facts don't lie.

 

The elephant in the room in the coming years will be automation. I don't think anyone has a firm grasp on the implication there.

I agree with you on automation. The problem with automation is that it may be more efficient and less costly to have a kiosk instead of a person taking orders, but sooner or later that Wendy's restaurant won't have any customers that have any money.