Younger voters?

[It’s so Joever]

I have heard both.

[TML]

It has to do with which party was in the White House and how popular the incumbent administration was when they came of age. For example, I turned 18 in 2006, and back then the incumbent president was George W. Bush, who was largely unpopular that year. Thus, most people my age lean Democratic, since they were the opposition party at the time.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It has to do with which party was in the White House and how popular the incumbent administration was when they came of age. For example, I turned 18 in 2006, and back then the incumbent president was George W. Bush, who was largely unpopular that year. Thus, most people my age lean Democratic, since they were the opposition party at the time.

[Hope For A New Era]

Generational. Unpopular Bush, then Obama's millennial-powered victory, then six years of neverending obstruction, then unpopular Trump.

Millennials and Gen Z will be enduringly liberal and Democratic. Virtually every political event from the early 2000s onward has served to push young people away from conservatism and away from the Republican Party.

[Padfoot]

I don't think its "age-based" in the traditional sense that people believe younger voters are just inherently more Democratic.  I think that the Millennial generation especially has experienced a great deal of economic pain that has made them more anti-capitalist than other generations and will have an enduring left-leaning bent.

[Figueira]

It has to do with which party was in the White House and how popular the incumbent administration was when they came of age. For example, I turned 18 in 2006, and back then the incumbent president was George W. Bush, who was largely unpopular that year. Thus, most people my age lean Democratic, since they were the opposition party at the time.

But in that case people who came of age when Obama was President would be more Republican, which isn't the case.

[TML]

It has to do with which party was in the White House and how popular the incumbent administration was when they came of age. For example, I turned 18 in 2006, and back then the incumbent president was George W. Bush, who was largely unpopular that year. Thus, most people my age lean Democratic, since they were the opposition party at the time.

But in that case people who came of age when Obama was President would be more Republican, which isn't the case.

I think that can be explained by Obama being more popular than Bush’s final 2-3 years even at his nadir. Yes, it is true that the gap between D- and R-leaning millennials shrank during the middle period of Obama’s tenure, but Bush’s approval ratings were in the doldrums after 2005-06 or so, while Obama’s never plunged to those levels. If Obama had been that unpopular during his tenure, then perhaps younger millennials might have been outright R-leaning.

[H. Ross Peron]

Both play a role, but Generational factors explain about 70-80% of the leftish bent of Millennials and Zoomers. Xers were much more conservatives in their 20s and 30s while even Boomers were divided. I don't think its necessarily even *just* Bush but rather the confluence of deeper economic and social trends such as rampant inequality, the domination of the FIRE sector, and generally neoliberalism's pernicious effects finally catching up with us.

[mileslunn]

People do become more conservative as they age due to lifestyle changes, but not to extent some think.  I believe millennials (not sure about Gen Z) are truly more left wing than previous generations due to fact with Great Recession and now COVID-19, they've faced greater economic barriers than previous generations thus more open to left wing ideas.  GI Generation was much the same due to Great Depression and indeed in many rural southern areas that were Democrat until recently, much of that was due to FDR's New Deal coalition and they started voting GOP as that group died off.  Boomers and Gen X generally were a lot more successful in early parts of career and economy was good thus more favorable to capitalism. 

At same time, things go in cycles, so good chance next generation after this will be more conservative than millennials.  Big question mark though is can GOP build a conservative multi-racial coalition or will it be a whites only party.  If it is a whites only party, they are doomed as white population shrinks by 2% each election cycle so in a decade or so, winning 60% of white vote won't be good enough if they cannot improve with minorities and by 2040, even 2/3 of white vote won't be enough if they don't do better amongst minorities.  But if they can do better amongst minorities, this won't be a problem when pendulum swings back as plenty of minorities hold conservative viewpoints.  If GOP could win all Black and Hispanic voters who are conservative oriented, they would be the dominant party today and would win big amongst Boomers and Gen X and even do better amongst millennials.

[ottermax]

I think the swings toward Trump in non-white areas should serve as a warning sign to Democrats hopes that Millenials and Gen Z will remain loyal to the party. I think the GOP has tapped into a nerve among many younger people of color who feel abandoned by the Democratic Party and cultural liberalism, "wokeness," and "feminism." I personally disagree with these views, but many of my teenage students in these communities really seem bothered by "woke" culture, even when I try to break it down for them. It's obviously very complex, but I think many youth feel left out of the elitism of the cultural liberalism that predominates social media from the Democratic Party.

Meanwhile, real issues like lockdowns, evictions, high costs of college, high cost of living, and poverty loom. I think the pandemic is going to create a sharp class cleavage with Democrats being remembered for trying to keep working class people from earning money, while "work-from-home elites" were able to thrive.

I think education will become a sharper cleavage. I observe a lot of students who struggle to read getting lost in Snapchat and Instagram misinformation about the virus, social issues, and more, while the students who seem more set to go to college and thrive are able to navigate these complexities. I wish I knew how to teach critical thinking of information - but it's hard in the age of constant information!

As long as the Democrats continue to ignore real change in their economic platform, elections will be decided on cultural and social issues - which has the potential to realign many Millenials and Gen Zers to the GOP.

[mileslunn]

I think the swings toward Trump in non-white areas should serve as a warning sign to Democrats hopes that Millenials and Gen Z will remain loyal to the party. I think the GOP has tapped into a nerve among many younger people of color who feel abandoned by the Democratic Party and cultural liberalism, "wokeness," and "feminism." I personally disagree with these views, but many of my teenage students in these communities really seem bothered by "woke" culture, even when I try to break it down for them. It's obviously very complex, but I think many youth feel left out of the elitism of the cultural liberalism that predominates social media from the Democratic Party.

Meanwhile, real issues like lockdowns, evictions, high costs of college, high cost of living, and poverty loom. I think the pandemic is going to create a sharp class cleavage with Democrats being remembered for trying to keep working class people from earning money, while "work-from-home elites" were able to thrive.

I think education will become a sharper cleavage. I observe a lot of students who struggle to read getting lost in Snapchat and Instagram misinformation about the virus, social issues, and more, while the students who seem more set to go to college and thrive are able to navigate these complexities. I wish I knew how to teach critical thinking of information - but it's hard in the age of constant information!

As long as the Democrats continue to ignore real change in their economic platform, elections will be decided on cultural and social issues - which has the potential to realign many Millenials and Gen Zers to the GOP.

Very true and I think Democrats are in a tough spot here.  A left wing populist economic platform would be popular with millennials, but political suicide with boomers and Gen Xers thus why they have taken current track.  After boomers die off, you may see this, but few parties have gone this route.  One notable example is the Social Democrats in Denmark who have combined left wing economics with cultural conservatism and it nearly wiped out the far right.  Still with US having a large college educated population and many being concerned about social justice, this may be tough to replicate. 

[It’s so Joever]

Is it really bad for Democrats to be the party of the eeucated?
That means we could use the lack of education against the GOP base and spread disinformation/suppress their voters.

[Kamala's side hoe]

I think the swings toward Trump in non-white areas should serve as a warning sign to Democrats hopes that Millenials and Gen Z will remain loyal to the party. I think the GOP has tapped into a nerve among many younger people of color who feel abandoned by the Democratic Party and cultural liberalism, "wokeness," and "feminism." I personally disagree with these views, but many of my teenage students in these communities really seem bothered by "woke" culture, even when I try to break it down for them. It's obviously very complex, but I think many youth feel left out of the elitism of the cultural liberalism that predominates social media from the Democratic Party.

I can anecdotally confirm this sense of alienation from contemporary cultural liberalism espoused by the Democratic party among some nonwhite Millennials and older iGens I know. That being said, the individuals I have in mind are probably quite different demographically from your high school students- they're almost all Asian and have all attended college at some point- and their overall skepticism of/ambivalence toward woke culture (which I can relate to despite holding "woke" views on many issues) doesn't necessarily indicate support for the GOP.

Meanwhile, real issues like lockdowns, evictions, high costs of college, high cost of living, and poverty loom. I think the pandemic is going to create a sharp class cleavage with Democrats being remembered for trying to keep working class people from earning money, while "work-from-home elites" were able to thrive.

I think education will become a sharper cleavage. I observe a lot of students who struggle to read getting lost in Snapchat and Instagram misinformation about the virus, social issues, and more, while the students who seem more set to go to college and thrive are able to navigate these complexities. I wish I knew how to teach critical thinking of information - but it's hard in the age of constant information!

As long as the Democrats continue to ignore real change in their economic platform, elections will be decided on cultural and social issues - which has the potential to realign many Millenials and Gen Zers to the GOP.

Judging from 2020 exit poll age crosstabs, it looks like a lot of older Millennials voted for 45. I was surprised to see how much more R the 25-29 group was than the 18-24 group in the Edison exit polls (which probably was not the most accurate, but still).

Is it really bad for Democrats to be the party of the eeucated?
That means we could use the lack of education against the GOP base and spread disinformation/suppress their voters.

It wouldn't be the end of the world, but it isn't really a good thing either. An education based realignment could reinforce existing racial/ethnic biases across and within different nonwhite groups, especially if partisanship remains as strong as it is today. Think "fancy asians vs jungle asians", "model minority" vs "the Other", etc. but mapped onto a reverse Dem vs GOP divide. More broadly, I worry that Dems becoming the party of the educated would subvert their nominal goal of being a left-of-center party that stands up for the less privileged and less well-off.

[Del Tachi]

Is it really bad for Democrats to be the party of the eeucated?
That means we could use the lack of education against the GOP base and spread disinformation/suppress their voters.

Less than 40% of Americans aged 25-34 (i.e., Millennials) have a bachelor's degree or higher.  For older cohorts the rates are even lower.  Running as explicitly "the party for educated people" is one of the dumbest electoral strategies the Democrats could think up. 

[Battista Minola 1616]

Is it really bad for Democrats to be the party of the eeucated?
That means we could use the lack of education against the GOP base and spread disinformation/suppress their voters.

Less than 40% of Americans aged 25-34 (i.e., Millennials) have a bachelor's degree or higher.  For older cohorts the rates are even lower.  Running as explicitly "the party for educated people" is one of the dumbest electoral strategies the Democrats could think up. 

Running as explicitly "the party for educated people" is also one of the most revoltingly smug and hideously classist things any party (and especially a left-of-centre party) could think up.
BUT you are replying to someone who gets off over the idea suppressing the votes of the Worthless Rubes Who Vote The Wrong Way and thinks that they are prone to buy any amount of disinformation because They Lack Education Ha Poor Idiots, so...

[DC Al Fine]

Is it really bad for Democrats to be the party of the eeucated?
That means we could use the lack of education against the GOP base and spread disinformation/suppress their voters.

It wouldn't be the end of the world, but it isn't really a good thing either. An education based realignment could reinforce existing racial/ethnic biases across and within different nonwhite groups, especially if partisanship remains as strong as it is today. Think "fancy asians vs jungle asians", "model minority" vs "the Other", etc. but mapped onto a reverse Dem vs GOP divide. More broadly, I worry that Dems becoming the party of the educated would subvert their nominal goal of being a left-of-center party that stands up for the less privileged and less well-off.

I'd argue we're already seeing snippets of this across the centre left.

Witness all the brouhaha about capping SALT, which is by any objective measure quite a regressive deduction. Or the current proposals to hand out significant debt relief to college grads, who over their lifetimes will significantly out earn non college grads. Or my personal favourite; Justin Trudeau's campaign promise to subsidize people buying $750,000 homes.

[Virginiá]

People do become more conservative as they age due to lifestyle changes, but not to extent some think.  I believe millennials (not sure about Gen Z) are truly more left wing than previous generations due to fact with Great Recession and now COVID-19, they've faced greater economic barriers than previous generations thus more open to left wing ideas.  GI Generation was much the same due to Great Depression and indeed in many rural southern areas that were Democrat until recently, much of that was due to FDR's New Deal coalition and they started voting GOP as that group died off.  Boomers and Gen X generally were a lot more successful in early parts of career and economy was good thus more favorable to capitalism. 

[...]

This is a fairly good read:

https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/6/14/progressives-control-the-future

Cohorts of voters tend to get more conservative and Republican as they age. This is a complex phenomenon that we will unpack in detail, but first, note that younger cohorts are drifting Republican and conservative at a much slower rate as they age. In the chart below, we show that the average year on year shift to Republicans in party identification and conservative ideological identification has been declining significantly. Presidential vote tends to be a bit more stable over time, and also exhibits some cyclical patterns as some voters jump back and forth between parties in each election. This can make it a bit more difficult to interpret the average rate of change for presidential voting. But what we observe is that since the base level of Democratic voting preference for millennials is so strong, unless something happens to cause a rightward shift in their politics at a rate that is substantially faster than what has occurred for any past generation, they will remain solidly Democratic.

[...]

Looking beyond the formative years, there are several cultural, economic, and demographic factors that make it unlikely that we will see a large rightward shift among millennials any time soon. Millennials are getting married and having kids later than past generations, thereby delaying key life events which tend to cause voters to become more conservative. Millennials lag behind past generations in accumulating wealth, and their prospects for future wealth accumulation do not look great, removing yet another factor that can drive voters to become more conservative over time.

Millennials also lag behind past generations in home ownership and face soaring housing costs relative to their income. For the bottom of the income distribution, this is largely explained by stagnant wage growth. But for the higher end of the income distribution, whose wages have grown significantly, this is explained entirely by rising housing prices. Policies to favor housing wealth have been implemented over the past several decades, and the housing share of national income has nearly doubled over that time period. These policies are designed to inflate house prices, and the fact that now many well heeled young professionals still can not afford to buy a home is proof that they work as intended. From a political perspective, this means that a demographic that would have been likely Republicans in generations past is now largely shut out of homeownership and therefore are less likely to move rightward.

TL;DR The damage done by previous generations has effectively stunted future generations and the major events that tend to make people somewhat more conservative are not happening for many, or happening much later - families, wealth accumulation, buying houses, etc. I'd expect it to eventually be the same for gen z, given the main problems causing this are not likely to be solved any time soon.

[Orser67]

I highly recommend this NYT article for a great look at both historical (post-ww2) voting and what I'll call the "popular president" demography theory.

My own view is that younger voters probably will become more conservative as they age, (hopefully) gain income, and "tsk tsk" at the values of younger people. But I think that, between having two relatively popular Democratic presidents (Clinton+Obama) and two relatively unpopular Republican presidents (Bush+Trump), a high percentage of non-whites and first/second/third gen immigrants, and difficult economic circumstances caused in large part by income/wealth inequality, there's a really good chance that millennials and Gen Zers will be the most economically left-leaning generation since at the very least the Greatest Generation.

With that said, it seems possible that, in the long term, greater liberalism won't necessarily equate to these generations becoming solidly Democratic. Such a scenario would (I hope) probably require the Republican Party to moderate at least a little, but it's also possible we see a depolarization of the parties (similar to the post-war era), or a Democratic Party that really moves left and alienates the middle.

[mileslunn]

Is it really bad for Democrats to be the party of the eeucated?
That means we could use the lack of education against the GOP base and spread disinformation/suppress their voters.

It wouldn't be the end of the world, but it isn't really a good thing either. An education based realignment could reinforce existing racial/ethnic biases across and within different nonwhite groups, especially if partisanship remains as strong as it is today. Think "fancy asians vs jungle asians", "model minority" vs "the Other", etc. but mapped onto a reverse Dem vs GOP divide. More broadly, I worry that Dems becoming the party of the educated would subvert their nominal goal of being a left-of-center party that stands up for the less privileged and less well-off.

I'd argue we're already seeing snippets of this across the centre left.

Witness all the brouhaha about capping SALT, which is by any objective measure quite a regressive deduction. Or the current proposals to hand out significant debt relief to college grads, who over their lifetimes will significantly out earn non college grads. Or my personal favourite; Justin Trudeau's campaign promise to subsidize people buying $750,000 homes.

Democrats favor eliminating SALT cap more because elimination of this has hurt blue states most.  Democrats want their states to be able to raise taxes on wealthy without mass exodus.  California has top rate of 13.3% for state taxes while Texas is 0%.  Before TCJA, top combined rates were 39.6% in Texas and 47.6% in California so 8 point difference while now 37% in Texas and 50.3% in California so 13.3% difference.  More wealthy will re-locate at a 13.3% difference than 8% so that is main reason Democrats want to eliminate it.  Also only means tax cuts for rich if Biden only raises top rate to 39.6%.  If he raised top rate an additional 5% as Hillary Clinton in 2016 advocated or Bloomberg, it would close the gap while still putting tax rates for rich higher in every state.  And if Biden's plan to uncap social security for those making over 400K goes through, rich will see taxes go up in every state.  In fact that would bring top rates to over 48% which is higher than UK, Germany, Italy and even a few Canadian provinces.   While in highest states, top rate would exceed 55% which is even higher than top rates in Nordic Countries.  Now true with close congress and senate, chances of uncapping social security passing is close to nil whereas eliminating SALT cap may have a chance of passing, but will be tough (my guess is GOP votes against it and Bernie Sanders stops it from passing senate while a few GOP house members from high tax states like New York, California, and New Jersey support it, but left wing types like Squad vote against it as do some Democrat members in states with no state tax (they benefit from it being capped). 

Other possibility is cap lifted, but only for those below a certain income.  Still yes does play to rich, but most Democrats pushing for this come from high taxed states and cap will hurt their state revenues as wealthy re-locate so if on left it has some logic to prevent wealthy leaving thus more revenue to fund more programs at state level.  True you don't see it in other countries with subnational taxes but in case of Canada, provinces much larger and farther apart so less inter-provincial mobility than interstate.  In Nordic Countries, the largest cities where most rich live generally have lowest rates while highest rates tend to be in the sparsely populated northern parts where few make enough for it to be worth moving.  In Belgium is some issue but difference is only a percent or two so not enough to make moving worthwhile.  In Switzerland I would argue language barrier probably prevents more moving to low tax cantons, but even there is a real issue still.  In Spain its a real issue and federal government is pushing for fiscal harmonization which low tax autonomous communities like Madrid oppose.  Some like South Korea and Japan have a uniform subnational tax rate set by federal government to avoid this but that would be unconstitutional in US.

[Diabolical Materialism]

Neoliberal capitalism has not been very kind to this generation of young people.

[It’s so Joever]

Is it really bad for Democrats to be the party of the eeucated?
That means we could use the lack of education against the GOP base and spread disinformation/suppress their voters.

Less than 40% of Americans aged 25-34 (i.e., Millennials) have a bachelor's degree or higher.  For older cohorts the rates are even lower.  Running as explicitly "the party for educated people" is one of the dumbest electoral strategies the Democrats could think up.  

Running as explicitly "the party for educated people" is also one of the most revoltingly smug and hideously classist things any party (and especially a left-of-centre party) could think up.
BUT you are replying to someone who gets off over the idea suppressing the votes of the Worthless Rubes Who Vote The Wrong Way and thinks that they are prone to buy any amount of disinformation because They Lack Education Ha Poor Idiots, so...

Oh trust me, I think almost anyone can fall victim to good misinformation, but yeah people with less education (especially around civics) will be generally easier to trick in politics.
And yeah, I get off on suppressing voters who disagree with me, is that so wrong?

[Battista Minola 1616]

Is it really bad for Democrats to be the party of the eeucated?
That means we could use the lack of education against the GOP base and spread disinformation/suppress their voters.

Less than 40% of Americans aged 25-34 (i.e., Millennials) have a bachelor's degree or higher.  For older cohorts the rates are even lower.  Running as explicitly "the party for educated people" is one of the dumbest electoral strategies the Democrats could think up.  

Running as explicitly "the party for educated people" is also one of the most revoltingly smug and hideously classist things any party (and especially a left-of-centre party) could think up.
BUT you are replying to someone who gets off over the idea suppressing the votes of the Worthless Rubes Who Vote The Wrong Way and thinks that they are prone to buy any amount of disinformation because They Lack Education Ha Poor Idiots, so...

Oh trust me, I think almost anyone can fall victim to good misinformation, but yeah people with less education (especially around civics) will be generally easier to trick in politics.
And yeah, I get off on suppressing voters who disagree with me, is that so wrong?

I shouldn't even answer, but yeah, that is so wrong, because it means that you are a hateful authoritarian freak who isn't able to tolerate dissent.

[It’s so Joever]

Is it really bad for Democrats to be the party of the eeucated?
That means we could use the lack of education against the GOP base and spread disinformation/suppress their voters.

Less than 40% of Americans aged 25-34 (i.e., Millennials) have a bachelor's degree or higher.  For older cohorts the rates are even lower.  Running as explicitly "the party for educated people" is one of the dumbest electoral strategies the Democrats could think up.  

Running as explicitly "the party for educated people" is also one of the most revoltingly smug and hideously classist things any party (and especially a left-of-centre party) could think up.
BUT you are replying to someone who gets off over the idea suppressing the votes of the Worthless Rubes Who Vote The Wrong Way and thinks that they are prone to buy any amount of disinformation because They Lack Education Ha Poor Idiots, so...

Oh trust me, I think almost anyone can fall victim to good misinformation, but yeah people with less education (especially around civics) will be generally easier to trick in politics.
And yeah, I get off on suppressing voters who disagree with me, is that so wrong?

I shouldn't even answer, but yeah, that is so wrong, because it means that you are a hateful authoritarian freak who isn't able to tolerate dissent.

In a perfect world, I wouldn’t have to advocate for such tactics, but the GOP has rigged the playing field so much it is necessary.
Until all the objectives of HR1 pass, I will continue to support voter suppression and disinformation by the Democrats only out of necessity.
My push to suppress the GOP base is not done for fun (well...partially), it is done to preserve the Union and ensure the country I care for so dearly holds true to the belief of fair elections, which it currently is not.

[Battista Minola 1616]

Is it really bad for Democrats to be the party of the eeucated?
That means we could use the lack of education against the GOP base and spread disinformation/suppress their voters.

Less than 40% of Americans aged 25-34 (i.e., Millennials) have a bachelor's degree or higher.  For older cohorts the rates are even lower.  Running as explicitly "the party for educated people" is one of the dumbest electoral strategies the Democrats could think up.  

Running as explicitly "the party for educated people" is also one of the most revoltingly smug and hideously classist things any party (and especially a left-of-centre party) could think up.
BUT you are replying to someone who gets off over the idea suppressing the votes of the Worthless Rubes Who Vote The Wrong Way and thinks that they are prone to buy any amount of disinformation because They Lack Education Ha Poor Idiots, so...

Oh trust me, I think almost anyone can fall victim to good misinformation, but yeah people with less education (especially around civics) will be generally easier to trick in politics.
And yeah, I get off on suppressing voters who disagree with me, is that so wrong?

I shouldn't even answer, but yeah, that is so wrong, because it means that you are a hateful authoritarian freak who isn't able to tolerate dissent.

In a perfect world, I wouldn’t have to advocate for such tactics, but the GOP has rigged the playing field so much it is necessary.
Until all the objectives of HR1 pass, I will continue to support voter suppression and disinformation by the Democrats only out of necessity.
My push to suppress the GOP base is not done for fun (well...partially), it is done to preserve the Union and ensure the country I care for so dearly holds true to the belief of fair elections, which it currently is not.

The Democratic Party will have a federal trifecta in ten days, so I would think passing HR1 - in addition to being much saner and more virtuous - is much easier.
Also that "well... partially" is very troubling, you know that?

[It’s so Joever]

Is it really bad for Democrats to be the party of the eeucated?
That means we could use the lack of education against the GOP base and spread disinformation/suppress their voters.

Less than 40% of Americans aged 25-34 (i.e., Millennials) have a bachelor's degree or higher.  For older cohorts the rates are even lower.  Running as explicitly "the party for educated people" is one of the dumbest electoral strategies the Democrats could think up.  

Running as explicitly "the party for educated people" is also one of the most revoltingly smug and hideously classist things any party (and especially a left-of-centre party) could think up.
BUT you are replying to someone who gets off over the idea suppressing the votes of the Worthless Rubes Who Vote The Wrong Way and thinks that they are prone to buy any amount of disinformation because They Lack Education Ha Poor Idiots, so...

Oh trust me, I think almost anyone can fall victim to good misinformation, but yeah people with less education (especially around civics) will be generally easier to trick in politics.
And yeah, I get off on suppressing voters who disagree with me, is that so wrong?

I shouldn't even answer, but yeah, that is so wrong, because it means that you are a hateful authoritarian freak who isn't able to tolerate dissent.

In a perfect world, I wouldn’t have to advocate for such tactics, but the GOP has rigged the playing field so much it is necessary.
Until all the objectives of HR1 pass, I will continue to support voter suppression and disinformation by the Democrats only out of necessity.
My push to suppress the GOP base is not done for fun (well...partially), it is done to preserve the Union and ensure the country I care for so dearly holds true to the belief of fair elections, which it currently is not.

The Democratic Party will have a federal trifecta in ten days, so I would think passing HR1 - in addition to being much saner and more virtuous - is much easier.
Also that "well... partially" is very troubling, you know that?

When HR1 and all its goals pass, I drop my suppression stance.
I doubt it will because of Manchin and the filibuster, although we will see.