IF a centrist is nominated Trump will win a second term

[booley]

So now I got the clickbaity title, explain to me, a Sanders suporter< why nominating a centrist would not a repeat of 2016. I have yet to see an explanation of how this time it would work. Maybe I missed it. I tend to limit my time on DU for my own sanity's sake.

Don't tell me how Sanders can't win. We are still waiting on the case to be made for why Biden, or Buttigieg, or Klobuchar would win.

We don't' need to engage in hypotheticals when it comes to how Trump would run against a Centrist/Moderate.

IF they have ties to Wall Steet, he would attack them as the monied elite
If they have kids who have benefitted from their parent's political career, Trump can attack them as corrupt.
If they have ties or taken money from Billionaires and financial interests, then Trump can say they are part of the Swamp.
If they have ever voted for something deeply unpopular, like cutting Social Security or a certain Wr, Trump will attack them on it.

Would this make Trump a hypocrite? Obviously. But can anyone think of one time Trump has ever been hurt by his own hypocrisy? Trump (and the Republicans in general) don't do this to get voters. They do it to suppress votes, to encourage the idea that it doesn't matter because both parties are the same. They do it to discourage. And if the facts alling, its a really hard tactic to overcome.

Speaking of voters, how would a centrist overcome the enthusiasm gap?

Saying how awful trump isn't' going to do it. People already know how bad Trump. Anyone who would vote based on that is already voting anyway.

Half measure compromises won't do it. Trump can just do what he did before and lie. He can just one-up the policy. Sure he doesn't mean it but this lie of "This time I will do it" is actually very effective if there is no counternarrative. Let us be honest. BOTH parties do this to explain why they didn't do it the first time around. And half the time it works.

Not to mention half measures just tells people that the candidate was never really serious about changing things anyway.

If people think things won't get better regardless of who is elected, then there is less enthusiasm to go out and vote, an act the GOP has already made as inconvenient as th4y can. Fewer votes mean the margin is slimmer so the other ways the GOP cheats can kick in. And we get Trump's second term.

So again, don't tell me why Sanders cant' win (even though we really don't know that). Say why a Centrist would win even though the last one didn't. And maybe make sure what you say fits facts that you can cite.. maybe..possibly?

Explain to me how we would not be repeating history.

[Kaleva]

1. We can talk about the GE when candidates like Sanders shows they can win the nomination.

Something that hasn't happened yet.

If they can't win the nomination , why discuss the chances of winning the GE?

[booley]

6. No we need to discuss this now

The whole point of a primary is to get the best candidate.
At least that's the theory.

Otherwise the Primary is a waste of time.

If people can cast doubt on one candidate's electability, we can and should question everyone's.

[Kaleva]

33. The focus this year for many seems to be a candidate that can beat Trump

Bloomberg has a near bottomless piggy bank that allows him to compete against Trump in every state and flood social media with high quality anti-Trump and pro-Bloomberg ads.

Plus Bloomberg is donating millions to down ticket Dems.

[wyldwolf]

7. "If they can't win the nomination , why discuss the chances of winning the GE"

From what I've heard on DU, "progressives" who couldn't be bothered to vote in their state's primary will magically appear to sweep a Sanders-type into the white house.

'48, '68, '72, '80, '00, '16 looms large...

[booley]

9. its a bit ironic, dont you think?

Because the whole of Biden's argument for why he should be the nominee is he can beat Trump.

You should be able to explain WHY he can beat Trump

[bucolic_frolic]

24. Because he has experience, a solid record, and he understands Trump's character flaws

Biden has told us its about Trump's character. Well, Joe, take it to him! I think he's been waiting for the right time, just like Amy sensed last night was the point to flesh out her positions and make a very good impression.

[oldsoftie]

41. Because Biden is seen as less than a threat of "leftism" than others.

Some trump voters of '16 would rather not vote for him again, and may consider a bloomberg or Biden because they dont seem "socialist". I know some of these people.

[LonePirate]

47. We should focus on turning out Dems, and not worry about converting disaffected 45 voters.

There are far more Dems and Dem leaning independents who did not vote in 2016 than there are people who voted for 45 in 2016 but are wavering now. We will not motivate those non-voting Dems with centrist messages that offer no real hope or change. A principled and easily understood vision for the future that improves their lives will send those voters to the booth in November to vote blue.

[LanternWaste]

48. I'm betting folding money that's simply another fiction you cast from nothing.

"Because the whole of Biden's argument for why he should be the nominee is he can beat Trump."

Seems you think one data point is a totality. But if I'm wrong, you'll easily provide objective evidence to support that allegation as such, yes?

(I know... I know... asking you for objective data for anything you allege as The one Truth is turning out to be a complete waste of time, but I'm a fool and hope for rational thought)

[LaurenOlimina]

25. LOL... what's your point?

Those dates seem to support the op. Lots of losing centrists in there. Looks like a good argument for Sanders in 2016. He said Hillary would lose after all.

[Kaleva]

38. You'll see more centrists winning the GE then progressives.

Obama, Clinton, Carter

[wyldwolf]

57. let's go back further than that

Wilson.
FDR ran his first campaign as a centrist
Truman
JFK
LBJ... then...
Carter
Clinton
Obama

[wyldwolf]

55. study history much?

Those dates show several thing, none of which proves the OP's point.

'48: Pouty "progressives" couldn't win the nomination, ran third party. Centrist STILL won the nom and the GE.
'68: Pouty "progressives" couldn't win the nom, sat out the election, gave us Nixon.
'72: Pouty "progressives" got their guy, lost a historic landslide to Nixon
'80: Pouty "progressives" couldn't win the nom, acted like fools at the convention.
'00: Pouty "progressives" couldn't win the nom, voted Nader, gave us Bush.
'16: Pouty "progressives" couldn't win the nom, 10% of you voted Trump.

[TheFarseer]

64. Convenient when you blame progressives

Whether the nominee was progressive or not. No matter what, it’s the progressive’s fault!

[wyldwolf]

66. well, that was a well thought-out response.

Care to refute any of it?

[TheFarseer]

92. Fine!

I can’t bear to rehash 2000 or 2016 but here goes for the rest

48-We won despite the Dixiecrats breaking off so I don’t know what we’re complaining about here. You can’t seriously be saying Strom Thurman was a progressive.

68-If George Wallace doesn’t run third party, we totally destroy Nixon. Again, no one could possibly say Wallace was a progressive.

72-A war time president with a strong economy was probably not going to be beat regardless, but the party establishment left McGovern to die. In this case, the party elites were pouting and let the huge blow out just happen.

80-Carter’s term was a mess even if it wasn’t his fault. It was going to be very hard for him to win. Regan even had to deal with Anderson in the general election and clobbered Carter. Blaming progressives for Carter losing in 80 is just crazy.

[LaurenOlimina]

71. So, the losing centrist nominees in '68, '80, '00 and '16...

...are the fault of "pouty progressives." That sure sounds like the progressive wing of the party is AWFULLY important to centrist victory. Sounds like picking a candidate that alienates that group is a bad idea for the Democratic party doesn't it?

...and those races are not evidence of centrists losing in the GE at all?

I see.

And 1992 and the support of a fresh young face by progressives says what? Clinton was a centrist in 1992. That suggests progressives could be lured in with a fresh face.

""Progressives are getting behind Clinton in a big way because we recognize that he is at least open to being pushed," said Jamin Raskin, who teaches law at the American University in Washington and is a former counsel to the Rev. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition. "There is a sense among progressives that Clinton's election would create a real swing in the political spectrum that would create all sorts of openings for creative policy-making.""

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/13/us/1992-campaign-behind-scenes-though-advisers-differ-clinton-s-tune-with-all.html

Thinking history means whatever you want and studying history are separate things.

[TwilightZone]

2. Every cycle is unique and Hillary Clinton isn't running.

Using 2016 as a gauge doesn't really work. The dynamics have changed considerably since then and people are more focused on stopping Trump this time.

In addition, the 2018 midterms showed that moderate candidates could win in reddish districts. Nearly all of the gains were of that nature. That's pretty much the opposite of what you're asserting, that only Sanders or candidates like him can win in the current environment.

[booley]

8. telling me things have changed isnt' an answer

[TwilightZone]

14. Asserting that they haven't is pretty clearly inaccurate.

The cycles are nothing alike and the entire dynamics of the race are completely different from 2016.

[oldsoftie]

46. You're forgetting the elephant in the room no one likes to admit

In '16, every poll taken said that the two candidates were the two LEAST LIKED in history. We can blame the russians or whatever, but that doesnt explain the obama voters who then voted for TRUMP. They simply didnt like her.
But i'll catch hell for saying it

[dem4decades]

3. Hillary was vilified by the Republicans for years. We're not nominating Hillary this time.

So we're not repeating history.

[Happy Hoosier]

4. And I think if your guy gets the nom, we will get pasted.

So there we are.

[booley]

11. not even remotely relevant to my question

[Happy Hoosier]

56. You've heard it all before.

And are unlikely to be convinced. But here we go:


1) I think Bernie's plans are way to vague.... strong on promises, short of practical implementation.

2) The socialist label will hurt him. Yes, the poison is less potent, but still there.

3) Bernie has a past. It will be paraded out and shown in commercial s and on social media over and over again.


As for a "centrist?" All our candidates are at least decent, and if we manage to get control of the Senate and keep the house, all of them will sign improved Health Care and Climate Change legislation.

None of candidates are named Clinton. Seriously, the right seems to have a stroke every time that name is mentioned. It's weird.


But we'll see one way or another. I prefer Liz, personally. I think she has the good bits of Bernie without the baggage, but she seems to be fading. Frankly, I am concerned about our remaining candidates.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. Actually what we need is a candidate who

bickers and argues better than Trump. It's not even a matter of lies. It's a matter as you say of hypocrisy and belittling your opponent better than Trump. You have to skewer every word he says every day. Policy and bake sales won't do it. Our candidate must demonstrate every waking hour why Trump is a bad choice, the damage he has done, and what a scoundrel he is. That's why Biden carried the day for the past year. He said it was about character. Joe should stop clever turns of phrase and start hollering at the top of his lungs.

[Fresh_Start]

10. I think a progressive can win, just not Bernie

I think russian interference in the election is a given.

I think it is beyond selfish for a 78 year old man with a heart attack to run because there is a measureable possibility that he wins the nomination and dies before the general so we have NO ONE opposing trump. And then he has the bad faith to decide not to release his medical records after saying he would release them. Smells like things are not rosy...and he is risking our entire democracy over his vanity.

[Mike 03]

15. This is a good post.

Specifically, the argument that a progressive can win, but maybe not that particular one.

[booley]

17. Why did you even respond?

That wasnt' the question.

I already know you think Sanders cant' win.

Why would Klobuchar win?
How is Klobuchar going to not be dragged down by the attacks I mentioned?

Sorry to be rude but this is frustrating.

If a Klobuchar supporter cant' explain why she would win, then why should I think Klobuchar can win?

[Fresh_Start]

23. because the OP suggested that no centrist can win

I think each centrist would have to make their own way through the maze

just like each progressive would have to make their own way through the maze

I don't think Bernie can do it
I don't think Biden can do it
I'm pretty sure Amy can't do it

I don't know about Pete or Liz if you clear the field for them.

[bucolic_frolic]

18. Election Sabotage

Call it what it is in all its manifestations - voter suppression, mind control, cash flows, and lack of enforcement from the Trump administration. Election Sabotage.

[left-of-center2012]

12. Everyone is entitled to an opinion

Yours is one view.
There are many others on DU.

[booley]

19. That wasnt' my opinion. It was a question

[left-of-center2012]

43. Everyone is entitled to a question

Yours is one question.
There are many others on DU.

[PatSeg]

85. But, but, but................

Well played!

[Mike 03]

13. You know, there actually is an argument for this.

I just began following a guy on Twitter who is making the argument of your OP title, but he actually has an argument, with facts, charts and historical examples.

I told him I was considering his argument. So far, it hasn't changed who I'm supporting, but he deserved respect.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. A "centrist" beat Trump by 3,000,000 votes and lost the Electoral College ny 77,000 votes.

Imagine if he or she wasn't weighted down by Comey, Russia, and thirty years of political baggage.

[booley]

20. Remind me, whos sitting in the White HOuse?

We both know what winning the general election requires.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Freed from the shackles of Russia, Comey, and thirty years of political baggage

Freed from the shackles of Russia, Comey, and thirty years of political baggage the centrist would have won easily. If a team loses a seven game finals by one point in the seventh game do you blow up the whole team or make some minor adjustments?

When was the last time a "non centrist" Democrat won the White House?

[bucolic_frolic]

42. George McGovern? Al Smith?

William Jennings Bryan? Mike Dukakis? Al Gore.

Radicals don't win unless they pose as moderates. Trump knew that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. You named a "radical" and two "centrists" who lost.

I don't know of a "radical" who won. I put all the descriptors in scare quotes because without a common understanding they have no meaning.

[bucolic_frolic]

58. I consider them all left of center for one reason or another.

If there were any centrists on that list, they were hoping to be perceived as one. In my view, of course.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. William Jennings Bryant was a populist.

[Recursion]

21. Did it ever occur to you that Clinton's problem in 2016 was that she ran too far to the left?

That's what the exit polling indicates, at least.

[booley]

29. No becuase she didn't

and also that wasnt my question

[TwilightZone]

63. She ran on the most progressive platform in history.

I don't think she ran too far to the left, personally, but she also didn't run as a centrist.

Centrist doesn't mean "everyone to the right of Sanders" as many seem to assert. There are lots of liberal Democrats other than Sanders in every election cycle and several are even running for president at this very moment.

[EveHammond13]

22. It is insanity to think the electorate is where AOC is. INSANITY.

[HarlanPepper]

26. They seem to think the country is Vermont

[bucolic_frolic]

36. Agree with that one

These far left ideas don't play well in ordinary suburbs and family communities. I still think HRC would be President today if Obama had tabled same sex bathrooms til he left office. That policy alarmed a LOT of Americans. It was tone deaf not to go slow.

The left is and always has been historically for young educated people. They don't have a lot invested in houses, possessions. They like debt forgiveness, easy money, free things. 50-somethings don't want to pay for that with what they've worked for. It's just the nature of demographics.

If Republicans successful tar and feather the Democratic candidate as Socialist! it is a hop-skip-jump from "Obama is coming for your guns!" to "Bernie is coming for your refrigerator and all that's in it!"

[Doremus]

80. HRC lost because 80k rust belt blue collars stayed home or voted R

The only candidate talking to them was Trump. So go ahead and keep deluding yourself about how young people only want freebies. It's rubbish. People today just want what's fair. What we boomers had. Affordable college, jobs with decent wages, affordable health care.

We diminish them to our own peril.

[PatSeg]

86. This is true

AND historically our candidates are left of center for the most part. Just because they aren't all as left as Bernie, doesn't make them moderates or centrists. They do tend to be more pragmatic than Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez, but that doesn't mean they aren't progressive, they are just more inclined to get things done.

[Garrett78]

27. I think Harris would have been a clear favorite. Probably Booker, too. Beyond that, I agree.

Bloomberg would be a disaster and people should be embarrassed to be supporting him.

And Biden is simply not a good presidential candidate. On a debate stage with Trump and without a script, Biden wouldn't fare well.

Buttigieg has alienated Black folks, while Klobuchar has almost no POC support.

The Harris campaign made some mistakes and Biden sucked all the air out of the room, but Harris would have produced greater turnout than anyone in November. Booker wouldn't do as well but he would beat Trump.

[Mike 03]

31. I so agree with you about Kamala Harris

Thank you.

[booley]

28. So so far no one seems able to answer my question

The closest I found was one that said Joe Biden can do a good comeback, which I guess is a plus but not sure that will accrue a lot of votes.

I can think of reasons why my candidate would beat Trump. Which I would have listed if that had ben the topic. But it isn't.

I dont' think most f you even read my post before responding.

So I am just going to walk away fro a while and let people ask themselves.

What makes you think your candidate can beat Trump?

(and no, not being Bernie Sanders is NOT an answer)

[Mike 03]

35. There's something here:

Speaking of voters, how would a centrist overcome the enthusiasm gap?

But then you can also look at it the opposite way, if you live in a state like Arizona, and worry that Bernie can't prevail and won't help down ballot candidates.

The enthusiasm gap can cut either way.

[samnsara]

30. yeah the trump people we wanna attract are really gonna vote for bs?

[Awsi Dooger]

34. Enthusiasm means nothing

I get sick of hearing that theme

Relying on enthusiasm is like forecasting special teams to dictate the outcome in a football game. Yes, it can happen. Yes, we can point to specific games where it made the difference. But anyone depending on that is a monumental fool.

Election day shows up. Gulp...the other side is voting. How can that happen? This is so unfair. You mean we actually have to defeat them instead of outnumbering them?

I am enthusiastic about greater opportunity to win. Far left does not provide that opportunity in a nation with 9% more self-identified conservatives than liberals. If that gap were reversed, then we can nominate anybody we want. It is the reason the GOP can get away with virtually anything.

I keep reading the dunce articles that Republican numbers are slipping. Meanwhile that ideology edge is very real and drops by 1% only every 8 years on average. If that ideology margin were polled and publicized every day, including the breakdown in all the critical states, then we'd have greater understanding of the low margin for error and therefore who we need to nominate.

Keep forcing Andrew Gillum types into a Florida electorate that reported 39% self-identified conservatives in 2018. You'll fare well. Let's see, with North Carolina that number was 43% in 2016. With Michigan in 2016 it was 36% conservatives compared to 27% liberals. I can keep going with this. That's the type of reality we face in 2020. But we've got Bernie Sanders and his fantasy island group of supporters, in nutcase belief that their guy can wipe away all the bottom line foundational math.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. There have been academic studies of what would change "if everybody voted"?

The conclusion was not much. The attitudes of non-voters aren't fundamentally different than voters. Maybe there would be some small changes at the margins.

[honest.abe]

39. Just to be clear Hillary would have easily won in 2016..

had it not been for Comey, Russia, Stein, Sarandon, Sanders and the MSM obsession with her email server.

BTW, "centrists" (AKA non Bernie-type candidates) are what gave us the Blue Wave in 2018.

[Fresh_Start]

40. +1000 NT

nt

[betsuni]

87. +1

[LanternWaste]

44. It does not follow (affirming a disjunct).

Your conclusion is based on subjective opinion rather than objective data, as well as presuming both intention and agenda of voters.



"maybe make sure what you say fits facts that you can cite..."
Maybe stop holding everyone to a higher standard than you hold yourself to-- as your own post contained few facts, and even those few were subject to interpretive dissonance.

[Saviolo]

45. It is shocking to me how much dislike of Bernie is driving decision making on DU

So much so that a lot of people are seriously putting forth Bloomberg as a candidate. If he gets the nom, problems are far deeper than I could have possibly imagined.

Bernie could beat Trump.
Warren could beat Trump.
Biden might be able to beat Trump.
Buttigieg might be able to beat Trump.
I suspect Klobuchar may be able to beat Trump.
I don't think Bloomberg could beat Trump.

[LonePirate]

50. Many DUers want to replace 45 but change little else in DC. Hence the hatred of Sanders (and Warren)

[Recursion]

74. Public approval of the economy is at a 20-year high

At least in the general, promising big sweeping economic changes is a losing idea.

[LonePirate]

78. By all means, let's not tinker with a growing economy even though millions are suffering now.

And millions more are on the precipice of suffering.

[Recursion]

79. Yes, that is what voters will say, precisely

We were idiots to adopt Trump's framing that the economy in 2016 was broken; he won't make the same mistake.

Hillary Clinton won voters who considered jobs or the economy their most important issue by 20 points. There just weren't many of them. There are going to be even fewer this time around, barring a downturn. But crossing our fingers and hoping for a recession isn't a strategy.

[LonePirate]

82. Or, as Democrats, we should prioritize helping people regardless of what the economy is doing.

[awesomerwb1]

54. Bernie has no chance vs trump

Why do you think trump/republicans/ and russian trolls want Bernie? Not because they want to lose.

[Bok_Tukalo]

51. The Democratic ticket will win as long as it isn't two white people.

If it is, it will be close.

[awesomerwb1]

52. Answer me this

Why is trump asking republicans to vote for Bernie?

Ok, two questions.

Why are russian trolls creating content to prop up Bernie?

[Amimnoch]

59. Good thing we don't actually HAVE centrists running.

Well, other than Tulsi. Other than her, there isn't a single actual "centrist" in our run for POTUS.

[wyldwolf]

67. the DU definition of centrist is usually "to the right of che guevara."

[PatSeg]

88. Thank you

We need to keep reminding people that our candidates ARE progressive, not centrists or moderates. We need to control the narrative, not the media.

[TygrBright]

60. "If a centrist is nominated and every single Democrat doesn't vote for them, [Redacted] will...

...win a second term."

There, fixed that for ya.

helpfully,
Bright

[Yavin4]

62. Hillary lost in 2016 primarily because people were tired of the Clintons

And Trump was at least something new. She didn't lose because she was a Centrist. That's a flawed theory of why she lost.

[jimlup]

68. I agree and have for some time but ...

the mainstream pundits are absolutely blind to this.

[Runningdawg]

69. If people don't vote for WHOEVER is the nominee

Then you hit the trifecta:
Trump becomes dictator
The 2nd civil war
The balkanization of America

I don't know about you but I would vote for a dead cat rather than see my country fail.

[Loki Liesmith]

70. lol

[tandem5]

72. IF I see another parity post I'm gonna...

I dunno blather more? Create my own thread? Meh -- I guess nothing actually.

[Hoyt]

73. Hopefully Sanders' supporters won't protest his primary loss like they did in 2016. We'll see.

[honest.abe]

75. If Sanders hangs on until the convention and loses..

I have no doubt we will see a repeat, if not worse, than 2016.

[eilen]

97. Well, 12% of his supporters in 2016 voted Trump

so I would not characterize all his supporters as Democrats. I think they might fall into "Independents" which doesn't really say anything other than they have no ideological alignment with the Democratic Party.

I don't know what the breakdown of % which voted Stein or other Non-Trump candidate in 2016 and which percentage just did not vote.

However, his ideas are very polarizing and I don't see them gaining enough of a plurality in all the Blue states to pull off a win in the General. I don't trust those polls that are cited. I think a centrist will win. If we don't give people a reasonable choice from Trump, people are just not going to vote.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

76. Please define "centrist." All of the candidates are liberals, so who are these "centrists"

of whom you speak? All the people who aren't Bernie or who don't agree with him on every point?

[Just_Vote_Dem]

84. Thank you!

How can someone who follows the Democratic platform be a "centrist"? It's a LIBERAL platform.

[PatSeg]

90. Exactly!

Our presidential candidates for the most part ARE progressive.

[CowboyProgressive]

77. I completely agree. Bernie is clearly the best matchup head to head vs Trump.

Corporate press has been constantly attacking Bernie since 2016. With all the press against him and the entire establishment against him, he’s still winning this primary.
If the establishment wing of the party can unify around the progressive candidate, that has shown ability to attract marginalized voters will win the GE.

[marble falls]

83. Because so goes Maine, so goes the nation. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[mahina]

93. Welcome to DU!

I love cowboys. And progressives.

[njhoneybadger]

81. I'm convinced only Mike Bloomberg can beat him

Bloomberg doesn't have the socialist millstone tied around his neck or the health issues associated with a recent heart attack.
Bloomberg has a proven record of building and managing a 60 billion dollar business an running New York City. Mike Bloomberg is the 14th Richest man in the world which totally nullifies people
Choice to vote for tRump because of his self proclaimed billionaire status. Mike Bloomberg can and will use whatever amount of money needed to defeat tRump.
This may be our last chance to save America, don't throw it all away for idealistic dreams.

[Gothmog]

89. sanders is a weak candidate and there is some great material from trump to use

Link to tweet

[Dem4Life1102]

91. Yet every time a Democrat won in the last 75 years is when the nominee was a moderate/centrist

and every time the most most liberal candidate was the nominee they each went down to a historic defeat.

[ahoysrcsm]

95. I don't see any "Centrist" running in the Democratic Primary. I see many "Progressive" candidates.

Why are you equating the Progressive candidates with the GOP? Is it because MSM keeps saying "both sides."

And how the hell is HRC a "Centrist" Come on now!!!

[MoonlitKnight]

96. If we nominate a ham sandwich we will beat Trumps ass

Quit trying to figure out who will appeal to whatever group wherever.

We win if we fight for what we believe in. People follow leaders. Pick a leader and kick his Orange ass.

[whistler162]

98. You forgot to add......

and the moon landings never happened... Loch Ness monster is real..... Elvis was the guy behind the counter at the Mobil station you stopped at in 1983.

[betsuni]

99. What's a "centrist"?