Page 8 of 28 FirstFirst ... 45678910111218 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 840

Thread: Democrat 2020

  1. #211

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    I think a thousand a month would be very much welcomed by those who are struggling in this country,
    Obviously having $12K more a year would be quite useful to the majority of the population, but the lesson with UBI's is that 'if you can afford an effective one, you don't need it, and if you need it, you can't afford an effective one.' Yang's plan doesn't simply materialize cash into people's hands. The ideological flavor Yang imbues his design with creates fatal flaws. I linked you an article above. It would leave many people worse off by eliminating ("consolidating") welfare programs and instituting a VAT, while shelling out many billions for people in the top income quarter who do not need it, while not substantially raising taxes on the super-rich. (His non-VAT tax proposals are desirable in themselves, but without heavy increases in income, wealth, or corporate taxes - which to my search he hasn't proposed - they are only stopgaps: "By removing the Social Security cap, implementing a financial transactions tax, and ending the favorable tax treatment for capital gains/carried interest, we can decrease financial speculation while also funding the Freedom Dividend. We can add to that a carbon fee that will be partially dedicated to funding the Freedom Dividend, making up the remaining balance required to cover the cost of this program.")

    The next problem is that a UBI does not address any current or incipient social problems, including automation. A sub-poverty UBI for expected non-workers is a method to arriving at the standard cyber-dystopian underclass. Yang's UBI seems tailored to entrench inequality, racism, social disintegration and oligarchy. Yet another problem is that it reduces fiscal flexibility by introducing massive new mandatory expenditures that certainly will not be adjusted up or down according to economic conditions (i.e. according to the need for reduced or increased government stimulus of demand).

    Rather than appropriating trillions for a substandard UBI, let's appropriate the same amount for universal federal health coverage, which will prove more useful and efficient in improving people's lives. I reiterate my hierarchy of tax credit < cash transfer < public service. Once there is guaranteed healthcare, guaranteed housing, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed childcare, and revitalized public schooling through tertiary level we can talk about checking deposits. Don't get me wrong, if we magically had a Hobson's choice of (unfinanced) Yang UBI or nothing... but as it stands it only serves to undermine all the other much better and more impactful proposals working their way through the Democratic Party. If you really want to pursue something resembling a universal income, social wealth dividends are a more left-wing solution you might like to read about.

    and I wouldn't dismiss it as "die in your own way" but as a tool to help you adapt to what is beyond out control at the moment (severe weather phenomenon). At the least an extra thousand a month would help the lower middle class and upper middle class invest in their own solar panels or buy an electric car and help with decentralizing out power sources and increase renewables.
    Trillions in cash transfers in in our control, but economy-wide adaptation and decarbonization isn't? Families buying electric cars - you're thinking far too individualistically, another ideological hallmark of neoliberalism. We can't simply replace the private automobile fleet with electrics; better to also redesign our transit for fewer single vehicles overall.

    Hold the phone, like I said, the polling shows strong support for a public option. It's what we are going towards politically, because it motivates too many people for politicians to not rally around it and the insurance industry knows they can't hold it off forever. What helps the insurance companies kill the public option is to force a configuration that they simply don't want, that is, a sole public option with no private choices.
    You don't understand, insurance companies are not the only stakeholders in consideration. I also specifically named the providers (hospitals and physicians) and pharmaceuticals. Every major Democratic healthcare plan is subject to pledged holy war by all three. Biden's plan has several measures to reduce drug prices, including the consensus position on enabling Medicare to negotiate prices. Moreover the public option administration will, according o Biden, negotiate lower prices from providers. Can you show that the opposition to Biden's plan would be much less fierce than to Harris's or to Sanders'?

    I could be wrong on this, and I comment without verification, but to my knowledge the ACA did not introduce any changes that would significantly affect provider fees, drug prices, or the business model of providers and pharmaceuticals more generally. Insofar as I am correct, Obama's one major stakeholder hurdle was the insurance industry, and his market-oriented legislation explicitly went out of its way to gain the insurance companies' neutrality or even approval. Every fight before us today is much harder, not least because of the limitations in electoral representation.

    Assuming that something polls highly and must therefore be taken up by the Congress is like the caricature of Bernie Sanders that some Democrats use to criticize him. As to people not wanting the elimination of employer-based private insurance, it fluctuates wildly throughout polls and is clearly something that can be affected by public engagement. The polling can be driven in either direction by the players involved. Again though, you make the mistake of thinking polling is deterministic. I don't want to be too strident here, but for now undertake the exercise of forgetting about polling and analyzing only in terms of stakeholders. Remember, you already know this to be true - popular sentiments about legislation are very rarely either a barrier or an impetus to passage. The experience of your lifetime should furnish sufficient examples. If we can't get single payer through it won't be because half the population on average doesn't like the sound of it, it will be because the three stakeholders I named (plus the fourth column, the business community at large) will mount too much resistance.

    Most concretely, we might constitute this question as a scenario of "would 5_ Democratic senators eliminate the filibuster to pass this legislation?" That's a much more relevant metric than highly-volatile and confused (and manipulable) public opinion.

    Ehh, Biden still seems to be outperforming the rest in head to head choices vs Trump. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ident-general/
    Again, I think this is indicative of a 'shy Tory' effect even among America's liberals.
    The <Dem nominee>-Trump matchups are usually two different questions, (1) who would <respondent> vote for between <Dem> and Trump, and (2) which Democrat is capable of beating Trump. In both cases the responses tend to show the same trend: Biden has the highest rank, then the 1st/2nd tier candidates have similar scores to each other, then the rest of the contenders have similar scores below the previous. Clearly respondents are influenced by media narratives of candidate rankings and (esp. among Democrats) not their own preferences for candidate. Not their first-order preferences at least. I think we can be confident these numbers will last exactly as long as Joe Biden is perceived to be the frontrunner. That's not to say Biden's star will definitely fade as the race goes on, but there's a lot of highly-contingent circular reasoning going into treatment of his polling.

    I'm not sure how the polling we've seen up to now, including in this or recent posts, supports attribution of more genuine conservative sentiment among Democrats than is explicitly reported. Dig into polling yourself and show your theory in action, given the balance of: voter political lean; voter issue knowledge; voter candidate awareness; voter candidate approval; voter candidate ranking; voter ranking on criterion of electability; and whether primary voters have made up their minds on their vote. I assume I've missed some factors too.

    This I will agree with you on. I can't stand how some of the neoliberal establishment still seems to be trying to go it alone. Candidates like Delany, Hickenlooper and the gov. of Montana just shit all over Medicare for All without bringing anything of real excitement. "Minor changes to Obamacare for everyone! Why am I irrelevant?"
    While half or fewer of the public watch the debates, here's some interesting polling. I suppose we can both be happy that our candidates did well. Well, not Biden and Harris, but...

    The argument does not follow the link. Cap and Trade has not impacted emmissions because according to the study emissions are already below what the market limit. Market forces are what is keeping them below the limit because industry is transitioning to gas powered generation and solar due to better economic return (gas is cheaper than coal, solar's return over the 5-10 year period is increasing every year). in addition, they admit they may not be taking full advantage of the market allowances because California being California, they could drastically lower the limit at any moment.
    Well, the report rules out the last sentence, but what I'm trying to convey is that the major source of carbon reduction was in the electricity sector, due to increases in non-fossil fuel generation and usage, and that these changes came about not merely due to market forces or market responses to carbon pricing but directly due to California's bevy of regulations, tax nudges, and capital investments. The contrast between command-and-controlvs. market, in other words the difference between telling companies what to do or not to do, or throwing money around, and letting them figure it out for themselves under a generic rubric. I'm bringing this to your attention not because I'm claiming that California's cap and trade policy is a waste of time or a failure (though the carbon price is many times too low and the buildup of allowances looms as a medium-term concern), nor because I'm opposed to market activity in principle, but because market solutions are continuously demonstrably inadequate to the task and I believe we need more command-based solutions - fast. Indeed, to demonstrate my tolerance of the market here's an informative article about the New-Deal-era Reconstruction Finance Corporation and other programs that facilitated private investment parallel to public works and spending; I'm sure we'll need something like that. Crucially however, it was acknowledged that the government should have such industrial policy to allocate or discipline private spending and investment in directions that the government determined were needed.

    Under Jones, the RFC worked across economic scales, from local construction contractors to giant corporations. It did not try to fulfill a particular utopian vision of how the economy “ought to be” but worked within the system to fix the system. It relied not on abstract economic ideas like socialism or capitalism, but on practical business methods. And it worked. There was no single magic bullet, but a portfolio of opportunities. Under Jones, the RFC did not ask Congress for money. It could borrow billions from capital markets or banks. And borrow it did. But with Jones at the helm, overall, it made money. The RFC developed different projects that turned cutting-edge technology into self-sustaining commercial enterprises.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 08-08-2019 at 18:42.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  2. #212

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Some more about Biden, one I knew and one I didn't:

    This on the virtue of cutting Medicare and Social Security.

    He repeatedly has an impulse to refer to Theresa May as "Margaret Thatcher".

    We need to eliminate all of these Reagan-era throwbacks. Let's move on.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  3. #213
    Old Town Road Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,369

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    So the ICE raids in MS are pretty much par for the course. Underpay and work these guys to the bone, call ICE, Rinse and Repeat.

    Which Democrat will hold these businesses responsible? Who will criminalize the actual wrongdoer here?
    There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

    Member thankful for this post:



  4. #214

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Sanders and Warren probably would.


  5. #215

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Obviously having $12K more a year would be quite useful to the majority of the population, but the lesson with UBI's is that 'if you can afford an effective one, you don't need it, and if you need it, you can't afford an effective one.' Yang's plan doesn't simply materialize cash into people's hands. The ideological flavor Yang imbues his design with creates fatal flaws. I linked you an article above. It would leave many people worse off by eliminating ("consolidating") welfare programs and instituting a VAT, while shelling out many billions for people in the top income quarter who do not need it, while not substantially raising taxes on the super-rich. (His non-VAT tax proposals are desirable in themselves, but without heavy increases in income, wealth, or corporate taxes - which to my search he hasn't proposed - they are only stopgaps: "By removing the Social Security cap, implementing a financial transactions tax, and ending the favorable tax treatment for capital gains/carried interest, we can decrease financial speculation while also funding the Freedom Dividend. We can add to that a carbon fee that will be partially dedicated to funding the Freedom Dividend, making up the remaining balance required to cover the cost of this program.")

    The next problem is that a UBI does not address any current or incipient social problems, including automation. A sub-poverty UBI for expected non-workers is a method to arriving at the standard cyber-dystopian underclass. Yang's UBI seems tailored to entrench inequality, racism, social disintegration and oligarchy. Yet another problem is that it reduces fiscal flexibility by introducing massive new mandatory expenditures that certainly will not be adjusted up or down according to economic conditions (i.e. according to the need for reduced or increased government stimulus of demand).

    Rather than appropriating trillions for a substandard UBI, let's appropriate the same amount for universal federal health coverage, which will prove more useful and efficient in improving people's lives. I reiterate my hierarchy of tax credit < cash transfer < public service. Once there is guaranteed healthcare, guaranteed housing, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed childcare, and revitalized public schooling through tertiary level we can talk about checking deposits. Don't get me wrong, if we magically had a Hobson's choice of (unfinanced) Yang UBI or nothing... but as it stands it only serves to undermine all the other much better and more impactful proposals working their way through the Democratic Party. If you really want to pursue something resembling a universal income, social wealth dividends are a more left-wing solution you might like to read about.

    I think the non-VAT tax proposals could carry the UBI proposal most of the way there, minimizing the level of VAT needed.
    It would not leave people worse off, because as Yang himself says, it is opt-in. Everyone has the choice to either give up their current welfare programs and take the UBI or remain on the current programs which still require qualifications to receive.
    Social wealth dividends is interesting, but I'd like to see these left wing proposals get vetted by actual economists. My preference is a negative income tax for that reason, but Yang is literally the only guy on stage talking about it, so it is his plan by default.

    Trillions in cash transfers in in our control, but economy-wide adaptation and decarbonization isn't? Families buying electric cars - you're thinking far too individualistically, another ideological hallmark of neoliberalism. We can't simply replace the private automobile fleet with electrics; better to also redesign our transit for fewer single vehicles overall.
    It's a matter of physics. What do you propose for baseline electrical demand at night right now? You can't write off the downsides of renewables intermittency with 'batteries', or 'nuclear', when the former is simply not there yet to even match ICE ranges in cars and the latter is politically dead. Meantime, we are guaranteed to live in a world 1 to 1.5 degrees hotter throughout our lives, unless we make efforts to geoengineer our climate, this is the new scenario which we will need to adapt to, and yes people will need assistance to adapt to this new environment on an individual level. The easiest way to provide said assistance is simply cutting them a check to use as they wish.

    I'm 100% in agreement about redesigning our transit, LA is constantly expanding the metro. If only Orange County could stop being assholes and approve a metro stop next to Disneyland, we could be a lot better about transportation emissions.


    You don't understand, insurance companies are not the only stakeholders in consideration. I also specifically named the providers (hospitals and physicians) and pharmaceuticals. Every major Democratic healthcare plan is subject to pledged holy war by all three. Biden's plan has several measures to reduce drug prices, including the consensus position on enabling Medicare to negotiate prices. Moreover the public option administration will, according o Biden, negotiate lower prices from providers. Can you show that the opposition to Biden's plan would be much less fierce than to Harris's or to Sanders'?

    I could be wrong on this, and I comment without verification, but to my knowledge the ACA did not introduce any changes that would significantly affect provider fees, drug prices, or the business model of providers and pharmaceuticals more generally. Insofar as I am correct, Obama's one major stakeholder hurdle was the insurance industry, and his market-oriented legislation explicitly went out of its way to gain the insurance companies' neutrality or even approval. Every fight before us today is much harder, not least because of the limitations in electoral representation.

    Assuming that something polls highly and must therefore be taken up by the Congress is like the caricature of Bernie Sanders that some Democrats use to criticize him. As to people not wanting the elimination of employer-based private insurance, it fluctuates wildly throughout polls and is clearly something that can be affected by public engagement. The polling can be driven in either direction by the players involved. Again though, you make the mistake of thinking polling is deterministic. I don't want to be too strident here, but for now undertake the exercise of forgetting about polling and analyzing only in terms of stakeholders. Remember, you already know this to be true - popular sentiments about legislation are very rarely either a barrier or an impetus to passage. The experience of your lifetime should furnish sufficient examples. If we can't get single payer through it won't be because half the population on average doesn't like the sound of it, it will be because the three stakeholders I named (plus the fourth column, the business community at large) will mount too much resistance.

    Most concretely, we might constitute this question as a scenario of "would 5_ Democratic senators eliminate the filibuster to pass this legislation?" That's a much more relevant metric than highly-volatile and confused (and manipulable) public opinion.
    ACA significantly impacted the business model by prohibiting policy refusals based on pre-existing conditions. This was huge to the industry and even with the mandate, it meant that insurance companies were now on the hook for more expenses.
    Funny enough, Republicans killed the mandate because it was the only thing about the ACA that was politically acceptable to voters to remove. Preexisting conditions are still covered. I would be pissed if I was the CEO of an insurance company.

    Nah, it's completely opposite. Big money interests wield their power by the ability to influence the verbiage of legislation and pushing for congressional stalemate/obstacles for bills they do not like. But this is all done in the shadows, in the one-on-one lunches and meetings. When the public gets energized, it doesn't matter how big the money payload is, they can't risk losing re-election and politicians play it very safe when it comes to that kind of thing.

    How much money was there to be made by privatizing social security, but when Bush 43 pushed for it it didn't happen. We can't simultaneously pretend that we can rise up in some leftist political revolution and enact big structural changes while at the same time making it seems as if public opinion has no influence in policy decisions. Unless you are just advocating for violent revolution.


    The <Dem nominee>-Trump matchups are usually two different questions, (1) who would <respondent> vote for between <Dem> and Trump, and (2) which Democrat is capable of beating Trump. In both cases the responses tend to show the same trend: Biden has the highest rank, then the 1st/2nd tier candidates have similar scores to each other, then the rest of the contenders have similar scores below the previous. Clearly respondents are influenced by media narratives of candidate rankings and (esp. among Democrats) not their own preferences for candidate. Not their first-order preferences at least. I think we can be confident these numbers will last exactly as long as Joe Biden is perceived to be the frontrunner. That's not to say Biden's star will definitely fade as the race goes on, but there's a lot of highly-contingent circular reasoning going into treatment of his polling.

    I'm not sure how the polling we've seen up to now, including in this or recent posts, supports attribution of more genuine conservative sentiment among Democrats than is explicitly reported. Dig into polling yourself and show your theory in action, given the balance of: voter political lean; voter issue knowledge; voter candidate awareness; voter candidate approval; voter candidate ranking; voter ranking on criterion of electability; and whether primary voters have made up their minds on their vote. I assume I've missed some factors too.
    Why is it that I always need to prove to you that the numbers reported are factual 'on the ground' statements of reality, where you can simply dismiss all of it as trickery in the questions but you know in your heart that this instead is what they must be feeling.


    While half or fewer of the public watch the debates, here's some interesting polling. I suppose we can both be happy that our candidates did well. Well, not Biden and Harris, but...
    One debate doesn't make or break a candidate. Obama did poorly in the first debate against Romney. I want to hear more from Pete.


    Well, the report rules out the last sentence, but what I'm trying to convey is that the major source of carbon reduction was in the electricity sector, due to increases in non-fossil fuel generation and usage, and that these changes came about not merely due to market forces or market responses to carbon pricing but directly due to California's bevy of regulations, tax nudges, and capital investments. The contrast between command-and-controlvs. market, in other words the difference between telling companies what to do or not to do, or throwing money around, and letting them figure it out for themselves under a generic rubric. I'm bringing this to your attention not because I'm claiming that California's cap and trade policy is a waste of time or a failure (though the carbon price is many times too low and the buildup of allowances looms as a medium-term concern), nor because I'm opposed to market activity in principle, but because market solutions are continuously demonstrably inadequate to the task and I believe we need more command-based solutions - fast. Indeed, to demonstrate my tolerance of the market here's an informative article about the New-Deal-era Reconstruction Finance Corporation and other programs that facilitated private investment parallel to public works and spending; I'm sure we'll need something like that. Crucially however, it was acknowledged that the government should have such industrial policy to allocate or discipline private spending and investment in directions that the government determined were needed.
    California is no where near command and control. California leads the nation in implementing incentives, regulations, and mandates to correct for inadequacies in the market to handle certain problems which is why it has had the success we have seen, but that does not mean that California is not using market based policies or that market based policies are not the most effective way of facilitating change. To be honest, the report notes most of the increase in carbon-zero electrical generation was from hydro, and you can't be telling me this is not misleading when California just came out of a long drought. Climate change is only going to depress hydro in the long run as my state gets hotter, and the rate of non-hydro renewable increase was not very impressive.

    Encouraging more fossil fuel divestment and removing subsidies on those sources (while boosting subsidies on local solar and smart grid infrastructure development) will do more than a return of soviet style management.
    The idea that the main limiting factor of progress is the degree to which the force of government is applied is historically wrong and dangerous on many levels.
    Last edited by a completely inoffensive name; 08-18-2019 at 22:09.


  6. #216

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    So the ICE raids in MS are pretty much par for the course. Underpay and work these guys to the bone, call ICE, Rinse and Repeat.
    You're spot on: ICE raids followed a massive sexual harassment settlement at Mississippi plants

    Which Democrat will hold these businesses responsible? Who will criminalize the actual wrongdoer here?
    While this line of thinking is understandable, I worry that actually pursuing employers under the current immigration system would have the byproduct of pushing unauthorized workers deeper into the black market, into conditions of outright slavery, as well as intensifying as far as possible the conservative/corporate attacks on renascent labor activism and legislation.

    The more I learn about American immigration the more I see the only solution both humane and practical as involving some sort of codified freedom of movement across the Americas. Besides laws and enforcement to secure union rights and labor standards I mean. @SeamusFermanagh

    A compromise in the meantime may be not to prioritize penalties for knowingly hiring unauthorized workers, but to penalize knowingly hiring unauthorized workers and subsequently denouncing them to immigration authorities. You want to call ICE about all those "illegals" you hired? The workers now have an offer to buy out your business as a co-op, subsidized with federally-backed loans Big fine for employers, carceral penalties.

    Even enforcing the existing statutes of up to $3000 fine per employee and up to 6 months in jail (and $250 to $10000 per alien in civil penalties) would be a start, if predicated on employers' malicious recourse to enforcement in retaliation against workers. This could surely be accomplished just by shifting enforcement under executive authority. As long as we don't forget to factor in any possibility of further perverse incentives and adverse selections in the existing economy.


    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    Sanders and Warren probably would.
    Well, Warren does have something to say about it. Not exactly truth and reconciliation, but in this country it counts as radical.

    Ms. Warren also said she would create a task force in the Justice Department to investigate allegations of abuses of migrants detained by the Trump administration, including “medical neglect and physical and sexual assaults.”
    Tangentially, I'd like to hear Strike's comments on Sanders' and Warren's newly released criminal justice reform proposals (they're pretty similar at a glance). The two now appear definitively ahead of Booker et al. on the topic.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I think the non-VAT tax proposals could carry the UBI proposal most of the way there, minimizing the level of VAT needed.
    SS income cap removal is only revenue for the Social Security Trust. From my knowledge of projections of - as I understand Yang wants to do - a 0.1% financial transaction tax and taxation of capital gains as regular income, the range of revenue is really wild - could be half a trillion, could be a couple trillion over a decade. Presumably he needs flanking measures to head off problematic income/asset restructuring and loopholes from a taxation perspective. Specifying those might narrow the range of projections. Taxing carried interest as regular income would raise almost nothing in terms of a trillion-dollar program. I haven't checked a projection for what the VAT proposal is supposed to raise, but inherently the more it generates the more it drains the pockets of the people who would benefit from UBI (creating a loop like British Indian taxation, if you get the reference?). For now I'd say we should be skeptical that Yang's non-VAT tax proposals really could pay for "most" of his Freedom Dividend program. So much for fiscals.

    It would not leave people worse off, because as Yang himself says, it is opt-in. Everyone has the choice to either give up their current welfare programs and take the UBI or remain on the current programs which still require qualifications to receive.
    People who opt out will still now be affected by the VAT. There's no cost-of-living adjustment to the dividend, but the (inevitable) impact of VAT on consumer prices may differ significantly by location and product. The main demographic I can think of who would benefit heavily from Yang's UBI are those mostly-poor individuals who report no or negligible taxable income, depending on what exactly their real income is. Such individuals tend to be ineligible for many existing welfare programs or entitlements, since no reported income means no reported employment. One might wonder, why don't we just target the dividend for them to eliminate poverty? Then, when the obstacle of defining and enforcing the means-test presents itself, one turns their attention to the main sources of expenditure for poverty-level households: housing, transportation, sustenance, and healthcare. Now one should be thinking, we have SNAP, but how about we directly deliver housing security, accessible public transit, guaranteed childcare (for all the hidden fiscal costs of having to care for children), and guaranteed healthcare (for all the hidden fiscal costs of inadequate health or healthcare)... for the poor and for everyone? Cash transfers can't do that, and in some markets such as residential rent they might especially contribute to already-runaway inflation.

    Note that the very existence of an opt-out or conditional UBI would surely frangify the programs under exclusion, and possibly endanger the rest of the welfare state in detail. If we have a Freedom Dividend but no universal healthcare, it seems very straightforward for centrists and Republicans to argue that 'the deficit is too high, we have to eliminate CHIP and cut Medicaid in half; thus we will protect the UBI and afford citizens the discretion to spend their money as they deem appropriate to their individual circumstances.'

    Talking about UBI on the national stage and raising awareness of fringe ideas is good, but Yang's formulation is philosophically (perhaps much less so without VAT and welfare conflict) and politically objectionable to me. I stand by the Presidency not being an entry-level tech job. Don't let the Cali techbro culture get to you!

    Pace Yang, do you have an opinion of the article I linked a few posts ago? And for a consideration that you might take relatively seriously, note how Yang has less government experience and rapport with the Democratic party and DC crowd, with whom he will need work with in order to function as a president, than anyone not named Williamson. You're the kind of guy who prioritizes political infrastructure, right?

    Social wealth dividends is interesting, but I'd like to see these left wing proposals get vetted by actual economists. My preference is a negative income tax for that reason, but Yang is literally the only guy on stage talking about it, so it is his plan by default.
    Actual economists are vetting left-wing policies - many of them are leftists themselves! If you want to get into the weeds you basically have to visit either one of the innumerable thinktank sites or the economists' own blogs, which I don't do. Dean Baker is one name I remember, and if you're interested in Modern Monetary Theory you can find exchanges about it between the likes of Stephanie Kelton and Paul Krugman. As for libertarian economists if you want, many of them are... not "actual economists", but some aren't outright frauds. I don't remember their names, but one whose surname starts with W or V (Volhynia? NOT VOLCKER) maintains a relatively well-known blog and offers some interesting takes.

    The easiest way to provide said assistance is simply cutting them a check to use as they wish.
    This form of assistance would have minimal value beyond - maybe, depending on the state of the world - keeping people alive at a starvation level. Unless paired with numerous other initiatives, starting with the guaranteed services I named but also including transfers of economic decision-making power away from business ownership and the wealthy and professional classes. Sure, $10K a year or whatever might be helpful to the hordes fleeing inland from Miami in 10-20 years in securing housing, but we're gonna need a little more than that as the basic shape of the economy changes under either market pressure on the global economy or government intervention thereon. There will be a lot more refugee waves than Miami besides. We can't allow wealthy sheltered urban areas to fortify themselves while swathes of the country are abandoned to a vast underclass to roam; a mere cash transfer without further commitments by the government or expectations from the populace makes this type of dystopian development more difficult to resist.

    ACA significantly impacted the business model by prohibiting policy refusals based on pre-existing conditions. This was huge to the industry and even with the mandate, it meant that insurance companies were now on the hook for more expenses.
    Funny enough, Republicans killed the mandate because it was the only thing about the ACA that was politically acceptable to voters to remove. Preexisting conditions are still covered. I would be pissed if I was the CEO of an insurance company.
    It was a give-and-take. The ACA delivered - or delivers, if the Trump admin has finally relented to the courts and reinstated them - healthy subsidies to the insurers. It's part of the reason why costs have been held down relative to the before-times. Obama basically tried to give the insurers the least-bad offer available to them, and they came around. Now, what do we have to offer them? A swift and merciful death versus a lucid and tortuous one? While we're also demanding the pharmas and the providers line up behind to take their licks?

    Also, the mandate turned out to be not-so-relevant. I read somewhere that the CBO after 2018 found it overestimated the changes in enrollment that would result from mandate repeal.

    Nah, it's completely opposite. Big money interests wield their power by the ability to influence the verbiage of legislation and pushing for congressional stalemate/obstacles for bills they do not like. But this is all done in the shadows, in the one-on-one lunches and meetings. When the public gets energized, it doesn't matter how big the money payload is, they can't risk losing re-election and politicians play it very safe when it comes to that kind of thing.
    I'm having a hard time thinking of a real-world correspondence to your model. Special interests certainly do not act only in the shadows; public influence operations and electioneering are a critical component of their work. I don't quite get how you're speaking like a Sandersite on this point. Maybe a sticking point is how you define "public energy" and its influence. It is not at all clear to me that many Democratic politicians will be threatened either in a primary or in a general by refusing to support a public option specifically. On the contrary, I can easily see how purple-district Dems might be cowed at the notion of having to explicitly contest Medicare for All with a Republican in an election while major industries and professional associations are screaming themselves hoarse. (Though I have no problem recommending to them wholehearted rhetorical signalling and self-sacrifice toward the end of passing legislation.)

    How much money was there to be made by privatizing social security, but when Bush 43 pushed for it it didn't happen.
    Look up Bush's House majorities during his first term: 4 and 12. There's no party unity in the world that can kill Social Security on the basis of those margins.

    We can't simultaneously pretend that we can rise up in some leftist political revolution and enact big structural changes while at the same time making it seems as if public opinion has no influence in policy decisions. Unless you are just advocating for violent revolution.
    It's demonstrable political observation that public opinion has little influence on political decision-making on the level of lawmaking. It's not none, and the point of a (sensibly interpreted) "political revolution" is to expand that scope by organizing the public to both routinely engage with politics (vigilance and consciousness) and to demand more control over the levers of politics (i.e. leftist reforms). At the same time, you have to correctly interpret the world as it exists in order to know what is currently possible, what needs to be changed to shift possibility, and what the confluences of priorities and paths of least resistance are.

    Anyway, how did we get to conversing in these terms? IIRC I was making the point that while you can't downgrade to a public option if you begin the legislative process advancing non-replicative universal government insurance, in consideration of stakeholder resistance there will not be much distinction between a public option and a unitary option (which may or may not form a case for going the whole hog). Obama wrangled the insurers. Now, what do we have to offer them? A swift and merciful death versus a lucid and tortuous one? While we're also demanding the pharmas and the providers line up behind to take their licks?

    Why is it that I always need to prove to you that the numbers reported are factual 'on the ground' statements of reality, where you can simply dismiss all of it as trickery in the questions but you know in your heart that this instead is what they must be feeling.
    As cited by your favored outfit 538, only a tiny proportion (12%) of Democrats report having "made up" their minds on their primary vote. My polling-related questions are also somewhat rhetorical in that I already have an understanding of what I expect you to find based on the polling and commentary, including 538, that I have been reading. In other words I believe "the numbers" accord with my view of things. I'm not demanding fishing expeditions here.

    Biden is gradually sinking in the polls with all demographics. Warren and Sanders combined have exceeded his polling average since the first debates. Overall his favorability tracks with Sanders's and Warren's (Warren has best favorability of all Dems by a hair). Biden's polling in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada (the first three primaries) is weak. There are a lot of younger conservative-to-moderate whites in the field that the Establishment might prefer to Biden, if not Booker or Castro or Harris or Warren [EDIT: I can't believe I forgot about Klobuchar]. Biden was known in the past as a bad campaigner, he has been proving himself a bad campaigner this time around. Heck, his whole strategy seems to be to campaign as little as possible and hope he can float above a divided field. This is the high-energy candidate we expect to confront Trump in the general? The debate stage would be fossilizing in real time.

    I hesitate to make such a confident prediction at this stage, but as I watch Warren demonstrate more and more her character as a hardworking and skillful retail and backend politician, and Biden show himself time and again a clueless fuddy duddy and last desperate warble of a faction of a faction of the party (i.e. "empty suit"), the stronger my intuition that something like the following will come to pass: Biden drops out by the end of the year and Warren gains a solid lead before Super Tuesday, or Sanders drops out/joins Warren's team after New Hampshire or Nevada to help her blow out Biden on Super Tuesday. I would even sock it into my stillborn Predictions Thread. Thankfully (?) life passes extremely quick these days so we don't have long to wait and see.

    (Although I have to say Bernie Sanders recently proposing a $16 trillion climate plan involving, at last, nationalization on a grand scale, is really driving up his equity. I wonder if Warren will update her more piecemeal array of climate plans in light of this. Hopefully the particulars exceed even the late Inslee's portfolio.)

    One debate doesn't make or break a candidate. Obama did poorly in the first debate against Romney. I want to hear more from Pete.
    Slow and steady wins the race. You'll be hearing that one more.

    California is no where near command and control. California leads the nation in implementing incentives, regulations, and mandates to correct for inadequacies in the market to handle certain problems which is why it has had the success we have seen, but that does not mean that California is not using market based policies or that market based policies are not the most effective way of facilitating change. To be honest, the report notes most of the increase in carbon-zero electrical generation was from hydro, and you can't be telling me this is not misleading when California just came out of a long drought. Climate change is only going to depress hydro in the long run as my state gets hotter, and the rate of non-hydro renewable increase was not very impressive.

    Encouraging more fossil fuel divestment and removing subsidies on those sources (while boosting subsidies on local solar and smart grid infrastructure development) will do more than a return of soviet style management.
    The idea that the main limiting factor of progress is the degree to which the force of government is applied is historically wrong and dangerous on many levels.
    The regulatory state is a form of command economy, or more precisely, regulations on commerce and industry are an aspect of state command. A public utility and an efficiency standard are both forms of command. That doesn't make California a "People's Republic", just as a national health service doesn't make the UK a socialist country. Virtually every state is a regulatory state, to varying degrees; the East Asian countries (inc. Japan and South Korea) have to my understanding always been higher on the command axis than California is now.

    As you acknowledge, the Californian regulatory state has seen success where other states that are not as interventionist have not. Is the evidence I cited in itself necessarily dispositive regarding market and command? Of course not, but it is suggestive if market mechanisms do not evince causal efficacy in changes where regulatory or fiscal mechanisms may. Ultimately we're coming in with different preconceptions based on prior encounters with other evidence, toward development of our unique worldviews.

    Here's a paper on climate change impacts on California hydropower; you're right, generation could certainly be reduced (though I didn't read how the paper accounts for increased efficiency or fitting with additional capacity on existing dams). Regardless, hydropower will be almost irrelevant in the big picture of a renewables transition. Almost all progress on renewables as a category share of generation has reportedly been undercut by nuclear plant closures in the same time period. Which indicates, again and from both the nuclear side and the renewables side that the market is insufficient to create the capacity we need where we need it, in addition to the unfulfilled need to adjust the functioning of many sectors of the economy that produce carbon to... produce less carbon.

    We didn't have Soviet-style management in the 30s or 40s, but we did have invasive industrial policy, tremendous fiscal stimulus, and a touch of (albeit temporary) nationalization. I literally advised the disciplining of private enterprise, not its elimination (at these stages), so don't bark up the wrong tree. The level of necessary nationalization can always be debated, but to reject it outright - and I don't know whether you do - would be "historically wrong and dangerous on many levels." Did you know that Obama's green stimulus was actually pretty good? It's just that we should have done it on at least 10X the scale.




    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    That the USA has a major party - and the one in power - that wants the USA to be a dilapidated wasteland with little of worth in it apart from gated communities and a populace capable of using weaponry in the military or paramilitary forces is something I continue to find mind boggling: bridges, roads, airports, dams and so on is hardly welfare but is what separates a first world country from a patch of land.

    Read this, very apropos:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    The Earth is too hot and getting hotter. Last month was the warmest ever recorded. Greenland’s ice sheets are melting. The Arctic is burning. The far-right psychopath governing the world’s fifth-largest nation is rapidly replacing the planet’s lungs with cattle ranches. China approved six times more new coal production over the first months of this year than it did in all of 2018. Absent technological breakthroughs that provide developing countries a cheap and easy path to low-carbon growth, it is difficult to see how humanity will keep future warming merely punishing instead of catastrophic. And yet, annual global investment in clean energy adds up to only about half of what the United States spends on its military every year.

    Economic growth is weak and getting weaker. Even as central banks the world over have set interest rates historically low, and national governments have run their debt levels exceptionally high, global demand for goods and services remains tepid. For a decade now, inflation has been below target across the developed world, and markets predict it will remain that way for another 30 years. Onetime apostles of established economic wisdom like Larry Summers are now calling for paradigmatic change. In a new paper co-authored with Harvard’s Anna Stansbury, the former chief World Bank economist argues that monetary policy has proven itself all but impotent in the face of “secular stagnation” — and that only profligate fiscal spending by national governments can rescue the global economy from its self-reinforcing torpor.

    Donald Trump is economically anxious and getting more so. White House advisers recently notified the president that their internal forecasts project an economic slowdown next year, a development that could fatally undermine his prospects for reelection. The administration is toying with various ideas for juicing growth ahead of November 2020. But these consist largely of regressive tax cuts that would require Nancy Pelosi’s buy-in to pass. And House Democrats have no incentive to support regressive policies that would benefit Trump politically.

    The challenges facing our planet, global economy, and president are all difficult to comprehensively meet. But there is a very easy way to mitigate all three of them at once: It would be in the interest of Donald Trump, the macroeconomy, and every human who intends to see the middle decades of this century, for the United States to launch a major, debt-financed investment in green technology.

    Given the economic costs of underutilizing capital and labor — and allowing even marginal increases in long-term temperature rise — such an investment would quite plausibly “pay for itself.” In a context where U.S. inflation and labor-force participation are both undesirably low, adding new demand to the economy could bring more workers off the labor market’s sidelines, thereby increasing America’s productive capacity, while also putting upward pressure on wages for those at the bottom of the socioeconomic hierarchy. Meanwhile, there’s every reason to think a hefty investment in renewable energy would pay significant dividends for the climate. In the decade after Barack Obama signed a $90 billion green stimulus into law, the cost of solar energy rapidly declined, and its use massively increased. Finally, while a $1 trillion to $2 trillion fiscal stimulus would by no means guarantee Trump’s reelection, few things would do more to insulate him from the threat of presiding over an election-year downturn. And while Democrats might be able to find excuses for dragging their feet on other forms of stimulus, a party that claims to consider climate change a national emergency would have a very hard time rejecting a trillion-dollar investment in green technology. What’s more, in brokering such a grand bargain on climate, Trump would not only secure himself stronger economic tailwinds, but also rapturous coverage from a mainstream media that is aching to demonstrate its “objectivity,” and celebrate the sufficiency of the status-quo political order.

    And yet, this scenario is not merely unlikely, but politically unthinkable. Despite the fact that a green stimulus is plainly in the president’s political interest, most American capitalists’ near-term financial interests (generally speaking, higher demand means higher growth means higher profits), and the human species’ long-term interests, such a policy is not even at the outer realm of political possibility. What does that say about the health of our political system? Or the priorities of America’s ruling party? Or the prospects of our government ever implementing the many, vitally necessary climate policies that aren’t free lunches?

    If the Republican Party is more committed to abetting ecological catastrophe than Donald Trump’s reelection; if there can be no bipartisan agreement on green investment in a context of too-low inflation and near-zero interest rates, how on Earth are we going to get to a place where the U.S. Congress is willing to put a price on carbon, or send large sums of money to foreign nations to prevent them from destroying rain forests, or do any of the other politically difficult things that are ostensibly necessary for averting climate disaster?

    The politics of climate change are brutally difficult. But the politics of handing out a bunch of free money for green energy, at a time when mainstream economists are begging for fiscal stimulus — and a Republican president is looking to juice the economy — should be pretty easy.

    The fact that they actually aren’t is pretty alarming.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 08-28-2019 at 21:50.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  7. #217

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    My god, Biden's melt down was so....horrible to watch. Truly awkward.


  8. #218
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    My god, Biden's melt down was so....horrible to watch. Truly awkward.
    He has always been prone to gaffes.

    He is part of the old school 'hale fellow and well met' grip-and-grin style of politics.

    He wants incremental change toward the liberal agenda.

    ALL of these qualities put him out-of-step with the hardcore Dem activist crowd that represents so much of the early-on participants in the Dem nomination process. He is probably, in terms of stance on the issues, much closer to the mainstream of the Dem membership overall.

    But his gaffes, his age, and the passion for quasi-revolutionary change sought by the more ardent Dems will combine to push him out of the nom. The question is, how quickly.


    So far, the Dems are still in 'circular-firing-squad' mode (inevitable at this point). We shall see how long it takes them to shift into a more orthodox nomination race.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  9. #219

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    My god, Biden's melt down was so....horrible to watch. Truly awkward.
    You mean this stuff?

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    When Biden says "make sure you have the record player on at night," I know enough to recognize what he is referring to.

    But seriously, Biden has reportedly been increasingly incoherent all campaign.


    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    He has always been prone to gaffes.
    More than that he seems tired and confused much of the time. If you can't stand speculation about a president's potential senescence, Biden is the last opponent you want facing Trump.

    He is probably, in terms of stance on the issues, much closer to the mainstream of the Dem membership overall.
    Remember, the electorate is much more economically liberal than DC dogma has acknowledged, and the Democratic electorate to the left of that median. But I've grokked something interesting about Biden's disproportionate support among African Americans (without which he would be stuck in the high teens or low twenties):

    1. Fear of Trump and his America (the estimate that white people are most comfortable with Biden)
    2. African American Democrats are overall are more conservative than white Democrats, who have moved left considerably over the past decade (the gap closes between the youth demographics)
    3. He's a racially backwards old white man, but a known quantity, and what more can one really expect of white folk?
    4. Underappreciated but most critical of all, Biden was a man who put himself out before the nation as a vigorous and loyal subordinate to a black man - and not just any black man, the first black president!


    So far, the Dems are still in 'circular-firing-squad' mode (inevitable at this point).
    What does this mean though? If you're referring to the size of the field, I agree; half the contestants should drop out tomorrow. But the contestants have treated each other gently up to now. The worst of it so far were Castro's snide implications that Biden is forgetful, for which he was widely panned by pundits. If this is the bloody conflict what gets the media in a huff, then I'm sure they would be beside themselves over Trump's treatment of the nominee. (Ed. They won't be.)
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  10. #220
    Member Member Crandar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Alpine Subtundra
    Posts
    920

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    He was caught unprepared. On the one hand, he doesn't want to alienate the moderate Democrats that oppose reparations and form the core of his supporters and on the other, he can't reject them openly, because that would reduce his chances to grab voters from the more radical candidates. Incoherence aside, I like Biden for his ability to trigger the Trump fanboys, still remember the hysteria over his allegedly ailing health and awkwardness in front of young women.

  11. #221
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Biden vs Trump really does feel like two opposing versions of "The Man" down to the dodgy relationship with young women.

    Surely the real standout moment in the debate was a politician saying live on national TV "Yes, we're going to take for AR-15, we're going to take your AK47", and getting a big cheer?
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  12. #222
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    ...What does this mean though? If you're referring to the size of the field, I agree; half the contestants should drop out tomorrow. But the contestants have treated each other gently up to now. The worst of it so far were Castro's snide implications that Biden is forgetful, for which he was widely panned by pundits. If this is the bloody conflict what gets the media in a huff, then I'm sure they would be beside themselves over Trump's treatment of the nominee. (Ed. They won't be.)
    It means almost all of their effort is being spent on belittling and castigating one another, particularly those with the largest followings. The risk, of course, is that the eventual nominee is too battered (and too many weak points have been revealed) to defeat an incumbent Trump. The size of the field and the nature of early nomination process politics makes much of this inevitable, of course, and there is still plenty of time for the tone of the Democratic nomination process to shift.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  13. #223

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    It means almost all of their effort is being spent on belittling and castigating one another, particularly those with the largest followings. The risk, of course, is that the eventual nominee is too battered (and too many weak points have been revealed) to defeat an incumbent Trump. The size of the field and the nature of early nomination process politics makes much of this inevitable, of course, and there is still plenty of time for the tone of the Democratic nomination process to shift.
    In general is that a real phenomenon? It seems doubtful to me that there is anything the Democratic candidates will say about each other that will permanently weaken them against Trump that Trump wasn't going to deploy for himself.

    Genuine question: Do you know of any historical examples where a contested primary produced a candidate who was fatally weakened by the process itself?

    The candidates aren't even really belittling and castigating each other, or talking about each other (except to compliment Inslee for dropping out). The 2016 Republicans were rougher before counting Trump. This line of thinking strikes me as a manifestation of the media-favorite meta-narrative of "Democrats in disarray."

    (Not to say that Democrats are never in disarray, just that 'existing within a primary race' isn't an example. The muddled and erratic nature of the impeachment process, rather, is one that reflects genuine division and confusion within the House caucus.)
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  14. #224
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    In general is that a real phenomenon? It seems doubtful to me that there is anything the Democratic candidates will say about each other that will permanently weaken them against Trump that Trump wasn't going to deploy for himself.

    Genuine question: Do you know of any historical examples where a contested primary produced a candidate who was fatally weakened by the process itself?

    The candidates aren't even really belittling and castigating each other, or talking about each other (except to compliment Inslee for dropping out). The 2016 Republicans were rougher before counting Trump. This line of thinking strikes me as a manifestation of the media-favorite meta-narrative of "Democrats in disarray."

    (Not to say that Democrats are never in disarray, just that 'existing within a primary race' isn't an example. The muddled and erratic nature of the impeachment process, rather, is one that reflects genuine division and confusion within the House caucus.)
    In any election with two candidates and a group of "also ran" attacks from a candidate's own party can be very damaging. The Democratic nominee will get most of their votes from Democrats and swing voters, attacks from other Democrats are likely to erode that support.

    Trump is mostly preaching to Republicans.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  15. #225

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    In any election with two candidates and a group of "also ran" attacks from a candidate's own party can be very damaging. The Democratic nominee will get most of their votes from Democrats and swing voters, attacks from other Democrats are likely to erode that support.

    Trump is mostly preaching to Republicans.
    Are there historical examples of this?

    Let's say Biden will become the nominee. Trump has been calling Biden "Sleepy Joe" for months, among other things. He will campaign against Joe on race, on the economy, on foreign policy and the Middle East wars, on women's rights, on "toughness" and "energy" etc.

    If some of the Democratic candidates emphasize their own youth in their separate campaigning, and once a month at the debates several make oblique references to Joe needing to hand in the keys, that's what undermines Biden's prospects?

    It makes no conceptual sense to me, apart from the need to identify evidence.

    EDIT: You're gonna love this one mate.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 09-16-2019 at 02:22.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  16. #226
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    In general is that a real phenomenon? It seems doubtful to me that there is anything the Democratic candidates will say about each other that will permanently weaken them against Trump that Trump wasn't going to deploy for himself.

    Genuine question: Do you know of any historical examples where a contested primary produced a candidate who was fatally weakened by the process itself?

    The candidates aren't even really belittling and castigating each other, or talking about each other (except to compliment Inslee for dropping out). The 2016 Republicans were rougher before counting Trump. This line of thinking strikes me as a manifestation of the media-favorite meta-narrative of "Democrats in disarray."

    (Not to say that Democrats are never in disarray, just that 'existing within a primary race' isn't an example. The muddled and erratic nature of the impeachment process, rather, is one that reflects genuine division and confusion within the House caucus.)
    Romney 2012? (Though an incumbent Obama might have rendered and GOPer moot that time, Romney had been roughed up in the primary process by Santorum and other GOPers).

    Dole 1996 (GOP self destruct letting Clinton win despite all the scandals etc. The GOP 'circular firing squad' was so damaging to all that Perot jumped back in and guaranteed their loss)
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  17. #227

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    Romney 2012? (Though an incumbent Obama might have rendered and GOPer moot that time, Romney had been roughed up in the primary process by Santorum and other GOPers).

    Dole 1996 (GOP self destruct letting Clinton win despite all the scandals etc. The GOP 'circular firing squad' was so damaging to all that Perot jumped back in and guaranteed their loss)
    My vague recollection of the 2012 Republican primary is that even some Republicans criticized Romney for campaigning as being a representative of 'the people who sign the front of your checks' or some such formulation. "Even some." If the criticism is basically that Romney was an obvious plutocrat - and Obama used that against him - then I don't see the facial case for the Republican primary process per se hurting Romney.

    I'm not familiar with the 1996 Republican primary history. I can take your word for it that Ross Perot re-entered or could re-enter because of perceived Republican discord, but Clinton was a popular president and the scandals were essentially fabricated. Any analogue for 2020, such as Howard Schultz (who is no Ross Perot) has declined to run as third parties.

    Maybe dedicated analyses would help here. But regardless, one would actually have to relate theory to practice. What are the specific events or performative trends or whatever that are evident in the Democratic primary that, based on general expectation and backed by historical correspondence, would hamper the ultimate nominee?

    The last time the details of the primary process really seemed to matter was in the 19th century, when the parties were looser organizations and personal relationships and rivalries were much more salient (e.g. all the mutual ratf***ing between the antebellum Whigs). If Sanders were to do something like invest a million bucks in digging up previously-unseen dirt on Biden, you would definitely have a point.

    Of course there's the anti-case of Trump (who was called racist and dangerous and many other things by fellow candidates and by high-ranking Republicans throughout the race, some of whom publicly refused to vote for him), but it's a bit of a special case in that it only fed into his appeal.

    The one oblique way in which I could see an argument for the primary process hurting Democrats is in the "policy war." If one is of the opinion that candidates racing each other to the left will turn off the general electorate from the nominee and leave them vulnerable to Republican attacks, that is one way in which there could be a "circular firing squad" effect. But - unsurprisingly - I'm skeptical that these warnings identify a serious liability.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  18. #228
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    Romney 2012? (Though an incumbent Obama might have rendered and GOPer moot that time, Romney had been roughed up in the primary process by Santorum and other GOPers).

    Dole 1996 (GOP self destruct letting Clinton win despite all the scandals etc. The GOP 'circular firing squad' was so damaging to all that Perot jumped back in and guaranteed their loss)
    Rommey 2012 was more of a "race to the bottom" in that Rommey swung away from the middle ground to get the Nomination. !996 is possibly more salient, but so is Hilary in 2016. The contest between Hilary and Sanders, the way is was conducted, the way they attacked each other, meant that more Dems didn't come out for her - they stayed home and voted for Trump. Had the fight been less acrimonious so that they could have run together this probably would not have happened.

    Having said that, the nature of the race today favours candidates who can't/won't run together - which is an issue in itself.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  19. #229
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,930
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    What chance does Andrew Wang have? He looks interesting with some of his views and some of his actions, ie: had a sit down talk with a racist who was calling him slurs in an exchange of ideas.
    Days since the Apocalypse began
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

  20. #230
    Member Member Xantan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    TW Org
    Posts
    274

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Probably nil for Andrew Yang but he has a chance to shake things up in the future with his Universal Basic Income idea - and since quite a lot of tech visionaries like it, he's poised to stay.

  21. #231
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Yang's Universal Income would, over time, completely undercut the entire extant framework of the United States. Makes universal healthcare look minimalist by comparison.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  22. #232

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    Yang's Universal Income would, over time, completely undercut the entire extant framework of the United States. Makes universal healthcare look minimalist by comparison.
    I disagree because of the following differences in substantive implementation and social impact. The proposed programs have a similar price tag. Universal healthcare, with strident intervention in prices of services, drugs, and devices, would create social obligations and exercise institutional knowledge and competence. It is also extensible, something that could be expanded naturally in scope over time. A bare cash transfer is always just the cash for whatever it's worth and leaves citizens at the mercy of market forces. Without supporting programs it is liable to create a broad and permanent underclass under existing social conditions and trends. At least a welfare program has a defined purpose and it is comparatively difficult to argue (not that conservatives don't try) that existing welfare spending crowds out the possibility of additional commitments. A $3 trillion yearly mandatory program whose primary beneficiaries are the poor and working class would be a great excuse to foreclose on any manner of future government services and entitlements, while weakening solidarity for preserving Medicare and Social Security. A bare UBI does nothing to get citizens in the mindset that they could be furthering demands on the government for intervention; a fire-and-forget scheme, an automatic deposit with no bureaucratic interaction to develop secular mass consciousness, sounds like a dream for the libertarian-minded who want individuals convinced that there is no such thing as a wider society.

    Incidentally, Yang's UBI appears to be structured similarly to the proposals favored by Charles Murray and Milton Friedman. There's a reason welfare capitalism is lately being rediscovered among the Davos crowd, and why it was a superficial fad of sorts among the captains of industry in the Gilded Age: 'We'll throw you a few scraps as long as you never, ever do anything to build independent power.' Yuck.

    Remember that Yang is the Democratic candidate who most dislikes unions and the minimum wage.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  23. #233
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,930
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Saw this article on him from the BBC
    https://bbc.in/2nwRiid
    Days since the Apocalypse began
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

  24. #234
    Ja mata, TosaInu Forum Administrator edyzmedieval's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Fortress of the Mountains
    Posts
    11,389

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Bernie Sanders raised a record 23.5 million donation haul.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/u...ndraising.html
    Ja mata, TosaInu. You will forever be remembered.

    Proud

    Been to:

    Swords Made of Letters - 1938. The war is looming in France - and Alexandre Reythier does not have much time left to protect his country. A novel set before the war.

    A Painted Shield of Honour - 1313. Templar Knights in France are in grave danger. Can they be saved?

  25. #235
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,408
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Bernie has been hospitalized and treated for an arterial blockage, his immediate public appearances have been cancelled.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49911035
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  26. #236
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,688
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    Bernie has been hospitalized and treated for an arterial blockage, his immediate public appearances have been cancelled.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49911035
    Most of the frontrunner are too old.

    Bernie should withdraw with grace.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  27. #237

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Boomers just refuse to give up power.


  28. #238
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    Boomers just refuse to give up power.
    And this differs from other generations how?
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  29. #239

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    And this differs from other generations how?
    Boomers have done more to enrich themselves at the expense of other generations. That's just a historical fact.

    Boomers endorsed LBJ's big projects when they were poor and young. Then they turned around and pushed for tax cuts 20 years later when GenX arrived. They never question the need for SS in their old age, yet ask why young people need universal healthcare.
    Boomers artificially limited local zoning laws and capped property taxes through Prop 13 in my state of California, causing the homeless crisis and turning my generation into renting surfs for the properties that Boomers own and they continue to push NIMBY policies in order that their housing prices go up as additional supply continues to get more restricted. All at the expense of Millenials who now can't find a starter home to raise a family.

    It used to be in my state that if you were a CA resident, you didn't have to pay for higher education. The youngest three generations were now told they not only had to pay and pay big but they can never get rid of the debt even if they cant pay and go bankrupt.

    There is one reason why LA can't build more than 4 stories tall and it has nothing to do with earthquakes. Boomers came in the 1960s and 1970s and decided no one else should come after them.

    Boomers rigged the game heavily back when they were the only players at the table. Now Gen X, Y and Z have to find our political feet while suffering worse economic conditions than any generation before us beside the silent generation.

    Do you never wonder why Millenials and Zoomers are so big on the socialism now?
    Last edited by a completely inoffensive name; 10-05-2019 at 17:34.


  30. #240

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    Boomers have done more to enrich themselves at the expense of other generations. That's just a historical fact.

    Boomers endorsed LBJ's big projects when they were poor and young. Then they turned around and pushed for tax cuts 20 years later when GenX arrived. They never question the need for SS in their old age, yet ask why young people need universal healthcare.
    Boomers artificially limited local zoning laws and capped property taxes through Prop 13 in my state of California, causing the homeless crisis and turning my generation into renting surfs for the properties that Boomers own and they continue to push NIMBY policies in order that their housing prices go up as additional supply continues to get more restricted. All at the expense of Millenials who now can't find a starter home to raise a family.

    It used to be in my state that if you were a CA resident, you didn't have to pay for higher education. The youngest three generations were now told they not only had to pay and pay big but they can never get rid of the debt even if they cant pay and go bankrupt.

    There is one reason why LA can't build more than 4 stories tall and it has nothing to do with earthquakes. Boomers came in the 1960s and 1970s and decided no one else should come after them.

    Boomers rigged the game heavily back when they were the only players at the table. Now Gen X, Y and Z have to find our political feet while suffering worse economic conditions than any generation before us beside the silent generation.

    Do you never wonder why Millenials and Zoomers are so big on the socialism now?
    Sanders and Biden are Silent if we're getting hung up on generations, btw.

    You'll be glad, per the midterms turnout chart you commented on a few months ago, that Gen X, Y, & Z now outnumber Boomers in the electorate.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



Page 8 of 28 FirstFirst ... 45678910111218 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO