US Politics -- Where Candidates Fall like Leaves

[The Marquis de Leech]

I'm starting to wonder if the Republican Establishment is reasoning:

- Trump is on track to get the nomination. Let's say he gets it.

- Trump will likely get crushed by Hillary in the general election.

- We can use this as a warning in future - stick with the Establishment, or else. That way Trump is put back in his box, together with all the other toxic nitwits who are rising to the surface.

In short, it's better to keep control of the losing side than lose control of the winning side.

[TrackerNeil]

I'm starting to wonder if the Republican Establishment is reasoning:

- Trump is on track to get the nomination. Let's say he gets it.

- Trump will likely get crushed by Hillary in the general election.

- We can use this as a warning in future - stick with the Establishment, or else. That way Trump is put back in his box, together with all the other toxic nitwits who are rising to the surface.

In short, it's better to keep control of the losing side than lose control of the winning side.

I don't know if any party wants to lose a presidential election, no matter what lesson they think the loss might teach. That reminds me of 2006, when some liberals--scarred by years of Rove's maneuvering--claimed that the GOP wanted to lose Congress so that blame for Iraq could be shared, or something. It's the kind of 11th-dimensional chess that I just don't think most politicians play. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Oh, they're out there.  I work with one, and there are others on my route.  But then again, there are a lot of fairly well off older folks on my route with very strong conservative tendencies.  Honest, decent, and even helpful, but also bigoted.  Weirdly, the second largest demographic on my route are complete scum-balls - folks who make their money from meth and theft.  Suffice it to say Obama has almost no fans among either group. 

 

I have also read a couple short pieces over the past week or so claiming that the Republican Donor strategy for dealing with Trump is: 'Wait for him to implode.'  That's plan 'A.'  There is no plan 'B.'  Which kind of makes me wonder what happens when plan 'A' fails.   

Plan B is to hope Hillary Clinton wins by a landslide. She wouldn't be that bad for establishment republicans, and the establishment can turn around and say to the crazies, "see what happens when you don't listen to us?"

[Paladin of Ice]

Here's a very long and involved article from The Atlantic about how policy starting in the 80s undid a longstanding trend towards economic equality across various regions and sent cities across the country to wildly different fates.

A few excerpts:

Until the early 1980s, a long-running feature of American history was the gradual convergence of income across regions. The trend goes back to at least the 1840s, but grew particularly strong during the middle decades of the 20th century. This was, in part, a result of the South catching up with the North in its economic development. As late as 1940, per-capita income in Mississippi, for example, was still less than one-quarter that of Connecticut. Over the next 40 years, Mississippians saw their incomes rise much faster than did residents of Connecticut, until by 1980 the gap in income had shrunk to 58 percent.

Yet the decline in regional equality wasn’t just about the rise of the “New South.” It also reflected the rising standard of living across the Midwest and Mountain West—or the vast territory now known dismissively in some quarters as “flyover states.” In 1966, the average per-capita income of greater Cedar Rapids, Iowa, was only $87 less than that of New York City and its suburbs. Ranked among the country’s top 25 richest metro areas in the mid-1960s were Rockford, Illinois; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Des Moines, Iowa; and Cleveland, Ohio.

During this period, to be sure, many specific metro areas saw increases in local inequality, as many working- and middle-class families, as well as businesses, fled inner-city neighborhoods for fast-expanding suburbs. Yet in their standards of living, metro regions as a whole, along with states as a whole, were growing much more similar. According to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, in 1940, Missourians earned only 62 percent as much as Californians; by 1980 they earned 80 percent as much. In 1969, per capita income in the St. Louis metro area was 83 percent as high as in the New York metro area; it would rise to 90 percent by the end of the 1970s.

The rise of the broad American middle class in that era was largely a story of incomes converging across regions to the point that people commonly and appropriately spoke of a single American standard of living. This regional convergence of income was also a major reason why national measures of income inequality dropped sharply during this period. All told, according to the Harvard economists Peter Ganong and Daniel Shoag, approximately 30 percent of the increase in hourly-wage equality that occurred in the United States between 1940 and 1980 was the result of the convergence in wage income among the different states.

Few forecasters expected this trend to reverse, since it seemed consistent with the well-established direction of both the economy and technology. With the growth of the service sector, it seemed reasonable to expect that a region’s geographical features, such as its proximity to natural resources and navigable waters, would matter less and less to how well or how poorly it performed economically. Similarly, many observers presumed that the Internet and other digital technologies would be inherently decentralizing in their economic effects. Not only was it possible to write code just as easily in a treehouse in Oregon as in an office building in a major city, but the information revolution would also make it much easier to conduct any kind of business from anywhere. Futurists proclaimed “the death of distance.”

Yet starting in the early 1980s, the long trend toward regional equality abruptly switched. Since then, geography has come roaring back as a determinant of economic fortune, as a few elite cities have surged ahead of the rest of the country in their wealth and income. In 1980, the per-capita income of Washington, D.C., was 29 percent above the average for Americans as a whole; by 2013 it had risen to 68 percent above. In the San Francisco Bay area, the rise was from 50 percent above to 88 percent. Meanwhile, per-capita income in New York City soared from 80 percent above the national average in 1980 to 172 percent above in 2013.

 

The Atlanta metro area is a notable example of a “thriving” place where per capita income has nonetheless fallen farther and farther behind that of cities like Washington, New York, and San Francisco. So is metro Houston. Per-capita income in metro Houston was 1 percent above metro New York’s in 1980. But despite the so-called “Texas miracle,” Houston’s per-capita income fell to 15 percent below New York’s by 2011 and even at the height of the oil boom in 2013 remained at 12 percent below. It’s largely the same story in the Mountain West, including in some of its most “booming” cities. Metro Salt Lake City, for example, has seen its per capita income fall well behind that of New York since 2001.

Another conventional explanation is that the decline of Heartland cities reflects the growing importance of high-end services and rarified consumption. The theory goes that members of the so-called creative class—professionals in varied fields, such as science, engineering, technology, the arts and media, health care, and finance—want to live in areas that offer upscale amenities, and cities such as St. Louis or Cleveland just don’t have them.

But this explanation also only goes so far. Into the 1970s, anyone who wanted to shop at Barnes & Noble or Saks Fifth Avenue had to go to Manhattan. Anyone who wanted to read The New York Times had to live in New York City or its close-in suburbs. Generally, high-end goods and services—ranging from imported cars and stereos to gourmet coffee, fresh seafood, designer clothes, and ethnic cuisine—could be found in only a few elite quarters of a few elite cities. But today, these items are available in suburban malls across the country, and many can be delivered by Amazon overnight. Shopping is less and less of a reason to live in a place like Manhattan, let alone Seattle.

Another explanation for the increase in regional inequality is that it reflects the growing demand for “innovation.” A prominent example of this line of thinking comes from the Berkeley economist Enrico Moretti, whose 2012 book, The New Geography of Jobs, explains the increase in regional inequality as the result of two new supposed mega-trends: markets offering far higher rewards to “innovation,” and innovative people increasingly needing and preferring each other’s company.

“Being around smart people makes us smarter and more innovative,” notes Moretti. “Thus, once a city attracts some innovative workers and innovative companies, its economy changes in ways that make it even more attractive to other innovators. In the end, this is what is causing the Great Divergence among American communities, as some cities experience an increasing concentration of good jobs, talent, and investment, and others are in free fall.”

Yet while it is certainly true that innovative people often need and value each other’s company, it is not at all clear why this would be any more true today than it has always been. Indeed, programmers working on the same project often are not even in the same time zone. The same digital technology similarly allows most academics to spend more time emailing and Skyping with colleagues around the planet than they do meeting in person with colleagues on the same campus. Major media, publishing, advertising, and public-relations firms are more concentrated in New York than ever, but there is no purely technological reason why this is necessary. If anything, digital technology should be dispersing innovators and members of the creative class, just as futurists in the 1970s predicted it would.

What, then, is the missing piece? A major factor that has not received sufficient attention is the role of public policy. Throughout most of the country’s history, American government at all levels has pursued policies designed to preserve local control of businesses and to check the tendency of a few dominant cities to monopolize power over the rest of the country. These efforts moved to the federal level beginning in the late 19th century and reached a climax of enforcement in the 1960s and ’70s. Yet starting shortly thereafter, each of these policy levers were flipped, one after the other, in the opposite direction, usually in the guise of “deregulation.” Understanding this history, largely forgotten today, is essential to turning the problem of inequality around.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I'm starting to wonder if the Republican Establishment is reasoning:

- Trump is on track to get the nomination. Let's say he gets it.

- Trump will likely get crushed by Hillary in the general election.

- We can use this as a warning in future - stick with the Establishment, or else. That way Trump is put back in his box, together with all the other toxic nitwits who are rising to the surface.

In short, it's better to keep control of the losing side than lose control of the winning side.

 

No. Or at least I don't think so.

First of all I agree with the notion that all GOP candidates look terrible. Marco Rubio at least for now looks like the most reasonable pick from that trash can. But I don't know how many skeletons he has in his closet.

Bush has performed terribly, he does not seem to able to connect as easily with people as his brother did. So he has the Bush name and the legacy of that 8 horrible Dubya years to fight against, and the charisma of Mittens. And the Bush name, really seems to be handicap, because the GOP base seems to be into outsiders these days. So you can see how his campaign was destined to be going nowhere.

Cruz would get annihilated by any halfway reasonable Democrat candidate in the general election. I don't think his chances are any better than Trumps. Trump seems to be inimplodable, he can do and say whatever he wants, without his poll numbers dropping. So if Trump does not implode I don't see Cruz picking up enough establishment/more moderate votes to keep him going forever.

Carson is about to implode. He reminds me somewhat of the days Sarah Palin delivered 24/7 entertainment as running mate in 2008. So many gaffes. Him, Huckabee or Graham are the next one to drop imho. He might be the GOP flavour of the month being an outsider and all, but at some point they will realise he is not fit to hold the office.

Christie would have been a tough sale for the GOP base, ever since that "bromance" moment with Obama in 2012. And now he has that "bridgegate" scandal, that pretty much killed his approval ratings in his homestate NJ. Which was more or less his last bargain chip, that he can win blue states.

Rand Paul somehow managed to lose those young supporters his father had to Trump. And he has not performed too well in the opening debates, and he pretty much seems to have switched from libertarian to conservative on most issues. So he is really not outstanding in any way. The establishment probably prays he will stick around for a while. Because I can see Trump inheriting Paul's supporters.

Fiorina is more another flavour of the month thing imo. She will not last forever.

So it looks like it will be narrowing down to Trump "the inimplodable" and Marco Rubio as establishment candidate. But that's an outside perspective, and a lot of things can still happen.

To go back to your original point, what is the party establishment supposed to do?

The base is atm acting like a teenaged girl in their rebellious phase. So mum and dad saying: "Don't fall for that guy, he is bad for you, we have this tidy young man with the sweater vest here, he is so much better than the Donald." Might just have the opposite effect. "It's my life and my choice, dad." Like I said, the GOP base seems atm in an anti-establishment, pro outsider mood. So the party endorsing anybody might simply have the opposite effect.

Assuming it will be HRC versus "The Donald" in the General Election, and Clinton really wins in a landslide (which is far from a safe bet imho). What will happen then?

Will the GOP establishment be able to reign in the base and tea party crazies? Or will the party move further to the right? I have my money on the latter to be honest.

 

Well let's see how it plays out.

[Altherion]

Here's an interesting article about Clinton's position on taxes.

Among the various policy ideas and position papers put out by Hillary Clinton so far in the Democratic primary, one stands out for its bumper-sticker simplicity: If your family makes less than $250,000 a year, your taxes won’t go up.

...

The no-new-taxes pledge is emblematic of the broader concerns about a Clinton presidency raised by the progressive side of the party. Critics say it is a crafty political move that would limit the ambition of proposals on everything from expanding Social Security to healthcare reform. It reinforces a long-running Republican argument that some would prefer to defeat head on. And, to put it simply, it makes it hard to pay for things Democrats want.

...

More than half a dozen economists told TIME that while Clinton’s red line may be good politics in a general election, it is misguided policy that would limit her ability to work with Congress to enact a domestic agenda. They say that Clinton’s $250,000-threshold constrains her from proposing progressive items that might require broad tax increases and give her an arbitrary obstacle to negotiating a smart tax policy.

It's pretty interesting how the mainstream Democratic position on taxes is converging with its Republican counterpart. Clinton does leave herself the option of raising taxes on the rich, but $250K is a pretty high threshold. It leaves just 3% of the population -- the richest 3%, but given that our tax system works on a marginal basis and one can only raise taxes on the income over $250K, it's going to be difficult to get serious money out of this.

[Kelli Fury]

Actually, the top 3% of the population has as much money to tax as the whole bottom half, so it's still a lot of money to be had by raising taxes on the very top. That's a major thing for the left.

[Altherion]

They may have a lot of money to tax, but they also have by far the greatest capacity for avoiding taxes. Much of that wealth is in stocks and it's very difficult to craft a law that gets at it without also hitting people who make less than $250K. Even if you manage to outsmart their tax lawyers, the wealthy have much greater mobility than the poor and the middle class. Corporations can easily be moved to other tax jurisdictions without any impact on the major investors (the Double Irish was the most famous of such arrangements before it was outlawed, but there are others). And, if worst really comes to worst (which is extremely unlikely), Monaco and Luxembourg are very nice places for American expatriates to live.

[Shryke]

They may have a lot of money to tax, but they also have by far the greatest capacity for avoiding taxes. Much of that wealth is in stocks and it's very difficult to craft a law that gets at it without also hitting people who make less than $250K. Even if you manage to outsmart their tax lawyers, the wealthy have much greater mobility than the poor and the middle class. Corporations can easily be moved to other tax jurisdictions without any impact on the major investors (the Double Irish was the most famous of such arrangements before it was outlawed, but there are others). And, if worst really comes to worst (which is extremely unlikely), Monaco and Luxembourg are very nice places for American expatriates to live.

That wealth is still what the Left wants to target though.

[lokisnow]

 

I have also read a couple short pieces over the past week or so claiming that the Republican Donor strategy for dealing with Trump is: 'Wait for him to implode.'  That's plan 'A.'  There is no plan 'B.'  Which kind of makes me wonder what happens when plan 'A' fails.   

Plan B is obvious: in the unfortunate event of a Clinton win in 2016, Republicans laugh all the way to the 2018 bank as they cakewalk the rage to 64 senate seats and a 100 seat margin in the house in the midterms.

Heads democrats lose, tails republicans win.

By which I mean. Trump win heads, 2018 midterms tails

[Lightysnake88]

Yeah, dude, the cynical predictions have gotten super fucking old.

[ThinkerX]

 

 

Plan B is obvious: in the unfortunate event of a Clinton win in 2016, Republicans laugh all the way to the 2018 bank as they cakewalk the rage to 64 senate seats and a 100 seat margin in the house in the midterms.

 

Heads democrats lose, tails republicans win.

 

By which I mean. Trump win heads, 2018 midterms tails

Even if that happens, all it will do is deepen the divisions within the republican party.  The gridlock will be worse than now.  Witness the Speaker of the House mess, sabotaged by his own party.

Plus, both demographics and the republicans own increasingly ham fisted policies are going to create hells own backlash.  Something I find interesting in connection with this: progressive tendencies have grown even in red states  - things like gay rights, and ballot initiatives mandating minimum wage hikes - often over the vehement objections of conservatives.  The republicans keep pushing this insane agenda, and it WILL start costing them seats at the local and national level alike, regardless of unlimited financial support and blatant gerrymandering.

[Seli]

They may have a lot of money to tax, but they also have by far the greatest capacity for avoiding taxes. Much of that wealth is in stocks and it's very difficult to craft a law that gets at it without also hitting people who make less than $250K. Even if you manage to outsmart their tax lawyers, the wealthy have much greater mobility than the poor and the middle class. Corporations can easily be moved to other tax jurisdictions without any impact on the major investors (the Double Irish was the most famous of such arrangements before it was outlawed, but there are others). And, if worst really comes to worst (which is extremely unlikely), Monaco and Luxembourg are very nice places for American expatriates to live.

That is wealth though, not income. And I belief a capital tax is way more toxic to both US parties than income taxation.

Secondly, expats still have to pay US taxes. Which has been one of the driving forces behind people getting rid of their US citizenship in recent years. Although the very rich might have access to the same tricks companies use to dodge responsibility.

 

[TrackerNeil]

Plan B is obvious: in the unfortunate event of a Clinton win in 2016, Republicans laugh all the way to the 2018 bank as they cakewalk the rage to 64 senate seats and a 100 seat margin in the house in the midterms.

Heads democrats lose, tails republicans win.

By which I mean. Trump win heads, 2018 midterms tails

If Clinton wins in 2016, I suspect the Democrats will pick up the four seats necessary to control the Senate. I don't know why you think that, two years later, the Republicans would pick up fourteen seats in the same chamber. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

They may have a lot of money to tax, but they also have by far the greatest capacity for avoiding taxes. Much of that wealth is in stocks and it's very difficult to craft a law that gets at it without also hitting people who make less than $250K. Even if you manage to outsmart their tax lawyers, the wealthy have much greater mobility than the poor and the middle class. Corporations can easily be moved to other tax jurisdictions without any impact on the major investors (the Double Irish was the most famous of such arrangements before it was outlawed, but there are others). And, if worst really comes to worst (which is extremely unlikely), Monaco and Luxembourg are very nice places for American expatriates to live.

The Nordic welfare states, which many progressives love to drool over, taxes their middles class at a much higher rate than we do.

[Kelli Fury]

Yes but not at a rate higher than the middle class pays for taxes, education, and healthcare that are the services those taxes pay for.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Plan B is to hope Hillary Clinton wins by a landslide. She wouldn't be that bad for establishment republicans, and the establishment can turn around and say to the crazies, "see what happens when you don't listen to us?"

But then the question becomes, "would that work?"

I've seen a lot of Republican base voters label various super conservative candidates and elected officials as RINOs. 

[Ramsay Gimp]

 

I have also read a couple short pieces over the past week or so claiming that the Republican Donor strategy for dealing with Trump is: 'Wait for him to implode.'  That's plan 'A.'  There is no plan 'B.'  Which kind of makes me wonder what happens when plan 'A' fails.   

The truth is they're not that smart. The faceless Republican money men are just as baffled by Trump's impending victory as liberals are

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

The truth is they're not that smart. The faceless Republican money men are just as baffled by Trump's impending victory as liberals are

Yup. They're baffled someone being openly racist and bigoted is winning the Republican primary. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

[aceluby]

Yup. They're baffled someone being openly racist and bigoted is winning the Republican primary. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Yeah.... who is actually shocked by this?  A rich, bigoted, racist, who has literally no ideas, multiple failed businesses, no experience in any governance, and appeals to the most basic instincts of the electorate is currently leading in the polls.

The only ones truly baffled by this are those who have tried to sweep this ugliness under the party rug for 40 years.