US Election: To NY and Beyond

[Kalbear]

7 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Kal, this is basic poli sci. Closed primaries were advantageous to Clinton in 08 and 16 just like the caucuses have been advantageous to Sanders.

Then it should be really, really easy to prove that this was the reason she won those states. 

Here's the thing that I'm getting at, Tywin. It's easy to say really basic PS101 things, but invariably the reality is different. As an example, she won New York. Was it more important that it was a closed primary - or that she was a senator? She won West Virginia and Kentucky - do you think that because party insiders voted for her is why she won by a 70-30 margin, or was it, say, because they really don't like black senators running for office there? 

I'm cool with it being a factor, but there are a lot of things outside of closed primaryship that come into play in New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and...actually, what were the others? Florida was a closed primary, but the reason she won that was because Obama wasn't even on the ballot and they did their election way ahead of time. Arizona? I'm going to go out and say that it probably had a lot more to do with racism. 

[Kalbear]

11 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

This would work better if you replied to what I actually said, rather than what you assume I meant.  I never said her positions are the same as Goldwater, though by her own admission they were in 1964.  I made no claim they still are her current views.

No, you said that you evolved, she didn't. You implied it. If that's not what you meant, I think that you were pretty unclear on what it is that you did, ya know, mean. 

11 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Do you know how many people find that paying the tax penalty for not signing up with ACA costs them significantly less than what ACA would cost them?  But according to her, universal healthcare, which a goodly number of other countries seem to be able to have, is not possible here.

Actually, I only asked if the poster I'd replied to was referring to anything other certain regulations she put in place as SecState.

 

Universal healthcare isn't possible in the current political environment. She's been fighting for this kind of healthcare for her entire political career. The ACA got fought so hard that not only republicans voted against it, many dems did too - and the result of it was getting congress completely tossed out for democrats. When she says it's impossible, it's not because single payer doesn't work as a concept. It's not because she doesn't like it. It's because she has a plan, she wants to support the gains we have, and she doesn't want tilt at windmills. She absolutely supports the idea of single payer. She also knows that it isn't going to happen, and wasting time on things that won't happen doesn't help anyone. 

Do you think that Sanders can get his healthcare proposal through congress? Do you think that even a majority of democrats would vote for a tax increase of 5-6% across the board, or vote for increasing government spending by 10 trillion dollars? 

And do you know how many people find that paying the tax penalty for not signing up for ACA costs them less? I suspect you don't, either. 

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, S John said:

This is weak, dude.  Sanders has been beating the same drum for decades.  Joining a party to have a chance at actually getting elected, but maintaining your core principles, is not at all the same as tailoring your actual positions for expediency.  

Yes, joining a party so you don't act as a spoiler for the policies closest to yours is a perfectly fine idea. I just wish some of his supporters recognized the lesson in that move.

[TrackerNeil]

42 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Do you know how many people find that paying the tax penalty for not signing up with ACA costs them significantly less than what ACA would cost them?  But according to her, universal healthcare, which a goodly number of other countries seem to be able to have, is not possible here.

Actually, I don't, but I know that if those people suffer some accident, or develop a chronic condition, they're going to hop right on to the exchanges because--surprise, surprise--intensive health care is too expensive for most individuals to bear. Paying the penalty is free-riding, and the problem there is that you never know when the ride may some to a sudden and expensive end.

As Kalbear said, Clinton knows single-payer won't happen now, but that doesn't mean she regards it as anything less than desirable. I find it curious that Hillary Clinton, who in the 90s spearheaded a more liberal plan than the ACA, is being regarded as somehow opposed to universal health insurance.

[Robin Of House Hill]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, you said that you evolved, she didn't. You implied it. If that's not what you meant, I think that you were pretty unclear on what it is that you did, ya know, mean. 

Universal healthcare isn't possible in the current political environment. She's been fighting for this kind of healthcare for her entire political career. The ACA got fought so hard that not only republicans voted against it, many dems did too - and the result of it was getting congress completely tossed out for democrats. When she says it's impossible, it's not because single payer doesn't work as a concept. It's not because she doesn't like it. It's because she has a plan, she wants to support the gains we have, and she doesn't want tilt at windmills. She absolutely supports the idea of single payer. She also knows that it isn't going to happen, and wasting time on things that won't happen doesn't help anyone. 

Do you think that Sanders can get his healthcare proposal through congress? Do you think that even a majority of democrats would vote for a tax increase of 5-6% across the board, or vote for increasing government spending by 10 trillion dollars? 

And do you know how many people find that paying the tax penalty for not signing up for ACA costs them less? I suspect you don't, either. 

Yes, my "evolved" sentence was poorly constructed. 

5-6% across the board?  Are we doing the flat tax thing again?

Take the number of uninsured people who are eligible for ACA, subtract those who have signed up for it, and you should have a ballpark figure.   If anyone doesn't qualify for subsidies and doesn't have medical conditions that require substantial care, they wind up having to pay a couple of thousand per year, but still need to pay most of their medical costs out of pocket because of high deductibles. 

As far as what can be accomplished in the current political climate, how will we know, if no one tries?

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

5-6% across the board?  Are we doing the flat tax thing again?

Essentially the increase in costs for single payer is going to end up being a flat tax for the vast majority of people. It's a 6.2% increase in payroll tax. That's...a flat tax. You know this, right? 

1 minute ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Take the number of uninsured people who are eligible for ACA, subtract those who have signed up for it, and you should have a ballpark figure.   If anyone doesn't qualify for subsidies and doesn't have medical conditions that require substantial care, they wind up having to pay a couple of thousand per year, but still need to pay most of their medical costs out of pocket because of high deductibles. 

The idea that they're doing this because it's cheaper to afford the tax hit is not actually borne out by your analysis. Not everyone who chooses not to sign up is doing so because it's cheaper. 

1 minute ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

As far as what can be accomplished in the current political climate, how will we know, if no one tries?

We did try, in 2008. A single payer option got almost immediately shot down. Obamacare barely passed despite having a filibuster-proof majority in the house and senate, and that result cost the democrats both parts of congress for the last 6 years. Obamacare was a compromise to a system that already had gotten far too much heat to even be reasonably proposed, and democrats openly said they could not vote for that high of tax hikes and that high of costs for the government. And in 8 years since, we've gotten a more entrenched government with almost no compromise between the parties at all. 

Furthermore, Clinton already did try to get single payer proposed. It got shot down. In 1996. 

[alguien]

1 hour ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

I haven't said Sanders is without fault.  I'm also not a one issue voter.  If I agree with 90% of what he is for, but only 30% of what Clinton is for, it is logical for me to focus on reasons I'd rather not see her in the White House.  

Which is mathematically odd (unless you're being hyperbolic) considering their Senate voting records are 93% the same. Their platforms are far more alike then they are different, so I guess I don't understand how that can be true. 

Quote

The problem is that in my first post I mentioned a whole range of issues that I found problematic with regard to Hillary Clinton.  Yet the responses I've gotten have zeroed in on LGBT issues.  That wasn't my intent.

You mentioned DOMA and DADT, which is why I mentioned that Hillary is an ally on LGBT issues, as well as women's rights. She also opposed Keystone, despite claims to the contrary, With NAFTA and TPP, it's a bit more complicated. But she's certainly critical of them now. 

[TrackerNeil]

34 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Take the number of uninsured people who are eligible for ACA, subtract those who have signed up for it, and you should have a ballpark figure.   If anyone doesn't qualify for subsidies and doesn't have medical conditions that require substantial care, they wind up having to pay a couple of thousand per year, but still need to pay most of their medical costs out of pocket because of high deductibles. 

As far as what can be accomplished in the current political climate, how will we know, if no one tries?

Although we cannot peer into the very souls of Republican congressmen, I feel safe saying exactly zero of them are going to vote for a Medicare-for-all plan, or whatever shape single-payer takes. I doubt you could even get all Democrats on board. Write that off as who knows? if you like, but I think that would be specious.

As to the Affordable Care Act, have you considered that perhaps the best way to move towards single-payer is not a single, unlikely revolution but a series of incremental changes? Worked for Social Security, which in the beginning was nowhere near universal. Today that program covers just about every American--and Americans love it. Why can't the ACA be improved and extended the same way?

[Robin Of House Hill]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

Although we cannot peer into the very souls of Republican congressmen, I feel safe saying exactly zero of them are going to vote for a Medicare-for-all plan, or whatever shape single-payer takes. I doubt you could even get all Democrats on board. Write that off as who knows? if you like, but I think that would be specious.

As to the Affordable Care Act, have you considered that perhaps the best way to move towards single-payer is not a single, unlikely revolution but a series of incremental changes? Worked for Social Security, which in the beginning was nowhere near universal. Today that program covers just about every American--and Americans love it. Why can't the ACA be improved and extended the same way?

Because there are people, right now, for which the ACA as it currently currently exists, negatively impacts their ability to pay the rent, buy groceries and clothing, and handle other necessities.  This leaves them with no alternative but to simply pay the penalty because it is less detrimental.

Incremental changes by making deals with those who simply don't care if people live or die, so that the only hope people have is that they make it to Medicare age without a medical crisis intervening, or finding that Medicare has been bargained away.

This has become a side issue to the subject of this thread.  and since I apparently cannot even construct sentences to properly communicate my thoughts, I give up.  Sorry for the distraction.

[The Anti-Targ]

Back to the primaries. What's the calculus for Drumpf to get an actual majority of delegates prior to the convention now? How many delegates are left to allocate from the remaining primaries, and how many of those are probably in the bag for Drumpf already? There are 371 delegates up for grabs before June Super Tuesday. Drumpf needs 391 delegates to get that magic number. So he can't claim a majority before the June Super Tuesday, which means regardless of the pre-June primaries it will come down to June Super Tuesday, and possibly come down to California as to whether Drumpf gets is majority prior to the convention.

How many of the remaining states are winner take all and how many are proportional?

[The Marquis de Leech]

10 hours ago, Weeping Sore said:

The Clintons were part of a redefinition of what a mainstream Democrat is after Carter failed to secure a second term, Mondale won just a single state and Dukakis tanked against H W.

People forget this, but Carter and Dukakis were both from the moderate/centrist wing of the party, rather than old-school New Dealers, like Humphrey or Mondale. Both were to the left of where Bill Clinton ended up being, but then I think Bill Clinton was privately to the left of where his Administration ended up being.

(Also, how much of the Democratic failure of the 1980s was down to policy, rather than utterly terrible campaigns from weak candidates, remains unclear. It is quite possible for a writer of alternative history to construct a Democratic victory in 1980 or 1988, or even 1984, whereas it simply isn't possible in, say, 1972).

[lokisnow]

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Back to the primaries. What's the calculus for Drumpf to get an actual majority of delegates prior to the convention now? How many delegates are left to allocate from the remaining primaries, and how many of those are probably in the bag for Drumpf already? There are 371 delegates up for grabs before June Super Tuesday. Drumpf needs 391 delegates to get that magic number. So he can't claim a majority before the June Super Tuesday, which means regardless of the pre-June primaries it will come down to June Super Tuesday, and possibly come down to California as to whether Drumpf gets is majority prior to the convention.

How many of the remaining states are winner take all and how many are proportional?

According to Sam wang, if trump got at least 86 delegates (wangs ny median prediction for trump), the. Trumps probability of winning a pledged delegate majority would be 64%. Trump got 91 delegates, so his chances are currently greater than that.

note that Nate silvers 2016 primary model is based on gut feeling guesses of what a bunch of pundits think trump will need to win, probably. Wangs is based on building a computer model with all the delegate allocation rules and running simulations based on aggregated data from the primary thus far.

so wang is far more reliable. 

 

*** back to the flat tax idea. Sanders is proposing a 6.2 flat tax on payroll to pay for universal health insurance. .2% paid by employee, 6% paid by employer (thus not drawn from an employees recorded salary).

what does that mean? Employers send the government your payroll taxes quarterly, so they will need more money to pay the government the new sanders payroll tax, most of this money for most employees will be close to a one to one trade off, the employer no longer has to pay quarterly health insurance premiums so instead all of that money goes to paying quarterly sanders payroll taxes. This leaves a relatively small deficit for employers, one that can probably be absorbed without inflicting it immediately and directly on employees.

For the people whose employers offer health insurance--mostly middle and upper class men-- this is a pretty great deal, they go from the employer side health insurance premiums they never pay to an employer side health insurance tax they never pay. If you have employer provided health insurance this is great for you and likely will not affect your life or job much. You LOVE this because you do not have to share the cost like you do with social security because it is entirely just a free benefit to you if you already have employer provided health insurance. It's a one to one exchange. One class perk for another class perk.

but for every employer that does not offer health insurance this is a big increase in their quarterly tax payments. They will have to ask their employees for immediate sacrifices in order to have the liquidity on hand to pay their quarterly taxes.

this is because the sanders tax is entirely employer side, which is fantastically unfair to the people who have jobs that don't offer health insurance. These people are disproportionately poor, female and minorities. If the tax were shared, like social security, it would be half as big, it would be pretax for employees, helping them out there, which means of the employers asked for sacrifices from their employees it wouldn't be for nearly as much but probably fewer ask if it is a shared tax. This is painful but the benefit is probably worth it for these people who need health insurance and don't have it.

So let us illustrate the problem with hard numbers. Say you have a small business with twenty employees you don't offer health insurance and the median wage is 40,000 per annum. That works out to an annual payroll of 800,000 per annum. Sanders 6.2% flat tax on that payroll is 49,600, paid quarterly as 12,400 additional payroll taxes to be paid by the employer with the employee unaware of the new sanders tax.

How many small businesses have excess cash on hand to the tune of 12400 per quarter to support this tax? They can raise the revenue by wage cuts, by price increases and by staff reductions.

and again the people experiencing the job loss and wage cuts to pay for the sanders tax are going to mostly not have health insurance already and are more likely to be poor, female and or minority.

this is what we mean when we say payroll taxes are regressive, they disproportionately burden the poor.

But that does not mean that all payroll taxes are bad even if regressive, the proposed half percent payroll tax for paid family leave paid by the employee works out to 4000 per annum for the same business, withheld from employee checks and only represents an additional 1000 per quarter in payroll tax payments without unduly burdening employers. 

And this would be to allow all employees to access a benefit/right currently mostly reserved for the high class people at high class jobs that offer paid family leave voluntarily. The benefit is largest for the poorest even though a payroll tax is inherently regressive, here it is functioning as a net good

 

[Mauvka]

Lokisnow, Thanks for breaking down how the different kinds of taxes would impact employers vs employees. 

A 6% tax increase in small business payroll (for the businesses small enough to not provide health insurance already) seems like a large burden, that should only be phased in gradually if such a law were passed. Or perhaps there could be a lower rate for business under the 50- employees threshold?

[Altherion]

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

How many of the remaining states are winner take all and how many are proportional?

Most Republican states are neither winner-take-all nor proportional. They give each congressional district 3 delegates and the rest of the delegates are determined by statewide vote. Wikipedia has a nice summary and if you really want the full details, the Green Papers have them (click on any state). I described the most important states (California, Pennsylvania, Indiana) in an earlier post.

Trump has a fairly decent shot at winning the convention on the first ballot, but he might need to convince some of the "unbound" delegates (e.g. most of Pennsylvania's) to vote for him. FiveThirtyEight has an interesting page where you can plug in your estimates for states. The expert consensus seems to be that he doesn't actually need 1237 bound delegates -- if he gets something like 1200, there should be enough unbound delegates to make up the difference. That said, he can certainly still get to 1237 if some of the breaks go his way. For example, right now he's polling very close to 50% in Connecticut. If he gets more than 50% there, he picks up all of the statewide delegates and, given that there are only 5 districts, probably most or even all of the 15 district ones as well. There's also Indiana: it has the second most bound delegates of any remaining state, but nobody wants to poll it so we don't know how it will go.

[Fez]

Carter really got the deregulation train going. In fact, while Reagan's deregulations were more high profile, Carter actually did more of it; particularly throughout the Dept. of Transportation. He's really the one that got the ball moving on the Democratic party basically accepting the Republican economic view, just with more taxes. This stuff didn't start with Clinton.

Far as the GOP nomination goes, it really does seem like its going to come down to Indiana. There's a large number of delegates there, no one knows what the polling is like, and it wouldn't take much to swing most of the delegates from Trump to Cruz or vice versa. Trump can't clinch before California, but if he doesn't do well in Indiana he almost certainly won't clinch. And his position in California seems fairly stable, whereas Indiana is an unknown. This is assuming that Trump does well in the elections next week (same states as the Democrats have), but that seems pretty much a given based on the polling and how New York turned out.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Then it should be really, really easy to prove that this was the reason she won those states. 

When did I ever say it was the reason? It's a contributing factor, but not the sole reason she won. 

[aceluby]

6 hours ago, lokisnow said:

According to Sam wang, if trump got at least 86 delegates (wangs ny median prediction for trump), the. Trumps probability of winning a pledged delegate majority would be 64%. Trump got 91 delegates, so his chances are currently greater than that.

note that Nate silvers 2016 primary model is based on gut feeling guesses of what a bunch of pundits think trump will need to win, probably. Wangs is based on building a computer model with all the delegate allocation rules and running simulations based on aggregated data from the primary thus far.

so wang is far more reliable. 

 

*** back to the flat tax idea. Sanders is proposing a 6.2 flat tax on payroll to pay for universal health insurance. .2% paid by employee, 6% paid by employer (thus not drawn from an employees recorded salary).

what does that mean? Employers send the government your payroll taxes quarterly, so they will need more money to pay the government the new sanders payroll tax, most of this money for most employees will be close to a one to one trade off, the employer no longer has to pay quarterly health insurance premiums so instead all of that money goes to paying quarterly sanders payroll taxes. This leaves a relatively small deficit for employers, one that can probably be absorbed without inflicting it immediately and directly on employees.

For the people whose employers offer health insurance--mostly middle and upper class men-- this is a pretty great deal, they go from the employer side health insurance premiums they never pay to an employer side health insurance tax they never pay. If you have employer provided health insurance this is great for you and likely will not affect your life or job much. You LOVE this because you do not have to share the cost like you do with social security because it is entirely just a free benefit to you if you already have employer provided health insurance. It's a one to one exchange. One class perk for another class perk.

but for every employer that does not offer health insurance this is a big increase in their quarterly tax payments. They will have to ask their employees for immediate sacrifices in order to have the liquidity on hand to pay their quarterly taxes.

this is because the sanders tax is entirely employer side, which is fantastically unfair to the people who have jobs that don't offer health insurance. These people are disproportionately poor, female and minorities. If the tax were shared, like social security, it would be half as big, it would be pretax for employees, helping them out there, which means of the employers asked for sacrifices from their employees it wouldn't be for nearly as much but probably fewer ask if it is a shared tax. This is painful but the benefit is probably worth it for these people who need health insurance and don't have it.

So let us illustrate the problem with hard numbers. Say you have a small business with twenty employees you don't offer health insurance and the median wage is 40,000 per annum. That works out to an annual payroll of 800,000 per annum. Sanders 6.2% flat tax on that payroll is 49,600, paid quarterly as 12,400 additional payroll taxes to be paid by the employer with the employee unaware of the new sanders tax.

How many small businesses have excess cash on hand to the tune of 12400 per quarter to support this tax? They can raise the revenue by wage cuts, by price increases and by staff reductions.

and again the people experiencing the job loss and wage cuts to pay for the sanders tax are going to mostly not have health insurance already and are more likely to be poor, female and or minority.

this is what we mean when we say payroll taxes are regressive, they disproportionately burden the poor.

But that does not mean that all payroll taxes are bad even if regressive, the proposed half percent payroll tax for paid family leave paid by the employee works out to 4000 per annum for the same business, withheld from employee checks and only represents an additional 1000 per quarter in payroll tax payments without unduly burdening employers. 

And this would be to allow all employees to access a benefit/right currently mostly reserved for the high class people at high class jobs that offer paid family leave voluntarily. The benefit is largest for the poorest even though a payroll tax is inherently regressive, here it is functioning as a net good

 

That example doesn't seem that bad.  It would require exactly one layoff out of 40 employees (2.5%) and everyone who previously did not have health insurance now has it, including the employee that was impacted.

So 40 employees with crappy jobs and no health insurance or...

39 employees with crappy jobs, one that is jobless, and all 40 now have health insurance and can see a doctor.

I still see that as a 'net good'.

[Altherion]

Indiana is also interesting because it is the one and only truly open Republican primary remaining. That is, not only can independents vote (which is the case in New Jersey and a few others), but Democrats can vote in the Republican primary and vice versa (though no individual may vote in both primaries). Indiana borders 4 states: Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio. CNN has not only the results, but, conveniently, also the results by county. Here they are:

• Illinois: Trump won both overall and all counties adjacent to Indiana. Indiana is east of Illinois.
• Kentucky: Trump won narrowly overall, but the counties adjacent to Indiana are split between Trump and Cruz. Indiana is north of Kentucky.
• Ohio: Kasich won overally and he has the majority of counties adjacent to Indiana (though Trump got a couple). Indiana is west of Ohio.
• Michigan: Trump won overall and all but one of the counties adjacent to Indiana (Cruz got that one). Indiana is south of Michigan.

Of these four states, only Michigan and Illinois have an open primary like Indiana. Kentucky has a closed caucus and Ohio has a semi-closed primary. Thus, based on how he did in the states around it, I would say Indiana looks pretty good for Trump. However, states can vary wildly from their neighbors (e.g. Kasich basically owns the Ohio Republican Party which enabled his lone victory, but he's very unlikely to win anything around it) so it would still be nice to have some polls.

[Shryke]

51 minutes ago, aceluby said:

That example doesn't seem that bad.  It would require exactly one layoff out of 40 employees (2.5%) and everyone who previously did not have health insurance now has it, including the employee that was impacted.

So 40 employees with crappy jobs and no health insurance or...

39 employees with crappy jobs, one that is jobless, and all 40 now have health insurance and can see a doctor.

I still see that as a 'net good'.

It's a fairly large increase though. And the problem for Sanders' plan is that even his supporters appear unwilling to make that sacrifice:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/4/14/11421744/bernie-sanders-tax-revolution

 

[Kalbear]

On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Tywin et al. said:

No, it's not. HRC went 7-2 in closed primaries because they favor party insiders and long time supporters. 

Tywin, this was what you said. How is this saying this isn't the sole reason?