U.S. Politics: mid summer edition

[ThinkerX]

I think Krugman called them "hardhats" which makes sense to me. It's the proverbial blue collar guy who correctly realizes that the Republican establishment will spit on him at every economic turn whatever they say about cultural stuff.

Trump voters.

[Guest]

^At least the "hardhats" are generally consistent in their preferences, like libertarians. The mainstream party platforms have no logic. 

 

That is certainly true of the Republican base who is actually both hugely for and hugely against the welfare state at the same time. 

[Shryke]

This will relate back to Jim Webb but take a while to make any sense.

 

Krugman had this great post where he had a two-by-two matrix consisting of "supports welfare state" or "opposes welfare state" and "culturally/socially liberal" or "culturally/socially conservative." 

 

The vast majority of Republicans fell into the quadrant of socially conservative and opposed the welfare state.  The vast majority of Democrats fell into socially liberal and supports welfare state.  Libertarians kind of fell into the less-populated quadrant of opposes welfare state while being socially liberal. 

 

But then there's this other quadrant:  socially conservative while supporting welfare state.

 

I think Krugman called them "hardhats" which makes sense to me.  It's the proverbial blue collar guy who correctly realizes that the Republican establishment will spit on him at every economic turn whatever they say about cultural stuff. 

 

That's Jim Webb's constituency.  It would be great for the Dems if they could gain some ground with those voters, but I don't see how Jim Webb could do it while maintaining support from other key Dem constituencies. 

 

Calling them Hardhats makes alot of sense historically too since they were a major Democratic party base in the middle of last century and still are to some extent. A big split in the left coalition in the US was over things like racial issues between more blue collar elements of the party and the more activist elements.

[Shryke]

He's also very hawkish and thinks the Democratic Party is too far left, which isn't exactly going to capture the zeitgeist nowadays. Not to mention the whole "Women Can't Fight" thing. I know that's obviously going to be particularly personal to me, and yeah it was 1979, but I don't think I'd want to pull the lever for that guy. 

 

(I did like enjoy the novel of his that I read, though.)

 

Yes, thank you. I could only vaguely remember most of the dumb shit he's said over the years.

[Hayyoth]

 

That is certainly true of the Republican base who is actually both hugely for and hugely against the welfare state at the same time. 

Wtf are you talking about? When did the Republicans come out against the welfare state? Are they proposing shutting down medicare/medicaid? Ending SS? Even closing the Dept of Education? Perhaps the most useless invention since the male nipple. (Hint the answer is no). This sounds like the usual bullshit punditry we're afflicted with in this country. The problem is NO mainstream politician will tell the truth about entitlements, especially faux 'fiscal conservatives' like Paul Ryan.

[Hayyoth]

 

He's also very hawkish and thinks the Democratic Party is too far left, which isn't exactly going to capture the zeitgeist nowadays. Not to mention the whole "Women Can't Fight" thing. I know that's obviously going to be particularly personal to me, and yeah it was 1979, but I don't think I'd want to pull the lever for that guy. 

 

(I did like enjoy the novel of his that I read, though.)

He's the wrong sex and color to be the Dem nom, it's as simple as that. OK if he was ten steps to the batshit insane left he'd probably get the folks thinking Sanders was a good idea maybe kicking his tires, but they still wouldn't buy.

 

Speaking of Sanders

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/07/30/bernie-sanders-criticizes-open-borders-at-hispanic-chamber-of-commerce/

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) found himself at odds with some immigration reform advocates Thursday, defending his 2007 vote against a comprehensive immigration bill and telling an audience hosted by the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce that "open borders" were a threat to American jobs.

"There is a reason that Wall Street likes immigration reform," Sanders said. "What I think they’re interested in is seeing a process by which we can bring low-wage labor into this county."

Sanders, who supported the 2013 version of immigration reform, had already waded into a moral and economic fight inside the Democratic Party. The latest round began with an interview with Vox's Ezra Klein, who asked if Sanders could favor "sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders."

The Vermont senator vehemently disagreed. "That's a Koch brothers proposal," he said. "What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that."

 

It's become a mantra on the left that open borders and importing tens of millions of grateful Hispanics will ensure Democratic Party hegemony for decades to come. I'll give credit to Bernie for actually being consistent in defending his blue collar union constituency. Remember Bernie those Wall St billionaires you're talking about, a lot of them are large contributors to the Hillary 2016 campaign. Anyway I wait with anticipation the cries of racism at Sander's remarks.

[Guest]

Wtf are you talking about? When did the Republicans come out against the welfare state? Are they proposing shutting down medicare/medicaid? Ending SS? Even closing the Dept of Education? Perhaps the most useless invention since the male nipple. (Hint the answer is no). This sounds like the usual bullshit punditry we're afflicted with in this country. The problem is NO mainstream politician will tell the truth about entitlements, especially faux 'fiscal conservatives' like Paul Ryan.

 

This post should be kept into perpetuity in some kind of time capsule.  Wow.

[lokisnow]

 
A lovely narrative people keep trying to make true, despite the data we have available showing otherwise.
 .

Because, SHINY!
,a lot of people seem unable to fathom enthusiasm existing if it isn't shiny new enthusiasm they just heard about six seconds ago... SHINYOTHERTHING!!! *wanders away distracted*

[TrackerNeil]

^At least the "hardhats" are generally consistent in their preferences, like libertarians. The mainstream party platforms have no logic. 

 

You know what they say about a foolish consistency...

 

Actually, I am curious. What are "hardhats" and what are their preferences? Are there data on this?

[Ormond]

 

You know what they say about a foolish consistency...

 

Actually, I am curious. What are "hardhats" and what are their preferences? Are there data on this?

 

This is explained in Triskan's post, #120 on this thread.

[Altherion]

In the general election I doubt many people are going to be worrying about who is "establishment" and who is not. Most Democrats will vote for the Democratic nominee and most Republicans will vote for the Republican nominee.

But that's exactly what I mean by "Establishment". If you want a historical example of the opposite, consider the 1952 election in which many people voted for Dwight Eisenhower not because he was a Republican, but because he was Dwight Eisenhower. In fact, quite a few people voted for him [i]despite[/i] the fact that he was a Republican. Clinton is not like that and neither are most the other candidates from either party.

 

In other news, the most recent Super PAC reports are in (Time, Huffington Post and an article with per-candidate charts). It appears that Super PAC spending will significantly exceed ordinary campaign donations. The current champion is Bush who only has $11.4M for his official campaign, but $103.2M in Super PAC spending (so the total is $114.6M). Clinton is predictably next with a grand total of $67.8M, but only $20.3M of that comes from Super PACs and the other $47.5M comes from her official campaign. The only people not using Super PAC money are Sanders (who nevertheless has $15.2M of official donations) and Trump (who is presumably not soliciting donations at all). On the other hand, Walker, Kasich and Christie each have more than $10M in Super PACs, but none at all for their official campaign.

 

Noting that this is getting a little bit silly, some people have called for removal of campaign donation limits altogether. From the Time article:

Candidates may only accept donations of $2,700 per person, per election, and $5,000 per election from corporate or labor political action committees. “We are not subject to contribution limits like the campaigns are, so that certainly helps build resources to get our message out,” said Jordan Russell, spokesman for the Opportunity and Freedom PAC, which is backing former Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s White House run. The Opportunity and Freedom PAC has already spent more than $2.3 million on advertisements touting Perry — more than twice as much as the Republican’s presidential campaign raised through the end of June.

 

This dynamic frustrates many of the presidential contenders, and some, including Cruz, are openly calling for contribution limits to candidates to be eliminated entirely. “Our current campaign finance system is ridiculous,” Cruz told the Center for Public Integrity in a recent interview. “The way to do it is to let campaigns speak for themselves directly.”

 

Some others (e.g. Jimmy Carter) have called for putting limits on the Super PAC money, but given that the winners (both Presidential and Congressional) will almost certainly be people who greatly benefited from Super PACs, it's hard to see that happening.

[TrackerNeil]

 

This is explained in Triskan's post, #120 on this thread.

 

I got that, yes, but do we know how these people typically vote?

[Seli]

...

But then there's this other quadrant:  socially conservative while supporting welfare state.

 

I think Krugman called them "hardhats" which makes sense to me.  It's the proverbial blue collar guy who correctly realizes that the Republican establishment will spit on him at every economic turn whatever they say about cultural stuff. 

 

That's Jim Webb's constituency.  It would be great for the Dems if they could gain some ground with those voters, but I don't see how Jim Webb could do it while maintaining support from other key Dem constituencies. 

Wouldn't some of the hispanic communities fall in the same quadrant?

[Guest]

Wouldn't some of the hispanic communities fall in the same quadrant?

 

Yeah, good point.  I would think so.

 

I found the actual post here titled Rand Paul and the Empty Box. 

[Biglose]

Somehow I got the impression that Krugman works backwards to the desired outcome.

I mean you have two parties in the US. That makes two positions, no matter how many dimensions a problem has two points are always connected by one vector. So it in the end gets always down to one dimensiononal problem. (In that sense)

 

I mean if you would magically start to have a parliamentary system and then probably around 4 parties, you would end up with more dimensions.

[Shryke]

Somehow I got the impression that Krugman works backwards to the desired outcome.

I mean you have two parties in the US. That makes two positions, no matter how many dimensions a problem has two points are always connected by one vector. So it in the end gets always down to one dimensiononal problem. (In that sense)

 

I mean if you would magically start to have a parliamentary system and then probably around 4 parties, you would end up with more dimensions.

 

That would then align along the same lines. Cause the US parties are already coalitions. And the overlaps have already gotten gutted.

[Ramsay Gimp]

"There are almost no genuine libertarians in America — and the people who like to use that name for themselves do not, in reality, love liberty."

 

 

^I love how Krugman says something that may be empirically supported, and then pulls the bolded part completely out of his ass. Typical

[lokisnow]

2016 Senate Map

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-senate/

TLDLook

Democrats ain't winning back the Senate.

[Guest]

2016 Senate Map

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-senate/

TLDLook

Democrats ain't winning back the Senate.

 

Why do you say that?  On Sabato's map there are two "R to D" leans right now with zero "D to R" ones, and the Dems should be competitive in three of the "Lean R" ones (Ohio, Penn, New Hampshire) where they'd have a good chance if the Dem candidate for President wins and has a down-ballot effect. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Corporations are people, my friends.

 

 

 http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/08/01/17748/super-pac-doppelgangers-eclipse-candidates-campaign-money-chase

 

 

 /I won't believe it until I see a cop shoot an unarmed corporation.