US Politics: Out in the Cold

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Didn't it also turn out that a lot of the Bernie or Bust sentiment was engineered by Russian bots on social media?

[IheartIheartTesla]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Moving on to global climate change:

Economist that support a carbon tax.

https://www.econstatement.org/original-cosignatories/
I really don’t know if a carbon tax would be sufficient to address global climate change. But what is interesting here is that the signers of this document aren’t the usual left wing or left of center suspects. 
People like Robert Lucas, and Kydland have signed it. These people aren't associated with left wing politics, having pretty conservative views.If people like this now believe that climate change has become a significant threat, then I really have no idea why a proposal for a New Green Deal is considered that radical.

I think there is decent support for a carbon tax, but I believe it was on the ballot in Washington state ($15/MT of emissions) and was rejected by that liberal leaning group. Maybe there is a disconnect between what the "elites" of either side think and the common man/woman.

On the other hand, I am reading a book called Cheap and Clean: How Americans think about energy in the age of global warming, and there is maybe some soft support for Americans to pay about $10 per month (the authors did a survey about Willingness to Pay or WTP for short) in their electric bills to address climate change.  There may be public support for some more modest proposals with a lot of pushback from the usual suspects, making even incremental changes a tough ask.

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I think there is decent support for a carbon tax, but I believe it was on the ballot in Washington state ($15/MT of emissions) and was rejected by that liberal leaning group. Maybe there is a disconnect between what the "elites" of either side think and the common man/woman.

I read about this and tend to think liberals made an error in this regard.

Do I think a carbon tax, by itself, will solve the problem of climate change. Honestly, I have no idea, but suspect it won't. But, I think it's better than nothing. Take what you can get and then press for more.

[OldGimletEye]

Just who are the political mullet wearers that Shultz is trying to appeal to?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/30/upshot/could-howard-schultz-help-re-elect-the-president.html

Quote

Dissatisfied centrists are well represented in the American elite, but not across the American electorate. According to a Pew Research survey of more than 5,000 Americans in 2017, 78 percent of registered voters have a favorable view of at least one major party, and only 18 percent have an unfavorable view of both. Similarly, only 16 percent say both parties are “too extreme,” according to the survey.

These dissatisfied centrist voters fit the profile of affluent, socially moderate and fiscally conservative suburban voters. They are twice as likely to make more than $100,000 per year than voters who have a favorable view of a party, and 78 percent of these voters say Democrats “too often see government as the only way to solve problems.” 

 

[S John]

I think it pays to remember that Trump straight-up lies constantly and this is one reason why I think there probably are a fair number of people who were pro-Bern that ultimately voted for Trump.  

Anyone remember Trump’s campaign stance on healthcare?  We are gonna repeal and replace Obamacare!  It will be replaced with something better and cheaper and you are going to love it!  He’s also been on record in the past as a supporter of universal healthcare.  

Trump was really only a hardliner on a couple of issues, the Iran deal, tougher border security, trade.  I think most of us here saw Trump for what he was right out of the gate, we knew damn well he didn’t have a secret healthcare plan ‘better’ than Obamacare stashed away in his back pocket.  But someone a little more desperate, or a little more naive, or a little less bright, or a little of all of the above might have thought - ‘Eh, what the hell let’s see what he does’.  Couple that with Bernie and Trump both preaching protectionism, I can see the crossover.

Trump was unspecific about a lot of his policies during the campaign allowing him to seem like he was offering a lot more than what he was, and the ones he was specific about probably weren’t dealbreakers for a lot of people.  Anyway, I’m sure there are some disillusioned blue collar white folks who voted for Trump and didn’t get what they wanted out of it.  I could see those people coming back.  Whether or not that number of people is significant enough to really fuss over, I don’t know.  It’s possible that them seeing what the other side has to offer in terms of ‘change’ ought to get them back on board.  For anyone who crossed party lines to vote for Trump, I can’t imagine he delivered for too many of them.  

[IheartIheartTesla]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

I read about this and tend to think liberals made an error in this regard.

Do I think a carbon tax, by itself, will solve the problem of climate change. Honestly, I have no idea, but suspect it won't. But, I think it's better than nothing. Take what you can get and then press for more.

Yes, the attitude of the folks behind the Green New Deal is (to quote AOC's chief of staff):  “If it’s really not possible, then we can revisit. The idea is to set the most ambitious thing we can do and then make a plan for it. Why not try?”

There you go, two diametrically opposite approaches. Who knows which is right? I think perhaps nationally the incremental approach but regionally where there is significant support the ambitious one. 

[Kalbear]

I like that the troll went from "we gotta appeal to the Obama trump voters" to " we gotta appeal to the super far left Bernie or bust voters" without even changing sentences. It's pretty impressive to try and win an argument that duplicitously. 

Also obviously a fact is that Bernie or bust voters aren't going to be swayed by anyone not named Bernie, so the clear change is to run Bernie O'Rourke, Bernie Harris, and Bernie Warren. 

[Fragile Bird]

I've watched the CNN interview with Schultz a few times now and one of the things that struck me as strange is what he claims are the central platform items of the now 'extreme left Democratic party'. Those are free medicare for everyone, free college for everyone and a job for everyone.

On health care, he says his position is that affordable health care should be available to all. Does he not understand that means tens of millions won't be covered? We've already seen what billionaires think is 'affordable'.  Does he not understand that the 'free medicare' people in every other 1st world country have is not 'free' but paid for by taxes?

I know Bernie Sanders thinks college should be free, but is this a central plank of the Democratic party platform?

A job for everyone? Isn't this the ideal every party has run on for the past 100 years? And the US is basically at full employment right now, why is this so offensive to him and other 'centrist Democrats'.

I was revolted hearing him parrot Trump by saying he would fight the Washington elites that run everything. What, more billionaires in government as a cure all?

[OldGimletEye]

6 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I've watched the CNN interview with Schultz a few times now and one of the things that struck me as strange is what he claims are the central platform items of the now 'extreme left Democratic party'. Those are free medicare for everyone, free college for everyone and a job for everyone.

On health care, he says his position is that affordable health care should be available to all. Does he not understand that means tens of millions won't be covered? We've already seen what billionaires think is 'affordable'.  Does he not understand that the 'free medicare' people in every other 1st world country have is not 'free' but paid for by taxes?

I think Shultz is just confused about a lot of public policy issues.

I suppose it takes a certain sort of genius to get people to buy cups of coffee for $20. I certainly would have never thought of it, as I'm fine with 1 buck gas station coffee. But, that doesn't translate into anything coherent on public policy issues, evidently.

10 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

A job for everyone? Isn't this the ideal every party has run on for the past 100 years? And the US is basically at full employment right now, why is this so offensive to him and other 'centrist Democrats'.

The government jobs guarantee is something I'm a bit more skittish on. I primarily view it as second best policy. If we had saner monetary and fiscal policy, I don't think it would be necessary. But, then we didn't have that because people like Shultz and Carly Fiorina running around warning people about the deficit a few years back. So maybe it is something we ought to consider to build in automatic fiscal policy, when there is a downturn, particularly in this era of low interest rates.

To a large extent, I'm an old school full employment lefty. And I'm thankful for people like AOC getting that back into the political debate.

[Zorral]

Funny that, how billionaires who think they should run the country are such ignoramuses about the voters's live, the nation, the world and how to run anything effectively.  Bloomberg gibbering today that universal healthcare 'will bankrupt the country for years!' while, of course, the country's already been or is being bankrupted for so damned long and is falling apart because local and federal governments refused to spend money on the infrastructures because all of these types who are political donors don't want that sort of spending.

[Zorral]

Here we go some more about the liberal, good-hearted billionaires who really really really care about the rank and file of this nation. they are talking to each other and about what they all share in this thing of billionaires wanted to be president, such a surprise.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-pol-amazon-city-council-union-workers-20190130-story.html

Quote

 

Amazon indicated that it will oppose attempts to unionize among its workers in New York City, the company said Wednesday — drawing the ire of local politicians and putting unions supporting their Long Island City development in an awkward spot....

.... “Would you agree to neutrality if workers at Amazon wanted to unionize?” Council Speaker Corey Johnson asked during an at-times heated Council hearing on the finances of the Amazon deal.

“No, sir,” Amazon Vice President Brian Huseman said. . . .

. . . . “You are in a union city,” Johnson said. “That is not a way to come to our city, a city where 20 percent of our people live at or below the poverty line.” . . . .

 

Bear in mind, where amazon expects to build the second headquarters, is home to many people in dire financial condition.  Building there also means ripping out their housing.

The mayor and the governor really screwed the pooch on this secret deal.  They are still gobsmacked that the city and so many of its voters are in opposition to this -- and not because of lowering pay and depriving housing for low income residents (to be displaced by the 6 and 7 figure salaried amazon employees), but due the incredible additional stress it will put on the infrastructure of sewage, water mains, power grids, the streets and subways due to increased traffic (amazon expects to include a helipad at the site for the honchos so they won't be inconvenienced) -- and amazilla does not see why it shouldn't contribute to the upkeep and improvement of these systems.  Plus, you know, those enormous millions of tax breaks.  WTF?

[Darzin]

The more I hear about Schultz the less I worry about him stealing democratic votes. I think he would have been better off trying to primary Trump and appealing to Republicans with his policies.

[S John]

Re: free college

i think it’s great to hear politicians address the issue of putting pressure on young people to go to college their entire lives which will then saddle most of them with debt for the next 25 years.  IMO, most of those ‘Millenials are killing x!’ type articles and statements can be easily explained by student loan debt.  You’ve got a $500 / month payment (and in many cases much more) at age 22 that is going to be with you until age 40 or so, damn right that makes it a lot harder to buy a new car, buy a house, or have a family in your 20s.  People are pushing all of these things back later in life and it isn’t because this generation is wired differently, it’s because they can’t afford it, and student loans are a major factor why.

With that said, while I’d like to have both things addressed (though I don’t necessarily think college needs to be 100% free) healthcare is much more important to me and should be a higher priority.  I personally wouldn’t hold against any candidate for punting on the college thing and concentrating on getting a healthcare system that works for all Americans.

[felice]

5 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

there is maybe some soft support for Americans to pay about $10 per month... in their electric bills to address climate change.

A poll tax? So Bezos pays $10/month and people below the poverty line pay $10/month? Hell no. Even if it's a percentage of the bill rather than a flat fee, it's still grossly regressive, since the poor have to spend a much higher percentage of their income on electricity than the rich. Climate change needs to be addressed urgently, but that's not the way to do it.

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I like that the troll went from "we gotta appeal to the Obama trump voters" to " we gotta appeal to the super far left Bernie or bust voters" without even changing sentences. It's pretty impressive to try and win an argument that duplicitously. 

Also obviously a fact is that Bernie or bust voters aren't going to be swayed by anyone not named Bernie, so the clear change is to run Bernie O'Rourke, Bernie Harris, and Bernie Warren. 

Not really. I'm  bringing up BernieorBust  in response to you're confidence in the notion of it being easier to win by appealing  more to the people who didn't vote in the last election rather than those who voted for Obama-Trump. The point I was trying to make is that is not automatically the case. There are people who didn't vote last election  who are going to be harder to persuade to vote blue than some of the Obama-Trump voters who've we've seen vote blue against candidates that specifically aligned themselves with Trump in the 2018 midterms,   What can the democrats specifically do to make  enough of those who didn't vote last election excited enough to vote in 2020? And meh. Sanders did go to bat after Clinton was nominated, but his efforts dont seem to have generated the excitement his supporters had for him over to her or really have gotten through to the truly radical of his his base..  Honestly, he kinda went too far when campaigning against his opponents. Turned too many people off from her for good. If The only added benefit of him being on the ticket would be to winning over more white workers. Like I feel such a thing needs to be attempted but you would take the usual route in trying to simply galvanize the groups that typically vote democratic-so do you see a Sanders presidency preferable all together or is it for a possible solution for something that won't be a major roadblock come election time?

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Not really. I'm  bringing up BernieorBust  in response to you're confidence in the notion of it being easier to win by appealing  more to the people who didn't vote in the last election rather than those who voted for Obama-Trump. The point I was trying to make is that is not automatically the case. There are people who didn't vote last election  who are going to be harder to persuade to vote blue than some of the Obama-Trump voters who've we've seen vote blue against candidates that specifically aligned themselves with Trump in the 2018 midterms, 

There are going to be some who are harder, sure. But again, there are 40% of the TOTAL POPULATION. I don't need to convince ALL of those people to vote. I just need to convince, say, 1% more. 

And yes, you're totally switching goalposts from 'go to the center to pick up Obama-Trump voters' to ' some of those Obama-Trump voters are Bernie or Bust, and also chemtrails, and HillaryForPrison!" 

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

  What can the democrats specifically do to make  enough of those who didn't vote last election excited enough to vote in 2020?

Run a more exciting candidate, largely. And be going against someone who is actively despised even more than they were before. 

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And meh. Sanders did go to bat after Clinton was nominated, but his efforts dont seem to have generated the excitement his supporters had for him over to her or really have gotten through to the truly radical of his his base..  Honestly, he kinda went too far when campaigning against his opponents. Turned too many people off from her for good. If The only added benefit of him being on the ticket would be to winning over more white workers.

There is very little evidence that 'white workers' would vote for Bernie over Trump compared to, say, another Democrat. Mostly, there's very little evidence that white working class will be voting for anyone other than Trump to any large degree. 

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Like I feel such a thing needs to be attempted but you would take the usual route in trying to simply galvanize the groups that typically vote democratic-so do you see a Sanders presidency preferable all together or is it for a possible solution for something that won't be a major roadblock come election time?

Like I feel that you should take a pause when writing sentences so that occasionally you aren't asking like 4 questions at once and maybe make it easier to read for people so they might be able to respond to points that you might be trying to make if you weren't arguing in bad faith and taking your talking points from either Infowars or Young Turks and maybe try and read your sentences out loud to see if they make sense?

[IheartIheartTesla]

58 minutes ago, felice said:

A poll tax? So Bezos pays $10/month and people below the poverty line pay $10/month? Hell no. Even if it's a percentage of the bill rather than a flat fee, it's still grossly regressive, since the poor have to spend a much higher percentage of their income on electricity than the rich. Climate change needs to be addressed urgently, but that's not the way to do it.

Just because a WTP (which is the result of a survey, not a public policy statement) averages out to $10/month doesn't mean everyone will have to pay $10/month. It is an anchoring point for discussion when you consider it alongside the carbon tax proposals (a carbon tax is also regressive, since it will penalize things like energy).

[Varysblackfyre321]

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Darzin said:

The more I hear about Schultz the less I worry about him stealing democratic votes. I think he would have been better off trying to primary Trump and appealing to Republicans with his policies.

Meh, I genuinely dont see him fairing better. Like who could he specifically appeal to on the Trump side that would throw way their vote for for a third party candidate. The popularity with Stein and Johnson is that they were anti-establishment.

[lokisnow]

Pew on the 2020 electorate:

boomers and older are dropping from 43% of eligible voters in 2016 to 37% of eligible voters in 2020.

boomers and older cast 49% of ballots in 2016, so with that 7 point drop, we can probably assume at least a 3.5 point drop in ballots cast in 2020, so that’s more like 45.5 % of ballots to them.

but they may still cast more as the ones that die first are the poorest and least educated and so least likely to vote and there isn’t a 1:1 parallel as some of the percentage drop for boomers and older is due to population growth from gen z becoming voting eligible, not from pure die offs. And since young voters are useless, gen z will be 9 percent of eligible voters but probably 10% or less of those eligible will vote so it’s doubtful they’ll have much impact.

there will still be more eligible boomers than millennials, the generations won’t be crossing before this election as previously thought.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/an-early-look-at-the-2020-electorate/

[horangi]

10 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Pew on the 2020 electorate:

boomers and older are dropping from 43% of eligible voters in 2016 to 37% of eligible voters in 2020.

boomers and older cast 49% of ballots in 2016, so with that 7 point drop, we can probably assume at least a 3.5 point drop in ballots cast in 2020, so that’s more like 45.5 % of ballots to them.

but they may still cast more as the ones that die first are the poorest and least educated and so least likely to vote and there isn’t a 1:1 parallel as some of the percentage drop for boomers and older is due to population growth from gen z becoming voting eligible, not from pure die offs. And since young voters are useless, gen z will be 9 percent of eligible voters but probably 10% or less of those eligible will vote so it’s doubtful they’ll have much impact.

there will still be more eligible boomers than millennials, the generations won’t be crossing before this election as previously thought.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/an-early-look-at-the-2020-electorate/

Interesting- thanks for posting.  I always wondered why it felt like us GenXers seemed to be a political footnote at best in elections. We only managed a measly three presidential elections as second fiddle to the boomers before dropping to three again- with the boomers still ahead.