Jump to content

US Politics: Celebrating and despairing too early;No poll bump for Trump yet.


Varysblackfyre321

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

 

Source for this?  I have a difficult time believing that 1 in 100 Americans has over 10 million in assets.

I don't have a good source, mind you, but a Google search points to a Quora thread (blech) which says that as of 2016 there were about 630,000 households in the US with net worth > $10 million. Divide that by 128 million US households and it comes out to 0.49%, or 1 in 200, assuming some rando on Quora was actually right for once. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ferrum Aeternum said:

I don't have a good source, mind you, but a Google search points to a Quora thread (blech) which says that as of 2016 there were about 630,000 households in the US with net worth > $10 million. Divide that by 128 million US households and it comes out to 0.49%, or 1 in 200, assuming some rando on Quora was actually right for once. 

I couldn't quickly find a good source for the cutoff for the top 1%.  It looks like the cutoff for the top 5% in America was $1.6 million net worth in 2016. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

 

Source for this?  I have a difficult time believing that 1 in 100 Americans has over 10 million in assets.

Also from Quora, an artice using US governments statistics that show the top 1% made at least $465,000 in 2017. They may or may not have $10 M in assets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DMC said:

And my proposed tactic is clearly the best way to make sure it continues to be emphasized by the media.  Is anyone debating that? 

I’m pretty sure everyone is debating that. Trump not releasing his tax returns regularly makes it into the A or B blocks of news coverage, so that’s not an issue. Democrats deciding to not release theirs either will only dilute that. The strategy you’re purposing has no benefits, but it does have consequences.

If you want to try something different, get left leaning billionaires under audit to release their tax returns despite them not running for office, further shaming Trump’s argument.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mormont said:

Yes. Multiple people are debating that, including me, or you wouldn't have had to type those words. 

So you think someone confronting Trump and outright saying she is not releasing her returns wouldn't get more press than someone simply releasing their returns?  I fundamentally disagree, and am fairly certain I'm right on that one.

3 hours ago, mormont said:

Anecdotally, you toured it here, too, and the reaction was the same (most didn't care) but also different (those that did were not in favour). 

Sure.  This is board isn't exactly the greatest sounding board for swing voters.  Frankly I'll trust a random (situationally, not statistically) focus group primarily made up of drunk bar patrons in Pittsburgh a whole hell of a lot more than a focus group made up of frequenters of this thread.

3 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

That book isn’t going to be a best-seller going forward, so he won’t be a 1%er earnings-wise anymore and he’s not a 1%er in net worth terms, since he doesn’t have $10 M in assets.

Oh, I don't know about that if he somehow wins the nomination.  Sales will obviously increase, and probably very much so.  Anyway who cares how much money he makes?  I have stated my dislike for Sanders many times on this thread, but making money is definitely not one of the reasons.  And no, it doesn't make him hypocritical.

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Source for this?  I have a difficult time believing that 1 in 100 Americans has over 10 million in assets.

Yeah me too.

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

Also from Quora, an artice using US governments statistics that show the top 1% made at least $465,000 in 2017. They may or may not have $10 M in assets.

My parents would probably be on that, or at least close to in earnings.  They don't have $10 million in assets.  Granted, a lot of that's their damn kids' fault.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Trump not releasing his tax returns regularly makes it into the A or B blocks of news coverage, so that’s not an issue.

Right now.  That's not going to be sustained.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Democrats deciding to not release theirs either will only dilute that. The strategy you’re purposing has no benefits, but it does have consequences.

No, it definitely would not.  Also not sure what the either meant here?  Assume just a typo.  The tactic I'm proposing has no costs and potential benefits.  Releasing your returns presumably has no costs either, but also adds exactly zero benefits for a candidate.  The latter is rather inarguable.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

If you want to try something different, get left leaning billionaires under audit to release their tax returns despite them not running for office, further shaming Trump’s argument.  

Uh, I don't see how that'd help much of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Bernie had a bump up for two years because he had a best-seller. That book isn’t going to be a best-seller going forward, so he won’t be a 1%er earnings-wise anymore and he’s not a 1%er in net worth terms, since he doesn’t have $10 M in assets.

 

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

Also from Quora, an artice using US governments statistics that show the top 1% made at least $465,000 in 2017. They may or may not have $10 M in assets.

It's harder to get a handle on holders of wealth than earners of income.  I wish Bernie would drop out already though.... 

Also as interested as I am in Trump's tax returns on multiple levels, I think at some point the issue should just die already.  Those of us who think he is a lying liar who lies, is cruel and immoral, and who also probably did some shady things on his taxes and/or with potential enemies of the state already think that, and nothing in his returns will change that view.  Those of us who feel that he is making America great again, and really shaking up the system and focusing on the issues that matter will continue to believe that, so who cares about the tax returns. But that's the cynical view I guess?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, DMC said:

Right now.  That's not going to be sustained.

Maybe, maybe not. It will get talked about ad nauseam though, especially during the debates.

I think the better argument is that Democrats should have waited a lot longer to release their taxes, not that they shouldn’t release them at all.

Quote

No, it definitely would not.  Also not sure what the either meant here?  Assume just a typo.  The tactic I'm proposing has no costs and potential benefits.  Releasing your returns presumably has no costs either, but also adds exactly zero benefits for a candidate.  The latter is rather inarguable.

Why do you say that? If Democrats don’t release their taxes, the media will just shift and talk about that. That’s the risk in your strategy. You need to keep the media focused on Trump’s refusal to release his taxes, not change it to nobody is releasing their taxes.

Quote

Uh, I don't see how that'd help much of anything.

Well it has no downside, and the upside is it might make the public see that there is no validity to Trump’s argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It will get talked about ad nauseam though, especially during the debates.

And the vast majority of swing voters (or any voter, really) will not care, because they will not be watching the debates.  Because they have, like, twenty of them now in the span of 8 months.  Plus, now you have to multiply that by two, at least for a lot of it, with all the damn candidates.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If Democrats don’t release their taxes, the media will just shift and talk about that. That’s the risk in your strategy.

No, FNC is not the media.  If a candidate clearly articulates why they're doing it, which is kind of the entire point, the media is going to be spending much more time talking about the fact Trump hasn't released his.  And again, to go back to the Comey example, it doesn't really matter what the media is saying about it.  What matters is they're focusing on a clear losing issue for Trump.  That's why there is minimal if any risk.

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well it has no downside, and the upside is it might make the public see that there is no validity to Trump’s argument.

The public already knows this.  At least the potentially persuadable public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Bernie had a bump up for two years because he had a best-seller. That book isn’t going to be a best-seller going forward, so he won’t be a 1%er earnings-wise anymore and he’s not a 1%er in net worth terms, since he doesn’t have $10 M in assets.

Bernie's set to be one of the Democratic front runners this election.  I would not count his book sales out. 

Bernie has been in congress since 1991.  Members of congress currently make $174,000.  His wife is a woman who wears many hats, but for close to 10 years she was a college president while he was in congress.  Bernie may not be 1% wise but he's certainly been very close to it throughout much of his congressional career.   I suspect him and his wife have been diligent about investing, which is not something a tax return necessarily captures.

 

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

 

Source for this?  I have a difficult time believing that 1 in 100 Americans has over 10 million in assets.

Go here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mormont said:

Anecdotally, you toured it here, too, and the reaction was the same (most didn't care) but also different (those that did were not in favour). 

 

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Sure.  This is board isn't exactly the greatest sounding board for swing voters.  Frankly I'll trust a random (situationally, not statistically) focus group primarily made up of drunk bar patrons in Pittsburgh a whole hell of a lot more than a focus group made up of frequenters of this thread.

Sorry for belaboring the point and getting pedantic, but I think another thing's worth mentioning for why this is a completely inapt comparison beyond the ideological deficiencies between the two samples.  I have no idea how many people read my post about it, and I'm not asking them for a response.  Therefore it's entirely unknown how many people that didn't respond either didn't care, agreed with me, or disagreed.  Posters are overwhelmingly more likely to respond to something if they disagree with the content. 

That's perfectly fine, in fact it's a feature I like about discussion boards.  But it also is another reason it's a terrible sample methodologically speaking.  In contrast, I directly asked respondents for their opinion on the issue and had a discussion about their thoughts.  While I'm not a big fan of any type of focus group to draw conclusions (or even their general usefulness) - and to be clear I am not doing so - that's pretty much the gold standard in terms of polling methods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, DMC said:
On 4/16/2019 at 2:23 PM, Zorral said:

This particular issue of his taxes could heat up a whole lot as many tax payers just recently got hit with the shock that not only were not getting a refund, they owed a tax bill this year, even though they'd planned ahead and instituted a much higher withholding since the tax law changes.

Nah, that's not true.

What part of the above are you declaring untrue?  Because a whole lot of people were calling in yesterday to talk shows about taxes saying exactly that.  Even when a buncha rethug reps who supposedly know all about the tax law changes rattled out a whole buncha pro politico word salad that contained absolute zero content or information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DMC said:

So you think someone confronting Trump and outright saying she is not releasing her returns wouldn't get more press'm  than someone simply releasing their returns?  I fundamentally disagree, and am fairly certain I'm right on that one.

I don't doubt that you think you're right.

But consider just for a second. Suppose you aren't right? Suppose I'm wrong? What are the downsides of each situation? If either strategy fails to damage Trump, and has no upside, what is the price?

In one case, nothing - we stay as we are. In the other, the precedent is set - releasing tax returns is no longer something you just do, it's now conditional on the other guy doing it first. Presidential tax returns become the highest profile example of the prisoner's dilemma in the political world, and we likely have to get used to not seeing them for either candidate in most elections.

I'm not keen on that. Are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

Bernie's set to be one of the Democratic front runners this election.  I would not count his book sales out. 

Bernie has been in congress since 1991.  Members of congress currently make $174,000.  His wife is a woman who wears many hats, but for close to 10 years she was a college president while he was in congress.  Bernie may not be 1% wise but he's certainly been very close to it throughout much of his congressional career.   I suspect him and his wife have been diligent about investing, which is not something a tax return necessarily captures.

 

Go here

Checked out the link.   It seems... Suspect.  But if those figures are accurate I'm taking my pitchfork to the streets and helping the neighborhood build our own local guillotine.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for double post, was just on Twitter and saw AOC and Warren both gave each other shout outs today... AOC has 3.9 million followers, imagine what she could do to the primary field by endorsing someone early and asking her followers to chip in, even if only one in ten donated $5-10 bucks each.  Could quickly give someone a shot of $1.5- $4 million.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Barr holding a press conference tomorrow at 9:30am est to discuss the Mueller report. He will take questions. Only issue is that he's taking questions from reporters who have not actually read the report since it hasn't been released. Feels par the course for Barr and another opportunity to spin the results before allowing people to dig into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Bill Barr holding a press conference tomorrow at 9:30am est to discuss the Mueller report. He will take questions. Only issue is that he's taking questions from reporters who have not actually read the report since it hasn't been released. Feels par the course for Barr and another opportunity to spin the results before allowing people to dig into it.

On Easter weekend no less. How are Americans supposed to follow the media coverage when they’ll collectively be biting off the heads of chocolate bunnies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

On Easter weekend no less. How are Americans supposed to follow the media coverage when they’ll collectively be biting off the heads of chocolate bunnies?

And just to add to it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Mexal said:

And just to add to it.

 

I mean, was there any doubt that this was going on? Barr has clearly decided to be a hatchetman for the President.

One newer development that's troubling is that members from conservative organizations, like The Federalist Society for example, are coming out and arguing that actual the AG and DoJ should not be independent and work on behalf of the President's wishes.

These F'ing people.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DMC said:

And the vast majority of swing voters (or any voter, really) will not care, because they will not be watching the debates.  Because they have, like, twenty of them now in the span of 8 months.  Plus, now you have to multiply that by two, at least for a lot of it, with all the damn candidates.

I was talking about the General.

Quote

No, FNC is not the media.  If a candidate clearly articulates why they're doing it, which is kind of the entire point, the media is going to be spending much more time talking about the fact Trump hasn't released his.  And again, to go back to the Comey example, it doesn't really matter what the media is saying about it.  What matters is they're focusing on a clear losing issue for Trump.  That's why there is minimal if any risk.

I think you might have too much faith in the common man or woman. A lot of people will just gloss over the details and go, "Oh, so now they're both not releasing their taxes. I guess that makes Trump 1% less worse.*"

 

*gag from a show I like, don't overthink it. 

Quote

The public already knows this.  At least the potentially persuadable public.

Do they? I have run into a lot of low information voters who are not Trump sycophants that repeat his rationale. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, mormont said:

But consider just for a second. Suppose you aren't right? Suppose I'm wrong? What are the downsides of each situation? If either strategy fails to damage Trump, and has no upside, what is the price?

Uh, that's been what I've been saying and considering for the entire discussion.  I don't know I'm right, but there's very little downside no matter what a Dem candidate does on the issue.  Can anyone explain to me this downside in any type of convincing manner?  Because I honestly don't see it.  The point is releasing returns = 0 costs, 0 benefits.  My tactic = 0 costs, potential benefits. 

Moreover, the broader point of all of this is to maintain focus on an issue that Trump is vulnerable on.  As long as the economy stays as healthy as it is, he is going to be very hard to defeat.  Regardless of party or candidate, the opposition must change the narrative to beat the incumbent in a strong economy.  Trump wants to put that alternative narrative on immigration.  Understandable, that's how he won in the first place.  So the opposition can't, or at least I think shouldn't, use that either.  Which means you run on winning issues - like health care and the environment, but that...is not exactly gonna get the media randy.  But they'd eat up this tactic, Joe and Mika would uncomfortably argue about it for hours upon hours.

11 hours ago, mormont said:

In one case, nothing - we stay as we are. In the other, the precedent is set - releasing tax returns is no longer something you just do, it's now conditional on the other guy doing it first. Presidential tax returns become the highest profile example of the prisoner's dilemma in the political world, and we likely have to get used to not seeing them for either candidate in most elections.

I'm not keen on that. Are you?

Sure, I'm totally keen on it!  You're acting like releasing tax returns is somehow a foundational aspect of running for president.  It's not.  It's been a norm for 40 years, but even within that timeframe there are many variations of what "releasing tax returns" means for each particular candidate.  And literally every nominee before Trump was not much of a worry.  Frankly the closest worries would be the Clintons.  Trump's already destroyed actually significant norms.  I don't care if you acquiesce to this rather nominal one if it helps you beat him.

10 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

AOC has 3.9 million followers, imagine what she could do to the primary field by endorsing someone early and asking her followers to chip in, even if only one in ten donated $5-10 bucks each.  Could quickly give someone a shot of $1.5- $4 million.  

Very good point, and I suspect she's shopping that with the candidates.  Assume she's torn between Sanders and Warren.

8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I was talking about the General.

Even in the general.

8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think you might have too much faith in the common man or woman. A lot of people will just gloss over the details and go, "Oh, so now they're both not releasing their taxes. I guess that makes Trump 1% less worse.*"

It's always strange when someone tells me I'm overestimating the American public, considering my opinion of the American public.  The entire idea that voters are just stupid is, well, stupid, and has been demonstrably confirmed as bullshit multiple times.  Not to get all Rousseau about it, but there's something to be said for collective wisdom.  It largely relies on the economy, but it's still empirically identifiable.

8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Do they? I have run into a lot of low information voters who are not Trump sycophants that repeat his rationale. 

Well, stop going to seedy Minnesota strip clubs then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...