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

[Centrist Simon Steele]

I was watching Fox News town hall with Bernie, and with the "revelation" that he is a millionaire (2 million net worth, I believe) they kept referring to him as "the 1 percent." He didn't challenge this. Is this true? I mean he'd be in the same 1 percent as Donald Trump who is supposedly in the billions, no? The income disparity in the top 1 percent is nuts, let alone the rest of us.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I was watching Fox News town hall with Bernie, and with the "revelation" that he is a millionaire (2 million net worth, I believe) they kept referring to him as "the 1 percent." He didn't challenge this. Is this true? I mean he'd be in the same 1 percent as Donald Trump who is supposedly in the billions, no? The income disparity in the top 1 percent is nuts, let alone the rest of us.

If you earned over 400k a year, you are in the top 1% of earners in the US. So yes, he is absolutely in the 1% now, though he isn't remotely in the same league or in the same problem as someone like Buffett or the Koch brothers. Honestly, neither is Trump, though Trump is at least closer. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

28 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I was watching Fox News town hall with Bernie, and with the "revelation" that he is a millionaire (2 million net worth, I believe) they kept referring to him as "the 1 percent." He didn't challenge this. Is this true? I mean he'd be in the same 1 percent as Donald Trump who is supposedly in the billions, no? The income disparity in the top 1 percent is nuts, let alone the rest of us.

 My reaction towards this “revealation” is the same reaction I have any time right wingers point towards a left-wing figure’s wealth; so what? Just because they’re not living in abject poverty doesn’t mean all their policy proposals are moot. Hell a wealthy candidate who always uphold policies that will most blatantly favor the wealthy  looks far worse than a wealthy candidate actively promoting policies that mostly put uplifting the poor first.

They’re just taking calls to address complaints about income disparity, free-market capitalism,  and chalking it up to hating all rich people. 

[SpaceChampion]

Quote

Mr. O’Rourke’s campaign touted, loudly, that he actually had out-raised Mr. Sanders in his first 24 hours as a candidate: $6.1 million to $6 million. But the new federal disclosures show that Mr. O’Rourke relied upon a bit of accounting finesse to score that headline: Nearly $300,000 of his first-day haul was actually general-election funds raised above the limit that he can spend in the primary contest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/democrats-2020-fundraising.html

[Centrist Simon Steele]

40 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

If you earned over 400k a year, you are in the top 1% of earners in the US. So yes, he is absolutely in the 1% now, though he isn't remotely in the same league or in the same problem as someone like Buffett or the Koch brothers. Honestly, neither is Trump, though Trump is at least closer. 

Yeah, it's just crazy. The idea that you can make it if you work hard in this country seems more demonstrably false (if it wasn't before) when you see that to make 400,000 a year is so statistically unlikely.

21 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 My reaction towards this “revealation” is the same reaction I have any time right wingers point towards a left-wing figure’s wealth; so what? Just because they’re not living in abject poverty doesn’t mean all their policy proposals are moot. Hell a wealthy candidate who always uphold policies that will most blatantly favor the wealthy  looks far worse than a wealthy candidate actively promoting policies that mostly put uplifting the poor first.

They’re just taking calls to address complaints about income disparity, free-market capitalism,  and chalking it up to hating all rich people. 

I know, and I agree. Same with people who say things like, "Just you wait. AOC will be a millionaire within ten years. Hypocrite." I don't think the progressive wing of the party is anti-wealth, I think they just believe if you own most of the wealth, you should pay more back. The rule applies to them too. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

9 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I think they just believe if you own most of the wealth, you should pay more back. The rule applies to them too. 

But that sounds more reasonable than simply hating rich people. So that can’t be it. Obviously left-wingers simply hate the ruch like the way nazis hate Jews.Sarcasm.

[Larry of the Lawn]

19 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Yeah, it's just crazy. The idea that you can make it if you work hard in this country seems more demonstrably false (if it wasn't before) when you see that to make 400,000 a year is so statistically unlikely.

I know, and I agree. Same with people who say things like, "Just you wait. AOC will be a millionaire within ten years. Hypocrite." I don't think the progressive wing of the party is anti-wealth, I think they just believe if you own most of the wealth, you should pay more back. The rule applies to them too. 

Fuckin a brother.  I jump at every opportunity to question people when they assume any kind of linear or even parabolic relationship between labor and income.  

I think Sanders has actually done a shit job of messaging this idea that he's suddenly Living Financial God.  All our NPR affiliate was blasting today was Nortre Dame and Sanders taxes.  They always had the 'both sides' voice asking "how is he going to explain this apparently hypocrisy?" It's actually really easy.  You just say "yes I make this much, and yes I should be taxed at a much higher rate.  Here's what I propose to do".  I saw heard some clip of him fumbling around and getting defensive about this. Wtf.  

Am heartened though to think that maybe we'll get a more quality socialist candidate in a few cycles if we all aren't fighting at knife point over clean water.  

[Varysblackfyre321]

19 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

They always had the 'both sides' voice asking "how is he going to explain this apparently hypocrisy?  It's actually really easy.  You just say "yes I make this much, and yes o should be taxed at a much higher rate

That is relatively quick, and simple, and reasonable way to respond. I’m really perplexed on why Sanders was so adamant about not showing his tax returns in 2016 if he’s moderately wealthy was all that could be  gleamed. 

[DMC]

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don’t necessarily disagree about not always taking the moral high ground, but I don’t see how this particular strategy will have the intended effect. If anything I think it would take attention and pressure off of Trump for not releasing his returns.

I dunno, maybe I'm too involved.  But it's either whine about him not releasing his returns or fuck you.  I go with the latter.  And I know it's the better political move.

6 hours ago, 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.

5 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

I was looking at this as trying to separate himself from the 15 odd other 'contenders'.  And it's getting him some coverage, which he really hasn't had recently.  

Ah, ok, that's fair.

5 hours ago, mormont said:

I mean, I know you think this is disagreeing with my point, but it's essentially just confirming it. A has not led to be so let's try C. No argument for why C will work.

There's no argument for why B would work - and it didn't.  C is something they don't anticipate, and if Trump is any good at anything, it's shitting on his toilet waiting for B to exploit.  So, instead, give him C.  Again, the logic is plain, you're just unwilling to agree with it for whatever reason.

3 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

But isn't the point, especially during a campaign, that it doesn't really matter whether any particular criticism is warranted, but rather that what matters is whether that particular criticism, warranted or not, sticks in the minds of the voters?

I mean, the Willie Horton attacks against Dukakis in '88 and the "John McCain has an illegitimate black baby" attack during the 2000 South Carolina primary definitely were unwarranted, but they sure as fuck stuck in the minds of the voters.

Uh, yeah, that's the type of shit you want to avoid.  Although I don't think Willie Horton nor McCain's imagined black baby would have much of an affect now as they did then.  That's Atwater/Rove shit, and Trump's little bitches are probably way more vicious.

3 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

But I just don't understand your dismissiveness to the political optics of refusing to release his returns when he's actively being attacked for not doing so.

I get the optics.  I just think I'm a better political operative than what they've got.  As for Bernie v Hillary, stop.  Could give two shits about that and still have poop in my hands.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Fuckin a brother.  I jump at every opportunity to question people when they assume any kind of linear or even parabolic relationship between labor and income.  

I think Sanders has actually done a shit job of messaging this idea that he's suddenly Living Financial God.  All our NPR affiliate was blasting today was Nortre Dame and Sanders taxes.  They always had the 'both sides' voice asking "how is he going to explain this apparently hypocrisy?" It's actually really easy.  You just say "yes I make this much, and yes I should be taxed at a much higher rate.  Here's what I propose to do".  I saw heard some clip of him fumbling around and getting defensive about this. Wtf.  

Am heartened though to think that maybe we'll get a more quality socialist candidate in a few cycles if we all aren't fighting at knife point over clean water.  

SO weird how he can't answer this question (Sanders Voice: I wrote a book. Did you write a book. My book was a bestseller). I love Bernie, and I think he has opened up the conversation, but his inability to phrase things cogently indicates his unlikely chances of becoming President. "I am wealthy, and I believe that I should be taxed proportionately." It's suuuuper easy. It's kind of like how he has trouble with the term "democratic socialist." He can't really explain it in a reasonable way, even though a reasonable way exists.

[Lord of Rhinos]

It is interesting that Bernie won't say he's not a member of the 1%.  At an estimated 2 million net worth, he's not close to being 1%.  Currently you need a little over 10 million to be in the 1%.   Then again, considering the vagueness of his tax returns I think Bernie is worth far more than 2 million.

[Mudguard]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

There's no argument for why B would work - and it didn't.  C is something they don't anticipate, and if Trump is any good at anything, it's shitting on his toilet waiting for B to exploit.  So, instead, give him C.  Again, the logic is plain, you're just unwilling to agree with it for whatever reason.

...

I get the optics.  I just think I'm a better political operative than what they've got.  As for Bernie v Hillary, stop.  Could give two shits about that and still have poop in my hands.

Like many others on this thread, I also think your "logic" doesn't make any sense.  Just because we haven't tried C, doesn't mean C will work better than B.  C could be even worse than B, and while others have provided many plausible reasons for disclosing tax returns, I haven't seen any even halfway decent arguments for withholding disclosure.  

Upthread you say that the Democratic candidates should not disclose their tax returns until Trump agrees to disclose his.  Trump has already made his position clear.  He's not going to voluntarily release his tax returns, so in effect, you are saying that the Democratic candidates shouldn't release their tax returns.  Trump would love it if Democrats used this approach. 

The only thing your proposal accomplishes is that it takes away their ability to criticize Trump for hiding his tax returns while not sounding like a hypocrite.  Why take away this option to criticize Trump on his tax returns and everything he's trying to hide when it costs the candidate essentially nothing to put out some tax returns, assuming that the candidate has a non-problematic tax return?  And if they do have a problematic tax return, I'd rather see that now and have the candidate address it before the nomination so that I can make an informed decision.  So I guess one benefit of your proposal to a candidate is that it helps a corrupt candidate to hide their corruption like Trump.  Yay?

And why do you think that you're a better political operative than the political operatives running the campaigns of the leading candidates?  You seriously believe this?  Is this based on demonstrated experience and success running statewide or national campaigns?  Or some other objective criteria?  I'd be shocked if it was.  Or is it simply because you disagree with their decision to release tax returns, which everyone else seems to think is a good idea?

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

Like many others on this thread, I also think your "logic" doesn't make any sense.  Just because we haven't tried C, doesn't mean C will work better than B.  C could be even worse than B, and while others have provided many plausible reasons for disclosing tax returns, I haven't seen any even halfway decent arguments for withholding disclosure.  

I've literally made the argument for withholding disclosure, I honestly could give two shits whether you think it's "decent" or not.  Although I suppose I shouldn't call it C.  It's really "not B," or ~B.  The outcome is obviously unknown no matter what, but again the "logic" is simple as fuck.  Like, if you've ever done a logic tree it's plainly its own branch.  If you haven't, then shut the fuck up whining about my logic.

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

Trump would love it if Democrats used this approach.

No, he wouldn't.  Trump loves defying people.  Trump has reveled in the fact he won and doesn't need to release any returns - he's literally said as much.  Politically, there are three options here:  (1) Do nothing - actually not a bad option, no one really cares that much about tax returns.  (2) Release your returns and demonstrate you're better - doesn't help change anything discernible at all.  Or (3) play him at his own game and see how he reacts.  I will always like the one that's unpredictable and unknown how Trump will react when he's my adversary.  Because his reaction can often exacerbate his own problem, and his reaction never helps himself beyond his base.  That's what you're going for.  So,  I suppose maybe you're right that Trump would love it if the Democrats used this approach.  To that I say game on fuckface.

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

The only thing your proposal accomplishes is that it takes away their ability to criticize Trump for hiding his tax returns while not sounding like a hypocrite. 

Oh noes, we lose the moral high ground.  How's that going electorally?  Again, the moral high ground is a pointless piece of shit politically.  That doesn't mean abandon it policywise, but I'm not gonna take lectures from a right-winger on the virtues of it.  This is why I don't read David Frum articles.

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

Why take away this option to criticize Trump on his tax returns and everything he's trying to hide when it costs the candidate essentially nothing to put out some tax returns, assuming that the candidate has a non-problematic tax return?

Because that path will also gain the candidate nothing.  My path could potentially gain that candidate something.  That's a pretty damn easy calculus.

2 hours ago, Mudguard said:

So I guess one benefit of your proposal to a candidate is that it helps a corrupt candidate to hide their corruption like Trump.  Yay?

That's not my point at all and you either know that or are very slow to understand.  Again, they could make financial disclosures anyway.  More importantly, I'm honestly not concerned about any of these candidates' returns in any way.  Only one I think may have something damaging on them?  Booker, I guess.

2 hours ago, Mudguard said:

And why do you think that you're a better political operative than the political operatives running the campaigns of the leading candidates?  You seriously believe this?  Is this based on demonstrated experience and success running statewide or national campaigns?  Or some other objective criteria?  I'd be shocked if it was.

It's because I know many political operatives, which in turn means I know how myopic and tit-for-tat they can get.  I'm not going to publicly divulge friends of mine, but yeah, I do know more political operatives in high places than most people - and often those political operatives text their political scientist friend when things get tough.  So fuck off with this.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Or (3) play him at his own game and see how he reacts. 

There's no need to speculate. Trump will react by calling Dems hypocrites for demanding he release his returns, and then refusing to release theirs. He'll insist that he is refusing because he's 'being audited' but they're refusing because they're funded by shady sources and are using his never-ending, mythical audit as an excuse to hide it.

Whatever Dems do on this issue, Trump will a, not release his returns: and b, use whatever tactics Dems use to attack them. That is certain. Nothing Dems can do will provoke Trump to release his tax returns, because he will never release them voluntarily. Trump is not the audience we're looking for a reaction from here. Voters are. And in that circumstance, the best thing to do is be open. 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, mormont said:

There's no need to speculate. Trump will react by calling Dems hypocrites for demanding he release his returns, and then refusing to release theirs. He'll insist that he is refusing because he's 'being audited' but they're refusing because they're funded by shady sources and are using his never-ending, mythical audit as an excuse to hide it.

Yep, that's exactly the reaction I'd anticipate.  Which is a win.  I don't need polling on it (and am too lazy to look it up, but there is), but a strong majority of the public thinks Trump should release his tax returns.  Which means it's a losing issue for him whenever it's emphasized by the media.  And my proposed tactic is clearly the best way to make sure it continues to be emphasized by the media.  Is anyone debating that?  Anyway, to give an example, it'd kind of be like Comey releasing another letter right before the election.  The day that happened I told my Media & Politics class:  this is how to understand the importance of priming (which is an important concept for the course).  No matter what Comey's letter says, it's raising the salience of a losing issue for Hillary.

12 minutes ago, mormont said:

Trump is not the audience we're looking for a reaction from here. Voters are. And in that circumstance, the best thing to do is be open. 

This is kind of a silly syllogism.  Obviously the voters are the objective, but Trump's reaction to an issue affects that.  As does taking a different stand on the issue.  Empirically, it's incredibly (insanely) difficult to weed out what voters mean by "authenticity" - particularly when they use that reasoning for voting for Trump.  But saying fuck you, show me your's first?  To me that sounds exactly like what the guy at the bar wants to hear.  And, anecdotally, I did tour this idea around quite a bit today - got a tailored for a suit, went to two bars with a Mancunian that just successfully defended his overview.  Most didn't care, but unanimously those that did were like "fuck yeah."

[DMC]

On 4/13/2019 at 7:44 AM, Rippounet said:

I'm always looking for good bibliographies and thought it would be on topic, thanks.

Will PM you later, but right now I need to prepare for drinks myself.

Hey just wanted to let you know that list is ridiculously lacking because you only asked for books.  Could give you a lot (A LOT) more coverage with articles.  Example - I'm literally just gonna take references from the first paper I find in the documents folder:

• Bawn, Kathleen.  1995.  “Political Control Versus Expertise:  Congressional Choices About Administrative Procedures.”  American Political Science Review 89(1):  62-73.
• Bawn, Kathleen.  1997.  “Choosing Strategies to Control the Bureaucracy:  Statutory Constraints, Oversight, and the Committee System.”  Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 13(1):  101-126.
• Bolton, Alexander, Rachel Augustine Potter, and Sharece Thrower.  2016.  “Organizational Capacity, Regulatory Review, and the Limits of Political Control.”  Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 32(2):  242-271.
• Bolton, Alexander, and Sharece Thrower.  2015a.  “Legislative Capacity and Executive Unilateralism.”  American Journal of Political Science 60(3):  649-663.
• Bolton, Alexander, and Sharece Thrower.  2015b.  “The Constraining Power of the Purse:  Executive Discretion and Legislative Appropriations.”  Presented at the 2015 annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association (Working Paper). https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53557985e4b049723f6e96f3/t/55b94525e4b03eb4128dfe82/1438205221616/bolton_thrower_jan15.pdf
• Clinton, Joshua D., and David E. Lewis.  2008.  “Expert Opinion, Agency Characteristics, and Agency Preferences.”  Political Analysis 16(1):  3 – 20.
• DeGregorio, Christine.  1994.  “Congressional Committee Staff as Policy Making Partners in the U.S. Congress.”  Congress & the Presidency 21(1):  49-66.
• Dickenson, Matthew J., and Matthew J. Lebo.  2007.  “Reexamining the Growth of the Institutional Presidency, 1940-2000.”  The Journal of Politics 69(1):  206-219.
• Fox, Harrison W, Jr., and Susan Webb Hammond.  1975.  “The Growth of Congressional Staffs.”  Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 32(1):  112-124.
• Gailmard, Sean.  2002.  “Expertise, Subversion, and Bureaucratic Discretion.”  The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 18(2):  536 – 555.
• Gailmard, Sean.  2009.  “Multiple Principles and Oversight of Bureaucratic Policymaking.”  Journal of Theoretical Politics 21(2):  161-186.

I'll stop there because I had to manually edit/delete shit for the pasting.  But I think that makes the point.

[Fragile Bird]

8 hours ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

It is interesting that Bernie won't say he's not a member of the 1%.  At an estimated 2 million net worth, he's not close to being 1%.  Currently you need a little over 10 million to be in the 1%.   Then again, considering the vagueness of his tax returns I think Bernie is worth far more than 2 million.

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.

[mormont]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Yep, that's exactly the reaction I'd anticipate.  Which is a win.  I don't need polling on it (and am too lazy to look it up, but there is), but a strong majority of the public thinks Trump should release his tax returns.  Which means it's a losing issue for him whenever it's emphasized by the media.  And my proposed tactic is clearly the best way to make sure it continues to be emphasized by the media.  Is anyone debating that? 

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

3 hours ago, DMC said:

And, anecdotally, I did tour this idea around quite a bit today - got a tailored for a suit, went to two bars with a Mancunian that just successfully defended his overview.  Most didn't care, but unanimously those that did were like "fuck yeah."

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). 

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour 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.

 

9 hours ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

It is interesting that Bernie won't say he's not a member of the 1%.  At an estimated 2 million net worth, he's not close to being 1%.  Currently you need a little over 10 million to be in the 1%.   Then again, considering the vagueness of his tax returns I think Bernie is worth far more than 2 million.

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

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Hey just wanted to let you know that list is ridiculously lacking because you only asked for books.  Could give you a lot (A LOT) more coverage with articles. 

Thanks. Sorry for not getting back to you I'm struggling with work these days.