Jump to content
Fragile Bird

US Politics: Money, Money, Money Makes the World Go Round

Recommended Posts

Was gonna say, Money Can’t Buy Me Love would have made a good title.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Was gonna say, Money Can’t Buy Me Love would have made a good title.  

I was thinking of white nationalism, anti-semitism, anti-gay sentiment, the enormous gap between the rich and the poor (especially in the depression) and, oh yes, the issue of a woman's access to abortion. How little the world changes.

eta: Oh, and cynicism. But not hairy armpits.

Edited by Fragile Bird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, DMC said:

Trump, just like any president, is going to have very minimal effect on the economy.  Aggregate economic indicators have very little to do with presidential behavior.  And my point is those indicators may be slowing to a dangerous level for an incumbent.

Look how he can move the economy with a single tweet. The markets can jump by several hundred points when he suggests progress is being made with China. And he can remove a ton of tariffs if need be for short term bursts. I think if anything Trump is showing us that past presidents could have had more direct impact on the economy if they truth norms and ethics to the wind.

Quote

Please cite.  He's not winning with less than 47% of the popular vote (with the caveat there's not a strong 3rd party candidate, which almost certainly will not be the case).  Any expert saying otherwise should give back their degrees.

It’s pretty common to hear academics and pundits say that. Trump can still hit 47%, win, and lose by more votes than he did in 2016.

Quote

He definitely will rhetorically.  Not policywise, but he knows how to sound less like a screaming fringe guy and more like a great compromiser when need be.  This is clear if you actually observe his electoral career.

You're assuming Warren would get the lion's share of the support from those dropping out.  That's a very faulty assumption.  In fact at this point I'd say it's empirically wrong.  The "moderate" voters want to feel safe.  Warren introduces uncertainty.  Bernie they at least are comfortable with.

We’ll see. I think any moderation would be minor and Sanders might look at what Trump did and say screw it, go all in on the main message.

Quote

You're assuming Warren would get the lion's share of the support from those dropping out.  That's a very faulty assumption.  In fact at this point I'd say it's empirically wrong.  The "moderate" voters want to feel safe.  Warren introduces uncertainty.  Bernie they at least are comfortable with.

Why would moderates feel safer with Bernie?

Also, isn’t Warren climbing on the second choice question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Look how he can move the economy with a single tweet. The markets can jump by several hundred points when he suggests progress is being made with China. And he can remove a ton of tariffs if need be for short term bursts. I think if anything Trump is showing us that past presidents could have had more direct impact on the economy if they truth norms and ethics to the wind.

 

Somehow I don't think you read the last set of posts on the previous thread where DMC and Mlle. Zabzie agreed that the terms "stock market" and "economy" are NOT equivalent. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Look how he can move the economy with a single tweet. The markets can jump by several hundred points when he suggests progress is being made with China.

Heh.  As @Mlle. Zabzie just went over with my mistake, the market does not equal the economy.  His impact on the aggregate indicators that are durably used to forecast presidential elections is minimal.

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Trump can still hit 47%, win, and lose by more votes than he did in 2016.

Ok...then I think we agree.  And I actually meant 46 not 47, that was just a typo.  Point is he's not going to be able to go lower than his percentage last time and pick up 270.  That seemed to be what you were asserting.  In terms of by how many actual votes?  Well, sure, if turnout increases then that means he will lose by more votes even with the same percentage.  Who gives a shit?

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think any moderation would be minor and Sanders might look at what Trump did and say screw it, go all in on the main message.

Why would moderates feel safer with Bernie?

Also, isn’t Warren climbing on the second choice question?

To the bolded, because they stupidly think a woman can't get elected.  The second choice question doesn't matter anymore.  It's first choice question time.  As for Sanders mirroring Trump rhetorically, uh, no.  Obviously he's not going to bend on messaging his policy agenda, but his symbolic messaging will unquestionably more conciliatory - and markedly more bipartisan than his primary stump speeches - than Trump's tack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Somehow I don't think you read the last set of posts on the previous thread where DMC and Mlle. Zabzie agreed that the terms "stock market" and "economy" are NOT equivalent. :)

They are different but there is intersectionality for lack of a better term. A rapidly tanking stock market, even if it’s the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy, can bring the rest of the economy down with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DMC said:

Heh.  As @Mlle. Zabzie just went over with my mistake, the market does not equal the economy.  His impact on the aggregate indicators that are durably used to forecast presidential elections is minimal.

Yeah I meant markets, but significant impacts to the markets do impact the broader economy.  

Quote

Ok...then I think we agree.  And I actually meant 46 not 47, that was just a typo.  Point is he's not going to be able to go lower than his percentage last time and pick up 270.  That seemed to be what you were asserting.  In terms of by how many actual votes?  Well, sure, if turnout increases then that means he will lose by more votes even with the same percentage.  Who gives a shit?

I do. I worry about the long term damage that can stem from minority rule through the EC, the Senate and packed conservative courts.   

Quote

To the bolded, because they stupidly think a woman can't get elected.  The second choice question doesn't matter anymore.  It's first choice question time.  As for Sanders mirroring Trump rhetorically, uh, no.  Obviously he's not going to bend on messaging his policy agenda, but his symbolic messaging will unquestionably more conciliatory - and markedly more bipartisan than his primary stump speeches - than Trump's tack.

Maybe, we’ll see. I just view him as the least likely to moderate his message and I think there are some easy ways for conservatives to counter any rebranding attempts. Like, you can’t just take back saying “we’re getting rid of private insurance.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I do. I worry about the long term damage that can stem from minority rule through the EC, the Senate and packed conservative courts.

My point is there's no effective difference if someone wins with only 46% of 135 million votes as opposed to someone winning with 46% of 145 million votes.  The difference in differences in terms of real numbers margin of loss is irrelevant to such worries.

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Like, you can’t just take back saying “we’re getting rid of private insurance.”

Of course.  That doesn't mean he can't adapt his rhetoric though.  Arguing otherwise is just navel-gazing. 

I think the issue here is I've reached the acceptance stage of grief that Sanders is very likely to be the Dem nominee.  You still seem stuck in the bargaining/depression phases.  Emotionally process political realities faster!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

They are different but there is intersectionality for lack of a better term. A rapidly tanking stock market, even if it’s the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy, can bring the rest of the economy down with it.

Yes, I think we all agree with this.  But that is most likely to happen if there are other reasons to sustain the tanking.  I would be paying closer attention to jobs growth, unemployment (by various measurements), commodity prices,  consumer debt ratios, corporate debt ratios, corporate confidence, consumer confidence, etc.  I think there are a lot of macro indications that something is going to happen.  But I've been saying that for two years now.  Summoning @OldGimletEye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was Sabato who said that compared to Trump's 48-46 loss in 2016, he could absorb as much as a 3-4% loss and still win by the electoral college. That may still mean 46-49 or 46-50, I guess, as an example (a 45-48 split would mean more votes to third party spoilers which may be more unlikely this cycle).

Also, regarding economic conditions in November - as far as I recall the metrics people look at are unemployment, GDP or rate of growth of GDP, consumer confidence and finally, presidential approval. Not expert enough to note how the latter is weighed against each of the individual economic indicators. Still, I cant see a sluggish economy but with unemployment say at 4% (1% above now), and consumer confidence the same as when Trump took office, and a 1.5% growth being able to peel off too many Trump supporters. You'd need a more severe shock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

the metrics people look at are unemployment, GDP or rate of growth of GDP, consumer confidence and finally, presidential approval. Not expert enough to note how the latter is weighed against each of the individual economic indicators. Still, I cant see a sluggish economy but with unemployment say at 4% (1% above now), and consumer confidence the same as when Trump took office, and a 1.5% growth being able to peel off too many Trump supporters. You'd need a more severe shock.

Unemployment is not a useful variable.  Change in unemployment, maybe you'll get significant results on that.  The other three you mentioned, yeah, those are the main variables in most models.  As for growth, again, the important thing is change in growth.  And yeah, a drop to 1.5% growth would likely be fatal to the incumbent (unless she had high approval rating to counteract, which Trump won't), based on such models.  Whether you believe them or not is up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we see even here, among the commentators, every one of the Dems is determined to be unelectable due to lack of palatability to some sector of voters, including ourselves.

As put on the previous thread (didn't know there was a new one) -- Considering how carefully each candidate has been shown to offend at least one portion of electorate, and thus is unelectable -- except when the media and establishment keeps insisting otherwise with a demonstrated reject like Biden -- the Dems probably shouldn't nominate anybody.  They wan't even agree on a nominee, according to Received Wisdom.

Received Wisdom has proven itself over and over, frequently, to often, be, wrong.  But! Nevermind!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All Things Considered is now 'interviewing' Elizabeth Warren, which is one attack after another -- she was too harsh, repeating the words that Bloomberg uses about women, and so on and so forth.  She showed that interviewer to be the ignorant jerk she is.

The interviewer insists she's lost the election for the Dems for being too extreme.  Have I mentioned how much I blame the clueless media for our messes?

They can talk to Warren, but all they want to talk about is Bloomberg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anyone limit the number of terms a mayor could have? It’s not like being mayor of NYC or LA or Denver or Austin or Miami or wherever the hell, is the equivalent of being President of the United States.

eta: Geez, I just looked at Wikipedia and good grief, what a bizarre system you people have. Term limits are sacred for city mayors and presidents but congressmen and senators can sit forever?

Are you people nuts, or what? I never realized, as a foreigner, why ‘term limits’ was such a dirty phrase to Congress

Edited by Fragile Bird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is polling at 44.2% average at the 538 polling aggregator now, his highest ever since March 12th 2017. And he's quickly getting to his rate when he just was elected. In addition, disapproval is now just barely over 50%, which is the lowest it's been since Kavanaugh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Trump is polling at 44.2% average at the 538 polling aggregator now, his highest ever since March 12th 2017.

Noticed this uptick Tuesday night, was waiting for you to post about it.  Took ya around 40 hours, you're losing your touch man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

We’re doomed.

Sure, it looks bad in the short term.

But in the long term? Oh, we are also doomed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×