US Politics: What goes up, must come down!

[lancerman]

4 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

On Bernie's VP, I think we can discount anyone over 70. No Warren, Biden, or Bloomberg, quite apart from the fact that a Bloomberg selection would scream sell-out, and Warren buggers up the Senate.

At that point, various questions then arise about how Bernie is going to play this. I do think Klobuchar would be his best bet, in that she's a Mid-Westerner, a woman, and an election winner with a history of getting support from rural Republicans. Plus, she's completely non-threatening for moderates, isn't despised by progressives, and wouldn't lose a Senate seat. Downside is that reaching out to a more conservative VP doesn't have a great track record in recent times (2000, 1988).

I don't think Bernie as a Senator should pull another Senator. I'd say maybe Gillum. Popular in Florida, shores up some African American support, is 40 so you have the youth thing, moderates don't hate him, he's not completely off base ideologically, and he doesn't compromise a current Democratic seat somewhere. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

25 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

So, how did Bernie Sanders excite the Latino vote this time? It's a definite improvement over last time around.  Also, I'd vote for Sanders, but his emails.

And his home server...or something? I can't remember. It was such a load of shit. 

I do think he has worked harder to move beyond "class only" politics and reach out to historically marginalized groups. It wasn't hard for him to shift this way--much of what he's talked about is in service to those groups. I think he's just being more explicit about it. I was also listening to Pod Save America, and they said his campaign (and it's honestly great organization) is the only one of the campaigns to reach out to Latinx voters.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

Sometimes it's fascinating to observe one's own psychology from a distance, if one can.  Back when I was giving Sanders less of a chance and was more worried about him as the nominee I would have been more worried and upset by this stuff.  Now that I'm shifting into a Sanders . Trump mindset it's much harder to be bothered.  

Mind you, I'm not defending this in myself at all.  Just amazing how biases can work and how quickly they can change. 

I'm glad you're coming to the Dark Side, Trisk. It's gotten far too serious over here.

And in honor of you, I have a news story to link about...OH SHIT, CHRIS MATTHEWS APOLOGIZES!! (New York Times)

[The Marquis de Leech]

35 minutes ago, lancerman said:

I don't think Bernie as a Senator should pull another Senator. I'd say maybe Gillum. Popular in Florida, shores up some African American support, is 40 so you have the youth thing, moderates don't hate him, he's not completely off base ideologically, and he doesn't compromise a current Democratic seat somewhere. 

But Gillum lost in 2018?

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

But Gillum lost in 2018?

See what I mean? Democrats are drawn to failure.

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

That seems like such a load. The economy is good for the rich and no one else. Since most Americans (more than 70 percent) live paycheck to paycheck, I absolutely cannot believe that most Americans think things are great.

If you think the economy is bad, then you must also think that the economy under Obama was a terrible economy as well, much worse than now. So you agree with Republicans like Peter Navarro, right?

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

If you think the economy is bad, then you must also think that the economy under Obama was a terrible economy as well, much worse than now. So you agree with Republicans like Peter Navarro, right?

It's not great for most people.  It wasn't great under Obama either.  I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand or who the Peter Navarro is 

[lancerman]

6 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

But Gillum lost in 2018?

Exactly, you aren't losing a seat. And 99% of Americans aren't paying attention to a governor race in Florida. The perception of losing matters more than losing. It doesn't effect Bernie because enough people think he got screwed. Biden visibly lost a few states the last few weeks and polls shifted. Right or wrong that's the way things work. You don't even need to win Florida with him. You need to make it enough of a race to spend resources there and focus somewhere else and spread them thin. 

[Fragile Bird]

11 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

It's not great for most people.  It wasn't great under Obama either.  I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand or who the Peter Navarro is 

When I read an American, living in the country with the best economy in the world, tell me how bad things are in the US, just imagine how horribly the rest of us must be living.

[Larry of the Lawn]

8 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

When I read an American, living in the country with the best economy in the world, tell me how bad things are in the US, just imagine how horribly the rest of us must be living.

Yeah I'm your hero, Michael Fucking Bloomberg.

 

------------

Aren't you from Canada, a country regularly rated as having a higher standard of living than the US?  In case you are unaware, the US economy may be large, but it's not very equitable.  Three families own as much wealth as the poorest 50% of people here.  I'd just like to not be bankrupt from going to a doctor.  Aren't you a lawyer?  Take off, eh?

 

[Lord of Rhinos]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

That seems like such a load. The economy is good for the rich and no one else. Since most Americans (more than 70 percent) live paycheck to paycheck, I absolutely cannot believe that most Americans think things are great.

Americans are well known for being huge consumers.  The fact that culturally Americans are very bad at saving does not mean the economy is bad overall. In general, Americans savings rate tend to go up after the economy hits a rough patch so in some ways living paycheck to paycheck is indicative of Americans being confident about their economic prospects.  Also, your article says 59% of Americans say they're living paycheck to paycheck (no idea where your 70% is coming from) but 80% of Americans have retirement accounts which of course indicates 2/3s of those paycheck to paycheck folks have savings to fall back on.

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

Americans are well known for being huge consumers.  The fact that culturally Americans are very bad at saving does not mean the economy is bad overall. In general, Americans savings rate tend to go up after the economy hits a rough patch so in some ways living paycheck to paycheck is indicative of Americans being confident about their economic prospects.  Also, your article says 59% of Americans say they're living paycheck to paycheck (no idea where your 70% is coming from) but 80% of Americans have retirement accounts which of course indicates 2/3s of those paycheck to paycheck folks have savings to fall back on.

Yeah living the fucking high life deciding between paying the electric bill or eating something other than ramen.  

And no fucking way do 80% of Americans have retirement accounts thats 100% bullshit unless you're counting the change in between the couch cushions.  

[Lord of Rhinos]

You didn't read the linked article did you?  " one in five Americans don't have a dime saved for retirement, according to a survey from Northwestern Mutual. " Charles Schwab says that the average American spends about 500 dollars a month on non-essentials, which means people are not choosing between ramen and electricity.

[Larry of the Lawn]

11 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

You didn't read the linked article did you?  " one in five Americans don't have a dime saved for retirement, according to a survey from Northwestern Mutual. " Charles Schwab says that the average American spends about 500 dollars a month on non-essentials, which means people are not choosing between ramen and electricity.

It also says that 1/3 of that 80% figure (which I read it I just dispute it) has less than $5000 in retirement savings.

I cannot imagine how only 1 in 5 people have no retirement savings.  I'd be very curious to see where thlse numbers actually come from.

$500 in non-essentials a month?  Must be nice 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-03-26/almost-half-of-older-americans-have-zero-in-retirement-savings

Doesn't have other age groups but it's not like the under 40 crowd is going to have much saved up

[DMC]

This discussion would be more..reflective of reality of we stopped talking about which Senate seats may or may not be lost due to certain VP picks.  That's a concern, yes, but a minimal one.  Y'all sound pretty dumb when you're like "well, I'd like her, but worried about holding that seat."  That's not how this works.  It's an absurd construct to start from.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

This discussion would be more..reflective of reality of we stopped talking about which Senate seats may or may not be lost due to certain VP picks.  That's a concern, yes, but a minimal one.  Y'all sound pretty dumb when you're like "well, I'd like her, but worried about holding that seat."  That's not how this works.  It's an absurd construct to start from.

It's because of those homeless seat savers, isn't it?

[Lollygag]

2 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

That article is pretty disgusting--some rich white dude saying it's okay to not vote for a candidate who is seeking ways to help poor people literally stop suffering because that's SO EXTREEEEMMMEEEE, he actually is no different than the racist, sundowning, misogynist and rapist who inhabits the White House. Revolution indeed. My guess is if people like him followed through, it'd be enough to hurt the left--in theory. Though I believe these rich white men who claim to be liberal and posit positions like this have voted Repub all their lives.

I can see that angle.

But what a lot of the left doesn't seem to even understand is that not everyone is an aspirational voter. Your view ultimately assumes its own conclusion: that socialism and ANTI-CAPITALISM, will actually help anything. No one is complaining about Bernie wanting to help, but there is much to doubt about the solutions suggested and much to doubt about Bernie himself. The promoting of whatever as-yet unspecified anti-capitalistic solutions (!) and flipping our entire economy and way of life by someone who has no concrete plans and a deeply questionable record looks like it will not only not help anyone, but will be phenomenally damaging.

The Bernie set isn't just asking for the middle's vote for some additional programs and addressing income inequality, they're asking for a come-to-Jesus conversion to a philosophy and way of life that many of us don't believe in, don't want to live in and think will only lead to chaos at best. And Bernie has done little to reassure many of us that he isn't just an epic fuck-up and con man. Dude's either an incompetent idiot and can't add up the cost of his own programs or worse, he's outright lying and insulting us with it on top of it. I and many people are not aspiration voters. I need more than that. A lot more.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I can see that angle.

But what a lot of the left doesn't seem to even understand is that not everyone is an aspirational voter. Your view ultimately assumes its own conclusion: that socialism and ANTI-CAPITALISM, will actually help anything. No one is complaining about Bernie wanting to help, but there is much to doubt about the solutions suggested and much to doubt about Bernie himself. The promoting of whatever as-yet unspecified anti-capitalistic solutions (!) and flipping our entire economy and way of life by someone who has no concrete plans and a deeply questionable record looks like it will not only not help anyone, but will be phenomenally damaging.

The Bernie set isn't just asking for the middle's vote for some additional programs and addressing income inequality, they're asking for a come-to-Jesus conversion to a philosophy and way of life that many of us don't believe in, don't want to live in and think will only lead to chaos at best. And Bernie has done little to reassure many of us that he isn't just an epic fuck-up and con man. Dude's either an incompetent idiot and can't add up the cost of his own programs or worse, he's outright lying and insulting us with it on top of it. I and many people are not aspiration voters. I need more than that. A lot more.

 

This is just wrong. Here's how he pays for it:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-major-plans/

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

If you think the economy is bad, then you must also think that the economy under Obama was a terrible economy as well, much worse than now. So you agree with Republicans like Peter Navarro, right?

Absolutely it was bad under Obama. I had a three year pay freeze, then minimal raises here and there. I was a public school teacher. Our insurance rates also went thru the roof, and the school board shut down negotiations with our Union. Amidst these number of years we didn't get raises (and cut benefits), the rent rose astronomically. 

Yeah it kind of has fuckin sucked a long time which is why people want something different.

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Yeah I'm your hero, Michael Fucking Bloomberg.

 

------------

Aren't you from Canada, a country regularly rated as having a higher standard of living than the US?  In case you are unaware, the US economy may be large, but it's not very equitable.  Three families own as much wealth as the poorest 50% of people here.  I'd just like to not be bankrupt from going to a doctor.  Aren't you a lawyer?  Take off, eh?

 

As Lord of Rhinos pointed out, the US economy is consumer driven - 70% of American economic growth is based on consumer spending. The US economy has been doing well because Americans are spending spending spending. Your economy will go into a recession when Americans decide they are in fact not doing well and stop spending.

As for savings, Canadians are in far more debt than Americans are. That’s because the financial crisis of 2008 was caused by insanity in the US housing market. That insanity did not happen in Canada. In the US, millions of people walked away from their houses and their mortgages, many declaring bankruptcy. There was no housing crisis in Canada, because our mortgage rules are dramatically different. Instead, the population is up to their eyeballs in mortgage debt.