US politics - Yes country for old men

[Zorral]

Hard to get affordable flood insurance in so many places, or get it at all. People keep not seeing the reports about insurance companies pulling out of insuring in flood prone, water level rising, land sinking areas.  Or severe hurricane areas, which overlap with flooding.  And that's not all, by a lomg shot.  In any case really changes the value of your house, and it's resale opportunty.

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So I'll state it more clearly: I do not think that telling young voters that things are going to be better under Biden is a winning argument. I don't think that focusing on Biden at all is going to be a winning argument. Instead, I would advocate arguing against Trump as the only real way forward that will work.

Sure, I get it.  Your advice to the Biden campaign on the economy - which inevitably comes up in every single aspect of a presidential campaign - is either (a) ignore it completely, or (b) tell people, yeah, he sucks, but Trump would suck harder!  You're a regular Dick Morris on campaign strategy!

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

This is making me rethink the prophecy. 

 

[IheartIheartTesla]

'Consumer' confidence in the economy is slowly ticking up, so maybe the boring answer is that enough people connect that to Biden if the trend continues through November. After all, he is roughly tied in the national polls and needs about a 3-4 point buffer because EC. So the hope would be regardless of where resources are placed, enough voters are peeled away from choosing Trump.

At the same time, I have to wonder if Biden has even attempted to strong-arm OPEC to raise production., Trump was willing to play ball with the Saudis, and maybe thats a bridge too far for this administration.

I'm also hoping the polls are underestimating Biden strength, and Republican overreach will drive enough women to the polls or at least boost their participation.

Edited March 13 by IheartIheartTesla

[DireWolfSpirit]

6 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So he has ty's vote nailed down in a swing state.

Minnesota is not a swing state.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Sure, I get it.  Your advice to the Biden campaign on the economy - which inevitably comes up in every single aspect of a presidential campaign - is either (a) ignore it completely, or (b) tell people, yeah, he sucks, but Trump would suck harder!  You're a regular Dick Morris on campaign strategy!

And your advice is to tell them that things are fundamentally sound at the macro level. I'm sure that'll make a real good sound bite to folks who are having problems. I'm guessing that that'll be your strategy for other areas too - that sure, Gaza is bad but the rate of civilian deaths has been going lower recently and only 10 kids starved to death recently, so...be grateful, you deadbeats!

[DMC]

Just now, Kalbear said:

And your advice is to tell them that things are fundamentally sound at the macro level.

Erm, no.  It's that things are getting better.  Now what's yours again?

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Erm, no.  It's that things are getting better.  Now what's yours again?

Again, that's not what you originally said:

"the Joe Biden Economy is something to run on!  The economic news continues to be entirely positive at the macro-level."

If you want to run on it - and by that, I mean make it a central message - of things getting better I still disagree, mind you, but it's not the same thing. 

Mine would be to not RUN ON things getting better. If it comes up that's probably how I'd have to pivot and deflect briefly before going back and pointing out how Trump was the only POTUS in history who lost jobs in only 4 years and raised the debt in every single year he was in office. I wouldn't run on that as the primary thing. I'd run on not being Trump. I'd run on having to work towards repairing the damage Trump caused to domestic programs, to foreign relationships, to the trust in our legal system and judiciary, to the environment, to people's rights of privacy and government interference - and that the job is not done. And if Trump gets in office again, all that work will be destroyed in the very first day. Any progress made will be immediately wiped out and made even worse. 

Again I don't have a ton of confidence that even that will suffice; my major hope is that Trump just does some amazingly stupid shit that makes prior behaviors look tame, and combine that with some good news from Ukraine (again, against all odds) and Israel (ditto). But telling people that it's sunny when it's raining - or telling them that the rain isn't as bad as it was last year - I don't think will help. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

Was really surprised to read just now that Tic Tok is banned in China.

I dont think I have a dog in that issue other than to say Facebook and Tic Tok are probably equally distustful and unappealing to me. Both are net negatives to me.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, that's not what you originally said:

"the Joe Biden Economy is something to run on!  The economic news continues to be entirely positive at the macro-level."

Yes, it is what I originally said -- in that post!

On 3/9/2024 at 6:39 PM, DMC said:

I know there are myriad caveats on the economy, but if you do not want Donald Trump to be our president again, start bringing up how much better the economy is today than when he left office. 

And then, within that page:

On 3/10/2024 at 1:51 PM, DMC said:

Part of the great economic statistics lately is, literally, average Americans thinking more positively about the economy.  The big jumps were in December and January, but a slight increase continued in February.  Leaning into that is Campaigning 101 for any incumbent, it doesn't take James Carville to understand that's still the case -- particularly in a contest between two candidates the electorate already has such durable and long-held attitudes otherwise.  Compounded by polarization, there are scant preferences among voters that are remotely malleable - perceptions on the economy is one of the only ones that the campaign can hope to affect.

I do agree this is more important irt turnout rather than persuasion or "swing" voters - but that's the point!  You might not know it by reading these threads, but it's an empirical fact that the Democratic-coalition as currently constituted can and will get to 270 over the GOP-coalition if they continue to show up, particularly against Trump.  It's just a matter of making sure they do.

On 3/10/2024 at 9:27 PM, DMC said:

The American public expects the incumbent president to be a cheerleader for the economy.  It's one of the primary roles of the office, especially when running for reelection.  Does that mean everything's great?  No.  But inserting some nuance into that is not that hard, and while I'm not the greatest advocate for the political knowledge of the American Voter, they can at least understand the distinction.

Indeed, an incumbent president running away from or ignoring the economy is the easiest way to lose reelection.  You know the most reliable way for a president to appear out of touch to voters that are hurting?  Ignoring the economy.  Either that or Carter's infamous malaise speech.  Voters don't wanna hear that shit from their president.

To be clear, I don't think "Bidenomics" is the way to go.  It's lame and whomever coined that should be fired along with whomever thought it'd be a good idea for him to go on TikTok.  But there are a lot simpler ways to message/spin things in a positive - or at least optimistic - manner.

On 3/10/2024 at 11:46 PM, DMC said:

Right.  "We still have more work to do, but we are on the right track!  With your help, we CAN Make America Great Again, while the other side is only interested in tax cuts for billionaires" and the like.

There's no point in engaging with you if you're just gonna grandstand.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

36 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Minnesota is not a swing state.

German horses are silly people. 

[Gorn]

52 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

At the same time, I have to wonder if Biden has even attempted to strong-arm OPEC to raise production., Trump was willing to play ball with the Saudis, and maybe thats a bridge too far for this administration.

He did, in 2022. Saudis told him to fuck off and reduced production even more just to prove a point.

They're rich enough that no Western country has an effective way of pressuring them. If US, for instance, were to stop selling them arms, they'll just buy them from Russia or China, who will welcome the new business with open arms.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Interesting, I did not know that. Wonder what their thinking is, if he'll be friendlier towards Iran or something?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Being friendly to Iran is atm not an option.

Iran is linked to Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis (not a talking point, but they actually are). And they are also one of Russia's suppliers of weapons.

Had that orange Bozo not pulled out of the nuclear deal, we might or might not be in a different place now, with Iran having some incentive for Iran to play nicely and them having made different choices. But we're where we are.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Yes, it is what I originally said -- in that post!

And then, within that page:

There's no point in engaging with you if you're just gonna grandstand.

And this was why I was terse about it. I disagree with all of those things. All of those caveats, all of those things. You can quibble about whether or not you're choosing to say things are better than they were or they were good, but I don't agree regardless. I don't agree that you're going to win by putting nuance into things, either.

In particular I disagree with the premise that you should be trying to go for malleable opinions. As you yourself stated dems have plenty of people to beat Trump provided they show up. The goal shouldn't be to change people's opinions on things, and telling them that the shit they're living in isn't shit isn't a good strategy in my mind. The goal should be to show that the opinions they hold are correct and make sure they do the thing you want them to.

Namely, that Trump is a horrible person, was a horrible president and all the things they care about will be worse under him. 

It's very weird because these are the things you were advocating in 2016 and in general advocate - when you have two candidates that have high disapproval making people like you isn't going to work; you have to make them hate the other person more. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

It's very weird because these are the things you were advocating in 2016 and in general advocate - when you have two candidates that have high disapproval making people like you isn't going to work; you have to make them hate the other person more. 

Yeah..I don't think you're understanding the whole point of that.  I'll try to go slowly:  I am not saying the economy should be the "central message" of Biden's campaign.  I'm not sure it really needs a "central message."  And we all know it's not like he individually will be campaigning much anyway -- which frankly makes this easier for his advocates/surrogates.

The point I'm trying to emphasize is a presidential incumbent cannot avoid the economy.  Running away from the economy - which in the main I think it is fair to characterize your stance as - will not work.  He will lose.  So, alternatively, instead of being defensive on a position that is GOING to come up, preempt it with a positive/optimistic message. 

And try to change minds -- yes!  Again, we're not talking about the Trumpists.  There are plenty of other people out there that can be swayed (at least a bit!) on the economy right now.  The data plainly demonstrates this whether you like it or not -- most notably the uptick in consumer confidence lately.  Which, btw, is what I started not only talking about in this thread but directly to you two months ago.

I don't think I can explain that rationale any more clearly.  Or at least, I really wanna get all these midterms done by midnight...

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Yeah..I don't think you're understanding the whole point of that.  I'll try to go slowly:  I am not saying the economy should be the "central message" of Biden's campaign.  I'm not sure it really needs a "central message."  And we all know it's not like he individually will be campaigning much anyway -- which frankly makes this easier for his advocates/surrogates.

The point I'm trying to emphasize is a presidential incumbent cannot avoid the economy.  Running away from the economy - which in the main I think it is fair to characterize your stance as - will not work.  He will lose.  So, alternatively, instead of being defensive on a position that is GOING to come up, preempt it with a positive/optimistic message. 

You said he should run on the Biden economy. I'm sorry if I interpreted that as you saying that he should run on it as a central message. Hopefully you can understand my confusion. 

And while I appreciate your interpretation of what I said that's not what I meant; I am saying don't make it a central message or even a main message, any more than you should make immigration a main message - because people view Trump as better on both. If you make the election about the economy or about immigration you'll lose. That doesn't mean you can't ever talk about it, but you shouldn't go out of your way to emphasize it - at least not without having some real action to showcase or some real success (like, say a rate drop) to talk to. If you want to frame it as being positive about it when you need to talk to by all means, sure! But if you're going to go around and talk about the successes of the economy? I just don't think people are feeling that, especially the ones that you need to turn out. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

And try to change minds -- yes!  Again, we're not talking about the Trumpists.  There are plenty of other people out there that can be swayed (at least a bit!) on the economy right now.  The data plainly demonstrates this whether you like it or not -- most notably the uptick in consumer confidence lately.  Which, btw, is what I started not only talking about in this thread but directly to you two months ago.

I don't think I can explain that rationale any more clearly.  Or at least, I really wanna get all these midterms done by midnight...

I think that the uptick in confidence is fine but it isn't going to be enough, and Biden is underwater on both the economy and things in general that I doubt it'll help him. I also suspect that the people who are swayable on the economy are more likely to come around to Biden regardless - they're likely ones who aren't happy about things but are getting better about it, and they were already probably doing okay to begin with. 

But those young folks? They aren't going to feel better about a slight change in inflation or a slight wage growth enough to counteract their malaise of voting. That's not going to fix how they view Gaza or Ukraine or the student loan promises or the climate promises or banning TikTok or the court system that wasn't acted on or the slow walking of Trump's charges or the idea that getting Biden in would, well, get rid of Trump. And maybe you're right - maybe they're impossible to get. In which case Biden is either fucked or has to hope that the economy is going to get way better. But my bet is that you can get at least enough of them...if you get them to really hate Trump. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You said he should run on the Biden economy. I'm sorry if I interpreted that as you saying that he should run on it as a central message. Hopefully you can understand my confusion.

I would hope you'd continue reading to the end of the post.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I am saying don't make it a central message or even a main message, any more than you should make immigration a main message - because people view Trump as better on both.

Difference is you can beat Trump on the economy and the voters that matter WILL care about it come November.  Neither of which is the case when it comes to immigration.  It's not "making the election about the economy."  It's the fact that EVERY presidential election is about the economy.  That's what you're fundamentally misunderstanding.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

I would hope you'd continue reading to the end of the post.

I did, but I didn't read all of the subsequent ones. Entirely my mistake. 

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Difference is you can beat Trump on the economy and the voters that matter WILL care about it come November.  Neither of which is the case when it comes to immigration.  It's not "making the election about the economy."  It's the fact that EVERY presidential election is about the economy.  That's what you're fundamentally misunderstanding.

I think you're right - that is where I disagree. Because the election in 2020 was not about the economy; it was about Trump and what he represented. The economy was not what motivated folks in Georgia and Arizona to vote for Biden, IMO, at least not in the levels that we saw. 

And I think that the economy is vaguely okay enough that it won't be the main reason people vote in this election. It's not great, it's not terrible, it's 3.6 Roentgens. It's not like 2008. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think you're right - that is where I disagree. Because the election in 2020 was not about the economy; it was about Trump and what he represented. The economy was not what motivated folks in Georgia and Arizona to vote for Biden, IMO, at least not in the levels that we saw. 

I mean, you can delineate the economy with covid on that one, sure, but it's still indirectly reaction to the economy based on covid.  And covid was certainly the key factor in 2020.

Of course, there's not that now, and Biden is the incumbent now, hence...

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I did, but I didn't read all of the subsequent ones. Entirely my mistake.

Fair enough.  

[mormont]

When are you two starting your podcast?