IlliniHQ 2
General Category => The Deuce => Topic started by: alum74 on March 04, 2020, 12:36:01 PM
-
Bernie seems to have hit a ceiling last night (30-40% of the vote). It’s not over, but AAs and suburbanites turned out in massive numbers (a la 2018) and came home to a moderate candidate. Like it or not, there’s just not stronger support out there for a revolution.
-
Maybe he will compliment Castro again today.
Fuck Bernie. He is not even a Democrat. Should have a "(C)" instead of an "(I)" next to his name for "Commie."
-
there’s just not stronger support out there for a revolution.
good because a communist revolution in america sounds fucking terrible
-
I don't know why we'd put our hopes for democratic socialism on the White House anyway.
Leftist President + moderate Congress = moderate reform
Moderate President + leftist Congress = moderate to leftist reform.
Should be focusing on finding a generation of AOCs and taking Senate seats where they can.
-
I mean.... isn’t part of the point of having Bernie on the ballot to motivate young, misguided socialists to vote?
-
Maybe...but we know the Senate and swing district Rep candidates are running away from him.
-
Getting large numbers of young socialists to show up and vote also seems to be a problem.
Many young voters sat out Super Tuesday, contributing to Bernie Sanders' losses
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/03/04/super-tuesday-bernie-sanders-youth-votes-fell-short-compared-2016/4947795002/
-
Who knows what's gonna happen.
Pete and Amy drop out over the weekend and endorse Biden. The endorsement makes sense but why did Pete drop out 2 days before Super Tuesday with all that money in the bank? Klobuchar was cratering but probably would have won Minnesota. Beto - nominally a progressive and big with the utes, endorses Biden? Meanwhile, Warren, whose campaign was flush with cash but had completely cratered with the voters to the point she finished 3rd in Massachusetts, stays in?
There were a lot of side deals made. I would not be shocked if Warren gets the VP nod, but that's very tin foil hat. Klobuchar would not surprise me at all, it's a good strategic pick if you are focused appropriately on Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, the African American crowd would show for Biden but Klobuchar doesn't turn off the soft racists like Harris or Abrams would (Abrams is way under qualified anyway).
The thing is, Biden's level of WTF chatter is increasing at a very rapid rate. We hold these truths to be self evident that all men and women are created by the, you know, you know, the thing. Signs off with Chris Wallace "Thanks Chuck". Trump is going to eviscerate him. Bernie is going to keep fighting so the next Debate where Biden can't hide will create a tons of ammo as Bernie is able to focus on him directly. Clinton is pretty quick on her fight and Bernie fought her to a draw, Biden will be pushed into too many corners and will start yelling and stumbling over his words. The plan has to be to limit the debates as much as possible and try to end this thing as soon as possible, mathematically, and then very closely curate Joe's appearances.
What happens if Biden gets the nomination but his mind deteriorates faster? Can they pull him from the ticket? What does that even mean in 2020?
-
Also - how is there no Easter Egg for Trump? ;D
-
Pocahontas, she gawn!
-
The DNC is completely rigged. Bernie has a much better following than Biden and they’re screwing him at every chance. Neither candidate has any chance of beating Trump though. They are a mess!
-
Who knows what's gonna happen.
Pete and Amy drop out over the weekend and endorse Biden. The endorsement makes sense but why did Pete drop out 2 days before Super Tuesday with all that money in the bank? Klobuchar was cratering but probably would have won Minnesota. Beto - nominally a progressive and big with the utes, endorses Biden? Meanwhile, Warren, whose campaign was flush with cash but had completely cratered with the voters to the point she finished 3rd in Massachusetts, stays in?
There were a lot of side deals made. I would not be shocked if Warren gets the VP nod, but that's very tin foil hat. Klobuchar would not surprise me at all, it's a good strategic pick if you are focused appropriately on Wisconsin, Fucking scUM, and Pennsylvania, the African American crowd would show for Biden but Klobuchar doesn't turn off the soft racists like Harris or Abrams would (Abrams is way under qualified anyway).
The thing is, Biden's level of WTF chatter is increasing at a very rapid rate. We hold these truths to be self evident that all men and women are created by the, you know, you know, the thing. Signs off with Chris Wallace "Thanks Chuck". Trump is going to eviscerate him. Bernie is going to keep fighting so the next Debate where Biden can't hide will create a tons of ammo as Bernie is able to focus on him directly. Clinton is pretty quick on her fight and Bernie fought her to a draw, Biden will be pushed into too many corners and will start yelling and stumbling over his words. The plan has to be to limit the debates as much as possible and try to end this thing as soon as possible, mathematically, and then very closely curate Joe's appearances.
What happens if Biden gets the nomination but his mind deteriorates faster? Can they pull him from the ticket? What does that even mean in 2020?
Ronald Reagan missed the nomination against an incumbent by not much in 1976. When he ran again, his campaign focused on grabbing supporters he didn’t have before. Attract more voters, get more votes.
Now I didn’t expect Bernie to expand his base much after 2016. He thought he could arouse more of them to vote this year. He also took the risk there would be a divided moderate field that would split that vote enough for him to win. I understand the strategy, but we all know the primary process is unpredictable and anything can happen.
While Dem primary turnout has been pretty good so far in 2020, many of Bernie’s younger supporters have decided to stay home. And for many voters who are most likely to show up and vote in November – including moderates, indies and leaning Rs who want someone sane instead of Trump, they’ve come home in large numbers to Sleepy Joe.
The same is true for many aging lefties. They liked Kamala and Liz initially. As their campaigns soured, they’ve moved on to Biden. This voting group views Bernie as a one-trick pony and thinks many of his supporters (not you) are jackasses. They have one simple priority: get rid of Trump. The revolution can wait.
You’re right that Joe has weaknesses. One is a lack of appeal to the left wing of the party, particularly younger voters. If he wins the nomination, uniting the party as much as possible will obviously be necessary. The other is his age and mental agility. Biden needs to pick a VP who voters can imagine being the President. I think he wants, and maybe needs, a woman on the ticket. Harris and Warren check both boxes, Klobuchar and maybe Gillibrand check one.
Just my two cents. We’ll see what happens…
-
The DNC is completely rigged. Bernie has a much better following than Biden and they’re screwing him at every chance. Neither candidate has any chance of beating Trump though. They are a mess!
Just how is it rigged?
-
Haven’t you heard? Soros’s paying people to vote for Biden. It’s all right there, in Hillary’s emails!
-
Getting large numbers of young socialists to show up and vote also seems to be a problem.
Many young voters sat out Super Tuesday, contributing to Bernie Sanders' losses
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/03/04/super-tuesday-bernie-sanders-youth-votes-fell-short-compared-2016/4947795002/
Guess being too lazy to go out and work for your money equates to being too lazy to go out and vote for it also?
-
Unless Biden already has a side deal with Klobuchar, I’d expect Warren to be the VP nominee if Biden wins. Actually, it’s possible she’s the VP nominee no matter who wins. We’ll see. I’d expect her to endorse Bernie based on policy similarity, and if she doesn’t, it says to me that she’s angling to be Biden’s running mate.
-
Thought about it some more.
Warren being named the VP nominee is very dodgy - because Massachusetts has a GOP Governor who would name her replaement. They have to have a special election, and then who knows, Massachusetts is this weird place that is very liberal but always keeps electing moderate Republicans.
-
I think Castro and Yang are also potential choices for Biden. I think he needs a progressive or at least someone more progressive. Biden will do well with minorities, moderates, and working class (relative to other potential Dem nominees). He needs someone help bring out the leftist vote.
I also think it would behoove him to pick someone younger.
Warren could endorse Biden without some agreement. No one seems to like Bernie, and I could imagine Warren thinking that Biden just has a better chance to win.
-
Raul Castro?
-
Raul Castro?
For Bernie, obviously.
-
Sanders might lose too, but Biden is definitely going to lose.
-
Sanders might lose too, but Biden is definitely going to lose.
Why do you think that?
-
Hey Murph I sent you a PM not sure if you saw it or not. No big deal either way just letting you know.
-
Sanders might lose too, but Biden is definitely going to lose.
Why do you think that?
Because he was basically the only candidate with many of the same problems as Trump - a neoliberal who can't complete a coherent thought and is creepy with women. Young people are not going to come out and vote for Joe Biden, I promise. Nominating Joe Biden could have decades-long effects on political participation and engagement IMO. Young people can only be told to stay in their lane by the people who got us into this mess so many times before they throw their hands up and stop participating.
You can argue whether that's right or wrong, but the turnout suppression that'll happen with the Biden selection is nearly guaranteed to result in a loss. Among the whole pool of Dem candidates, Biden is the absolute worst choice.
Is Joe Biden in 2020 a better candidate than Hillary Clinton in 2016 on paper? I don't think he is. Mentally he is going downhill at incredible speed right before our eyes - he makes no sense, misspeaks every sentence, etc. Trump is going to demolish him in the debates. That's not to say that he's going to spell out his vision better or beat Biden on policy specifics, obviously, but he's going to roast him like a bully in the middle school lunch room and that's what "winning the debate" looks like in America these days.
-
Sanders might lose too, but Biden is definitely going to lose.
Why do you think that?
Because he was basically the only candidate with many of the same problems as Trump - a neoliberal who can't complete a coherent thought and is creepy with women. Young people are not going to come out and vote for Joe Biden, I promise. Nominating Joe Biden could have decades-long effects on political participation and engagement IMO. Young people can only be told to stay in their lane by the people who got us into this mess so many times before they throw their hands up and stop participating.
You can argue whether that's right or wrong, but the turnout suppression that'll happen with the Biden selection is nearly guaranteed to result in a loss. Among the whole pool of Dem candidates, Biden is the absolute worst choice.
Is Joe Biden in 2020 a better candidate than Hillary Clinton in 2016 on paper? I don't think he is. Mentally he is going downhill at incredible speed right before our eyes - he makes no sense, misspeaks every sentence, etc. Trump is going to demolish him in the debates. That's not to say that he's going to spell out his vision better or beat Biden on policy specifics, obviously, but he's going to roast him like a bully in the middle school lunch room and that's what "winning the debate" looks like in America these days.
I feel almost exactly the opposite. I'd say Bernie and Trump are far more similar, symptoms of the same disease. Both harness the same frustration and grievance-seeking and cast themselves as anti-establishment. Both have simplistic, pie-in-the-sky solutions that more or less can't work.
Biden, to me is a placeholder candidate. Bernie would be far more dangerous long term.
As far as electability, I think we've seen how Democrats respond to Biden vs. Bernie over the last week. Biden hits all the demographics that will matter in the places that matter. He's pretty much a lock in PA, and has a puncher's chance in Florida.
-
The Biden support is kind of similar to what I'd say to people who say "I really dislike Trump but I like his policies."
Doesn't that argument lose some steam when you consider that Trump won the nomination over 10 other people who act like grown-ups and have the same policy positions?
Similarly, re: Biden .. couldn't we at least have picked a status-quo neoliberal who can speak coherently and isn't a creep to women in public? Like there's nothing policy-wise that separates Biden from any number of the other candidates (outside of his historic views that look bad now). So why'd we pick the creepy dude who can't talk?
-
Tucker is spot on in his bit from the other day
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBZeETi9P_U
-
The Biden support is kind of similar to what I'd say to people who say "I really dislike Trump but I like his policies."
Doesn't that argument lose some steam when you consider that Trump won the nomination over 10 other people who act like grown-ups and have the same policy positions?
Similarly, re: Biden .. couldn't we at least have picked a status-quo neoliberal who can speak coherently and isn't a creep to women in public? Like there's nothing policy-wise that separates Biden from any number of the other candidates (outside of his historic views that look bad now). So why'd we pick the creepy dude who can't talk?
He's got name recognition and lots of positive association because of Obama. I think if Trump didn't have his TV show there's no way his campaign would have gotten off the ground.
-
Sanders might lose too, but Biden is definitely going to lose.
Why do you think that?
Because he was basically the only candidate with many of the same problems as Trump - a neoliberal who can't complete a coherent thought and is creepy with women. Young people are not going to come out and vote for Joe Biden, I promise. Nominating Joe Biden could have decades-long effects on political participation and engagement IMO. Young people can only be told to stay in their lane by the people who got us into this mess so many times before they throw their hands up and stop participating.
You can argue whether that's right or wrong, but the turnout suppression that'll happen with the Biden selection is nearly guaranteed to result in a loss. Among the whole pool of Dem candidates, Biden is the absolute worst choice.
Is Joe Biden in 2020 a better candidate than Hillary Clinton in 2016 on paper? I don't think he is. Mentally he is going downhill at incredible speed right before our eyes - he makes no sense, misspeaks every sentence, etc. Trump is going to demolish him in the debates. That's not to say that he's going to spell out his vision better or beat Biden on policy specifics, obviously, but he's going to roast him like a bully in the middle school lunch room and that's what "winning the debate" looks like in America these days.
I feel almost exactly the opposite. I'd say Bernie and Trump are far more similar, symptoms of the same disease. Both harness the same frustration and grievance-seeking and cast themselves as anti-establishment. Both have simplistic, pie-in-the-sky solutions that more or less can't work.
Biden, to me is a placeholder candidate. Bernie would be far more dangerous long term.
As far as electability, I think we've seen how Democrats respond to Biden vs. Bernie over the last week. Biden hits all the demographics that will matter in the places that matter. He's pretty much a lock in PA, and has a puncher's chance in Florida.
Sanders and Trump are "symptoms of the same disease" in that they are both populists speaking to a major shift in the system here away from multi-national corp funded neoliberalism, which is IMO needed - that style of governance has resulted in massive wealth and income inequality everywhere it's been tried, including here, and it is getting worse. That's about where the similarities end. One of them is a total clown who doesn't listen to anyone and every action he takes is an effort at self enrichment - that is, he obviously never intended on governing for "the people" as he pretended, his populism is a fraud - and the other is very serious and has real progressive bonafides (even if you think he's TOO progressive). "He's not really a Democrat!" is my favorite criticism of Sanders - they're right, he's not; while the Democrats were still arguing for school segregation and banning gay people from getting married he was against those things. At some point having had the "right" opinion (to me) is more important than having been part of the Democratic party.
We've seen how Democrats in certain states respond to Biden vs. Bernie, and how the Democratic establishment - an organization that it's pretty hard to come up with good reasons to respect at this point - responds to them for sure. We've seen how they respond in swing-y states like Colorado (big for Sanders), fucking fucking fucking iowa (big for Sanders), Maine (close but went to Biden, with Warren still in the race), Minnesota (big for Biden), Nevada (big for Sanders), New Hampshire (big for Sanders). At the end of the day Biden running up big delegate counts in states like South Carolina (+15% for Trump in 2016), Alabama (+28% for Trump in 2016), Tennessee (+26% for Trump in 2016) doesn't mean much to me in terms of electability, and I think it's generally kind of a silly way to choose your candidate. Those three states, none of which either of them has a snowball's chance in hell to win, account for a +73 delegate count for Biden in a contest currently separated by 78 delegates. For comparison, the 6 swing states I listed combined account for a +28 delegates for Sanders in a race he's losing by 78 delegates.
As I said, I think it's fair to make the argument that Bernie Sanders is too far left to win a general election (although there is also a TON of propaganda about him - there are people in this thread talking about a 'communist revolution'). But I know Biden is going to lose, 100%. His support isn't going to go -up- as more people hear him talk in 2020. He's a disaster. I wish we had a rational "moderate" candidate but we picked the worst possible one.
At the end of the day it's going to be a hard sell to young Americans to say, "as long as we get rid of Trump, the man, we can get back to the normalcy that brought us to this point by electing an octogenarian who touches women and can't speak in complete sentences" and have them get out and vote.
-
I don't care, personally, about him being a Dem. I don't really consider myself one anymore. But I do think that Trump will easily paint him as a socialist. His plans to pay for his policies are a disaster.
I think you leave out the probability that Biden would have done much better in places like Iowa if the other moderates weren't there. I also don't think Colorado is swing-y.
There are only a few states that will matter most likely: PA, FL, MI, WI and maybe IA, AZ. Biden pretty much locks in the second biggest of those and gives a chance in the biggest. Bernie might do better in the smallest three but he will for sure lose FL.
Young Americans aren't reliable voters - from what I've read they didn't even come out for Bernie on Tuesday. I think targeting moderates that are disgusted by Trump and minority turn out is a better strategy.
I'm beginning to write a book right now that tries to cast some aspects of neoliberalism in a bit different light. I think it's sort of come to be a signifier for all that's wrong with the world. But at the same time it is something. It is challenging.
-
I don't care, personally, about him being a Dem. I don't really consider myself one anymore. But I do think that Trump will easily paint him as a socialist. His plans to pay for his policies are a disaster.
I think you leave out the probability that Biden would have done much better in places like fucking fucking iowa if the other moderates weren't there. I also don't think Colorado is swing-y.
There are only a few states that will matter most likely: PA, FL, MI, WI and maybe IA, AZ. Biden pretty much locks in the second biggest of those and gives a chance in the biggest. Bernie might do better in the smallest three but he will for sure lose FL.
Young Americans aren't reliable voters - from what I've read they didn't even come out for Bernie on Tuesday. I think targeting moderates that are disgusted by Trump and minority turn out is a better strategy.
I'm beginning to write a book right now that tries to cast some aspects of neoliberalism in a bit different light. I think it's sort of come to be a signifier for all that's wrong with the world. But at the same time it is something. It is challenging.
I honestly don't think many "moderates that are disgusted by Trump" exist. I've seen people claim that and as I've discussed with them more, it becomes clear that what's really going on is, they know Trump is messed up and bad for America so they can't say "I like Trump!" for social reasons, but they also will go to great lengths to justify not voting for a Democrat. I think most of the "I don't like Trump but.." crowd is going to justify voting for him, and I don't think letting that segment choose the candidate is going to win the election. I also think it's telling that their "I'll vote for Trump unless it's..." choice is pretty uniformly Biden, who is a similarly mush-brained old white dude who touches the small of womens' backs.
I don't think neoliberalism is "all that's wrong with the world", but I think everywhere that system has been implemented it has 1. been implemented more or less un-Democratically (and often by violent force), because most regular people aren't going to like things that they currently have some ownership of being auctioned off for pennies to multi-national corporations and sold back to them, and 2. has massively increased wealth and income inequality despite the stock market climbing and constant growth (i.e., Chile under Pinochet made an 'economic recovery' and economists raved about the effects of neoliberalism, but was life better for the average Chilean?). I think neoliberalism is very, very good for an increasingly small group of people, and pretty darn bad for an increasingly large group. I'm open to contrary evidence though: is there anywhere where they've gone the neoliberal route where it was voted in by the people democratically, and it didn't explode capital inequality? We hear a LOT about the history of socialism with dictators and authoritarians and very little about the history of free market economics, which is very bloody and dictatorial in its own right.
I think it's pretty early to declare that Colorado isn't a purple/swing state. It's gone blue the last three POTUS elections after being red for 9 of the previous 10. I wouldn't bet on it going red but it's not that hard to see how it could happen.
-
explain this please
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/world/europe/bernie-sanders-soviet-russia.html
-
explain this please
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/world/europe/bernie-sanders-soviet-russia.html
What about it in particular do you need explained?
-
explain this please
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/world/europe/bernie-sanders-soviet-russia.html
Not sure this is as devastating as you appear to think it is. (The Soviet's files undoubtedly say the same stuff about manipulating Trump (like the DNC server being in the Ukraine, for one example).) His pinko policies and comments about Castro are more devastating.
-
explain this please
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/world/europe/bernie-sanders-soviet-russia.html
Not sure this is as devastating as you appear to think it is. (The Soviet's files undoubtedly say the same stuff about manipulating Trump (like the DNC server being in the Ukraine, for one example).) His pinko policies and comments about Castro are more devastating.
It was meant to be "devastating"?
It literally says he was one of many American politicians targeted in that way, and that there isn't any evidence he was receptive to their propaganda.
And yes, conservatives don't want to do the "relationship with Russia" thing. The dudes running Russia right now are much, much worse - and the current President has been cozy with them for decades.
There are PLENTY of real reasons to dislike Sanders' policies, or to criticize him - but so much of the stuff that is actually used is insinuation, propaganda, and scare tactic.
-
I honestly don't think many "moderates that are disgusted by Trump" exist. I've seen people claim that and as I've discussed with them more, it becomes clear that what's really going on is, they know Trump is messed up and bad for America so they can't say "I like Trump!" for social reasons, but they also will go to great lengths to justify not voting for a Democrat. I think most of the "I don't like Trump but.." crowd is going to justify voting for him, and I don't think letting that segment choose the candidate is going to win the election. I also think it's telling that their "I'll vote for Trump unless it's..." choice is pretty uniformly Biden, who is a similarly mush-brained old white dude who touches the small of womens' backs.
I don't think neoliberalism is "all that's wrong with the world", but I think everywhere that system has been implemented it has 1. been implemented more or less un-Democratically (and often by violent force), because most regular people aren't going to like things that they currently have some ownership of being auctioned off for pennies to multi-national corporations and sold back to them, and 2. has massively increased wealth and income inequality despite the stock market climbing and constant growth (i.e., Chile under Pinochet made an 'economic recovery' and economists raved about the effects of neoliberalism, but was life better for the average Chilean?). I think neoliberalism is very, very good for an increasingly small group of people, and pretty darn bad for an increasingly large group. I'm open to contrary evidence though: is there anywhere where they've gone the neoliberal route where it was voted in by the people democratically, and it didn't explode capital inequality?
I think it's pretty early to declare that Colorado isn't a purple/swing state. It's gone blue the last three POTUS elections after being red for 9 of the previous 10. I wouldn't bet on it going red but it's not that hard to see how it could happen.
If your only metric is wealth gap, probably. But wealth gap tells a very small part of the story. If you have one million and I have 1000, and you go up to 10 million and I go up to 10,000 the wealth gap has increased but I am still better off. The pie doesn't stay the same. I think in general slow, partial implementation works better. China is a good example. India.
You might argue that China is not neoliberal, and in some ways you'd be right, which leads into my big question: what is neoliberal? Lower spending? No, we continue to spend more, as do most "neoliberal" countries. Less government involvement? In some sense, but not across the board. Fewer social programs? I really don't think so. Almost every country has socialized health care and most have a nationalized pension system. Even Reagan barely put a dent in social spending. Lots of the issues that people have with it, like capital mobility, those things were going to happen anyway. Automation, for example, was and is going to kill some types of jobs. I just can't really figure out what it is. And I've read all the books you have on it. I think David Harvey and the French guys fudge a lot of stuff.
To me, the finance industry needs to be reigned in for sure. I'd like to a public option for health care. Probably some other things.
-
I honestly don't think many "moderates that are disgusted by Trump" exist. I've seen people claim that and as I've discussed with them more, it becomes clear that what's really going on is, they know Trump is messed up and bad for America so they can't say "I like Trump!" for social reasons, but they also will go to great lengths to justify not voting for a Democrat. I think most of the "I don't like Trump but.." crowd is going to justify voting for him, and I don't think letting that segment choose the candidate is going to win the election. I also think it's telling that their "I'll vote for Trump unless it's..." choice is pretty uniformly Biden, who is a similarly mush-brained old white dude who touches the small of womens' backs.
I don't think neoliberalism is "all that's wrong with the world", but I think everywhere that system has been implemented it has 1. been implemented more or less un-Democratically (and often by violent force), because most regular people aren't going to like things that they currently have some ownership of being auctioned off for pennies to multi-national corporations and sold back to them, and 2. has massively increased wealth and income inequality despite the stock market climbing and constant growth (i.e., Chile under Pinochet made an 'economic recovery' and economists raved about the effects of neoliberalism, but was life better for the average Chilean?). I think neoliberalism is very, very good for an increasingly small group of people, and pretty darn bad for an increasingly large group. I'm open to contrary evidence though: is there anywhere where they've gone the neoliberal route where it was voted in by the people democratically, and it didn't explode capital inequality?
I think it's pretty early to declare that Colorado isn't a purple/swing state. It's gone blue the last three POTUS elections after being red for 9 of the previous 10. I wouldn't bet on it going red but it's not that hard to see how it could happen.
If your only metric is wealth gap, probably. But wealth gap tells a very small part of the story. If you have one million and I have 1000, and you go up to 10 million and I go up to 10,000 the wealth gap has increased but I am still better off. The pie doesn't stay the same. I think in general slow, partial implementation works better. China is a good example. India.
You might argue that China is not neoliberal, and in some ways you'd be right, which leads into my big question: what is neoliberal? Lower spending? No, we continue to spend more, as do most "neoliberal" countries. Less government involvement? In some sense, but not across the board. Fewer social programs? I really don't think so. Almost every country has socialized health care and most have a nationalized pension system. Even Reagan barely put a dent in social spending. Lots of the issues that people have with it, like capital mobility, those things were going to happen anyway. Automation, for example, was and is going to kill some types of jobs. I just can't really figure out what it is. And I've read all the books you have on it. I think David Harvey and the French guys fudge a lot of stuff.
To me, the finance industry needs to be reigned in for sure. I'd like to a public option for health care. Probably some other things.
Are you better off? I'm not sure I believe you, especially considering the power that comes with that top-heavy wealth concentration - that is, lobbying to get laws that changed that benefit you, being able to afford running for office, etc. Just my opinion, but having $1,000,000,000 to blow or having to beg for donations should not be required to run for national elected office. It's quite the barrier to entry for the working class, so of course their concerns aren't going to be represented.
I look at it the other way.
If there's $100 bucks and 100 people spread evenly everyone has a dollar.
If there's $200 bucks, the top-2 people have $80 each and the bottom-98 have $0.40 a piece, the market is up - stocks are rising - is it better to be an average person? I think this situation has been (an exaggerated version of) the typical outcome of neoliberal policies. The rich get richer, and sure the stock market goes up - but I'm much more worried about whether the quality of life of an average person goes up - can they afford food, shelter, healthcare? I think that should be the priority, not the constant growth of the market.
I agree that almost all places have some kind of mixed system - but the problem is, the Miltonists will argue that that's why they don't work. There are still distortions in the market, so if we just cut socialized health care and the nationalized pension system the market will right itself. That is a crusade that will never end, and everywhere they've come even moderately close to a true free market it has been a disaster with widespread poverty and violence.. but the stock market went up! Hospitals not profitful but market bulls got pockets full.
As to "what neoliberalism is", I'd say it's fundamentalist Miltonist free-marketism, whose main tenets are as strict as possible an adherence to the ideas of privatization, deregulation, globalization, spending cuts, and free trade.
-
As for the "everyone is better off" comment, from what I can tell that definitely hasn't been true in America. From 1989 to 2018 the top 1% of Americans saw their net worth increase by $21,000,000,000,000. The bottom 50% saw their net worth decrease by $900,000,000,000. Is that sustainable in the long term?
I don't know what the solution is necessarily, but it seems pretty clear that "let's just get back to the status quo" isn't going to cut it as an answer for many of the people in that bottom 50%.
-
explain this please
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/world/europe/bernie-sanders-soviet-russia.html
What about it in particular do you need explained?
why is the NY Times running such a stupid pointless story which looks to solely discredit bernie?
-
As for the "everyone is better off" comment, from what I can tell that definitely hasn't been true in America. From 1989 to 2018 the top 1% of Americans saw their net worth increase by $21,000,000,000,000. The bottom 50% saw their net worth decrease by $900,000,000,000. Is that sustainable in the long term?
I don't know what the solution is necessarily, but it seems pretty clear that "let's just get back to the status quo" isn't going to cut it as an answer for many of the people in that bottom 50%.
Well, more people are working. And, currently, wages appear to be rising at the lowest rungs of the economy for the first time since when? The Clinton administration? And it is being done through a mixture of a) local statutory minimum wage hikes and b) current reductionist immigration policies. It is "bad" enough that you have corporatists on the right calling for more immigration to stymie wage growth.
-
I assume you mean "the failing New York Times". :)
-
explain this please
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/world/europe/bernie-sanders-soviet-russia.html
What about it in particular do you need explained?
why is the NY Times running such a stupid pointless story which looks to solely discredit bernie?
It looks to me to be a story seeking to counter the anticipated Trump narrative if Bernie wins.
-
As for the "everyone is better off" comment, from what I can tell that definitely hasn't been true in America. From 1989 to 2018 the top 1% of Americans saw their net worth increase by $21,000,000,000,000. The bottom 50% saw their net worth decrease by $900,000,000,000. Is that sustainable in the long term?
I don't know what the solution is necessarily, but it seems pretty clear that "let's just get back to the status quo" isn't going to cut it as an answer for many of the people in that bottom 50%.
Well, more people are working. And, currently, wages appear to be rising at the lowest rungs of the economy for the first time since when? The Clinton administration? And it is being done through a mixture of a) local statutory minimum wage hikes and b) current reductionist immigration policies. It is "bad" enough that you have corporatists on the right calling for more immigration to stymie wage growth.
When you say "more people are working", I think it's safe to assume all of them come from the bottom 50% pool rather than the top-1% pool. Why do you think that bottom 50% is actually losing value despite more of them working? Why is the inequality accelerating so rapidly?
-
As for the "everyone is better off" comment, from what I can tell that definitely hasn't been true in America. From 1989 to 2018 the top 1% of Americans saw their net worth increase by $21,000,000,000,000. The bottom 50% saw their net worth decrease by $900,000,000,000. Is that sustainable in the long term?
I don't know what the solution is necessarily, but it seems pretty clear that "let's just get back to the status quo" isn't going to cut it as an answer for many of the people in that bottom 50%.
Well, more people are working. And, currently, wages appear to be rising at the lowest rungs of the economy for the first time since when? The Clinton administration? And it is being done through a mixture of a) local statutory minimum wage hikes and b) current reductionist immigration policies. It is "bad" enough that you have corporatists on the right calling for more immigration to stymie wage growth.
When you say "more people are working", I think it's safe to assume all of them come from the bottom 50% pool rather than the top-1% pool. Why do you think that bottom 50% is actually losing value despite more of them working? Why is the inequality accelerating so rapidly?
Is it currently accelerating? My understanding is that real wages are currently rising for the lowest rungs right now due to the tight labor market. Granted, that is only a dent in the difference between the schmoes working at McDonald's and Bezos, but still.
-
As for the "everyone is better off" comment, from what I can tell that definitely hasn't been true in America. From 1989 to 2018 the top 1% of Americans saw their net worth increase by $21,000,000,000,000. The bottom 50% saw their net worth decrease by $900,000,000,000. Is that sustainable in the long term?
I don't know what the solution is necessarily, but it seems pretty clear that "let's just get back to the status quo" isn't going to cut it as an answer for many of the people in that bottom 50%.
Well, more people are working. And, currently, wages appear to be rising at the lowest rungs of the economy for the first time since when? The Clinton administration? And it is being done through a mixture of a) local statutory minimum wage hikes and b) current reductionist immigration policies. It is "bad" enough that you have corporatists on the right calling for more immigration to stymie wage growth.
When you say "more people are working", I think it's safe to assume all of them come from the bottom 50% pool rather than the top-1% pool. Why do you think that bottom 50% is actually losing value despite more of them working? Why is the inequality accelerating so rapidly?
Is it currently accelerating? My understanding is that real wages are currently rising for the lowest rungs right now due to the tight labor market. Granted, that is only a dent in the difference between the schmoes working at McDonald's and Bezos, but still.
As I mentioned, it has been accelerating for thirty years.
-
As for the "everyone is better off" comment, from what I can tell that definitely hasn't been true in America. From 1989 to 2018 the top 1% of Americans saw their net worth increase by $21,000,000,000,000. The bottom 50% saw their net worth decrease by $900,000,000,000. Is that sustainable in the long term?
I don't know what the solution is necessarily, but it seems pretty clear that "let's just get back to the status quo" isn't going to cut it as an answer for many of the people in that bottom 50%.
Well, more people are working. And, currently, wages appear to be rising at the lowest rungs of the economy for the first time since when? The Clinton administration? And it is being done through a mixture of a) local statutory minimum wage hikes and b) current reductionist immigration policies. It is "bad" enough that you have corporatists on the right calling for more immigration to stymie wage growth.
When you say "more people are working", I think it's safe to assume all of them come from the bottom 50% pool rather than the top-1% pool. Why do you think that bottom 50% is actually losing value despite more of them working? Why is the inequality accelerating so rapidly?
Is it currently accelerating? My understanding is that real wages are currently rising for the lowest rungs right now due to the tight labor market. Granted, that is only a dent in the difference between the schmoes working at McDonald's and Bezos, but still.
As I mentioned, it has been accelerating for thirty years.
I get that, but I am not sure that is technically true right here, right now, in the current job market because I have read that "real" wages have been rising. I would take that to mean they are gaining ground as they are rising faster than they are at the top.
-
As for the "everyone is better off" comment, from what I can tell that definitely hasn't been true in America. From 1989 to 2018 the top 1% of Americans saw their net worth increase by $21,000,000,000,000. The bottom 50% saw their net worth decrease by $900,000,000,000. Is that sustainable in the long term?
I don't know what the solution is necessarily, but it seems pretty clear that "let's just get back to the status quo" isn't going to cut it as an answer for many of the people in that bottom 50%.
Well, more people are working. And, currently, wages appear to be rising at the lowest rungs of the economy for the first time since when? The Clinton administration? And it is being done through a mixture of a) local statutory minimum wage hikes and b) current reductionist immigration policies. It is "bad" enough that you have corporatists on the right calling for more immigration to stymie wage growth.
When you say "more people are working", I think it's safe to assume all of them come from the bottom 50% pool rather than the top-1% pool. Why do you think that bottom 50% is actually losing value despite more of them working? Why is the inequality accelerating so rapidly?
I remember a few years ago when the headlines were full of stories about highly educated people not being able to get a job, anyone know what’s going on with those folks?
-
My new hot take on Super Tuesday is that plenty of Trump supporters have decided there is a pretty good chance that Trump is going to lose, so they decided they would like a voice in who he loses to, so they crossed over where it's allowed if they are GOP, voted in the Democratic primary as Independents, or even went to the trouble of re-registering. There is no downside to swapping parties unless maybe you expect to hold office, the upside is you get to actually vote in a meaningful primary.
This is a great reason for the GOP to cancel primaries if they think Trump might lose, to encourage this sort of crossover voting to make sure that if he loses, it's to the least worst option
-
Hey Murph I sent you a PM not sure if you saw it or not. No big deal either way just letting you know.
Says no messages
-
As for the "everyone is better off" comment, from what I can tell that definitely hasn't been true in America. From 1989 to 2018 the top 1% of Americans saw their net worth increase by $21,000,000,000,000. The bottom 50% saw their net worth decrease by $900,000,000,000. Is that sustainable in the long term?
I don't know what the solution is necessarily, but it seems pretty clear that "let's just get back to the status quo" isn't going to cut it as an answer for many of the people in that bottom 50%.
Well, more people are working. And, currently, wages appear to be rising at the lowest rungs of the economy for the first time since when? The Clinton administration? And it is being done through a mixture of a) local statutory minimum wage hikes and b) current reductionist immigration policies. It is "bad" enough that you have corporatists on the right calling for more immigration to stymie wage growth.
When you say "more people are working", I think it's safe to assume all of them come from the bottom 50% pool rather than the top-1% pool. Why do you think that bottom 50% is actually losing value despite more of them working? Why is the inequality accelerating so rapidly?
I remember a few years ago when the headlines were full of stories about highly educated people not being able to get a job, anyone know what’s going on with those folks?
I do not. But that is an interesting question.
-
Here's a pretty good analysis that outlines the key problems with Bernie's campaign strategy:
Bernie's problem isn't 'the establishment.' It's his lack of support
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/3/2/1923555/-Bernie-s-problem-isn-t-the-establishment-it-s-his-lack-of-support
-
I remember a few years ago when the headlines were full of stories about highly educated people not being able to get a job, anyone know what’s going on with those folks?
Speaking solely for law, the full-time job market is drastically better than 2010-2015 but I think salaries remain pretty much flat-lined outside of the high-end firms. This causes/contributes to a number of collateral issues, but the core "can you get a job in the first place" is way better.
-
As for the "everyone is better off" comment, from what I can tell that definitely hasn't been true in America. From 1989 to 2018 the top 1% of Americans saw their net worth increase by $21,000,000,000,000. The bottom 50% saw their net worth decrease by $900,000,000,000. Is that sustainable in the long term?
I don't know what the solution is necessarily, but it seems pretty clear that "let's just get back to the status quo" isn't going to cut it as an answer for many of the people in that bottom 50%.
Where does that stat come from? Maybe I'm jaded because I've read a lot of this kind of stuff, but how can anyone know what the wealth of large groups of people totals? We can't even get our president to release his taxes. And obviously there's no tax on wealth.
And my remark wasn't meant to be factual, just an example that wealth gap alone isn't a great indicator of tougher times for people.
-
I remember a few years ago when the headlines were full of stories about highly educated people not being able to get a job, anyone know what’s going on with those folks?
Speaking solely for law, the full-time job market is drastically better than 2010-2015 but I think salaries remain pretty much flat-lined outside of the high-end firms. This causes/contributes to a number of collateral issues, but the core "can you get a job in the first place" is way better.
Total compensation for tech jobs in the Valley is way up. It's ridiculous. The only problem being a crappy 2 BR home in a bad part of a bad school district is 2.7 Million
-
I remember a few years ago when the headlines were full of stories about highly educated people not being able to get a job, anyone know what’s going on with those folks?
Speaking solely for law, the full-time job market is drastically better than 2010-2015 but I think salaries remain pretty much flat-lined outside of the high-end firms. This causes/contributes to a number of collateral issues, but the core "can you get a job in the first place" is way better.
Total compensation for tech jobs in the Valley is way up. It's ridiculous. The only problem being a crappy 2 BR home in a bad part of a bad school district is 2.7 Million
Shouldn't ever be a problem as long as the tech sector sustains itself for the next 30 years so the mortgages get paid off.
-
If I may....please accept this visual demonstration of what The Joe Biden Express has, and will continue to do to the floundering campaign of Comrade Sanders
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/ef45a4cbd5d43134f7c49775db58fcc8/tenor.gif?itemid=5729865)
-
Tom Perez deserves some kind of medal.
-
Tom Perez deserves some kind of medal.
Trump will probably give him one in thanks
-
Looking at the MI and MO primary results, it appears that a large chunk of Bernie’s support was more anti-Hillary than pro-Bernie, particularly among white males.
https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1237570631761182720
The voter turnout was relatively high, and Biden won every county in MI, MO and MS. That’s impressive, especially in MI.
One big problem for Bernie is that the percentage of young voters is almost the same or less than four years ago. It didn't grow as it needed to. Compared to 2016, Sanders also got less percent of the African American vote in MS, MO and MI this cycle. African Americans are the most loyal voters of the Democratic party. No one after 1988 has won the nomination without winning that key voting group.
I think many D voters and independents just want Trump gone (“Trump exhaustion”) and that makes everyone more risk averse. Biden is not a polarizing figure and that makes him acceptable to even those who would prefer a different candidate. People want stability, security and sanity, and that's what he represents. Not exactly a recipe for revolution.
I do appreciate what Bernie has brought to the table. He's been successful in helping to frame much of the discussion in the D party (e.g., livable wage, affordable health care and zero carbon energy). What he’s accomplished is significant.
-
Bernie got woke, went broke
If he would have stuck to the Bernie policies he had in 2016, he'd be crushing it now, but he sold out to the far left lunatics and is paying for it dearly.
-
Bernie got woke, went broke
If he would have stuck to the Bernie policies he had in 2016, he'd be crushing it now, but he sold out to the far left lunatics and is paying for it dearly.
He went too far left with the AOC crowd. Misread the party and country.
-
Bernie got woke, went broke
If he would have stuck to the Bernie policies he had in 2016, he'd be crushing it now, but he sold out to the far left lunatics and is paying for it dearly.
He went too far left with the AOC crowd. Misread the party and country.
I watched the debate. I don't think he's failing like Biden is, but he's got the same ADHD he's always had. He'll be making a very good point, and just when he's about to give the coup de grace and really make a very strong point that will flummox Biden, here comes "And Oh, by the way" and he wanders into another point, which may be correct but isn't particularly important compared to the string he was on. And then the moderators come in and the point gets lost.
Then Biden throws up another argument that sounds like "common sense" but makes Bernie's lost point even more important, and Bernie just bugs out his eyes like "WTF Joe!" but he can't get back in.
Bernie is right. He just isn't very good at explaining it to anyone who doesn't already understand it.
His point on Coronavirus is spot on. We are gonna be pretty screwed by this thing. Bars and restaurants are closed. Unless they are owned by Darden or McDonalds, a month or two can be game over - for the business, for the employees, it's gonna be brutal. If the economy were structured better in the first place, and we had a better health care system, the fallout would be substantially less. He's been arguing forever that we need to fix the structure of our economy, and Coronvirus is proof he's right.
Biden counters with "We need to take care of people right now!" Which is correct, but then after that's done we'll do the exact same thing and when the next crisis comes, we'll be screwed again. Saying you'll "take care of it right now!" is a LOW BAR. Hell, even trump will get some of that done. We've done that over and over, we are capable of doing cleaning up messes but it really SUCKS to do so. Bernie is the one who wants to PREVENT the mess.
-
I thought last night’s debate was more substantive and easier to follow. Bernie had a few good moments, but Biden did more than enough to seal the nomination. He seems much stronger in a one-on-one format. In a larger field, he seemed to stumble more.
-
I thought last night’s debate was more substantive and easier to follow. Bernie had a few good moments, but Biden did more than enough to seal the nomination. He seems much stronger in a one-on-one format. In a larger field, he seemed to stumble more.
Agree. Biden much better in this format. This thing is over. Zero chance that Bernie comes back. Need to move on to general election.
-
Tempo was AOTC the Mack trade
I was also AOTC on the wife banging thread.