2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Isaac Hill
Systems Analyst????
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Middletown, RI

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Isaac Hill » Thu Jun 23, 2016 1:00 am UTC

I'm not fully convinced that Trump's success is due to any special attribute he has. He got 35.3% in New Hampshire this time around. In 1992, Pat Buchanan got 37.5% (source) running on a very similar anti-immigrant, anti-establishment platform*. Maybe that voting block is just always there. The difference is that the 2016 feild was so fractured, Trump's total was a resounding victory he could build on, while Buchanan's total was a distant second to G.H.W. Bush.

I can't say for sure, since I've never actually watched Trump speak beyond the few second clips comedy shows use before mocking him. From what I understand, I would find watching Trump for any length of time rather unpleasant, so I don't. I do, however, enjoy watching other Republicans squirm in response to whatever Trump's just done. Trump's like if "Two Girls, One Cup" were a person.


* I don't remember if PB was explicitly anti-establishment, but primary challenging your party's incumbent President is pretty damn anti-establishment.
Alleged "poems"
that don't follow a rhyme scheme
are not poetry

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:02 am UTC

Isaac Hill wrote:I'm not fully convinced that Trump's success is due to any special attribute he has. He got 35.3% in New Hampshire this time around. In 1992, Pat Buchanan got 37.5% (source) running on a very similar anti-immigrant, anti-establishment platform*. Maybe that voting block is just always there. The difference is that the 2016 feild was so fractured, Trump's total was a resounding victory he could build on, while Buchanan's total was a distant second to G.H.W. Bush.

I can't say for sure, since I've never actually watched Trump speak beyond the few second clips comedy shows use before mocking him. From what I understand, I would find watching Trump for any length of time rather unpleasant, so I don't. I do, however, enjoy watching other Republicans squirm in response to whatever Trump's just done. Trump's like if "Two Girls, One Cup" were a person.


* I don't remember if PB was explicitly anti-establishment, but primary challenging your party's incumbent President is pretty damn anti-establishment.

You should, if you can get past the racism, sexism, and general paucity of substance, he's a very charming demagogue. The room lights up, he feeds off the audience, and the audience feeds off of him.

In other news, Hillary's campaign is getting overconfident. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... n-the-bag/
Hillary Clinton has a substantial lead in the polls over Donald Trump, and has vastly more cash on hand. But when it comes to spending that cash, her campaign may be making a strategic miscalculation. The campaign and an allied super PAC have reserved $137 million of ads across eight states — yet they’ve conspicuously left out the state that might be likeliest to tip the 2016 election: Pennsylvania.

If her campaign is wrong, she loses*, if her campaign is right, she might snag another state(and get another member of Congress on her side). So Hillary is betting big on offense, but it's a mistake because the risks aren't worth the potential gains.

Tyndmyr, this is what I'm talking about regarding data and guns. If you think there's a connection, we can see where the voting pools switch as time and campaigns change. There's a narrative there.

*She doesn't automatically lose, but it makes her path to the presidency much much harder.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jun 23, 2016 3:59 am UTC

Months old, December old.

But gosh, Colbert is always classy. Especially when he drops the act and speaks frankly.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1842
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby eran_rathan » Thu Jun 23, 2016 1:05 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:It was a pretty dramatic trend reversal. Not only in terms of control, but number of seats. Well above average. At the time, very historic, though the Democrats took a bath again in 2010. Got to have SOME cause for the antipathy, especially considering that Bill was a decently well liked president for a good bit there. We hadn't gotten into full on impeachment mudslinging. What else was a hot item at that time?


NPR just did a pretty good piece on it.

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/15/482150951 ... o-politics
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:09 pm UTC

So what do you think Congress's will do in response to the undercurrents that feed Trump? Are we gonna adapt the traditional campaign pledges or think up something new? The only one promising anything new is Trump, and what he promises leads down a dark path.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:44 pm UTC

sardia wrote:If you're referring to why Gore lost to Bush, the best I got is this blurb.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wou ... l-college/
In that year, Mr. Bush was generally regarded as having the sorts of resource advantages that Mr. Obama had in 2008: more money, more volunteers, and better voter-targeting efforts.
Mr. Bush, evidently, deployed those resources efficiently from the standpoint of winning the Electoral College.

Do you have any data analysis on guns over replacement topic?


No. In general, I am referring to the 1994 election.

I doubt that hot button issues in 1994 were still as significant in 2000. Voter memory is going to bias more recent events, and I'd be more likely to credit fundamentals with having a more relevant role there.

Like if Democrats had chosen welfare increases or increased abortion, what percent gain in what locations are there? I don't think there's much data to go on here. Like maybe we can compare Trump's racism or immigration and then match it to increased turnout and exit polls. Either way, what you're asking for isn't easy. though if it's as fruitful as you claim, you would be a very sought after man.


Oddly enough, I think it's easier for issues to impact midterm elections. You have generally lower turnout, so it's easier to get more change. Presidential races are going to end up reasonably close no matter what because of all the non-swing states.

A lot of issues don't *really* matter, though. Status quo is already baked into voting preferences. Merely supporting the party line to the same extent as average can't really be expected to move the needle.

But I believe that a substantially different emphasis can matter. Bernie vs Hillary, for instance. I see the two campaigns vs Trump as being somewhat different, and appealing to voters differently. In an alternate world where Bernie won the election, we might still have the same rough sides, but Bernie is better able to generate hope, I think. That wasn't enough to pull the primary, so maybe he'd crater in the general too, but that core group of highly enthusiastic people is potentially powerful.

I think that at least was an element of Obama's success. He actually inspired people a fair bit, that's why he beat Hillary. Obama, however, was more moderate than Bernie. So, I think he got broader appeal to go with that inspiration. Lots of effects happening, and it can be hard to sort out which is more important, but I think it would be reasonable to credit Obama's approach to various issues as at least partially responsible for his appeal. Getting issues with broad appeal, and getting out in front of your opponent to claim them as your own can matter.

Gun control doesn't have broad appeal in the US. It only sparks up post-tragedy. The base level is general antipathy or apathy, depending on which voting bloc we're talking about. So, it's not a terribly great way to appeal to more voters.

How do you square the decline of split ticket voting with what you're essentially saying is an upcoming split ticket voting? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... WjAyrwy6aQ
I'm guessing "Trump is special"?


Not really. I'm not saying that split ticket voting is critical here, merely that there's a distancing thing going on. I suspect that people will mostly continue to vote party line, and that their lack of joy for Trump won't necessarily result in a great deal of actual effect. Still got have the right side win, even if the man ain't right. And don't worry, the party understands. They don't like 'em much either. Just hold your nose and vote.

It's what folks are going with the "endorse but not support" strategy.

sardia wrote:In other news, Hillary's campaign is getting overconfident. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... n-the-bag/
Hillary Clinton has a substantial lead in the polls over Donald Trump, and has vastly more cash on hand. But when it comes to spending that cash, her campaign may be making a strategic miscalculation. The campaign and an allied super PAC have reserved $137 million of ads across eight states — yet they’ve conspicuously left out the state that might be likeliest to tip the 2016 election: Pennsylvania.

If her campaign is wrong, she loses*, if her campaign is right, she might snag another state(and get another member of Congress on her side). So Hillary is betting big on offense, but it's a mistake because the risks aren't worth the potential gains.

Tyndmyr, this is what I'm talking about regarding data and guns. If you think there's a connection, we can see where the voting pools switch as time and campaigns change. There's a narrative there.

*She doesn't automatically lose, but it makes her path to the presidency much much harder.


...eh, I think ignoring PA is a poor decision on her part. Trump does have strong support there among Republicans, but that doesn't necessarily mean the state as a whole is a lost cause. Nor is it so securely democrat as to be safely ignored. Seems an odd choice.

That said, Trump has, to date, not really engaged in the money game. That's...also super risky. Money matters.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:05 pm UTC

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... t-we-want/

Bernie Sanders has written an OpEd for the Post. All sides should read of course, to see what he stands for directly.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 836
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby DaBigCheez » Thu Jun 23, 2016 5:21 pm UTC

Opening lines of Bernie's article wrote:As we head toward the Democratic National Convention, I often hear the question, “What does Bernie want?” Wrong question. The right question is what the 12 million Americans who voted for a political revolution want.

And the answer is: They want real change in this country, they want it now and they are prepared to take on the political cowardice and powerful special interests which have prevented that change from happening.

So...the platform of every non-incumbent to have ever run for president in the last 50 years. Inspiring.

(Yes, I realize he goes into more detail later.)
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mambrino » Fri Jun 24, 2016 1:58 pm UTC


KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Jun 24, 2016 4:08 pm UTC

As I talk to my more liberal friends, a lot of them aren't going to be voting for Clinton... at the moment.

It only makes sense for Sanders to keep campaigning, for the large number of leftists who share in his vision. Its good to see him turn-around and accept reality finally.

I think we all can agree that Trump has demonstrated himself to be a powerful political force. So it will take coordination of everybody to actually defeat him. The sooner the healing process can begin for the Sander's camp, the better IMO. I really see that "fighting on" to the convention as part of that healing process. Sander's ideology is starkly different from Clinton's, and those differences have to be resolved if the groups are to unify.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:42 am UTC

Experience lets you understand that as much as you might want to win, it isn't always the case. And you are left with a choice, do you tilt at windmills, or do you realize that sometimes you have to hold your nose and make a calculation about which stinks worse? As an example, my dog stinks when she is wet. Do I tie her outside in the rain, or let her in to help keep the skunk out? All while realizing it won't always be raining.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:41 pm UTC

I'm surprised how little inequality and class has come up in this election. It's been buried under the racism and controversy. Is anyone in Congress or the states going to spend money to help?

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Sun Jun 26, 2016 9:39 am UTC

Yes, congress constantly spends money on poverty programs and on much larger cash injections for the upper classes, which helps inequality.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:53 pm UTC

sardia wrote:I'm surprised how little inequality and class has come up in this election. It's been buried under the racism and controversy. Is anyone in Congress or the states going to spend money to help?


Have you not listened to Bernie Sanders at all? That's basically his entire platform.

And its not like Hillary hasn't talked about it. Its just that her proposals for "only" 12 dollars federal minimum wage and free community college have been overwhelmed by Bernie in comparison (who is calling for 15 dollars minimum wage and free 4-year college). So Hillary really can't bring it up without the Bernie supporters getting pissed off.

Yeah, Democrats are being Democrats.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Jun 26, 2016 3:22 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
sardia wrote:I'm surprised how little inequality and class has come up in this election. It's been buried under the racism and controversy. Is anyone in Congress or the states going to spend money to help?


Have you not listened to Bernie Sanders at all? That's basically his entire platform.

And its not like Hillary hasn't talked about it. Its just that her proposals for "only" 12 dollars federal minimum wage and free community college have been overwhelmed by Bernie in comparison (who is calling for 15 dollars minimum wage and free 4-year college). So Hillary really can't bring it up without the Bernie supporters getting pissed off.

Yeah, Democrats are being Democrats.

I guess I should clarify, I'm surprised how little inequality and class has come up for the GOP in this election. We all know the minority party is waiting in the wings for a Trump sized opening this November. I wanted to know why the GOP doesn't bring it up. Last time I asked, it got brushed aside because "Trump was a billionaire, therefore it has nothing to do with inequality or class."

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1842
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby eran_rathan » Sun Jun 26, 2016 3:45 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
sardia wrote:I'm surprised how little inequality and class has come up in this election. It's been buried under the racism and controversy. Is anyone in Congress or the states going to spend money to help?


Have you not listened to Bernie Sanders at all? That's basically his entire platform.

And its not like Hillary hasn't talked about it. Its just that her proposals for "only" 12 dollars federal minimum wage and free community college have been overwhelmed by Bernie in comparison (who is calling for 15 dollars minimum wage and free 4-year college). So Hillary really can't bring it up without the Bernie supporters getting pissed off.

Yeah, Democrats are being Democrats.

I guess I should clarify, I'm surprised how little inequality and class has come up for the GOP in this election. We all know the minority party is waiting in the wings for a Trump sized opening this November. I wanted to know why the GOP doesn't bring it up. Last time I asked, it got brushed aside because "Trump was a billionaire, therefore it has nothing to do with inequality or class."


Most likely because the Republicans don't give a shit about income inequality except in that they want to increase it, leading to further feudalism, so they don't really want to talk about it?
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun Jun 26, 2016 4:56 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
sardia wrote:I'm surprised how little inequality and class has come up in this election. It's been buried under the racism and controversy. Is anyone in Congress or the states going to spend money to help?


Have you not listened to Bernie Sanders at all? That's basically his entire platform.

And its not like Hillary hasn't talked about it. Its just that her proposals for "only" 12 dollars federal minimum wage and free community college have been overwhelmed by Bernie in comparison (who is calling for 15 dollars minimum wage and free 4-year college). So Hillary really can't bring it up without the Bernie supporters getting pissed off.

Yeah, Democrats are being Democrats.

I guess I should clarify, I'm surprised how little inequality and class has come up for the GOP in this election. We all know the minority party is waiting in the wings for a Trump sized opening this November. I wanted to know why the GOP doesn't bring it up. Last time I asked, it got brushed aside because "Trump was a billionaire, therefore it has nothing to do with inequality or class."


It's discussed, just with different words and different solutions and vocabulary. The poor are forced to purchase The Affordable Care Act and they don't have the money for that. It's a disastrous policy. Etc etc.

Obamas economy is terrible and harms you. The jobs are gone because Obama and bad trade deals. Obamas welfare to solar is destroying your jobs as corporate cronyism pays Obamas friends. Etc etc.

The word inequality belongs to the democrats. So republicans have to state it in different terms.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:17 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
It's discussed, just with different words and different solutions and vocabulary. The poor are forced to purchase The Affordable Care Act and they don't have the money for that. It's a disastrous policy. Etc etc.

Obamas economy is terrible and harms you. The jobs are gone because Obama and bad trade deals. Obamas welfare to solar is destroying your jobs as corporate cronyism pays Obamas friends. Etc etc.

The word inequality belongs to the democrats. So republicans have to state it in different terms.


Precisely. Words like "America's Heartland", "Working Class", "Average Americans", "Main Street", etc are what get used. Different terminology, but the idea that the not-very-moneyed are of critical importance is routinely floated when their votes are required.

But it's probably still not super central to this election. Neither Clinton nor Trump are even vaguely working class, and when either attempts to act as if they were, it comes across as super fake.

In the primaries, people had the option to make this election primarily about class differences, but they opted not to.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:39 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:Most likely because the Republicans don't give a shit about income inequality except in that they want to increase it, leading to further feudalism, so they don't really want to talk about it?


One of the things that conservatives (which includes many republicans) believe is that the best way to reduce income inequality is to get out of the way and let the market work; so aside from saying that (which many republicans candidates have) there isn't a whole lot for them to talk about.

Whether that position is right or wrong is open to debate; but frankly, it's not an unreasonable position. The government has spent ridiculous amounts of money - well over a trillion over the past decade - on various programs intended to reduce poverty and income inequality, and has not only failed to fix either problem, but has arguably made it worse.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:04 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:Most likely because the Republicans don't give a shit about income inequality except in that they want to increase it, leading to further feudalism, so they don't really want to talk about it?


One of the things that conservatives (which includes many republicans) believe is that the best way to reduce income inequality is to get out of the way and let the market work; so aside from saying that (which many republicans candidates have) there isn't a whole lot for them to talk about.

Whether that position is right or wrong is open to debate; but frankly, it's not an unreasonable position. The government has spent ridiculous amounts of money - well over a trillion over the past decade - on various programs intended to reduce poverty and income inequality, and has not only failed to fix either problem, but has arguably made it worse.

So the Republicans aren't at the point yet where they are questioning their core belief on inequality? A substantial portion of Trump's base is the white working class (former Democrats)who have been involuntary heroes in sacrificing their income to raise millions out of poverty. That's what I read Trump, the Ronpaul, and pat Buchanan as.
Spoiler:
.
Lucrece wrote:
sardia wrote:
Lucrece wrote:
HES wrote:
Lucrece wrote:I'm just tired of reading about people who seriously think Trump stands a chance in national elections just because the media made a circus of him for ratings and gave his campaign free publicity for batshit crazy primaries.

That's exactly the attitude that will let him in. The political climate is a mess right now, Trump is a threat, and should be treated as such. Underestimate him at your (and everyone's) peril.

Yeah, yeah, I know that's what progressive talking heads keep saying to fearmonger their base. There's always some cataclysmic prospect to keep people tuned into their answers so they can stay relevant with an audience and political influence.
Mitt Romney, who was decidedly less batshit crazy, didn't shit on Mexicans (in fact, had roots there) as a the largest growing minority vote in the US, didn't comment on women's appearance, and didn't look like a spray-tanned hairy scrotum , couldn't even take the election away from Obama at his lowest point of popularity. A super WASP-y guy who couldn't defeat the socialist Kenyan dude.
And somehow you expect that Trump will fare any better against a white woman who was married to one of the most popular presidents in the country.
Mhm, ok. You can lose sleep if you want. I won't.

There are troubling trends (for Democrats) that we discussed over in the US election thread. Off the top of my head, Pennsylvania, a tipping point (aka important) state has been trending less and less Democratic in each election. In addition, the latest demographic data(which heavily influences voting patterns) show there are far more white people(aka they still matter) than previously indicated. All of these are related, and point to potential trouble.



How is more white people potentially trouble? lol

You do realize the Democratic party and the vast majority of its elites are white as well, right? And why shouldn't they matter? You shouldn't be trying to circumvent the vote of undesirable white people; you should be trying to understand and influence the way they vote like any other demographic.

While Pennsylvania leans red, states like Florida are leaning blue. Allow enough demographic shifts from immigration in California and most of the South, and Republican rule is doomed at the rate the Hispanic population, especially Mexicans, is developing in the US. These are generations worth of new Democrat voters unless Republicans make a short term change of platform and court Hispanics on social conservatism since many of these Hispanic immigrants are devout Catholics.

More young people are going to college, which are decidedly leftist in their bent. This reflects on the general values of college graduates. So you have a dying red state population while a tide of blue will become our next voting bloc.

It'd only be faster if liberals weren't so intent on alienating white people on their identity politics crusades. You wouldn't be losing the union votes largely manned by low/middle class white workers now being courted by Republicans. The Republican party could be made utterly irrelevant in no time.

In the US, demographics is destiny. White people vote GOP more often, so if there are more white people than previously thought, it means the models are under estimating GOP odds of winning.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:17 pm UTC

sardia wrote:So the Republicans aren't at the point yet where they are questioning their core belief on inequality? A substantial portion of Trump's base is the white working class (former Democrats)who have been involuntary heroes in sacrificing their income to raise millions out of poverty. That's what I read Trump, the Ronpaul, and pat Buchanan as.


When you categorize all three of those as equivalent, you might be misunderstanding the republican base.

Likewise, jumping from "white working class" to "former Democrats" is not terribly accurate. Yes, the democrats used to have more pull in that demographic, but it does not mean that these particular voters are former Democrats.

In the US, demographics is destiny. White people vote GOP more often, so if there are more white people than previously thought, it means the models are under estimating GOP odds of winning.


This. It's not about good and bad, it's about predictive power. Now, it also matters where those voters are, because of the nature of swing states and so on, but even fairly modest errors can seriously throw off election predictions.

And given how many people were quick to dismiss Trump's ability to win the primary(admittedly, I did so as well quite early on, before I realized how persistent the attitude supporting him was), I am not sure that "he's OBVIOUSLY doomed in the general" is convincing just because he's a horrible person.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:23 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
cphite wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:Most likely because the Republicans don't give a shit about income inequality except in that they want to increase it, leading to further feudalism, so they don't really want to talk about it?


One of the things that conservatives (which includes many republicans) believe is that the best way to reduce income inequality is to get out of the way and let the market work; so aside from saying that (which many republicans candidates have) there isn't a whole lot for them to talk about.

Whether that position is right or wrong is open to debate; but frankly, it's not an unreasonable position. The government has spent ridiculous amounts of money - well over a trillion over the past decade - on various programs intended to reduce poverty and income inequality, and has not only failed to fix either problem, but has arguably made it worse.

So the Republicans aren't at the point yet where they are questioning their core belief on inequality? A substantial portion of Trump's base is the white working class (former Democrats)who have been involuntary heroes in sacrificing their income to raise millions out of poverty. That's what I read Trump, the Ronpaul, and pat Buchanan as.
Spoiler:
.
Lucrece wrote:
sardia wrote:
Lucrece wrote:
HES wrote:
Lucrece wrote:I'm just tired of reading about people who seriously think Trump stands a chance in national elections just because the media made a circus of him for ratings and gave his campaign free publicity for batshit crazy primaries.

That's exactly the attitude that will let him in. The political climate is a mess right now, Trump is a threat, and should be treated as such. Underestimate him at your (and everyone's) peril.

Yeah, yeah, I know that's what progressive talking heads keep saying to fearmonger their base. There's always some cataclysmic prospect to keep people tuned into their answers so they can stay relevant with an audience and political influence.
Mitt Romney, who was decidedly less batshit crazy, didn't shit on Mexicans (in fact, had roots there) as a the largest growing minority vote in the US, didn't comment on women's appearance, and didn't look like a spray-tanned hairy scrotum , couldn't even take the election away from Obama at his lowest point of popularity. A super WASP-y guy who couldn't defeat the socialist Kenyan dude.
And somehow you expect that Trump will fare any better against a white woman who was married to one of the most popular presidents in the country.
Mhm, ok. You can lose sleep if you want. I won't.

There are troubling trends (for Democrats) that we discussed over in the US election thread. Off the top of my head, Pennsylvania, a tipping point (aka important) state has been trending less and less Democratic in each election. In addition, the latest demographic data(which heavily influences voting patterns) show there are far more white people(aka they still matter) than previously indicated. All of these are related, and point to potential trouble.



How is more white people potentially trouble? lol

You do realize the Democratic party and the vast majority of its elites are white as well, right? And why shouldn't they matter? You shouldn't be trying to circumvent the vote of undesirable white people; you should be trying to understand and influence the way they vote like any other demographic.

While Pennsylvania leans red, states like Florida are leaning blue. Allow enough demographic shifts from immigration in California and most of the South, and Republican rule is doomed at the rate the Hispanic population, especially Mexicans, is developing in the US. These are generations worth of new Democrat voters unless Republicans make a short term change of platform and court Hispanics on social conservatism since many of these Hispanic immigrants are devout Catholics.

More young people are going to college, which are decidedly leftist in their bent. This reflects on the general values of college graduates. So you have a dying red state population while a tide of blue will become our next voting bloc.

It'd only be faster if liberals weren't so intent on alienating white people on their identity politics crusades. You wouldn't be losing the union votes largely manned by low/middle class white workers now being courted by Republicans. The Republican party could be made utterly irrelevant in no time.

In the US, demographics is destiny. White people vote GOP more often, so if there are more white people than previously thought, it means the models are under estimating GOP odds of winning.


Older white people vote more for GOP. Younger, college educated white people quite the opposite.

Middle class white women have a quite lopsided voting record in favor of Democrats, especially with high school education and up.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
cyanyoshi
Posts: 412
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cyanyoshi » Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:28 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:Most likely because the Republicans don't give a shit about income inequality except in that they want to increase it, leading to further feudalism, so they don't really want to talk about it?


One of the things that conservatives (which includes many republicans) believe is that the best way to reduce income inequality is to get out of the way and let the market work; so aside from saying that (which many republicans candidates have) there isn't a whole lot for them to talk about.

Whether that position is right or wrong is open to debate; but frankly, it's not an unreasonable position. The government has spent ridiculous amounts of money - well over a trillion over the past decade - on various programs intended to reduce poverty and income inequality, and has not only failed to fix either problem, but has arguably made it worse.


I haven't seen any Republican lose much sleep about income inequality. The super rich are seen as job creators, and too much regulation makes business less profitable, which can lead to layoffs. Raise the minimum wage? No! Then there would be fewer jobs available, and the company might even pack up and move to a less regulated country. Income inequality can even be construed to be a good thing because of the American Dream and all that.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:35 pm UTC

cyanyoshi wrote:I haven't seen any Republican lose much sleep about income inequality. The super rich are seen as job creators, and too much regulation makes business less profitable, which can lead to layoffs. Raise the minimum wage? No! Then there would be fewer jobs available, and the company might even pack up and move to a less regulated country. Income inequality can even be construed to be a good thing because of the American Dream and all that.


What I will note is that a disproportional amount of Republicans are overly optimistic, strangely enough. They believe that good things will happen to good people without assistance, and that belief leads them to distrust government programs and direct contributions to the poor. (In a poorly thought out: if poor people deserved the money, they'd get it without us having to give it to them). Its that line of thought that I'm against within Republican circles. But it isn't a malicious thought. Its just not very true.

On the other hand, Republicans' optimism allows them to see that the world is more than just a zero-sum game. If Bob benefits from a policy, it isn't necessarily true that Alice is harmed. A lot of Democrats seem to think that the only way to improve the conditions of the poor is to take stuff away from other people. (IE: Tax the rich, give welfare to the poor) Example 2: The insanity of some Democrats to think that "punishing the banks and corporations" should be an explicit goal in of itself.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:07 pm UTC

cyanyoshi wrote:I haven't seen any Republican lose much sleep about income inequality.


So you know all of them, then?

It's not my intention here to defend the republican party - it's not my party. But the suggestion that republicans and republican voters as a whole simply don't care about things like income equality just because they don't share your views on how to address them is, frankly, just baseless and naive.

The super rich are seen as job creators, and too much regulation makes business less profitable, which can lead to layoffs.


The thing is... all of that is largely true. Wealthy people do create jobs because they can create jobs; it takes money to start a business. And, regulation can and does affect how much money a business can make. And, when a business is making less money it can lead to layoffs... and that isn't always simply because the folks running the business want to line their pockets. In some cases it's a choice between laying people off and not being able to meet financial obligations.

Raise the minimum wage? No!


Agreed!

The vast majority of people who make minimum wage are working for supplemental income; kids working for spending money, older people looking to supplement retirement, things like that. Very few people actually live off of minimum wage. And while that's a bad situation for them, and we as a society ought to do something to help them out - artificially raising the cost of labor isn't the answer. Why do you think companies like MacDonalds are seriously looking at using robotics to replace people? Do you think it's because the owners of the corporation think it'd just be really neat to have robots working in their restaurants? Or... do you think it's because they realize that robots will be cheaper than having human employees? In which direction do you think constantly rising costs including wages, health coverage, and so forth is going to push them?

Then there would be fewer jobs available, and the company might even pack up and move to a less regulated country.


Yes! They not only might... companies do actually do this. Just for a moment, consider beyond the political aspect of this and think about what it actually means. Companies don't just do things like this for shits and giggles. There is enormous expense involved with moving a company overseas. Buying or renting land, buildings, hiring new people, all of the legal hoops to jump through... and yet it's still better for them financially than staying in the USA.

Income inequality can even be construed to be a good thing because of the American Dream and all that.


It's not so much a matter of it being a "good" thing is that it's a fact of life. It's reality. And it's always been reality. There is no place on Earth, nor has there ever been, where you don't have people who end up making and having a lot more than other people. Even in the most liberal of liberal countries, there are rich and poor. Even in places where they try to force income equality, it never actually happens.

Now... this doesn't mean I am arguing for income inequality; or that I'm against efforts to help mitigate it. There are obviously problems with too much income inequality that need to be addressed. But the simple fact is that has always been there, and unless we get to some Star Trek ideal world where there is unlimited free energy and replication and shit, it'll always be there.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:22 pm UTC

cyanyoshi wrote:
cphite wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:Most likely because the Republicans don't give a shit about income inequality except in that they want to increase it, leading to further feudalism, so they don't really want to talk about it?


One of the things that conservatives (which includes many republicans) believe is that the best way to reduce income inequality is to get out of the way and let the market work; so aside from saying that (which many republicans candidates have) there isn't a whole lot for them to talk about.

Whether that position is right or wrong is open to debate; but frankly, it's not an unreasonable position. The government has spent ridiculous amounts of money - well over a trillion over the past decade - on various programs intended to reduce poverty and income inequality, and has not only failed to fix either problem, but has arguably made it worse.


I haven't seen any Republican lose much sleep about income inequality. The super rich are seen as job creators, and too much regulation makes business less profitable, which can lead to layoffs. Raise the minimum wage? No! Then there would be fewer jobs available, and the company might even pack up and move to a less regulated country. Income inequality can even be construed to be a good thing because of the American Dream and all that.



On the other hand, the professors in university labs I went through, devout Democrats no doubt, lost no sleep abusing the minimum wage as they offered 8-10/hr to undergraduate students for "qualified" lab work requiring experience in science labs. You know, talking about income inequality in their social media but slaving their students for the same salary of a McDonald's cook despite a minimum degree of an A.A.

Human Rights Campaign, the alleged LGBT rights organization, tells prospective employee canvassers that they fight for progressive causes like minimum wage increase, yet they themselves implement a pyramid scheme which pays you $8 base an hour with a chance to work up to $13-14 an hour based on how many donations you collect. Note Publix supermarket is paying employees that much( $12-13/hr).

A $15 minimum wage is worthless grandstanding. You won't live in California on 15/hour, you won't live in New York on 15/hour. Hell, even down here in Miami that won't get you much besides an efficiency in some unsafe neighborhood.

What's worse, these California democrats voted for their $15/hr to win points as if they were fixing a problem, but the joke's on voters because the actual wage increase starts at $1 increase per hour per year; they designed it so it will take around five years to increase up to that miserly $15/hr minimum wage.

It's a lot of talk about caring and making a difference, but not making a difference whatsoever-- rather the usual political token effort so dumbass progressives move on to their next cause satisfied with their politicians, while the politicians just did the DOMA style compromise at the benefit of big business. That is, netting their corporate donors the least damage from wage increases while fooling their base. You can credit Democrats with at least being smarter than their political counterparts in fooling their base.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1182
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby commodorejohn » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:30 pm UTC

You won't live in San Francisco on $15/hr., but you can sure as hell live in California on less than that.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:36 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Now... this doesn't mean I am arguing for income inequality; or that I'm against efforts to help mitigate it. There are obviously problems with too much income inequality that need to be addressed. But the simple fact is that has always been there, and unless we get to some Star Trek ideal world where there is unlimited free energy and replication and shit, it'll always be there.

Does the worldwide nationalism, anti immigration, anti trade and right wing rise, indicate that more inequality mitigating is needed? Like can we take more of the gains that globalization gave to the winners, and use that to mitigate the problems of the losers of globalization?

User avatar
cyanyoshi
Posts: 412
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cyanyoshi » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:40 pm UTC

cphite wrote:So you know all of them, then?

It's not my intention here to defend the republican party - it's not my party. But the suggestion that republicans and republican voters as a whole simply don't care about things like income equality just because they don't share your views on how to address them is, frankly, just baseless and naive.

...

You are reading far too much into my post. It wasn't meant to be an attack. I was just trying to provide some context for the lack of discussion of income inequality coming from the Right. Nothing more, nothing less.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:09 pm UTC

Why do you think companies like MacDonalds are seriously looking at using robotics to replace people? Do you think it's because the owners of the corporation think it'd just be really neat to have robots working in their restaurants? Or... do you think it's because they realize that robots will be cheaper than having human employees? In which direction do you think constantly rising costs including wages, health coverage, and so forth is going to push them?
Does anyone think the cost of labor will really make all that much difference in the end. If it can be automated, it will be automated. And McDonald's, and all other fast food stores, have much bigger problems than their labor force. Just how many restaurants do you think there can be? And how many hamburgers can you sell? As an amusing thought if you imposed a 2000 calorie limit on the general population, the restaurant business would die off anyway. And in the end if enough jobs disappear that could be where you end up. Anyway just musing.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:15 pm UTC

TransCanada is suing the US government for 15 billion under NAFTA for blocking the Keystone pipeline. Considering how much Trump has recently been hammering free trade agreements, I can imagine this being significant.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:16 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Why do you think companies like MacDonalds are seriously looking at using robotics to replace people? Do you think it's because the owners of the corporation think it'd just be really neat to have robots working in their restaurants? Or... do you think it's because they realize that robots will be cheaper than having human employees? In which direction do you think constantly rising costs including wages, health coverage, and so forth is going to push them?
Does anyone think the cost of labor will really make all that much difference in the end. If it can be automated, it will be automated. And McDonald's, and all other fast food stores, have much bigger problems than their labor force. Just how many restaurants do you think there can be? And how many hamburgers can you sell? As an amusing thought if you imposed a 2000 calorie limit on the general population, the restaurant business would die off anyway. And in the end if enough jobs disappear that could be where you end up. Anyway just musing.


A great many things can be automated now, it's simply not practical to do so on a dollars and cents basis.

Yes, more automation is likely to happen to some degree either way, but if you build giant financial incentives for large chains to do so faster...they will. And that makes it harder for workers to transition away from these industries. There are *always* industries growing and dying, but transition speed matters a great deal for the people involved.

Imposing a 2000 calorie limit on the general population strikes me as a hilariously unenforceable law likely to have all manner of terrible consequences.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:16 pm UTC

Automate the whole process, you don't really need people at all. Make little robot hamburger eaters. :lol:
LaserGuy wrote:TransCanada is suing the US government for 15 billion under NAFTA for blocking the Keystone pipeline. Considering how much Trump has recently been hammering free trade agreements, I can imagine this being significant.
Yep, another talking point for "The Donald". Make NAFTA go away.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:22 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Why do you think companies like MacDonalds are seriously looking at using robotics to replace people? Do you think it's because the owners of the corporation think it'd just be really neat to have robots working in their restaurants? Or... do you think it's because they realize that robots will be cheaper than having human employees? In which direction do you think constantly rising costs including wages, health coverage, and so forth is going to push them?


Does anyone think the cost of labor will really make all that much difference in the end. If it can be automated, it will be automated.


Cost of labor will absolutely be a factor; it already is a factor. Things aren't being automated just because... when things are automated they're automated for a reason. It can be cost, or speed, or accuracy, or consistency, or safety, or any combination of those things or other things. But for low-skill labor like flipping burgers, cost is a fairly huge driving force behind it.

In the case of fast food, it's because they see the cost of a human worker is going to exceed the cost of buying and maintaining a robot. They wouldn't do it otherwise.

And McDonald's, and all other fast food stores, have much bigger problems than their labor force. Just how many restaurants do you think there can be? And how many hamburgers can you sell?


A whole lot. Specific chains like MacDonalds are not having trouble because the demand for fast food has fallen that much... they're mostly losing out to chains that are making better fast food. Better burgers, or healthier choices. But the thing is... those better choices cost money. It'll be interesting to see if the better burger joints are able to remain as such as the costs of labor continue to rise. It's entirely possible that stores like MacDonalds might see a bit of a resurgence as the cost of labor increases; if for not other reason than that they can keep their prices lower to enough of a degree that people start coming back.

As an amusing thought if you imposed a 2000 calorie limit on the general population, the restaurant business would die off anyway. And in the end if enough jobs disappear that could be where you end up. Anyway just musing.


That would go completely beyond the bounds of reasonable government, and would be utterly unenforceable. Which means that they'll probably try before too long :roll:

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:14 pm UTC

Instead of supporting such industries that exploit their workers, the government should get more of their money spent on getting people trained to transition to local industries that offer better prospects anyways. There should be much effort done to peel people away from these minimum wage traps.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:21 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Instead of supporting such industries that exploit their workers, the government should get more of their money spent on getting people trained to transition to local industries that offer better prospects anyways. There should be much effort done to peel people away from these minimum wage traps.


Look, I own a local business, so I'm hella biased towards them, but the idea that they always provide better prospects is...dodgy. Often there is a very hard cap on growth, because there's simply no position above that. Or they're hyper specialized, and government training is pretty much garbage at supporting local industries anyways. Or the local positions are also minimum wage positions. Super common.

Plus, given that even franchises are often locally owned, your "locally owned" business may BE a McDonalds. Or may embrace automation heavily. I automated the shit out of my inventory tracking, so barring the occasional misscan, everything gets handled with extremely little human input.

I like local businesses, but the idea that this is a solution sadly doesn't wash for this problem.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:34 pm UTC

Yeah... overall the majority of middle class and upper middle class people have roles in corporations, not local businesses.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:42 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Instead of supporting such industries that exploit their workers, the government should get more of their money spent on getting people trained to transition to local industries that offer better prospects anyways. There should be much effort done to peel people away from these minimum wage traps.


Look, I own a local business, so I'm hella biased towards them, but the idea that they always provide better prospects is...dodgy. Often there is a very hard cap on growth, because there's simply no position above that. Or they're hyper specialized, and government training is pretty much garbage at supporting local industries anyways. Or the local positions are also minimum wage positions. Super common.

Plus, given that even franchises are often locally owned, your "locally owned" business may BE a McDonalds. Or may embrace automation heavily. I automated the shit out of my inventory tracking, so barring the occasional misscan, everything gets handled with extremely little human input.
I like local businesses, but the idea that this is a solution sadly doesn't wash for this problem.

Globalization is a major force for increased productivity, but there are losers. The real issue is mitigating the losers somehow. Just take some of the gains, and move them to the losers. It's just a question of how it happens. Or you can ignore the problem and muddle through the chaos. Considering the rise of the right wing extremism parties, its better to act sooner rather than later.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:50 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Instead of supporting such industries that exploit their workers, the government should get more of their money spent on getting people trained to transition to local industries that offer better prospects anyways. There should be much effort done to peel people away from these minimum wage traps.


First off, there aren't nearly enough truly "locally" owned businesses to even attempt something like that.

Secondly, even if there were, the notion that locally owned businesses offer better prospects is, to put it politely, rather dubious. Certainly there are a lot of small business owners who mean well and who want to provide better prospects - and some of them even manage to do that - but it's definitely not true as a rule. The reality is actually that they're usually more limited in terms of upward mobility and compensation.

And third... the number of people who actually work for minimum wage is very very small... somewhere around 4% of total workers; and only a very tiny percentage of those are people who rely on it as a primary source of income. It isn't nearly as big an issue as certain politicians and activists (but I repeat myself) make it out to be.

The minimum wage - and the incessant attempts to raise it - is a solution in search of a problem. It's a way for politicians to show that they're "doing something" for people; even if it ultimately ends up biting those same people in the ass.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:52 pm UTC

This is very much about pace of change. If demand dials down gradually over decades, need can be met by fewer people joining that profession. This happens constantly, and it's not really that big of a deal.

If it dials down much, much faster, you end up with a large retrain need.

And I dare say that even with government programs available, people who had to retrain, and have only the minimum skill level, whatever that is, are usually still at a marked disadvantage competing for a new job.

This potentially gets much uglier if we start talking about dialing down unskilled labor altogether, especially if combined with a growing cost of college education.

Training doesn't necessarily even help, if the change is fast enough in your area. You get a huge wave of people that all have the basic skill level, a lack of experience, and there's only so many actual jobs for that sort of qualification. Detroit, for instance. You lose a big enough pile of people from a sector in an area that focuses on it, and the available local job market is only so flexible.

Training isn't always bad, and abandoning the "local" part of the suggestion that was so confusing certainly helps...but it's often used as a "hey, we're fixing the problem we're creating by funding training" that usually ends up being woefully inadequate.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests