|
Condiv posted:a primary challenge doesn't weaken candidates. it gives them practice for the general and shows them how to connect to their base I finally understand what mcmagic must be thinking all the time.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:57 |
|
|
OtherworldlyInvader posted:How much money we can print at various levels of inflation seems like it would be both really important to know and fairly straight forward to calculate, yet I've never heard or seen it. If it exists on the internet, googling it seems impossible given the quantity of libertarian bullshit any mention of deficit spending, the federal reserve, or inflation brings up. Its clear we can print a whole lot more, but how much exactly? You'd think that but in practice it's unknowable. The money supply is related to a whole bunch of different things under the control of different institutions and people in addition to being strongly affected simply by how people as a whole are feeling right now. Essentially all the fed does is nudge the money supply in one direction or another and hope it doesn't overshoot the mark.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
The Clintons and their politics of Third Way triangulation are probably the individuals most responsible for the Overton window being so far to the right these days. They are the embodiment of 'fiscally conservative, socially liberal' which as we all know is a bullshit position. Anything they write in a book should be read with sharp skepticism. Also, Hillary Clinton is an inept campaigner - as demonstrated by her 2007 primary run and her 2016 campaign - which has as much as anything else to do with her not being president right now. She had one of the greatest campaigners alive (her husband) giving her advice, which she ignored. She's her own worst opponent. (I voted for Bill in 92 and 96 and Hillary in 16)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:This is some incoherent-rear end bullshit, and I think you know it since you won't even commit to actually spelling out your argument. A hypothetical primary challenge of Obama that would have any real effect upon his policies would have to last long enough to get some obvious momentum showing for those more progressive views compared to his platform. A blip of a primary challenge that doesn't win any early primaries isn't going to last long and thus isn't likely going to have much of an effect. One that wins a few primaries or cat least makes them close will likely carry on for a number of months, assuming that they do concede before it gets to the convention. Hellblazer187 posted:Ted Kennedy was a serious primary challenge. I think Reagan would have won either way though, and would have beaten either Kennedy or Carter. But I don't think it helped. Considering Kennedy stayed in until the convention I'd say that was pretty serious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Ted Kennedy was a serious primary challenge. I think Reagan would have won either way though, and would have beaten either Kennedy or Carter. But I don't think it helped. Kennedy was serious until he got The Question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDh2iKzBh4E
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
spending on social programs would also boost the economy hugely, and then you get more in taxes and can spend even more to boost the economy even more by making sure people have enough money to blow on poo poo they need and want this isn't exactly an exotic principle, this is how new deal democrats did things
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
two things are true: 1.) competitive primaries can highlight divisions within the party (see: 1968) 2.) competitive primaries can reveal how weak previously ordained candidates are and give voters an opportunity to pick an alternative (see: jeb!) 1 can lead either to destructive internal feuds or help establish a new consensus, depending on how the issue is handled.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Niton posted:I finally understand what mcmagic must be thinking all the time. ok 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:it is a real concern if you expand your vision beyond single payer. why wouldn't it be better to know what our actual effective debt limit is? OtherworldlyInvader posted:How much money you can spend is always a concern. Given our inflation rates we're probably leaving money on the table that could be spent on all sorts of things. I don't mean to handwave any of these legit questions but I think people fail to fundamentally understand just how much were not taxing the rich and how much they have. We could ramp up the funding first, wait two years as mechanisms develop while we take in funding and out down such a principle that wed be getting even more back from not having debt service. If we want to analyze this is microcosm, let's take Bernie proposal, fund it as suggested with the money spent on the f35 program and see how many people get his level of care suggested.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:This is some incoherent-rear end bullshit, and I think you know it since you won't even commit to actually spelling out your argument. His argument is that serious primary challenges to incumbent presidents (or semi-incumbents, in the case of Humphrey in 1968) usually turn out badly for the party in question. The problem with his logic, though, is that those challenges only really cause a lot of damage to incumbents who are already extremely weak. Johnson was unpopular, to say the least, in 1968, and Humphrey suffered for that. (he also lost support from the extremely byzantine nature of his nomination) Carter had a lot of self-inflicted wounds going into 1980, and he wasn't very good at bullying Democrats in Congress to do what he needed them to do. Teddy was a vainglorious, undisciplined egomaniac, at least at that point in his career, and he didn't do the Democrats any favors in the way in which he challenged Carter. But Teddy was also a unique figure, given his pedigree and the nonstop pressure for him to take up the torch from his brothers. I don't think one should assume that every primary challenge to a Democratic incumbent will turn out that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
My argument is also that a serious primary challenge is not going to even happen unless the sitting president is weak. The strong primary challenge is IMO a symptom of a weak candidate.Jazerus posted:spending on social programs would also boost the economy hugely, and then you get more in taxes and can spend even more to boost the economy even more by making sure people have enough money to blow on poo poo they need and want I'm sorry. Spending money on social programs just removes money from the economy and puts it into a black hole. You have to cut taxes to grow the economy. [/von mises] QuoProQuid posted:two things are true: #2 isn't a primary challenge. It's just a primary. Taerkar fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I don't mean to handwave any of these legit questions but I think people fail to fundamentally understand just how much were not taxing the rich and how much they have. We could ramp up the funding first, wait two years as mechanisms develop while we take in funding and out down such a principle that wed be getting even more back from not having debt service. nah taxing the rich is something that should be done of course. but if the us is determined to refuse to tax the rich and nothing leftists can do will budge enough politicians to stop that, there are other avenues available for spending.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:two things are true: yeah. unfortunately, attacking voters is one way 1) can go very bad very quickly but that's just a bad idea in any election. like when romney did it in 2012
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Hm. I mean I agree with all this but at the same time, ponies need paying for. They do, and it's worth talking about how we're going to do that. But the fact that we haven't already figured out how we're going to pay for Medicare for All shouldn't bar Sanders from making it even more manifestly normalized with this bill. McConnell's never going to allow it to move forward in any way, so there's no reason to get hung up on minutiae.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:A hypothetical primary challenge of Obama that would have any real effect upon his policies would have to last long enough to get some obvious momentum showing for those more progressive views compared to his platform. A blip of a primary challenge that doesn't win any early primaries isn't going to last long and thus isn't likely going to have much of an effect. One that wins a few primaries or cat least makes them close will likely carry on for a number of months, assuming that they do concede before it gets to the convention. Yeah, but if the president actually is popular like, say, Obama in 2012, the primary will be a blip on the radar. Therefore your claim that primarying Obama would somehow have led to Romney willin the general is hella dumb. Majorian posted:His argument is that serious primary challenges to incumbent presidents (or semi-incumbents, in the case of Humphrey in 1968) usually turn out badly for the party in question. The problem with his logic, though, is that those challenges only really cause a lot of damage to incumbents who are already extremely weak. Johnson was unpopular, to say the least, in 1968, and Humphrey suffered for that. (he also lost support from the extremely byzantine nature of his nomination) Carter had a lot of self-inflicted wounds going into 1980, and he wasn't very good at bullying Democrats in Congress to do what he needed them to do. Teddy was a vainglorious, undisciplined egomaniac, at least at that point in his career, and he didn't do the Democrats any favors in the way in which he challenged Carter. But Teddy was also a unique figure, given his pedigree and the nonstop pressure for him to take up the torch from his brothers. I don't think one should assume that every primary challenge to a Democratic incumbent will turn out that way. Yeah, this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Majorian posted:His argument is that serious primary challenges to incumbent presidents (or semi-incumbents, in the case of Humphrey in 1968) usually turn out badly for the party in question. The problem with his logic, though, is that those challenges only really cause a lot of damage to incumbents who are already extremely weak. Johnson was unpopular, to say the least, in 1968, and Humphrey suffered for that. (he also lost support from the extremely byzantine nature of his nomination) Carter had a lot of self-inflicted wounds going into 1980, and he wasn't very good at bullying Democrats in Congress to do what he needed them to do. Teddy was a vainglorious, undisciplined egomaniac, at least at that point in his career, and he didn't do the Democrats any favors in the way in which he challenged Carter. But Teddy was also a unique figure, given his pedigree and the nonstop pressure for him to take up the torch from his brothers. I don't think one should assume that every primary challenge to a Democratic incumbent will turn out that way. We also have Reagan challenging Ford. Three data points is not enough to prove anything, but it's still 3 out of 3 if you count 1968.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Why would he change his platform and policies to a blip?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:We also have Reagan challenging Ford. Three data points is not enough to prove anything, but it's still 3 out of 3 if you count 1968. That proves my point, though - Ford was about as weak as it gets, in no small part thanks to self-inflicted wounds. (and not just falling on his head a lot)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:We also have Reagan challenging Ford. Three data points is not enough to prove anything, but it's still 3 out of 3 if you count 1968. dunno if any republican could've been elected in the immediate wake of nixon it's just too bad nixon didn't kill the party for good
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yeah. unfortunately, attacking voters is one way 1) can go very bad very quickly as it turns out, political parties do better when they aggregate and articulate public interests instead of those decided by a handful of elites who have a ~~~general~~~ idea of what people like.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Condiv posted:dunno if any republican could've been elected in the immediate wake of nixon Especially not after loving pardoning Nixon. Hellblazer187 posted:We also have Reagan challenging Ford. Three data points is not enough to prove anything, but it's still 3 out of 3 if you count 1968. It's not because you have the causality reversed. As has already been pointed out, serious primary challenges only happen when the sitting president is already very weak. If the president is popular primary chalenges either don't materialize or they're squashed in short order. Thus it's not the primary challenge that's hurting the president, it's the president hurting that makes the challenge possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Condiv posted:dunno if any republican could've been elected in the immediate wake of nixon That he was mostly impeached by Democrats helped the GOP stay together.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
im v excited for the kasich / cruz primary challenge in 2020
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Why did USPol get gassed/banned anyways? There was neither a Trump thread nor a Democrats thread back then, so basically all politics talk in D&D was crammed into a single thread that got roughly ten thousand posts a day, so the constant endless slapfights were impossible to moderate. Trump reactions, Hillary vs Sanders arguments, cop shooting discussion, Black Lives Matter, polling chat, all lumped into a single thread during the very height of election  season. Tempers were getting heated, the wounds of the primaries were even fresher than they are now, people were constantly flipping out about stuff, and the already-overworked mods had no way to keep up with that much posting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Especially not after loving pardoning Nixon. I don't disagree. We haven't HAD a serious primary challenge against a non-weak president. I think challenging Obama would have been bad because his strength was not assured for 2012. His approval was in the 40s for most of that time. That's not "Ford post watergate" level bad that he would have lost no matter what, but it wasn't so commanding that he would have won no matter what. He was liked by Democrats (so is Clinton!) but a bruising primary could have happened and could have been bad. I was among the folks calling for it at the time, actually, but I don't think it would have gone well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:im v excited for the kasich / cruz primary challenge in 2020 I half expect Trump to just wander off before the primary even starts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Family Values posted:The Clintons and their politics of Third Way triangulation are probably the individuals most responsible for the Overton window being so far to the right these days. They are the embodiment of 'fiscally conservative, socially liberal' which as we all know is a bullshit position. Anything they write in a book should be read with sharp skepticism. Nah. It was Nixon and the southern strategy followed by elimination of the fairness doctrine in '87.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
karthun posted:Kennedy was serious until he got The Question. I read the comments. 11 months ago posted:He's also created an even bigger mess in the middle east. Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq. Hell, his disastrous foreign policy and its power vacuum created isis. Then his administration forked over billions in cash to loving Iran. It was great in the Reagan days compared to now. You libs are loving morons. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:We also have Reagan challenging Ford. Three data points is not enough to prove anything, but it's still 3 out of 3 if you count 1968. We actually have a lot more data points than that. Strong challengers aren't a random occurrence. The fact that there were no strong challengers to Bush in 04, Clinton in 96, Reagan in 84 or Nixon in 72 isn't an accident.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Nah. It was Nixon and the southern strategy followed by elimination of the fairness doctrine in '87. I'd put the start at wannabe-oligarchs getting organized in the 70s. Modern conservatism is literally a plot to bring back the Gilded Age. Capitalists of the world unite! quote:On August 23, 1971, prior to accepting Nixon's nomination to the Supreme Court, Powell was commissioned by his neighbor, Eugene B. Sydnor Jr., a close friend and education director of the US Chamber of Commerce, to write a confidential memorandum titled "Attack on the American Free Enterprise System," an anti-Communist, anti-New Deal blueprint for conservative business interests to retake America for the chamber.[13][14] It was based in part on Powell's reaction to the work of activist Ralph Nader, whose 1965 exposé on General Motors, "Unsafe at Any Speed," put a focus on the auto industry putting profit ahead of safety, which triggered the American consumer movement. Powell saw it as an undermining of Americans' faith in enterprise and another step in the slippery slope of socialism. [...] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell_Jr.#Powell_Memorandum For the international audience, think-tanks and lobbying groups like the Heritage Foundation and ALEC are the institutional core of conservative policy and legislation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Nah. It was Nixon and the southern strategy followed by elimination of the fairness doctrine in '87. The death of Bobby Kennedy and the failure of Carter leading into Ronald Reagan's utterly devastating electoral victories thanks to aging, increasingly conservative Baby Boomers is also significant in conjunction with these events. Left-wing politics had been thoroughly poo poo on long before the Clintons were important in American politics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
i don't know why this old-rear end meme still makes me laugh but it does https://twitter.com/socarolinesays/status/677533474555863040
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:I'd put the start at wannabe-oligarchs getting organized in the 70s. Modern conservatism is literally a plot to bring back the Gilded Age. Well yeah but they had been trying this since the dixiecrat meltdown over FDRs glorious socialist plans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The death of Bobby Kennedy and the failure of Carter leading into Ronald Reagan's utterly devastating electoral victories thanks to aging, increasingly conservative Baby Boomers is also significant in conjunction with these events. The absolute demolishing of McGovern didn't help.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Ague Proof posted:I read the comments. That memory hole though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Gorau posted:You'd think that but in practice it's unknowable. The money supply is related to a whole bunch of different things under the control of different institutions and people in addition to being strongly affected simply by how people as a whole are feeling right now. Essentially all the fed does is nudge the money supply in one direction or another and hope it doesn't overshoot the mark. Ok yeah, that makes sense given the way the federal reserve behaves. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
OtherworldlyInvader posted:How much money we can print at various levels of inflation seems like it would be both really important to know and fairly straight forward to calculate, yet I've never heard or seen it. If it exists on the internet, googling it seems impossible given the quantity of libertarian bullshit any mention of deficit spending, the federal reserve, or inflation brings up. Its clear we can print a whole lot more, but how much exactly? Given that inflation is tied to demand for goods and services, and not into the money supply itself, this is an unclear question. The money supply has been exploding, yet inflation has grown slowly but steadily. Hypothetically, this should eventually produce inflation in the long term, but slower economic growth has led to less demand for products and consequently less inflation. Not that inflation is necessarily a bad thing. It makes it easier to pay off debts and to export products.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:That memory hole though. You know when people say Clinton was impeached for lying to the American people - "depends on what Is means" - do they ever bring up Reagan's best quote? "In spite of the wildly speculative and false stories of arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments, we did not—repeat, did not—trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we." "A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not."
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
The sudden fiscal conservative democrats itt, should make sure to let Florida and Texas know that because the Hurricane Relief bills didn't have detailed actuarial tables in them it was impossible for them to pass. What is it with these pie-in-the-sky hurricane victims that they just can't listen to the adults in the room. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:57 |
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:The absolute demolishing of McGovern didn't help. I sometimes just feel like it's worth reminding people when they ask how anyone ever thought Bill Clinton was good that in '92 they were living in a world where a Republican President had only a decade previously won back to back electoral victories that included every state but Minnesota once (84) and California both times. I can't even imagine how utterly defeated Democrats probably felt in 1992.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 00:28
|
|