|
Gyges posted:TARP was one of the last acts of W, not one of Obama's first. And as much of an idiot poo poo fucker as W was, he was a "normal" Republican with a competent staff to implement policy What we have now.... Yikes
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 12:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:50 |
|
|
e: nm
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:43 on May 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
Gyges posted:TARP was one of the last acts of W, not one of Obama's first. Sorry, yes, that was some drunk-posting on my part. Obama's part in this was that he had the opportunity to expand on TARP and instead chose to cut it to like $475 billion (because literally all of his NEC Directors were raging capitalists). Imagine making this dude as your Director of the National Economic Council: Lawrence Summers posted:On May 7, 1998, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued a Concept Release soliciting input from regulators, academics, and practitioners to determine "how best to maintain adequate regulatory safeguards without impairing the ability of the OTC (over-the-counter) derivatives market to grow and the ability of U.S. entities to remain competitive in the global financial marketplace."[31] On July 30, 1998, then-Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Summers testified before the U.S. Congress that "the parties to these kinds of contract are largely sophisticated financial institutions that would appear to be eminently capable of protecting themselves from fraud and counterparty insolvencies." At the time Summers stated that "to date there has been no clear evidence of a need for additional regulation of the institutional OTC derivatives market, and we would submit that proponents of such regulation must bear the burden of demonstrating that need."[32] In 1999 Summers endorsed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which removed the separation between investment and commercial banks, saying "With this bill, the American financial system takes a major step forward towards the 21st Century." Now, Lawrence later "changed his mind" about regulating banking and derivatives, but the fact that this was the guy Obama chose in 2009 (!) tells you quite a bit about how backwards Obama's thinking was on the economy.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:The 2008 great recession happened at the tail end of 2008/beginning of 2009. Obama's team was responsible for implementing the paltry $700 billion-dollar TARP, along with some auto-bailouts and "for some reason" selling off Bear Stearns to JP Morgan. Obama hosed it up by not bailing out mortgage holders and jailing the bankers (or even implementing the much larger TARP that was recommended), but not nearly as badly as Trump would gently caress up any more recent version of a 2008 recession. Bear Sterns sale was under W.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:6. If you actually care about political outcomes and believe Sanders is the best candidate, there is nothing strange or untoward about trying to convince people that the only other semi-credible left-wing candidate is actually not as good (especially when Sanders might end up needing all the support he can get to win the primary against Biden). An elected politician, and especially the President of the United States, is a position of great power. There is nothing wrong with "dragging" a candidate who you think will be worse than the candidate you prefer. It is not somehow rude. Anecdotally speaking, I've encountered a couple people who were pro-Warren until having some of the points raised in articles like those made to them. A lot of people just vaguely think Warren and Sanders are identical politically, so it isn't unreasonable to try and bolster Sanders' support through reaching out to people who have a better chance of sharing the same values (in this case Warren supporters).
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 01:06
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:If you actually care about political outcomes and believe Sanders is the best candidate, there is nothing strange or untoward about trying to convince people that the only other semi-credible left-wing candidate is actually not as good (especially when Sanders might end up needing all the support he can get to win the primary against Biden). I read Silver as saying that the Jacobin articles implicitly contradict each other and/or that their overall pattern suggests motivated reasoning by the authors, not that they're "somehow rude."
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I read Silver as saying that the Jacobin articles implicitly contradict each other and/or that their overall pattern suggests motivated reasoning by the authors, not that they're "somehow rude." That seems about par for the course when it comes to the Jacobin. I still haven't gotten over that drat article of theirs where the idiot talked about how much he wanted to smuggle Trotsky books in to North Korea.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 03:12
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I read Silver as saying that the Jacobin articles implicitly contradict each other and/or that their overall pattern suggests motivated reasoning by the authors, not that they're "somehow rude."
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 07:06
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I read Silver as saying that the Jacobin articles implicitly contradict each other and/or that their overall pattern suggests motivated reasoning by the authors, not that they're "somehow rude." I don't see anything really contradictory there, though. And it's not like all the articles are written by the same person, anyways; there's nothing strange even if different writers for the same magazine had different opinions on the topic of Warren.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 06:36
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I read Silver as saying that the Jacobin articles implicitly contradict each other and/or that their overall pattern suggests motivated reasoning by the authors, not that they're "somehow rude." Nate probably genuinely does think 'you allowed different writers to express different perspectives? MAKE UP YOUR MIND, NEWS!' yea. That's not really a good thing, but yea it is how his dumbass brain likely works Like, he's mad that someone polling, at best, middle of the pack got multiple articles and op-eds written about them because how dare they question Warren sexpig by night fucked around with this message at 16:20 on May 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 16:18
|
|
|
Maybe it’s just me, but dragging Warren for refusing to go on Fox just makes the author look like a loving idiot. I’m failing to see how it’ll make Warren supporters suddenly turn Sanders. In general, dragging your allies is a generally lovely way to turn their supporters, especially in a system that’s based around candidates dropping out to consolidate votes.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 16:32
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Maybe it’s just me, but dragging Warren for refusing to go on Fox just makes the author look like a loving idiot. I’m failing to see how it’ll make Warren supporters suddenly turn Sanders. it's a loving primary
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:it's a loving primary Ask Hillary about the effects of extensive muckraking in the primary.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:Ask Hillary about the effects of extensive muckraking in the primary. yea pity that primary forced her to not go to Wisconsin
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:yea pity that primary forced her to not go to Wisconsin Nah, but it did result in one of the most comically fragmented political parties I've ever seen during an election.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:Nah, but it did result in one of the most comically fragmented political parties I've ever seen during an election. it is always adorable to see someone who was around for the 2016 primary, and the 2016 primary only. remember that gay muslim communist Obama, from 2008? and how 25% of his primary opponent's supporters ended up voting for the Republican? DWS gets a lot of poo poo for the openly corrupt way she did her job, but she did her job. the 2016 primary was, by primary standards, incredibly sedate, decorous, and measured, leading to a unified party under the selected candidate. then she lost and the neatly smoothed-over fractures came back with a vengeance.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:it is always adorable to see someone who was around for the 2016 primary, and the 2016 primary only. remember that gay muslim communist Obama, from 2008? and how 25% of his primary opponent's supporters ended up voting for the Republican? Last I checked, Obama and Hillary stopped going at each other after the primary. I was still seeing Bernie bros people suck and other mentions of the guy all the way to the presidential vote proper. Muckraking happens in primaries, but if it hits the point of burning bridges the candidates are literally shooting themselves in the foot. That said, the bit that started all of this was pretty tame so I'm being a bit of an idiot whose lost the point now.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:Last I checked, Obama and Hillary stopped going at each other after the primary. I was still seeing Bernie bros people suck and other mentions of the guy all the way to the presidential vote proper. Weren't a lot of those shown to be Russians?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Weren't a lot of those shown to be Russians? Yeah. And in 2008, you had the PUMAs and Hillaryis44 people. There just wasn't the same effect with Twitter not amplifying everything.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:Last I checked, Obama and Hillary stopped going at each other after the primary. I was still seeing Bernie bros people suck and other mentions of the guy all the way to the presidential vote proper. you did not follow the 2008 election. this is not a question. this is a statement of fact. a full twenty-five percent of Clinton supporters voted Republican in response to losing the primary to someone they had been assured (by forces both within and without the Clinton campaign) was a gay communist muslim out to bring Sharia Law to the US, where he had not even been born!?!?!!?? they had a name for the people in question. the PUMAs. after their screams in the runup to the convention, "Party Unity My rear end." most of them ended up being ride-or-die for Sarah Palin, because dammit, they were going to show those uppity know-nothing Obama Boys their PLACE.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:a full twenty-five percent of Clinton supporters voted Republican in response to losing the primary to someone they had been assured (by forces both within and without the Clinton campaign) was a gay communist muslim out to bring Sharia Law to the US, where he had not even been born!?!?!!?? I went looking for the 25% number and found this article saying it's more like 12% after people had time to cool down a little. https://news.gallup.com/poll/109957/obama-gains-among-former-clinton-supporters.aspx Gallup posted:Although 12% of former Clinton voters persist in saying that they are going to vote for McCain, that's down from 16%, and the percentage who are undecided has dropped in half. I also found this article in the same Google search: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds quote:Fully 12 percent of people who voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries voted for President Trump in the general election. That is according to the data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study — a massive election survey of around 50,000 people. Maybe it's time to look at 2020 and stop wallowing in 2016.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
All right, so I found the 2010 paper in question and read through the parts essential to this discussion. The paper had 11 waves of samples at different times throughout 2008 The 25% figure from their paper comes from people who said they voted for Clinton in the fourth wave or the fifth wave in June who also answered the self-report for the general election after November. Clinton support for Obama was initially much lower, at 50% in June, so the 25% figure is not a mistake from "cooling down", despite the contradiction by the Gallup poll. Why was I able to find this? Well, https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1121147419771715584 and I googled a quote from the screenshot. Despite all this talk of burnt bridges and how we need to stop wallowing in 2016, blaming Sanders supporters for it, as long as Clinton supporters keep going back to 2016 for these petty digs which need defending against, lest people get the wrong impression of our preferred candidate in 2020, we'll go back there, too.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 14:43
|
|
|
Whoa, I stand corrected. That's grotesque. It shows how little I understand some people's motivation, I really can't put myself in their shoes. Voting Republican in the general when you cared enough to vote in the Democratic primary doesn't make any sense to me at all.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Whoa, I stand corrected. That's grotesque. It makes perfect sense once you realize that center politicians like DWS, Pelosi, and Clinton are just Republicans who happen to wear blue. A lot of people will vote for the status quo, no matter who that is.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
There's a bunch of RWM and their associated idiots who vote in open Democratic primaries, vote for who they think the weaker candidate will be, then vote Team R in the general. I think it was popularized by Limbaugh and maybe it was called Operation Chaos but I honestly can't be bothered to look it up because it's so stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:There's a bunch of RWM and their associated idiots who vote in open Democratic primaries, vote for who they think the weaker candidate will be, then vote Team R in the general. I think it was popularized by Limbaugh and maybe it was called Operation Chaos but I honestly can't be bothered to look it up because it's so stupid. I can't believe there were that many, i.e. 9% of Obama voters. I think a bunch of voters were just racist, but were even more sexist.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I can't believe there were that many, i.e. 9% of Obama voters. I think a bunch of voters were just racist, but were even more sexist. This, but I can also see Republicans voting in Dem primaries in hard blue states where they know a Republican won't have a snowball's chance in hell in an attempt to pull the Democratic party further right.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Whoa, I stand corrected. That's grotesque. Voting in the primary doesn't necessarily mean they like any part of the Democratic platform. It may just be they saw the GOP primary as locked down and had a Dem candidate they wanted to vote against even though they planned to vote GOP in the general all along. I've done that the other direction in local elections when the Dem didn't have a primary opponent and one of the Republicans was markedly worse than the other.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
Don't forget states with closed primaries. I wouldn't be surprised to see 5-10% of primary voters really vote for the other party in the general every time, but never bother to change their party registration, so end up voting in the opposite party primary for candidates they may not like.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
You've also got a ton of "ancestral democrats" in places like West Virginia and Kentucky who mostly voted for Democrats farther down on the ticket, but haven't voted for a Democratic president in decades. Democratic strength in states like that was pretty much doomed given the set up, but the reaction to Obama and the party in general hastened that demise. Even in the last primary Kentucky had more than 100,000 more people participating in the Democratic Primary than the GOP, even though they were both contested at the gubernatorial level. This shouldn't be taken as evidence of GOP weakness in that state, for obvious reasons. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/21/us/elections/results-kentucky-primary-elections.html
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
The second place finisher on the Democratic side in Kentucky was a Pro-Life candidate.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
Can George Takei beat McConnell in an election?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Can George Takei beat McConnell in an election? What rhymes with George Takei Lunderson Grimes?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Honestly, if anyone can, Twitter celebrity power is the way to do it. Yeah he might have a punchers chance. Internet celebrity power is a good way to mobilize young democratic voters.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:Yeah he might have a punchers chance. Internet celebrity power is a good way to mobilize young democratic voters. Takei is like 82. Mitch is only uhh 77? I guess thats one bright spot, Mitch is within an actuary table of dying within the next few years. Or maybe he'll go cyborg like Cheney. Twisted, and evil. If only Nimoy hadn't been a smoker he'd be another octogenarian too.(nevermind I looked it up he died at 83 so smoke away I guess)
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:It shows how little I understand some people's motivation, I really can't put myself in their shoes. Voting Republican in the general when you cared enough to vote in the Democratic primary doesn't make any sense to me at all. I was a Clinton supporter in 2008. I even did field work for her campaign along with some work for other local Democratic campaigns. I also almost gave up on doing any kind of local support for politics ever again after 2008 was over. I've posted about this in D&D before, but the poo poo I saw from other campaign workers when it became clear that Clinton wasn't going to get the nom was loving disgusting. I'm talking about being in the room with people who were just spouting blatantly racist poo poo as if it was completely normal. People who swore they'd never vote for a Democrat ever again. It was only the second time that I'd ever really been personally involved in a political campaign and it was shocking and honestly kind of a formative event for my political awareness. Anyway, I made some really angry posts in 2016 in D&D and it was mostly based on that experience. I was a Clinton supporter then too, but the way people were treating Sanders' campaign and Sanders' supporters reminded me of that more than anything else. It doesn't surprise me at all that a big portion of Clinton voters took the PUMA route in 2008.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 19:30
|
|
|
In “gently caress Alabama” (or rather, don’t) news, here’s a story so awful I don’t know where to even begin breaking it down. Warning: this gets worse. https://twitter.com/drrjkavanagh/status/1134596199988826112?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 04:30
|
|
|
LordSloth posted:In “gently caress Alabama” (or rather, don’t) news, here’s a story so awful I don’t know where to even begin breaking it down. Warning: this gets worse. Its really an intersection of the two worst parts of USA culture, criminal justice system and women's rights. gently caress this dumb country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 04:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:50 |
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I went looking for the 25% number and found this article saying it's more like 12% after people had time to cool down a little. Now I’m really curious how many people votes for Clinton in the 2016 primary and Trump in the general. I wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest if it was also close to 10%.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 15:02
|
|