|
Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden, the Inappropriate Toucher |
|
18 | 1.46% |
| Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer |
|
665 | 54.11% |
| Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker |
|
319 | 25.96% |
| Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord |
|
26 | 2.12% |
| Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Julian Castro, the Twin |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath |
|
17 | 1.38% |
| Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist |
|
8 | 0.65% |
| Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen |
|
86 | 7.00% |
| Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater |
|
23 | 1.87% |
| Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool |
|
32 | 2.60% |
| Eric Swalwell, the Insurance Wife Guy |
|
2 | 0.16% |
| Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast |
|
1 | 0.08% |
| Bill de Blasio, the NYPD Most Hated |
|
4 | 0.33% |
| Tim Ryan, the Dope Face |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| John Hickenlooper, the Also Ran |
|
7 | 0.57% |
| Total: | 1229 votes | ||
|
I don’t really care about what Vox is arguing about, but
The hell is this? Are people mistaking TPC for the Tax Foundation or something? If there’s a methodological critique of their work from somebody that isn’t an AEI whackjob I’d love to hear it. Yes, I know Gleckman is a deficit hawk, but he’s probably the only honest one in the business.
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:40 |
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:It’s called consolidation. Strengthen governments and corporations, weaken individuals. With taxes, this can be done imperceptibly over time. Calm down, Colonel, here's your scissors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I like how posts like this seem to think that "strongly wanting a particular candidate to win" is somehow rude or wrong. There is nothing unreasonable about focusing most negative attention at candidates you don't support who are the most competitive with the one you do support. I don't think it has anything to do with trust in institutions. It's mostly about identity. Not in the race/ethnic identity strictly, but in the sense of the upper middle class ethos. "Harvard professor" is perhaps the top occupation in terms of prestige for these people. So someone who was a Harvard professor, who frames policy in technocratic instead of moral terms, who values complexity over simplification will get enormous cache with the group of people who value that. But another thing is that people with this identity also dramatically overestimate their own ability and skill to understand things. So it can't possibly be that the rude guy who frames policy in clear, simple moral terms has the more sophisticated understanding of things. It can't be that the FTT is an actual policy that exists and that we can estimate the impacts of, while Warren's wealth tax is a true unworkable mess. It can't be that Bernie's student debt forgiveness reduces more wealth inequality, because Warren's has the added complexity. It can't be that Warren's housing policy is centered on a concept that Bernie has been the champion of and was the first to introduce it to congress. And because these people can't conceive of being wrong, they will glom on to something to keep the cognitive dissonance from reading actual experts. So someone will point to a reduction in trading with and FTT as something that would destroy pensions, despite the fact that FTTs are specifically designed to reduce trade volume (it is precisely about reducing speculative and day trading) and that volume has nothing to do with financial viability (if I buy a stock at 10 bucks, sell it and buy it back 10 times and end up with it at 10 bucks again, I have 10 bucks in assets and there was involved in 100 of trading, if I buy it and keep it, I have 10 in assets and was involved in 10 bucks, the viability of my pension is based on the value of the assets and not the trade volume). And the evidence of this is visible in the polls. On Quinnipiac, Warren's best poll, he does well because she is the top candidate among white college graduates, and trails Biden by double digits among every other group. But if you look at other stuff, Warren supporters were not really more likely to be Hillary voters, they have lower favorability of Nancy Pelosi than Biden voters, or any more dislike for Bernie, etc. So there's not a lot distinguishing them from other voters on the side of liking things with institutional approval. If there was a poll that asked them how they view the media, I don't think Warren voters would give any more credence to CNN or MSNBC than other voters (NPR is another matter, but that is again about identity). Because that is the remarkable thing about Warren voters, at least according to the polls: she dominates among white college graduates. And it's not about whether you were Hillary or Bernie in 16, or whether you like Pelosi or not, whether you reject Bernie or not, none of these other proxy measures for internal democratic conflict or belief in democratic institutions. It's specific to being a white college graduate. eviltastic posted:I don’t really care about what Vox is arguing about, but Yeah, TPC is not that bad. My point (which was not to dismiss the TPC) is that their evaluation of the Bernie policy is not at all what Discendo Vox claimed. The TPC was actually fairly positive about the FTT, and their only difference from the other analysis is that they estimated that it would raise fewer taxes, and at no point does the TPC or any other evaluation portrays economic doom. Discendo Vox clearly doesn't understand what trade volume is about and somehow thinks that trade volume is related to pension fund viability. Official estimates of Bernie's FTT range from claiming it will raise a lot of money (PERI) to claiming it will raise a little money, but in a fairly progressive way (TPC). None of them claim economic catastrophe, and, as far as I can tell, even conservative economists don't claim that FTT will cause economic catastrophe. Someone who doesn't understand financial markets thought that the decline in trade volume would be bad, when in fact reducing trade volume is one of the explicit goals of FTT, which has nothing to do with the economic viability of pensions, which are tied to asset value, not how many times it was traded. My favorite joke about people who misunderstand what trade value is about goes like this: johnny and joe come across a pile of dog poo poo. Johnny says he will pay Joe 100 bucks if Joe eats a bite out of the dog poo poo. Joe accepts it. Now with 100 bucks in hand, Joe says the same to Johnny, and Johnny accepts it. Joe realizes, hey, we both ate dog poo poo but are not in any way better off than before, to which Johnny, who thinks himself very smart, replies "ah, but we were involved in 200 bucks of trade volume." joepinetree fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Aug 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The Sanders proposal was five times that. It would terminate trading, period. GOOD You don't seem to understand this extremely simple point
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:GOOD I mean, the actual point is that it wouldn't terminate trading. It's literally the rate that exists in the UK. Even the policy evaluations he linked don't claim that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:I don’t really care about what Vox is arguing about, but TPC on the advantages of the estate tax vs warrens wealth tax posted:It taxes only inherited wealth, not earned wealth. One criticism of a wealth tax is that is does not distinguish between the assets of trust fund babies and those who became rich through hard work and risk-taking. Carryover basis does not directly tax entrepreneurs at all, though it may change their behavior if they are motivated by leaving bequests. It does tax their heirs, but only when they sell appreciated inherited wealth. do they seem above reproach to you when they describe the wealth warren's wealth tax would target as "earned wealth"? Do you think the ultra rich who became rich did so through hard work and risk-taking in today's america?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:I don’t really care about what Vox is arguing about, but They're founded by the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute. AKA people who should not be trusted ever. No, I don't think they're the Howard Jarvis Tax Association or something. And no, I don't care that they have enemies who hate them for the wrong reasons. I'm done trusting neoliberals just because they occasionally throw progressives a bone and admit that maybe a slight tax increase here or there would be a good idea, so long as we pair it with massive deregulation of financial industries or whatever the gently caress they're pushing that day. And there's no such thing as an honest deficit hawk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
Condiv posted:do they seem above reproach to you when they describe the wealth warren's wealth tax would target as "earned wealth"? Do you think the ultra rich who became rich did so through hard work and risk-taking in today's america? How would you even quantify "hard work and risk-taking" within a tax code? How is that a valid criticism?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 15:48
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:How would you even quantify "hard work and risk-taking" within a tax code? How is that even a valid criticism? Easy: work that generates massive wealth is hard and risky. Work that leaves you poor is easy and safe. If you filthy plebs took more risks maybe you'd deserve some tax incentives.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yup: Quick update. Bernie's interview is STILL trending #1 on YouTube and it's up to 4.3 million views!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
*Bernie introduces 4.3 million people to alt right media* Bernie bros: This is, good
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:*Bernie introduces 4.3 million people to alt right media* excuse me....bernard brother.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Doesn't the UK have a 0.5% FTT that has yet to destroy the British stock market? Does the British market still have high-frequency trading, or is that unique to Wall Street?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:What is this thread's opinion on Jay Inslee, I think he actually has some very good plans and its a shame he is not getting more traction. I think most of the thread seemed to lose interest in him after the first debate when he was asked "what is the greatest threat to America" and answered with a vague rant about TRUMP. His one job was to make a big deal about climate change, and he couldn't consistently stick to that on the debate stage. Overall, I feel that he hasn't done a very good job of pushing the other candidates on the issue or forcing coverage of it, which is a problem for an issue candidate who's running just to keep the issue in the spotlight. If he's somehow mistaken himself for a real candidate, then he's got the same problem as all the other no-hopers: the top five candidates cover a pretty wide variety of party factions, policy positions, and campaign styles, so the rest mostly come off as off-brand knockoffs of one of the top five. The only ones who've managed to distinguish themselves are Yang, Williamson, and Castro. Why would anyone who likes Inslee's positions not vote for Warren or Sanders? Why would anyone who likes Ryan's positions not vote for Buttigieg or Harris? And so on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
Now that the forums are running at speed again and reading some of the policy analysis you all wrote, I wanted to say I'm of the mind that as nominally leftist people we should be doing everything we can to make sure Sanders and Warren are who the voters have to choose between, and if we can manage that we have a huge victory on our hands. I think Bernie is way more charismatic but if we can end the Biden and Harris runs at the very least we will have begun our journey to reverse the Reagan Revolution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:excuse me....bernard brother. stop being misogynistic we're bernard brethren
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I think most of the thread seemed to lose interest in him after the first debate when he was asked "what is the greatest threat to America" and answered with a vague rant about TRUMP. His one job was to make a big deal about climate change, and he couldn't consistently stick to that on the debate stage. Overall, I feel that he hasn't done a very good job of pushing the other candidates on the issue or forcing coverage of it, which is a problem for an issue candidate who's running just to keep the issue in the spotlight. This is exactly how i feel, especially the part where he said the greatest threat is Trump  I actually emailed him the other day to let him know how let down i was by his candidacy. He could have basically been the Bernie of climate change if he'd taken every opportunity to hammer on the issue and tie it into every answer. He could have really had an influence on the election and gotten people talking seriously about what we need to do about it. Instead he just wasted everyone's loving time on dumb bullshit, probably because he's too friendly with the fossil fuel industry, and to really drive his climate change message home he'd need to name them as the enemy and a target for action. So instead of a conversation in climate change, we get an "inslee is hot" article and he decides to start wearing glasses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
Yang has qualified for the next debate. https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/08/08/andrew-yang-qualifies-democratic-debates-1453030
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
Fivethirtyeight did an interesting podcast episode about how the IA caucus will work next year, including with the new (tentative) rules. Key points: - A "virtual caucus" via smartphone app will decide exactly 10% of the IA delegates irrespective of what proportion of Iowans caucus by smartphone instead of in person. - Registration for the virtual caucus is irrevocable. You sign up for it, you can't change your mind later and participate in person (i.e. in the process that awards 90% of the delegates). - As expected, preliminary data indicates that younger, less experienced caucus goers will be overrepresented in the virtual caucus, whereas older, more experienced caucus goers will be overrepresented in the system that awards the other 90% of the delegates. That of course means that every campaign with appreciable numbers of young people need to make sure those voters don't lock themselves into the virtual caucus. - Based on who his voters were, Barack Obama would very likely have lost IA in 2008 if these rules had been in place then (and therefore almost certainly wouldn't have gotten the nomination).
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
Armack posted:Fivethirtyeight did an interesting podcast episode about how the IA caucus will work next year, including with the new (tentative) rules. What the gently caress!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
Fuckin' Iowa keeps finding new and innovative ways to ruin this country, it's honestly pretty impressive
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
Iowa should really just switch over to a primary. Caucuses are complicated, time consuming, and reward candidates who have supporters who have a lot of free time to participate in politics...ie, students, retired people, and people who are either unemployed or can take long periods of time off work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Iowa should really just switch over to a primary. Caucuses are complicated, time consuming, and reward candidates who have supporters who have a lot of free time to participate in politics...ie, students, retired people, and people who are either unemployed or can take long periods of time off work. this is why they do it
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:this is why they do it I don't think so. I think they do it because they've done it for the past century, everybody knows about it, and that's just the way things are done. It's more just inertia than malice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:I don't think it has anything to do with trust in institutions. It's mostly about identity. Not in the race/ethnic identity strictly, but in the sense of the upper middle class ethos. "Harvard professor" is perhaps the top occupation in terms of prestige for these people. So someone who was a Harvard professor, who frames policy in technocratic instead of moral terms, who values complexity over simplification will get enormous cache with the group of people who value that. But another thing is that people with this identity also dramatically overestimate their own ability and skill to understand things. I wasn't referring to Warren supporters as a whole in that post, but specifically the guy I was replying to (and people with similar views to him). Though identity/culture goes hand in hand with trust in institutions, since it's largely what drives that trust. I was probably being too broad when I said "institutions," since it mainly applies to institutions that are culturally palatable to them (so, for someone in academia, they likely don't put much weight in CNN or MSNBC, but probably do consider NPR or the Washington Post reputable, since those organizations have a more "serious/high brow" reputation). So the trust is derived from identity. In Discendo Vox's case, IIRC he's an academic in health policy or nutrition science or something, and he reminds me of some of the people I've worked with in terms of both not really understanding the fact that politics is not equivalent to most academic fields (since it's a question of values/priorities) and for some reason not comprehending the fact that mainstream political and media organizations (or a strongly politicized academic field, like economics) are not comparable with a reputable peer reviewed journal. In their mind, political ideas outside of the mainstream are basically similar to a paper only published in some random open-source journal or something. Even moreso than most other arguments against Sanders and the left, it is very obvious that he has completely dismissed that side of the argument in the same way one might dismiss anti-vaxxers or something. The kind of depressing thing is that I know a lot of D&D posters look up to the posters with some sort of specific academic/professional knowledge, like Discendo Vox or, in the recent past, evilweasel. Heck, I was one of them back when I was in college. I remember looking up to all the smart and wise goons in academia or professions like law or finance. But now that I'm an adult who works in academia, I know that having expertise in some academic field basically says nothing about the quality of someone's political views (if not outright being a predictor of bad views in certain areas). joepinetree posted:Yeah, TPC is not that bad. My point (which was not to dismiss the TPC) is that their evaluation of the Bernie policy is not at all what Discendo Vox claimed. The TPC was actually fairly positive about the FTT, and their only difference from the other analysis is that they estimated that it would raise fewer taxes, and at no point does the TPC or any other evaluation portrays economic doom. Discendo Vox clearly doesn't understand what trade volume is about and somehow thinks that trade volume is related to pension fund viability. To be fair, Discendo Vox is probably correct that a high FTT would (indirectly) crash the market, though as I said before that's basically the unavoidable result of any policy that seeks to significantly relieve the wealthy of their money. No significant change would ever be possible if it had to be done in a way that preserves the value of peoples' retirement accounts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Iowa should really just switch over to a primary. Caucuses are complicated, time consuming, and reward candidates who have supporters who have a lot of free time to participate in politics...ie, students, retired people, and people who are either unemployed or can take long periods of time off work. They should but they never will. NH and SC have secured their places among the party organizations as the first and second primaries in the nation, meaning that if IA ever converts to a primary, it would need to schedule it for something like Super Tuesday at the earliest, which means the state would get no attention.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
I think people are too hard on Inslee’s answer to one of Chuck Todd’s loving idiotic “in one word...” questions. It’s not like he hadn’t talked about climate change in the debate. He should’ve said it there but he decided to go with the empty-aaa applause line instead of dancing with the girl he brought there. (And it DID get a strong reaction, because he was the first to say it out of the several candidates who ultimately did so.) It doesn’t make me question his commitment to climate change but it does make me question his political instincts. Which is a shame, because if somebody is pushing the most important global issue I want him doing it well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:
Bernie's proposal has been introduced as legislation many times for many years, and always with the same percentage. "Too high" is not a concern with that one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:He's a little disappointing on health care - his stance is the annoyingly mealy-mouthed "Medicare for All who want it/I don't want to make private insurance illegal" type of thing. I also don't get the impression that he's willing to drastically overhaul the American economy to the degree that his climate change plans would require. He's still a good dude, and probably my third or fourth choice, but he's got some weak points too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:excuse me....bernard brother. Blandark Sandbarbs
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:No significant change would ever be possible if it had to be done in a way that preserves the value of peoples' retirement accounts. This had never occurred to me, actually. Is it possible that old people are sort of held hostage by potential market volatility and that's why they vote for bland turds like Biden?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Blandark Sandbarbs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRIPE4KRtqc who is NOT EVEN A DEMOCRAT,,,,
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
ELO Musk posted:This had never occurred to me, actually. Is it possible that old people are sort of held hostage by potential market volatility and that's why they vote for bland turds like Biden? Yes. Although as we saw in 2008, all these neocons and neolibs whose only positive quality is "you have a 401k, I'll pump up the stock market, forever!" can't even do that
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
Armack posted:Fivethirtyeight did an interesting podcast episode about how the IA caucus will work next year, including with the new (tentative) rules. Jesus Christ what a lovely system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Bernie's proposal has been introduced as legislation many times for many years, and always with the same percentage. "Too high" is not a concern with that one. Yeah, that's why it would be indirect. The tax itself wouldn't actually crash the market, but the reaction of rich people/institutions to it (and a Sanders presidency in general) probably would, since they would (hopefully correctly) interpret it as a sign that the good times of policy prioritizing people with a lot of money are over. Though by "crash the market" I don't mean the hyperbolic "END ALL TRADING" that Discendo Vox said; I just mean the market dropping to a much less inflated level. ELO Musk posted:This had never occurred to me, actually. Is it possible that old people are sort of held hostage by potential market volatility and that's why they vote for bland turds like Biden? Well, ideally any change that causes the markets to crash for this reason would also include improved social welfare such that the elderly didn't need a bunch of retirement money saved anyways. People with significant retirement accounts would still probably end up losing money, but those people aren't the ones who need help to begin with (and this will be even less of an issue in the future, given how few people from the millennial generation will be able to save for retirement in the first place). I'm also not sure how many elderly are even aware that this would likely happen in reaction to left-wing policy being passed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes. Right but it also means that a rather large number of people will be unreachable in an election because the hosed system we have forces those people to vote against their beliefs. God drat it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
ELO Musk posted:Right but it also means that a rather large number of people will be unreachable in an election because the hosed system we have forces those people to vote against their beliefs. God drat it. Yeah that's true and it sucks. It's also what happened in the 1920s and well
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
Armack posted:Fivethirtyeight did an interesting podcast episode about how the IA caucus will work next year, including with the new (tentative) rules. Did they specifically say "smartphone app"? Because everything I'm finding about the virtual caucus suggests that when they say the virtual caucus will be done by phone, it means by phone call. Caucus voters will have to call a specific phone number at a specific time, enter a unique ID number given to them by the party, wait for a recording to list off each candidate and an associated number, and then enter their choices using the phone's number pad. There is, so far, no publicly-revealed plan to offer app-based caucusing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
ELO Musk posted:Right but it also means that a rather large number of people will be unreachable in an election because the hosed system we have forces those people to vote against their beliefs. God drat it. They’re only unreachable so long as you offer them no believable alternative. That’s why the jobs guarantee is a critical part of the GND. If we’re going to get people to go along with the massive changes we need we have to promise to bring them along too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:40 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:They’re only unreachable so long as you offer them no believable alternative. That’s why the jobs guarantee is a critical part of the GND. If we’re going to get people to go along with the massive changes we need we have to promise to bring them along too. This is the key thing, and utter anathema to a lot of liberals who've bought into the 'meritocracy' myth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 18:55
|
|