FizFashizzle posted:

b. who does the dnc unite around? what figure can they base 2018 around and expect any success? is it the bernie/warren wing? surely it's not the booker (black male hillary) side of things

Al! posted:

eonwe posted:

how can we win in the midterms and in 2020?

well people like this guy

NO

anime was right posted:

wonder what bernies gonna say O_O

punk rebel ecks posted:

Upon doing research I've discovered that 1996 had the lowest turnout in almost all of American history. And that was WITH Perot running. So essentially the Democrats were lucky that no good Republican came to challenge them? God drat is triangulation bullshit.


Demographics is desinty!

Yinlock posted:

bernie bros were A Thing but lol if you think they somehow cost hillary "charisma of a doorknob" clinton the election

zegermans posted:

Hey I'm gonna run for president my platform will be to stand in front of dumb white college kids and say "Millunayes and Billunayes" for an hour straight, please vote for me 2020

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Neo-liberalism is an economic position that emphasizes, in its current incarnation, free trade and deregulation of domestic finance and industry, plus the sort of third-way stuff the Clinton administration pulled back in the 90s. While it's not therefore necessarily wrong to call Hillary herself a neo-liberal, since she was knee-deep in that stuff back then and hasn't changed her relative stances overmuch, most often when it gets brought up in CSPAM it's just someone slagging on disappointing Democrats by trying to call them the centrist equivalent of the neo-cons of the W era.

Accretionist posted:

Eh

Neoliberalism is economic policy, is more about free markets and free trade than regular (economic) liberalism

Neoconservatism is foreign policy, endorses free markets and free trade abroad to spread empire/US-led globalization

There's serious overlap between the two groups but I wouldn't call them the same thing. They just dovetail beautifully

Accretionist posted:

Uh, I'll just quote myself from elsewhere:


Also, neoliberal policy is distinct from neoliberal theory. The theory's some antiquated business from the early 1900s. The policy's a class project of the rich that started in the 1970s with the Powell Memo:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell_Jr.#Powell_Memorandum

Condiv posted:

The Stupid War on Cory Booker

Alter Ego posted:

I think one thing that befuddles me is the continued criticism that Bernie is a "Johnny-come-lately" Democrat because he wasn't one until running for the nomination. There seems to be this opinion (especially over at places like Democratic Underground and other blind-faith-Democrat sites) that only Democrats should be allowed to choose the Democratic nominee.

Yeah, because Dems were doing such a bang-up loving job of winning before. Seriously, it's the height of insanity to keep trying the same poo poo and expect a different result.

loquacius posted:

What exactly do these people find so intrinsically terrifying about "berners" apart from the part where they sometimes criticize people even if they are Democrats, in blatant violation of the sacred Hastert Rule

My Imaginary GF posted:

i dont understand why folk keep saying sanders would have won. he lost.

Concerned Citizen posted:

What do you consider a good ad?

Concerned Citizen posted:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/democrats-trump-polling-236560

Homeless Friend posted:

spill the beans zdr

MaxxBot posted:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/14/economic-inequality-complaints-are-just-a-cover-for-anti-rich-prejudice/

etalian posted:

lol

Don Watkins is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute and coauthor with Yaron Brook of "Equal Is Unfair: America's Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality."

Grondoth posted:

Why wouldn't people be interested in hearing play by play poo poo from the inside as to how Hillary managed to gently caress up the election? Did we all forget how shocked we were she lost? Is that now buried under a comfortably smug blanket of "lol get over it u idiotz"?

Iron Twinkie posted:

Does anyone else ever get the feeling that we are in the third part of a trilogy, but in typical Capitalist fashion, the third movie's been split into two parts and we're in the middle of all the lovely world building about characters no one gives a gently caress about and the actual war part of World War III will be in part 2 that comes out in a few years after all this poo poo is over? Neoliberals would rather let the world fall into the hands of fascists then lift a finger to help the people their polices have caused to suffer. They can't even acknowledge that they exist.

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

You are being shortsighted. Unless the trend is reversed, higher relative growth rates can only lead to convergence in the long run despite any difference in absolute changes today. Yes, China's productivity is something on the order of 5-7 times smaller than the United States', but just in 1980 it was something like 50-70x higher. In 1960, Japan's productivity was about 5-7x lower than the United States'. Today Japan is more or less on par. To be honest, I think you would be hard pressed to find a lot of countries where the proportional differential is higher today than it was in 1980 or 1960 - with a few exceptions where a lack of stability or extreme corruption crippled growth.

As far as international net capital, you are mistaken. Most developed and middle income countries have net capital positions pretty close to zero. Domestic ownership of foreign holdings in developed countries are large by historical standards, but they are balanced by historically large foreign ownership of domestic capital (again with some exceptions, like tax havens and some less developed countries where natural resource extraction is the primary industry and foreign owned). Towards the end of the colonial period, before everything collapsed in the world wars, European powers' international net capital position was substantially higher than it is today.

Not every trade deal is all or nothing. For a developing country, import tariffs or restrictions on foreign ownership of specific industries may be the better policy, even if that results in export tariffs on the same. They may still be able to engage with developing countries for mutually beneficial trade arrangements in other industries. Not to say it's not all interconnected in the countries' relations, but developed countries are not going to (or at least they have not historically) refuse to engage in trade liberalization that did not include every industry. Quite the opposite, the negotiations and terms tend to vary from industry to industry.