2020 US Election (Part One)

[Hrothbern]

Good long read from the Guardian this morning on how and when the US and UK lost the plot completely. (Laughter curves included.)

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2019/jun/06/socialism-for-the-rich-the-evils-of-bad-economics

yes

There are unfortunately too many people who still believe that the earth is flat
soooo convenient.
and just try your neighbor to convince that the earth is not flat with arguments and facts that go no further than the horizon you see together from your own houses

From that article a quote from the great economist John Kenneth Galbraith:
“One of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy … is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. It is an exercise which always involves a certain number of internal contradictions and even a few absurdities. The conspicuously wealthy turn up urging the character-building value of privation for the poor.”

 

[Ironsided]

I’m usually overly critical of economists but economists that understand they are no scientists but policymakers and sometimes even philosophers should probably have the recognition they deserve. Not by me though – I’m too far invested in “all economists are crap”.

 

[Hrothbern]

I’m usually overly critical of economists but economists that understand they are no scientists but policymakers and sometimes even philosophers should probably have the recognition they deserve. Not by me though – I’m too far invested in “all economists are crap”.

Economy is a soft science, not a hard sciece like chemistry
Alchemy seems to me the appropiate word for gathering insights on economy.

Newton was a famous scientist, and did manage to improve the hard science Physics (combined with Math to represent his findings).
But he did spend far more time on the occult and alchemy (and theology).
And well aware that these efforts would undermine his societal position and financial prosperity, he kept those thoughts and research mostly very private.
The general opinion in those days was less tolerant for nonsense. Hard pragmatism ruled the spending of money and no need (from democracy) to hide class differences behind semi-religuous believe systems, like the magic of the free market as solution for everything, to delude the masses.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Democrats have as much claim to being the party of the rich as Republicans--Hollywood, Silicon Valley and other tech, trial lawyers, an equal share in Wall Street and finance. Add media and academia and the Democrats have the better claim to being the party of elitists.

So... "both sides are bad"?

That appears to be the Democrats only chance. It's going to be ugly.

The Democrats problem is with the nomination, there are multiple candidates that would inspire Obama-like turnout if the could just get the nomination. Unfortunately I don't think Biden (or Sanders FTM) is one of them.

 

[onejayhawk]

So... "both sides are bad"?

That too.

The Democrats problem is with the nomination, there are multiple candidates that would inspire Obama-like turnout if the could just get the nomination. Unfortunately I don't think Biden (or Sanders FTM) is one of them.

Obama was the first candidate of color and no one else ever will be. If you took the best parts of the the best four candidates and rolled them together, you would not match that turnout.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

That too.

Just checking.

If you took the best parts of the the best four candidates and rolled them together, you would not match that turnout.

Who, to your mind are the "best four candidates" and what to your mind are their "best four parts"? I'm dying to hear this.

And given that the Democratic turnout in 2016 was only about 100k less than the turnout in 2012, and the Democrats lost in 2016... I'd say that topping Obama's turnout is the only way the Democrats can win... which is why Biden as the nominee is doom.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think Warren can drive turn out if she's the nominee. She's the only candidate that really goes toe to toe with Trump in refuting his tone and his words on social media. She's had missteps but she plays the 'fighting fire with fire' game better than the other candidates. She's a fighter. We need a fighter. But as long as there are 20 other candidates fighting for the spotlight, it's hard for her to shine. I'm really hoping she gains momentum. I'll hold my nose and vote for whoever has a D next to their name but I really want a progressive in there. We need a progressive.

 

[Sommerswerd]

In the last 4 elections the Republicans have won 2 with just over 62 million votes and just under 63 million votes. The Democrats have won 2 with just under 70 million votes and just under 66 million votes. They also lost an election with just under 66 million votes. The Democrats need way more votes than the Republicans to win. In fact the Republicans have conclusively demonstrated that they can actually win receiving less votes than the Democrat.

The Democrats need 66 million votes minimum to win. The Republicans only need about 62-63 million to win. Trump has already demonstrated that he can get that. Biden is not delivering 66 million votes, no way. Biden is a 60-63 million vote candidate. We need a candidate that people are going to fall in love with and be excited to go vote for, rain or snow, blazing heat or freezing cold, stand in 2 and 3 hour lines to cast a vote for.

Can you imagine a 20 year old from Detroit standing in a 3 hour line in the rain to vote for Biden? We're doomed

 

[Gori the Grey]

So... "both sides are bad"?

The full phrase is "both sides are bad, so vote Republican."

 

[Narz]

Beating Cruz is difficult not because of Cruz but because of the state Cruz is in. Winning as a Democrat in Texas is all but impossible. It's like winning as a Republican in New York or California. But even then, Beto was remarkably close.

I watched one of their debates. It was so boring, Cruz was just saying token right-wing fear-mongering crap and Beto was saying generic hope-and-change crap. It was like a bad movie where the bad guy is hateable but the good guy is so bland & unmemorable it's hard to root for him.

I like Yang because he talks about actual policies rather than trying to say "I'm good, I'm good, they're bad, hey, did I mention I'm the good guy/choice" all the time. 95% of politicians it seems most of their motivation is ego & attention. Definitely Biden

How is this schmuck the front runner??

People are bored & will vote for Trump who provides much more entertainment & emotional stimulation than Biden.

 

[Socrates99]

Tbh I have yet to meet an actual Biden supporter. I suppose they're real but am not convinced they're as many as we're led to believe.

 

[onejayhawk]

Just checking. Who, to your mind are the "best four candidates" and what to your mind are their "best four parts"? I'm dying to hear this.

And given that the Democratic turnout in 2016 was only about 100k less than the turnout in 2012, and the Democrats lost in 2016... I'd say that topping Obama's turnout is the only way the Democrats can win... which is why Biden as the nominee is doom.

You have to love Bernie's enthusiasm and integrity. That's the best pairing in the crowd. Buttigieg's charm and looks, Warren's knowledge and analytical skills, Biden's resume. What's missing are management/leadership skills and I do not know if any of then has them. Obama was almost devoid and they are among Trump's primary assets.

About turnout, I agree that an historic turnout is the only way for Democrats to win the White House. So, they won't win. Given the size of the scandal, a landslide loss is more likely. Will it accompany a tide turning in Congress?

J

 

[Socrates99]

Management and leadership? Trump? FFS, are you being sarcastic? There hasn't been a more chaotic White House in my lifetime. The turnover has been insane and it rarely seems like everyone is on the same page.

 

[Lexicus]

FFS, are you being sarcastic?

His posts are basically just repeated lies intended to provoke people, each one more egregious than the last.

 

[onejayhawk]

Management and leadership? Trump? FFS, are you being sarcastic? There hasn't been a more chaotic White House in my lifetime. The turnover has been insane and it rarely seems like everyone is on the same page.

You are probably among the large crowd that see the superficial and don't look at the results. A lot changed while you watching Trump be Trump.

Turnover has been high but not insane. Almost always the replacement has been better than the first choice, which indicates improved hiring skills. The same applies to the Cabinet. More to the management skills, Trump draws all the heat which provides his people with room to work. By any fair standard, meaning Republican oriented, Trump's administration has been very successful. A lot of it is due to advanced skills in hiring, tasking, resource management, and leadership. Management skills.

J

 

[Kyriakos]

Well... Obama did lose the historic chance to actually bring about the much needed change, but it is not logical to suggest that Obama compared to Trump isn't massively the better person for potus. For starters at least Obama isn't clueless about virtually everything. Secondly he had a polite and pleasant demeanor (yes, this may be a facade, but even so it was a lot better than the current clown-show by Trump, imo). Thirdly, Obama didn't act as if the whole country revolved around him. Here too he could have made changes, and he did not (in fact he had two new wars start on his watch and he did get involved in them while he didn't have to: Syria and Libya).
TLDR i think that the only better thing Trump had is that he hasn't started any new war or gotten involved in a new war. But he is reckless and seems to not be aware that any half-wit has guessed that he does the same thing over and over "diplomatically": first threaten war/other, then expect the other side to capitulate. At some point the other side will not, and this will lead to another US war.

I think that even when Trump does something right, it is by chance or for the wrong reason.

 

[Socrates99]

Nope, insane is the right word. Do we even have a SoD yet? If you can name a recent president with more cabinet turnover I'd love to hear about it. It's not even the turnover that's the problem though. How often do we hear "that was a low level aide" or "I wasn't directly involved" or evasive answers to "do you support the president's decision on this" as excuses for crazy pants decisions.

Maybe Donny Tiny-hands has something to brag about. Maybe....but leadership and management are not it. No f'ing way.

 

[Takhisis]

Good long read from the Guardian this morning on how and when the US and UK lost the plot completely. (Laughter curves included.)

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2019/jun/06/socialism-for-the-rich-the-evils-of-bad-economics

The economic plan sponsored by these people ‘turns out to have little basis in either common sense or economic theory’. Lower taxes! is still the battle cry for the ruling klepto-plutocracies in both the UK and the US.

In the last 4 elections the Republicans have won 2 with just over 62 million votes and just under 63 million votes. The Democrats have won 2 with just under 70 million votes and just under 66 million votes. They also lost an election with just under 66 million votes. The Democrats need way more votes than the Republicans to win. In fact the Republicans have conclusively demonstrated that they can actually win receiving less votes than the Democrat.

The Democrats need 66 million votes minimum to win. The Republicans only need about 62-63 million to win. Trump has already demonstrated that he can get that. Biden is not delivering 66 million votes, no way. Biden is a 60-63 million vote candidate. We need a candidate that people are going to fall in love with and be excited to go vote for, rain or snow, blazing heat or freezing cold, stand in 2 and 3 hour lines to cast a vote for.

Can you imagine a 20 year old from Detroit standing in a 3 hour line in the rain to vote for Biden? We're doomed

You people really need to have mandatory voting.

Also, hobbs mentions fighting. Yes, Trump needs to be fought. But not as it happened in Denmark and the Netherlands, where Geert Wilders and others managed to drive the entire debate on evil mooslems towards intolerance. When he goes low the other have to go high. It's hard, but since we're at the gates of demographic, ecological and economic collapse there's no second attempts.

 

[Narz]

What's missing are management/leadership skills... they are among Trump's primary assets.

Ahahaha, good one. He's good at making the lil' ******* in his party bow down to him, I'll grant you that. From what pretty much everyone in the white house has said the staff basically manage him.

I've never lived with a senile and demanding old person before but it seems like it'd be kind of like that, let them think they're the leader of the household while keeping their actual influence over influential matters to a minimum.

 

[Socrates99]

You people really need to have mandatory voting.

so there's this funny dynamic to elections in the US. Democrat voters outnumber Republican voters but republicans are dedicated. They vote in every election. Democrats on the other hand need to be excited to turn out. If both parties nominate a dud candidate republicans win because their voters are just happy with an R (what we got in 2016.) Democrats win when turnout is high which is why republicans love voter suppression so much.

This is why people are worried Biden will win the nomination. He's not exciting. He's a likeable guy and he has that "Obama's buddy" thing going for him. Unfortunately he's said disparaging things about Millennials, who are most likely going to be the largest lefty voting block in 2020. He's had terrible policies and positions in his long history (he used to be called the senator from MBNA.) He's a walking gaffe machine with a personal space problem. I think he might be an easy target for Trump to criticize to death much like he did Hillary.

Your suggestion would be hard to pass even if it made things better because it too heavily favors one side. Lefties are just more populous.