2020 US Election (Part One)

[Timsup2nothin]

He presented the country - including the economy - as irrevocably broken, beyond the ability of anyone other than himself to fix. He wasn't going to burn it down and rebuild it. It was already on fire, and he was the only one with some water.

People weren't thinking of it the way you are. That isn't really how politics works.

Outside of the true believers operating from "no Democrat and certainly no black Democrat could ever have a good economy" were there really people who thought things were bad, economically speaking? I mean, I had pretty clear memories of 2008, so I certainly didn't think so, but I guess maybe there were...but I honestly didn't know any. Even my local Republicans were sort of desultory in their "Obama, weak recovery, yeah yeah yeah" complaints.

 

[MaryKB]

Oh but Tim "break up the banks" pretty much refers specifically to reinstating Glass-Steagall, and it's only because it was repealled that JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America even exist, so naturally you'd have them breaking up if you bring back that law, which is what I'm trying to say?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't think you perceived Trump the way a lot of his voters did. His whole presence was revolutionary, in terms of what a president is, or could be. His "Drain the Swamp" message resonated for that reason. He sold a different way of doing things, a different way of approaching things, and for people not really steeped in how ridiculous a person he is, it was attractive to buy.

It was a sucker punch that many folks still imagine as a tummy rub.

 

[Farm Boy]

Good lord, yes. Let's have Glass-Steagall back. Usury laws were also a good idea. Let's do them again too!

 

[metalhead]

Outside of the true believers operating from "no Democrat and certainly no black Democrat could ever have a good economy" were there really people who thought things were bad, economically speaking? I mean, I had pretty clear memories of 2008, so I certainly didn't think so, but I guess maybe there were...but I honestly didn't know any. Even my local Republicans were sort of desultory in their "Obama, weak recovery, yeah yeah yeah" complaints.

Large swathes of the country have had good paying union jobs replaced with either crap wage service jobs, or no jobs at all. Slowly, over decades, the middle class in many places has been hollowed out, leaving in its wake wage slaves and people taking government benefits who thought such things were only for lazy minorities. Young people without the means and ability to move away and/or get an education are killing themselves with opioids because life is bleak as hell.

Railing against trade was a way to represent to people that he had a different mentality. It didn't matter whether trade was actually the reason the good jobs went away. It has been an area of broad bipartisan economic consensus, and Trump was taking their side instead of the side of the elites.

The economy has looked weak to these people forever. Factories keep closing and moving away, and when new ones open they employ 200 people instead of 2000. Trump promised to change that, in language that spoke to them.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Outside of the true believers operating from "no Democrat and certainly no black Democrat could ever have a good economy" were there really people who thought things were bad, economically speaking? I mean, I had pretty clear memories of 2008, so I certainly didn't think so, but I guess maybe there were...but I honestly didn't know any. Even my local Republicans were sort of desultory in their "Obama, weak recovery, yeah yeah yeah" complaints.

Wait, what? The recession was a 100000000000000 times worse than I think a lot of people recognize. We were perilously close to a Great Depression and perhaps a complete and utter tear down of the modern neoliberal consensus. The effects and scars of the recession are still super, super prominent across the country and will be for another couple, few decades, easily. I work in a sector that still deals with the repercussions every second of every day.

Then you combine that with years and years and years of stagnant wages, massive student and health care debt and a real live constant testing of Baumol's price decay on the entire American populace without any new wealth/capital gains going to anyone but the top, and yeah. It all sucked, and it still sucks massively.

 

[Lexicus]

Oh but Tim "break up the banks" pretty much refers specifically to reinstating Glass-Steagall, and it's only because it was repealled that JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America even exist, so naturally you'd have them breaking up if you bring back that law, which is what I'm trying to say?

Well, both these corporations did exist (though obviously not in their current form) prior to Glass-Steagall. I believe that "breaking up the banks" is a nod to two specific pieces of legislation: antitrust law, which actually was enforced at one point and which I believe would have prevented any corporation in any market from becoming as large in terms of market share as any of the largest banks are now. Then there is the Glass-Steagall provision that prevents commercial banks from doing investment banking and vice versa. That is I believe what you are referring to here. By itself it would not mean the banks were broken up; the salient issue is the separation of commercial and investment banking. I'm not sure exactly what the consequences would be of passing a straight reboot of Glass-Steagall in this sense; my guess is some superifical corporate restructuring where the banks would break themselves up but still be controlled by the same officers and owned by the same shareholders, there would just be Bank Of America: Main Street Edition and Investment Bank of America or something like that.

Now, keep in mind that I have big problems with "break up the banks" (tim left out a word, not insignificantly) as a statement of policy rather than as a broad slogan. The main problem is that it just doesn't go far enough and doesn't really protect anyone from the bankers' criminal activities. For one thing without effective antitrust enforcement, breaking up the banks as a singular event will just then lead to a series of mergers and acquisitions as the banks re-consolidate. But more importantly making the banks smaller won't prevent the controlling officers of the bank from defrauding it to enrich themselves. It can mean that individuals aren't able do it on as large a scale as they can with the currently-existing "Systemically Important Institutions," but it won't change the basic reality. Only an effective financial regulatory regime capable of building criminal cases against fraudsters can do that.

Ultimately imo breaking up the banks won't solve the supposed problem of the banks being 'too big' either. The problem with banking isn't that some banks control too much market share, it's that given federal insurance of deposits and the apparent infinite readiness of the central bank to bail out financial institutions that are insolvent, there is zero ethical or practical justification for banking being an activity carried out for private profit.

 

[Farm Boy]

He's in CA/LA, they mostly bounced out like most of the healthier Eastern/Southern cities bounced out. It's a narrow sort of economic appeal defined as the broad one. I'd bet they're a little bit tired of hearing about the last one while they're bubbling towards the next one.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Well, first, I have to say, about the whole thread: Egads!

Ok, with that out of the way, I'm ready to jump in. We should add Cuomo to the list of potentials. I saw some of the ads he ran to re-run for governor of New York and they were really ads for someone running for President in 2020. He's a good age: not as old as some of the unattractive-because-old candidates. Being governor of a major state is probably a better stepping stool than being a Congress-critter. He won't be shy about punching Trump, and knows the New York style on that front.

I'll have more to say about the specifics of other potential candidates in time

And then I'll catch up on this whole banks thing that interestingly seems to be the first thing we all have to work out in connection with a good candidate.

 

[Lexicus]

Ok, with that out of the way, I'm ready to jump in. We should add Cuomo to the list of potentials. I saw some of the ads he ran to re-run for governor of New York and they were really ads for someone running for President in 2020. He's a good age: not as old as some of the unattractive-because-old candidates. Being governor of a major state is probably a better stepping stool than being a Congress-critter. He won't be shy about punching Trump, and knows the New York style on that front.

I'll have more to say about the specifics of other potential candidates in time.

I would oppose Cuomo more bitterly than anyone except possibly Bloomberg. I view him as a corrupt tool of landlords, developers, and real estate investors.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Well that's fine; I'm just saying I think it's likely he'll throw his hat in the ring.

 

[Lexicus]

Just expressing my opinion of him as I've done with several other names that have been floated.

I will be keeping an eye on Ocasio-Cortez between now and the election. I hope she shapes up well and gets reelected easily. But we'll see.

 

[Gori the Grey]

My primary qualification doesn't have anything to do with policies.

My primary qualification is a candidate's voice. And I don't mean the metaphorical "voice"; I mean actual, literal lung-larynx-vocal chords-tongue-teeth-and-lip voice.

It has to be vigorous but can't be condescending.

Booker is in. Warren is in (but there's one thing she needs to watch). Cuomo is in. Harris is out (though I'm sad to lose her on just that count). Beto would be in, but you can't go from being a loser for senate to being a hopeful for pres (even despite Trump's similar lack of qualifications). Clinton is out (for that reason and many others). Biden is in (though I share the view that he is too old). Klobochar and Gillibrand are out.

 

[Lexicus]

My primary qualification doesn't have anything to do with policies.

My primary qualification is a candidate's voice.

That's weird to me. What is the point of electing a Democrat at all if you don't care about policies?

Booker is in. Warren is in (but there's one thing she needs to watch). Cuomo is in. Harris is out. Beto would be in, but you can't go from being a loser for senate to being a hopeful for pres (even despite Trump's similar lack of qualifications). Clinton is out (for that reason and many others). Biden is in (though I share the view that he is too old). Klobochar and Gillibrand are out.

I can't help but notice that this "voice" thing seems to be falling rather unequally on the different genders. You want to talk about that a little?

 

[mitsho]

Had Beto been born in say California or Massachusetts, he would have won his race. Why does the pure chance of being born in an area where winning is hard due to Americas mind-boggling 1 MP voting system disqualify you? I get the instinct, but don't you this way get rid of half of your party members and shrink your recruitment pool for no reason?

 

[metalhead]

Well that's fine; I'm just saying I think it's likely he'll throw his hat in the ring.

Cuomos are sort of known for teasing a run forever and then deciding not to.

I can't help but notice that this "voice" thing seems to be falling rather unequally on the different genders. You want to talk about that a little?

Vocal fry is real!

I think Booker is out. He always sounds to me like he believes he is 40% more inspirational than he actually is.

 

[JollyRoger]

Beto would be in, but you can't go from being a loser for senate to being a hopeful for pres

That's what I've been saying since I took down my Lincoln 1858 signs.

 

[Narz]

So who's gonna run on the right?

 

[onejayhawk]

From last Thanksgiving, the title says it all.

Here's How To Ruin Thanksgiving: Talk About 2020
Torment your relatives by gossiping about the Democrats who could run against Trump.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/heres-how-to-ruin-thanksgiving-talk-about-2020/article/2010574

Their (now year old) list is Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, Julian Castro, James Comey, Andrew Cuomo, Bill deBlasio, Eric Garcetti, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, John Hickenlooper, Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson, Amy Klobucher, Seth Moulton, Chris Murphy, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Mark Zuckerberg. There are a couple of interesting names, but that is a clown car to end clown cars.

J

 

[Ajidica]

I know I'll regret posting this, but how is that a "clown car"?
Apart from the obviously ridiculous options like the Rock, Zuckerburg, and Comey; most of the rest are either high profile senators or governors - which is, you know, WHO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ARE TRADITIONALLY DRAWN FROM.