2020 US Election (Part One)

[Timsup2nothin]

First and most glaring, Trump won on a message pretty similar to the one you mockingly present at the end of this post.

Flat BS. Trump made not a single proposal about the economy that was in even the remotest way revolutionary. Saying he ran on "burn the economy to the ground and I can rebuild it" is absurd.

Secondly, there is no one (literally, no one) who actually thinks that restoring the rule of law to Wall Street and marginally increasing the tax rates on investment income will "destroy the economy."

Yeah...too bad Bernie and his crowd keep using language like "break the banks" instead of "enact sensible regulation." But of course the small slice of the population that doesn't recognize that they are sybiotes of the economy don't get excited unless instant gratification through destruction is on offer.

Thirdly, there is some evidence that Trumpists will vote for a Democrat who hammers Wall Street. Some Trumpists probably voted for Bernie and some of them definitely voted for Obama. It may be that nothing will get them to vote for Warren because Warren is a woman and they just won't vote for a woman.

Yeah, selling "they voted for Obama, hammer of Wall Street" ain't going too well. Got anything else?

Fourthly...I just want to touch on the "economy you participate in yourself" bit...people don't need to be told to be scared and angry about that. People who work three and four jobs and still can't quite make rent don't need to be told to be scared and angry about that. People who drowning in student loan debt don't need to be told to be scared and angry about that. People who are posting Gofundmes for medical treatment don't need to be told to be scared and angry about that.

You do realize those aren't the majority, right? And that winning actually does take, you know, a majority?

Despite superficially good economic news the consequences of all that inequality that's been building up for decades hasn't gone away. Millions of people are struggling to make ends meet and the fact that Trump and the Republicans knew they couldn't campaign on the supposedly strong economy is evidence of that. No Democrat who fails to attack Wall Street and the rich is going to win, and no Democrat who fails to attack Wall Street and the rich deserves to win anyway.

Look, Reagan ran on "the economy is hopelessly broken, disaster looms, and we have to fix it or die." It worked, so it certainly can be done. Obama ran on "the economy is hopelessly broken and has to be fixed or we will die," so it can be done by a Democrat as well. The key in both cases was that the economy itself was making their case. Both Reagan and Obama were presented with a widespread perception that a crisis of imminent collapse was upon us. They didn't have to whip up any "let's hate on Wall Street" fervor. Reagan could say "Raising interest rates to contain inflation has now reached the limit imposed by usury laws and it hasn't worked. Some sort of desperate action is necessary to prevent runaway inflation throwing us all to the wolves, and I have an idea." Obama could say "The President just announced that a global economic meltdown is immanent and is ducking for the exit hoping the end of his term comes in time for him to flee, and I have an idea." If you want to believe that "Hey, things aren't going great. Maybe they aren't too bad for you, but there are people hurting and just grinding along isn't really fixing anything. I have an idea, let's burn this thing to the ground right out from under us" can be comparably effective, great, but I am unconvinced.

 

[metalhead]

Flat BS. Trump made not a single proposal about the economy that was in even the remotest way revolutionary. Saying he ran on "burn the economy to the ground and I can rebuild it" is absurd.

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.

 

[AdrienIer]

There are going to be more senate battlegrounds than we think. Who would have thought that Tennessee and Texas were going to be battlegrounds this year ? AK, AL, AZ, CO, GA, IA, KY (McConnell won by 16% in an R+6 election last time, the dems could put pressure on him if they get a good candidate), ME, NC, NH, TX, VA are interesting. Almost all republican seats.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

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.

He presented as a revolution in politics, not economics. No one thought their savings would be burned on a bonfire of economic restructuring under Trump. No one thought that entire industries of workers were going to be displaced in his socialist revolution. No one thought that anything beyond "yet another meaningless temporary tax break" was even on his mind.

 

[Lexicus]

Flat BS. Trump made not a single proposal about the economy that was in even the remotest way revolutionary. Saying he ran on "burn the economy to the ground and I can rebuild it" is absurd.

"I alone can fix it."

Yeah...too bad Bernie and his crowd keep using language like "break the banks" instead of "enact sensible regulation." But of course the small slice of the population that doesn't recognize that they are sybiotes of the economy don't get excited unless instant gratification through destruction is on offer.

"Socialize the banks" would be a better slogan, I agree. You should totally see how far the Democrats get running on a platform of "You cannot escape your Wall Street overlords no matter how poorly they treat you, and you will destroy the economy if you try" though.

You do realize those aren't the majority, right? And that winning actually does take, you know, a majority?

A majority of electoral votes, sure. A majority of voters, most (much?) of the time. Majority of the population? Nope. There are 130 million people who have trouble paying bills. That is roughly the number of people who voted in 2016. It's a lot more than the number of people who voted in 2018.

The key in both cases was that the economy itself was making their case.

The economy itself is making the case this time around. I mean, didn't getting trounced in 2016 with "America is already great" teach you the lesson? I understand that there are strong reasons to blame Comey for the loss then, but the Democrats have been totally demolished at every level of government and my view is that it's largely because they're in denial about the hardships facing people in this country. 2016 shouldn't have been close enough for Comey's letter to matter. And of course Comey's letter doesn't explain why they've been so thoroughly trounced at the state level or why they managed to lose control of both houses of Congress during Obama's years.

If you want to believe that "Hey, things aren't going great. Maybe they aren't too bad for you, but there are people hurting and just grinding along isn't really fixing anything. I have an idea, let's burn this thing to the ground right out from under us" can be comparably effective, great, but I am unconvinced.

This is a pretty big strawman. You keep identifying any check on Wall Street's behavior with "burn this thing to the ground" but literally no one with sense sees things that way, not even the media consultants Wall Street pays to make that association in people's minds.

He presented as a revolution in politics, not economics.

Ordinary non-ideological people don't separate the two. Which is also why the whole "economic anxiety or racism" thing is dumb.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Hammering Wall Street is now the synonym for blaming rich people?

By the way, we are again in agreement. Dems need Dems to vote Dem. As I said, Hillary lost because the "Bernie third" stayed home in large numbers. Bernie would have lost because the other two thirds would not only have stayed home in large numbers, but large numbers would have turned out and gone back to their GOP roots.

Let's burn the country to the ground and start over excites the Bernie third, but no one else is going for it.

Yeah it's not the Bernie third. She should have campaigned in the midwest more, and she should have chosen anyone but Tim Kaine, which was completely an "I've already won and want someone respected in DC" pick even though he was the most boring choice possible. And then yeah, the Comey letter and years of sexism were out of her control.

He presented as a revolution in politics, not economics. No one thought their savings would be burned on a bonfire of economic restructuring under Trump. No one thought that entire industries of workers were going to be displaced in his socialist revolution. No one thought that anything beyond "yet another meaningless temporary tax break" was even on his mind.

That's the point! When you say "break the banks" not "sensible regulation" in your earlier post, the former is way, way more simple and salient to the population. "Build that wall!" doesn't ever go into congressional committees and spending procurement when Trump or Republicans talk about it, it's just its own slogan. Everyone knows what it means. You don't even need to argue about socialist revolutions or workers co-ops, you stump about elites mismanaging the economy (as Obama did about Romney) or the wealth gap, or Mark Zuckerberg being a literal robot, etc., etc., and it makes itself!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There are 130 million people who have trouble paying bills.

Everyone has trouble paying bills. Everyone has always had trouble paying bills. If you are going to pin your argument that the economy is in desperate need of immediate intervention on people have trouble paying bills you are going to lose by a staggering margin.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's the point! When you say "break the banks" not "sensible regulation" in your earlier post, the former is way, way more simple and salient to the population.

"Break the banks" is a really great, simple and elegant slogan. If your purpose is to scare anyone who uses banks into voting for your opponent I can hardly imagine a better one.

So, who uses banks? Oh, yeah, everybody.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

It's not actually about destroying all banks and financial institutions and stocks and returning to a barter society or something. But Wall Street banks have a net favorability in the negative 20s, are one of the very least liked institutions in America, and there's a direct line between Obama not punishing banks in 2008/2009 and anger at "washington politicians" because people wanted old school vengeance on the people who rigged the economy and ruined their lives, and when they didn't get it, some of them turned to a man who said he alone could.

 

[Lexicus]

Everyone has trouble paying bills. Everyone has always had trouble paying bills. If you are going to pin your argument that the economy is in desperate need of immediate intervention on people have trouble paying bills you are going to lose by a staggering margin.

I don't, because I make enough money to defray my expenses easily. "Having trouble paying bills" doesn't mean "It is unpleasant to sit here down and pay my bills," it means "I have to choose between paying this electrical bill and eating every day this week."

There are ample academic studies and reporting floating around the internet about the state of poverty and hardship in the US economy today. There were even headlines about the UN being shocked at the extent of, like, actual developing-world poverty that exists in the US. I suspect it is a waste of time trying to convince you of it because in past conversations on the subject you quickly fall into the "well I fished in dumpsters for food and that wasn't so bad so these people complaining about being so malnourished they can't nurse their babies need to just suck it up and eat some garbage already!" line, so uh, anyway...

Like I said before: as a practical matter, if the Democrats in 2020 do not tap into popular discontent with the plutocracy-cum-kleptocracy that gave us Trump and is running the entire world off a cliff, they will lose, and they will deserve to lose. If they try to "take the center" or whatever we're calling it they will have their faces rubbed in the Harry Truman quote

"If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time"

once again.

It's not actually about destroying all banks and financial institutions and stocks and returning to a barter society or something. But Wall Street banks have a net favorability in the negative 20s, are one of the very least liked institutions in America, and there's a direct line between Obama not punishing banks in 2008/2009 and anger at "washington politicians" because people wanted old school vengeance on the people who rigged the economy and ruined their lives, and when they didn't get it, some of them turned to a man who said he alone could.

The idea that this collapse of, I dunno what to call it, "all pretense of moral government" maybe? didn't contribute to people thinking "well Trump isn't any worse than the whole swamp down there" is so delusional it's actually frightening. The breakdown in the rule of law embodied by the financial crisis and the non-response to it contributed more than anything else to give us Trump. And then when Clinton doubled down on this and insisted everything was cool instead of campaigning against that aspect of Obama's legacy the way Bernie did, that was like shooting herself in the foot with an RPG.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's not actually about destroying all banks and financial institutions and stocks and returning to a barter society or something.

Great. Get a better slogan then. Because whenever Bernie was asked about it he couldn't effectively dispel that impression. He certainly would never say "and then we'll have a barter economy, or something," but he never really presented what he was actually heading towards instead.

As to the unpopularity of "Wall Street Banks," I think you run afoul of the same problem that comes up when trying to use the low approval that congress always carries. Those people who openly loathe Wall Street Banks will tell you in their next breath that their bank is either "the only good one" or otherwise "not like the rest."

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Nope, bank complaints have risen for 8 years in a row and some sectors of the industry have almost a 40% complaint rate. Nobody likes banks! Not even their local ones. Nobody wants to pay fees for bouncing their checking account, nobody wants to have to carry a minimum balance, millions of people are still unbanked because of racism in urban areas.

Bernie's "Stop BEZOS" bill was a logistically stupid bill that would have hurt the people it served to protect in many ways. It was never going to pass. I am sure Bernie knew that. He also knew that lots of on the ground organizations had been pushing for wage increases and railing on Amazon. Amazon announced a $15 wage for a (too small) group of its workers days later. Bernie gets this better than most Dems, and Warren does too; slogans and simple rallying calls work (Obama did as well, he just thought, I think, that America could be propelled over it during a time when economic chaos reigned, which was, in retrospect, silly).

Medicare For All has broad support, even among Republican voters now. Nobody gives a crap how it'll work. People like Medicare and want it. Bingo bango.

 

[Lexicus]

So, who uses banks? Oh, yeah, everybody.

Millions of people use credit unions instead.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't, because I make enough money to defray my expenses easily. "Having trouble paying bills" doesn't mean "It is unpleasant to sit here down and pay my bills," it means "I have to choose between paying this electrical bill and eating every day this week."

There's always been people like you and me. I don't even HAVE any bills. In your case the solution to your inexperience with bill paying issues is simple; get married and reproduce. I'm just too weird to matter.

The point is that you seem to be operating under this idea that the food/electric bill choice is somehow a new thing. It isn't. And because it isn't new trying to present it as a crisis just won't work. You can't manufacture a crisis out of "things are the way they've been and guess what they ain't changing."

 

[Lexicus]

The point is that you seem to be operating under this idea that the food/electric bill choice is somehow a new thing. It isn't. And because it isn't new trying to present it as a crisis just won't work. You can't manufacture a crisis out of "things are the way they've been and guess what they ain't changing."

It's not a new thing, but that isn't really the argument I'm making. I suppose time will tell if I'm right. Regardless of the outcome of the 2020 election I know capitalism will do my work for me sooner or later and furnish me with another crisis that will "make [politician's] case for them".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Millions of people use credit unions instead.

Millions of people couldn't find the difference between a bank and a credit union if you gave them a microscope, because for all practical purposes there aren't any.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's not a new thing, but that isn't really the argument I'm making. I suppose time will tell if I'm right. Regardless of the outcome of the 2020 election I know capitalism will do my work for me sooner or later and furnish me with another crisis that will "make [politician's] case for them".

Absolutely. Just like Maria gave Rick Scott an in with brown refugees despite his broad appeal with racists. Timing is everything, except for those who can't wait. Someone has to take a run at 2020, knowing that if the economy sounds an alarm they need to be able to take advantage of it, but if it doesn't they still have to run.

 

[MaryKB]

I'm a banker and I totally support that whole "break up banks!" thingy, and also because I know they're not talking about like doing away with banks, but when someone like Elizabeth Warren talks about that, she's referring to reinstating Glass-Steagall, which would probably mean breaking up JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America, which are doing shady things (mainly using your government-insured deposits for high risk investments). But I agree it's a wonderful soundbite, and it's about protecting consumers from predatory practices, so I think with such a slogan you have intelligent people like myself who know what she means, but also you appeal to uneducated people who just think "banks bad!" kind of thing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm a banker and I totally support that whole "break up banks!" thingy, and also because I know they're not talking about like doing away with banks, but when someone like Elizabeth Warren talks about that, she's referring to reinstating Glass-Steagall, which would probably mean breaking up JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America, which are doing shady things (mainly using your government-insured deposits for high risk investments). But I agree it's a wonderful soundbite, and it's about protecting consumers from predatory practices, so I think with such a slogan you have intelligent people like myself who know what she means, but also you appeal to uneducated people who just think "banks bad!" kind of thing.

Please recognize this isn't an accusation.

In almost every regulatory fight there is a faction of potential winners. I would guess that there isn't anyone in the banking industry, anywhere outside of Chase and Bank of America, that wouldn't whole heartedly endorse "break up Chase and Bank of America." When I was actively running a handyman business I was in favor of breaking up every licensed contractor in California. Every retailer on the planet favors breaking up WalMart. My friends down at the California Cheeseburger favor the breakup of McDonalds.

As to the customers...they don't have that differentiation. If they were thinking "break up the bad banks; Chase and BofA" Chase and BofA wouldn't actually be able to be the bad banks, because their customers would be fleeing. The customers are thinking "banks are banks, and they suck, and I stick with this one because it's at least no worse than most." So, "fix the banks" might work, but "break the banks" leads immediately to "then what?"

I mean, I'm all for it, because I use cash and the "What do you mean you don't have any way to pay on-line? Everyone has a card" era is frankly annoying, but I'm well aware I am not the norm.

 

[metalhead]

He presented as a revolution in politics, not economics. No one thought their savings would be burned on a bonfire of economic restructuring under Trump. No one thought that entire industries of workers were going to be displaced in his socialist revolution. No one thought that anything beyond "yet another meaningless temporary tax break" was even on his mind.

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.