2020 US Election (Part Two)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Petro-Dollar refers to the scheme concocted by Nixon's state department and sold to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. So long as Saudi Arabia accepts US dollars only for their product and agrees to purchase and hoard treasuries at the direction of US policy makers they get perpetual and limitless security guarantees. Our arrangement with China produces a similar outcome (i.e. China is willing to accumulate treasuries) although on a smaller scale.

China and the Kingdom of Saud should consider themselves quite lucky they got any consideration at all. Most resource rich nations who do not follow the same path are unceremoniously invaded or their internal politics are interfered with to the greatest extent possible up to and including genocide.

So long as the scheme keeps running we can perpetually import. Trillions upon trillions in liquidity circulate outside of our borders and many of these are never coming back as claims against the real economy of the United States, however every single one of them did finance consumption or investment in the United States. Everyone else must hoard them or risk finding themselves shutout of crucial commodities markets. The same rules are enforced whether you are exporting oil, copper, rubber, or anything else. US hegemonic interests are centered every bit as much around this control as they are access to the actual resources themselves. Even countries that mostly play ball, like Venezuela or Bolivia, step out of line even a little (like enact too many social welfare reforms) they are at risk.

This practice is literally the source of the free lunch that MMT claims to offer. It's something only the US can do because only the US has the ability to force the rest of the world to use Disney Bucks or risk being shut out of the global economy or worse. It's also dependent upon stripping the Earth of its natural resources at our current break neck pace. It's baffling to me that anyone on the left buys into this stuff. The consumer economies of the west are destroying the planet and I don't think re-industrializing our society is a real solution even in a world where we could just snap our fingers and force this country to stop importing which any informed observer of the current global economy should understand is impossible.

I actually meant to type this up when we had that big ideology thread going and we went off on an MMT tangent but I never got around to it.

I find this to be a drastic oversimplification of geopolitics and a strawman view of MMT.

MMT does not claim to offer a free lunch. The fact that Saudi Arabia accepts dollars for oil is far from the only reason that other countries find it useful to accumulate dollar-denominated assets.

I also completely disagree that "the consumer economies of the West are destroying the planet." Timely in this regard is a recent study demonstrating that the top 1% are responsible for twice as many emissions as the bottom 50% - while ordinary Westerners are consuming more than their share of carbon, this idea that we all have to stop consuming or we're doomed is just propaganda designed to distract from the real drivers of the problem, and the fact that structural change for sustainable consumption is absolutely within reach, even at this late date.
 
The first sentence I agree with 100%. The end game for socialism must be one world governance.

The last sentence I disagree with 100%. Institutional rules and structure matter. The US system is trivially easy for monied interests to capture compared to other, much smaller parliamentary systems found all over the world.

I'll go further and say that these moneyed interests depend completely on the protection of the state for their very existence. The big multinationals would not exist without the big states.
 
I'll go further and say that these moneyed interests depend completely on the protection of the state for their very existence. The big multinationals would not exist without the big states.

This may be true in the first instance but I am not sure it is true anymore in this age of private security forces and private military contractors.
 
I have to agree with Drakle that the Greens really are not impressive (read that as "The Green Party is comprised of clowns"). If you want to make a statement about how non-mainstream you are (and take this as general 'you' because I know you are not American) vote for Gloria La Riva or Allyson Kennedy (PSL and SWP candidates respectively).

My edgy days are thankfully far behind me. Look at the Green party program on gp.org. It is a good program. Any progressively minded person would take it over the Dems alternative program any day. Especially knowing how well Dems follow up on their progressive issues. Howie Hawkins is a good leader from the interviews I have seen and a far better man than Biden in about every possible way. If you want to buy into the democratic smear machine that is your call. If there are some strange individuals in the Green party that is OK as well. It is not like the major parties are exempt for attracting a good few loons themselves. As it stands now only days from the election I (if I could) would vote for Biden in any state that is not polling securely Dem. I would do that with a physical clothespin on my nose like the French did when they had the choice of Chirac or Le Pen. That was a very mild protest far too radical for “progressive” Americans. If in a safe state; I would vote for a better agenda because it would appeal to me and represent me.
 
No, term length matters even if the vote is partially skeezy. Like Illinois. The term lengths still matter. The court stuffed puts the override of lifelong appointments in the Senate and the EC instead of in impeachment or amendment if the judiciary is to be overridden.

It's banana republic level **** but without even dressing up. Either way, not liberal. Probably progressive. It's new. It might be order.

So what? Liberals/Progressives/whoever should just accept an unelected, undemocratic court from striking down all their legislation, which they passed with overwhelming popular backing, as well as the court working to help the minority party subvert democracy? SCOTUS has weighed in in multiple cases, against Democracy. An unelected super-legislature that serves for life is far more authoritarian, than a majority electorate exercising its will.

I'm sure if the shoe was even partly on the other foot, like a modern Warren court, that you wouldn't just 'take it lying down'. Let alone a flat out mirror liberal court fudging with conservative voters.

And Court-packing is already part of the game. Republicans have already pulled it off multiple times in states under their control. The difference is they just do it, while the liberals have to talk it over first. Let alone the games they played in 2016 which were tantamount to court-packing (the end result of ensuring the court agrees with you, is the same either way). They were ready to leave the court at 8 justices if they controlled the Senate, and Clinton was in office.

Expanding the court is entirely legal, and part of the rules. Don't like it? Well tough, the GOP made this situation, by making politics the raw exercise of power. The way this situation resolves itself is the court rendering itself much less powerful and activist, like comparable courts in the first world. Not just taking a conservative victory lying down.


Anyway, the polling situation is getting a bit ... odd in some cases.

Biden and Democrats seem to be doing very well in the interior West, like races in the single digits in Kansas and Montana. As well as big swings in Iowa, going from nearly +10 Trump to +3 Biden.

Montana
Republicans hold a narrow lead up and down the ticket in Montana, per new NYT/Siena poll
Trump 49, Biden 43
Daines 49, Bullock 46
Rosendale 50, Williams 46
Gianforte 48, Cooney 44

Kansas
President: Trump 48, Biden 41
Senate: Marshall 46 (R), Bollier (D) 42

in 2016, Trump won Montana by a 20.5% margin, which has been reduced to be a mere 6 point margin.

in 2016 Trump won Kansas by 20.42% margin, which has been reduced to be a mere 7 point margin.

Biden and Democrats winning these states would be good, for them because of the Senate races. But even so, being this close would make the national race a pretty strong landslide. This is also backed by some district polling that has Biden gaining double-digit margins, like this or this.

Though the fact that a super popular Governor and a former GOP super moderate state rep aren't seriously outrunning Biden is a concern for Democrats. The only reason the Senate isn't worse for Democrats is ticket-splitting in their favour. That disappeared in 2016 and was slim in 2018, and is a big reason why Democrats have to reform the Senate now.

The key Blue wall states wouldn't even be close unless they swing very oddly compared to Kansas and Montana,and the district level polling contained within them. Which would be weird, since they share quite a few similarities, demographically and the internal maps tend to go together.

Yet, in some polls, particularly statewide polls of the battleground states (and very particularly states like Florida and PA), the polling seems to be closer. Still a Biden win, but more in the range of a single-digit swing, which is still on the edge case of a massive pro-Trump polling error making it a tossup race. But it would have to be big, bigger than in 16.

The national race is still a very uphill battle for Trump. I'd say his odds are in the range of 5%, and almost certainly rely on a heavy intervention from SCOTUS and GOP state legislatures. Biden is closer to 400 EC votes than Trump is to 270.

As for the Senate.

Well, the dam could break, and Democrats could romp into the second tier of senate races, the types like Kansas, Montana, South Carolina, Alaska, the Georgias, Texas, (maybe even Mississippi) and take quite a few. A lot of races, if Biden improves a bit more and/or there is more ticket-splitting than indicated in the polls above. That gives Democrats a lot more wiggle room in the Senate.

Or the polling situation of the Kansas and Montana polls holds, and Democrats fall short in these reach races, but pretty solidly put away, Iowa, North Carolina, Maine, Colorado while losing Alabama, along with the odds are that they break into at least one of the second-tier states. Throw enough dice, and you eventually get a six. 8 shots (maybe 9 if you include Alabama) at a 20-40% event could net a few seats.

Though the GOP could end up playing the inside straight, and hold Democrats off in the entire second tier, making the Senate far narrower.

Finally, if the polls are narrower than Democrats could fail to take the Senate, or it would be a 50-50 tie even as Biden takes back the Blue wall states.


Some of the Senate races are pretty crazy considering the territory, like this

https://twitter.com/GanucheauAdam/status/1319680501251178497

Democrat Mike Espy has outraised Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith all year. That's rare in Mississippi.

But latest finance report –covering just the first two weeks of October, the #MSSen home stretch – is mind-boggling.

Espy: $3.8 million
CHS: $85,000

In Mississippi, a Democrat is outraising a Republican 45:1. Could be a case of Democrats throwing money down a hole like in Kentucky, but pretty crazy spending that could lead to a breakthrough. And a very weak Republican incumbent. $85,000 is nothing for a House race, let alone a Senate race. Of course, the disparity is smaller factoring in national Republican groups, but still pro D.

Throwing money down a hole isn't unique to Democrats. Aside from how Trump spends, multiple Republican challengers in safe blue territory, even in Republican wave years, let alone now, are raising millions. Like Kim Klacik running in Baltimore, has raised over 6 million dollars, which is more than multiple embattled Senate Republicans, and she isn't even campaigning in her district anymore (instead she is in Arizona at Trump rallies). I bet those six million dollars on her resume lands her a great Fox News gig.

Anyway,the ballots returned so far.

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1319706402802237442

States where turnout is already higher than 50% of 2016:

Texas: 71%
Montana: 62%
North Carolina: 57%
Vermont: 56%
Georgia: 56%
Tennessee: 55%
New Mexico: 55%
New Jersey: 54%

Likely to crack 50% next: All-mail WA and CO.

I think that Beto and 2018 ended up waking a sleeping electorate, and future Texas races are going to be on a whole new baseline. I wouldn't be surprised if Texas hits 100% of 2016 voting before early voting is finished.
 
Last edited:
My wife recently slow-cooked mince for most of a day, let it rest in the fridge overnight, baked it with mashed potato on top and finished it under the grill with a bit of grated cheese. Possibly the best shepard's pie (I think it was lamb mince) I've ever had.

Ugh, shepherd's pie is not good food.

Scottish... oof…

I like fried Mars bars. I'm not sure they're Scottish, but I'm under the impression they are. Haggis is tolerable. Oddly enough, Edinburgh has good places selling mussels the few times I've been.
 
So what? Liberals/Progressives/whoever should just accept an unelected, undemocratic court from striking down all their legislation, which they passed with overwhelming popular backing, as well as the court working to help the minority party subvert democracy? SCOTUS has weighed in in multiple cases, against Democracy. An unelected super-legislature that serves for life is far more authoritarian, than a majority electorate exercising its will.

I'm sure if the shoe was even partly on the other foot, like a modern Warren court, that you wouldn't just 'take it lying down'. Let alone a flat out mirror liberal court ******* with conservative voters.

And Court-packing is already part of the game. Republicans have already pulled it off multiple times in states under their control. The difference is they just do it, while the liberals have to talk it over first. Let alone the games they played in 2016 which were tantamount to court-packing (the end result of ensuring the court agrees with you, is the same either way). They were ready to leave the court at 8 justices if they controlled the Senate, and Clinton was in office.

Expanding the court is entirely legal, and part of the rules. Don't like it? Well tough, the GOP made this situation, by making politics the raw exercise of power. The way this situation resolves itself is the court rendering itself much less powerful and activist, like comparable courts in the first world. Not just taking a conservative victory lying down.


Anyway, the polling situation is getting a bit ... odd in some cases.

Biden and Democrats seem to be doing very well in the interior West, like races in the single digits in Kansas and Montana. As well as big swings in Iowa, going from nearly +10 Trump to +3 Biden.

Montana


Kansas


in 2016, Trump won Montana by a 20.5% margin, which has been reduced to be a mere 6 point margin.

in 2016 Trump won Kansas by 20.42% margin, which has been reduced to be a mere 7 point margin.

Biden and Democrats winning these states would be good, for them because of the Senate races. But even so, being this close would make the national race a pretty strong landslide. This is also backed by some district polling that has Biden gaining double-digit margins, like this or this.

The key Blue wall states wouldn't even be close unless they swing very oddly compared to Kansas and Montana,and the district level polling contained within them. Which would be weird, since they share quite a few similarities, demographically and the internal maps tend to go together.

Yet, in some polls, particularly statewide polls of the battleground states (and very particularly states like Florida and PA), the polling seems to be closer. Still a Biden win, but more in the range of a single-digit swing, which is still on the edge case of a massive pro-Trump polling error making it a tossup race. But it would have to be big, bigger than in 16.

The national race is still a very uphill battle for Trump. I'd say his odds are in the range of 5%, and almost certainly rely on a heavy intervention from SCOTUS and GOP state legislatures. Biden is closer to 400 EC votes than Trump is to 270.

As for the Senate.

Well, the dam could break, and Democrats could romp into the second tier of senate races, the types like Kansas, Montana, South Carolina, Alaska, the Georgias, Texas, (maybe even Mississippi) and take quite a few. A lot of races, if Biden improves a bit more and/or there is more ticket-splitting than indicated in the polls above. That gives Democrats a lot more wiggle room in the Senate.

Or the polling situation of the Kansas and Montana polls holds, and Democrats fall short in these reach races, but pretty solidly put away, Iowa, North Carolina, Maine, Colorado while losing Alabama, along with the odds are that they break into at least one of the second-tier states. Throw enough dice, and you eventually get a six. 8 shots (maybe 9 if you include Alabama) at a 20-40% event could net a few seats.

Though the GOP could end up playing the inside straight, and hold Democrats off in the entire second tier, making the Senate far narrower.

Finally, if the polls are narrower than Democrats could fail to take the Senate, or it would be a 50-50 tie even as Biden takes back the Blue wall states.


Some of the Senate races are pretty crazy considering the territory, like this

https://twitter.com/GanucheauAdam/status/1319680501251178497



In Mississippi, a Democrat is outraising a Republican 45:1. Could be a case of Democrats throwing money down a hole like in Kentucky, but pretty crazy spending that could lead to a breakthrough. And a very weak Republican incumbent. $85,000 is nothing for a House race, let alone a Senate race. Of course, the disparity is smaller factoring in national Republican groups, but still pro D.

Throwing money down a hole isn't unique to Democrats. Aside from how Trump spends, multiple Republican challengers in safe blue territory, even in Republican wave years, let alone now, are raising millions. Like Kim Klacik running in Baltimore, has raised over 6 million dollars, which is more than multiple embattled Senate Republicans, and she isn't even campaigning in her district anymore (instead she is in Arizona at Trump rallies). I bet those six million dollars on her resume lands her a great Fox News gig.

Anyway,the ballots returned so far.

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1319706402802237442



I think that Beto and 2018 ended up waking a sleeping electorate, and future Texas races are going to be on a whole new baseline. I wouldn't be surprised if Texas hits 100% of 2016 voting before early voting is finished.

The court doesn't strike down that much.
If they make it effectively impossible to govern maybe.

Just remember that eventually the GoP will win another election and even they have abused the rules but didn't go nuclear in terms of making up new justices to get the numbers.

If the washout is as bad as it looks like for the GoP I would imagine over the next 10 years you're going to be able to do the same thing the GoP has.

FDR got stuff done with hostile court.
 
The court doesn't strike down that much.
If they make it effectively impossible to govern maybe.

Just remember that eventually the GoP will win another election and even they have abused the rules but didn't go nuclear in terms of making up new justices to get the numbers.

If the washout is as bad as it looks like for the GoP I would imagine over the next 10 years you're going to be able to do the same thing the GoP has.

FDR got stuff done with hostile court.

Conservatives need the false legitimacy of the court to destroy the modern administrative state and enact popular policy for them. Democrats don't need the court, they can just govern. Most of their policies are fairly popular, they just need the will to do the pre-steps, and then pass stuff. Destroying the legitimacy of the SCOTUS is a good thing, besides a brief interlude of the Warren court, it has been a force of reaction in US politics.

And the current SCOTUS justices on the Republican side have made it very clear that they think the entire New Deal period was a mistake and they want to roll it all back. Once Barrett is confirmed, the swing justice is going to be Kavanaugh. And the court is going to be to the RIGHT of the person who wrote the opinion gutting the VRA.

And Republicans have packed the courts in multiple states

The number of attempts by the GOP in recent years to pack or shrink the size of state supreme courts is incredible.

2016: Along a party line vote and over the objections of the Chief Justice, the Arizona GOP adds two seats to the state supreme court.

2016: Again over the objections of its own justices, the Georgia GOP expands the court from 7 to 9. This represents something of a compromise for state Republicans, as they had previously sought to expand the court to 13.

In 2011, the Florida GOP tried (but mercifully failed) to split its supreme court into two benches, while simultaneously adding three new seats. They had tried something similar four years earlier.

2010: Republicans introduced a court packing bill when the court ruled in favor of gay marriage, though this proved unnecessary after a well-funded recall campaign resulted in the removal of three justices.

Republicans have also attempted to shrink state supreme courts in Montana (in 2011), Oklahoma (2017), and Washington (2013), in each case because of adverse rulings. Fortunately, none were successful.

So bracketing for a moment GOP-led attempts to impeach, recall, or otherwise remove state supreme court justices, there seems to be a degree of Republican comfort with altering the size of final courts of appeals via packing/un-packing.

But maybe this is a mistake? I suggest a public opinion survey in Arizona and Georgia (maybe Iowa and West Virginia as well) to examine whether the judiciary's reputation has been irreparably damaged by perfidious conservative court packing.

They haven't done it federally, because they haven't needed to. They've had a conservative biased court for decades. Barrett just means a fully hard-right court now.

And the reforms needed, if they happen, will stop the current GOP from ever being elected. What will happen is a new GOP will have to remould itself, and when they win, won't be able to strike back like the current one could. A GOP that has to listen to the median person in the US, would not be electing Trump, Ryan and McConnell.

And FDR had sustained Senate majorities and could pass constitutional amendments. No way anything like that will happen under any Democratic President now.
 
Just remember that eventually the GoP will win another election and even they have abused the rules but didn't go nuclear...
I used to agree with you but I've reached my limit on trusting the GoP to do the right thing. I'm exhausted by one team playing by the unwritten rules while the other won't even play by the written rules.
 
the GOP was the party of small efficient government (at least this was the talk). Now they are for the complete destruction of the administrative state. The problem of course is it is 2020, jsut take a look at the US from space at night and you know their is no frontier for people to hide in anymore which means and administrative state is necessary.

I like the sound of this. Where can I find these Republicans and are they recruiting? I've seen the view from space and I concluded that the Dept of Education was unnecessary, perhaps a higher resolution would help.
 
I like the sound of this. Where can I find these Republicans and are they recruiting? I've seen the view from space and I concluded that the Dept of Education was unnecessary, perhaps a higher resolution would help.

Maybe a higher resolution would help you on a lot of topics.

if this republican party’s destruction of government and its competency is not good enough for you I ha e no idea what to tell you.
 
Ugh, shepherd's pie is not good food.

I like fried Mars bars. I'm not sure they're Scottish, but I'm under the impression they are. Haggis is tolerable. Oddly enough, Edinburgh has good places selling mussels the few times I've been.

If fried Mars bars are in your good column, I'm not prepared to respect your opinion on shepherd's pie, especially as the latter so strongly conflicts with my own perspective on it.
 
I ha e no idea what to tell you.

Quite true, you don't. So I will tell you something: The full-blown administrative state that takes interest in all things, and has solutions to all problems, is the Dream of Fascism.
You need to come to terms with this.
 
Quite true, you don't. So I will tell you something: The full-blown administrative state that takes interest in all things, and has solutions to all problems, is the Dream of Fascism.
You need to come to terms with this.

Fascism as well as Communism? It seems to me that any sufficiently authoritarian ideology would qualify.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom