U.S. Democratic Primary

[Willie71]

9 hours ago, CharonY said:

So, there is an interesting book by Metzl that just been out that explains to some degree how politicians manage to maintain these policies (though not necessarily why). The provocative title is "Dying by Whiteness" and the author argues that certain white folks are voting against government health programs, gun control and tax laws that would actually benefit them and actually hurting their own health in the process. The way politicians convince them to do so is by selling them as countermeasures against what they describe as criminals, lazy government moochers and Big government. In other words, they sell these measures as ways, to safeguard to position of white folks in today's society. Politicians tap into the fear that redistribution of resources may endanger to their privilege. A barely veiled implication that is sold heavily is that these social measures will take away from whites and benefit minorities. Metzl is a psychologist but has taken an epidemiological view on these policies and demonstrates that they actually hurt (poor) white folks as badly as the minorities against which those measures are supposed to be leveraged against. The interesting bit is that while policies were shaped by racial tension, the individuals do not necessarily have an explicit racist world view (and aspect that he highlighted in interviews), but politicians heavily tap into the fear of loss and the use of scapegoats.

I think despite the issues Canada may have, there a bit less fear that someone undeserved may come up. Though I am pretty sure instances likes this where folks work against their interest may also be present (I guess that is something to read up on).

We see a fair bit of this in Alberta, the Texas of the North. I have clients on permanent disability who vote conservative because they think conservative policies are aimed at cutting funding for deadbeats, not themselves. It’s a great con. Down east, this is less prevalent. I’m progressive because I’m economically conservative. It’s cheaper to provide free addictions services than pay for multiple emergency room visits and incarcerations. Welfare is cheaper than the cost of crime and incarcerations. Spending on infrastructure maintenance is cheaper than rebuilding neglected infrastructure. I could go on, but you get the point. Being conservative is the opposite of what conservatives sell us as a message. 

[Ten oz]

@iNow as a continuation to the point I made in the reparations thread regarding activism I think too much activism from our national leaders is part of the reason divisiveness is so great. People are fearful of what happens if the other side wins in part because they don't trust the other side cares about their interests. For example Republicans promote NRA positions claiming they are in the publics best interest but the arguments are clearly contrived. They ignore what the majority supports in favor of what their fringe supports. I don't wish to see Democrats behaving the same way. I think candidates should error toward what is broadly supported by all. The President is everyones President equally and not merely the President for those who voted for them. 

 

****edit - I am not implying they should appeal to the other side or be moderate by default. Rather they need to ensure their policies are for everyone. Universal healthcare isn't commonly thought of as a moderate position but by design is meant to benefit everyone. 

Edited March 21, 2019 by Ten oz

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

@iNow as a continuation to the point I made in the reparations thread regarding activism I think too much activism from our national leaders is part of the reason divisiveness is so great. People are fearful of what happens if the other side wins in part because they don't trust the other side cares about their interests. For example Republicans promote NRA positions claiming they are in the publics best interest but the arguments are clearly contrived. They ignore what the majority supports in favor of what their fringe supports. I don't wish to see Democrats behaving the same way. I think candidates should error toward what is broadly supported by all. The President is everyones President equally and not merely the President for those who voted for them. 

 

****edit - I am not implying they should appeal to the other side or be moderate by default. Rather they need to ensure their policies are for everyone. Universal healthcare isn't commonly thought of as a moderate position but by design is meant to benefit everyone. 

Finally signs of your taking responsibility...

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

****edit - I am not implying they should appeal to the other side or be moderate by default. Rather they need to ensure their policies are for everyone. Universal healthcare isn't commonly thought of as a moderate position but by design is meant to benefit everyone. 

 

55 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Finally signs of your taking responsibility...

Having solutions that work for everyone is consistent with the way Obama and Clinton governed. It is generally Republicans who betray the public's best interest in favor of satiating the worst inclinations of their base.

*Edit- also this applies based on who ones constituency is. AOC for example has no obligation to give 2 *#its about out of work factor works in West VA. They are not who she was elected to represent. 

Edited March 21, 2019 by Ten oz

[J.C.MacSwell]

13 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

Having solutions that work for everyone is consistent with the way Obama and Clinton governed. It is generally Republicans who betray the public's best interest in favor of satiating the worst inclinations of their base.

*Edit- also this applies based on who ones constituency is. AOC for example has no obligation to give 2 *#its about out of work factor works in West VA. They are not who she was elected to represent. 

I wasn't sure I used the right icon...but rest assured I was at least somewhat commensurate with your plight.

...or should I say blight

[iNow]

10 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I think too much activism from our national leaders is part of the reason divisiveness is so great. People are fearful of what happens if the other side wins in part because they don't trust the other side cares about their interests. 

Divisiveness is so great because we’ve evolved along the ape line of primates. We’re tribal monkeys. 

I appreciate where you’re coming from and see the inherent ethics of expecting these things from presidential candidates. 

I also see, however, a rapidly shifting global landscape wherein tribes are no longer separated by oceans or arbitrary cartographical boundaries. 

We’re connect in ways never previously possible, and those connections are algorithmacally magnified and shaped. We’re mostly hairless apes being led around by the nose; marionettes ties to strings held by AI puppeteers. 

Perhaps having a few “pied pipers” leading us toward something more positive, communal, and even foundational is a good thing. Perhaps it’s what the times call for.

Sure, we rationalize our decisions after the fact... come up with clever narratives for why we did X, Y, and Z, but it’s our passion that pulls the vote lever and checks the box on the ballet. It’s our bellies that decide. 

Maybe having aspiration and vision as core to the message is exactly what we need in a leader. Maybe the mythology is more central in voters hearts... maybe pathos overrules logos... and maybe that passion should be focused on positive active causes that actually matter in everyone’s daily lives.

You know, or maybe we should set arbitrary expectations for how a candidate should behave. I suppose that’s an option, too.  

Edited March 22, 2019 by iNow

[Ten oz]

9 hours ago, iNow said:

Maybe having aspiration and vision as core to the message is exactly what we need in a leader. Maybe the mythology is more central in voters hearts... maybe pathos overrules logos... and maybe that passion should be focused on positive active causes that actually matter in everyone’s daily lives.

You know, or maybe we should set arbitrary expectations for how a candidate should behave. I suppose that’s an option, too.  

Pragmatism isn't arbitrary though. I think Obama campaigned from the left advocating policies which were good for everyone and practical. Despite all the complaining about the ACA done from the Right it reduced deficit spending and got more people healthcare. Part of the problem today seems to be that people have lost faith that smart policy making can resolve our current issues. With someone like Trump in office it isn't hard to understand why faith has been so greatly diminished. Many people want to just start over fro scratch or just totally change course but that isn't possible. One cannot through a car in reverse while traveling forward at freeway speeds. 

I am no Donald Rumsfled fan but he did make an interesting statement once "'You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time." I agree with its basic theme. One must manage what they have and not what they wish they will eventually have. The Democratic Candidates are running to become President of the United States as it exists here and now. That means they will be burdened with cleaning up the messes we currently have. 

We have a budget deficit of over a trillion a year, ongoing trade disputes with the world, an opioid crisis, there is a humanitarian crisis in Yemen, refugee crisis in the Mediterranean, and etc, etc. Once Trump is gone executive authority will need to be overhauled. There will need to be changes to our Nepotism laws, the Emoluments Clause, financial disclosures by elected officials, and etc, etc, etc. It seems silly but things like whether or not a President should be allowed to threaten a citizen via media (social or otherwise) will need to be addressed.

Candidates are talking about things like UBI and Reparations but I believe the sobering reality is the next President will spend the bulk of their first term working on more straight forward and boring things like restoring all necessary funding for the ACA and fighting to make DACA permanent. The Green New Deal is awesome but we aren't even in the Paris Agreement currently. 

[iNow]

Agree with all of that

[Ten oz]

Kamala Harris proposed a plan to increase teacher pay. While I think teachers should be paid more I oppose the plan. Teachers are not federal employees and their salaries are not derived from federal income taxes. They are local employees and their their salaries are primarily derived from property tax dollars. 

Local teacher pay isn't a problem for the President to solve with federal money in my opinion. 

Quote

The proposal outlines how the financial benchmarks of the plan would be reached. The federal government would provide the first 10% of funding needed, and states would be incentivized to close the remainder of the teacher pay gap. For every dollar a state contributed toward increasing a teacher's salary, the federal government would invest $3. Link

 

[swansont]

38 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Kamala Harris proposed a plan to increase teacher pay. While I think teachers should be paid more I oppose the plan. Teachers are not federal employees and their salaries are not derived from federal income taxes. They are local employees and their their salaries are primarily derived from property tax dollars. 

(Emphasis added)

Isn't that a huge part of he problem? If you are in an area where there isn't a lot of income, then your community doesn't have money to pay for education, which perpetuates the problem of poverty.

Quote

Local teacher pay isn't a problem for the President to solve with federal money in my opinion.

OTOH, if you think that access to a basic education is or should be a right, then it is.

[Ten oz]

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

Isn't that a huge part of he problem? If you are in an area where there isn't a lot of income, then your community doesn't have money to pay for education, which perpetuates the problem of poverty.

Yes that is a problem. The growth in the privatization of public schools and the publics appetite for tax cuts are also factors worth taking a look at. However I think voters should be looking locally for those solutions. The problem is far from singular and varies greatly locality to locality. 

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

OTOH, if you think that access to a basic education is or should be a right, then it is.

It is worth a discussion. As it currently stands throughout the country teacher's are local govt employees. Their pay varies throughout the country. In some locations pay is good relative to the cost of living and in others it is poor. 

[Ten oz]

Quote

Kirsten Gillibrand released her 2018 tax returns on Wednesday, becoming the first presidential candidate to do so and challenging her rivals for the 2020 Democratic nomination to disclose their own. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/27/kirsten-gillibrand-taxes-2020-1238571

This was a fairing easy win (national attention for her campaign) for Gilibrand. 

[MigL]

What do you guys make of J Biden's recent issues with his treatment of women in the past ?
I'm not sure about the appropriateness of applying today's norms to past actions.
People are allowed to evolve with their thinking.

I like J Biden, and hope he declares, because he has the advantage of being able to appeal to some of D Trump's base, while still having a 'progressive' outlook; but the accusations against him are coming from other Democrats.

I hope Democrat 'infighting' doesn't make it easy for D Trump, and you guys end up, again, with a moron for the following 4 yrs.

[iNow]

It wouldn’t surprise me if the allegations against Biden are true. I also wouldn’t be the least surprised if multiple other women start coming forward. He seems like a handsy old grandpa, but has (to his credit) fought valiantly in support of protections for women and dealing with abusive spouses, so it’s mixed.

That said, I think this would be the least of his concerns. He’s got a checkered past with criminal justice, Anita Hill during the Thomas SCOTUS hearings, and more.

Further, he represents the establishment during a time when all of the energy (on both sides) right now is with anti-establishment candidates.

This would be like his 3rd or 4th try for the office and I think his time has passed. He’s been a solid public servant for decades, with an incredible personal story and powerful family losses, but I suspect he’s at his peak approval right now and will only go down from here. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

What do you guys make of J Biden's recent issues with his treatment of women in the past ?
I'm not sure about the appropriateness of applying today's norms to past actions.
People are allowed to evolve with their thinking.

I like J Biden, and hope he declares, because he has the advantage of being able to appeal to some of D Trump's base, while still having a 'progressive' outlook; but the accusations against him are coming from other Democrats.

I hope Democrat 'infighting' doesn't make it easy for D Trump, and you guys end up, again, with a moron for the following 4 yrs.

Many Democrats seem to automatically assume it must be true, since historically it is unlikely for accusations to be made otherwise.

I'll wait to hear the evidence and what may or not back it up. If nothing backs it up I won't necessarily disbelieve the accusation, but I will not consider it in my judgement of Biden.

(not that my opinion might matter to him)

[iNow]

Oh please. It’s so common one only needs to google “creepy Biden” to understand how your attempt to treat this as an isolated accusation lacking any credibility... or as democrats once again lying to prop up feminism and PC culture or whatever you’re arguing these days... is (putting it charitably) disingenuous. 

She’s not even claiming assault or even harassment. She’s just saying it made her uncomfortable and seemed really parochial. Like, “dude, I’m a grown ass legislator... why you sniffing my hair and long kissing my scalp?”

[Ten oz]

On 1/23/2019 at 7:54 PM, Ten oz said:

I hope neither run. Biden handled Anita Hill poorly and in the wake of Kavanaugh I think it is best he doesn't run. He had his day. As for Booker I fail to see what he brings to the table not already present among the group already running. His policy positions are already fully represented. I don't want the primary to turn into a circus with a hundred candidates. Harris and Warren are both A+ candidates in my opinion.

 

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

What do you guys make of J Biden's recent issues with his treatment of women in the past ?
I'm not sure about the appropriateness of applying today's norms to past actions.
People are allowed to evolve with their thinking.

I like J Biden, and hope he declares, because he has the advantage of being able to appeal to some of D Trump's base, while still having a 'progressive' outlook; but the accusations against him are coming from other Democrats.

I hope Democrat 'infighting' doesn't make it easy for D Trump, and you guys end up, again, with a moron for the following 4 yrs.

I commented a couple months ago that I wasn't interested in Biden running. Current events haven't change my view. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

44 minutes ago, iNow said:

Oh please. It’s so common one only needs to google “creepy Biden” to understand how your attempt to treat this as an isolated accusation lacking any credibility... or as democrats once again lying to prop up feminism and PC culture or whatever you’re arguing these days... is (putting it charitably) disingenuous. 

She’s not even claiming assault or even harassment. She’s just saying it made her uncomfortable and seemed really parochial. Like, “dude, I’m a grown ass legislator... why you sniffing my hair and long kissing my scalp?”

Seems I struck a nerve...

Edited April 1, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

Yes. It gets on my nerves when people frame issues in ways that misrepresent others and seek to cause people to come away with intentionally skewed impressions of reality. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

30 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yes. It gets on my nerves when people frame issues in ways that misrepresent others and seek to cause people to come away with intentionally skewed impressions of reality. 

Ironic.

[iNow]

If I’ve misunderstood you, it was unintentional and is no need for passive aggressive too personal comments.

Much like Biden’s over-comfortable approach to Flores (and now another woman who... just as I predicted... has come forward), these things don’t occur in a vacuum and there’s history informing how we read each others posts. 

Again though, if you weren’t merely dismissing this as some PC overreaction, or yet again trying to paint those who lean left as hypocrites, or if you weren’t trying to hold firm against progress around how women are treated in our society, then that’s my bad and mea culpa. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by iNow

[MigL]

Come on, INow.
I expect this from some other members; you're better than this.

The implication of this statement...

"Again though, if you weren’t merely dismissing this as some PC overreaction, or yet again trying to paint those who lean left as hypocrites, or if you weren’t trying to hold firm against progress around how women are treated in our society, then that’s my bad and mea culpa."

is uncomfortably clear.

 

Sure J Biden is a more 'traditional' candidate as opposed to the more 'progressive' fresh candidates.
But everything else being equal, we may end up with people voting along party lines again, and even winning the popular vote, the election will again be lost.
The strategy has to include stealing votes from the D Trump/Republican base, or else you risk the same outcome as last time.

Edited April 2, 2019 by MigL

[iNow]

Well, if JCM would like to clarify his original point then he’s welcome to. Nobody is stopping him. Meanwhile, he seems content to make sweeping generalizations then to make things neeessly personal when challenged.

It’s off topic BS anyway...

Agree with you that next election must involve attraction of swing voters. Voting blocs are pretty equally split 48-to-48. The true power is in that remaining 4% in between. 

Agree also that Biden appeals to the white working class more than most others. He’s got the blue collar appeal, and it’s accompanied by serious foreign policy chops and experience. 

Where I remain unconvinced, however, is the implicit suggestion that the aforementioned blue collared white male voting bloc he’d more strongly attract relative to his democratic peers outweighs the bigger voting bloc who is drawn more strongly to other candidates and who is tired of old white men getting the presidential nod.

Your crystal ball is just as good as mine, but IMO all indicators suggest that the next democratic candidate will be female, black, young, and/or gay and will be considered a fresh face akin to Kennedy. 

Anyway, sorry for disappointing you. Contrary to popular belief, I am only human. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by iNow

[Ten oz]

7 hours ago, MigL said:

Sure J Biden is a more 'traditional' candidate as opposed to the more 'progressive' fresh candidates.
But everything else being equal, we may end up with people voting along party lines again, and even winning the popular vote, the election will again be lost.
The strategy has to include stealing votes from the D Trump/Republican base, or else you risk the same outcome as last time.

I remember after Romney lost in 2012 many people insisting that Republicans had to reach out to latino voters. That demographic shifts in the country were such that Republicans simply could no longer win pandering strictly to white christian voters. Rather than seek broader that support Republicans focused their efforts on voter suppression passing Voter ID laws. 

Quote

 

Overall, 25 states have put in place new restrictions since then — 14 states have more restrictive voter ID laws in place (and six states have implemented strict photo ID requirements), 12 have laws making it harder for citizens to register, seven cut back on early voting opportunities, and three made it harder to restore voting rights for people with past criminal convictions.

In 2016, 14 states had new voting restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential election. Those 14 states were: Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

https://www.brennancenter.org/new-voting-restrictions-america

 

We saw how questionable outcomes were during the mid term election just a few months ago. In FL and GA in particular it is likely Republicans stole Senate seats. Their is a Congressional seat in North Carolina that still hasn't been decided since the Nov. election, link. Here in the U.S. their is not a national system for voting. It is handle at the local level across the country. Some locations have multiple days of voting, mail in voting, months of registrations, and etc while other have tightly controlled windows of time and locations where one can vote. The process can take minutes or several hours. 

I think the idea that democrats winning  the popular vote isn't good enough and they must further compromise their position to be even more popular is a losing mentality. City by city and county by county local Democratic officials need to fight harder to ensure voting booths, coherent ballot instructions, adequate voting hours, and etc. Average voter turnout in Canada  was 68% 2015's election.  Here in the U.S. turnout was 55% for 2016's elections. If the U.S. could achieve turnout numbers closer to Canada's there is no way Trump could be re-elected. Our pitiful turnout numbers exist by design. Voting is made difficult on purpose to suppress turnout. 

It doesn't matter is it is Biden, Warren, Harris, or whomever on the ballot if the ballot isn't filled out and turned in. Democrats win the popular vote and polls show that they hold the more popular positions across the board on nearly every issue. Stealing away voters isn't what Democrats need to focus. Ensuring people vote, are able to conveniently vote, is what they need to focus on.  

[iNow]

Representative Tim Ryan from Ohio jumped in today.