Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 187459 times)

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4831
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1900 on: January 19, 2020, 11:29:21 AM »
OK, my prediction is that the next President will be one of:

Trump
Harris
Warren
Buttigieg

For various reasons, I don't think anyone else is going to make it.

Long way to go, and stuff could happen, of course.

Updating my prediction from last June, when about 25-30 candidates were running.

Obviously Harris dropped out.  I no longer think she will become our next President.

When I included Warren in the list above, I didn't really think much of her candidacy for various reasons, but I couldn't fully convince myself she couldn't win.  After the most recent debate, I don't think she can win the Presidency.

So my list of last names of our next President is down to:

Trump
Buttigieg

I know 538.com currently has Biden and Sanders as the most likely to get the nomination.  So by my list above, I'm predicting that if either of them wins the primary nomination, they will lose to Trump in the general.

I'm not necessarily a Buttigieg acolyte.  I just think everyone else can't win the general.

I note that Buttigieg is a male under 50.  You have to go back to Jimmy Carter in 1976 before you get a winning Democrat who didn't meet that criteria when becoming elected to the Presidency for the first time.

I could easily be wrong.  I've been wrong about other predictions I've made in this thread (like Harris being a stronger candidate and Williamson dropping out first, among others).

Probably the biggest risk to my prediction is the 15% chance that 538.com currently assigns to no candidate accumulating a majority of delegates by the convention.  If that happens, I think it is pretty hard to predict who the nominee ends up being.

Fixed small typo in the above.

I forgot about the billionaires, who entered the race after my initial 4-person prediction.  I don't think either Bloomberg or Steyer will win the nomination.  I do think it will be interesting if either of them decides to run independently in the general election.  I don't know what would happen in that scenario.  I think it is far more likely that Bloomberg would run independently; I think Steyer would just support the Democrat nominee.

Bloomberg has said he would use all his financial means to defeat Trump. Even if he is not the nominee.

Hope he is telling the truth.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-12/bloomberg-will-spend-to-beat-trump-even-if-he-s-not-the-nominee


secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2635
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1901 on: January 19, 2020, 11:47:23 AM »
The general idea of what a person won't vote for compared to what they say they won't vote for is very interesting to me.  I suspect that there are varying degrees of difference between the two and in some cases it can be quite wide.

I think polling could get at this question a little bit.  Instead of asking "Would you vote for a candidate if they were X?", they could ask "Would a friend of yours in the same political party as you vote for a candidate if they were X?"  I don't think they do this very often if at all.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2119
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1902 on: January 19, 2020, 12:04:58 PM »
The best argument that Trump would have against Butti(I don't know how to spell it) is that the guy has no freaking experience and he's a Mayor of a small city. Trump would put his record on the economy and foreign relations and his business successes against B's work in Fort Wayne?  He could effectively make B look very small and weak.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4143
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1903 on: January 19, 2020, 12:17:34 PM »
If a nominee Buttegieg loses, I agree it will mostly be because he didnít sway enough people on the left. But, I also donít completely discount the slow but persistent drip-drip influence of homophobia and derision in waning enthusiasm for that candidate, consciously or unconsciously, across the board. And given how close the election could be, that might end up mattering a fair amount.

I just worry that this sounds a lot like the argument I heard from a surprising number of Clinton supporters in the run up to 2008 about how Obama wasn't actually as electable as people thought because lots of voters are secretly racists. And I have no doubt that there were lots of genuine racists out there, but there were also millions and millions demonstrably non-racist swing voters who supported Obama in '08 and/or '12 and Trump in '16. The country a whole was a lot less racist in 2008 than many people in the democratic camp thought or feared, and I suspect the country as a whole is a lot less homophobic in 2020 than many people might guess.

Changes in social mores change really slowly until suddenly they hit a tipping point and then suddenly they accelerate. When I was growing up in the aughts ('00s) and as late at '09 the majority of people thought single being gay was morally unacceptable, and close to 60% didn't think marriage between two men or two women should be legally recognized. Eleven years later those numbers are down less than a third of the population and banning gay marriage polls a much lower numbers than Trumps approval ratings: 53% of Americans disapprove of Trump, 62% are pro-gay marriage.

Buttigieg is not the candidate I'm backing right now, and there were a lot of things that disappointed me about the Obama years. But one lesson I took away from 2008 and 2016 is that I think we tend to over-estimate how much people care about demographics* and underestimate how much people respond to emotion/personality/charisma.

*In both directions. I also remember hearing in both 2008 and 2016 that large numbers of republican women would desert ship to elect the first woman president.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4831
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1904 on: January 19, 2020, 12:45:11 PM »
The best argument that Trump would have against Butti(I don't know how to spell it) is that the guy has no freaking experience and he's a Mayor of a small city. Trump would put his record on the economy and foreign relations and his business successes against B's work in Fort Wayne?  He could effectively make B look very small and weak.

Which is, of course, silly, as Trump had way less experience than Buttegieg (i.e., NONE) when he ran in 2016.

And as for his other "successes..." lol...

But then, logic isn't the strong suit of people who would vote for him.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1905 on: January 19, 2020, 01:15:22 PM »
If a nominee Buttegieg loses, I agree it will mostly be because he didnít sway enough people on the left. But, I also donít completely discount the slow but persistent drip-drip influence of homophobia and derision in waning enthusiasm for that candidate, consciously or unconsciously, across the board. And given how close the election could be, that might end up mattering a fair amount.

I just worry that this sounds a lot like the argument I heard from a surprising number of Clinton supporters in the run up to 2008 about how Obama wasn't actually as electable as people thought because lots of voters are secretly racists. And I have no doubt that there were lots of genuine racists out there, but there were also millions and millions demonstrably non-racist swing voters who supported Obama in '08 and/or '12 and Trump in '16. The country a whole was a lot less racist in 2008 than many people in the democratic camp thought or feared, and I suspect the country as a whole is a lot less homophobic in 2020 than many people might guess.

One difference, at least from my perspective, between 2008 and 2016 was that Obama didn't seem to emphasize his blackness the way the Clinton emphasized her femininity. "Hope and Change" seemed to be the big message from 2008 while "I'm with Her" was one of the big slogans in 2016. I expect the impact of Buttegieg's homosexuality will be dependent on how big of a deal he makes it, and from what I can tell he's following the Obama model so far.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4143
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1906 on: January 19, 2020, 02:02:50 PM »
One difference, at least from my perspective, between 2008 and 2016 was that Obama didn't seem to emphasize his blackness the way the Clinton emphasized her femininity. "Hope and Change" seemed to be the big message from 2008 while "I'm with Her" was one of the big slogans in 2016. I expect the impact of Buttegieg's homosexuality will be dependent on how big of a deal he makes it, and from what I can tell he's following the Obama model so far.

That's a good point. I agree that Buttigieg hasn't run as "the gay candidate" so far. The only time I remember it even coming up was during that one really weird attack from Klobuchar a couple of debates ago.

If he isn't doing that in the democratic primary, where it really might help, I'd anticipate he would continue to follow more of the Obama model and run on his ideas -- rather than the demographic boxes he falls into -- if he became the nominee. That's not unique to him. Warren, Yang, Buttigieg, and Gabbard would all be a "first" of one sort or another,* but their campaigns don't seem to be focused on that but rather on the, very different, ideas and policies each is proposing (Obama model) which I think benefits any one of them going into the general election. 

*Klobuchar and Harris, when she was still running, would also be/have been firsts, but my sense (could be wrong) is that their campaigns emphasized that fact more (Clinton model).

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1907 on: January 19, 2020, 02:11:23 PM »
One difference, at least from my perspective, between 2008 and 2016 was that Obama didn't seem to emphasize his blackness the way the Clinton emphasized her femininity. "Hope and Change" seemed to be the big message from 2008 while "I'm with Her" was one of the big slogans in 2016. I expect the impact of Buttegieg's homosexuality will be dependent on how big of a deal he makes it, and from what I can tell he's following the Obama model so far.

That's a good point. I agree that Buttigieg hasn't run as "the gay candidate" so far. The only time I remember it even coming up was during that one really weird attack from Klobuchar a couple of debates ago.

If he isn't doing that in the democratic primary, where it really might help, I'd anticipate he would continue to follow more of the Obama model and run on his ideas -- rather than the demographic boxes he falls into -- if he became the nominee. That's not unique to him. Warren, Yang, Buttigieg, and Gabbard would all be a "first" of one sort or another,* but their campaigns don't seem to be focused on that but rather on the, very different, ideas and policies each is proposing (Obama model) which I think benefits any one of them going into the general election. 

*Klobuchar and Harris, when she was still running, would also be/have been firsts, but my sense (could be wrong) is that their campaigns emphasized that fact more (Clinton model).

They would all be firsts then again there's an xkcd for that

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14870
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1908 on: January 20, 2020, 07:34:47 AM »
I think we may have failed to communicate somehow. I don't care what Trump thinks about gay people personally either. My point is that if Trump thought/felt homophobia was still a winning move with his base, he'd have been playing it up for the past four years, instead of mostly dropping the issue and he certainly wouldn't have given a quote like that (regardless of his actual personal views, if he even has any).

https://www.glaad.org/tap/donald-trump

Whatever his personal feelings, Donald Trump has attacked gay and transgendered people for his entire time in office, both directly through statements and policy enacted and indirectly.  Enacting legislation allowing gay people to be denied adopting a child, legislating rules that allow discrimination in rentals against gay people, denying trans people health care coverage, created a new policy denying same sex partners of people in the UN the same rights as opposite sex people, joking that his vice persident wants to "hang 'em all" when asked about gay people, etc., etc. etc.

How much more playing the anti-gay card did you want?

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2974
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1909 on: January 20, 2020, 02:17:07 PM »
I think we may have failed to communicate somehow. I don't care what Trump thinks about gay people personally either. My point is that if Trump thought/felt homophobia was still a winning move with his base, he'd have been playing it up for the past four years, instead of mostly dropping the issue and he certainly wouldn't have given a quote like that (regardless of his actual personal views, if he even has any).

I have no doubt that if Buttigieg were the nominee Trump would still try to go after him on his sexual orientation, funny name, etc (and throw everything else he can come up with against the wall to see what sticks). If Buttigieg wins the nomination and loses the general, I think it'll be because a straight version of Buttigieg (someone with the same background, policies, and last name) would also have lost.

I agree with most of this. I was merely stating that Trump hasnít pulled out the homophobia yet because he hasnít seen the need to. Heís got plenty of other racism and right-wing scare tactics and conspiracy theories to draw from. But if Buttegieg were the nominee, he would certainly pull the anti-gay arrow from his quiver ó to keep any stray members of Trumpís base from seeing B as anything but the comical butt of a cheap joke, and therefore stop them from looking any closer at him. And also to firm up his most fervent support, including Evangelicals. And also just run of the mill hateful people who will say, ďTrump ainít perfect, but at least he ainít a ...(insert your choice of homophobic slur here).Ē

If a nominee Buttegieg loses, I agree it will mostly be because he didnít sway enough people on the left. But, I also donít completely discount the slow but persistent drip-drip influence of homophobia and derision in waning enthusiasm for that candidate, consciously or unconsciously, across the board. And given how close the election could be, that might end up mattering a fair amount.

"Judges" is code for homophobia

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 875
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1910 on: January 20, 2020, 03:03:11 PM »
I didn't realize Bernie endorsed national rent control.  That's a hard no from me dawg.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 410
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1911 on: January 20, 2020, 08:57:45 PM »
I didn't realize Bernie endorsed national rent control.  That's a hard no from me dawg.

Wow, I had not heard that either. That's a good example of how people who comment, oh no, Bernie and Warren are barely left of center in the grand scheme of things really lose me. If they in the entirety of their proposals (not the whole, oh this is what they say but they'll back off - take them at their word right now) are center or just a hair's breadth left of it, I'm really curious as to what true left would be, lol.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1912 on: January 20, 2020, 11:01:31 PM »
I didn't realize Bernie endorsed national rent control.  That's a hard no from me dawg.

Wow, I had not heard that either. That's a good example of how people who comment, oh no, Bernie and Warren are barely left of center in the grand scheme of things really lose me. If they in the entirety of their proposals (not the whole, oh this is what they say but they'll back off - take them at their word right now) are center or just a hair's breadth left of it, I'm really curious as to what true left would be, lol.

Well what is strange is how some of the smallest planks from Bernie become a "no" for people, yet we're all just shruging at the military expenditure and pretend like Biden or heck even Warren is going to shrink it or stop waging foreign wars. Or that M4A will save most people on this board tons of money or allow them to retire with more confidence. The giant big red flag that Trump waves that is literally risking nuclear threats will receive a pass, but "uh oh", Bernie has this one plank that maybe isn't a good idea. He definitely won't support any other ideas to fix rent prices *sarcasm*.

But for people on this board who own lots of RE. No matter what the plan is, if rent prices come down, RE prices are going to come down. In our hearts and minds, we all know that RE is overpriced. Heck, I think most of us know that stocks are a bit overpriced. For those still buying, it will be great. For those in retirement, it will be detrimental. Then again, our economy has been funneling more and more money to old people for decades now. There will be a time where that eventually reverses.

I plan on continuing to rent for the foreseeable future, so I wouldn't mind seeing RE go down in price personally...

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1425
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1913 on: January 21, 2020, 04:43:16 AM »
"Then again, our economy has been funneling more and more money to old people for decades now. There will be a time where that eventually reverses."

Yeh,.... Well- For some of us hoping to spend many years getting and being old, let's just hold off on that for a few decades, OK?  I'm sort of getting to like this revere the ages thing.

Places that need rent control will probably give a good return even after that happens.

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 875
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1914 on: January 21, 2020, 06:29:58 AM »
I didn't realize Bernie endorsed national rent control.  That's a hard no from me dawg.

Wow, I had not heard that either. That's a good example of how people who comment, oh no, Bernie and Warren are barely left of center in the grand scheme of things really lose me. If they in the entirety of their proposals (not the whole, oh this is what they say but they'll back off - take them at their word right now) are center or just a hair's breadth left of it, I'm really curious as to what true left would be, lol.

Well what is strange is how some of the smallest planks from Bernie become a "no" for people, yet we're all just shruging at the military expenditure and pretend like Biden or heck even Warren is going to shrink it or stop waging foreign wars. Or that M4A will save most people on this board tons of money or allow them to retire with more confidence. The giant big red flag that Trump waves that is literally risking nuclear threats will receive a pass, but "uh oh", Bernie has this one plank that maybe isn't a good idea. He definitely won't support any other ideas to fix rent prices *sarcasm*.

Price controls don't work.  This is basic economic theory.  Affordability of housing probably has to come from more density/municipal development currently being stymied by NIMBY types in cities everywhere.  It will probably also require a proper assessment of inflation since residences are not inexpensive to construct and that probably won't change.  Pretending that inflation is low and keeping rates lower with little to no outcome should be a sign that there's a problem with the indicators (inflation).

Anyway, rent control just produces contempt for the property.  It doesn't address supply or demand at all.  Why would I support a candidate who doesn't understand this basic principle?

As for the killing of a military general in Iraq, this is not a simple situation and Trump didn't start this battle and he won't be the one to end it either.  The Iran situation can't be laid at his feet alone.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4143
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1915 on: January 21, 2020, 07:23:42 AM »
Well what is strange is how some of the smallest planks from Bernie become a "no" for people...

But for people on this board who own lots of RE. No matter what the plan is, if rent prices come down, RE prices are going to come down. In our hearts and minds, we all know that RE is overpriced. Heck, I think most of us know that stocks are a bit overpriced. For those still buying, it will be great. For those in retirement, it will be detrimental. Then again, our economy has been funneling more and more money to old people for decades now. There will be a time where that eventually reverses.

I'm okay with (actually I'd like) both rent and real estate prices coming down and I'm be happy to accept a lower return on investment to achieve that.

The problem is that rent control brings down prices while making the housing crisis worse. Why not bring rent prices down but alleviating the shortage of affordable housing instead? We know the way to do this: zoning and permitting reform to make it easier to build new units, particularly efforts to increase density near city centers rather than new urban sprawl. As a bonus changes to support densification and new apartment construction also increase the financial and political viability of new investments in public transit as well as making existing public transit more and more appealing, saving people money, decreasing carbon emissions, and improving air quality. And denser urban areas are even more walkable, which leads to greater satisfaction and improved health of residents. Yang, Warren and Klobuchar are all advocating for variations on this solution (details vary) as did Booker and Castro before they dropped out.

And to be clear, this policy would bring down both rents and property values, and I support it.

In contrast, rent control creates new winners (people who already are renting an apartment and don't plan on moving) and new losers (people who need to find a new apartment to rent and cannot), but it doesn't address in any way the problem of too many people competing to rent too few apartments. Over time it ultimately makes the problem worse by making it less and less financially viable to build new units.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2974
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1916 on: January 21, 2020, 08:11:54 AM »
Why wouldn't rent control + new building subsidies make a lot more rental units available? People will limit their within-city moves to stay in rent-control apartments, so people moving into the area won't have to compete against them for the new housing.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 410
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1917 on: January 21, 2020, 08:13:33 AM »
I didn't realize Bernie endorsed national rent control.  That's a hard no from me dawg.

Wow, I had not heard that either. That's a good example of how people who comment, oh no, Bernie and Warren are barely left of center in the grand scheme of things really lose me. If they in the entirety of their proposals (not the whole, oh this is what they say but they'll back off - take them at their word right now) are center or just a hair's breadth left of it, I'm really curious as to what true left would be, lol.

Well what is strange is how some of the smallest planks from Bernie become a "no" for people, yet we're all just shruging at the military expenditure and pretend like Biden or heck even Warren is going to shrink it or stop waging foreign wars. Or that M4A will save most people on this board tons of money or allow them to retire with more confidence. The giant big red flag that Trump waves that is literally risking nuclear threats will receive a pass, but "uh oh", Bernie has this one plank that maybe isn't a good idea. He definitely won't support any other ideas to fix rent prices *sarcasm*.

But for people on this board who own lots of RE. No matter what the plan is, if rent prices come down, RE prices are going to come down. In our hearts and minds, we all know that RE is overpriced. Heck, I think most of us know that stocks are a bit overpriced. For those still buying, it will be great. For those in retirement, it will be detrimental. Then again, our economy has been funneling more and more money to old people for decades now. There will be a time where that eventually reverses.

I plan on continuing to rent for the foreseeable future, so I wouldn't mind seeing RE go down in price personally...

Not really arguing with any of that, but none of that really argues against the silliness of the view that Warren and Sanders are somehow middle of the road moderates in the grand scheme of things.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 788
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1918 on: January 21, 2020, 08:19:21 AM »
Why wouldn't rent control + new building subsidies make a lot more rental units available? People will limit their within-city moves to stay in rent-control apartments, so people moving into the area won't have to compete against them for the new housing.

Sanders' plan is to have every rental be rent controlled:
Quote
Enact a national cap on annual rent increases at no more than 3 percent or 1.5 times the Consumer Price Index (whichever is higher) to help prevent the exploitation of tenants at the hands of private landlords.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/housing-all/

There would also be other issues that limit making more units available (e.g., landlords convert rentals into owner occupied).




maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4143
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1919 on: January 21, 2020, 08:26:47 AM »
Why wouldn't rent control + new building subsidies make a lot more rental units available? People will limit their within-city moves to stay in rent-control apartments, so people moving into the area won't have to compete against them for the new housing.

I'm not sure I follow. With rent control I agree people will be less likely to move from one apartment to another within cities, but within city moves balance out don't they? For each new person/household competing for apartments because they're moving out of another apartment in the same area, the supply of apartments also increases by one because of a person moving out of an old apartment, freeing it up for a new tenant. Conversely if people don't move, there are fewer people looking for apartments but also equally fewer apartments available.

Agreed that incentivizing more construction is definitely the way to go. I guess the question is why aren't more new units being built now. If it's that the rent doesn't justify the physical cost of construction, then subsidies for new construction are the way to go. If it's that getting zoning/permitting approval adds too much time, cost, and uncertainty to new construction, then fixing that is a cheaper and faster way to achieve a bigger change in the rate of new construction.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 410
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1920 on: January 21, 2020, 09:32:36 AM »
Why wouldn't rent control + new building subsidies make a lot more rental units available? People will limit their within-city moves to stay in rent-control apartments, so people moving into the area won't have to compete against them for the new housing.

I'm not sure I follow. With rent control I agree people will be less likely to move from one apartment to another within cities, but within city moves balance out don't they? For each new person/household competing for apartments because they're moving out of another apartment in the same area, the supply of apartments also increases by one because of a person moving out of an old apartment, freeing it up for a new tenant. Conversely if people don't move, there are fewer people looking for apartments but also equally fewer apartments available.

Agreed that incentivizing more construction is definitely the way to go. I guess the question is why aren't more new units being built now. If it's that the rent doesn't justify the physical cost of construction, then subsidies for new construction are the way to go. If it's that getting zoning/permitting approval adds too much time, cost, and uncertainty to new construction, then fixing that is a cheaper and faster way to achieve a bigger change in the rate of new construction.

The thing is, it seems just from basic economics that these will work against each other. The root problem, as I see it, is there's not enough housing. So on the one hand, we're saying give building subsidies to encourage building - ok, that's at least going to incentivize in the right direction. The thing is, these buildings aren't being built with rents not being controlled thus full upside, they're still not being built.. Therefore, we're saying, we'll subsidize to get people to build more then we'll effectively reduce the impact of the subsidies by reducing the upside. Rent control might make more sense if there are tons of empty housing sitting open that people can't afford in these places we're trying to help. That doesn't seem to be the case, right? People are filling the housing - there's just not enough of it so poorer people are priced out. It seems obvious that people are critical of these two things going hand-in-hand because they are contradictory at least to a point.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14870
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1921 on: January 21, 2020, 09:34:30 AM »
Root problem is too many people, not lack of housing.  Doesn't matter how many houses you build when the number of people is constantly rising.

:P

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4143
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1922 on: January 21, 2020, 09:39:00 AM »
Root problem is too many people, not lack of housing.  Doesn't matter how many houses you build when the number of people is constantly rising.

:P

If you want to address the problem from that end of the equation, have I got the candidate for you.



(Yes this is a recycled 2016 joke. It may even date to elections before that, although I think people were a bit less nihilistic in 2012 when Obama was still on the ballot).

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14870
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1923 on: January 21, 2020, 09:40:57 AM »

Samuel

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1924 on: January 21, 2020, 10:29:22 AM »
I didn't realize Bernie endorsed national rent control.  That's a hard no from me dawg.

Wow, I had not heard that either. That's a good example of how people who comment, oh no, Bernie and Warren are barely left of center in the grand scheme of things really lose me. If they in the entirety of their proposals (not the whole, oh this is what they say but they'll back off - take them at their word right now) are center or just a hair's breadth left of it, I'm really curious as to what true left would be, lol.

People seem to forget that Bernie hasn't really been truly challenged the way he would be in a national general election. He's a big enough force that his primary rivals, both in 2016 and 2020, pull their punches in order to not alienate his fervent supporters they may eventually need to woo.  Should he find himself in the cross hairs of the well funded Republican attack machine he has serious vulnerabilities and will take a lot of damage on a lot fronts, which is why at this point I'm rather skeptical of the Bernie/Trump head to head polling numbers his supporters like to trumpet.

But I don't blame Bernie. He's doing his job of representing the far left fringe of American politics (so far left he won't even call himself a Democrat except in Presidential campaigns). I actually find his perspective and style rather refreshing, even if I'm not a big fan of many of his policy prescriptions. I am mainly baffled by the rapid Bernization of the Democratic platform and concerned about what that means for Democratic prospects in the battleground states that actually decide Presidential elections. But who knows, perhaps Bernie is enough of an outsider/system breaker to appeal to enough of the jaded crank vote who broke for Trump in 2016 to pull it off.

I'm a sober incrementalist at heart, but if it is Bernie v. Trump I'd vote Bernie. Not that I live in a state where that matters...

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14870
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1925 on: January 21, 2020, 11:14:52 AM »
Bernie's not particularly far left by any measure I can see.  Maybe in the extremely right leaning microcosm of US politics.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 410
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1926 on: January 21, 2020, 12:02:14 PM »
Bernie's not particularly far left by any measure I can see.  Maybe in the extremely right leaning microcosm of US politics.

This goes back to my question. I can't understand this sentiment at all, at least from a purely financial perspective. For the purposes of this, I'm going to kind of conflate Bernie and Warren as the lefties of the Dems. I'll give you that they could be more left on social issues like they could say outright, let's ban all guns, etc. although they have gone pretty much as far left as you can go on some social issues like abortion. However, financially, I'm just not seeing where you would put them if not far left. I mean, between their arguments, we have things like full government takeover of healthcare, not just free college from now own but completely back eliminating college debt, much higher taxes including wealth taxes that were eliminated in countries much more left leaning than America, much stronger government regulation of industires - i.e. the rent control that just came up, a plainly expressed desire to eliminate billionaires altogether, Bernie has if not openly decried capitalism spoken strongly against it (i.e. paraphrased the difference between me and Warren is she's a capitalist to her bones), etc. etc. etc.

Perspectives on what is far left is all relative, sure. I mean, I guess if you only declare true government nationalizing industires as far left, then they're not. Is that what you're saying, or is there something I'm missing?

P.S. Cthulhu 2020 for sure

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14870
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1927 on: January 21, 2020, 12:22:18 PM »
You have to understand . . . from a Canadian perspective looking at policies, the Democrats as a whole are center-right.  The Republicans are extreme right.  What Bernie is suggesting is more left wing than the norm in the US, but I wouldn't say he's hard left.

Government control of health care?  That's the norm in most of the developed world.  Free college or nearly free?  Meh.  Seems to be working fine in a lot of countries (Norway, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Slovenia, France).  Higher taxes?  The US has had higher tax rates in it's not particularly socialist past and been very productive.  Strong regulation of industries?  This isn't a left/right thing.  Corporations will do anything they can get away from . . . it's their legally mandated method of operating.  Regulation exists to protect everyone from their excesses.  Eliminating billionaires?  A capitalist society  with free movement between the classes starts to break down when wealth concentration becomes too intensified.  There are examples of prosperous countries following most or all of these ideas.

Far left would be advocating the abolition of private property, state run child rearing centers, nationalizing ownership of all industry, markets with complete government control (not just some regulation).  These are the types of hard left policies shown to damage countries.  I don't see anything close to this from what Bernie's talking about.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2020, 12:26:40 PM by GuitarStv »

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 875
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1928 on: January 21, 2020, 12:48:57 PM »
You have to understand . . . from a Canadian perspective looking at policies, the Democrats as a whole are center-right.  The Republicans are extreme right. 
Nay I say! (As a Canadian).  I consider our conservative party to be barely right wing.  Too much fondness for high house prices and cronyism.

Although rent control might not seem to be a hard left idea, it actually is one when you consider the economic mechanics of it.  Some of the issues you mention are less hard left imo, like socialized education, health care.  "Eliminating" billionaires is definitely hard left.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 410
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1929 on: January 21, 2020, 12:54:13 PM »
You have to understand . . . from a Canadian perspective looking at policies, the Democrats as a whole are center-right.  The Republicans are extreme right.  What Bernie is suggesting is more left wing than the norm in the US, but I wouldn't say he's hard left.

Government control of health care?  That's the norm in most of the developed world.  Free college or nearly free?  Meh.  Seems to be working fine in a lot of countries (Norway, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Slovenia, France).  Higher taxes?  The US has had higher tax rates in it's not particularly socialist past and been very productive.  Strong regulation of industries?  This isn't a left/right thing.  Corporations will do anything they can get away from . . . it's their legally mandated method of operating.  Regulation exists to protect everyone from their excesses.  Eliminating billionaires?  A capitalist society  with free movement between the classes starts to break down when wealth concentration becomes too intensified.  There are examples of prosperous countries following most or all of these ideas.

Far left would be advocating the abolition of private property, state run child rearing centers, nationalizing ownership of all industry, markets with complete government control (not just some regulation).  These are the types of hard left policies shown to damage countries.  I don't see anything close to this from what Bernie's talking about.

OK, so it is simply a difference in perspective. Your far left is certainly what anyone would call far left, I would hope, but to me, it's beyond simply far left. As you said, it damages countries. I would call that more like, I dunno, out of bounds insanity. If you need to go to that level to get more left than what Bernie or Warren are, then I'd say you've proven the point, for my perspective at least, that Bernie and Warren are pretty far left.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14870
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1930 on: January 21, 2020, 01:02:22 PM »
You have to understand . . . from a Canadian perspective looking at policies, the Democrats as a whole are center-right.  The Republicans are extreme right. 
Nay I say! (As a Canadian).  I consider our conservative party to be barely right wing.  Too much fondness for high house prices and cronyism.

I agree!  That's what I was saying . . . our most right wing party isn't much more right wing than the Democrats in the US.


You have to understand . . . from a Canadian perspective looking at policies, the Democrats as a whole are center-right.  The Republicans are extreme right.  What Bernie is suggesting is more left wing than the norm in the US, but I wouldn't say he's hard left.

Government control of health care?  That's the norm in most of the developed world.  Free college or nearly free?  Meh.  Seems to be working fine in a lot of countries (Norway, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Slovenia, France).  Higher taxes?  The US has had higher tax rates in it's not particularly socialist past and been very productive.  Strong regulation of industries?  This isn't a left/right thing.  Corporations will do anything they can get away from . . . it's their legally mandated method of operating.  Regulation exists to protect everyone from their excesses.  Eliminating billionaires?  A capitalist society  with free movement between the classes starts to break down when wealth concentration becomes too intensified.  There are examples of prosperous countries following most or all of these ideas.

Far left would be advocating the abolition of private property, state run child rearing centers, nationalizing ownership of all industry, markets with complete government control (not just some regulation).  These are the types of hard left policies shown to damage countries.  I don't see anything close to this from what Bernie's talking about.

OK, so it is simply a difference in perspective. Your far left is certainly what anyone would call far left, I would hope, but to me, it's beyond simply far left. As you said, it damages countries. I would call that more like, I dunno, out of bounds insanity. If you need to go to that level to get more left than what Bernie or Warren are, then I'd say you've proven the point, for my perspective at least, that Bernie and Warren are pretty far left.

What's often not understood by people from the US is that the right wing is so far right that it skews the whole political spectrum in America . . . the Republican party is has been regularly proposing far right ideas that damage the country (voter suppression, gerrymandering, delegitimizing the media and truth, etc.)

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2717
  • Location: South Korea
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1931 on: January 21, 2020, 01:09:33 PM »
You have to understand . . . from a Canadian perspective looking at policies, the Democrats as a whole are center-right.  The Republicans are extreme right.  What Bernie is suggesting is more left wing than the norm in the US, but I wouldn't say he's hard left.

Government control of health care?  That's the norm in most of the developed world.  Free college or nearly free?  Meh.  Seems to be working fine in a lot of countries (Norway, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Slovenia, France).  Higher taxes?  The US has had higher tax rates in it's not particularly socialist past and been very productive.  Strong regulation of industries?  This isn't a left/right thing.  Corporations will do anything they can get away from . . . it's their legally mandated method of operating.  Regulation exists to protect everyone from their excesses.  Eliminating billionaires?  A capitalist society  with free movement between the classes starts to break down when wealth concentration becomes too intensified.  There are examples of prosperous countries following most or all of these ideas.

Far left would be advocating the abolition of private property, state run child rearing centers, nationalizing ownership of all industry, markets with complete government control (not just some regulation).  These are the types of hard left policies shown to damage countries.  I don't see anything close to this from what Bernie's talking about.

I suppose it can't get more Left than what you're describing, but it's all relative. Is anyone more Left than Sanders? If not, then he's the Far Left. 

Regarding the rent control being small potatoes, I see it as a symptom or example of his overall beliefs.  One of my friends in California received a text from his campaign which could be summed up as "It's all the corporations' fault. Will you vote Sanders?"  I see him in speeches rail on this same point over and over. If it smells like capitalism, he's against it and he doesn't get much more nuanced than that. The couple debates that I watched that's all the said shouted.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4143
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1932 on: January 21, 2020, 01:32:53 PM »
I've definitely been "accused" of being a capitalist by Sanders supporters once it became clear I was backing a different candidate from them, and that their views and mine diverged on a number of topics.

It's a weird experience because from their perspective it was clearly intended as an insult but from mine it seemed to mostly confirm how different their world view was from mine own.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1425
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1933 on: January 21, 2020, 01:33:19 PM »

- SNIP -

What's often not understood by people from the US is that the right wing is so far right that it skews the whole political spectrum in America . . . the Republican party is has been regularly proposing far right ideas that damage the country (voter suppression, gerrymandering, delegitimizing the media and truth, etc.)

Wrong about the Republican Party:

Just think of all the taxes we are saving by not helping people and not providing future investment in the country. 

Bernie Sanders often proposes that we should be following the policies that the rest of the world has such as actually helping sick people and providing free post secondary education like they do in other countries.  Think a little harder.  The Republicans are doing the same thing.  They are just not using the same countries.  Their policies are leading to a country that is more the norm of the world.  This norm, of course, is to have a small layer of very rich people.  The remaining strata consists of very poor people.  Since all these poor people are in the same situation, it can be considered as fair impartial treatment.  Isn't that what Democracy is all about giving people the same opportunities (or lack thereof).

They have great solutions for housing.  The lead taken by many other countries will again be followed.

https://www.google.com/search?q=slums+in+rio+de+janeiro&sxsrf=ACYBGNS1UL6AbX9iILHamH8ry1R5opZsxg:1579638579807&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=O5hf0sikI4KObM%253A%252CHnOOZ21G5aYZ9M%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kTSz3aIgtUsA2OUrEGfy2YL-aWmSQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjj17CjxJXnAhUqmuAKHUQNC5wQ9QEwAHoECAYQAw&biw=1366&bih=654#imgrc=O5hf0sikI4KObM

They are making the American Dream as proposed by George Carlin a reality.  He said something close to the following about the American dream, "You have to be asleep to believe it."

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 410
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1934 on: January 21, 2020, 02:40:17 PM »
You have to understand . . . from a Canadian perspective looking at policies, the Democrats as a whole are center-right.  The Republicans are extreme right.  What Bernie is suggesting is more left wing than the norm in the US, but I wouldn't say he's hard left.

Government control of health care?  That's the norm in most of the developed world.  Free college or nearly free?  Meh.  Seems to be working fine in a lot of countries (Norway, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Slovenia, France).  Higher taxes?  The US has had higher tax rates in it's not particularly socialist past and been very productive.  Strong regulation of industries?  This isn't a left/right thing.  Corporations will do anything they can get away from . . . it's their legally mandated method of operating.  Regulation exists to protect everyone from their excesses.  Eliminating billionaires?  A capitalist society  with free movement between the classes starts to break down when wealth concentration becomes too intensified.  There are examples of prosperous countries following most or all of these ideas.

Far left would be advocating the abolition of private property, state run child rearing centers, nationalizing ownership of all industry, markets with complete government control (not just some regulation).  These are the types of hard left policies shown to damage countries.  I don't see anything close to this from what Bernie's talking about.

OK, so it is simply a difference in perspective. Your far left is certainly what anyone would call far left, I would hope, but to me, it's beyond simply far left. As you said, it damages countries. I would call that more like, I dunno, out of bounds insanity. If you need to go to that level to get more left than what Bernie or Warren are, then I'd say you've proven the point, for my perspective at least, that Bernie and Warren are pretty far left.

What's often not understood by people from the US is that the right wing is so far right that it skews the whole political spectrum in America . . . the Republican party is has been regularly proposing far right ideas that damage the country (voter suppression, gerrymandering, delegitimizing the media and truth, etc.)

Oh, I understand what you're saying. I've heard it before about the right going more right and all that jazz, and I'm not saying I completely disagree with it, but you still haven't given a single example of how Bernie is not far left except to say he's not for nationalizing all industry or denying private property. Well, yeah, he's not for that, so that is true, but I can still adequately call him far left - or maybe far "ish" left if that makes you feel better if the only examples you can give that are more left than him are like abolishing private property. Can you give other examples of policies that are more left than him than these ridiculous ones...?
« Last Edit: January 21, 2020, 02:51:28 PM by Wolfpack Mustachian »

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 875
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1935 on: January 21, 2020, 03:22:00 PM »
You have to understand . . . from a Canadian perspective looking at policies, the Democrats as a whole are center-right.  The Republicans are extreme right. 
Nay I say! (As a Canadian).  I consider our conservative party to be barely right wing.  Too much fondness for high house prices and cronyism.

I agree!  That's what I was saying . . . our most right wing party isn't much more right wing than the Democrats in the US.

That I agree with, but I don't really consider the republicans in the US to be extreme right.  I think there's a pretty big deviation within the GOP but there are extremes within it. 

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4267
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1936 on: January 21, 2020, 03:59:42 PM »
You have to understand . . . from a Canadian perspective looking at policies, the Democrats as a whole are center-right.  The Republicans are extreme right. 
Nay I say! (As a Canadian).  I consider our conservative party to be barely right wing.  Too much fondness for high house prices and cronyism.

I agree!  That's what I was saying . . . our most right wing party isn't much more right wing than the Democrats in the US.

The Canadian Nationalist Party is an official federal party and they're slightly to the right of US Republicans. Granted, they don't have many (any?) seats.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14870
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1937 on: January 21, 2020, 05:00:46 PM »
You have to understand . . . from a Canadian perspective looking at policies, the Democrats as a whole are center-right.  The Republicans are extreme right. 
Nay I say! (As a Canadian).  I consider our conservative party to be barely right wing.  Too much fondness for high house prices and cronyism.

I agree!  That's what I was saying . . . our most right wing party isn't much more right wing than the Democrats in the US.

The Canadian Nationalist Party is an official federal party and they're slightly to the right of US Republicans. Granted, they don't have many (any?) seats.

In Canada, nationally we've really only got three parties . . . the conservatives, liberals, and NDP.  There's also the PQ, but they only exist in Quebec as they're a single issue pro-Quebec party.  I guess you could technically count the Green Party as well, but they're still pretty fringe.

Beyond those groups there's nothing serious.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 410
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1938 on: January 22, 2020, 08:14:23 AM »
You have to understand . . . from a Canadian perspective looking at policies, the Democrats as a whole are center-right.  The Republicans are extreme right.  What Bernie is suggesting is more left wing than the norm in the US, but I wouldn't say he's hard left.

Government control of health care?  That's the norm in most of the developed world.  Free college or nearly free?  Meh.  Seems to be working fine in a lot of countries (Norway, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Slovenia, France).  Higher taxes?  The US has had higher tax rates in it's not particularly socialist past and been very productive.  Strong regulation of industries?  This isn't a left/right thing.  Corporations will do anything they can get away from . . . it's their legally mandated method of operating.  Regulation exists to protect everyone from their excesses.  Eliminating billionaires?  A capitalist society  with free movement between the classes starts to break down when wealth concentration becomes too intensified.  There are examples of prosperous countries following most or all of these ideas.

Far left would be advocating the abolition of private property, state run child rearing centers, nationalizing ownership of all industry, markets with complete government control (not just some regulation).  These are the types of hard left policies shown to damage countries.  I don't see anything close to this from what Bernie's talking about.

OK, so it is simply a difference in perspective. Your far left is certainly what anyone would call far left, I would hope, but to me, it's beyond simply far left. As you said, it damages countries. I would call that more like, I dunno, out of bounds insanity. If you need to go to that level to get more left than what Bernie or Warren are, then I'd say you've proven the point, for my perspective at least, that Bernie and Warren are pretty far left.

What's often not understood by people from the US is that the right wing is so far right that it skews the whole political spectrum in America . . . the Republican party is has been regularly proposing far right ideas that damage the country (voter suppression, gerrymandering, delegitimizing the media and truth, etc.)

Oh, I understand what you're saying. I've heard it before about the right going more right and all that jazz, and I'm not saying I completely disagree with it, but you still haven't given a single example of how Bernie is not far left except to say he's not for nationalizing all industry or denying private property. Well, yeah, he's not for that, so that is true, but I can still adequately call him far left - or maybe far "ish" left if that makes you feel better if the only examples you can give that are more left than him are like abolishing private property. Can you give other examples of policies that are more left than him than these ridiculous ones...?

I'll rephrase this, because this was a bit aggressive and I'm genuinely wanting an answer if you have one. What is far left in a left leaning country beyond what Bernie is saying. Are there far left parties that genuinely call for abolishment of private property and the like? Or are the left parties just for status quo because everything is left? Or is there some in between the two?

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4143
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1939 on: January 22, 2020, 08:31:50 AM »
I'll rephrase this, because this was a bit aggressive and I'm genuinely wanting an answer if you have one. What is far left in a left leaning country beyond what Bernie is saying. Are there far left parties that genuinely call for abolishment of private property and the like? Or are the left parties just for status quo because everything is left? Or is there some in between the two?

One thing that seems common is that even in countries to the left of the USA, the further left parties can always call for the nationalization of different industries. So they're not just arguing for maintaining the status quo.

For example in the recently concluded UK election, Labor (biggest left wing party) was calling for the nationalization of the british railroads and internet service providers (source).

They also were going seize 10% of the ownership of each large company in the the UK and turn it over to the employees of that company (in phases over 10 years), although the UK government would have gotten a share of the dividends paid to those shares they'd transferred to company employees. (Source)

While not part of their party platform in 2019, the leadership of labor also talked about introducing a right for tenants to buy the houses they were renting from their landlords are below market prices (source).

Now in fairness Labor also went down in flames in the 2019 election in which they proposed these policies, but I worry more and more we may see the same thing happen with democratic party in 2020, which I never would have guessed when Trump was first elected.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14870
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1940 on: January 22, 2020, 08:43:31 AM »
You have to understand . . . from a Canadian perspective looking at policies, the Democrats as a whole are center-right.  The Republicans are extreme right.  What Bernie is suggesting is more left wing than the norm in the US, but I wouldn't say he's hard left.

Government control of health care?  That's the norm in most of the developed world.  Free college or nearly free?  Meh.  Seems to be working fine in a lot of countries (Norway, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Slovenia, France).  Higher taxes?  The US has had higher tax rates in it's not particularly socialist past and been very productive.  Strong regulation of industries?  This isn't a left/right thing.  Corporations will do anything they can get away from . . . it's their legally mandated method of operating.  Regulation exists to protect everyone from their excesses.  Eliminating billionaires?  A capitalist society  with free movement between the classes starts to break down when wealth concentration becomes too intensified.  There are examples of prosperous countries following most or all of these ideas.

Far left would be advocating the abolition of private property, state run child rearing centers, nationalizing ownership of all industry, markets with complete government control (not just some regulation).  These are the types of hard left policies shown to damage countries.  I don't see anything close to this from what Bernie's talking about.

OK, so it is simply a difference in perspective. Your far left is certainly what anyone would call far left, I would hope, but to me, it's beyond simply far left. As you said, it damages countries. I would call that more like, I dunno, out of bounds insanity. If you need to go to that level to get more left than what Bernie or Warren are, then I'd say you've proven the point, for my perspective at least, that Bernie and Warren are pretty far left.

What's often not understood by people from the US is that the right wing is so far right that it skews the whole political spectrum in America . . . the Republican party is has been regularly proposing far right ideas that damage the country (voter suppression, gerrymandering, delegitimizing the media and truth, etc.)

Oh, I understand what you're saying. I've heard it before about the right going more right and all that jazz, and I'm not saying I completely disagree with it, but you still haven't given a single example of how Bernie is not far left except to say he's not for nationalizing all industry or denying private property. Well, yeah, he's not for that, so that is true, but I can still adequately call him far left - or maybe far "ish" left if that makes you feel better if the only examples you can give that are more left than him are like abolishing private property. Can you give other examples of policies that are more left than him than these ridiculous ones...?

I'll rephrase this, because this was a bit aggressive and I'm genuinely wanting an answer if you have one. What is far left in a left leaning country beyond what Bernie is saying. Are there far left parties that genuinely call for abolishment of private property and the like? Or are the left parties just for status quo because everything is left? Or is there some in between the two?


I think that Bernie would pretty comfortably fit into the NDP in Canada - they're also Democratic Socialists, and his ideas wouldn't seem particularly radical or unusual coming from that party.  Some of the party is more centrist and some is definitely further left than Bernie.

They've historically fought to minimize wealth disparity, for higher minimum wages, for better health care access, increased regulation of industry, for more grants/funding for education, for increased social services available to the public, higher corporate taxes, etc.  At their last caucus they've also called for more discussion about nationalization of various industries - oil, automobile, bank, and insurance companies (http://ndpsocialists.ca/socialist-caucus-resolutions-2018-federal-ndp-convention/).

The NDP are left wing, sure . . . but they're not particularly extreme in their views or actions.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1941 on: January 24, 2020, 11:37:30 AM »
Turning into a two candidate race in Bernie v. Biden.  I think Pete needs to win Iowa (or top 2) to have a chance to stay in the race.  His national numbers now trail Bloomberg (LOL).  He needs a top 2 Iowa finish and top 3 NH finish to build enough momentum to stay in the race.  Warren is probably in the same boat as she's faded into a solid 3rd both nationally and in the early states - she needs a top 2 finish somewhere early.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4143
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1942 on: January 26, 2020, 01:53:26 PM »
Three new general election polls this week: ABC, Emerson, and Fox. Averages across the three polls:

Biden 28.0%
Sanders 24.7%
Warren 12.7%
Bloomberg 8.3%
Yang 6.7%
Buttigieg 6.0%
Klobuchar: 3.3%

Yang pulling ahead of Buttigieg nationally is new this week, and seems to be driven more than an increase in Yangís support than any decline in Buttigiegís. 

It's hard to see how any of the top three would actually put together a majority of the democratic primary electorate/delegates. Itís being reported Bidenís crowds in Iowa may be smaller this year than at this point in the 2008 caucus (where he finished 5th behind Obama, Edwards, Clinton, and Richardson). Everyone keeps expecting Biden's campaign to collapse and so far it hasn't but he also hasn't been able to break though to the point of winning the support of many new voters who weren't supporting him all the way from when he first announced.

Sanders had the same problem for most of the campaign with a ceiling around 18-20% which is about where he was when he first announced, but has finally broken through that cap by a little. Still most people I meet either already support Bernie or cannot envision ever supporting him. I could be living in a bubble though. Are there folks here who are on the fence about support Sanders?

Warren has been able to win over new supporters (growing from 5-6% to ~25%) but since then she's going in the wrong direction, losing supporters instead of winning them over.

Interesting times we live in.

JetBlast

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1943 on: January 27, 2020, 10:14:33 AM »
Iowa is going to be very interesting due to the viability rules for earning delegates, with generally 15% support required to earn a delegate from a caucus site. Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, and Warren all seem likely to make this number at most sites. Though any of them could underperform with some demographics and have viability issues of their own in certain precincts.

The question is where to supporters of candidates like Klobuchar, Yang, Bloomberg, Gabbard, and Steyer go if their candidate doesnít reach viability in the first round. They have the option to either switch candidates or stick with their own, hoping to lure others to their side and hit the viability threshold. Makes for a far more interesting contest than the primaries most states hold.


pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1425
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1944 on: January 27, 2020, 10:28:08 AM »
I guess Yang was a Bernie supporter last go-around in 2016.  I happen to like both of them.  Besides his policies, I see Yang having a large amount of charisma.  When interviewers quiz him his attitude always seems to be positive.  It's contagious.  I would predict his supporters would jump to Bernie or Warren if pushed out.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4143
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1945 on: January 27, 2020, 10:59:04 AM »
In the Emerson poll that came out last night they had breakdowns for each of Iowa's four congressional districts. Huge margins of error since they are calculated from smaller subsets of the same dataset used for the statewide poll, but it looks like:

IA1: Biden, Sanders, and Klobuchar should easily hit 15% but the others (including Warren, Yang, and Buttigieg) are below the threshold district wide and may be nonviable in a lot of precincts.

IA2: Only Biden and Sanders clearly above 15%. Warren and Buttigieg are close, everyone else super low.

IA3: Only Biden and Sanders clearly above 15%. Klobuchar is close.

IA4: Only Biden and Sanders clearly above 15%, Yang, Warren and Buttigieg are close.

If a candidate gets above 15% of state delegate equivalents in any congressional district (after the viability threshold and realignment in individual precincts), they'll receive at least one of Iowa's delegates to the national convention (and an automatic entrance to the next debate, although everyone listed has already qualified based on polls).

Since Sanders and Biden are the current frontrunners and have dramatically different policies and perceived strengths/weaknesses, my guess is most people caucusing for other candidates are doing so because they really don't like either of the top two options. Could see some odd marriages of convenience on caucus night. Klobuchar supporters switching over to Buttigieg to make him viable or vice versa?

JetBlast

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1946 on: January 27, 2020, 11:32:17 AM »
The Emerson and Suffolk statewide polls that both came out yesterday have some big differences, though thatís not totally surprising since they polled 450 and 500 likely voters respectively. Pretty small sample sizes. The Suffolk seems closer to other recent polls.

Emerson

Sanders: 30%
Biden: 21%
Klobuchar: 13%
Warren: 11%
Buttigieg: 10%
Steyer: 5%
Yang: 5%
Gabbard 5%
Delaney: 1%

Suffolk

Biden: 25%
Sanders: 19%
Buttigieg: 18%
Warren: 13%
Klobuchar: 6%
Yang: 3%
Steyer: 2%
Gabbard: 1%





OzzieandHarriet

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1947 on: January 27, 2020, 03:20:21 PM »
Hereís a thoughtful argument against Bernie (unless you want Trump to win, I guess):

https://thebulwark.com/this-is-how-trump-would-destroy-bernie-sanders/

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1074
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1948 on: January 27, 2020, 05:20:32 PM »
Hereís a thoughtful argument against Bernie (unless you want Trump to win, I guess):

https://thebulwark.com/this-is-how-trump-would-destroy-bernie-sanders/
Fairly devastating critique, though such critiques do not matter to voters. Nor will it matter that (if taken literally) Sanders is proposing a government that will consume 70% of GDP, more than 20 percentage points higher than the oft-admired Scandinavian countries and more than double current spending levels. If we should not take Sanders literally then we can perhaps forgive Trump voters for taking him seriously but not literally in 2016, and perhaps again, in 2020.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1949 on: January 27, 2020, 06:30:51 PM »
Hereís a thoughtful argument against Bernie (unless you want Trump to win, I guess):

https://thebulwark.com/this-is-how-trump-would-destroy-bernie-sanders/
Fairly devastating critique, though such critiques do not matter to voters. Nor will it matter that (if taken literally) Sanders is proposing a government that will consume 70% of GDP, more than 20 percentage points higher than the oft-admired Scandinavian countries and more than double current spending levels. If we should not take Sanders literally then we can perhaps forgive Trump voters for taking him seriously but not literally in 2016, and perhaps again, in 2020.

This guy has quite the right-wing bias.

1. He talks about the 30-40T M4A would cost over the next decade, but very slyly admits that "the $3 trillion saved by state governments under Medicare For All", and doesn't mention what percentage of GDP the US will spend on healthcare without M4A (hint: it's more than 30-40T)

2. He doesn't factor in how Bernie's plan would affect GDP compared to the status quo. You see Friedman's piece on how Bernie's plan could really affect GDP for the better. (2016) http://www.populareconomics.org/what-would-sanders-do-the-dynamic-effects-of-his-economic-program/

Do I think Bernie's plans would cause a 5% GDP growth for the next decade? No, but these policies on their very face would absolutely increase GDP beyond what this author seems to be ignoring.