2020 Elections

[marshwiggle]

Trump won 2016 with 46% of the vote; Clinton had 48%. 45% can absolutely carry you over the finish line, especially when your party is whipping up support and drumming out turnout. Hell, you're Canadian: 30-33% is all it takes here!

Besides which, I'm not sure how much we should read into poll anyway. It's asking an abstract question, rather than the concrete question you're using it to inform. And the question it's asking is about supporting someone who's your party's nominee and ticks the relevant box, so there's no surprise that Republicans wouldn't want a socialist nominee (17%); Democrats, by contrast, are pretty OK with it (76%). Independents are pretty evenly split (45%). Here's the thing, though: while we know Americans don't trust the 'socialist' label, we also know they overwhelmingly favour socialist policies when they're presented to them independently.

Exactly. So stop saying "socialist" and say "social democrat" instead! Why alienate potential allies by using a term they find offensive when you can use an inoffensive term and get them to listen to your policy ideas which they will probably support??!!

For people who are, in theory, trying to win votes, they seem pretty cavalier about blowing off so many. (AND these are people who are upset because they CAME SO CLOSE last time.  So again, why risk that AGAIN just by using stupid language??!!)

[mythbuster]

Marshwiggle, my suggestion is that they just start calling them democratic policies. Remind everyone that it's the DNC that brought you Social Security and Medicare. Right now the idea of doing much anything "for the common good" is likely to get gaslit. So just avoid it entirely and stay on brand.

[marshwiggle]

Marshwiggle, my suggestion is that they just start calling them democratic policies. Remind everyone that it's the DNC that brought you Social Security and Medicare. Right now the idea of doing much anything "for the common good" is likely to get gaslit. So just avoid it entirely and stay on brand.

With identity politics, it's not clear that there is such a thing as "common good". Anything which claims to benefit "everyone" will therefore benefit both "victims" and "oppressors", and thus be unacceptable.

[Myword]

How about Nancy Pelosi for president?

[mamselle]

I've been saying that.

In a heartbeat.

M.

[Parasaurolophus]

With identity politics, it's not clear that there is such a thing as "common good". Anything which claims to benefit "everyone" will therefore benefit both "victims" and "oppressors", and thus be unacceptable.

You've got that wrong. It's the centrists in the race who are complaining about universalist policies. Free college? God forbid that a millionaire who now has to pay a lot more in taxes to support the program should also be able to send their children to college for free! Much better to tax him less and employ thousands of bureaucrats to apply onerous, inscrutable, and often unfair means-testing! Healthcare for everyone? But what about all those fancy healthcare plans which you won't need (or be able) to buy any more? It would be better to have an insolvent option you could buy into, whose network of coverage would be shittier, whose bargaining power would be nil, and which would re-introduce an individual mandate--costing up to $7000!

How about Nancy Pelosi for president?

I don't think that politicians who are less popular than Clinton are a great idea. Nor is it a good idea to drop in someone who hasn't participated at all in the race.

Maybe I'm wrong, and she's marginally more popular than Clinton. But parachuting her in would be a cataclysmic mistake. Almost as bad as letting Bloomberg buy the nomination.

[mamselle]

Well, I do agree with the optics at this point.

But she's shown the most savvy, the most awareness of policy and the most willingness to speak truth to (idiotic) power.

To the degree it is a popularity contest, yeah, I suppose so.

But she has the governmental chops to do some good in the world.

M.

[apostrophe]

Pelosi seems to be very effective at the job she has, as is McConnell from a certain point of view.

With identity politics, it's not clear that there is such a thing as "common good". Anything which claims to benefit "everyone" will therefore benefit both "victims" and "oppressors", and thus be unacceptable.

You've got that wrong. It's the centrists in the race who are complaining about universalist policies. Free college? God forbid that a millionaire who now has to pay a lot more in taxes to support the program should also be able to send their children to college for free! Much better to tax him less and employ thousands of bureaucrats to apply onerous, inscrutable, and often unfair means-testing! Healthcare for everyone? But what about all those fancy healthcare plans which you won't need (or be able) to buy any more? It would be better to have an insolvent option you could buy into, whose network of coverage would be shittier, whose bargaining power would be nil, and which would re-introduce an individual mandate--costing up to $7000!

I enjoyed that, heh heh.

[mahagonny]

"Political correctness functions as an emergent system that can push new ideas even when few people actually believe in them."   and

'"Brexit-supporting Paul Embery, for instance, was kicked out of the Fire Brigades Union for criticizing the union's position on Brexit. This, they alleged, made him an accomplice of the "nationalist Right" and thus a "disgrace to the traditions of the Labour movement." No wonder few on the Left are willing to move right on culture.'

https://www.lawliberty.org/2020/02/13/why-the-left-is-losing/

[marshwiggle]

With identity politics, it's not clear that there is such a thing as "common good". Anything which claims to benefit "everyone" will therefore benefit both "victims" and "oppressors", and thus be unacceptable.

You've got that wrong. It's the centrists in the race who are complaining about universalist policies. Free college? God forbid that a millionaire who now has to pay a lot more in taxes to support the program should also be able to send their children to college for free!

There are about 17 million students enrolled in college in the U.S., according to Google. So, if each student pays about $10k per year, that works out to and annual cost of 170 BILLION dollars a year. That works out to a tax increase of about $500 per person. Do you really think that's possible by only increasing taxes for "millionaires"? (And if so, do you think sending their own kids to college free will remotely pay for that????)

[Parasaurolophus]

There are about 17 million students enrolled in college in the U.S., according to Google. So, if each student pays about $10k per year, that works out to and annual cost of 170 BILLION dollars a year. That works out to a tax increase of about $500 per person. Do you really think that's possible by only increasing taxes for "millionaires"? (And if so, do you think sending their own kids to college free will remotely pay for that????)

If I have a choice between paying $500 more in taxes and paying $10 000 a year in tuition for four years, obviously the tax increase is the rational choice.

Or: if all 18.6 million American millionaires paid $9700, then that's your $180 biliion right there.


But remember, these plans also explicitly aim to reduce tuition and fees, just like M4A and per-unit pricing. And IIRC, the plans are to make public institutions tuition-free (possibly only in-state tuition? I don't recall, and it probably depends on whose plan we're talking about), which brings the average tuition cost down significantly.

[marshwiggle]

There are about 17 million students enrolled in college in the U.S., according to Google. So, if each student pays about $10k per year, that works out to and annual cost of 170 BILLION dollars a year. That works out to a tax increase of about $500 per person. Do you really think that's possible by only increasing taxes for "millionaires"? (And if so, do you think sending their own kids to college free will remotely pay for that????)

If I have a choice between paying $500 more in taxes and paying $10 000 a year in tuition for four years, obviously the tax increase is the rational choice.

That's $500 for everyone for life. People earning minimum wage probably won't be keen on $500 extra in taxes.

Or: if all 18.6 million American millionaires paid $9700, then that's your $180 biliion right there.

How many of those "millionaires" are retired people with less than 5 million that has to cover all of their expenses including care for another 30 or 40 years potentially? $10000 a year extra in taxes for them would be very problematic.

[spork]

The average U.S. voter is far more concerned about things they already have being taken away than possibly getting things they don't have now. Especially if the latter means immigrants and poor people also getting those things.

[Parasaurolophus]

That's $500 for everyone for life. People earning minimum wage probably won't be keen on $500 extra in taxes.

Which, as you well know, they wouldn't have to pay. Nobody who's advocating for free college is also saying a flat tax is needed to pay for it.

It's interesting, however, that some government activities never need to be financially accountable--only benefits (especially universal ones) do. If the US hadn't invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, that's $2.5ish TRILLION that could have been used for education or healthcare. How was that money raised?

How many of those "millionaires" are retired people with less than 5 million that has to cover all of their expenses including care for another 30 or 40 years potentially? $10000 a year extra in taxes for them would be very problematic.

Cry me a river and work until 65-75 like the rest of us, who then make do with meagre payments from investments, social security, and employer pensions (if we get them). If you have $2.5 mil socked away earning 2% interest, that still leaves you with $40k a year just from the interest. Plus your pension, etc.

But it's silly for us to just postulate wildly. Let's pick a plan and look at its costing mechanisms instead.

[marshwiggle]

That's $500 for everyone for life. People earning minimum wage probably won't be keen on $500 extra in taxes.

Which, as you well know, they wouldn't have to pay. Nobody who's advocating for free college is also saying a flat tax is needed to pay for it.

It's interesting, however, that some government activities never need to be financially accountable--only benefits (especially universal ones) do. If the US hadn't invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, that's $2.5ish TRILLION that could have been used for education or healthcare. How was that money raised?

How many of those "millionaires" are retired people with less than 5 million that has to cover all of their expenses including care for another 30 or 40 years potentially? $10000 a year extra in taxes for them would be very problematic.

Cry me a river and work until 65-75 like the rest of us, who then make do with meagre payments from investments, social security, and employer pensions (if we get them). If you have $2.5 mil socked away earning 2% interest, that still leaves you with $40k a year just from the interest. Plus your pension, etc.

A decent retirement residence (WITHOUT nursing care) runs $5k per MONTH around here. Any care needed on top of that could multiply that number.