2020 Elections

[mamselle]

So, if the German bank releases the tax docs, what does that do to the prognostications...?

M.

[ergative]

Farewell, Gillibrand. The 538 politics podcast crew were much more enthusiastic about her than basically anyone else.

[secundem_artem]

Farewell, Gillibrand. The 538 politics podcast crew were much more enthusiastic about her than basically anyone else.

Good.  Al Franken may well have deserved a censure ruling from the Senate.  But Gillibrand wanted to burnish her #metoo street cred and basically forced Franken to resign.  Ain't karma a beeatch?

[FishProf]

I always vote for whom I want to win because I don't believe in "you only really have two choices on this big slate of candidates, so vote for the lesser evil".

Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it isn't true. That's the way the system work in the US. Pretending it isn't so is (literally) throwing your vote away. But you get the benefit of feeling better about yourself, so there is that.

If a third party candidate gets 5% of the popular vote, that party becomes eligible for public funding in the next presidential election.  I'm playing the long game.

[Descartes]

I always vote for whom I want to win because I don't believe in "you only really have two choices on this big slate of candidates, so vote for the lesser evil".

Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it isn't true. That's the way the system work in the US. Pretending it isn't so is (literally) throwing your vote away. But you get the benefit of feeling better about yourself, so there is that.

If a third party candidate gets 5% of the popular vote, that party becomes eligible for public funding in the next presidential election.  I'm playing the long game.

And what are the chances of that?

[FishProf]

I always vote for whom I want to win because I don't believe in "you only really have two choices on this big slate of candidates, so vote for the lesser evil".

Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it isn't true. That's the way the system work in the US. Pretending it isn't so is (literally) throwing your vote away. But you get the benefit of feeling better about yourself, so there is that.

If a third party candidate gets 5% of the popular vote, that party becomes eligible for public funding in the next presidential election.  I'm playing the long game.

And what are the chances of that?

Well, it has happened 21 times since 1788.  So, greater than zero.  Of course, if folks continue to call that "throwing away your vote" then it is less likely to happen. 

And it happened in the last elections.  Quote from Wikipedia: "The national total for third party candidates and write-ins was well over 5%. In Utah, Evan McMullin received over 20% of the vote, while in Vermont Bernie Sanders received over 5% of the vote despite not appearing on the ballot. Green candidate Jill Stein and Libertarian Gary Johnson received over a million votes each nationwide".

However, they split those votes so no one party cleared the threshold.

[spork]

Letter to the editor of Bangor Daily News -- unfavorable comparison of Susan Collins with Margaret Chase Smith: https://bangordailynews.com/2019/08/30/opinion/letters/saturday-august-31-2019-differences-between-smith-and-collins-power-lines-through-our-state-internet-investment/.

Also Isakson of Georgia is quitting at the end of the year, so both Georgia U.S. Senate seats will be up for grabs in 2020.

[bioteacher]

I think the most important thing is that people go to the polls and vote.

I will not tell them how to vote. I want them to do at least minimal research on their options, such as a local chapter of league of women voters website what will put up information about each candidate. Do your homework and vote your conscience. That's all I ask.

The only wasted vote is the one not cast because you didn't show up.

[polly_mer]

PollyMer...."have my fingers crossed for a few democratic candidates who would be good enough if they get that far.

Would you share the names of these candidates?

Sure.

Pete Buttigieg is a good Midwesterner who has military service and experience leading a big enough, viewpoint-diverse enough collection of people that he's had to learn how to negotiate and keep the bigger picture in view.  I don't agree with everything Pete proposes, but I also don't think some of the more extreme things he proposes have any chance of passing.  I like how Chasten is all in as a fairly traditional political spouse stumping across the country as the personal face with a steady stream of social media that is pretty successful at telling me what I want to hear in terms of Pete being a real person who just wants to serve his country.

Amy Klobuchar is another good Midwesterner who mentions national defense high enough on a small enough list of priorities that she's credible to me in that area.  She has experience at the federal level and would likely be able to draw on a good Rolodex to staff an excellent cabinet.

Julian Castro has a good message with "America isn't just my home and my country — it's always been a promise for a better life."  As someone who also came from very modest beginnings, Castro's story resonates.  Castro's small list of important issues include domestic security concerns without seizing on one easy (and definitely wrong) solution, as well as concerns for the future of wildlife, lead abatement, and the future of indigenous communities.  Castro also has experience as mayor and city council member where negotiation and big picture will matter.

Cory Booker is fourth on the list because he's less compelling as a candidate, but he also has national security on a long list of issues as well as mayoral experience.

I am disheartened by all the current front runners because they won't be a change for the better.  They've been part of the system for decades.  If they were really going to make big changes, then they've had plenty of opportunities to do so.  The front runners aren't even very good at telling me what I'd like to hear as a Midwesterner at heart with a lot of sympathy for the poor-because-they-never-had-a-chance.  I'm watching social media accounts in hopes the front runners could pull it together better than what shows up on the news and it's just sad.

I'll just put it out there that I often don't vote for the lesser of two evils in part because I often can't really tell which one is supposed to be the lesser and neither D/R candidate is truly going to ruin the country to the point that we have death squads roaming the streets and mass starvation due to hoarding.  Septuagenarian, lifelong members of the system (and Trump is one because his money is worth nothing if America really becomes a third-world country) do not radically transform the system because the system works for them in ways that it doesn't work for many.

[ciao_yall]

I think the most important thing is that people go to the polls and vote.

I will not tell them how to vote. I want them to do at least minimal research on their options, such as a local chapter of league of women voters website what will put up information about each candidate. Do your homework and vote your conscience. That's all I ask.

The only wasted vote is the one not cast because you didn't show up.

^ This.

[polly_mer]

Vox continues its coverage of all frontrunners on a particular issue with an overview of labor proposed policies: https://www.vox.com/2019/9/5/20847614/2020-democrats-labor-unions-worker-platforms

I find it fascinating that as right-to-work has been making progress state-by-state (even Michigan per https://nrtwc.org/facts/state-right-to-work-timeline-2016/) as rank-and-file Americans push back against unresponsive unions, Democrats are doubling down on unions for all instead of unions where unions would help workers (e.g., very similar job duties where agreement can be reached on how long a task will take for an experienced worker).  Per the Vox article, only 6% of private sector employees are unionized.  That's probably far too low in some sectors including sub-minimum-wage jobs; sector-by-sector unionization makes sense for some of those jobs to promote a new norm.  For historical perspective, peak union membership in the US was only 35% of workers (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/30/union-membership-2/ ).

However, I expect people to come forward to point out that a minimum wage of $15/h is much more likely to accelerate automation of certain jobs, especially in places where $15/h at full-time, year-round employment (~$30k) is currently the median household income, than helping current employees in that job category.  Even in my current small town, self-serve kiosks at restaurants and in the grocery store have sprung up, mostly in response to a local labor shortage even for the unionized grocery checkers.  The technology exists to replace repetitive tasks that don't require human thought and national chains are likely to continue to roll out that technology.

[ergative]

However, I expect people to come forward to point out that a minimum wage of $15/h is much more likely to accelerate automation of certain jobs, especially in places where $15/h at full-time, year-round employment (~$30k) is currently the median household income, than helping current employees in that job category.  Even in my current small town, self-serve kiosks at restaurants and in the grocery store have sprung up, mostly in response to a local labor shortage even for the unionized grocery checkers.  The technology exists to replace repetitive tasks that don't require human thought and national chains are likely to continue to roll out that technology.

Given how many people need to work two minimum-wage jobs to get by, automization isn't necessarily a problem. I'm willing to bet that someone with two minimum-wage jobs would be pretty happy to have one $15-an-hour job instead. So for people in that demographic, a 50% switchover from service jobs to automation is a pretty good trade.

[polly_mer]

However, I expect people to come forward to point out that a minimum wage of $15/h is much more likely to accelerate automation of certain jobs, especially in places where $15/h at full-time, year-round employment (~$30k) is currently the median household income, than helping current employees in that job category.  Even in my current small town, self-serve kiosks at restaurants and in the grocery store have sprung up, mostly in response to a local labor shortage even for the unionized grocery checkers.  The technology exists to replace repetitive tasks that don't require human thought and national chains are likely to continue to roll out that technology.

Given how many people need to work two minimum-wage jobs to get by, automization isn't necessarily a problem. I'm willing to bet that someone with two minimum-wage jobs would be pretty happy to have one $15-an-hour job instead. So for people in that demographic, a 50% switchover from service jobs to automation is a pretty good trade.

Perhaps I was unclear:  many of the people currently working two minimum wage jobs will end up with zero jobs as the tasks either go to robots or are foisted onto self-service by the customers.  Having workers be expensive will accelerate eliminating the humans for tasks that are easy to automate or are easy enough to make the public do.  Back offices used to have tons of clerks; now we enter our own class registrations, book orders, and travel expenses.

In addition, jobs that currently pay $30k are unlikely to get a big raise.  That means entry level professionals like K-12 teachers will only be making minimum wage, which seems like a bad way to recruit more teachers to the neediest areas.

[Parasaurolophus]

Regardless, a $12 000 UBI that replaces SNAP, SSI, etc. isn't going to be the solution, especially when it's funded by a VAT that gets passed on to the consumer.

(That said, I'm not at all against VATs!)

[spork]

Regardless, a $12 000 UBI that replaces SNAP, SSI, etc. isn't going to be the solution, especially when it's funded by a VAT that gets passed on to the consumer.

(That said, I'm not at all against VATs!)

On the subject of automation and UBI, Andrew Yang has been profiled by The New York Times and was a guest on WBUR's On Point. In other words, he's getting more free publicity now that he's outlasted some of the other (former) Dem candidates. He makes self-deprecating remarks, in a humorous way, so I doubt he's afflicted by the kind of narcissistic arrogance that Trump has.