2016 Election Thread

[DaveW]

 

 

I don't think it'd be extortion. Bernie as VP would signify to his supporters that Clinton is willing to listen to those left of her and put someone in place to steer her in that direction when possible. I think that'd mean a lot to the 45% of people who are afraid of Clinton, her hawkishness, and centrism.

45% of people aren't afraid of Clinton, her centrism etc. They just preferred Bernie more for whatever reason.

 

When Obama beat Hilary his lead at this stage of the game was significantly less than Hilary's over Bernie's. Tensions are still heated now, but people will always rally around the party nominee for the most part, of course there will be the very vocal minority that won't, but that won't really matter anyways. Do you really think Hilary won't win Oregon, Washington, etc?

[DaveW]

 

 

I hope Hillary goes this route (putting a progressive liberal on the ticket) as opposed to gaming swing states or picking a white guy to the right of her.    I know people are cynical of the two-women ticket, but I think Warren makes a lot of sense as a bridge to Bernie's supporters.

Yeah, I think Warren would make an excellent choice and would be a potential great heir apparent in 8 years.

 

Or any young progressive liberal would make sense, the key to me would be someone the party can rally around in 8 years etc. I think part of people's problem with Hilary is that her running for POTUS was nothing knew, people want fresh faces, not the same faces that ran (and didn't win 8 years ago) This isn't a knock on Hilary at all, and it doesn't bother me, but I think it bothers some people who are always looking for  the next "hope"

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

45% of people aren't afraid of Clinton, her centrism etc. They just preferred Bernie more for whatever reason.

 

When Obama beat Hilary his lead at this stage of the game was significantly less than Hilary's over Bernie's. Tensions are still heated now, but people will always rally around the party nominee for the most part, of course there will be the very vocal minority that won't, but that won't really matter anyways. Do you really think Hilary won't win Oregon, Washington, etc?

Sure, I expect everyone to fall in line over the course of the next few weeks leading up to the convention, just idly asking a question whether Bernie has a shot at VP.

 

A good alternative is Warren, though she comes with her own issues. She's a woman (that shouldn't be an issue but god knows it will be), she's from a firmly Democratic state, and she's old.

[Squirrel]

I don't think it'd be extortion. Bernie as VP would signify to his supporters that Clinton is willing to listen to those left of her and put someone in place to steer her in that direction when possible. I think that'd mean a lot to the 45% of people who are afraid of Clinton, her hawkishness, and centrism.

This idea has been out there. It's not new so I don't think it's zero, but I don't think it's really high, either.

[ashbury]

Warren is less than 2 years younger than Clinton, so viewing the VP slot as a stepping stone seems unlikely. She'll be 75 on election day in 2024.

[Squirrel]

I hope Hillary goes this route (putting a progressive liberal on the ticket) as opposed to gaming swing states or picking a white guy to the right of her.    I know people are cynical of the two-women ticket, but I think Warren makes a lot of sense as a bridge to Bernie's supporters.

Warren won't accept the VP, though, and I'd be really torn to lose her in the Senate where we really NEED her, IMO. I could see her going the route of a young up and comer, but I don't know who that would be. Maybe ... hmm ... is it Castro, from Texas?

[ashbury]

I don't think it'd be extortion. Bernie as VP would signify to his supporters that Clinton is willing to listen to those left of her

So would a full-throated endorsement by Bernie, and at a good deal less cost to her chances. If VP is his goal (which I doubt), a threat to withhold that endorsement if he doesn't get it would be a bad thing.

[Squirrel]

Yeah, I think Warren would make an excellent choice and would be a potential great heir apparent in 8 years.

 

Or any young progressive liberal would make sense, the key to me would be someone the party can rally around in 8 years etc. I think part of people's problem with Hilary is that her running for POTUS was nothing knew, people want fresh faces, not the same faces that ran (and didn't win 8 years ago) This isn't a knock on Hilary at all, and it doesn't bother me, but I think it bothers some people who are always looking for the next "hope"

Warren isn't that much younger than Clinton and will be older than Bernie is now in 8 years.

 

Oops, Ash already said this.

[DaveW]

 

Warren isn't that much younger than Clinton and will be older than Bernie is now in 8 years.

Oops, Ash already said this.

Good point.

[TheLeviathan]

Yeah, Warren has apparently hoodwinked a lot of people about her age. I think people are confusing new to politics with young.

 

What swing state options does she have? Or does she do a more independent thinker like Bloomberg?

[DaveW]

 

Yeah, Warren has apparently hoodwinked a lot of people about her age. I think people are confusing new to politics with young.

What swing state options does she have? Or does she do a more independent thinker like Bloomberg?

Sherrod Brown seems like a good bet as he checks a lot of the boxes:
Swing State (Ohio)

Populist

 

He's not exactly young though, and is 63, so again, not really the "future" of the party.

 

Julien Castro from Texas is another obvious choice at this stage.

 

I would love for Bloomberg to be on the ticket, he would be such an awesome counter punch to Trump, but I'm not sure Bloomberg would be interested in VP.

[TheLeviathan]

You might convince Bloomberg simply on the anti-Trump appeal and chance to take him down.  I mentioned him for exactly that intriguing notion of sort of being anti-venom for Trump.

[DaveW]

 

You might convince Bloomberg simply on the anti-Trump appeal and chance to take him down.  I mentioned him for exactly that intriguing notion of sort of being anti-venom for Trump.

The thing about Bloomberg is that he is so much more successful, respected etc I don't think he actually cares about Trump that much or "trumping trump" so to speak. I mean the dude is worth 45 BILLION dollars, is a pretty highly regarded NYC mayor (at least his first two terms), and runs very successful businesses. He is also 74, so their just isn't a whole lot to be gained at this point IMO. His third term from mayor also seemed to take a decent amount out of him as he really took criticism poorly, Hurricane Sandy and the marathon debacle comes to mind.

 

 

Bloomberg also would/could potentially overshadow Hilary as well?

 

Again, I would be all for it. But I just can't see him having any real interest in the role.

[TheLeviathan]

Yeah, I just know he had interest in being part of this presidential cycle (possibly), seems like that might be a way to do that.  He could use it as a jumping off point for his own future run too.  Just tossing stuff at the wall though.

[DaveW]

 

Yeah, I just know he had interest in being part of this presidential cycle (possibly), seems like that might be a way to do that.  He could use it as a jumping off point for his own future run too.  Just tossing stuff at the wall though.

I still think he would have run as an independent if it would have ended up Trump vs Sanders, and honestly, I think he would have had a chance to do quite well.

 

But at 74, I don't see how it would be a jumping off point for his own future run though, maybe if he was a decade or so younger, but I can't see him running at the age of 83. I'm not trying to be discriminatory against age, but I wouldn't feel comfortable electing an 83 year old as POTUS, the odds of some very serious (and tough medical questions) coming into play are very high. (i.e. Dementia)

[DaveW]

Actually I just re-read his article when he stated he wouldn't run third party, so maybe he wouldn't have ran if it was Trump vs Bernie, basically it comes down to him stating his odds of winning would be nil, and even if he did win a lot of votes etc it would then goto congress (GOP) to elect the next POTUS

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-03-07/the-2016-election-risk-that-michael-bloomberg-won-t-take

 

Again, I would LOVE for him to be on the ticket, he really would be the perfect match for the ticket, and I think the dems win that election in an even more of a landslide.

[PseudoSABR]

Just let Biden VP again.  Can Obama do it (semi-serious question)?  

 

The thing about nominating a progressive liberal is that there really aren't many high profile Democrats that are known to be progressive on par with Sanders or even Warren.  Democrats have shied away from the kind of arguments Sanders has been making, at least for all my adult life.  

 

I don't know really anything about Castro except that he's young, Hispanic, and from Texas.  Brown, I've seen on TV a few times, and he seemed more genuinely liberal than most, but who knows, and evidently, he had a falling out with Sanders, suggesting that if Sanders has any leverage it won't be Brown. Other names floated have been: Corey Booker, Devon Patrick, Martin OMalley, Tim Kaine, Mark Warner and Thomas Perez (current labor secretary, I literally know nothing about him).  I've also seen both Minnesota Senators mentioned...

 

I think her pick in some way must rebut the establishment attack, whether that's a non-politician or a liberal, I'm not sure, but if she merely reinforces what she already offers (say Kaine, Warner, etc.) I think she'll have made a mistake.  

[TheLeviathan]

Hmmm, Brown does check a lot of boxes.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Hmmm, Brown does check a lot of boxes.

Well, Bill O'Reilly recommends him.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I found this article several months back but was reminded of it this morning. It presents the guaranteed income argument from the perspective of Libertarian principles and it's pretty damned convincing. Much more so than the far left arguments I've seen on the same subject.

 

http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income

 

At some point in our lifetimes, we will see some form of guaranteed income. It's the only solution to the burgeoning "problem" of automation and how we simply won't need the entire population to work as machines begin doing everything from driving our roads to farming to building the things we use on a daily basis.

 

The only other option is mass unemployment leading to class inequality on par with a Middle East oil-rich monarchy... And I think we can agree that's not really the course we want society to take.

 

But in this society, what happens to the global economy if western nations begin adopting minimum incomes while corporations flee to Africa and other undeveloped parts of the world to avoid taxes? I think a return to import tariffs is the only real solution but I'm interested to hear what others think on the subject.

 

Because, at some point, we're going to need to close corporate tax loopholes as corporations pay less into labor costs, which is the most fundamental aspect of capitalistic wealth redistribution. What can we do to stop a corporation from hoarding all the money and leaving virtually nothing to its work force because it has no work force?

[diehardtwinsfan]

as long as the Reps and Dems are owned by said corps, those loopholes will never close.  If you want a guaranteed income, then perhaps the fairtax is worth looking at.  Not sure I'm a big believer there, but I won't argue if someone said it beats the heck out of our current tax system.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

as long as the Reps and Dems are owned by said corps, those loopholes will never close.  If you want a guaranteed income, then perhaps the fairtax is worth looking at.  Not sure I'm a big believer there, but I won't argue if someone said it beats the heck out of our current tax system.

The big problem I have with a fair tax is that it really shafts the unemployed and poor.

 

My goal is to increase governmental efficiency while improving the lives of everyone in the country. I don't see a fair tax accomplishing that goal; the most positive studies I've seen on the fair tax is that overall tax revenue remains flat. That doesn't really fix any problems, it only shuffles the deck.

 

Now, if we talked fair tax AND some kind of minimum income, that could pay huge dividends in streamlining the government while returning a larger chunk of money to all Americans, not a select few.

[TheLeviathan]

I'm not opposed to a guaranteed basic income if it does two things along with it (one of which your articles hints at):

 

1) Abolish virtually all welfare programs.  There can be some programs and incentives for single mothers or things of that nature, but I'd love to see how much we'd actually save by getting rid of the programs in place and just distributing those dollars directly to people as a guarantee.  

 

That way we're not talking about adding to the budget but, in my estimation, likely cutting it.

 

2) The income stays low enough to require some sort of employment buy-in.  Mike and I talked about this earlier and my biggest concerns with this would be turning the country into two classes: the consumers vs. the providers.  I can't imagine the system can even continue if that relationship got hostile.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm not opposed to a guaranteed basic income if it does two things along with it (one of which your articles hints at):

 

1) Abolish virtually all welfare programs.  There can be some programs and incentives for single mothers or things of that nature, but I'd love to see how much we'd actually save by getting rid of the programs in place and just distributing those dollars directly to people as a guarantee.  

 

That way we're not talking about adding to the budget but, in my estimation, likely cutting it.

 

2) The income stays low enough to require some sort of employment buy-in.  Mike and I talked about this earlier and my biggest concerns with this would be turning the countries into two classes: the consumers vs. the providers.  I can't imagine the system can even continue if that relationship got hostile.

Pretty much agreed across the board.

 

At least initially, the minimum income would have to be quite small to encourage work while there is work to be had. As more jobs move to automation, taxes would need to increase along with the minimum income.

 

Capitalism has served us well for a few centuries but its days are numbered, at least in its current incarnation. Removal of the need for a labor force breaks the entire thing in half.

[TheLeviathan]

I wouldn't make these changes based on automation or changing work forces.  Anticipating future technology is like spitting in the wind.

 

I would do this, almost exclusively, because it is a much more direct fix for poverty.  It guts all the red tape and nonsense out of government programs and gives people what they need to live.  But I'd hope it would still leave enough desire for a higher quality standard of living that at least one person in every household would be working.  I think that's critical.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I wouldn't make these changes based on automation or changing work forces.  Anticipating future technology is like spitting in the wind.

 

I would do this, almost exclusively, because it is a much more direct fix for poverty.  It guts all the red tape and nonsense out of government programs and gives people what they need to live.  But I'd hope it would still leave enough desire for a higher quality standard of living that at least one person in every household would be working.  I think that's critical.

I don't know if it's necessarily like spitting in the wind. We're not talking about future technology... We're talking about technology on hand today, much less the advancements that will come tomorrow.

 

But I agree that, today, this should be sold as a fix for both government and poverty... With the added bonus of protecting us from what is inevitably coming our way.

 

I just found this article, which mentions many of the points I brought up earlier. It's a good read. We're barely scratching the surface of AI's potential and, like most tech over the past 40 years, the rate it is improving is accelerating much faster than people thought just a few years ago. It's more than a little bit scary to think where it can be five years from now.

 

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/you-cant-talk-about-robots-without-talking-about-basic-income?trk_source=homepage-lede

[Brock Beauchamp]

And I should note that this has already begun to happen. A few months ago, I posted a picture of the Foxconn assembly line for iPhones. It looked like this:

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HL6DN3F9Qyk/TycR25QqE8I/AAAAAAAAC48/Vx_geagDTaI/s640/Foxconn+factory.PNG

 

As of last month, all of those people became unemployed, replaced by machines.

 

60,000 people.

[Craig Arko]

I don't know if it's necessarily like spitting in the wind. We're not talking about future technology... We're talking about technology on hand today, much less the advancements that will come tomorrow.

 

But I agree that, today, this should be sold as a fix for both government and poverty... With the added bonus of protecting us from what is inevitably coming our way.

 

I just found this article, which mentions many of the points I brought up earlier. It's a good read. We're barely scratching the surface of AI's potential and, like most tech over the past 40 years, the rate it is improving is accelerating much faster than people thought just a few years ago. It's more than a little bit scary to think where it can be five years from now.

 

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/you-cant-talk-about-robots-without-talking-about-basic-income?trk_source=homepage-lede

I notice on that chart about 'Occupations most likely to be affected by automation and AI advances' they don't list 'Software Engineer.' I find that both a telling and comical oversight.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I notice on that chart about 'Occupations most likely to be affected by automation and AI advances' they don't list 'Software Engineer.' I find that both a telling and comical oversight.

I scanned the list for that and got a chuckle as well. I think software engineers will be one of the later jobs to suffer from automation but at some point, they'll feel the pressure like everyone else.

[TheLeviathan]

Oh I'm with you about tech.  My 3 year old doesn't even understand how a cell phone works because he's so accustomed to face-time that he thinks all communication is face to face.  I'm young to remember that being a common "thing of the future" gag.

 

So I'm with you.  Where I'm more cautious is in predicting what that will look like.  At the rate we're accelerating, who's to say we don't just skip the automation-kills-jobs phase and go right to colonizing Mars?  I just have serious doubts about being able to be prepared for what technological advancement will bring us until they arrive.