General politics

[Craig Arko]

December 26th, 1991. It happens.

[LaBombo]

 

which is different than his disapproval rating.....but thanks for reminding me how much people hated Obama, for, um, why again?

 

No, it's not different, at least not in this case.

 

Trump's midterm disapproval rating is 2% higher than Obama's. That's within the margin of error. Two percent. Their popularity AND "unpopularity" is THE SAME.

 

And the reason I brought it up is that your factually incorrect assumption about Trump's popularity seems to be creating a false expectation on your part regarding the midterms.

 

Edit: To this I would add that YES, it absolutely seems like Trump is more disapproved of than Obama, and the polling similarity genuinely surprised me when i looked it up.

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Why would anyone want to continue having this discussion with you?

 

Ok, Mike wants to break up the country.  Let's just be done with this conversation, you evidently don't want to have it.

 

I literally said I wasn't serious, and that I didn't think it would happen......but that discussing it might not be the worst idea ever. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

No, it's not different, at least not in this case.

 

2 percent. Trump's disapproval rating is two percent higher than Obama's.  That's within the margin of error. Their popularity, AND "unpopularity" is THE SAME.

 

And the reason I brought it up is that your factually incorrect assumption about Trump's popularity seems to be creating a false expectation on your part regarding the midterms.

 

Well, in those mid terms the GOP crushed it....and my expectations aren't that at all....

[TheLeviathan]

 

I literally said I wasn't serious, and that I didn't think it would happen......but that discussing it might not be the worst idea ever. 

 

At what point, when you reject everyone else's contributions, and keep bringing it up.....should I stop believing this?

[Mike Sixel]

 

At what point, when you reject everyone else's contributions, and keep bringing it up.....should I stop believing this?

 

I have no idea what that means. My first post in the thread where I first brought that up....that is, the next post after I first mentioned it, stated I wasn't serious.....

 

And, it has nothing to do with the discussion of turning out the vote.

 

And, I didn't dismiss everyone's comments, I like some of the ideas and I listed that above. So, I actually don't know what you are saying.

[PseudoSABR]

In my mind it's pretty obvious what you do to turn out voters, own liberal values and adopt socialist values where they make sense.  I know this doesn't appeal to you as a moderate, but moderates are typically pretty engaged enough to weigh differing concerns/values, so I think they tend to turn out.  But young people, the disenfranchised, Latinos, etc.  don't regularly turn out; esp. if the process to vote is arduous and prohibitive.  

 

I think Gillum (FL Gov candidate) is a good indicator of what I'm talking about.  He was polling fourth among Democrats prior to the primaries, and the recent CNN poll shows him with a 12 point lead; though in fairness two local polls have the race much closer.  I'm looking forward to 538s governor's forecast on how they see this race.  

[Mike Sixel]

 

In my mind it's pretty obvious what you do to turn out voters, own liberal values and adopt socialist values where they make sense.  I know this doesn't appeal to you as a moderate, but moderates are typically pretty engaged enough to weigh differing concerns/values, so I think they tend to turn out.  But young people, the disenfranchised, Latinos, etc.  don't regularly turn out; esp. if the process to vote is arduous and prohibitive.  

 

I think Gillum (FL Gov candidate) is a good indicator of what I'm talking about.  He was polling fourth among Democrats prior to the primaries, and the recent CNN poll shows him with a 12 point lead; though in fairness two local polls have the race much closer.  I'm looking forward to 538s governor's forecast on how they see this race.  

 

Not sure that was aimed at me, but I have a couple pretty socialist views....

 

healthcare should be nationalized, I just don't think that is step 1 in the process (at least not all the way to what Canada and Europe have)

 

farms and their communities should be better supported by the government, frankly, I'd pay people to be farmers, not corporations at all (other than sole proprietorships)

 

I also think universal income of some kind will need to happen at some point. I'd just give people stock the day the were born, and every other year they are alive......say, 2000 per year?

 

Poor people that can't afford heat, electricity, housing, food...they should get it somehow

 

I think those first three are pretty socialist. Oh, and I'm all in on the environment and fairly anti war. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I have no idea what that means. My first post in the thread where I first brought that up....that is, the next post after I first mentioned it, stated I wasn't serious.....

 

And, it has nothing to do with the discussion of turning out the vote.

 

And, I didn't dismiss everyone's comments, I like some of the ideas and I listed that above. So, I actually don't know what you are saying.

 

When someone keeps saying "Hey...how about this!  No wait...Just kidding", but then they bring it up again and again and again......at what point do you stop believing the "just kidding" part?

 

Either you want a serious conversation with serious answers, at which point you'd stop trolling out the same thing both yourself and others have dismissed.  Or you'd just admit you have no interest in the conversation.

 

I guess I'd prefer you be more open to the conversation.  And if you truly don't believe dividing the nation is a constructive point of conversation.....stop talking about it.

[TheLeviathan]

 

In my mind it's pretty obvious what you do to turn out voters, own liberal values and adopt socialist values where they make sense.  I know this doesn't appeal to you as a moderate, but moderates are typically pretty engaged enough to weigh differing concerns/values, so I think they tend to turn out.  But young people, the disenfranchised, Latinos, etc.  don't regularly turn out; esp. if the process to vote is arduous and prohibitive.  

 

I think Gillum (FL Gov candidate) is a good indicator of what I'm talking about.  He was polling fourth among Democrats prior to the primaries, and the recent CNN poll shows him with a 12 point lead; though in fairness two local polls have the race much closer.  I'm looking forward to 538s governor's forecast on how they see this race.  

 

I can't remember where I read it, but universal health care has 68% approval among Dems and 36% (in the ballpark on both of those) among Republicans.  That's...what?  Half the electorate without even considering independents?

 

I think Dems should be careful about how left they appear on all issues (especially in some places) but when you have a winning issue.....go all in.  Be authentic.  I hate hearing Cruz pound O'Rourke on "massive tax increases" - the Democrats have got to develop a better counter punch to that.  Their limp-wristed, talk around answers to that hurt them.  Embrace the reality, talk about what it would do for average Americans.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Not sure that was aimed at me, but I have a couple pretty socialist views....

 

healthcare should be nationalized, I just don't think that is step 1 in the process (at least not all the way to what Canada and Europe have)

 

farms and their communities should be better supported by the government, frankly, I'd pay people to be farmers, not corporations at all (other than sole proprietorships)

 

I also think universal income of some kind will need to happen at some point. I'd just give people stock the day the were born, and every other year they are alive......say, 2000 per year?

 

Poor people that can't afford heat, electricity, housing, food...they should get it somehow

 

I think those first three are pretty socialist. Oh, and I'm all in on the environment and fairly anti war. 

I've known you've always held socialist and liberal positions, but I've also heard you identify as a moderate, sometimes adamantly.   

 

I think even if Beto loses, the fact that he's competitive shows the viability of his message in freaking Texas.  Beto, I think like Sanders, bucks the righteous, elitist liberal criticism and seems genuinely authentic.   As to the practical concerns with the policies on the left, I think the Democrats shouldn't be afraid of the T word and articulate a reasonable tax policy that taxes the income of rich people (negotiable what that is), and spares businesses and the middle class.  I'd also look at the capital gains tax, maybe to increase it on non-IPO stock buy/sales.   (One idea I had was to tax the dollars spent on advertising, say on Amazon, who somehow gets around paying taxes). 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I've known you've always held socialist and liberal positions, but I've also heard you identify as a moderate, sometimes adamantly.   

 

I think even if Beto loses, the fact that he's competitive shows the viability of his message in freaking Texas.  Beto, I think like Sanders, bucks the righteous, elitist liberal criticism and seems genuinely authentic.   As to the practical concerns with the policies on the left, I think the Democrats shouldn't be afraid of the T word and articulate a reasonable tax policy that taxes the income of rich people (negotiable what that is), and spares businesses and the middle class.  I'd also look at the capital gains tax, maybe to increase it on non-IPO stock buy/sales.   (One idea I had was to tax the dollars spent on advertising, say on Amazon, who somehow gets around paying taxes). 

 

I'm with you on taxing the "wealthy"....once we agree on what that is. Also, as Buffet has says, cap gains over a certain amount should be taxed at the same rate as regular income. I'm all in on those.

 

I feel like I'm getting more "liberal" as I age, but I also think funding roads, schools, libraries, and parks used to be a moderate thing, not liberal.....

[PseudoSABR]

 

I can't remember where I read it, but universal health care has 68% approval among Dems and 36% (in the ballpark on both of those) among Republicans.  That's...what?  Half the electorate without even considering independents?

 

I think Dems should be careful about how left they appear on all issues (especially in some places) but when you have a winning issue.....go all in.  Be authentic.  I hate hearing Cruz pound O'Rourke on "massive tax increases" - the Democrats have got to develop a better counter punch to that.  Their limp-wristed, talk around answers to that hurt them.  Embrace the reality, talk about what it would do for average Americans.

I agree.  I wish Beto would say: "Yes Ted, I'm going to tax you and your Fat Cat friends.  We've all heard how hard it's been not being able to afford a second home.  I think that makes you out of touch with common Americans, and sounds like with your desired standard of living you could afford to pay your fair share." Or something like that.

[Badsmerf]

If the discussion we are having now, is about voter turnout.... I think democrats have to get dirty. Republicans use fear? They need to use fear. Hammer use fear to motivate people to vote, and people to change sides. Obviously, that is a message democrats are terrible at.

 

Get pundits on faux news that can put people in a box. Harp on corporations and big money controlling the gop. Call republicans Nazis as much as possible. without doing it too much. Show how weak Trump is. End citizens United.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm with you on taxing the "wealthy"....once we agree on what that is. Also, as Buffet has says, cap gains over a certain amount should be taxed at the same rate as regular income. I'm all in on those.

 

I feel like I'm getting more "liberal" as I age, but I also think funding roads, schools, libraries, and parks used to be a moderate thing, not liberal.....

How these institutions should be run is honestly conservatively, with an eye both on efficacy and efficiency.  I think once we accept that the market doesn't provide a solution, we'll invest in making more productive government institutions.   The debate should be how do we shape these public institutions, not whether we should have them.

 

For myself I've always been very liberal in terms of setting the goal, but over time I've grown more practical and realistic about how we reach those goals. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I agree.  I wish Beto would say: "Yes Ted, I'm going to tax you and your Fat Cat friends.  We've all heard how hard it's been not being able to afford a second home.  I think that makes you out of touch with common Americans, and sounds like with your desired standard of living you could afford to pay your fair share." Or something like that.

 

Right and own the fact that everyone's taxes will go up.  But small business owners....imagine not paying to subsidize health care?  Farmers....this is an EASY win with that demographic.  And most Americans will still have more take-home money even with a tax increase because your paychecks will increase when you (or your employer) aren't allocating so much of your compensation to benefits.

 

I'm starting to wonder how much the lack of wage growth is being caused by companies having to off-set their compensation packages with ever increasing contributions to medical benefits.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Right and own the fact that everyone's taxes will go up.  But small business owners....imagine not paying to subsidize health care?  Farmers....this is an EASY win with that demographic.  And most Americans will still have more take-home money even with a tax increase because your paychecks will increase when you (or your employer) aren't allocating so much of your compensation to benefits.

 

I'm starting to wonder how much the lack of wage growth is being caused by companies having to off-set their compensation packages with ever increasing contributions to medical benefits.

 

FWIW, someplace I heard about one time.....would argue that a lot of it is that, both for them and their customers. I find that somewhat convenient, but certainly likely to be a contributing factor.

[TheLeviathan]

 

FWIW, someplace I heard about one time.....would argue that a lot of it is that, both for them and their customers. I find that somewhat convenient, but certainly likely to be a contributing factor.

 

I agree.  And certainly corporate greed is an enormous part of it, but many people are not employed by those companies.  I look at the costs for public service employees and the strain that is putting on governments all over the country as a quick example.

 

The overhead wrapped up in medical benefits has to be simply enormous.I wonder what a well put together argument by the Dems could do to get people to realize how much healthcare costs are crippling so many facets of our economy.  

 

On the flip side, we shouldn't kid ourselves, universal health care would kill a LOT of jobs.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I agree.  And certainly corporate greed is an enormous part of it, but many people are not employed by those companies.  I look at the costs for public service employees and the strain that is putting on governments all over the country as a quick example.

 

The overhead wrapped up in medical benefits has to be simply enormous.I wonder what a well put together argument by the Dems could do to get people to realize how much healthcare costs are crippling so many facets of our economy.  

 

On the flip side, we shouldn't kid ourselves, universal health care would kill a LOT of jobs.

 

Probably not....as we'd need more docs and nurses and NPs and others....and someone (likely 2-5 companies) would need to administer the programs. UHG makes a ton of money on medicaid and medicare, and even in some nations with socialized medicine. Oh, and we'd have all kinds of watchdog types making sure we aren't just consuming medical care we don't need....

[PseudoSABR]

 

Right and own the fact that everyone's taxes will go up.  But small business owners....imagine not paying to subsidize health care?  Farmers....this is an EASY win with that demographic.  And most Americans will still have more take-home money even with a tax increase because your paychecks will increase when you (or your employer) aren't allocating so much of your compensation to benefits.

 

I'm starting to wonder how much the lack of wage growth is being caused by companies having to off-set their compensation packages with ever increasing contributions to medical benefits.

So much this.  I've been saying this for years; why wouldn't small businesses be all about a national health care.  Sure some may think their low-cost plan or no plan at all will be cheaper than a tax related to nation healthcare, but it's not just the cost of the plans, it's also the man-hours put into managing and choosing a plan, and the cultural effect of good plans/expensive plans on work cultures.  

 

So should any national health care plan offer tax protection for small businesses?  That's a concession that's fraught for abuse, on the other hand.

[Mike Sixel]

 

So much this.  I've been saying this for years; why wouldn't small businesses be all about a national health care.  Sure some may think their low-cost plan or no plan at all will be cheaper than a tax related to nation healthcare, but it's not just the cost of the plans, it's also the man-hours put into managing and choosing a plan, and the cultural effect of good plans/expensive plans on work cultures.  

 

So should any national health care plan offer tax protection for small businesses?  That's a concession that's fraught for abuse, on the other hand.

 

Try starting a business or two....and then try to find insurance. Good luck.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

And I've asked....how....because it has happened one time in the last 5 POTUS elections, and that was Obama. Other than that, dems have not turned out much. Why? Because it isn't working, not for many years now. Apparently, according to polls, the least popular POTUS ever isn't enough.....

The Democrats turned out in 2006 and whooped the House and Senate into shape, going from -30 seats in 2004 to +31 seats in 2006.

 

Why'd they lose so badly in 2004? Well, a few reasons but a major takeaway from that election is that if you run an absolute turd of a candidate at the top of a ticket, you're going to suffer all the way down the ballot.

 

Not that Kerry was a bad guy or anything, he was simply about as inspiring as a soggy sack of potatoes.

 

And that's been a huge problem for the Democrats in the past 20 years. They've run three absolute turd candidates (Gore, Kerry, Clinton) and one exciting candidate (Obama).

 

Gee, shocking how all that turned out, eh?

 

And despite running some really boring-ass candidates, the Democrats still won the popular vote two of those times and came pretty close the third time.

 

So maybe stop running turds at the top of tickets and if that doesn't work, then complain about the system.

[TheLeviathan]

 

So much this.  I've been saying this for years; why wouldn't small businesses be all about a national health care.  Sure some may think their low-cost plan or no plan at all will be cheaper than a tax related to nation healthcare, but it's not just the cost of the plans, it's also the man-hours put into managing and choosing a plan, and the cultural effect of good plans/expensive plans on work cultures.  

 

So should any national health care plan offer tax protection for small businesses?  That's a concession that's fraught for abuse, on the other hand.

 

I don't know if I want to walk into a universal health care option offering tax protection to anyone.  Someone smarter than me would have to figure out how much each segment of the economy will have to pay in to make it work, but I have a hard time believing middle and lower class Americans and small businesses would be on the bad end of things.

 

I know that even under Bernie's plan (with an assumption that he was lowballing the tax rates), my family would still come out hundreds of dollars ahead per month.  For my father (a farmer) he'd come ahead by over a thousand dollars a month.

 

People are ready for this.  I wish the Dems weren't such cowards about it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

A really interesting article on pollsters chasing their tails and ignoring some of the places where good polling is most needed this election:

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-some-competitive-races-have-little-to-no-polling-thats-a-problem/

[LaBombo]

 

 

People are ready for this.  I wish the Dems weren't such cowards about it.

 

Maybe it would be more fair to them to say that they're cautious.

 

They know that midterm election history in general is on their side, that this particular cycle's electoral map favors them in the House, and that nonstop media coverage of an underwater president whose hobby is uncannily stupid tweets can be more effective than almost any campaign message they might muster in the aggregate.

 

As the saying goes, 'Don't interrupt your enemy while he's making a mistake'. Which he does. Every day. And to their credit, that strategy seemed to be working reasonably well throughout the summer, and even now will probably still comfortably deliver the House. Their mandate above all else is to "Stop Trump", and nothing else comes close.

 

But a Dem push for almost any stripe of universal health care would give a chance for Republicans to do one of the things they do best, which is point out flaws in Democrats' ideas. And what does that get them, other than its unknown net effect on the election? An obligation to follow through with the gesture of putting together a bill that won't become law?

 

The real push for universal care will come in 2020, when there's a chance for it to become law instead of a paper campaign tiger.

[Badsmerf]

The house most certainly does not favor the democrats. The house favors republicans by about 5 points since 2010, and the democrats are finally going to overcome that gap.

 

If the house was fair, democrats would have won it in 2012. Gerrymandering has created a huge advantage.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Maybe it would be more fair to them to say that they're cautious.

 

They know that midterm election history in general is on their side, that this particular cycle's electoral map favors them in the House, and that nonstop media coverage of an underwater president whose hobby is uncannily stupid tweets can be more effective than almost any campaign message they might muster in the aggregate.

 

As the saying goes, 'Don't interrupt your enemy while he's making a mistake'. Which he does. Every day. And to their credit, that strategy seemed to be working reasonably well throughout the summer, and even now will probably still comfortably deliver the House. Their mandate above all else is to "Stop Trump", and nothing else comes close.

 

But a Dem push for almost any stripe of universal health care would give a chance for Republicans to do one of the things they do best, which is point out flaws in Democrats' ideas. And what does that get them, other than its unknown net effect on the election? An obligation to follow through with the gesture of putting together a bill that won't become law?

 

The real push for universal care will come in 2020, when there's a chance for it to become law instead of a paper campaign tiger.

 

I can't disagree with any of this.  Though, I would hope that candidates like O'Rourke who are talking about it would have better counter-arguments.

 

I think you're right strategically that you're best not to upset the apple cart in an election you'll almost certainly use to turn one house of Congress your way.  But I would offer one argument devil's advocate style:  Wouldn't now be a really good time to be experimenting with how to argue for this? Maybe not in the tight races, but what about in ones where you're trailing?  I look at the race in California with the a-hole Duncan Hunter.  Why not use that one as a test case for arguing for universal health care?  Or in a rural, generally Republican area?

 

I guess I'd rather not try some stuff in 2020 that fails, I'd rather go into 2020 locked and loaded with arguments that can win.  (And a candidate that can sell them)

[stringer bell]

 

The house most certainly does not favor the democrats. The house favors republicans by about 5 points since 2010, and the democrats are finally going to overcome that gap.

If the house was fair, democrats would have won it in 2012. Gerrymandering has created a huge advantage.

No doubt, gerrymandering has protected Republicans all of this decade. And then there's the Senate. Barack Obama crushed John McCain in 2008 and won 28 states. He won 26 when he soundly defeated Mitt Romney. George W Bush won 30 states when he lost the popular vote by a half million and Trump also won 30 states when he too lost the popular vote (by about 2.5%). What does that have to do with the Senate? Well, if the election is basically a tie, as the election of 2000 was, shouldn't the states be split roughly 50-50? Nope it's 60-40 and the trend is getting worse as demonstrated by Trump carrying 30 states when he lost the popular votes by millions. I would state that at least 30 of the fifty states are more predisposed to elect a Republican than a Democrat, so winning a majority in the Senate is going to be tough sledding for the the next couple of decades. 

 

With a Republican in the White House, it will be difficult to impossible for Democrats to complete any legislative agenda, so nationally the important thing should be having a majority in one of the houses of Congress so that there is some evenhandedness in handling things like Climate Change, voter suppression, racial bias and many many more issues. 2018 is huge when it comes to electing governors who will be part of redistricting and state legislatures that will draw the lines in many states. That would set the stage for a 2020 election that could go a long way in changing the tilt in politics which now favors Republicans just about any way you look at it.

[Badsmerf]

I'm in Amarillo, and listened to conservative talk radio this morning. They are pounding the mob rule scare tactic and praising the electoral college.

 

The message revolved around those elitist liberals from big cities don't know what is best for rural America. My issue with that is, currently we have a minority of Americans in rural areas, deciding what is best for the entire country, not just rural America. The Republican message works really well at the state and local level... Not so well when you expand it to an entire country.

[LaBombo]

 

The house most certainly does not favor the democrats. The house favors republicans by about 5 points since 2010, and the democrats are finally going to overcome that gap.

If the house was fair, democrats would have won it in 2012. Gerrymandering has created a huge advantage.

 

You're not quite getting it, and/or I'm not quite explaining it right.

 

Take Ballotpedia, for starters. It lists 79 House seats as "battleground races". Only 9 are held by Democrats. That gives them 70 battleground opportunities to gain the necessary 23 seats.

 

Even more dramatically, the "leans" incumbent seats are 52 Republican vs 10 Democrat according to the Cook Report, while the "toss-up" seats are a nearly unanimous 46-3 Republican headache.

 

The "map" component of the discussion is just the overall picture of House incumbents vs. the historic redness or blueness trend of their district. Maybe you were taking the map reference literally in terms of district boundaries, since you brought up gerrymandering, but that's not what I'm referring to.