Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 224: The Congressional Contempt for Political Buggery

(+) Yeah! (+)

TheRock1525 posted...

I mean, if Biden absolutely thwomps the field, including Bernie, can it really be argued that he's less inspiring?

Yes
---

TheRock1525 posted...

"I can't get past Joe Biden but surely I can beat an incumbant president."

This is a pretty tiring argument.

Yeah, imagine how tiring arguing with someone who would say that would be. Holy shit.

By this same logic, clearly Ted Cruz was a more inspiring candidate than Donald Trump.
---

Joe Biden cannot appeal to the left wing of the party. He's already made enemies with millennials, and his support for Republicans will turn a lot of people off. You can tell he's not inspiring when the best defense ANYONE has for him is "He's not Trump!"
---

The Dems don't need the extreme left to win. They need the black vote, specifically the female black vote, and the centrist bloc. Biden is quite strong with both of the groups.

Very liberal/socialist voters have never swung an election.
---

"He has no appeal" while he's up 20-30 points on the nearest competitor.

Come on. If Biden wins the primary and wins it going away like Trump did in 2016, then he's clearly the best candidate. You can't argue Bernie is a super inspiring candidate if he ends up losing by that much to Biden.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

"He has no appeal" while he's up 20-30 points on the nearest competitor.

He has no appeal to the left wing of the party.

Your whole defense of him is "He's doing well in the pre-primary stage!" Which isn't exactly inspiring. I don't care how well he's doing, and neither does anyone else. They care about what he's going to do. And none of his plans are inspiring.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

He has no appeal to the left wing of the party.

Why do you insist that this matters?
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Your whole defense of him is "He's doing well in the pre-primary stage!"

My argument is that if where he's currently at holds, then he's the best candidate. What's the counter argument? "Even though Bernie got throughly trounced in the primaries, he is the best candidate because... reasons?"
---

TheRock1525 posted...

"I can't get past Joe Biden but surely I can beat an incumbant president."

This is a pretty tiring argument.

Astounded at how narrow this view of our Political system is.
---

The argument people made last time is that Bernie was the better general candidate because polling indicated he was, due to his strength among independent voters. The argument being made now is that Biden probably also is weaker among independent voters due to his similarity to Clinton. If we near the election and polling indicated the opposite, you will be right, but doing well in a democratic primary in no way indicates better general election strength. It's insanely narrow to think like that.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

"I can't get past Joe Biden but surely I can beat an incumbant president."

This is a pretty tiring argument.

Astounded at how narrow this view of our Political system is.

I mean if Bernie gets Jeb!'d what's the argument he's a better candidate? I mean right now he seems to be, at the very best, getting Ted Cruz'd. If it doesn't hold sure I'd get it. But if it holds what is the Bernie argument?
---

Bernie did better with Democrat leaning independents.

Clinton did better with true independents.
---

Look if certain polls are right (dubious btw) and it holds (also dubious) then yes, Bernie was not the candidate many think.

Just kind of silly to assume that is the thing.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

My argument is that if where he's currently at holds, then he's the best candidate. What's the counter argument?

You can't defend his record, which is absolutely terrible. He may win the primary, but it'll just doom us to another four years of Trump.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Bernie did better with Democrat leaning independents.

Clinton did better with true independents.

Completely not a refutation of my argument in any way.

TheRock1525 posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

"I can't get past Joe Biden but surely I can beat an incumbant president."

This is a pretty tiring argument.

Astounded at how narrow this view of our Political system is.

I mean if Bernie gets Jeb!'d what's the argument he's a better candidate? I mean right now he seems to be, at the very best, getting Ted Cruz'd. If it doesn't hold sure I'd get it. But if it holds what is the Bernie argument?

If you want to get technical, Biden is getting Hillaryd.

He has massive appeal with the donor base, he literally takes PAC money, and its propelling him to an early polling lead in the pre-Primary, and now people (like you) are for some reason telling us hes our best shot against Trump (again).

Whats your argument that hey
Im not Trump can beat Trump this time with the economy in a bubble?
---

Why are you all assuming that Biden is going to lose to Trump? Polls this far out arent great, but to the extent that theyre worth anything they have Biden beating Trump by like 7-8 points, which is better than any other Dem candidate.
---

It's too early to say if Biden could win right now. He could, obviously Hillary almost won. But the idea that polling ahead in the democratic primary right now makes him the strongest candidate is a farce.

Im not necessarily saying that hes definitely the strongest candidate, but I am saying that theres little evidence to suggest that would be a particularly weak choice. Its certainly not self-evident.
---

Biden's odds of beating Trump are probably at least as good as any other of the other Dems running. That said, very few people here are going to admit that because nobody here actually wants Biden to be president. The more interesting question is whether there are lots of voters who actually want a Biden presidency rather than wanting a not-Trump presidency. Just running as "establish guy who isn't the unpopular incumbent" hasn't really worked out well in recent elections.
---

Nrrr posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Bernie did better with Democrat leaning independents.

Clinton did better with true independents.

Completely not a refutation of my argument in any way.

Dem leaning independents are ultimately closeted Dems that come home election day. Hell, we always hear about how "more Bernie voters voted for Hillary than 2008 Hillary voters for Obama." Hillary lost an election thanks to less than 70k votes in three key states and a James Comey press conference. It's fun to think Trump is some unbeatable juggernaut but he's likely to lose to most candidates in the field. With Biden being the most likely to beat him. Mostly because he forms a more broad coalition right now. That could change by the end of the primaries and obviously happens all the time, but as of right now he is the best candidate.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Why are you all assuming that Biden is going to lose to Trump? Polls this far out arent great, but to the extent that theyre worth anything they have Biden beating Trump by like 7-8 points, which is better than any other Dem candidate.

I dont, but the position of Trumps a criminal hasnt worked, and if thats literally the only thing the Democrats final pick has to offer, its gonna be a real hard argument for 2020.

Yes, the Dems won 2018, but not by enough to convince me they can surpass the incumbency buff.
---

Nrrr posted...

It's too early to say if Biden could win right now. He could, obviously Hillary almost won. But the idea that polling ahead in the democratic primary right now makes him the strongest candidate is a farce.

He is the strongest right now. That can obviously change but what's the argument that Bernie is the strongest? He polls weaker than Biden head to head with Trump and he polls behind Biden in the primaries. I absolutely 100% prefer Bernie but we're looking at this through very left leaning glasses.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Yes, the Dems won 2018, but not by enough to convince me they can surpass the incumbency buff.

Keep in mind (and I could be wrong and I don't have the exact article from 538) but moderate Dems did better in the House than farther left ones.
---

We are literally in May 2019 having this discussion.

Long way to go.
---

Also I maintain that Democrats really need to turn the national narrative to health care.

Because this administration is absolutely attempting to take away health care from a lot of people and somehow Democrats can't seem to talk about anything but the Mueller report.
---

red13n posted...

Also I maintain that Democrats really need to turn the national narrative to health care.

Because this administration is absolutely attempting to take away health care from a lot of people and somehow Democrats can't seem to talk about anything but the Mueller report.

It makes sense to talk about it now and focus on health care leading up to 2020. It's what they did last time and it worked out rather well. Get the base riled up with "Trump is a criminal!" then pull in the independents at the end with "oh and we're gonna fix health care."

Like one of the Dems argument is providing oversight on the president in 2018. Its far too early to abandon that line.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

It makes sense to talk about it now and focus on health care leading up to 2020. It's what they did last time and it worked out rather well. Get the base riled up with "Trump is a criminal!" then pull in the independents at the end with "oh and we're gonna fix health care."

Is this sarcasm about 2016 or serious about 2018?

Because I still posit that a major reason the Dems did as good as they did in 2018 is entirely because dumbass Trump decided to make the focus entirely on immigration, his most losing issue.

If he smartens up even a little bit and they get enough ads out there talking about how good the economy is, I cant see anyway Joe Biden can talk his way around that.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Because I still posit that a major reason the Dems did as good as they did in 2018 is entirely because dumbass Trump decided to make the focus entirely on immigration, his most losing issue.

Dems were routinely leading by 9-10 points in generic polling for months leading into the election. The projected Dem gain in the House ran +39 for months leading into the election.

Dems won by 9.1% and gained 40 seats. Trump's last minute stunt neither helped nor hindered the results.
---

Last minute stunt?

Immigration was a focus for the entire year, the stunt was just a continuation of that.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Last minute stunt?

Immigration was a focus for the entire year, the stunt was just a continuation of that.

I'm talking about the last minute campaign ad put out.

And at no point is he gonna give up immigration as a central point. We're now 4 years into Trump talking about immigration, he is never gonna pivot away from it.
---

And the people surrounding him are getting dumber and more agreeable so don't expect anyone to talk him into shifting away from his stupid wall and illegal immigration.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

The Dems don't need the extreme left to win. They need the black vote, specifically the female black vote, and the centrist bloc. Biden is quite strong with both of the groups.

Very liberal/socialist voters have never swung an election.

The centrist bloc won't vote for Democrats in this economy. At the very least not if the Dems are as openly scary as they are. Biden isn't going to be able to disavow the far left or the SJWs or the most toxic of all, the neoliberal center left.
---

red sox 777 posted...

The centrist bloc won't vote for Democrats in this economy.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/12/goldman-trump-tariff-costs-fall-entirely-on-us-businesses-households.html

Except you keep looking at the Macro and not the Micro. What saved Trump were manufacturing towns, and farmers. His bad trade policy might be enough to at minimum depress their vote.

I love this lack of nuisance about the economy conservatives have lost when Trump got elected.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/12/politics/trump-economic-boom-obama-compare/index.html

Then again you guys did the same thing to Reagan despite the fact that most of the 80's boom had nothing to do with him.
---

Umitencho posted...

red sox 777 posted...

The centrist bloc won't vote for Democrats in this economy.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/12/goldman-trump-tariff-costs-fall-entirely-on-us-businesses-households.html

Except you keep looking at the Macro and not the Micro. What saved Trump were manufacturing towns, and farmers. His bad trade policy might be enough to at minimum depress their vote.

I love this lack of nuisance about the economy conservatives have lost when Trump got elected.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/12/politics/trump-economic-boom-obama-compare/index.html

Then again you guys did the same thing to Reagan despite the fact that most of the 80's boom had nothing to do with him.

The US economy is doing great. Unemployment at a 50 year low, wages are finally growing again in real terms, inflation is at a healthy 2%. Housing prices are taking a breather after several years of increases which is good for people's ability to afford rent/to buy a house. Less than 100% or so of the gains (inflation adjusted) are going to the top 1% for the first time in ages.

Goldman can say things would be even better without the tariffs, but they aren't particularly credible. They were caught selling complex investments to clients that they bet against themselves, they have no reason to be more honest with the American people than their own clients.

Remember, the market wanted Hillary to win - when early returns came in on election night the Dow futures fell like 700 points in an hour. Trump's policies turned out not to be a disaster like predicted.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Trump's policies turned out not to be a disaster like predicted.

Trump inherited his economy from Obama. His actual policies have been a disaster of which I already linked in earlier posts.

I have a link to a study of the US Economy for April, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
The study was done by the Bauer of Labor Statistics. If you want to look it up yourself "THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATIONAPRIL 2019".
---

Umitencho posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Trump's policies turned out not to be a disaster like predicted.

Trump inherited his economy from Obama. His actual policies have been a disaster of which I already linked in earlier posts.

I have a link to a study of the US Economy for April, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
The study was done by the Bauer of Labor Statistics. If you want to look it up yourself "THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATIONAPRIL 2019".

Yes, that report shows that the economy is booming. A selection of relevant stats:

Unemployment rate: 3.6% (lowest since 1969)
Net jobs added in April: 263,000
Average monthly jobs added over last 12 months: 213,000
Hourly earnings increase over last 12 months: 3.2%

There is really no way to spin this as a disaster in any way. If you want to argue that policy has a delayed impact on the economy and we are still in Obama's economy, that's a fair argument, but I seriously doubt many voters are going to go for that in 2020. By then, it will have been 4 years since Obama left office.
---

As far as trade goes, the worst thing we can do at this stage is elect a Democrat. They will capitulate, eliminate our tariffs and bargaining leverage, and give other countries whatever they ask for, hoping to get something in return. Which we will not get. It will be like Lenin's unilateral declaration of peace with Germany - the Germans just ignored it and moved their armies forward and the USSR had to give up loads of territory when they came to their senses and realized that unilateral declarations of peace don't work.
---

If the economy is good, then that's good.

I have to wonder if cutting taxes in the way that it occurred was a viable long term strategy to achieve their current state of the economy. It seems to me that we're going to be paying for our "4%" growth eventually via the national debt, but we've essentially passed to buck down the road. This is not unique to Trump. Numerous administration's have opted to make things better in the short term by worsening our long term debt. It abstracts the cost so it isn't feeling as keenly.

.

But hey, I'm no economist so if legitimate economists are of the opinion that things are good, then sure, they are good.
---

And I think, at this stage it is probably hard for Bernie to defeat Trump in the general election too. He would have crushed it in 2016 but the economy is too strong now. He still has a chance if he can cast it as, our economy is doing great, shouldn't we be helping out our poorer countrymen? But he would have to jettison the neoliberal dogma prevalent in the Democratic Party and campaign on, essentially, Trump policies plus redistribution of wealth downwards.

I doubt Bernie can make the Democratic Party come to its senses the way Trump made the Republican Party come to its senses. He doesn't believe the neoliberal dogma himself, but he's not going to attack and humiliate it the way Trump did to Jeb Bush and the Republican version the neoliberal dogma. And Bernie isn't an economist or a businessman, and he's campaigning in a party that puts a lot of trust in "experts."
---

The economy is [really good] and yet we have *this many* people in abject poverty, dying without healthcare, struggling to find work, etc

You know, Bernies consistent stump speech for the past 40 years.

Bernie and Warren are pretty much the best people who can make the argument to vote against President with great economy.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

If the economy is good, then that's good.

I have to wonder if cutting taxes in the way that it occurred was a viable long term strategy to achieve their current state of the economy. It seems to me that we're going to be paying for our "4%" growth eventually via the national debt, but we've essentially passed to buck down the road. This is not unique to Trump. Numerous administration's have opted to make things better in the short term by worsening our long term debt. It abstracts the cost so it isn't feeling as keenly.

But hey, I'm no economist so if legitimate economists are of the opinion that things are good, then sure, they are good.

It's not unique to Trump but given the way he ran his businesses, it'd be very surprising if he didn't massively increase the national debt. A national debt of only 100% of GDP must look like a massively underleveraged opportunity to Trump. Trump likes his businesses saddled with so much debt that the interest payments alone amount to 100% or so of the income. Then if growing your way out of the debt and selling the business to a greater fool both don't work, it's time to declare bankruptcy and force your creditors to eat the loss.

For an entity like the US government with a perfect 240+ year credit history, a low interest rate, and control of the currency in which the debt is issued (which is also the world's reserve currency), a national debt at 200% of GDP should be no problem. Japan manages that without the advantage of issuing the world's reserve currency. Now 200% of GDP is probably still way underleveraged in Trump's eyes, but our exit plan presumably isn't bankruptcy, so that's alright.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The economy is [really good] and yet we have *this many* people in abject poverty, dying without healthcare, struggling to find work, etc

You know, Bernies consistent stump speech for the past 40 years.

Bernie and Warren are pretty much the best people who can make the argument to vote against President with great economy.

What if he gets asked:

"Do you think it's okay for Hillary Clinton to receive $250,000 per speech from Wall Street banks?"

"Do you think it's okay for deans of colleges with bad employment outcomes for their students to be making millions of dollars, paid by federal student loans their students will have to bear for decades?"

"How will you negotiate a trade deal with China? Are you going to cancel the tariffs?"

Bernie knows the right answer to all of these questions. But the Democratic Party won't allow him to give that answer.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

I have to wonder if cutting taxes in the way that it occurred was a viable long term strategy to achieve their current state of the economy

Everybody not directly in the tank for the Republican party has been saying it's not for a very long time fwiw

(And even some who were in the tank were saying it - George H.W Bush directly called it "Voodoo Economics" when Reagan was doing it)

Spoke to my Macro-Econ Professor about tax cuts in general. Basically, they are good for the short term, bad for the long term unless the tax rate was really high to begin with. Time will tell if the tax cuts were just meeting a new normal or if it is the typical "we gotta pay for those tax breaks at some point" kind of thing.
---

Oh don't worry, when the effects of the tax cuts are felt it won't be trump in office, and the right will just scapegoat millennials/ immigrants/ abortions to explain the economic downturn.
---

I think a lot of Biden's popularity is among older voters who are afraid of change. Wouldn't really count on them showing up to the polls.

ShadowYosuke posted...

I think a lot of Biden's popularity is among older voters who are afraid of change. Wouldn't really count on them showing up to the polls.

The older you are, the more likely you are to vote.
---

Umitencho posted...

Spoke to my Macro-Econ Professor about tax cuts in general. Basically, they are good for the short term, bad for the long term unless the tax rate was really high to begin with. Time will tell if the tax cuts were just meeting a new normal or if it is the typical "we gotta pay for those tax breaks at some point" kind of thing.

Friendly reminder that only the tax cuts pertaining to business were permanent.
---