Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020? No, it's 2020!

[malchior]

There's nothing incorrect about your data, though I'd argue there's caveats around the great recession and rising health care costs as opposed to upper class theft. I mean, duh, those that got to participate in the post war expansion did better than those that their early years were during the 70's. I'm shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU!!

The recession didnt help but wage data is *very clear*. They have barely budged for many segments and got worse while the economy has expanded quite a bit. Where is that money going? All the data shows productivity gains are being hoovered up by the top. In the post-war expansion it was shared broadly. This isnt even a difference of opinion. You are turning a blind eye to the data. The gini index, productivity data, wage data, wealth data all point to a concentration at the top. There were also recent studies that show policy preferences of the top 5% and especially the 0.1% are much more likely to be implemented. I'd link but I'm on a plane. Is there really a debate about which "classes" policy preferences get built out? Or it's effect on wealth distribution?

I just think you are drawing the wrong conclusions.

This follows. If you dont understand the inputs then you will get not reach anything approaching the same conclusion. You haven't even really provided an alternative idea other than it's wrong.

See the Wait but Why discussion in EBG.

I'm familiar with the thread but do not understand the connection.

[El Guapo]

There's nothing incorrect about your data, though I'd argue there's caveats around the great recession and rising health care costs as opposed to upper class theft. I mean, duh, those that got to participate in the post war expansion did better than those that their early years were during the 70's. I'm shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU!!

The recession didnt help but wage data is *very clear*. They have barely budged for many segments and got worse while the economy has expanded quite a bit. Where is that money going? All the data shows productivity gains are being hoovered up by the top. In the post-war expansion it was shared broadly. This isnt even a difference of opinion. You are turning a blind eye to the data. The gini index, productivity data, wage data, wealth data all point to a concentration at the top. There were also recent studies that show policy preferences of the top 5% and especially the 0.1% are much more likely to be implemented. I'd link but I'm on a plane. Is there really a debate about which "classes" policy preferences get built out? Or it's effect on wealth distribution?

I just think you are drawing the wrong conclusions.

This follows. If you dont understand the inputs then you will get not reach anything approaching the same conclusion. You haven't even really provided an alternative idea other than it's wrong.

See the Wait but Why discussion in EBG.

I'm familiar with the thread but do not understand the connection.

I think the question is less about the data on worsening income inequality (which as you say is reasonably clear), and more about the conclusion that growing inequality is a primary cause of a political trend towards xenophobia. What's the data supporting that conclusion? I take noxiousdog's comment about "why aren't millenials and poor people all voting Republican?" to essentially say that if inequality and economic unfairness are driving xenophobic voting, and if millennials are getting screwed, wouldn't we expect millennial voting to trend towards xenophobic candidates (who tend to be Republican these days)? Millennials definitely are not (obviously). Voting records among the poor I'm less sure about, although my sense is that the key demographic dividers tend to be less poor / not poor, and more white / nonwhite and college degree / no college degree.

It's not that I disagree, it's just that you are taking a large leap from inequality --> xenophobic voting. Your conclusions make some logical sense, but it's a complicated situation and I'm somewhat skeptical that it's quite so simple.

[LordMortis]

There's nothing incorrect about your data, though I'd argue there's caveats around the great recession and rising health care costs as opposed to upper class theft. I mean, duh, those that got to participate in the post war expansion did better than those that their early years were during the 70's. I'm shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU!!

I just think you are drawing the wrong conclusions.

See the Wait but Why discussion in EBG.

I tend to see a lot of history into sociology stuff very similar to you but that doesn't seem to be enough of the picture to me. Your post makes it sound like expansion = more to go around, when there was a lot happening. New Deal politics, the birth of deficit spending as every day governing, and the need for bodies to fuel expansion were the mechanisms that distributed that wealth which in turn fueled expansion. Today, those who got their share of the wealth going around are protecting its continued growth at the expense of whose early years were during the 70s and beyond. Those who benefited from the post war expansion well enough to have a piece of the pie want to torch what what gave them their piece so they can always have their pie and eat it too. With great irony being we continue to grow consumerism, so their regenerating pie is regenerating more faster and more faster and more faster while they actively join the movement to suppress others from getting a piece.

What percentage of postwar expansion workforce weren't tracked to have healthcare for the rest of their lives?
What percentage of early years during the 70s and beyond are tracked that way without the ACA?
What is the cost of healthcare to end user from the ACA, even subsidized vs the cost of healthcare as provided through a pension?

My old man tells me "you can live off $300 a month"... Sure you can when your life is paid for and you have medicare and you have your employer providing your health care even after you've been retired for over 20 years. Protecting yours by means of denying them.

The Virtue of Selfishness...

[noxiousdog]

I'm not sure what you are getting at and I think it's a bit off topic.

Wealth in the modern era (post ww II) is (income - expenses) x investments ^ time. This is true in pensions and with personal savings. This means the earlier you can get investments and the longer you have them invested, the greater the impact on your wealth. This is why 60 year olds are the wealthiest people. Their income is the highest (most experience and promotions), their expenses are the lowest (they've already paid off their mortgages), and they've had the longest time to multiply their wealth. This is expected behavior.

Comparing generations at a point of time in their life is absolutely the correct way to compare. However, generations that start (1960-1970) with 10 years of GDP expansion of 4.53% compared to generations that start with 3.13% (1980-1990) is going to have an outcome where 4.53% is significantly better.

Secondly, this conversation cannot be had independent of the ridiculous growth of health care costs. There's a strong argument that the reduction in income over the last 20 years is due to the growth in health care costs. Median income expansion is basically flat, while those health care costs continue to rise. As employers pay most of those costs, this is compensation that never shows up in wages.

Regardless, in regard to the conversation with malchior, El Guapo conveyed what I was trying to express.

[malchior]

You keep missing the point I'm making. Yes the pie grew differently at different times. So direct comparisons are affected by it. Healthcare is a factor. For sure.

However the overarching policy regime is exasperating the effect of these forces on people. As the pie grew during the post-war expansion as measured in productivity growth it was broadly shared. Meaning wage growth correlated almost 1 to 1 to productivity.

Around the 70s productivity and wage growth decoupled. So the pie grew slower *and* gains went to fewer people. This trend has been accelerating.

Part of the reason for the decoupling was that the people at the top went global seeking yield.That further depressed wages as they found labor arbitrage and efficient supply lines overseas. The wealthy also had capital to invest while regular folks were struggling to pay bills which is definitely a part of the story.

But to the larger picture, American workers were exposed with no top cover to a global labor market. While they were struggling with healthcare costs they had this increasing pressure. There is also a case that some share of the wage stagnation is because it is lost to total cost to employ someone when healthcare costs are factored in.

That is a long way to say that your models are too simple. Yes different growth rates lead to different outcomes and healthcare is a major stressor on the system but that only reinforces the point. We have massive chunks of income and wealth concentrated in few hands. The data there is not even debatable. It is what you choose to do about it.

This isnt a morality tale. I'm not saying the rich are evil. They are looking at their own selfish interests like everyone else. The problem is the system has devolved to enable them to constantly win. Look back at the great recession. We literally paid bad actors huge sums of money to keep the economy rolling. Heads I win, tails you lose. That literally was the spawn of the tea party that turned into the present monster.

Back to the original point - people on the losing side of the economic divide are feeling it but not quite understanding it. They are lashing out at everything around them. That the truly evil politicians pointed them at brown people is the morality tale. They are scapegoating to avoid dealing with the economic harms they are externalizing on the economy.

Edit: To address mortis's point because it is important. The older are wealthier and whiter. That they had better benefits in the past is certainly part of the puzzle. They were promised much that wasnt sustainable.

That politicians are sprinkling gifts on them is no surprise. They vote. In consistently high numbers. That the protectors of the super wealthy throw breadcrumbs to some folks to maintain their coalition is just good "business".

[noxiousdog]

We are going in circles. I agree with all of your economic analysis.

I don't buy your conclusion because the ones being most affected (younger minority voters) aren't the ones voting for Trump (older white voters).

Now, if you want to talk about why Bernie Sanders has any support at all, I totally would adopt your theory.

[malchior]

It's not that I disagree, it's just that you are taking a large leap from inequality --> xenophobic voting. Your conclusions make some logical sense, but it's a complicated situation and I'm somewhat skeptical that it's quite so simple.

I disagree in the sense that it is simple. It isnt direct. Xenophobia is only one expression of the effect. Big picture is the idea that inequality drives pressure for populism. Due to the economic forces that impact people day after day. Month after month.

And then the model expands to different outcome about how that populism is being channeled. It differs amongst different populations. Mostly because these populations have natural world views that align to certain party platforms or conform enough to be acceptable. It aligns generationally because on the spectrum it has been getting a) worse and b) drove people to make choices that had certain effects. For example, younger people were driven to take on loans that depressed their long term prospects or they will generally have to take a low paying job that has poor long term prospects. Sometimes both! Ugh. Anyway there were two pretty clear main avenues of populism here.

The populism on the right where people are older and whiter. They are being pushed by politicians in their coalition towards statism and xenophobia. Things that had kindling there but were blown into hot fire. The current President I think it is safe to say is stoking it pretty strongly at this point.

The populism in the left amongst the younger is statism of the socialist bent. Land grabs at capital (loan forgiveness). The 'Bernie bros' which is funny because he actually does better amongst college educated females. The very people being crushed under the debt wheel. That they also came into the job force when wages were depressed by the great recession did not help.

Anyway I think that addresses the question but it is as you said complicated. Think though there is a strong direct line from inequality to where we are and time will prove that.

[El Guapo]

Anyway I think that addresses the question but it is as you said complicated. Think though there is a strong direct line from inequality to where we are and time will prove that.

I mean, I don't think really it does. Your posts on this are basically [discussions of economic issues], therefore, political populism. The meat on the bones here would be some analysis of voting patterns, polling data, and the like - that's what's missing.

Also, I tend to suspect that a big chunk of the dynamic here is demographic change over time, especially in the United States. The age of the stable white christian majority in America is coming to an end. Combine that with massive (positive) social changes in the 20th century on race, gender, sexual orientation, and the like, that a significant chunk of the population is not comfortable with. This is the stuff that you read in some sectors of the like around the idea of the "Flight 91" election - we need to do something before all these liberals and brown people take over the country and make it not a white christian country. Is that connected to economics? Sure, somewhat. But there is a huge chunk of it which is identity based. Which is more important? I don't know, but I'm wary of saying that the dynamic is mainly plutocrats manipulating the angry poor.

[malchior]

Anyway I think that addresses the question but it is as you said complicated. Think though there is a strong direct line from inequality to where we are and time will prove that.

I mean, I don't think really it does. Your posts on this are basically [discussions of economic issues], therefore, political populism. The meat on the bones here would be some analysis of voting patterns, polling data, and the like - that's what's missing.

The trouble there is that none of this is going to be that direct. Piketty did good work on this but without a lot of the politics. There is work to get there happening in academia but the Trump coalition in 2016 was definitely driven heavily by responses to perceived imbalances. White, blue collar workers went to him across the board. And he definitely leaned heavily on racist rhetoric that was previously the domain of dogwhistled. However if those people were economically comfortable would they be angry enough to move? I doubt it personally.

He also got white, suburban women until they left him in 2018. Why? There are a lot of confounding factors there. With the blue collars it appeared to be a fine helping of they are stealing your jobs with for the first time on a national stage openly saying they are raping/murdering your women.

With white suburban women it was a hint of the brown violence and a lot of Supreme Court drum banging. And other factors but ultimately it was still all in service of getting a coalition that delivered benefits to the wealthiest. The rich pretty much bankroll the whole thing with their dark money pools. That it got out of control was likely pretty much an accident.

But in the end they still are making out well. They got their judges. They got their tax policy. Yadda yadda. The stuff "they" care about got done.

Also, I tend to suspect that a big chunk of the dynamic here is demographic change over time, especially in the United States. The age of the stable white christian majority in America is coming to an end. Combine that with massive (positive) social changes in the 20th century on race, gender, sexual orientation, and the like, that a significant chunk of the population is not comfortable with. This is the stuff that you read in some sectors of the like around the idea of the "Flight 91" election - we need to do something before all these liberals and brown people take over the country and make it not a white christian country. Is that connected to economics? Sure, somewhat. But there is a huge chunk of it which is identity based. Which is more important? I don't know, but I'm wary of saying that the dynamic is mainly plutocrats manipulating the angry poor.

i agree but mainly isnt probably the right word. Plutocrats doing whatever they can to keep the system tilted in their favor whatever that cost is probably the best way to put it. You can definitely argue about the weights of individual effects but I think it is significant.

One way I look at it is that it is pretty easy to track that this system does a great job delivering policy preferences for the very rich. And not so much for the average person. Conservative judges are about preserving corporatism, economic dominance, and control over social issues. I would just argue the first two means much more to say the Federalist society vetting picks versus the latter.

This also builds up to the political mechanics realities which is that the politicians need to build coalitions to maintain their power. That they have all kinds of wildly inconsistent positions and it still works speaks to massive dysfunction but it is all window dressing on the main thrust which is economic control.

I think your point about thr failure of the stable coalition you mention above is very important. That is why we see the GOP doing everything they can to maintain their grip. It is also why the danger level is so high.

Still long-term risks aside, that they are manipulating or capturing different groups in different ways is pretty much the game. 2016 was a bizarre mix of these populist economics combined with statist rhetoric, long time dogwhistles, and appeals to religious groups. It is a motley platform but what's odd is that they've got nearly everyone to buy into the whole thing even when it is contradictory.

Anyway circing around to identity politics, I agree that a portion of the xenophobia is backlash to it. However, I suspect the relationship isnt identity causing xenophobia. I think identity politics arose as a response to racial awareness that has developed over time. It has become a bit of an overreaction to the systems racial and anti-LGBT problems. Right now the pendulum has swung very hard to the other side and is driving responses on many fronts.

Also, obviously we have a dismal record on these issues but even then right-wing violence has been an escalating problem going back decades. However, it was ignored... especially in the last decade and a half or so...and allowed to fester. The authorities were tunnel visioned on the brown people terror problem. And then Trump came along to exploit it. And again what did he do with that power? Mostly policies aimed at tilting the field further away from workers. Very little of the actual work he is doing actually is really addressing the hate he uses. I'm partially convinced he does it to keep up with his bonafides and partially because he is a shit goblin.


Anyway, the rich arent really participating in that. The people writing checks are just ok with it as long as the spice keeps flowing to them. Aside from the dumb ass trade war he is not really doing anything that hurts the wealthy. IMO the pattern isnt hard to see.

[Defiant]

Four states are poised to cancel their 2020 GOP presidential primaries and caucuses, a move that would cut off oxygen to Donald Trump’s long-shot primary challengers.

Republican parties in South Carolina, Nevada, Arizona and Kansas are expected to finalize the cancellations in meetings this weekend, according to three GOP officials who are familiar with the plans.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/ ... rs-1483126

[Isgrimnur]

Isn’t the party system great?

[Jaymann]

Doubling down on the worst President and disgrace of a human being in history.

[Zarathud]

Trump is just afraid he won’t win.

[Holman]

Trump is just afraid he won’t win.

Nah. He would win the primary in a landslide. Then he could crow about that.

The RNC is afraid of the clips and soundbites that a primary debate would produce.

I kind of wonder if they're making a mistake. An honest primary win would look good for Trump (especially as it would be enormous), and he could claim that no incumbent president in a century has been so fair as to give rivals in his own party a chance to challenge him. Squashing dissent looks dishonest.

[Defiant]

Just to be clear, they're only cancelling them in four states, which seems like a weird decision (you still have a primary in the vast majority of states, but now his opponents have a talking point to attack him on). It's also possible this could inspire one of his opponents to run a third party run.

I kind of wonder if they're making a mistake. An honest primary win would look good for Trump (especially as it would be enormous), and he could claim that no incumbent president in a century has been so fair as to give rivals in his own party a chance to challenge him.

That's not true (other incumbent presidents have faced more serious challenges from their party), and, of course, given that this is Trump, he could always make that claim regardless.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Apparently it's a pretty common thing for primaries to be canceled for the incumbent president's party. But how much that is due to the incumbent not having any challengers, I don't know.

[Alefroth]

McReady off to an early lead in NC-09.

[Alefroth]

McReady off to an early lead in NC-09.

Didn't last long, but there are still uncounted votes in areas favorable to McReady.

Edit: Most votes are in, looks like Bishop will take it.

[Defiant]

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1 ... 2452596737

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1 ... 4649057280

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1 ... 4299546632

[Alefroth]

The closeness of the race could still lead to a rash of GOP retirements.

[Holman]

Yeah, this was something like a D+11 shift. In North Carolina.

[Isgrimnur]

I'm sure this will be completely legal.

Trump’s reelection campaign plans to launch a smartphone app this fall to encourage supporters to donate, volunteer and reel in like-minded voters — all while providing the president more unfiltered access to his followers. Supporters who download the all-in-one app are expected to be able to sign up for a Make America Great Again rally, canvas a neighborhood or call voters, maybe even register to vote as the campaign looks to turn passive supporters into activists.

Perhaps the most important feature will be the app’s use of prizes — maybe VIP seats or a photo with Trump — to persuade the most fervent supporters to recruit their friends, rewarding them as campaigns have been doing for top donors for years, according to people familiar with the plans.

[hepcat]

His base won't understand how to make it work, while his haters will screw with it every chance they get. I can't wait.

[coopasonic]

Created by the best mobile app developers Russia has to offer.

[Daehawk]

As 2020 draws closer I begin to wonder what concessions or things Donald will give away to despots to make himself look good in the eyes of his fan base.

[noxiousdog]

Created by the best mobile app developers Russia has to offer.

Seriously. I wouldn't install that on a burner phone.

[pr0ner]

This meshes with some articles I've seen since the third debate but may be the most aggressive language about Biden.

White Supremacy Lite? Is this where we're headed soon with discourse regarding Biden?

https://www.twitter.com/BreeNewsome/sta ... 9443420162

[hepcat]

We have extremists on the left too. That's not surprising. What hopefully won't happen is that they become the voice in power, like what's happened with the right.

[El Guapo]

This meshes with some articles I've seen since the third debate but may be the most aggressive language about Biden.

White Supremacy Lite? Is this where we're headed soon with discourse regarding Biden?

He's not wrong in saying that the core premise of the Biden campaign is essentially to end the Trump madness without shaking things up too much. The rhetoric is completely bonkers though. It's part of how I'm kind of anti-anti-Biden at this point - Biden's not my first choice, but a lot of people are fucking losing their minds over his campaign in a way that makes no sense.

On the one hand it doesn't really matter what "Bree Newsome Bass" thinks about Biden. On the other it does sometimes feel like most of the Democratic field is running for president of progressive Twitter.

[Isgrimnur]

On the one hand it doesn't really matter what "Bree Newsome Bass" thinks about Biden.

Actually, it might.

Wiki

Brittany Ann Byuarim "Bree" Newsome (born c. 1984 or 1985) is an American filmmaker, musician, speaker, and activist from Charlotte, North Carolina. She is best known for her act of civil disobedience on June 27, 2015, when she was arrested for removing the Confederate flag from the South Carolina state house grounds. The resulting publicity put pressure on state officials to remove the flag, and it was taken down permanently on July 10, 2015.

[pr0ner]

Here's another article in Rolling Stone that says Biden needs to drop out because the Democrats need an antiracist nominee to go up against Trump, and Biden isn't up to the task.

[El Guapo]

On the one hand it doesn't really matter what "Bree Newsome Bass" thinks about Biden.

Actually, it might.

Wiki

Brittany Ann Byuarim "Bree" Newsome (born c. 1984 or 1985) is an American filmmaker, musician, speaker, and activist from Charlotte, North Carolina. She is best known for her act of civil disobedience on June 27, 2015, when she was arrested for removing the Confederate flag from the South Carolina state house grounds. The resulting publicity put pressure on state officials to remove the flag, and it was taken down permanently on July 10, 2015.

I've never heard of her before (even after reading this blurb), but I get the general impression that she's a reasonable fill-in for "generic Bernie / Move On / progressive activists". And it does matter that this category of activist strongly dislikes Biden as a rule, as it makes it far more likely that we see 2016-type convention disruptions (especially if the 2020 convention is brokered, which at this point I think is more likely than not to happen). Which is another reason I am lukewarm on nominating Biden (though that fact also sits poorly with me, as I dislike being semi-held hostage by a relatively small group of activists).

[Remus West]

The right allowed their fringe to take control of the party and we ended up with tRump via the Tea Party.

I'm not a big Biden fan but I would really prefer Bernie go home sooner rather than later.

[LordMortis]

He's on my <plonk> list. He went all bluster and Stein after not beating Clinton. He should have had the sense to back someone instead of running again. That alone disqualifies him from potentially be a reasonable president in my book and it is only re-enforced by the climate we're in.

[Remus West]

He's on my <plonk> list. He went all bluster and Stein after not beating Clinton. He should have had the sense to back someone instead of running again. That alone disqualifies him from potentially be a reasonable president in my book and it is only re-enforced by the climate we're in.

So much of this.

[Drazzil]

We have extremists on the left too. That's not surprising. What hopefully won't happen is that they become the voice in power, like what's happened with the right.

Because we've had *such* great successes with the appeasenik's and centrists running the Dem party so far...

As an "extremist" on the left who still will NOT vote for Biden if he manages to slime his way into the nomination; I think you underestimate the number of progressives that just wont show up if the Dem's run someone who won't fight for them.

We have gone way past the Democratic strategy of being the "adult in the room" The US needs a leader, someone who is a clear contrast to the cheeto in chief. If voters have a choice between a republican and someone who just acts like one, the republican will win every time.

Mark my words, if Biden (or any centrist) runs against Trump, he will lose.

I've argued this point for years and years, the Dem's need a godd-mn spine, or no one will listen to them.

[Holman]

We have extremists on the left too. That's not surprising. What hopefully won't happen is that they become the voice in power, like what's happened with the right.

Because we've had *such* great successes with the appeasenik's and centrists running the Dem party so far...

As an "extremist" on the left who still will NOT vote for Biden if he manages to slime his way into the nomination; I think you underestimate the number of progressives that just wont show up if the Dem's run someone who won't fight for them.

We have gone way past the Democratic strategy of being the "adult in the room" The US needs a leader, someone who is a clear contrast to the cheeto in chief. If voters have a choice between a republican and someone who just acts like one, the republican will win every time.

Mark my words, if Biden (or any centrist) runs against Trump, he will lose.

I've argued this point for years and years, the Dem's need a godd-mn spine, or no one will listen to them.

Your excitement isn't as widespread as you would like. If it were, Sanders would be the clear frontrunner.

Elections are about vote totals. If you withhold your vote from the Dem total--NO MATTER who the candidate is--you're helping the Republican win. It's that simple.

I actually don't think Biden will be the nominee. But if he is, don't let Bernie make you let Trump win. That's kind of what happened last time.

[pr0ner]

We have extremists on the left too. That's not surprising. What hopefully won't happen is that they become the voice in power, like what's happened with the right.

Because we've had *such* great successes with the appeasenik's and centrists running the Dem party so far...

As an "extremist" on the left who still will NOT vote for Biden if he manages to slime his way into the nomination; I think you underestimate the number of progressives that just wont show up if the Dem's run someone who won't fight for them.

We have gone way past the Democratic strategy of being the "adult in the room" The US needs a leader, someone who is a clear contrast to the cheeto in chief. If voters have a choice between a republican and someone who just acts like one, the republican will win every time.

Mark my words, if Biden (or any centrist) runs against Trump, he will lose.

I've argued this point for years and years, the Dem's need a godd-mn spine, or no one will listen to them.

Your excitement isn't as widespread as you would like. If it were, Sanders would be the clear frontrunner.

Elections are about vote totals. If you withhold your vote from the Dem total--NO MATTER who the candidate is--you're helping the Republican win. It's that simple.

I actually don't think Biden will be the nominee. But if he is, don't let Bernie make you let Trump win re-election.

This.

[Daehawk]

I dont see anyone on either side being a good President.

[Isgrimnur]

Can you see them being better than the one we have?