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

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:25 pm

Drazzil wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:28 pm I've argued this point for years and years, the Dem's need a godd-mn spine, or no one will listen to them.

And you need a godd-mn brain if you think not voting Biden is a sensible idea.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:26 pm

Daehawk wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:59 pm I dont see anyone on either side being a good President.

Seriously? Can you elaborate? What previous presidents do you consider good?

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:42 pm

FDR, Clinton, Kennedy, GB Jr was ok.

Dont see anyone strong or votable. Im definitely not voting GOP. Not after Trump and the way they've crutched him up and kissed his brown spot. Might as well rule all female Dems out as they wont beat a Trump ticket. Bernie is too old and crazy'ish. Most are too Socialist. Biden is the strongest but he likes to use scare tactics for votes and pity stories on his son. The younger Dems dont have either the experience or the smarts to do the job.

Its almost like we're on a see-saw. Years ago we all started sitting near the middle and kept the ride smooth. These days we all run out to the ends as far as we can go and have wild swings of fever pitches. Just dont like it and dont care for it all. Extremes dont impress me.

Its all just party sided BS in DC. Theres no more working together for the country and better luck in 4 years.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:46 pm

Daehawk wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:42 pm FDR, Clinton, Kennedy, GB Jr was ok.

Might as well rule all female Dems out as they wont beat a Trump ticket.

That doesn't make them not good, though. Why wouldn't Warren be a good president?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:50 pm

pr0ner wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:55 pm
Holman wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:55 pm
Drazzil wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:28 pm
hepcat wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:58 pm 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.

Ditto. Wanting to watch the world burn if you don’t get your way is juvenile and dangerous. You either learn to compromise for the good of your country...or you become a Trump supporter.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:02 pm

Daehawk wrote:Its all just party sided BS in DC. Theres no more working together for the country and better luck in 4 years.

The Founding Fathers were pricks to each other, fought bitterly and engaged in duels. You are hoping for something that never existed.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:04 pm

Daehawk wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:42 pm FDR, Clinton, Kennedy, GB Jr was ok.

FDR was constantly attacked as a Socialist. His whole presidency was about saving capitalism from itself and then saving liberal democracy from authoritarianism. He accomplished both jobs beautifully.

The next Democratic president will have exactly the same two missions. It's going to be tough, but I'd say we have a few candidates who can do it, or at least not fail.

The alternative is terrifying.

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:12 pm

Holman wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:55 pm
Drazzil wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:28 pm
hepcat wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:58 pm 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.

I'm strangely okay with this. Trump brings the pain to all Americans. Trump even screws the ultra rich, because he might just be the kind of massive idiot who will bring such calamity that it will force the average american to confront the vile idiocy of neoliberalism and destroy it once and for all, not just keep it limping along for another four years like a centrist would.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:19 pm

Some folks love the idea of anarchy....until the reality of it sets in and they realize they’re the first one to become its victim.

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:22 pm

Wait a minute... For the first time in my life I have a pretty sweet gig now. If the govt goes away no more free food or housing while I look for work... Ermmm. Lemme change my vote to whoever the hell runs against Trump. Viva la whoever.

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:23 pm

hepcat wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:19 pm Some folks love the idea of anarchy....until the reality of it sets in and they realize they’re the first one to become its victim.

Took me a few minutes to work through that one but yeah.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:08 pm

Alefroth wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:46 pm
Daehawk wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:42 pm FDR, Clinton, Kennedy, GB Jr was ok.

Might as well rule all female Dems out as they wont beat a Trump ticket.
That doesn't make them not good, though. Why wouldn't Warren be a good president?

The thing is, you don't *know* someone's going to be a good/lousy president until they've been presidenting for a year or two -- long enough to get the hang of it and either rise to the challenges of the day, or not. Hell, even Trump might have risen to the challenge if he were sane and had a better nature. We can only pick the best of the alternatives we're offered and hope.

2020 is a little different because we have an illegitimate, criminal incumbent. Defeating him is paramount regardless of who gets that job. If it's Biden, you gotta catch Biden fever (don't worry; it's mild, and passes quickly).

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:25 pm

Yeah at this point I'm voting for "functional adult."

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:09 pm

Kraken wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:08 pm
Alefroth wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:46 pm
Daehawk wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:42 pm FDR, Clinton, Kennedy, GB Jr was ok.

Might as well rule all female Dems out as they wont beat a Trump ticket.
That doesn't make them not good, though. Why wouldn't Warren be a good president?

2020 is a little different because we have an illegitimate, criminal incumbent. Defeating him is paramount regardless of who gets that job. If it's Biden, you gotta catch Biden fever (don't worry; it's mild, and passes quickly).

GWB was criminal AND illegitimate.

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:19 pm

hepcat wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:50 pm
pr0ner wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:55 pm
Holman wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:55 pm
Drazzil wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:28 pm
hepcat wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:58 pm 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.
Ditto. Wanting to watch the world burn if you don’t get your way is juvenile and dangerous. You either learn to compromise for the good of your country...or you become a Trump supporter.

Compromise has led us to watching the world burn, literally.

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:26 pm

Let me throw out a thought experiment for a second. Do you think Trump's election could have could have anything to do with Obama's style of governance? You know, compromising, appeasing and trying to be the "adult" in the room instead of stepping up to lead?

Now to "save the country" I have to vote for a guy who sees the republicans as "decent guys"?

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:33 pm

Now don't get me wrong, I'll ride in the Biden bitchseat if I need to. But I'm not thrilled for it. A lot of people around me won't. Which sucks cause Oregon is going to be close.

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:35 pm

haha. I can see the slogan now. "Ridin bitch for Biden"

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:02 am

And now I understand the reasoning behind the electoral college.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:24 am

Dave Wasserman on why the Democrats can't ignore that working-class white vote:

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1 ... 9773683713

Shortened because of complaints:

Here's why the "let's win without working-class whites" mentality doesn't hold water for Dems. That demog comprises 45% of all eligible U.S. voters, but:

61% in Wisconsin
61% in New Hampshire
56% in Michigan
56% in Minnesota
56% in Pennsylvania
47% in North Carolina

Good luck.

Dems' backslide w/ these voters is the main reason IA (66%) and OH (60%) have already exited stage right off the EC battleground, and why a Dem nominee who performs even worse w/ them could risk losses in ME (66%), NH (61%) or MN (56%).

Dems' path to beating Trump absolutely depends on retaining the gains they made in diverse, college-educated burbs - the kinds we saw in 2018 & #NC09.

But even a slight drop among white non-college voters could negate all of it, given the demog's size & geographic distribution.
Much of the analysis I'm seeing on this site assumes there's no more room for Dems to fall w/ white non-college voters, who are simply a "lost cause."

In fact, Dems have an awful lot more room to fall w/ them, and that's especially true in many of the most critical EC states.
Moreover, the notion that voting behavior is polarized to the point that there aren't any swing/persuadable voters left isn't based in reality.

Not only did we see above-average swings from '12 to '16, Dems wouldn't have gone +40 in '18 without converting lots of '16 R voters.

The bottom line: Dems don't need to win a higher % of the WWC than in '16 b/c 1) it's declining as a % of voters and 2) Dems have made robust gains among college whites.

But Dems *can't* afford to backslide much further & hope to win MI/PA/WI etc. And avoiding that isn't simple.

(Edited to shorten post)

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:22 am

Blackhawk wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:02 am And now I understand the reasoning behind the electoral college.

If the electorial college should have saved us anywhere; it should've saved us from Trump. It didn't.

hitbyambulance · Post by **hitbyambulance** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:40 am

approximately three and a half feet of screen real estate for 40 lines of text - Twitter threads _are_ the future of human discourse!

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:28 am

Blackhawk wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:02 am And now I understand the reasoning behind the electoral college.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:25 am

hitbyambulance wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:40 am approximately three and a half feet of screen real estate for 40 lines of text - Twitter threads _are_ the future of human discourse!

At least it wasn't a Seth Abramson thread!

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:22 pm

Fighting for votes everywhere is important, but it's worth noting that Democrats have not won a majority of the white vote (not just the working-class white vote, but ALL white votes) since before Jimmy Carter.

We can't confuse "winning a good portion of the white working class" with "tailoring our campaign to the white working class." The only way to do that (at least right now) is to be a Republican.

The key for Democrats is to start from how Bill and Barack did it.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:35 pm

Holman wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:22 pm Fighting for votes everywhere is important, but it's worth noting that Democrats have not won a majority of the white vote (not just the working-class white vote, but ALL white votes) since before Jimmy Carter.

We can't confuse "winning a good portion of the white working class" with "tailoring our campaign to the white working class." The only way to do that (at least right now) is to be a Republican.

The key for Democrats is to start from how Bill and Barack did it.

Of course. But Wasserman's arguing against the notion that Democrats can essentially disregard the WWC vote. He's saying that Democrats do have room to lose more of that vote, and that if they do it could be catastrophic.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:58 pm

Seems like a red herring to me. At least, I haven't heard anyone argue that Dems can completely ignore the WWC vote.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:48 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:58 pm Seems like a red herring to me. At least, I haven't heard anyone argue that Dems can completely ignore the WWC vote.

And yet, Beto threatens to confiscate their guns.

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:02 pm

Holman wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:22 pm The only way to do that (at least right now) is to be a Republican.

Wrong. No one even pretends to represent the working class anymore, not the Democrats, not anyone. Obama talked a good game then did nothing. Hillary didn't even *pretend* to court the working class. She even said "Don't vote for me if you're expecting changes from how Obama did things" Trump was the only one who at least offered any kind of hope for the working class (then shit all over us the second he got in office)

So, please don't pretend that the Democrats have lost the working class (even the white workers) The working class is just sick of being screwed. Trump should have been a wake up call that we can't continue to be ignored, a good solid "fuck you" to those who continue to marginalise us. If the working class continues to get screwed, the politicans will continue to become even more extreme.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:37 pm

Drazzil wrote:Obama talked a good game then did nothing.

I'm not sure pulling the country out of a recession was nothing, particularly for the working class.

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:00 am

YellowKing wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:37 pm
Drazzil wrote:Obama talked a good game then did nothing.
I'm not sure pulling the country out of a recession was nothing, particularly for the working class.

I didn't see this latest "expansion" create good paying jobs. Just service jobs. I could be wrong though.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:14 am

Anyone else amused that Drazzil speaks for the working class?

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:22 am

Kraken wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:14 am Anyone else amused that Drazzil speaks for the working class?

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 7:37 am

Kraken wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:14 am Anyone else amused that Drazzil speaks for the working class?

I was thinking the same thing.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:14 am

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:58 pm Seems like a red herring to me. At least, I haven't heard anyone argue that Dems can completely ignore the WWC vote.

Well, the argument tends to be more "there are no truly persuadable voters, so it's all base turnout, so Democratic candidates can go as far left as they want with no negative effects." And any impact on the votes of Trump's base (which tends towards white non-college educated voters) is dismissed because they're Trump's base and therefore unpersuadable, and are a lost cause regardless.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:44 am

Drazzil wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:00 am
YellowKing wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:37 pm
Drazzil wrote:Obama talked a good game then did nothing.
I'm not sure pulling the country out of a recession was nothing, particularly for the working class.
I didn't see this latest "expansion" create good paying jobs. Just service jobs. I could be wrong though.

Service jobs are good jobs.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:05 am

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:44 am
Drazzil wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:00 am
YellowKing wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:37 pm
Drazzil wrote:Obama talked a good game then did nothing.
I'm not sure pulling the country out of a recession was nothing, particularly for the working class.
I didn't see this latest "expansion" create good paying jobs. Just service jobs. I could be wrong though.
Service jobs are good jobs.

Depends on your definition. Anyway the BLS numbers predict at the moment that over the next 10 years low paying jobs dominate the forecasts for job growth.

Quick summary:

Code: Select all

New Jobs      Salary Ranges
2840700       < $30K
506600        >= $30K <= $40K
610400        >= $40K <= $72K
524800        >= $72K <= $104K
104700        >= 104K <= $128K

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:29 am

Service jobs are good jobs.
Depends on your definition.

No it doesn't. It does depend on the job though. IT and health care jobs are obviously better service jobs than waiting tables.

Anyway the BLS numbers predict at the moment that over the next 10 years low paying jobs dominate the forecasts for job growth.

Quick summary:
Code: Select all
New Jobs      Salary Ranges
2840700       < $30K
506600        >= $30K <= $40K
610400        >= $40K <= $72K
524800        >= $72K <= $104K
104700        >= 104K <= $128K

That's not the way it works. If we need 900,000 personal care aides (which is 1/3 of your top number) and they can't be found, then they will no longer be paid 24k per year. This is extremely likely considering the industry is projected to grow 33%. I suspect that the current low number is likely due to the number of part time workers in that industry.

That being said, I wish more folks were paying attention to Andrew Yang on this issue. Non-skilled labor will nearly disappear in our lifetime.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:43 am

noxiousdog wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:29 am That's not the way it works. If we need 900,000 personal care aides (which is 1/3 of your top number) and they can't be found, then they will no longer be paid 24k per year. This is extremely likely considering the industry is projected to grow 33%. I suspect that the current low number is likely due to the number of part time workers in that industry.

That being said, I wish more folks were paying attention to Andrew Yang on this issue. Non-skilled labor will nearly disappear in our lifetime.

What's funny is health care will blame increases on needing to pay those workers more while defending the necessary high profit margin expenses of durable supplies, incare stays, over use of preventative diagnostics, pharmaceuticals, etc...

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:43 am

LordMortis wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:43 am
noxiousdog wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:29 am That's not the way it works. If we need 900,000 personal care aides (which is 1/3 of your top number) and they can't be found, then they will no longer be paid 24k per year. This is extremely likely considering the industry is projected to grow 33%. I suspect that the current low number is likely due to the number of part time workers in that industry.

That being said, I wish more folks were paying attention to Andrew Yang on this issue. Non-skilled labor will nearly disappear in our lifetime.
What's funny is health care will blame increases on needing to pay those workers more while defending the necessary high profit margin expenses of durable supplies, incare stays, over use of preventative diagnostics, pharmaceuticals, etc...

That's not the way it works either.

Non-snarky reply: There is no spokesperson for "Health Care." No business defends "high margin." Businesses price as high as they can and lower their costs as much as they can.