That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
And you need a godd-mn brain if you think not voting Biden is a sensible idea.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.
Seriously? Can you elaborate? What previous presidents do you consider good?
That doesn't make them not good, though. Why wouldn't Warren be a good president?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.
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.pr0ner wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:55 pmThis.Holman wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:55 pmYour excitement isn't as widespread as you would like. If it were, Sanders would be the clear frontrunner.Drazzil wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:28 pmBecause we've had *such* great successes with the appeasenik's and centrists running the Dem party so far...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.
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.
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.
The Founding Fathers were pricks to each other, fought bitterly and engaged in duels. You are hoping for something that never existed.Daehawk wrote:Its all just party sided BS in DC. Theres no more working together for the country and better luck in 4 years.
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.
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.Holman wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:55 pmYour excitement isn't as widespread as you would like. If it were, Sanders would be the clear frontrunner.Drazzil wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:28 pmBecause we've had *such* great successes with the appeasenik's and centrists running the Dem party so far...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.
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.
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.
Took me a few minutes to work through that one but yeah.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.
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.
GWB was criminal AND illegitimate.Kraken wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:08 pm
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).
Compromise has led us to watching the world burn, literally.hepcat wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:50 pmDitto. 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.pr0ner wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:55 pmThis.Holman wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:55 pmYour excitement isn't as widespread as you would like. If it were, Sanders would be the clear frontrunner.Drazzil wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:28 pmBecause we've had *such* great successes with the appeasenik's and centrists running the Dem party so far...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.
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.
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.
(Edited to shorten post)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.
If the electorial college should have saved us anywhere; it should've saved us from Trump. It didn't.Blackhawk wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:02 am And now I understand the reasoning behind the electoral college.
Blackhawk wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:02 am And now I understand the reasoning behind the electoral college.
At least it wasn't a Seth Abramson thread!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!
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.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.
And yet, Beto threatens to confiscate their guns.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.
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)Holman wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:22 pm The only way to do that (at least right now) is to be a Republican.
I'm not sure pulling the country out of a recession was nothing, particularly for the working class.Drazzil wrote:Obama talked a good game then did nothing.
I didn't see this latest "expansion" create good paying jobs. Just service jobs. I could be wrong though.YellowKing wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:37 pmI'm not sure pulling the country out of a recession was nothing, particularly for the working class.Drazzil wrote:Obama talked a good game then did nothing.
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.Kraken wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:14 am Anyone else amused that Drazzil speaks for the working class?
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.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.
Service jobs are good jobs.Drazzil wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:00 amI didn't see this latest "expansion" create good paying jobs. Just service jobs. I could be wrong though.YellowKing wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:37 pmI'm not sure pulling the country out of a recession was nothing, particularly for the working class.Drazzil wrote:Obama talked a good game then did nothing.
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.noxiousdog wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:44 amService jobs are good jobs.Drazzil wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:00 amI didn't see this latest "expansion" create good paying jobs. Just service jobs. I could be wrong though.YellowKing wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:37 pmI'm not sure pulling the country out of a recession was nothing, particularly for the working class.Drazzil wrote:Obama talked a good game then did nothing.
Code: Select all
New Jobs Salary Ranges
2840700 < $30K
506600 >= $30K <= $40K
610400 >= $40K <= $72K
524800 >= $72K <= $104K
104700 >= 104K <= $128K
No it doesn't. It does depend on the job though. IT and health care jobs are obviously better service jobs than waiting tables.Depends on your definition.Service jobs are good jobs.
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.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
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 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.
That's not the way it works either.LordMortis wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:43 amWhat'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 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.