Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

(11-19-2019, 11:20 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-14-2019, 04:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-14-2019, 03:45 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: [ -> ]Obama was an oddball - first, he's from Hawaii, the most un-typical US state among the 50, and second, he spent a good part of his childhood in Indonesia. And if you insisst that he's part of the US cycle, his empty talk of Hope and Change™ is very Boomer-like.

Without such talk, we stay mired in cynicism typical of Gen X and go nowhere at all. Where there is no vision, the people perish. Obama did not provide strong enough leadership to get the ideas he talked about passed, and he faced a resistance from Red America that is so demented and potent that no president could have overcome it.

Obama got healthcare noticed, though he failed to get real, fundamental reform.  He also got the diversity box checked, to what end we'll see over time.  Those are both notable results, but neither is transformational.  Transformation is what's needed now, so who and how is still an open question.  As much as I like and admire Biden as a person, he doesn't fit the bill.  The most Progressive voices are older Boomers, at a time we need to see rising youth leadership.  That leaves marginal players who can't get traction, as good as they may be, and Pete Buttigieg, who is simply too young.  

At that, I doubt we'll be forced through Trump 2.0.  He's fading.  What needs to happen in parallel is a general fading of GOP influence at all levels: Reaganism has lived on too long. Time for a real change.

It's time; past time. But in your other post you didn't seem too optimistic that it could happen. I have my cosmic crystal ball telling me that it will, but Americans will need to live up to what the "stars" are telling us to do. There will still be lots of resistance, because it's built in. The new progressive regeneracy will need to reach flood tide. It will have to move whoever the left-over leaders are after 2020. It will have to come from the people. 

Millennials are still too young, as you suggest, to provide 4T leadership, though they can supply shock troops and rising stars; this is still the 4T, and so Boomers will still be the leaders. Their younger tier with such folks as Mitch Landrieu and Terry McAuliffe will be the ones who are potential presidents in the last 4T years. Generation X just is not providing any progressive leaders yet; their best potential leaders were too cynical about government to take part. But after the 4T, they may supply the next Ikes to keep things running smoothly after some consensus is achieved. Gavin Newsom would be a good choice for 2028.

Democratic Presidential Nomination
Biden27.0
Warren20.3
Sanders18.8
Buttigieg8.3
Harris4.8
Bloomberg3.0
Yang3.0
Booker1.8
Klobuchar1.8
Gabbard1.3
Castro1.3
Steyer1.0
Delaney1.0
Bullock0.5
Bennet0.5
Williamson0.3
Biden +6.7

(11-19-2019, 01:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-19-2019, 11:20 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Obama got healthcare noticed, though he failed to get real, fundamental reform.  He also got the diversity box checked, to what end we'll see over time.  Those are both notable results, but neither is transformational.  Transformation is what's needed now, so who and how is still an open question.  As much as I like and admire Biden as a person, he doesn't fit the bill.  The most Progressive voices are older Boomers, at a time we need to see rising youth leadership.  That leaves marginal players who can't get traction, as good as they may be, and Pete Buttigieg, who is simply too young.  

At that, I doubt we'll be forced through Trump 2.0.  He's fading.  What needs to happen in parallel is a general fading of GOP influence at all levels: Reaganism has lived on too long. Time for a real change.

It's time; past time. But in your other post you didn't seem too optimistic that it could happen. I have my cosmic crystal ball telling me that it will, but Americans will need to live up to what the "stars" are telling us to do. There will still be lots of resistance, because it's built in. The new progressive regeneracy will need to reach flood tide. It will have to move whoever the left-over leaders are after 2020. It will have to come from the people. 

Millennials are still too young, as you suggest, to provide 4T leadership, though they can supply shock troops and rising stars; this is still the 4T, and so Boomers will still be the leaders. Their younger tier with such folks as Mitch Landrieu and Terry McAuliffe will be the ones who are potential presidents in the last 4T years. Generation X just is not providing any progressive leaders yet; their best potential leaders were too cynical about government to take part. But after the 4T, they may supply the next Ikes to keep things running smoothly after some consensus is achieved. Gavin Newsom would be a good choice for 2028.

Democratic Presidential Nomination
Biden27.0
Warren20.3
Sanders18.8
Buttigieg8.3
Harris4.8
Bloomberg3.0
Yang3.0
Booker1.8
Klobuchar1.8
Gabbard1.3
Castro1.3
Steyer1.0
Delaney1.0
Bullock0.5
Bennet0.5
Williamson0.3
Biden +6.7

I'm not sure Biden is that strong, and he'll fade fast if he gets hammered in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Right now, there is a general malaise and wandering about, as the primary electorate looks for someone-- anyone -- who can move the needle towards certain victory.  The default candidate (Biden) will only hold that honor until he loses once.  That's a bad way to choose a candidate, but Trump has people more concerned about his potential reelection than they are about finding a great opposing candidate.  Then there is the piling-on by everyone who ever gave running a second thought.  It's not pretty and it's likely to get worse.

Can we at least agree that Billionaires should not apply?  Talk about neoliberals ...

(11-19-2019, 03:26 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-19-2019, 01:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-19-2019, 11:20 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Obama got healthcare noticed, though he failed to get real, fundamental reform.  He also got the diversity box checked, to what end we'll see over time.  Those are both notable results, but neither is transformational.  Transformation is what's needed now, so who and how is still an open question.  As much as I like and admire Biden as a person, he doesn't fit the bill.  The most Progressive voices are older Boomers, at a time we need to see rising youth leadership.  That leaves marginal players who can't get traction, as good as they may be, and Pete Buttigieg, who is simply too young.  

At that, I doubt we'll be forced through Trump 2.0.  He's fading.  What needs to happen in parallel is a general fading of GOP influence at all levels: Reaganism has lived on too long. Time for a real change.

It's time; past time. But in your other post you didn't seem too optimistic that it could happen. I have my cosmic crystal ball telling me that it will, but Americans will need to live up to what the "stars" are telling us to do. There will still be lots of resistance, because it's built in. The new progressive regeneracy will need to reach flood tide. It will have to move whoever the left-over leaders are after 2020. It will have to come from the people. 

Millennials are still too young, as you suggest, to provide 4T leadership, though they can supply shock troops and rising stars; this is still the 4T, and so Boomers will still be the leaders. Their younger tier with such folks as Mitch Landrieu and Terry McAuliffe will be the ones who are potential presidents in the last 4T years. Generation X just is not providing any progressive leaders yet; their best potential leaders were too cynical about government to take part. But after the 4T, they may supply the next Ikes to keep things running smoothly after some consensus is achieved. Gavin Newsom would be a good choice for 2028.

Democratic Presidential Nomination
Biden27.0
Warren20.3
Sanders18.8
Buttigieg8.3
Harris4.8
Bloomberg3.0
Yang3.0
Booker1.8
Klobuchar1.8
Gabbard1.3
Castro1.3
Steyer1.0
Delaney1.0
Bullock0.5
Bennet0.5
Williamson0.3
Biden +6.7

I'm not sure Biden is that strong, and he'll fade fast if he gets hammered in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Right now, there is a general malaise and wandering about, as the primary electorate looks for someone-- anyone -- who can move the needle towards certain victory.  The default candidate (Biden) will only hold that honor until he loses once.  That's a bad way to choose a candidate, but Trump has people more concerned about his potential reelection than they are about finding a great opposing candidate.  Then there is the piling-on by everyone who ever gave running a second thought.  It's not pretty and it's likely to get worse.

Can we at least agree that Billionaires should not apply?  Talk about neoliberals ...

Yes please to that.

The reality remains that there are not other such "someones" to find. Not a single one. Those who could achieve that certain victory have bowed out. We are stuck with old geezers, one of whom is often out of touch with younger and more-liberal Democrats and is a bit dottering. But so is the fool incumbent, so I don't think it matters. Polls still show he's the strongest candidate to run against Trump, and that hasn't changed at all for many months now.

It is uncertain whether Biden will win in New Hampshire and Iowa. But if he is close, it looks like he will go on to South Carolina and Nevada and win there, and do well on Super Tuesday. After that it will be tough to stop him. But if Sanders and Warren continue to do well up into the convention, it could be a controversial affair. Warren and Sanders could agree to let one continue with the other's support, and that might outnumber Biden's delegates. Then if will be up to the superdelegates who could decide the nominee on the second ballot, which could further divide the party if Biden gets enough of them to get nominated. A divided party would have less chance to win in what may well be a crap-shoot election, with Trump able to win with 45% of the vote. But even if the superdelegates were to choose Warren, a Democratic loss would be more likely because she is a weak candidate.

(11-14-2019, 04:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-14-2019, 03:45 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: [ -> ]Obama was an oddball - first, he's from Hawaii, the most un-typical US state among the 50, and second, he spent a good part of his childhood in Indonesia. And if you insisst that he's part of the US cycle, his empty talk of Hope and Change™ is very Boomer-like.

Without such talk, we stay mired in cynicism typical of Gen X and go nowhere at all. Where there is no vision, the people perish.

You want a vision? What about survival? Both Global Warming and Islamism/overpopulation of MENA threaten us. Not to mention other big problems. If we don't survive, neither will your religion and spiritualism. Also, no arts and sciences.

Vision's your thing, survival's ours - the Nomads'. So if anyone should be in charge, it's us. People like you have achieved nothing in more than 50 years. You have written many stupid sentences, read many stupid sentences, and esp. tawked many stupid sentences. Go to the garbage heap of history.

(11-20-2019, 03:12 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-14-2019, 04:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-14-2019, 03:45 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: [ -> ]Obama was an oddball - first, he's from Hawaii, the most un-typical US state among the 50, and second, he spent a good part of his childhood in Indonesia. And if you insisst that he's part of the US cycle, his empty talk of Hope and Change™ is very Boomer-like.

Without such talk, we stay mired in cynicism typical of Gen X and go nowhere at all. Where there is no vision, the people perish.

You want a vision? What about survival? Both Global Warming and Islamism/overpopulation of MENA threaten us. Not to mention other big problems. If we don't survive, neither will your religion and spiritualism. Also, no arts and sciences.

Vision's your thing, survival's ours - the Nomads'. So if anyone should be in charge, it's us. People like you have achieved nothing in more than 50 years. You have written many stupid sentences, read many stupid sentences, and esp. talked many stupid sentences. Go to the garbage heap of history.

Global warming for sure, and it does take some vision to see beyond the problem to the solution, a greener world. Islamism is a threat too, although it may not be a threat to our survival, but to the lives of its victims for sure. But, the USA seems to be handling it pretty well, except that this handling also kills other innocent victims. So, maybe not so well. And we betray our allies too, so, not so well in that dept. either. Maybe with better Boomers in charge, we'd have the vision to do it better. 

Sorry, but Boomers were not the only folks voting in the years 1980, 1994, 2000, 2010 and 2016.

You can't do without vision; sorry. Imagination is the source of all creation and all achievement. Try putting up a building with no architect and no blueprints. In MBTI terms, a world with all STs and no NFs will not work. The left Boomers and left Xers have to work together to achieve victory in the 4T, like the book described (and with Millennials too). You won't be among them, and that's your choice. 

And Xers won't be in charge, at least not during the 4T, sorry about that, because no good potential Xer leaders are ever willing to step up and lead. They are out there; they are just preferring to do other things, because of their general cynicism about government (having imbibed the Reagan philosophy in youth; too bad). The best you can put up is someone like Beto O'Rourke. He's fine as a congressman and a rock star, but a president he ain't. Kamala Harris? I mean, gimme a break, man. But maybe you guys are better managers than many stuck-up boomers, I don't know.

Democratic Presidential Nomination

Biden28.3 Silent war-baby
Warren19.3 Boomer
Sanders18.3 Silent war-baby
Buttigieg8.0 early millennial
Harris4.7 Xer
Bloomberg3.0 Silent war-baby
Yang3.0 Xer
Klobuchar1.7 Jones Boomer
Gabbard1.7 late Xer
Castro1.7 Xer
Booker1.3 Xer
Delaney1.3 Xer
Steyer1.0 Boomer
Bullock0.7 Xer
Bennet0.7 Xer
Williamson0.3 Boomer

Biden +9.0

(11-19-2019, 08:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The reality remains that there are not other such "someones" to find. Not a single one. Those who could achieve that certain victory have bowed out. We are stuck with old geezers, one of whom is often out of touch with younger and more-liberal Democrats and is a bit dottering. But so is the fool incumbent, so I don't think it matters. Polls still show he's the strongest candidate to run against Trump, and that hasn't changed at all for many months now.

Electing Biden as a placeholder only makes a mockery of the opportunity at hand. I don't see Joe doing much more than pouring oil on troubled waters, and that's the rub. The electorate has been hiring Dems to do clean-up and to smooth ruffled feathers. Once that's done, they hire Republicans to burn the place to the ground. Rinse and repeat.

Eric Wrote:It is uncertain whether Biden will win in New Hampshire and Iowa. But if he is close, it looks like he will go on to South Carolina and Nevada and win there, and do well on Super Tuesday. After that it will be tough to stop him. But if Sanders and Warren continue to do well up into the convention, it could be a controversial affair. Warren and Sanders could agree to let one continue with the other's support, and that might outnumber Biden's delegates. Then if will be up to the superdelegates who could decide the nominee on the second ballot, which could further divide the party if Biden gets enough of them to get nominated. A divided party would have less chance to win in what may well be a crap-shoot election, with Trump able to win with 45% of the vote. But even if the superdelegates were to choose Warren, a Democratic loss would be more likely because she is a weak candidate.

I have to agree that there are not a lot of solid options, but going with the most mundane candidate is just a ticket to a bad movie. The Dems need to be the drama queens for once, but they are just too afraid. I know one thing: if they go with a safe pick and lose, the next election cycle will feature no one who's not a firebreather, because, why not?

(11-20-2019, 03:19 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-19-2019, 08:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The reality remains that there are not other such "someones" to find. Not a single one. Those who could achieve that certain victory have bowed out. We are stuck with old geezers, one of whom is often out of touch with younger and more-liberal Democrats and is a bit dottering. But so is the fool incumbent, so I don't think it matters. Polls still show he's the strongest candidate to run against Trump, and that hasn't changed at all for many months now.

Electing Biden as a placeholder only makes a mockery of the opportunity at hand. I don't see Joe doing much more than pouring oil on troubled waters, and that's the rub. The electorate has been hiring Dems to do clean-up and to smooth ruffled feathers. Once that's done, they hire Republicans to burn the place to the ground. Rinse and repeat.

It's a sad cycle. A big reason why though is that young people and others have not been voting enough in midterm elections. Finally millennial activists like David Hogg at the March for our Lives picked up on that, and so did President Obama, and Tom Steyer's activism made a difference, and midterm voting picked up some in 2018. It will have to pick up more. Since the Reagan era began, we have had two Democratic presidents. They were very effective and skilled candidates and could have gotten some things done, despite their willingness to compromise with the Reaganoids. However, they only had the partial support of the people and their congress for 2 years (in the case of Bill) and 7 months (in the case of Barack). This was fatal in a country where the opposition party is solidly fanatical and extreme and without any scruples or morality. So besides not being progressive enough, they just didn't have the needed backing. So they caved and compromised, or got nothing done, for that reason. And keep in mind that even when for those 2 years Bill Clinton had a majority in congress, Robert Dole was able to block most of his moderately-liberal proposals, and thus keep most of the status quo and ongoing regression going.

Quote:

Eric Wrote:It is uncertain whether Biden will win in New Hampshire and Iowa. But if he is close, it looks like he will go on to South Carolina and Nevada and win there, and do well on Super Tuesday. After that it will be tough to stop him. But if Sanders and Warren continue to do well up into the convention, it could be a controversial affair. Warren and Sanders could agree to let one continue with the other's support, and that might outnumber Biden's delegates. Then if will be up to the superdelegates who could decide the nominee on the second ballot, which could further divide the party if Biden gets enough of them to get nominated. A divided party would have less chance to win in what may well be a crap-shoot election, with Trump able to win with 45% of the vote. But even if the superdelegates were to choose Warren, a Democratic loss would be more likely because she is a weak candidate.

I have to agree that there are not a lot of solid options, but going with the most mundane candidate is just a ticket to a bad movie. The Dems need to be the drama queens for once, but they are just too afraid. I know one thing: if they go with a safe pick and lose, the next election cycle will feature no one who's not a firebreather, because, why not?

Welcome to the 2020s. It could start out pretty bad, but it's guaranteed to pick up and get hot.

(11-20-2019, 03:12 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-14-2019, 04:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-14-2019, 03:45 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: [ -> ]Obama was an oddball - first, he's from Hawaii, the most un-typical US state among the 50, and second, he spent a good part of his childhood in Indonesia. And if you insisst that he's part of the US cycle, his empty talk of Hope and Change™ is very Boomer-like.

Without such talk, we stay mired in cynicism typical of Gen X and go nowhere at all. Where there is no vision, the people perish.

You want a vision? What about survival? Both Global Warming and Islamism/overpopulation of MENA threaten us. Not to mention other big problems. If we don't survive, neither will your religion and spiritualism. Also, no arts and sciences.

Vision's your thing, survival's ours - the Nomads'. So if anyone should be in charge, it's us. People like you have achieved nothing in more than 50 years. You have written many stupid sentences, read many stupid sentences, and esp. tawked many stupid sentences. Go to the garbage heap of history.

Another way to look at this. Survival. Global warming. What is the reason for this problem? What is keeping the solution from happening? What is threatening our survival?

Ideas that people have.

The ideology of free market economics aka neo-liberalism militates against any government or business action on the problem. To prevent this action, the fossil fuel companies and right-wing foundations and pressure groups subsidize a campaign of denial of the scientific facts about global warming. Motivated by desire for lower taxes and less regulation, deniers have convinced 40% of the people that nothing needs to be done about global warming, that it is caused by the Sun, that "climate change has always happened" and that "it's a natural cycle." This convinces some business concerns as well as right-wing voters and their politicians, which are over 40% of them, that global warming does not threaten our survival, and that we can continue using fossil fuels and using our same current agricultural and tree-cutting practices as long as we want, and that changing all this will threaten our economy and raise our taxes, and so on.

Neo-liberal free-market fundamentalism needs to be debunked. It's a question of ideas being in the way of reality. Vision in this case means learning to see straight. That's what it often means, as in the case of the videos about scientism I posted. Same thing. Assumed mythology gets in the way of our seeing straight. Did you watch the videos?

(11-20-2019, 08:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2019, 03:12 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-14-2019, 04:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-14-2019, 03:45 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: [ -> ]Obama was an oddball - first, he's from Hawaii, the most un-typical US state among the 50, and second, he spent a good part of his childhood in Indonesia. And if you insisst that he's part of the US cycle, his empty talk of Hope and Change™ is very Boomer-like.

Without such talk, we stay mired in cynicism typical of Gen X and go nowhere at all. Where there is no vision, the people perish.

You want a vision? What about survival? Both Global Warming and Islamism/overpopulation of MENA threaten us. Not to mention other big problems. If we don't survive, neither will your religion and spiritualism. Also, no arts and sciences.

Vision's your thing, survival's ours - the Nomads'. So if anyone should be in charge, it's us. People like you have achieved nothing in more than 50 years. You have written many stupid sentences, read many stupid sentences, and esp. tawked many stupid sentences. Go to the garbage heap of history.

Another way to look at this. Survival. Global warming. What is the reason for this problem? What is keeping the solution from happening? What is threatening our survival?

Ideas that people have.

The ideology of free market economics aka neo-liberalism militates against any government or business action on the problem. To prevent this action, the fossil fuel companies and right-wing foundations and pressure groups subsidize a campaign of denial of the scientific facts about global warming. Motivated by desire for lower taxes and less regulation, deniers have convinced 40% of the people that nothing needs to be done about global warming, that it is caused by the Sun, that "climate change has always happened" and that "it's a natural cycle." This convinces some business concerns as well as right-wing voters and their politicians, which are over 40% of them, that global warming does not threaten our survival, and that we can continue using fossil fuels and using our same current agricultural and tree-cutting practices as long as we want, and that changing all this will threaten our economy and raise our taxes, and so on.

Neo-liberal free-market fundamentalism needs to be debunked. It's a question of ideas being in the way of reality. Vision in this case means learning to see straight. That's what it often means, as in the case of the videos about scientism I posted. Same thing. Assumed mythology gets in the way of our seeing straight. Did you watch the videos?

The neo-liberalism that you abhor serves people that many call "mirror-image Marxists", the people who see a Marxist critique of capitalist behavior and endorse such, ignoring that such behavior is monstrous. A social order with no vision higher than profit maximization reduces workers to serfs. In effect the common man exists solely to enrich, pamper, and obey the economic elites who have no responsibilities except to themselves. 

Such an ideology plunders resources for quick profit, debases the lives of people not in the elite, and even promotes war for profit. I can easily see such an ideology marking the divide in which capitalists transmute from what Arnold Toynbee calls a creative elite that establishes a prosperity from which all have solid chances at solid lives to a dominant elite that profiteers off mass suffering.

Ah, good news. Sanders back ahead of Warren in today's real clear politics poll average. There's still hope the Democrats will nominate a candidate with a horoscope score that indicates a good chance to win, which are only Sanders and Biden. It's still a crap shoot no matter who among the candidates now running is nominated. Patrick is not in the averages list yet.

Commentators still say Booker's debate performances are so good that his poll numbers should rise. I haven't see that yet. His score is only 6-7.

So far only candidates with negative scores have dropped out.

Democratic Presidential Nomination average Nov.22 with horoscope scores and generation
Biden 29.8 14-7 war-baby silent
Sanders 19.3 14-7 war-baby silent
Warren 18.5 8-7 boomer
Buttigieg 7.8 7-8 or 7-9 early millennial
Harris 4.0 4-16 Xer
Yang 2.8 8-15 Xer
Bloomberg 2.3 7-5 war-baby silent
Gabbard 2.0 11-6 late Xer
Klobuchar 1.5 7-7 Jones boomer
Steyer 1.3 11-7 boomer
Booker 1.3 6-7 Xer
Castro 1.0 8-13 Xer
Bennet 0.8 8-9 Xer
Delaney 0.8 7-5 Xer
Bullock 0.5 10-7 Xer
Williamson 0.3 13-14 boomer

Biden +10.5

Trump seems to be getting a bump from the impeachment hearings. Well, no-one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/...hment-poll

Remember I have said that Wisconsin is the key state to watch, although the MSNBC commentator points out that the Democrat would win by losing WI and winning the two districts in Nebraska and Maine.

If it goes to House though (if the Democrat only wins one of those districts), then the Democrats will have to pick up seats in a few states to get a majority of the states, because in the House vote for president each state gets one vote.

The count now is 26 Rep., 23 Dem, 1 tie (PA). Florida has +1 Rep., WI has +1 Rep. with 1 vacancy.
AZ, MI and CO have +1 Democratic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cu...e_by_state

Trump supporters may be getting in line to support their mistake. Con artists are expert at getting their victims, of all people, to defend them. People defend their mistakes. "What do you think I am -- stupid?"

I introduced an article relating the vulnerability of right-leaning people to scams involving overpriced coins whose value is strictly the bouillon content... and the coins have so little metal that they are severely overpriced. Numismatic value is a function of scarcity, esthetic appeal, and metal content.

The appeal of the scam artist in selling those overpriced coins works most effectively on people on the political Right.



(As you will notice, I do not endorse this pitch. I have no cause to believe that the Armed Forces, the CIA, the diplomatic corps, or federal law enforcement has any desire to debase American currency, which means the value of the US dollar. If any people do so, then it is politicians who loosen the money supply and open the spigots on federal spending to get re-elected, which has been a long-standing and legitimate concern of conservatives).



Potential customers are asked what their favorite FoX News Channel programs are, and someone who rejects "GOP Pravda" is rejected.  Such people might go to a coin dealer who can sell some South African Krugerrands for something close enough to the bouillon price and a reasonable profit to the coin dealer. Those coins are minted in high quantities for gold coins, and nobody pretends that they have 'collector value'.

Why bother with Kugerrands which are South African and though recognizable not much better then the much lower premium US Mint Bullion coins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Silver_Eagle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gold_Eagle

Also it isn't the Deep State that will devalue the Dollar. Rather that is a consequence of economics. If anything the Deep State wants to prop things up as long as possible. They will fail of course. Much like Canute failed to stem a rising tide.

(11-25-2019, 10:13 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Why bother with Kugerrands which are South African and though recognizable not much better then the much lower premium US Mint Bullion coins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Silver_Eagle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gold_Eagle

Also it isn't the Deep State that will devalue the Dollar.  Rather that is a consequence of economics.  If anything the Deep State wants to prop things up as long as possible.  They will fail of course.  Much like Canute failed to stem a rising tide.

I don't buy bouillon coins. Of course there are overpriced coins out there. 

Donald Trump is trying to buy re-election with an economic boom  through big spending and loose monetary policy. Donald Trump is not a fiscal conservative of the old school; he is a Big-Government right-winger. Let's put it this way -- Big Government is never your solution unless it is the sort of Big Government that you specifically want.

(11-25-2019, 04:27 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-25-2019, 10:13 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Why bother with Kugerrands which are South African and though recognizable not much better then the much lower premium US Mint Bullion coins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Silver_Eagle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gold_Eagle

Also it isn't the Deep State that will devalue the Dollar.  Rather that is a consequence of economics.  If anything the Deep State wants to prop things up as long as possible.  They will fail of course.  Much like Canute failed to stem a rising tide.

I don't buy bouillon coins. Of course there are overpriced coins out there. 

Donald Trump is trying to buy re-election with an economic boom  through big spending and loose monetary policy. Donald Trump is not a fiscal conservative of the old school; he is a Big-Government right-winger. Let's put it this way -- Big Government is never your solution unless it is the sort of Big Government that you specifically want.

That is your loss then.  Silver will retain its value even when the currency eventually fails.  I consider it less an investment and more a hedge against inflation eating away my purchasing power.  But then again I have decades yet to live and the 4T is pretty dark.  I'm not ruling out SHTF situations just yet.

Donald Trump is not a conservative in the slightest.  He isn't even a right winger either.  Donald Trump is a New York City Business Democrat.  It is hardly surprising that he is this way, he was a Democrat most of his life.  That being said he was elected largely by Xers and we like winners more than losers and Trump is winning.  Here I'll let Tim Poole explain.

As is my wont, I will try to do some analysis of the connection between Obama approval in 2011 and the election of 2012.



The vote share is what is left once third-party nominees and write-ins (especially such political luminaries as "Mickey Mouse", "Darth Vader", "Santa Claus", and "Jesus Christ" are culled out. Assume at this point that the 2020 election will be essentially a binary choice, with no third-party nominee getting more than 2% of the popular vote nationwide. Assume also that there will be no blatant manipulation of the vote for any purpose (it will be far too risky).

You will notice that Obama outperformed his 2011 approval  level in all states that he won and in his barest loss (North Carolina) Other states in which Obama lost seem to fit no pattern at all aside from scattered the whole from not diverging far from 2011 approval polls. There were two states in which Obama's approval rating was at or below 47% that he ended up winning: Colorado and New Hampshire, both of which Obama won by 6% and 10% more than his 2011 polling, respectively. Maybe the 2011 polls understated Obama's chances in those two states. Otherwise the states that Obama lost seem to drift little away from the line in which the approval number of 2011 is equal to the vote share.  Utah is about 8% below Obama's approval there, but one can explain that with Mitt Romney being a Mormon in the Mormon state.  I have typically held that the favorite son effect is real if the politician is seen positively there.


OK, Obama campaigned in no states in which he expected to lose.  Trump will have to campaign in states in which his approval is under 47%.


Approval numbers from October, Morning Consult. Close enough to a year away (November results are not in yet, as November is incomplete)



Assuming that Trump gets the same treatment from approval to vote share as Obama got between November 2011 and 2012 (which is the shakiest part of the assumption, because Trump is not Obama)


Trump will pick up on the average 4% in states in which his approval is 47% or higher. Any state in which his approval is 51% or higher as of now is effectively a gimme, with Trump getting 55% or more of the vote share.

48% to 50% suggest that Trump will win the state by a margin of 4% to 9% Only two states are in this category, but one is Texas.

Any state in which Trump has approval in the 46% or 47% can easily go either way. Such states are in white.  

Either Pennsylvania or Virginia could be close, but the range of possibilities for those two states does not include Trump wins.

Other states are in maroon.  You know what that means.

Post debate average at real clear politics:

Democratic Presidential Nomination
Biden28.2
Sanders18.2
Warren17.2
Buttigieg9.6
Harris3.8
Yang2.8
Bloomberg2.3
Klobuchar1.8
Gabbard1.8
Booker1.4
Castro1.2
Steyer1.2
Bennet1.0
Delaney0.6
Bullock0.4
Sestak0.3

Biden +10.0

At the moment, only 4 states really matter: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.  The numbers are much less splayed for those races, at the moment at least.  A muddle in those races is what our latest plutocrat (Mike Blomberg) is counting on as his entry point.  Mike knows data very well, so this must be at least viable.  God knows, we don't need a Battle of the Plutocrats in 2020, but it could happen. 

Buttigieg seems to be cutting into Warren's numbers.

Democratic Presidential Nomination
Real Clear Politics average Nov.28

Biden27.0
Sanders18.3
Warren15.8
Buttigieg11.0
Harris3.8
Yang3.3
Bloomberg2.5
Klobuchar2.2
Booker1.8
Steyer1.7
Gabbard1.3
Castro1.2
Bennet0.6
Bullock0.4
Patrick0.4
Sestak0.3

Biden +8.7

Has anyone ever read The Keys to the White House by Allan Lichtman? It proposes a system of 13 keys, or qualifications, that can indicate whether or not the incumbent party will remain in the White House for four more years. It has a very good track record, correctly predicting the outcome of almost every election since 1984 except for the 2000 election, and made one of the few predictions in favor of a Trump victory in 2016. I bet we can use it indicate the 2020 outcome all the same.

Trump needs five or less of the keys to be false (and eight or more right) in order to secure reelection. The election should be more of a toss-up if the score is 7-6. They go as follows:
* Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
* Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
* Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
* Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
* Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
* Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
* Policy change: The incumbent administration enacts major changes in national policy.
* Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
* Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
* Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
* Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
* Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
* Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

To clarify the requirements for the second and fourth keys, a serious primary contest is defined as having the opponent secure at least one-third of delegates while a significant third party bid results in that candidate winning at least 5% of the vote. The most obvious ones seem to be keys 2 and 3 in Trump's favor, and 1 and 9 for the Democrats.