Presidential election, 2016

[pbrower2a]

Here is an even bigger effect:



Former RNC Chairman Marc Racicot writing in the Washington Post:

But after long and careful consideration, I cannot endorse or support their decision to express their frustration, anger and disappointment by selecting Trump as the Republican nominee for president. Trump has demonstrated neither the aforementioned qualities of principled leadership, nor offered any substantive or serious conservative policy proposals consistent with historical Republican Party platform positions. Both, in my humble view, are indispensable preconditions to his selection as the Republican candidate for the office of president of the United States.

As a result, I cannot endorse or support Trump for president. And I offer my prayer for a second miracle in Cleveland.

[pbrower2a]

(07-02-2016, 12:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-02-2016, 08:20 AM)Anthony Wrote: But what about The Bradley Effect?

Might not people be lying to pollsters because they don't want to be seen as "male chauvinists" since they're not willing to support a woman for President?

I doubt that's a big factor, but some people might be reluctant to admit they are voting for Trump because of his various campaign statements and characteristics.

Or more specifically, that Donald Trump seems dangerously capricious, divisive, and reckless. The Bradley Effect applies so far to black candidates who suggest a primal fear to many of subordination to someone unlike oneself.

[pbrower2a]

WASHINGTON — FBI Director James Comey announced Tuesday that he was referring the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to prosecutors at the Department of Justice for a “prosecutive decision.” 
“There is evidence that they were extremely careless” with highly sensitive information, Comey said of Clinton and her aides. But he said he would recommend to the DOJ that “no charges are appropriate in this case.”

The FBI announcement came days after Clinton met with investigators at the bureau’s headquarters in Washington. That was seen as a signal that the federal investigation could be winding down. Attorney General Loretta Lynch — facing criticism over her meeting with former President Bill Clinton — said Friday she would accept the recommendation of career prosecutors on the matter.

Hillary Clinton had called the use of a private email server a mistake, but has said she didn’t break any laws.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hill...c?dfbw3ik9

No harm, no foul.

[pbrower2a]

51 Clinton -- 39 Trump -- 10 Johnson.

Obama 2008 with the addition of Missouri, Georgia, Montana, Arizona, Alaska, South Carolina, and Texas. Maybe the Dakotas, Nebraska (except for NE-03), and Kansas as well. Close to a mirror image of Reagan 1980.

[playwrite]

Look out your window!  There's exploding heads of t-baggers, trumpsters, people suffering Clinton Hate Derangement Syndrome everywhere!

It's pretty cool, but gad, what a sticky mess to clean up!  And kind of stinky - you know, shXt for brains.

Say hello to Madam President!

[pbrower2a]

(06-30-2016, 03:14 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Hillary's willful negligence got and ambassador and several marines killed. The scandal is right up there with Watergate but the pro-clinton media is trying to cover it up.

Only if you believe that the President or Secretary of State can micro-manage every move that an ambassador takes.

[playwrite]

(07-05-2016, 12:03 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(07-05-2016, 11:11 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: 51 Clinton -- 39 Trump -- 10 Johnson.

Obama 2008  with the addition of Missouri, Georgia, Montana, Arizona, Alaska, South Carolina, and Texas. Maybe the Dakotas, Nebraska (except for NE-03), and Kansas as well.  Close to a mirror image of Reagan 1980.

We are really seeing the Johnson effect now. Unlike Anderson in '80 or even Perot his couple of times, this time around, some in the GOP need an analgesic to address the ill feeling brought by their unfortunate GOP choice, but one that allows them to say they are not voting Dem. Of course voting Dem is the safest course, but for those who just can't bring themselves to do it, Johnson allows a clear conscience. I predict he will rise to strong upper teens by Election Day, robbing Trump of any semblance of a showing.

Not a big Libertarian fan, obviously, but Johnson is a pretty smart guy.  If he can get to 15%, he will be in the debates ala Perot.  He and Clinton will make the Donald look really really stupid.  Clinton and Johnson are not the lightweights that were in the GOP primaries, the target audience will be swing voters (I wonder if Trump even understands this), and by October, most people will be pretty hip to Trump's schtick if it doesn't make them visible ill.

As you said, this could be a historic drubbing of the GOP that they may not recover from as a national political power.  Fingers crossed for good luck!

[The Wonkette]

(07-05-2016, 01:58 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(07-05-2016, 12:03 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(07-05-2016, 11:11 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: 51 Clinton -- 39 Trump -- 10 Johnson.

Obama 2008  with the addition of Missouri, Georgia, Montana, Arizona, Alaska, South Carolina, and Texas. Maybe the Dakotas, Nebraska (except for NE-03), and Kansas as well.  Close to a mirror image of Reagan 1980.

We are really seeing the Johnson effect now. Unlike Anderson in '80 or even Perot his couple of times, this time around, some in the GOP need an analgesic to address the ill feeling brought by their unfortunate GOP choice, but one that allows them to say they are not voting Dem. Of course voting Dem is the safest course, but for those who just can't bring themselves to do it, Johnson allows a clear conscience. I predict he will rise to strong upper teens by Election Day, robbing Trump of any semblance of a showing.

Not a big Libertarian fan, obviously, but Johnson is a pretty smart guy.  If he can get to 15%, he will be in the debates ala Perot.  He and Clinton will make the Donald look really really stupid.  Clinton and Johnson are not the lightweights that were in the GOP primaries, the target audience will be swing voters (I wonder if Trump even understands this), and by October, most people will be pretty hip to Trump's schtick if it doesn't make them visible ill.

As you said, this could be a historic drubbing of the GOP that they may not recover from as a national political power.  Fingers crossed for good luck!

I would hate to see Trump get in by getting a plurality of the vote, if Johnson splits the anti-Trump vote with Clinton.

[pbrower2a]

(07-05-2016, 01:58 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(07-05-2016, 12:03 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(07-05-2016, 11:11 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: 51 Clinton -- 39 Trump -- 10 Johnson.

Obama 2008  with the addition of Missouri, Georgia, Montana, Arizona, Alaska, South Carolina, and Texas. Maybe the Dakotas, Nebraska (except for NE-03), and Kansas as well.  Close to a mirror image of Reagan 1980.

We are really seeing the Johnson effect now. Unlike Anderson in '80 or even Perot his couple of times, this time around, some in the GOP need an analgesic to address the ill feeling brought by their unfortunate GOP choice, but one that allows them to say they are not voting Dem. Of course voting Dem is the safest course, but for those who just can't bring themselves to do it, Johnson allows a clear conscience. I predict he will rise to strong upper teens by Election Day, robbing Trump of any semblance of a showing.

Not a big Libertarian fan, obviously, but Johnson is a pretty smart guy.  If he can get to 15%, he will be in the debates ala Perot.  He and Clinton will make the Donald look really really stupid.  Clinton and Johnson are not the lightweights that were in the GOP primaries, the target audience will be swing voters (I wonder if Trump even understands this), and by October, most people will be pretty hip to Trump's schtick if it doesn't make them visible ill.

As you said, this could be a historic drubbing of the GOP that they may not recover from as a national political power.  Fingers crossed for good luck!

I'd like to see them lose their gains of 2010. Such would be adequate. The Republicans quickly entrenched themselves in power with a mandate to serve -- and they ended up serving the greediest and most superstitious at the expense of everyone else. The bill comes due this year.

The solution to economic hardship is not even more hardship. Republicans have tried to bring back the early-capitalist, late-agrarian ethos that no human suffering is in excess so long as it turns, enforces, or indulges elite gain.

Donald Trump is creating a mess for the GOP, dividing it between those who support him and those who want nothing to do with him. At this stage in this campaign I see something much like the results of the 2008 election, a regional landslide for Barack Obama that spills over into some seemingly-unlikely places. But at this time in 2008 the consensus was that the Presidential race of 2008 was going to be very close. Could he take some Republican incumbents down with him? Absolutely.

[pbrower2a]

Let's see what the Lichtman test has to say:

Quote:   Key 1: The incumbent party (in this case, Democrats) holds more seats in the U. S. House of Representatives after the midterm election than after the preceding midterm election. False.

Make no mistake: the 2014 midterm election was a disaster for the Democratic Party.

Quote:Key 2: There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination. False.

Bernie Sanders put up a surprisingly-strong challenge to Hillary Clinton. Should Clinton and Sanders reconcile, the statement remains true but its significance becomes nil.

Quote:Key 3: The incumbent-party candidate is the current president. False.

The 22nd Amendment is in force and it will not be repealed in time for a Third Term for you-know-who.

Quote:Key 4: There is no significant third-party or independent candidacy. False

I see Gary Johnson and William Weld as the strongest President-Veep combination that any third Party or Independent campaign has offered since Theodore Roosevelt and Hiram Johnson in 1912. Both are ex-Governors, and for the first time ever we have a pair of Third Party nominees who have both held one of the offices (Vice-President, US Senator, or State Governor) that almost every elected President has held since Dwight Eisenhower.

But here's the catch. The key is typically a third-Party that rifts from the Party of the incumbent President, as with Perot in 1992 or Wallace in 1968. This time the Third Party nominee hurts the challenger's Party. Rewritten to fit the apparent reality of 2016. John Anderson in 1980 was a Republican, but he seemed to pick off many Democratic-leaning voters and few Republicans.

Quote:Key 4: There is no significant third-party or independent candidacy to the detriment of the incumbent Party. True.

Johnson/Weld will hurt Trump -- not Clinton. The Libertarian ticket draws little obvious support from Democrats except for Democrats to say "If you can't stand Hillary Clinton, you can at least vote for Johnson" to Republicans whose support for Trump might be shaky.

Quote:Key 5: The economy is not in recession during the campaign. True. [could change]

Time is running out for the possibility of an economic meltdown that people recognize as such.

Quote:Key 6: Real (constant-dollar) per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth for the preceding two terms. True.

The last twelve years had the severest and most protracted economic downturn since the Great Depression. Economic growth may not be strong since January 2013, but at least it is steady. It is not a speculative boom that can implode at any moment.

Quote:Key 7: The incumbent administration has effected major policy changes during the term. False.

The President can't even get the Republican-dominated Senate to hold a hearing on the Supreme Court nominee of his choosing. He really couldn't get any legislative success with the Republican Congress ensuring legislative failure for anything.

We will see how that plays out in November. There are just no precedents for that.

Quote:Key 8: There has been no major social unrest during the term. True.

See what happens at or near the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.

Quote:Key 9: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. True.

This Administration is as squeaky-clean as any since at least Eisenhower.

Quote:Key 10: There has been no major military or foreign policy failure during the term. True.

A diplomat wandering into a burning building during a protest and getting killed by smoke inhalation doesn't qualify. It takes something major -- a major screw-up, like this:



See also the British invasion of the Chesapeake Bay area in the War of 1812, Fort Sumter, Little Big Horn, the Iranian hostage situation, and 9/11. Foul-ups that bad don't happen that often.

Quote:Key 11: There has been a major military or foreign policy success during the term. True.

Vastly-improved diplomatic relations with Cuba and Iran qualify. Daesh reels in Iraq, its impending demise taking down one of the vilest anti-American (and really anti-human) causes of all time as well as some loyalists of the despicable Saddam Hussein.

 

Quote:Key 12: The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or is a national hero. False.

Definitely so. Hillary Clinton lacks the charisma of Barack Obama.

Quote:Key 13: The challenger is not charismatic and is not a national hero. True.

Donald Trump has practically the opposite of charisma, repelling people who might ordinarily vote for a Republican nominee for President.


Six false, seven true; and of one of the false one might see an exception that illustrates the rule (basically, that a Third party or independent candidacy usually tears voters away from the incumbent Party. With my qualification (I believe justified) of the fourth Key, I end up with five false and eight true.

[pbrower2a]

Of course that includes non-whites. At one time, formal education was a good proxy for economic success and Republican voting.  That is over. I can imagine how strong the Democratic lean is of college-educated blacks, Hispanics, and Asians who get some respect from undereducated people of their own ethnicity.

Now for white people (a poll by the Bloomberg news organization):

Quote:White voters with college degrees could help Clinton in swing states such as Colorado, North Carolina, and Virginia, where a relatively large proportion of those voters are college-educated. She could do worse than Obama did in states where whites without a college degree are more plentiful, like Iowa and Ohio.

Reflecting her gender gap, Clinton trails very slightly among college-educated white men, with Trump getting 42 percent and Clinton getting 41 percent. Among white women, Clinton outpaces Trump 54 percent to 33 percent. 
The Democrat’s support, irrespective of race, grows with the poll participant's level of educational attainment. She beats Trump among those with graduate degrees 61 percent to 27 percent.

Even in a notional four-candidate field, Clinton beats Trump among college-educated likely voters, 45 percent to 27 percent. Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson received 10 percent support when included in the mix of candidates, below the 15-percent average he would need in national polls to be included in this year’s presidential debates. Jill Stein, the presumptive Green Party nominee, received 3 percent.

The survey was conducted July 7-10 by Washington-based Purple Strategies, using a nationally representative online opt-in panel of 653 respondents. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points for the topline results, and a higher margin of error for subgroups.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articl...llege-poll

Donald Trump loses 347-191 in the Electoral college if he gets only 52% of the college-educated white vote (2012 Obama +NC), and 363-175 in the Electoral College (losing Georgia) with 48% of the educated white vote.

This is with the 'even shift'.

[playwrite]

(07-12-2016, 10:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(07-12-2016, 08:27 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

Of course that includes non-whites. At one time, formal education was a good proxy for economic success and Republican voting.  That is over. I can imagine how strong the Democratic lean is of college-educated blacks, Hispanics, and Asians who get some respect from undereducated people of their own ethnicity.

Now for white people (a poll by the Bloomberg news organization):

Quote:White voters with college degrees could help Clinton in swing states such as Colorado, North Carolina, and Virginia, where a relatively large proportion of those voters are college-educated. She could do worse than Obama did in states where whites without a college degree are more plentiful, like Iowa and Ohio.

Reflecting her gender gap, Clinton trails very slightly among college-educated white men, with Trump getting 42 percent and Clinton getting 41 percent. Among white women, Clinton outpaces Trump 54 percent to 33 percent. 
The Democrat’s support, irrespective of race, grows with the poll participant's level of educational attainment. She beats Trump among those with graduate degrees 61 percent to 27 percent.

Even in a notional four-candidate field, Clinton beats Trump among college-educated likely voters, 45 percent to 27 percent. Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson received 10 percent support when included in the mix of candidates, below the 15-percent average he would need in national polls to be included in this year’s presidential debates. Jill Stein, the presumptive Green Party nominee, received 3 percent.

The survey was conducted July 7-10 by Washington-based Purple Strategies, using a nationally representative online opt-in panel of 653 respondents. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points for the topline results, and a higher margin of error for subgroups.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articl...llege-poll

Donald Trump loses 347-191 in the Electoral college if he gets only 52% of the college-educated white vote (2012 Obama +NC), and 363-175 in the Electoral College (losing Georgia) with 48% of the educated white vote.

This is with the 'even shift'.

Here in the Bay Area:

Educated = Dem or Moderate (now considered Left) GOP
Uneducated White = toss up
Uneducated PoC = Dem

Cal is so solidly behind the Blue Wall, these numbers don't really matter much there.

They do matter for filling Boxer's Senate seat however.

But the real race in California is the Rep. Darrel "A-hole" Issa race!

Doug Applegate, a retired US Marine Colonel, is running against him.  Applegate has stated that Trump is unfit to run for Commander and Chief; Issa was one of first and strongest Trump supporters.

Latest poll has Applegate pulling even with Issa!

Darrell Issa facing reelection fight

The district has been a solid San Diego Red one, but demographics are shifting it towards Blue; the anti-Trumpism in California could be the tipping point in 2016!

Even if the GOP holds the House in 2016, a big Issa loss could send a BIG message to the GOP that wearing asshats can get them thrown out.  Maybe they'll even temper their Salem witch hunts

Best would be Issa trying to 'swift boat' Applegate who was stationed at Camp Pendleton which is in the district.  Maybe with an Applegate win, those military and vets that still believe the GOP cares more for them than just cannon fodder would wake-up just a tad more.

If you live in California, not necessarily in San Diego, this might be the race to pay attention to if not provide support to Applegate.  Hell, even if you don't live in California, this might be the one.

[Eric the Green]

(07-08-2016, 08:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Let's see what the Lichtman test has to say:

Quote:   Key 1: The incumbent party (in this case, Democrats) holds more seats in the U. S. House of Representatives after the midterm election than after the preceding midterm election. False.

Make no mistake: the 2014 midterm election was a disaster for the Democratic Party.

Quote:Key 2: There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination. False.

Bernie Sanders put up a surprisingly-strong challenge to Hillary Clinton. Should Clinton and Sanders reconcile, the statement remains true but its significance becomes nil.

Quote:Key 3: The incumbent-party candidate is the current president. False.

The 22nd Amendment is in force and it will not be repealed in time for a Third Term for you-know-who.

I agree with False for the first 3. Bernie was a significant challenge, and some Bernie voters will not reconcile.

Quote:

Quote:Key 4: There is no significant third-party or independent candidacy. False

I see Gary Johnson and William Weld as the strongest President-Veep combination that any third Party or Independent campaign has offered since Theodore Roosevelt and Hiram Johnson in 1912. Both are ex-Governors, and for the first time ever we have a pair of Third Party nominees who have both held one of the offices (Vice-President, US Senator, or State Governor) that almost every elected President has held since Dwight Eisenhower.

But here's the catch. The key is typically a third-Party that rifts from the Party of the incumbent President, as with Perot in 1992 or Wallace in 1968. This time the Third Party nominee hurts the challenger's Party. Rewritten to fit the apparent reality of 2016. John Anderson in 1980 was a Republican, but he seemed to pick off many Democratic-leaning voters and few Republicans.

Quote:Key 4: There is no significant third-party or independent candidacy to the detriment of the incumbent Party. True.

Johnson/Weld will hurt Trump -- not Clinton. The Libertarian ticket draws little obvious support from Democrats except for Democrats to say "If you can't stand Hillary Clinton, you can at least vote for Johnson" to Republicans whose support for Trump might be shaky.

I don't see Johnson as significant enough to take Key 4 from Hillary.

Quote:

Quote:Key 5: The economy is not in recession during the campaign. True. [could change]

Time is running out for the possibility of an economic meltdown that people recognize as such.

Quote:Key 6: Real (constant-dollar) per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth for the preceding two terms. True.

The last twelve years had the severest and most protracted economic downturn since the Great Depression. Economic growth may not be strong since January 2013, but at least it is steady. It is not a speculative boom that can implode at any moment.

Quote:Key 7: The incumbent administration has effected major policy changes during the term. False.

The President can't even get the Republican-dominated Senate to hold a hearing on the Supreme Court nominee of his choosing. He really couldn't get any legislative success with the Republican Congress ensuring legislative failure for anything.

We will see how that plays out in November. There are just no precedents for that.

Quote:Key 8: There has been no major social unrest during the term. True.

See what happens at or near the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.

Agree up to here, but this one I have already regarded as questionable, and as the cops vs. black unrest grows it could take this key from Hillary.

Quote:

Quote:Key 9: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. True.

This Administration is as squeaky-clean as any since at least Eisenhower.

Quote:Key 10: There has been no major military or foreign policy failure during the term. True.

A diplomat wandering into a burning building during a protest and getting killed by smoke inhalation doesn't qualify. It takes something major -- a major screw-up, like this:



See also the British invasion of the Chesapeake Bay area in the War of 1812, Fort Sumter, Little Big Horn, the Iranian hostage situation, and 9/11. Foul-ups that bad don't happen that often.

Quote:Key 11: There has been a major military or foreign policy success during the term. True.

Vastly-improved diplomatic relations with Cuba and Iran qualify. Daesh reels in Iraq, its impending demise taking down one of the vilest anti-American (and really anti-human) causes of all time as well as some loyalists of the despicable Saddam Hussein.

 

Quote:Key 12: The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or is a national hero. False.

Definitely so. Hillary Clinton lacks the charisma of Barack Obama.

Quote:Key 13: The challenger is not charismatic and is not a national hero. True.

Donald Trump has practically the opposite of charisma, repelling people who might ordinarily vote for a Republican nominee for President.

Trump has some charisma, more than Hillary; but his drawbacks seem to wipe out his advantage.

Quote:Six false, seven true; and of one of the false one might see an exception that illustrates the rule (basically, that a Third party or independent candidacy usually tears voters away from the incumbent Party. With my qualification (I believe justified) of the fourth Key, I end up with five false and eight true.

If the social unrest grows, then six false and seven true.

[pbrower2a]

If anything (4) I see Gary Johnson hurting Demagogue Don considerably and Hillary Clinton very little. Lichtman did not see that. On (8). Barack Obama can take leadership and show that gun control is crime control. President Obama has never been soft on crime.

[Eric the Green]

Polls seem tilting against Hillary today. Fallout from the FBI report probably. I expect things will turn around toward the Hill soon. I don't know how much Bernie's endorsement will help, but the Convention certainly will, and could contrast with the Republican Trump convention.

[pbrower2a]

With non-college white people, Donald Trump is up 68-20.

That is not the demographic I would most want to lead 68-20 with, because it does nothing to help a cause doing badly with other groups. Under-educated white people are unlikely to convince minorities of any kind or well-educated white people. Even if there were fewer of them I would rather have a lead of 68-20 with educated white people because they at the least have the power of the word with which to calm those who at first oppose my political position.

[pbrower2a]

(07-12-2016, 09:44 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(07-12-2016, 08:01 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: With non-college white people, Donald Trump is up 68-20.

That is not the demographic I would most want to lead 68-20 with, because it does nothing to help a cause doing badly with other groups. Under-educated white people are unlikely to convince minorities of any kind or well-educated white people. Even if there were fewer of them I would rather have a lead of 68-20 with educated white people because they at the least have the power of the word with which to calm those who at first oppose my political position.

Most of all this is an indictment of the USA's horrendous education system. Second most of all it's an indictment of post-modernism's utter failure to give the middle and lower classes a viable niche in the so called "New Economy."

The USA grossly under-invests in the education of poor people. Building another expressway (traffic volumes are not increasing, so it is often pointless) is sexy; investing in K-12 education isn't. Of course we have subcultures that show utter disdain for learning among poor whites and among some blacks who have yet to get a clue. I need be blunt: the "thug" subculture is not good for success.

But this said, K-12 education in rural areas and suburbs, and among some minorities (most Asian and some Hispanic groups) can be fairly good. Rural areas are able to keep competent teachers because career opportunities other than teaching are rare. Rural areas also end up with a brain drain as kids who now grow up in "Bedford Falls" and show some talent while in college end up in some place much bigger than Bedford Falls.

The real damage of post-modernism comes in the abandonment of the liberal arts as the objective of undergraduate education. Undergraduate education is still a time with a potential for improving the youth, and the liberal arts did that.  Today if someone goes into a 4-year college believing that there is nothing more to life than sex, booze, material gain, pop culture, cheap thrills, "luxury", and bureaucratic power then should he graduate he will still believe that there is nothing more to life than sex, booze, material gain, pop culture, cheap thrills, "luxury", and bureaucratic power.

People who believe that life is all for the achievement of sex, booze, material gain, pop culture, cheap thrills, "luxury", and bureaucratic power do great harm if elites. It mattered little that people who worked on an assembly line got away with such. When such people are the managerial elite, one can only imagine the potential for abuse of subordinates. Worse, we can all see it. Narcissism has become the national character, at least among economic elites. When oats for another horse in the stable mean more than breakfast cereal for poor kids because such is a consequence of the exercise of economic power at its cruelest, then we have a sick society.

One post-modern scenario is that we transcend scarcity, so people no longer need to work as hard ro achieve what they used to. Another is that we return to the economic norms of the Agrarian Age only with high technology intended to stupefy and regiment people as if in a fascist order. Heck, if we want a real back-to-the-farm world, we might as well go Old Order Amish; the Old Order Amish do fine because they have no assets other than family farms and small businesses -- and no bureaucracy. They also end school at age 16... but just think of all the expenditures that they do not need for superhighways and military adventures.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-13-2016, 07:41 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The USA grossly under-invests in the education of poor people. Building another expressway (traffic volumes are not increasing, so it is often pointless) is sexy; investing in K-12 education isn't. Of course we have subcultures that show utter disdain for learning among poor whites and among some blacks who have yet to get a clue. I need be blunt: the "thug" subculture is not good for success.

A few nitpicks.

Building another expressway is often pointless and maybe a bit sexy, but fixing bridges and other failing infrastructure has a point and is not sexy.  A change in emphasis might be appropriate, but there's a bit more thinking to be done.

I've a sense that we're producing more college graduates than there are jobs which truly require an advanced degree.  This surplus of degrees results in jobs that don't truly need degrees going only to those with degrees, providing another set of hurtles for those with high school education or less.  

A bottom line problem is automation getting rid of jobs, producing a surplus of job seekers, which according to supply and demand results in depressed wages.  To some degree you can try to repeal the law of supply and demand using minimum wage laws.

At some point we might have to consider maximum hour laws.  If we don't want to do a lot of dole, and just about nobody does, you need near full employment at living wages.  This would require taking some of the money going to the One Percent and spreading it around.

Which seems to be a good part of the Democratic agenda.  I listened to a lot of the Hillary - Bernie kiss and make up rally.  Bernie spent a lot of time reviewing platform planks that both he and Hillary favor.  Mandate a living wage.  Give everyone access to affordable health care.  Shift the tax burden away from those who can't afford it.  Still, they are advocating band aids.  I've a sense that the New Economy is going to require a major rework.  Well, it's been observed that the end result of a crisis is generally far more profound than the progressives anticipated before the regeneracy.  Once the progressives have control and the people like stuff that is working, people can go nuts, signing Emancipation Proclamations and turning an isolationist nation into the world's policeman.  Something equally profound might be due...  or overdue.

When I shift into my proxy Red perspective, trying to think like the other guys, it sounds intolerable.  It's government mandated redistribution of wealth.  It's taking money away from productive members of society and giving it to losers.  It assumes that the Washington DC bureaucrats can run a program without turning it corrupt and inefficient.  It runs against everything that Saint Reagan stood for.  It's all take from the haves, and give to the have nots.  Clearly, if you are one of the haves, it's in your self interest to vote Republican?  All that bureaucracy and meddling will inevitably bring the country to its knees.

Quite simple and straight forward, really.  Two groups of people living in alternate realities, both trying to make their reality real.

[The Wonkette]

(07-13-2016, 07:41 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The USA grossly under-invests in the education of poor people. Building another expressway (traffic volumes are not increasing, so it is often pointless) is sexy; investing in K-12 education isn't.

Just a nit. If you ever come down to the DC area, you will see the need for another expressway, or at least for additional lanes.

However, it shouldn't come at the expense of education for low-income children. We need to do both.

[pbrower2a]

(07-13-2016, 08:26 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-13-2016, 07:41 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The USA grossly under-invests in the education of poor people. Building another expressway (traffic volumes are not increasing, so it is often pointless) is sexy; investing in K-12 education isn't. Of course we have subcultures that show utter disdain for learning among poor whites and among some blacks who have yet to get a clue. I need be blunt: the "thug" subculture is not good for success.

A few nitpicks.

Building another expressway is often pointless and maybe a bit sexy, but fixing bridges and other failing infrastructure has a point and is not sexy.  A change in emphasis might be appropriate, but there's a bit more thinking to be done.

[/quote]

Maintenance isn't sexy. But it goes with the building. A Congressional candidate can promise something like "I will get you Interstate 32 if you elect me"... and it might work if your district goes through Huntsville, Alabama or Charlotte, North Carolina. 

Quote:I've a sense that we're producing more college graduates than there are jobs which truly require an advanced degree.  This surplus of degrees results in jobs that don't truly need degrees going only to those with degrees, providing another set of hurtles for those with high school education or less.

We have the escalation of qualifications, with many employers insisting that the workers in their call centers have college degrees even though the work pays slightly more than the minimum wage. It used to be that employers refused to hire college graduates for jobs as tellers and store clerks, but with the rigid glass ceilings to advancement the concern that over-educated people might leave shortly as they wait for better opportunities to appear elsewhere may be less of a risk.

People with college degrees are job-takers -- not job-creators. We would be better off preparing people to become street vendors than to become glorified clerks with huge student loans to pay off. I'm not denying the value of education in itself; it is that we have made college education so expensive that its value is suspect.

Such jobs as college graduates generally create are low-skilled, low-wage jobs that above-average incomes generate with the college graduate patronizing stores and restaurants.

Quote:A bottom line problem is automation getting rid of jobs, producing a surplus of job seekers, which according to supply and demand results in depressed wages.  To some degree you can try to repeal the law of supply and demand using minimum wage laws.

At some point we might have to consider maximum hour laws.  If we don't want to do a lot of dole, and just about nobody does, you need near full employment at living wages.  This would require taking some of the money going to the One Percent and spreading it around.

We can do as much in six or even five hours of work that we once did in manufacturing and distribution in the 1930s when the American economy introduced the eight-hour day as a norm. To be sure, there are services like barbering and teaching that have not become more efficient...

Quote:Which seems to be a good part of the Democratic agenda.  I listened to a lot of the Hillary - Bernie kiss and make up rally.  Bernie spent a lot of time reviewing platform planks that both he and Hillary favor.  Mandate a living wage.  Give everyone access to affordable health care.  Shift the tax burden away from those who can't afford it.  Still, they are advocating band aids.  I've a sense that the New Economy is going to require a major rework.  Well, it's been observed that the end result of a crisis is generally far more profound than the progressives anticipated before the regeneracy.  Once the progressives have control and the people like stuff that is working, people can go nuts, signing Emancipation Proclamations and turning an isolationist nation into the world's policeman.  Something equally profound might be due...  or overdue.

The problem is that the rot within our social order has very powerful people profiteering from it. Much of the American GDP is economic rent -- easy money for well-connected people. That is the cornerstone of the "New Economy" as envisioned by Ronald Reagan and subsequent Republicans. I almost think that we will need some calamity (a war for profit that goes badly) to discredit the rentier class and force America to have other priorities in a reconstruction.

Quote:When I shift into my proxy Red perspective, trying to think like the other guys, it sounds intolerable.  It's government mandated redistribution of wealth.  It's taking money away from productive members of society and giving it to losers.  It assumes that the Washington DC bureaucrats can run a program without turning it corrupt and inefficient.  It runs against everything that Saint Reagan stood for.  It's all take from the haves, and give to the have nots.  Clearly, if you are one of the haves, it's in your self interest to vote Republican?  All that bureaucracy and meddling will inevitably bring the country to its knees.

Quite simple and straight forward, really.  Two groups of people living in alternate realities, both trying to make their reality real.

When people making huge incomes off sweetheart deals with the federal, state, and local governments; people making easy money as landowners and landlords while living off low-touch investments; executives being paid very well for treating subordinates badly; and shysters operating legitimized rackets (licit loansharking) go down -- that's when the economy works for workers instead of working for everyone but working people. But beware: that is an America in which our cities resemble Berlin in the summer of 1945.

Elect Donald Trump, and we get a very bad 4T.