Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 08-21-2019, 09:26 AM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post

There's no wealth tax at present and there's no reason any new tax couldn't be targeted at people who have millions or more in assets.
I think the point is that there is currently a kind of wealth tax, which is property taxes. Property is one of the very few assets we tax as such. iamthewalrus(:3= is saying it seems unfair that the only effective wealth tax we have is highly regressive, so it makes sense to have the kind of wealth tax being proposed which starts at very high amounts of wealth.
  #102  
Old 08-21-2019, 10:04 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
I did when I wrote, "All he has to attack her is an offensive nickname, which I think will really start to grate on voters", which is to say that I agree with you.
Guess I missed that, sorry.
  #103  
Old 08-21-2019, 10:06 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,435
Well, aiui Warren's proposal starts with people having assets of $50M being taxed at 2% and people over a billion bumped up to 3%. Not much of a worry for the middle class.
  #104  
Old 08-21-2019, 10:16 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Well, aiui Warren's proposal starts with people having assets of $50M being taxed at 2% and people over a billion bumped up to 3%. Not much of a worry for the middle class.
Yes, which is why iamthewalrus(:3= supports it as a rebalancing of the current situation. The question is why does it seem like you are arguing with someone who agrees with you.
  #105  
Old 08-21-2019, 10:36 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,435
I guess I didn't understand his point. And I really didn't think of property tax as a wealth tax as it's so specific and in my jurisdiction, purely a municipal thing.
  #106  
Old 08-21-2019, 11:43 AM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,029
Yes my point was that property tax is a de facto wealth tax for the vast majority of people in the lower 99 percentiles.
  #107  
Old 08-21-2019, 12:47 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
I find it refreshing, even if it's nothing more than non-binding blather from a group with their finger to the wind.
I saw this story on another website and wondered the same thing.


As you quoted,

Quote:
Investing in employees, delivering value to customers, dealing ethically with suppliers and supporting outside communities are now at the forefront of American business goals.
I'm reminded of how Henry Ford increased pay and reduced weekly work hours and Ford improved as a result, and the attendant business community was surprised, perhaps shocked by this outcome. While it may be counter-intuitive that corporations no longer acting purely to increase stockholder value may actually be good for the company overall, we need a similar "Fordian" mindset today to take hold, in order to save capitalism from itself.
  #108  
Old 08-21-2019, 03:17 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I'm reminded of how Henry Ford increased pay and reduced weekly work hours and Ford improved as a result, and the attendant business community was surprised, perhaps shocked by this outcome. While it may be counter-intuitive that corporations no longer acting purely to increase stockholder value may actually be good for the company overall, we need a similar "Fordian" mindset today to take hold, in order to save capitalism from itself.
The dogma of "increasing shareholder value" has led to any number of activities -- mergers, spin-offs, LBOs and offshoring, to name a few off the top of my head -- that have no other motivation whatsoever. They don't improve the company's offerings, they don't open new markets, they don't create jobs. All they do is make shareholders wealthier.

(I'm not saying that these activities never have other benefits, but I spent 16 years working with Wall Street and I saw too many maneuvers that were little more than glorified arbitrage plays.)

The end result of nearly 40 years of "increasing shareholder value?" A 26X rise in the DJIA, and flat real incomes for most Americans.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #109  
Old 08-21-2019, 09:04 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
Guess I missed that, sorry.
As I had said, weíre of a similar mind on the Pocahontas name-calling. Itís a self inflicted wound for Trump.

With regard to the economic stuff that Warren is discussing:

I first became aware of her when she was a Harvard professor who was appearing on the Daily Show to discuss with Jon Stewart her advocacy for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She often talks about the fact that she has, quite literally, studied what causes people to go broke. Her pedigree comes from the world of research and education.

I see Warren as somebody who isnít governed so much by ideology as by a quest for good and practical solutions to the challenges in society. Except, perhaps, for her consistent advocacy for the middle class/working poor of this country, she isnít looking to serve some particular faction or impart some pre-planned result. And, of course, she canít govern by fiat.

The effect, then, of a Warren administration is that she steers the American conversation toward the welfare of the ďaverage AmericanĒ while the she leads the debate on how best to improve that situation.

The bully pulpit used for maximum benefit, as it were. That is vastly more important than the specifics of any particular plan or proposal, which would need to survive congressional review, anyway.

When I couple that with my perception that sheís more pragmatic and less dogmatic than Sanders (who also consistently advocates for the average American) she has my vote locked up.
  #110  
Old 08-22-2019, 04:39 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
...When I couple that with my perception that sheís more pragmatic and less dogmatic than Sanders (who also consistently advocates for the average American) she has my vote locked up.
Great analysis, Moriarty. I agree entirely.

The thing about Warren that I find appealing is that she comes across as genuinely fascinated by the intricate complex machinery of the economy, and genuinely interested in seeing it work efficiently and productively for the maximum number of Americans.

I'm not even sure what historical precedent there might be for that sort of person running for President. (Carter has a similar freedom from self-focus and self-aggrandizement. But he wasn't as interested in the workings of the economy, I don't think.)

At any rate, I'd like to see her get the chance to do some good.
  #111  
Old 08-22-2019, 05:35 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
Here's why I'm starting to think Warren may actually win this thing:
Quote:
That she elicited such empathy in that room in Elkhart was a special feat. It was a relatively conservative corner of a conservative state, and the audience was palpably cool to her when Warren took the stage. Several voters I spoke to before the event weren’t sure what to expect, and one man told me that, though he was curious about the Massachusetts senator, he was sure the country would not elect a woman.

Warren said she could sense that the audience wasn’t with her when she started. “Well, it’s not like I walked in and said, okay, diagnosis: Here’s the problem,” she explained. “It’s in the room. And even as I’m being introduced, I can see faces—I’m kind of standing off to the side—and as soon as I got on stage, I thought, the people standing here want to know me better, they want to know who I am and why I’m here. So let’s slow down a little bit, let’s talk a little more, but we got there.” By the end of her speech, most of the able-bodied people in the room were up on their feet, their fists and cheers churning the air.

Her trick isn’t to just read the energy in the room, it’s to feel the people there. And like all of her plans and strategies, she leaves nothing to chance, ensuring that the faces in her audiences are lit, that the crowds are never obscured to her by the curtain of darkness one sees from a bright stage. “It’s very important to me to be able to see faces when I’m doing a town hall,” Warren said. “I don’t want to be in a theater where I’m on stage and the audience is in the dark. This is not a performance, this is a chance to engage, for all of us in the room to think about what’s happening to our country, to our lives, and I need to see faces when I’m talking through that.”
It takes one hell of a politician to be able to do that.
  #112  
Old 08-22-2019, 06:34 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,116
OK, so she can work a crowd when she's in the same room and can see their faces. That's a very valuable skill to have... but how much is it worth in a Presidential race, where 99.99% of the people you'll need to engage will be over television, when you can't possibly see their faces? Sure, there's going to be some multiplier effect, from those folks she met personally going home and telling their friends and families how great Warren is... but that multiplier isn't going to be a factor of ten thousand.
  #113  
Old 08-22-2019, 07:39 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Here's why I'm starting to think Warren may actually win this thing:
It takes one hell of a politician to be able to do that.
It'll take more than a glowing GQ article to convince me she's suddenly a good campaigner. But she's moving her numbers, so I hope it's true.
  #114  
Old 08-22-2019, 08:59 PM
pool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 4,572
Hell Im not sure if it's good or bad in the long run, or if it's just self-serving, or selfish, or heck maybe it's even a good idea. But at this point if ANY candidate promises to erase my student loan debt, I'll vote for that person, I suspect there are many millions more like me. I'm going to vote my own self interest above anything else. The giant companies that lobby, spend millions, pay no income tax are all about their own self interest and profits, I'm going to do the same.
__________________
"You can do anything you set your mind to...But money helps"

Last edited by pool; 08-22-2019 at 09:01 PM.
  #115  
Old 08-23-2019, 06:20 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It'll take more than a glowing GQ article to convince me she's suddenly a good campaigner. But she's moving her numbers, so I hope it's true.
I doubt she could have moved her numbers the way she has while being a mediocre campaigner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
OK, so she can work a crowd when she's in the same room and can see their faces. That's a very valuable skill to have... but how much is it worth in a Presidential race, where 99.99% of the people you'll need to engage will be over television, when you can't possibly see their faces? Sure, there's going to be some multiplier effect, from those folks she met personally going home and telling their friends and families how great Warren is... but that multiplier isn't going to be a factor of ten thousand.
A couple of things.

First, we don't have a single national election - we've got 51 state elections for President in our screwy system, and maybe a dozen of those will be close enough to matter. Warren's already spoken to thousands of voters in Michigan, for instance, and the general election is still over 14 months away.

Second, by the time we get to the fall of 2020, she will have spoken to many thousands of voters in each of those states directly, more than enough that she and her team will have a pretty good sense of what's likely to work to reach them via television.

Third, she's regularly going to places where Dems don't do too well, and talking with and listening to the people who live there. She's not keeping herself in anything like a safe bubble, and there are few better ways for a politician to strengthen her message and widen its appeal. And if she can win them over, that's icing on the cake.
  #116  
Old 08-25-2019, 08:57 PM
Razncain is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: TX & CO
Posts: 1,677

Warren and her 50% tax on bullets


And a 30% tax on firearms. I've read it was designed to curb gun owners behavior. Seriously, would this change a terrorists behavior? Can't you just see all of the wrong people reconsidering the firearms of their choice, downgrading and or and limiting their kills due to the 50% tax on ammo? I'm sure they are thinking, god damn, this tax is really killing us, maybe just use dynamite, or go with some good ole fashioned ammonion nitrate fertilizer.

I'd really like to get behind a Democrat, mainly because of the two parties, they are known best for the environment and planet earth, and they are not so damn hostile to the media. That and other things are far more important to me than my guns. Although I have a few guns and rifles, I'm not fanatical about 'em, and all for stricter gun laws if they can show to really make a difference. I'm not worried about Democrats taking my firearms away from me. But I would like to see it not so easy to get firearms, and give some hotheads a chance to chill out instead of going off like a bottle rocket.

Example: Attended another gun show in Mesquite, TX this Saturday. Found a Remington 700 series I liked with scope. Man said, since it's an estate sale, there would be no sales tax to collect on it since he is not a dealer, and also no paperwork to fill out. Just pay him cash, and out the door I can go with it. All of this is legal too, at least in the state of TX, and a few other states, I believe.

I've got a lot of studying to do still on all of their positions though, does anyone know where they stand on being tough on China? This really isn't a partisan issue for many, I don't think, even the Democrat Sherrod Brown was wanting to get tough on them over a decade ago, IIRC. CNN is doing quite a few positive things on what Trump is doing here, which is quite rare. Personally, I think a Democrat should expound on this, by aligning more with our allies to do similar things against China, or what is left of them.
  #117  
Old 08-25-2019, 10:55 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razncain View Post
And a 30% tax on firearms. I've read it was designed to curb gun owners behavior. Seriously, would this change a terrorists behavior? Can't you just see all of the wrong people reconsidering the firearms of their choice, downgrading and or and limiting their kills due to the 50% tax on ammo?....
Yeah, that's really stupid. It will mean less well trained police, and the gangbanger thugs who do drivebys only need a few rounds anyway.
  #118  
Old 08-26-2019, 05:07 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 227
Quote:
Warren, asked how she can stand up to Trump: “I know how to fight and I know how to win. Nobody’s getting behind me on a debate stage and doing a handsy thing.”
Horrible answer. You're not winning people over in the democratic primary by having a dig at Hillary Clinton. Moreover she already got embarrassed by Trump goading her into that DNA test.
  #119  
Old 08-26-2019, 09:58 AM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razncain View Post
And a 30% tax on firearms. I've read it was designed to curb gun owners behavior. Seriously, would this change a terrorists behavior?
America's 40,000 gun deaths per year are not about terrorists or even mass shootings. In fact, all that death isn't really about the "wrong" people buying guns. It is about their sheer number and availability of guns (and a certain American paranoid culture that leads to guns being kept in really unsafe circumstances). If I want to kill myself, or kill the guy who assaulted my cousin, I can get my hands on a gun legally or illegally as easily as a college freshman can get beer.

We're not about to ban hand guns, much less confiscate them. Even if it were politically possible, it would be unconstitutional. Pretty much the only meaningful, rational policy that leaves is efforts to reduce the overall supply of and demand for guns. Taxes seem like a good tool to me. If it means someone buys two handguns instead of three, that's a clear win. If the concern is that people will practice at the range less, that seems like a problem we can avoid. Just heavily license and regulate ranges and have them provide ammo that is exempt from the tax.
  #120  
Old 08-26-2019, 10:15 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
Horrible answer. You're not winning people over in the democratic primary by having a dig at Hillary Clinton. Moreover she already got embarrassed by Trump goading her into that DNA test.
Yup. She has to show she can handle attacks and do so well. That sort of response is not reassuring that she has those skills.
  #121  
Old 08-26-2019, 10:52 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,435
For some reason, I'm reminded of when Trump talked about "second amendment solutions" and Warren's response was "he's mad because he's losing to a girl!" Zingers and comebacks ain't her thing.
  #122  
Old 08-29-2019, 02:50 PM
Razncain is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: TX & CO
Posts: 1,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
America's 40,000 gun deaths per year are not about terrorists or even mass shootings. In fact, all that death isn't really about the "wrong" people buying guns. It is about their sheer number and availability of guns (and a certain American paranoid culture that leads to guns being kept in really unsafe circumstances). If I want to kill myself, or kill the guy who assaulted my cousin, I can get my hands on a gun legally or illegally as easily as a college freshman can get beer.

We're not about to ban hand guns, much less confiscate them. Even if it were politically possible, it would be unconstitutional. Pretty much the only meaningful, rational policy that leaves is efforts to reduce the overall supply of and demand for guns. Taxes seem like a good tool to me. If it means someone buys two handguns instead of three, that's a clear win. If the concern is that people will practice at the range less, that seems like a problem we can avoid. Just heavily license and regulate ranges and have them provide ammo that is exempt from the tax.
That statistic has been on the rise for sure as of late. For the longest of time that they have been tracking it's been around 31,000 annually, IIRC from reading a few days ago, about 60% is from suicide. I'd like to keep it as a viable option for myself, if my health got so bad I'm no longer any good to me or other loved ones.

About one-third of firearm violence is from gangs, either street or outlaw motorcycle gangs again IIRC. An ammo tax is not going to slow them down.

I don't think they are about to ban handguns either, but it is something I constantly hear about from others in TX that are Republicans, and that is, the Democratic candidates are really trying to do that in the long run, thinking one piece of legislation will lead to another, to where eventually none of us will have our guns.

I have two friends I grew up with, we are in our sixties now, both have about 100 firearms each. I actually don't think these are the type of people we have to worry about, they follow the law in every way, just to make sure they get to keep their guns. Their passion for firearms far exceed mine, can't say I really even have a passion for them, I've got less than 10. I went over twenty years without firing a one. Only recently have I sort of got back into it some. I'm not a hunter, but do enjoy long range shooting targets, it's amazing how accurate one can be with the right rifle and scope set up. But I can pretty much take or leave my guns, minus one handgun I want to keep.

The funniest take on America's love affair with firearms, and who is also anti-gun is Jim Jeffries, and he says basically America has one good argument for owning that many guns: "Fuck off, I like guns."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0&t=26

Last edited by Razncain; 08-29-2019 at 02:51 PM.
  #123  
Old 08-29-2019, 05:02 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
...If it means someone buys two handguns instead of three, that's a clear win. ...
Why? It only takes one to shoot yourself or do a gang shooting.

And those are like the vast majority of the deaths.
  #124  
Old 08-29-2019, 05:15 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Why? It only takes one to shoot yourself or do a gang shooting.

And those are like the vast majority of the deaths.
How do those gang bangers acquire those guns?
  #125  
Old 08-29-2019, 05:27 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
How do those gang bangers acquire those guns?
Steal them or use a Straw man seller.

But they only need one, so a extra $20 in taxes isnt going to make a difference.

Idea like Warrens will only hurt the serious collectors and targets shooters, like those qualifying for our Olympics teams.

What we need is to crack down on Straw man sellers.
  #126  
Old 08-29-2019, 10:51 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,883
Random unsubstantiated internet story:

I have a friend who makes movies (heís an old friend from middle school; weíre only connected on social media). Heís working on something related to Roger Stone and posted a picture of him today (Stone will talk to anybody!). Per friend, Stone says the candidate heís most worried about: Elizabeth Warren. Who would he love for Trump to run against? Joe Biden.

I can certainly see this. Biden is sort of a version of Trump, in that both are older white guys who will trade insults and boasts. Warren is an intellectual who will talk policy; Trump canít compete on that level, and his insults and boasts will seem excessively juvenile by comparison. I truly think she would win in a landslide.
  #127  
Old 08-30-2019, 12:18 AM
chappachula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Biden is sort of a version of Trump, in that both are older white guys who will trade insults and boasts. Warren is an intellectual who will talk policy; Trump canít compete on that level, and his insults and boasts will seem excessively juvenile by comparison. I truly think she would win in a landslide.
You,re assuming that most voters are intellectuals who want to talk policy.
To win the election you have to make people feel good in their guts, not their brains.
  #128  
Old 08-30-2019, 07:58 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Biden is sort of a version of Trump, in that both are older white guys who will trade insults and boasts. Warren is an intellectual who will talk policy; Trump canít compete on that level, and his insults and boasts will seem excessively juvenile by comparison. I truly think she would win in a landslide.
I don't know if I agree with that logic. If Warren wins against old white guys who boast and trade insults, and therefore would win by a landslide against Trump, I would expect her to be ahead of Biden in the polls. IOW why doesn't her intellectual approach work against one boastful insulting old white guy, but would against another?

Regards,
Shodan
  #129  
Old 08-30-2019, 08:12 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Biden boastful and insulting? What alternate universe timeline have you come from?
  #130  
Old 08-30-2019, 08:17 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I don't know if I agree with that logic. If Warren wins against old white guys who boast and trade insults, and therefore would win by a landslide against Trump, I would expect her to be ahead of Biden in the polls. IOW why doesn't her intellectual approach work against one boastful insulting old white guy, but would against another?

Regards,
Shodan
Way too early to be making any kind of determination like this. Most Democratic primary voters still aren't really paying much attention.
  #131  
Old 08-30-2019, 08:20 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
I have a friend who makes movies (heís an old friend from middle school; weíre only connected on social media). Heís working on something related to Roger Stone and posted a picture of him today (Stone will talk to anybody!). Per friend, Stone says the candidate heís most worried about: Elizabeth Warren. Who would he love for Trump to run against? Joe Biden.
If there's one person whose political opinions I definitely trust, it's Roger Stone.
  #132  
Old 08-30-2019, 12:35 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Random unsubstantiated internet story:

I have a friend who makes movies (heís an old friend from middle school; weíre only connected on social media). Heís working on something related to Roger Stone and posted a picture of him today (Stone will talk to anybody!). Per friend, Stone says the candidate heís most worried about: Elizabeth Warren. Who would he love for Trump to run against? Joe Biden.

I can certainly see this. Biden is sort of a version of Trump, in that both are older white guys who will trade insults and boasts. Warren is an intellectual who will talk policy; Trump canít compete on that level, and his insults and boasts will seem excessively juvenile by comparison. ...
So we have a friend of someone on a MB , and said friend sez he 'working on something with Roger stone" and then he sez Roger stone sez Trump is worried about Warren not biden. Yeah, boy that is sure a solid source.

Besides the obvious fact that any consultant worth a damn would say the opposite of what he really meant*, and the fact that Biden is nothing at all like trump, doesnt boast, doesnt insult.

* in others words- if a GOP consultant sez he's worried about Warren, not Biden, he's actually worried about Biden.
  #133  
Old 08-30-2019, 05:06 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappachula View Post
You,re assuming that most voters are intellectuals who want to talk policy.
To win the election you have to make people feel good in their guts, not their brains.
I think (hope...pray...) that there will be a rebound effect, a preview of which we saw in the midterms. After so much immaturity, I think a person who talks about ideas is going to seem like a refreshing adult.

Quote:
If Warren wins against old white guys who boast and trade insults, and therefore would win by a landslide against Trump, I would expect her to be ahead of Biden in the polls. IOW why doesn't her intellectual approach work against one boastful insulting old white guy, but would against another?
I have 2 theories:
1) Warren is not only going up against Biden, so it's not yet a head to head matchup like it will be later in the primaries or in the general. Recall that the next democratic debate where Warren and Biden are on the same stage. So, she hasn't yet gone up against Biden, as they are just two of a very large group; that dilutes the comparisons, although Warren has been making steady progress while Biden is pretty static in terms of approval

2) Because it's so early, and there are so many candidates, many people aren't yet paying attention and haven't yet made the comparisons. In fact, I think this is why Biden is currently strong; the 'idea' of him is more appealing than he actually is, and his support will wane as people actually consider their choices.
  #134  
Old 08-30-2019, 05:13 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So we have a friend of someone on a MB , and said friend sez he 'working on something with Roger stone" and then he sez Roger stone sez Trump is worried about Warren not biden. Yeah, boy that is sure a solid source.
Did I not preface my statement with "random internet story"? The guy makes legit documentaries (if you've watched ESPN's 30 for 30 series, you've seen 3 of them, including the two he did about his Alma Mater's college football dynasty years), but I mainly thought it was an amusing aside that I saw on Facebook.

Quote:
Besides the obvious fact that any consultant worth a damn would say the opposite of what he really meant*, and the fact that Biden is nothing at all like trump, doesnt boast, doesnt insult.

* in others words- if a GOP consultant sez he's worried about Warren, not Biden, he's actually worried about Biden.
Biden doesn't boast or insult? I recall him talking about "beating up" Trump, which was what I was referring to; a contest between Trump and Biden would probably devolve into a claim about who could do more pushups in high school.'

Here's another one: I am look forward to ""slap Trump in the mouth," Biden said.

Last edited by Moriarty; 08-30-2019 at 05:15 PM.
  #135  
Old 08-30-2019, 08:26 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Trash talkin’ Trump is a special case. And does not apply to a primary race.

No insults and boasts is not Biden’s general style.
  #136  
Old 08-31-2019, 04:21 AM
China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,690
You mean Donald "don't throw me in the Biden patch" Trump? It's real simple. Biden ran for President a couple of times and didn't get close. What in the hell does anyone think a decade later and a foot closer to the grave that Biden can ac'tually seal the deal this time around? He's the big swinging dick sales guy that never actually lands the contract. Jus' saying....
  #137  
Old 08-31-2019, 08:51 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It'll take more than a glowing GQ article to convince me she's suddenly a good campaigner. But she's moving her numbers, so I hope it's true.
Just look at her numbers, and that will tell you the story. When she entered the race, she was considered a long shot, one progressive hopeful among many. She has, in my view, run the most strategically sound campaign. You could argue that Bernie has also run a pretty smart campaign, but a lot of his campaign's energy comes from 2016. I don't see where Bernie has picked up new voters, but it's indisputable that Warren has.
  #138  
Old 08-31-2019, 08:53 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Way too early to be making any kind of determination like this. Most Democratic primary voters still aren't really paying much attention.
This is so true. At this stage, it's the activists and political junkies like us here on SDMB who are paying attention; most of America is not. What worries me like hell is that when Americans do turn in, they're going to catch Biden mid-stream looking like a bumbling old man lacking the energy to compete with the right wing rage machine.
  #139  
Old 08-31-2019, 02:29 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
You mean Donald "don't throw me in the Biden patch" Trump? It's real simple. Biden ran for President a couple of times and didn't get close. What in the hell does anyone think a decade later and a foot closer to the grave that Biden can ac'tually seal the deal this time around? He's the big swinging dick sales guy that never actually lands the contract. Jus' saying....
He ran for the Dem primaries and left early.

Becuase his polling is excellent, better than anyones, especially vs trump.

Not to mention Joe has been swiftboated as much as the GOP could manage, with the help of the bernie bros and the kremlin, and it aint sticking.

Those havent even started on several of the other dem candidates, in fact the kremlin even helped Bernie's 2016 campaign.
  #140  
Old 08-31-2019, 02:31 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
This is so true. At this stage, it's the activists and political junkies like us here on SDMB who are paying attention; most of America is not. What worries me like hell is that when Americans do turn in, they're going to catch Biden mid-stream looking like a bumbling old man lacking the energy to compete with the right wing rage machine.
People have been saying this for months. He was supposed to be on the way down after the confrontation with Harris in the July debate but two months on his numbers are very close to back to where they were pre-debate and it is Harris who is worse off now. Plus all of his "gaffes" have been discussed across the stations, frontpage of Washington Post, NYT, being discussed online. Millions of people watched Harris say "I don't think you're a racist but". I don't think people have soured totally on him because they feel they know him. They have a level of comfort with him. People like the guy, they like his experience and actually, they like his platform too.

Last edited by Boycott; 08-31-2019 at 02:31 PM.
  #141  
Old 08-31-2019, 03:58 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
[Doublechecks thread title ...]

So now that everyone has caught on that Warren is now the one other than Biden to beat, and she gets the critical treatment if not attacks herself, how do you think she will hold?

Will she expand further beyond her current demographics?
  #142  
Old 08-31-2019, 04:08 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
[Doublechecks thread title ...]

So now that everyone has caught on that Warren is now the one other than Biden to beat, and she gets the critical treatment if not attacks herself, how do you think she will hold?

Will she expand further beyond her current demographics?
I suspect she's going to keep growing, for the same reason that Obama did: the self-fulfilling prophecy of electability.

I recognize that this might be wishful thinking. But my hopes have been so shriveled and shellshocked for the past few years, that I'm gonna nurture any hope that dares to venture forth.
  #143  
Old 08-31-2019, 04:30 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
[Doublechecks thread title ...]

So now that everyone has caught on that Warren is now the one other than Biden to beat, and she gets the critical treatment if not attacks herself, how do you think she will hold?

Will she expand further beyond her current demographics?
Depends on Sanders. He's not as popular it appears as compared to 2015-16 because he's not new. People know him well now, what he stands for, what he stands against and his persona. Warren is now the new media darling..."I have a plan for that".

She has eaten into his support, splitting that progressive left wing meanwhile Biden has the middle all to himself. They want to both tear into him but at some point they will have to face up to each other. I think Bernie given he talks as if he's the architect of a leftward swing won't bow down and tell his supporters to settle for Warren. I think his campaign will turn on her if it comes to it.
  #144  
Old 08-31-2019, 09:50 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
She has eaten into his support, splitting that progressive left wing meanwhile Biden has the middle all to himself. They want to both tear into him but at some point they will have to face up to each other. I think Bernie given he talks as if he's the architect of a leftward swing won't bow down and tell his supporters to settle for Warren. I think his campaign will turn on her if it comes to it.
I don't think the evidence supports this conclusion. Sanders, in 2016, threw his support behind a much more right-leaning candidate (than Warren) in order to beat Trump. I think he's likely to do the same.

I agree with Sanders on the lion's share of issues and find him to be basically a good politician. But I'm pretty ready for him to see that Warren's got the game that he doesn't have, and to step aside for her. As long as he doesn't get into a pissing match with her, I'm okay.
  #145  
Old 09-01-2019, 03:00 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Just look at her numbers, and that will tell you the story. When she entered the race, she was considered a long shot, one progressive hopeful among many. She has, in my view, run the most strategically sound campaign. You could argue that Bernie has also run a pretty smart campaign, but a lot of his campaign's energy comes from 2016. I don't see where Bernie has picked up new voters, but it's indisputable that Warren has.

Sheís clearly good at running in Democratic primaries. She did well there in Massachusetts and is doing well in Democratic presidential primary polling now. Her general election performance has been atrocious, but she got away with it because the state is so blue.
  #146  
Old 09-01-2019, 04:41 AM
panache45's Avatar
panache45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NE Ohio (the 'burbs)
Posts: 47,621
I've said this before and I'll say it again: Elizabeth Warren comes across as being very angry. This has served her well in the primary, but in the general election it could strongly work against her.
  #147  
Old 09-01-2019, 07:08 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,116
Angry is exactly what she needs for the general election. The American populace as a whole likes angry: That's how Trump won.

But if she wins the primary, it'll be because Sanders drops out (or drops so low that he might as well be out), and his supporters switch to her. Which sounds plausible enough on paper. But of those polls which have asked about voters' second choices, Sanders and Warren aren't actually the second choices for each other's voters: Most supporters of both Sanders and Warren actually have Biden as their second choice.
  #148  
Old 09-01-2019, 09:35 AM
Razncain is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: TX & CO
Posts: 1,677
Only putting this under Warren's thread instead of Beto's because I guess I spoke too soon thinking the Democrats wouldn't start taking firearms, evidently some want just that.

In March of 2019, Beto said if you have already have a AR-15, you get to keep it, he just won't allow anymore to come in.

Now I'm reading today, if he becomes president, it will be mandatory to sell and turn in all of your AR-15 and AK-47 rifles to the government.

Stupid thing to do. You don't have to be that knowledgable about rifles (I'm certainly not), to know there is nothing special about the AR-15. There are so many rifles that shoot the same catridge that are also semi-automatic and so similar. I see a slippery slope, to where this could eventually lead to all firearms probably being turned in eventually.
  #149  
Old 09-01-2019, 10:15 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,868
Well, I think there's definitely something special about those things in terms of being used in the unending stream of mass shootings, mostly down to their magazine capacity and the fact that their connection with military use (obviously in a castrated version) seems to have a certain psychological appeal to maladjusted losers who want to shoot a lot of people. I'm not going to argue that the choice of weapon is completely arbitrary. But I think the genie is out of the bottle; they're also owned by huge numbers of people who aren't killing anyone and aren't going to. FAR too many to just say "hand 'em over." Even banning their further production and sale while grandfathering all the current owners is probably a political nonstarter. Making them outright illegal to own is totally unachievable, and also guaranteed to energize Republicans to vote against it. I agree it's a stupid position for Beto to take and will hurt his chances.
  #150  
Old 09-01-2019, 10:31 AM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Angry is exactly what she needs for the general election. The American populace as a whole likes angry: That's how Trump won.
Yeah. This.

Quote:
But if she wins the primary, it'll be because Sanders drops out (or drops so low that he might as well be out), and his supporters switch to her. Which sounds plausible enough on paper. But of those polls which have asked about voters' second choices, Sanders and Warren aren't actually the second choices for each other's voters: Most supporters of both Sanders and Warren actually have Biden as their second choice.
I've heard that too and wonder what it's about. I prefer Warren but if she's out and Sanders is not I'd prefer him over Biden. I don't hate Biden either, and if he prevails I'll support his candidacy too.

Last edited by AHunter3; 09-01-2019 at 10:32 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017