Dammit! Why do I keep getting the wrong links?
Shit.
Well, here:
I saw that on DKos. As I said there, litigating this isn’t going to negate the CBC endorsement.
Yeah, but pointing out that the CBC, like Hillary, is a creature of the WAll Street fueled establishment, as David Sirota did, is fair game.
What CBC? My immediate thought at that acronym is Canadian Broadcast Corporation, but I’m guessing that’s not right.
Congressional Black Caucus
Central Bible College endorsed Hillary?!
(I also tend to think of ‘CBC’ as Canadian Broadcast Corporation before Congressional Black Caucus. And wasn’t it actually a PAC that uses the Black Caucus’s name?)
However you slice it, it’s a big deal. A HUGE deal.
In what way is it a HUGEr deal than Hillary’s hundreds of other endorsements?
It’s not like the Black Caucus unanimously endorsed Clinton–they haven’t. The endorsement nominally comes from their PAC, which gives anyone other the six actively campaigning for her some ability to walk it back and say they didn’t actually endorse her. This is a hedged bet.
You’ll see.
What a brilliant, evidence-based, empirically verifiable response!
Indeed: verification will begin in eleven days.
I agree. I think alot more small businesses would be started if such a system was there.
No wonder Bernie has so many individual donors: some of them are Republican mischiefmakers!
Unfortunately for Bernie, younger voters are still a small piece of the pie:
One of the distinguishing features of modern conservatism is an attachment to ideology, or the elevation of a fact-resistant conceptual framework. In the guise of neoconservatism it delivered us the quagmire in Iraq. In economics it gives us supply side economics, a monocausal interpretation of history that puts tax rates front, center and implicated in basically everything including the rise of Hilter. To be clear, there are many mainstream conservative faculties in the US. There really aren’t any supply side schools, because supplysidism is crackpot stuff. It has no econometric grounding.
There’s a lot in modern conservatism that reminds me of the hard left, the ideological left, the Marxist left. Which brings me to Bernie Sanders. He’s a smart guy and a practical guy: his days as mayor of Burlington revealed that. But some of his fellow travelers leave a little to be desired. Recently an economic analysis of his plan was offered by a guy from U Mass, Amherst. (U Mass has had a number of radical economists in their faculty for a while.) The analysis is quackery positing real per person GDP growth rates of 4.5% over a 10 year period. That’s just nuts. Even 2.5% is very optimistic.
Now the Amherst guy doesn’t have an official capacity in the campaign, though they have given him some encouraging nods. But I think this is revealing. There are leftie crackpots and rightie crackpots. The difference is lefties nutters receive serious pushback. In this case from Kevin Drum, Vox (IIRC), Paul Krugman, and as of today 4 past Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers. Liberals self-police. Conservatives lack a similar capacity. So leftie nutters get marginalized and rightie nutters get consulting gigs, sinecures and amplification in the conservative echo-chamber.
Krugman has become too much of a political advocate, and he’s a staunch HRC supporter. I would not trust him to fairly evaluate the plan of HRC’s opponent. Not that I think the UMass guys is correct, just that Krugman has shown himself to be too political for my tastes. We saw this very clearly in '08 when he was shilling for HRC against BHO. It’s a shame, really.
Nice analysis, Measure. I will pass this on.
Whatever John. He’s not evaluating Bernie’s plan though. He’s reporting on a piss poor laughable analysis of Bernie’s plan. We’re talking supply side preposterous - this could have been a Heritage Foundation document. Admittedly part of me is glad that someone with vaguely professional credentials at least is willing to shill for a Democratic candidate. It’s refreshing: it’s sort of like spotting an endangered specie of raptor in the wild.
This doesn’t imply that Bernie’s plan is preposterous though. Like I said, the U Mass professor wasn’t affiliated with the campaign.
Also, cite? Yeah Krugman preferred Hillary over Obama. So what? Show me an example of bad analysis on Krugman’s part.
Did you see the letter from Romer, Kreuger, Goolsbee and one other former CEA chair?
They all pretty much agree that Bernie’s plan doesn’t just not add up, but is actively harmful in its endorsement of the kind of evidence-free economics that the GOP engages in.
ETA: oops. Missed Measure for Measure’s reference to it. So you did see it!
Well, 170 Economists endorsed his plan to reign in Wall Street. And210 Economists backed his idea to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. So there seems to be vast support for some of his ideas from a wide swath of Economists.
As for the rest, they can be hashed out but I have a lot more faith in being able to get the numbers to work than I do in being able to implement the ideas with Republicans and blue dogs throughout both chambers of Congress.