These are contradictory. Reducing government power increases income equality.
Yes. One is the goal of the Tea Party, the other is the goal of the left equivalent. I never meant to imply that anyone was pushing for both.
Okay … Are you disagreeing with me? I didn’t dispute that. I said if you protest for reduced government power in general, and government power gets reduced, then that indicates that your movement is succeeding. (Of course, this is only true if the movement had an effect on the reduction of government power.)
I agree, if you don’t have specific and persuasive arguments about where and how much you are going to cut, you are right back in the “I want change!” category. If you protest something generally, and politicians find a specific way to satisfy your general protest as a result of your protests, how is that not indicative of some measure of success?
Well I think I’m disagreeing with you. You said if there’s a drop in spending or power it is an “indication of success” or it’s “trending in the right direction”. I would argue that if we cut certain programs, most Tea Partiers would not agree. If we slashed border patrols, would they feel they are succeeding? If we stopped government controls over banking, would they think they are trending in the right direction?
Yes, that’s true, it’s specific areas of government that the Tea Party wants to cut. But if a politician were to cut, say, welfare spending, in an effort to appeal to Tea Party voters, then I would say that’s an indication that the Tea Party is succeeding in their efforts. Since their efforts are so vague, no, you could never say definitively that the Tea Party completely succeeded in achieving their goal and now they can disband. But I don’t think it’s logical to conclude that as a result, the Tea Party is doomed to failure.
Well then you aren’t really making any non-obvious point. Yes, if the government makes some cut in some program that the Tea party wants a cut in, then they are succeeding. But that’s not what you said which I disagreed with.
Agreed.
Part of me wonders (and I know this is unrealistic) if small donors could help salvage Sanders. Example, if 5 million Sanders supporters (about 8-10% of people who will vote for him in 2016) all agree to donate $10/month for 6 months, that adds up to $300 million. That alone combined with whatever money Sanders gets from wealthy billionaires and from bundlers should keep his campaign afloat.
However that is probably unrealistic. I know that $10/month isn’t a big deal, but I don’t know if 5 million people would pony up that much.
For whatever reason I wouldn’t compare Sanders to Kucinich. 2004 was a different time, I don’t think people were as disillusioned with the establishment as we are now. Plus Sanders just seems more credible than Kucinich.
Nate Silver has been an excellent prognosticator. I remember in 2008 when his ideas were still controversial, the day before the election I printed off a map of the electoral college and showed it to my parents, I think he got every state right (maybe missed one, I don’t recall).
But in between the creation of new media and alternative sources of news, mass disillusionment with the nature of the US, I don’t think establishment candidates are going to do well for a while.
Do Carson & Fiorina have any populist economic views? My understanding is that is part of Trumps popularity. His anti-immigrant, pro-medicaid/medicare/social security, pro-tax the rich, anti-lobbyist views are very economically populist. Are Carson and Fiorina similar or are their views on economics more traditionally republican (very pro-business). I don’t have cable so I don’t see the debates.
As an aside, why do people say that Democrats want to increase government spending? That’s not their goal.
Sanders wants to do things like enact public health care and increase public education. These programs would obviously increase government spending but that’s not the goal of the programs.
Somehow Republicans don’t get tagged with this. A Republican candidate can say he wants to increase national security or enlarge the military and nobody reduces his goal to “he wants to spend more money”.
The winner of the last two Presidential elections won mainly on the strength of small donors and two of the leading contenders(Sanders and Carson) are not backed by big money, but also by small donors.
They don’t get tagged with it, but they should. On defense issues, most Republicans act like Democrats: they think that more money= better defense. Democrats, on the other hand, get it right on defense. it’s not how much you spend, but how smartly you spend. Now if they’d just treat domestic programs that way we’d get a good government.
Well yes, in the very quote that you quoted I said that the Bernie Sanders faction of Democrats want to reduce government spending and power to reduce income inequality. The (general) goal is to reduce income inequality, and the means of doing so is increasing government programs.
The Tea Party’s primary goal is to reduce government power through reducing government spending. Yes, I acknowledge that Republicans want the government to spend lots of money on certain programs, but the Tea Party stands for Taxed Enough Already, and their primary purpose is to fight for lower taxes and less government programs.
Is it really that clear-cut? Of course not. The Tea Party wants big government in certain areas, just like the Bernie Sanders faction wants smaller government in certain areas. But in terms of defining a simplified, general platform for these two movements, I think my original statement was accurate.