Da fuq?
What I mean is that it’s no longer possible to raise taxes on the middle class since Reagan.
No middle class taxes, no welfare state.
You can prove nothing! Nothing, I tell you! [furiously filing off serial numbers…]
:rolleyes: [whistling the chorus of Jethro Tull’s “Living in the Past”]
Uh, people were already skeptical of government before St. Ronnie. Heard of Vietnam and Watergate?
Reagan came in after the recession of the 70’s and rode a groundswell of anger the public had over inflation. Unfortunately, they traded having to pay “high” taxes (and they were low compared to rates in the 50’s) for an income gap that we are still seeing today.
And how can you trust any politician that says “Government is the problem”? Would you trust a doctor who says “Medicine isn’t the solution, it’s the problem.”?
If by that you mean she wants the Wall Street thieves to pay for the crimes against the American people that they perpetrated, then yeah, she’s rare.
That’s the other problem. A legal professor would at least know that you have to prove individuals committed crimes. She sounds like she’d just like to set up a kangaroo court.
Although in Warren’s case I was referring to her fairytale explanation of government: “Government is the things we do together”. No, that’s what voluntary association is. When steve Jobs had an idea, he didn’t go to the government and say, “Let’s do this thing together.”, he went to Steve Wozniak and said, “Let’s do this thing together.” Government is an entity we hire to accomplish certain things for us, most of which it does pretty poorly, spending more effort avoiding accountability for doing things poorly than actually trying to do things well.
In a long history of wrong assertions, this may be the single wrongest thing you’ve ever asserted.
Young people don’t vote. People who support the President’s party don’t vote in off-years.
But young people are obsessed with social media. Is there some way that young Democrats on Facebook could organize “Get out the Vote” sharing chains?
PSY - GANGNAM STYLE (강남스타일) M/V is fast approaching Two Billion views! Wouldn’t it be delightful if such Internetting energy could be harnassed for good!
But when they do, they vote a progressive agenda.
Party identification among the young continues to shift Democratic. Even among whites, adaher.
Let’s see how they vote in November.
Probably like in the last few elections that you somehow don’t think meant anything.
That a prediction? Democrats win the youth vote?
That is what an extrapolation of the data *should *lead a reasoning person to conclude is the most probable outcome, yes. You seem doubtful of that - why?
Turnout is obviously crucial (duh).
Young people support the Democratic party over the Republican party by a significant margin. In fact, even more white young people support the Democratic party (by a small margin) then the Republican party.
Better that than the alternative. Obama will inevitably be in the lame duck period of his administration anyway.
Well, there’s the rub, see. Obama and the centrist Democrats have been sticking it to the progressive wing of the Democrats with, if anything, more glee than they’ve been sticking it to the Republicans. And young people tend to lean progressive. So, good luck with explaining to young people over social media how the Democrats are the party to vote for. Have to do some very strong lying or fear-mongering to make any progress in pumping up the youth vote and I don’t think young voters buy that stuff the way older voters do (i.e., the Fox News crowd). Of course, there IS the option of adopting and promoting progressive causes, especially economic ones, but the Wall Street Democrats are not about to let that happen.
We need to impress upon them that voting is more than right, more than a privilege, it is a duty as well. Choosing between two unpleasant prospects is a total drag, done it many a time, but that’s my job. Nobody is asking me to take a bullet for my country, but a ballot? Yes, you should, you must, it is your obligation, to listen to the voices of ghosts who died so that you could.
Oh, I’m all for young people voting. Just not for Democrats unless they get progressive. Third party will do fine.
Are you thinking of the Working Families Party or the Socialist Party or the Green Party or what?
OTOH, it should get easier and easier to convince them that the Republicans are the party to vote against.
The Affordable Care Act is perhaps the biggest advancement in social welfare and fiscal responsibility over the past 30 years. Dodd-Frank (I know:MEGO) caused more corporate whining than any other measure passed over a similar time period. No movement on climactic change though. A pointless war: ended. A vicious terrorist: caught and killed.
On the substance, Obama has been both a strong progressive and a strong centrist President. The process has been painful to watch --hair pulling-- and he hasn’t juiced the base, but the track record is exemplary.
The blog is hosted by ESPN. Its core competences are sports and elections. Silver has mismanaged the reboot: management is hard. He thinks he can add value by hiring a pundit to comment on a chart. The problem is that while election horse race journalism is inane (obliviously), as is sports journalism (knowingly, generally speaking) other policy fields such as economics and climate science already have serious analysts. So you can’t just grab some numbers and pontificate: far better is to present a chart or even an equation* and get a real expert to guide you through it.
Krugman has a series of posts on the subject. Here is one. I’m a little more forgiving in tone than he is: I see Nate as making a serious but eventually correctable misstep.
As an aside, US public discourse would be more interesting if a non-trivial share of the GOP and conservative media embraced sanity and such post-1600 concepts as empiricism and arithmetic application.
- Even an equation. The Motley Fool noted during the 1990s that most financial reporters won’t present equations because they drive away readers. Think about that for a moment. Certain relationships involving money are numeric. How serious is an article about a company if it limits itself to only an handful of standard ratios? Which it can’t really analyze in depth, because that involves careful distinction.