That should be “count on.”
Well except in South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, pre-World War I German Empire, 19th Century United States…
Why is economic liberalism necessarily more intellectual and “more removed from the passions”? It seems to me the Very Serious Personist enthusiasm for austerity is a great example of the latter. I don’t see why Friedrich List, Adolf Wagner, Henry Clay, Christopher Lasch, or Ross Douthat are any less “intellectual” than the folks at AEI or Cato.
The blind and zealous application of the ideas of the former have been by and large disastrous (this ignores obviously that for example Friedman supported a Negative Income Tax and Hayek was fine with a welfare state).
That’s about as obvious as Clinton not being able to count on female support.
It’s largely the media that comes up with these things in the first place. First they start with the premise that because Candidate X is Y, all people who are Y will support Candidate X. Then they do some cursory research and discover that their anally-extracted premise is pretty much nonsense. Then they claim that this proves that Candidate X is “losing the support of” people who are Y and make a whole drama out of it.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
The polling numbers for Hillary among women and Rubio among Latino voters is very, very different.
can’t have that.
Chris Christie: ‘I Will Crack Down And Not Permit’ Legal Marijuana As President
Christie wanted 69 for retirement.
And if Clinton was a Republican she’d be behind in the female vote.
I do think that there is a small percentage of voters who will say, “Hey, that candidate is like me!” and vote for them, but it’s only good for a few points. And those points are usually lost anyway among other demographics.
In other news, it looks like Pence has indeed taken himself out of a race he never really got into, but John Kasich says he’s still very serious about running:
The female vote is not really comparable to ethnic votes. Gender votes don’t cluster at higher levels than in the 50s or so, in general – ethnic votes can cluster into the 90s.
Your last hope, right?
Nah. Despite missteps, other candidates can impress. This is the early period, and it’s not like Clinton has covered herself in glory early on either. Campaign teams and candidates often get better as they gain experience. The nice thing about having major gaffes in winter 2015 is that if you learn from them you’re less likely to have them when people are listening.
Christie’ back on my radar now because of his Social Security plan. Very bold, proposing cuts in Social Security as a campaign theme.
You misspelled “stupid and evil”.
And his wife probably said, “it’ll be quite difficult unless you lose some weight by then, Mr. Horizontally Unchallenged.”
While I think that Christie is, in general, pretty stupid and evil, his SS plan is actually not that unreasonable. It’s mostly a means test for benefits as I understand it. I’m not thrilled with the increase in retirement age. The biggest thing missing is a lift of the cap on paying SS taxes.
That’s just means testing by other er, means, unless you raise benefits along with the payroll cap. Which would do no good from the perspective of the program’s finances.
No, it’s actually means testing by means testing. You don’t need SS after retirement? Fine. You don’t get it, but that shouldn’t get you out of paying into it. It’s social. Right there in the name. The people who make a shit-ton of money in the this country need to get comfortable with the fact that they are a part of society that enables all of that money making. Noblesse oblige and all that. Or just suck it up buttercup. Either way works for me.
Problem is, if SS is a program for poor seniors, it will be as politically vulnerable as any other program for the poor. It was the third rail for so long because everyone from Warren Buffett to Joe Schmo was a net beneficiary. At least until the music stops in 2030 or so.
That will mainly depend on whether the median voter wants a third Obama term or not.