Election 2020

[Teenwolf]

The car thing being a standard seems arbitrary. I drive a 2008 Honda Fit that I won't be able to afford to replace for years, but I make decent money, and work as much extra as I can to not run out of money each month. Combined, my wife and I make good money. Top 25% for households, though that jump up is very recent. All our money goes to my two young kids, their day care (two kids in daycare was over 23k last year), my house mortgage, my disabled mom, my wife's credit card bills and significant student loans, and all the stuff that keeps breaking in the house we just bought.

I think income normalized for cost of living where you live, and then factoring in how many kids you have, dependent relatives, outstanding debt, etc would be the best measure. We do have good health care, though. All we have to worry about is co pays on that front. But the rest of your list--401ks, living month to month, the cars, we fit the bill of not well off. Our current salary would say otherwise, though. Maybe eventually our life style will catch up to that label. Call me a selfish prick, but I hope so. I grew up poor and lived poor most of my life. It will be nice when I finally get out of the red and feel financially secure. Again, our income increases are recent, as we are both PHDs that lived off grad stipends and side hustles for way too long, and then not a lot to start, and our debts and debits for kids and my mom are large. Our lifestyle and finances do not match out current income.

Sanders plans would take more from us, but give us a lot too, with child care, help for my mom, student loan help for my wife. Not everyone sees that trade off, though. Sanders needs to message it well. If he says he will take from the well off, he should make sure to remind what he is giving to everyone, because some of those making good money are still not feeling well off, because of the things they pay for now that he wants the government to cover. He will focus on the gives. His opponents on the takes. People are self interested, and so the messaging battle here will be key.

Something people tend to underestimate is what would happen if $1.8 Tn in student debt was wiped out instantly... what would all of those struggling people do with their newfound financial freedom?

They're going to buy cars, get mortgages, get married, all of the things people put off later in life due to rising debt for post grads. These spending booms will re-shape the economy. The rich will still get rich, just in different ways. Same with eliminating medical debt. The poorest people, when given money, will put it straight back into the economy in one form or other because they aren't capable of saving it for a rainy day.

With high earning folks who still hold debt, like you and your wife, maybe it allows them to quit their unsatisfying careers and start their own businesses, knowing health care isn't tied to employers... or maybe they like their job, and invest in stocks or a summer cottage, whatever it is, they will invest in the economy in different ways from poor people, but they'll largely spend it all the same.

I think economic concerns with Sanders' agenda are overblown, on the micro and macro scale.

[B-Fly]

I believe the black support numbers from SC that I've seen show a split around Biden 35/Steyer 25/Sanders 20. Steyer's recent dip is going more to help Biden than Sanders.

But you're right that he's losing black support nationally. He had a 40 pt lead a year ago, now they're essentially tied, and Bernie has the huge lead with Latino voters and other minorities. He won 73% of the Nevada latino vote. Very good sign for Texas.

A big win in South Carolina credited to high Black support would likely reverse Biden's trend with Black voters nationally and push him back up for Super Tuesday, particularly in the southeast, and I think you'd also start to see more endorsements from prominent Black Democrats. I suspect Sanders will sustain his support from Black voters under 40.

[B-Fly]

Here's what I feel is "well off' anyone who can buy a new car every 2-4 years. Non Lease.

Not me, but probably a choice. We "could" buy a new car every four years if we saved/invested less and spent less. Instead we drove hand-me-downs from my parents until they fell apart and now have two leased vehicles.[/quote]

I could say anyone who has over 250K in a 401K

Sort of. We have split across investment accounts, 403(b)s through work, government employee pension funds.

Anyone who doesn't have to worry about healthcare for their entire family.

I am super lucky here, but ultimately we have great health insurance because my wife is a unionized school district employee with great collectively-bargained-for benefits.

Anyone who can say, this is my last $20 and that means in their pocket only.

Yep, I've never had nothing in savings/checking.

Well off does indeed mean--better than me. And THAT is what resonates with Sanders supporters.

The fact B Fly equated HRC voters with Trump voters tells you--TOO many people vote their pocketbook over their ethics, which is a choice, but WHY we struggle as a society.

We either take care of everyone, or ourselves. It's pretty clear.

You can say it's complicated, but it's really not.

You either give MORE than the Govt will take or allow the Govt to take on your behalf. To do otherwise it to be a selfish prick.

But there are a lot of those out there and they're totally comfortable being exactly that.

And yes, if you can afford buying a new car every 2-4 years and are balking at Sander's platforms--you're a selfish prick.

So here's the thing, though. I didn't "equate HRC voters with Trump voters" - I said it's naïve to assume zero overlap as you did in one of your posts analyzing Sanders' path to victory. I think the overlap would be small, but given the potentially slim margins of victory in swing states, material/relevant.

As for me, I've never voted with my pocketbook over my values and don't plan to start now. I'm fully cognizant of my privilege and more than willing to make sacrifices. Despite that we have great collectively-bargained health insurance, for example, I still strongly believe that single-payer government health insurance along the lines of Medicare for All would be best for the nation as a whole and I therefore support it. And in my three years as COO/CFO for my hometown school district, I was in the unique position of being one of the guys most responsible for screwing myself over on my own property taxes, lol, because it was in the best interest of the district's school children - particularly the low-income children of color.

I don't balk at Sanders' platforms so much as I prioritize beating Trump and worry about Sanders (and every other candidate) from an electability standpoint.

And as a career government operations, finance, risk and internal audit guy, I worry about candidates that are all big ideas and values and lighter on detailed plans and execution, which is why I naturally have gravitated to Elizabeth "I've Got a Plan for That" Warren, whose broad policies don't vary much from Sanders on the whole, but who appears to put more time and effort into sweating the details around how to pass/fund/execute/implement.

[Teenwolf]

A big win in South Carolina credited to high Black support would likely reverse Biden's trend with Black voters nationally and push him back up for Super Tuesday, particularly in the southeast, and I think you'd also start to see more endorsements from prominent Black Democrats. I suspect Sanders will sustain his support from Black voters under 40.

Actually, I need to clarify something.

From what I've heard, Biden's organization on the ground through Super Tuesday states is minuscule. He doesn't have the organization in place to take advantage of a SC win with only 2 days to hype it up. Reminds me of Warren performing well in the Nevada debate, but seeing almost no movement when Nevada voted because many had voted early already. Same thing with California (where Biden is consistently behind Sanders by 10+ pts), and Texas. Early voting started weeks ago. Basically, if Biden wins SC handily and gets a big influx of cash, he needs to spend it further down the line. Super Tuesday is largely decided, partially voted already. Not much to gain from 2 days of media celebration. Biden also hasn't visited a single Super Tuesday state yet, which is another part of why he's so far behind. Seems unlikely that winning the only state he guaranteed he could win would have much of an effect, especially if he wins by a lower margin. Polling showing a massive 20 pt lead from such poor pollsters as YouGov only raise the expectation that Biden should win his "firewall" state by 20. Raising the expectations is bad for Biden. The media will still treat it like its earth shattering, but winning by single digits would look pretty bad for Biden.

All of that said, I'm fairly optimistic that even a Biden win is most likely not going to push much wind into Super Tuesday sails. All the ads are bought already.

[Gregg]

Something people tend to underestimate is what would happen if $1.8 Tn in student debt was wiped out instantly... what would all of those struggling people do with their newfound financial freedom?

They're going to buy cars, get mortgages, get married, all of the things people put off later in life due to rising debt for post grads. These spending booms will re-shape the economy. The rich will still get rich, just in different ways. Same with eliminating medical debt. The poorest people, when given money, will put it straight back into the economy in one form or other because they aren't capable of saving it for a rainy day.

With high earning folks who still hold debt, like you and your wife, maybe it allows them to quit their unsatisfying careers and start their own businesses, knowing health care isn't tied to employers... or maybe they like their job, and invest in stocks or a summer cottage, whatever it is, they will invest in the economy in different ways from poor people, but they'll largely spend it all the same.

I think economic concerns with Sanders' agenda are overblown, on the micro and macro scale.

This assumes that there is money that can be diverted to other things. Or that all of those in debt plan to pay it off eventually. I don't believe there is money to divert or plans for all to pay it back.

I am not saying that there shouldn't be relief. But the relief will not translate into better economy.

[Teenwolf]

This assumes that there is money that can be diverted to other things. Or that all of those in debt plan to pay it off eventually. I don't believe there is money to divert or plans for all to pay it back.

I am not saying that there shouldn't be relief. But the relief will not translate into better economy.

Business Insider disagrees with you.

Just google "student debt housing market" and you'll see dozens of articles about how severely the student debt load has affected the housing market. Shows increasing rates of students living with their parents into their 30's (up to 17% now), increasingly older when they marry, older when they have kids. The beginning of their adult life is put on hold through paying for post-secondary. This isn't sustainable. Debt load increased 130% over 10 years.

student-debt-preventing-the-us-from-having-normal-housing-market

[nullnor]

i am not a fan of cancelling student debt. look at it from a virus point of view. it's not debt that's the problem, it's the cost of college. cancelling debt isn't going to make the costs go down. it's like attacking a symptom but not the disease. not to mention, those people chose to go to expensive colleges. there are plenty of students out there would say, 'i went to a cheaper college on purpose because i was mindful of the debt'. and they would say, i don't think it's right to let my friends that took out huge loans off the hook. they also could've done the same thing i did.

so now you are pitting financially responsible students against one's that aren't as much. you can make the same analogy with immigration. ones that went through the system to be legal and waited a decade or more now see people that subverted the process become legal. these are things that can be used by another political party as a wedge and drain votes.

..also, lets be clear when we talk about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. the debate is future costs of things like national debt, or climate change. and policies that exacerbate them. the 1% of people that pay the nations taxes. i am not saying they don't deserve to have a say. or maybe 2000 people in the world that are richer than 4 billion people. they have too much political influence. their policies slant the game too much in their favor at the cost of future expenses that everyone else will have to eventually bear one way or another.

[nullnor]

Business Insider disagrees with you.

Just google "student debt housing market" and you'll see dozens of articles about how severely the student debt load has affected the housing market. Shows increasing rates of students living with their parents into their 30's (up to 17% now), increasingly older when they marry, older when they have kids. The beginning of their adult life is put on hold through paying for post-secondary. This isn't sustainable. Debt load increased 130% over 10 years.

student-debt-preventing-the-us-from-having-normal-housing-market

that sounds more like a lack of abundant good paying jobs. not a problem of student debt. it's hard for me to focus because there's a lot of factors that lead us here. it's easier just to focus on the republican policies that are more harmful than helpful than to focus on the cure.

1) unplanned pregnancies. it's done to lower wages and increase job competition.
2) outsourcing or abandoning manufacturing job's to overseas.
3) low interest rates

i don't know i give up. this isn't my thing. i could if i tried but i don't really care... i'll tell you one thing though. higher student debt is an adjustment to lower birth rates. it costs more money and time to have kids. eventually the current economic strategy will result in dramatically lower american birth rates.

[Teenwolf]

Joe Biden, today:

"I'm looking forward to appointing the first African American woman to the United States Senate."

I hope Joe bombs in SC so he can stop doing this and get some rest. Honestly, his family and advisors are trying to kill the guy if they push him all the way to the convention.

Bernie's polling was insanely good all over today. Super Tuesday looks like Bernie cleans up, especially with California and Texas. If he comes away with 50% of the delegates from those huge states, plus wins several others as projected, he could lock up the nomination.

[The Feral Slasher]

Joe Biden, today:

"I'm looking forward to appointing the first African American woman to the United States Senate."

I hope Joe bombs in SC so he can stop doing this and get some rest. Honestly, his family and advisors are trying to kill the guy if they push him all the way to the convention.

Bernie's polling was insanely good all over today. Super Tuesday looks like Bernie cleans up, especially with California and Texas. If he comes away with 50% of the delegates from those huge states, plus wins several others as projected, he could lock up the nomination.

he does seem to be confused a bit too much for my comfort. But he is likely to crush it in South Carolina. Tuesday.... may not look so good for him

[nullnor]

i try not to read the NYT but i thought this was funny. Democratic Leaders Willing to Risk Party Damage to Stop Bernie Sanders https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/u...delegates.html

Bill Clinton, in calls with old friends, vents about the party getting wiped out in the general election....“People are worried,” said former Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a former Democratic National Committee chairman. “How you can spend four or five months hoping you don’t have to put a bumper sticker from that guy on your car.”

uh huh

[The Feral Slasher]

i try not to read the NYT but i thought this was funny. Democratic Leaders Willing to Risk Party Damage to Stop Bernie Sanders https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/u...delegates.html uh huh

Well their paywall makes it easier not to read. Great that Bill is concerned though.

[Teenwolf]

"I’m going to make a controversial statement,” Biden acknowledged, before diving in. “If someone in this room got up, took off all her clothes and walked out the door, no man has a right to touch her. Zero.”

The crowd politely applauded.

The former vice president kept going: “She can be arrested for indecent exposure!”

No applause followed. Some in the crowd wore puzzled expressions when Biden then mentioned how police or even parents of rape victims face questions about their clothing.

“Did you have underwear on? Were you wearing a bra? How short was your skirt? What did you say?” Biden said in a mock colloquy of a rape victim being questioned. He also mentioned a case of a woman who refused to date a man, resulting in an attack from “two goons [who] slashed her face with razors.”

[...]

Most candidates have a set speech they adhere to closely, sometimes relying on a teleprompter or notes to get by. Biden often wings it, preferring to walk around with the mic and say what comes to mind, a farrago of stats, history, personal musings and historical insights that keep audiences, staff and reporters guessing as they drink through the firehose of his speeches.

The digressions have run the gamut this primary season: musing about President Obama being assassinated, bizarrely calling a young woman at a town hall a “lying dog-faced pony soldier,” talking about how he spent time “in the hood.”

Sometimes Biden flat out gets his facts wrong. Last year, he mangled the story of recognizing the heroism of Navy captain. Earlier this year, he misleadingly suggested that he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning in 2003. And earlier this month, he falsely said he had been arrested in South African while accompanying a Congressional Black Caucus delegation en route to meet with Nelson Mandela.

'Too much detail': South Carolina holds firm for Biden despite rambling graphic speeches

I'm happy to see mainstream media finally realizing how far Joe has fallen. The line "as they drink through the firehose of his speeches" made me laugh.

[Teenwolf]

Now for Elizabeth Warren.

A week ago, Warren backtracked on one of her primary campaign pledges, not to take dark money from Super PAC's. Warren took a $9 mil ad buy through California and Texas (as well as Boston! Damn, home turf up for grabs!)... so Warren has the biggest Super PAC of the campaign, but claims she's only accepting the money because "all the men have PAC's"... highly misleading. Bernie's "Super PAC" is fully grassroots funded, having taken 3 donations over 5K in their history. Remember when she was mocking "Pete's wine cave"? What happened?

She's on a whirlwind of lies right now, but I won't go into them.

I'm so happy to see Bernie holding rallies in MA yesterday and today as the SC votes roll in, looking to take Warren out.

By the way, I noticed the Warren handshake snub of Bernie from SC debate didn't get picked up anywhere in the media, so lest you think I'm delusional, I'll include the only media clip of it that I can see, a 19 year old kid narrating the event. I just think it's weird. She's supposed to be the unity candidate? What am I missing about this Warren spat? She just seems bitter that she's losing. If she still holds a grudge over her claim about Bernie's sexism that's a pathetic reason to turn against him. How does she hope for a juicy administration seat when continuing to openly disrespect her good friend?

Also, we are SO LUCKY the media didn't pick up the 2nd handshake snub. That media cycle would have been unbearable.

[nullnor]

i am trying to make sense how Warren is a champion of equality yet was a bankruptcy law professor at Harvard for decades. which seems like an analogy of saying you are against big oil, but you worked for Chevron in Ecuador for decades. also her daughter was a health industry executive and McKinsey consultant https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/...g-executioners you can't get any more establishment than that. might Warren be a wolf in sheep's clothing? it's probably why she isn't winning in her home state. you run for president and ppl start noticing things they didn't before.

so while teaching future fortune 500 corporate lawyers how to screw shareholders and creditors, she was really a champion for the lower class. that makes sense.