How do you account for the basic inflationary effect of giving everyone a grand? everything the people you are trying to help buys would go up in price to absorb it in a week, especially accomadation, shysty landlords would be jacking up the cost of a slum the day it went into effect.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
^^I mean Gore technically won. Bernie will help drive progressive voters, unfortunately with Bernie Florida is gone, and I think one thing not being talked about enough is how Ohio is probably gone for the Dems too, regardless of nominee. Trump won Ohio by more than Obama or Bush or B. Clinton ever did. The rust belt strategy seems likely to fail since flipping Ohio looks pretty difficult. The Florida + Pennsylvania and/or Michigan path seems far more realistic.
They've gone all-in on the assumption that their millenials and gen Z voters care more about "identity politics" than they do climate change, wealth disparity, health care, education, etc., and they're completely wrong.
This is also why I'm not really on board with the comparison to Corbyn's labour party, which bet on precisely the same horse and reaped the inevitable results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
Trump won Ohio by more than Obama or Bush or B. Clinton ever did. The rust belt strategy seems likely to fail since flipping Ohio looks pretty difficult. The Florida + Pennsylvania and/or Michigan path seems far more realistic.
This is why I still think that if the Dems were going to go the centrist electoral math route, they should have gone all in on Sherrod Brown. But apparently they figured Biden was that guy (which, you know, seemed fair enough at the time - he certainly wins you back Pennsylvania and probably appeals to the working class Michigan / Wisconsin democrats).
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 02-13-2020 at 01:29 PM.
I mean I get the joke - but even thinking there is a nugget of truth to Pete resembling any Republican of any type is hilarious from the far progressive left. His platform is left of Obama.
The introduction of UBI is a massive first step. That it would be increased for political gain is simply a logical conclusion of what would happen were it to be introduced.
They show he's within the margin of error which is nice (if not particularly recent). But as I keep saying if the economy is doing fine people that aren't in strongly blue states are not chancing it on a socialist. Economic collapse remains Bernie's best shot.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
This is also why I'm not really on board with the comparison to Corbyn's labour party, which bet on precisely the same horse and reaped the inevitable results.
I think progressives feel like they got burned by Obama, Macron, and Trudeau, so they're far more concerned with systemic changes than they are the window-dressing stuff. Just my take.
I'm not arguing that it would cause across the board inflation, just inflation for the most poor, I worked as a welfare officer back in the UK, as soon as we put up welfare rates the landlords would jack up the price of a room, the poor schmoes on the pogey never saw dime one.
This is also why I'm not really on board with the comparison to Corbyn's labour party, which bet on precisely the same horse and reaped the inevitable results.
Corbyn's Momenetum movement turned its back on Labour centrists like Blair and Brown in favour of a dyed-in-the-wool socialist who would remake the UK system to overthrow the oligarchy. His support in Labour was built on a cadre of intensely passionate loyalists - mostly activists, academics, and students -who said this was no time for tepid moderates, and promised to bring about real change.
Key elements of Corbyn's platform:
Free university
Free broadband
Free dental care
Raise the national minimum wage
Massive public housing programme
Windfall tax on oil an gas companies
Breaking up tech companies
Foreign policy of non-interventionism
Corbyn also has a history of praising anti-Western and communist leaders, like Castro.
But other than that, no - nothing at all like Sanders.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Corbyn's Momenetum movement turned its back on Labour centrists like Blair and Brown in favour of a dyed-in-the-wool socialist who would remake the UK system to overthrow the oligarchy. His support in Labour was built on a cadre of intensely passionate loyalists - mostly activists, academics, and students -who said this was no time for tepid moderates, and promised to bring about real change.
Key elements of Corbyn's platform:
Free university
Free broadband Free dental care
Raise the national minimum wage
Massive public housing programme
Windfall tax on oil an gas companies
Breaking up tech companies
Foreign policy of non-interventionism
Corbyn also has a history of praising anti-Western and communist leaders, like Castro.
But other than that, no - nothing at all like Sanders.
Free Dental care definitely would have bankrupted the country, therefore Corbyn just wasn't a realistic option.
His support in Labour was built on a cadre of intensely passionate loyalists - mostly activists, academics, and students
This is the key difference - Sanders's target audience in the USA is far less ivory-tower and far more blue collar working class. The "woke" elitist was right up Corbyn's alley, whereas Sanders doesn't pander to with them really at all. Look at the difference in the way he's treated by the mainstream media in the States versus how UK media fawned over Labour. Corbyn strikes me as far more like Warren than Sanders.
EDIT: Hey look another Hill video.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 02-13-2020 at 03:45 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
It's funny how people making the Corbyn comparison seem to completely ignore that the 2017 election happened. The Labour Party received 40% of the popular vote with Corbyn as their leader, which was their 3rd highest vote share since the '60s (only Blair's first 2 wins were higher).
I think that's what most people believe the end result is going to be. The problem is that the Republicans have pretty clearly demonstrated that they're not willing to compromise on this, so it makes more sense to start with a bigger proposal and shift towards the center come election time than it does to start in the middle and shift right.
It's a smart play for sure, but the Dems already had both chambers and 60 in the senate in 2008 and couldn't get the public option. Maybe it's more palatable this time now that people have had Obamacare.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
I think some here are over thinking how people vote. I see the general categories basically like this:
1- There are those who will vote Republican or Democratic no matter the circumstances nor who is running.
2- Then there are those who will vote only for their party but only when they are engaged to do so. Otherwise, they won't vote.
3- Then there is a relatively small percentage of people that may swing from party to party.
3a- A sub-group who tend to vote based more on personality, sound bites, media coverage and Presidential-ness and less on substance.
3b- A sub-group who tend to vote based on substance.
Most of us think we belong in 3b when in reality we're not. This is a very small group and they typically don't effect the outcome of Presidential elections. The groups that have the most impact are 2 and 3a. Therefore, the candidate who is most likely to win is the one who can energize their political spectrum to vote and/or have a great campaign that attracts independents like shiny objects attract toddlers. Obama managed to do both but I don't really see any of the current field of Democrats really able to do either. That said, they might still win just because Trump is historically awful.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
The Following User Says Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
It's a smart play for sure, but the Dems already had both chambers and 60 in the senate in 2008 and couldn't get the public option. Maybe it's more palatable this time now that people have had Obamacare.
This while technically true isn't necessarily accurate since Ted Kennedy got sick dropping the Dems to 59.
