Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2019 09:31 am
0 Replies
Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2019 11:03 am
An influential analysis of national polling data by Professors Ellis and Stimson suggests that the most effective candidate in a national election would combine the most popular feature of the Democratic Party, progressive economic policies, with the most popular feature of the Republican Party: the invocation of conservative ideology and values like patriotism, family and the “American dream.”

But are candidates free to mix and match their policies with their symbolic politics? If a Democratic candidate pursued such a mixed strategy, would it work? Or would it make him or her seem hypocritical or incoherent?

To investigate these questions we conducted two experiments, one using a nationally representative sample of Americans, in which we looked at Americans’ support for “Scott Miller,” a hypothetical 2020 Democratic nominee. The participants in our studies were presented with excerpts from Scott Miller’s speeches — but we systematically varied the content of the speeches to analyze the effects of policy platform and symbolic politics.

We found that the most effective Democratic candidate would speak in terms of conservative values while proposing progressive economic policies — with some of our evidence suggesting that endorsing highly progressive policies would be best.

In our studies, we varied Scott Miller’s economic policy platform, portraying him to some participants as moderately progressive and to others as highly progressive. The highly progressive version of Scott Miller proposed a large minimum wage increase, generous paid family leave, a huge jobs program and the expansion of Medicare to cover all uninsured Americans. The more moderate version favored smaller versions of the minimum wage increase, family leave program and jobs program, and wanted to defend the Affordable Care Act in its current form.

We also varied how Scott Miller talked about his candidacy and his policies, portraying him to some participants as expressing “liberal values” and to others as expressing “conservative values.” In the “liberal values” version, he emphasized his commitment to “principles of economic justice, fairness and compassion,” saying that his policies would be effective in stopping “corporations from exploiting working people.” In the “conservative values” version, he celebrated family and community as “sacred,” vowing to promote freedom and the dignity of hard-working Americans and to “restore the American dream.”

Our studies found that the degree of support for Scott Miller wasn’t much affected by whether his policy platform was highly progressive or more moderate. Overall, people showed a slight preference for the highly progressive candidate, but this result was small and statistically significant only in one of our studies.

What mattered far more was how Scott Miller talked about those policies. We found that when he spoke of his platform in terms of conservative values like patriotism, family and the American dream, he consistently drew more support than did the Scott Miller who couched those same policies in more liberal values like economic justice and compassion.

Interestingly, most of the increase in support for the Scott Miller with conservative values came from participants who identified as moderate as well as those who identified as conservative. Notably, liberals were inclined to support the candidate regardless of which rhetorical approach he took.

These results suggest that the most effective Democratic challenger to President Trump in 2020 would invoke conservative values while offering progressive economic policies.

Reply Sat 30 Nov, 2019 12:08 pm
Pete Buttigieg is a good example of the "Scott Miller" phenomenon.
Walter Hinteler
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2019 12:08 am
The members of my party, the SPD, Germany's oldest party, elected a new leadership yesterday.
Actually, it was a longer voting process, but yesterday the results of the last voting were published: leftists Norbert Walter-Borjans and Saskia Esken, who ran on a joint ticket, won 53.06% of the vote by members. (53 percent to 45 percent in the poll of 425,00 party members.)

They want to renegotiate the coalition deal to focus more on social justice, investment and climate policies.
The other team's candidates were centre-left and expected to win.

Thus, it's kind of a "shock victory for Leftists" in the view of conservatives and liberals - but nothing "progressive", just going back to the political position where the SPD has always been.
0 Replies
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2019 06:53 am
The Case for Bernie

The Democrats need a unifier. It could be the Vermont Socialist.

The Democratic Party needs a nominee, but right now it has a train wreck instead. The front-runner seems too old for the job and is poised to lose the first two primary season contests. The woman who was supposed to become the front-runner on the basis of her policy chops is sliding in the polls after thoroughly botching her health care strategy. The candidate rising in her place is a 37-year-old mayor of a tiny, not-obviously-thriving city.

Meanwhile several seemingly electable alternatives have failed to catch fire; the party establishment is casting about for other options; and not one but two billionaires are spending millions to try to buy delegates for a brokered convention … which is a not-entirely-unimaginable endgame for the party as it prepares to face down Donald Trump.

The state of the Democratic field reflects the weaknesses of the individual candidates, but it also reflects the heterogenous nature of the Democratic coalition, whose electorate has many more demographic divisions than the mostly white and middle-class and aging G.O.P., and therefore occasionally resembles the 19th-century Hapsburg empire in the challenge it poses to aspiring leaders.

The theory of the Kamala Harris candidacy, whose nosedive was the subject of a withering pre-mortem from three of my colleagues over Thanksgiving, was that she was well suited to accomplish this unification through the elixir of her female/minority/professional class identities — that she would embody the party’s diversity much as Barack Obama did before her, and subsume the party’s potential tensions under the benevolent stewardship of a multicultural managerialism.

That isn’t happening. But it’s still reasonable for Democratic voters to look for someone who can do a version of what Harris was supposed to do, and build a coalition across the party’s many axes of division.

And there’s an interesting case that the candidate best positioned to do this — the one whose support is most diverse right now — is the candidate whom Obama allegedly promised to intervene against if his nomination seemed likely: the resilient Socialist from Vermont, Bernie Sanders.

Like other candidates, Sanders’s support has a demographic core: Just as Elizabeth Warren depends on very liberal professionals and Joe Biden on older minorities and moderates, Bernie depends intensely on the young. But his polling also shows an interesting better-than-you-expect pattern, given stereotypes about his support. He does better-than-you-expect with minorities despite having struggled with them in 2016, with moderate voters and $100K-plus earners despite being famously left-wing, and with young women despite all the BernieBro business.

This pattern explains why, in early-state polling, Sanders shows the most strength in very different environments — leading Warren everywhere in the latest FiveThirtyEight average, beating Biden in Iowa and challenging him in more-diverse Nevada, matching Pete Buttigieg in New Hampshire and leading him easily in South Carolina and California.

Now, I have stacked the argument slightly, and left out a crucial axis of division where Sanders does worse than you expect: He struggles badly with his fellow Social Security recipients, the over-65. This weakness and Biden’s strength with these same voters are obvious reasons to doubt the case for Bernie as the unifier, Bernie as the eventual nominee.

Especially since Sanders has thus far ignored my advice (I know, the nerve) that he reassure skeptics by telling them that he has a record as a dealmaker, that he can moderate on certain issues, so they can feel safe supporting him even if they aren’t ready for the revolution.

But still: If you are a wavering Democrat concerned about both party unity and ultimate electability, about exciting all the diverse factions of your base while also competing for the disaffected, both the relative breadth of Bernie’s primary coalition and his decent polling among non-voters and Obama-Trump voters are reasons to give him another look.

That decent polling, I suspect, reflects a sense among voters drawn to populism that Bernie is different from not only the more centrist candidates — latecomers Michael Bloomberg and Deval Patrick especially, but Buttigieg as well — but also from his fellow left-winger, Warren, who has fully embraced the culture-war breadth of the new progressivism while Sanders remains, fundamentally, an economic-policy monomaniac.

He’s still a social liberal, of course, and he isn’t in the culturally conservative/economic populist quadrant where so many unrepresented voters reside. But for the kind of American who is mostly with the Democrats on economics but wary of progressivism’s zest for culture war, Sanders’s socialism might be strangely reassuring — as a signal of what he actually cares about, and what battles he might eschew for the sake of his anti-plutocratic goals. (At the very least he’s no more radical on an issue like abortion than a studied moderate like Mayor Pete.)

This is why, despite technically preferring a moderate like Biden or Amy Klobuchar, I keep coming back to the conservative’s case for Bernie — which rests on the perhaps-wrong but still attractive supposition that he’s the liberal most likely to spend all his time trying to tax the rich and leave cultural conservatives alone.

Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2019 07:14 am
Kos hates Bernie.
Kos has spent a lot of ink tearing down Bernie.

So, this is sweet.


And the winner will be ...BERNIE SANDERS

Nov 30, 2019 6:19pm EST by Mystic54, Community

I’m no seer, and Bernie was not my first choice, but I now fully believe Bernie Sanders will be the Democrat’s nominee to take the on Donald Trump in the 2020 general election. I don’t know why I didn’t figure this out sooner.

As a business consultant, one of the things I do is run analytics and projections based on trends. I use an aggregation of historical data, news and social media dominating, fluctuations in the commercial zeitgeist and intuition to help my clients determine where the wind is blowing for their products and services so that they can plan better.

I have now turned my skills and attention toward the field of those running for the democratic nomination for President and it is fairly clear to me Bernie will be the choice.

Bernie Sanders has an important attribute that helps him withstand the attrition and flux that has been impacting other candidates. People know what they are getting with Bernie. Never underestimate the power of certainty. At the end of the day, we come back to the comfort of what is familiar when the stakes are really high; when making the wrong choice can mean total disaster.

That said, we also like novelty and though it might be counter intuitive to think that certainty and novelty can coexist, Bernie delivers on both because he has a unique delivery style and personality unlike anyone that has ever sought the office before. He is not a boring politician. He also is likable in his own curmudgeonly way and is seen as trustworthy. These are two essential ingredients for getting people to pull the lever.
Add to this that he is polling well broadly across all demographics. Young, old, men, women and minorities all view him positively.

When I saw the initial group of 20 plus candidates in the democratic field, I was almost certain that Bernie would get lost in the mix. I was wrong, and his staying power in the top three was surprising to me, but now I understand the phenomenon of Bernie Sanders, he doesn’t disappoint. I spent some time evaluating the polling trends this week and he is rising as others seem to already be getting shopworn bit by bit. His rising poll numbers in the rust belt states seem to reflect mainly on his “trustworthiness”. Bernie has never swayed from his populist message and although Elizabeth Warren has taken similar stances on education and healthcare, there seems to be some doubt, reflected in recent polling and media coverage, that she can actually deliver the goods. When Bernie says he cares, that he will do what he says, it appears people tend believe him.

I’m ready to announce that when the smoke clears, Bernie Sanders will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. The good news is he can, and will, defeat Donald Trump.
0 Replies
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2019 07:30 am
I’m actually worried about Bernie’s safety now. This smells.
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 08:59 am
Why not try to be glad of Bernie Sander's success without borrowing invented persecution? Has there been threats made against him? If so, by whom?
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 09:37 am
I think the premise of this article is that all the current Democratic candidates are not electable. I think that is typical Democratic handwringing. Clinton and Obama were not considered electable, now in hindsight, they were amazing politicians who were shoo ins. Honestly, I wouldn't have a concern voting for Biden, Warren, Buttigieg or Harris.
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 09:49 am
I was talking about this with several other Bernie supporters yesterday. After watching Bernie blacked out, put down, treated with outrageous negative bias, lied about, polls skewed—through one election and halfway through another—it is hard to trust the latest behavior of the MSM.

We’d all LOVE to trust the motivations of what they’re saying now, but almost none of us do.

We’re actually planning an active response if the DNC tries to cheat our candidate at the convention.

Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 10:23 am
In other words, you have not heard any actual threats against him which puts his safety in question.
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 10:40 am
Actually, there was one very prominent threat on Twitter that they refuse to take down. I’ll go check it now.

I’m SURE there are plenty of threats against him that we don’t hear about.

But, the constant anti-Sanders drumbeat by the MSM reflects billionaires’ horror that Bernie and Co will poach their money and disrupt the corrupt machine that has enriched so many politicians and impoverished so many regular people definitely speaks to extreme motivation to prevent Bernie’s election.

The DNC went to court, saying they had the right to cheat. They still believe it—and they are extremely motivated.

Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 11:00 am
This guy plays for the SFGiants.
He doesn’t explicitly say the gun will be used on Bernie or his supporters, but he implies it.

Nov 26
Getting my boys trained up on how to use a gun in the unlikely event
@BernieSanders beats @realDonaldTrump in 2020. In which case knowing how to effectively use a gun under socialism will be a must. By the way most the head shots were theirs.

Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 11:53 am
True, there has been lots of bodily threats, implied or outright on all sorts of political figures, including Trump. It is an ugly time in politics and has been for a good long while now, back when Gabrielle Giffords was shot. The following is the latest that I have heard about:

A Florida Man Was Arrested For Threatening To Kill Democrat Rashida Tlaib And Others In Congress

It just keeps escalating, and it is sad to hear someone threating Bernie Sanders if he wins.

BTW, glad you addressed the threat(s).
0 Replies
Brand X
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 02:00 pm
The problem is that millions of dollars are being spent to convince the electorate that we can't have M4A. It should be simple... but in peoples minds they are going to 'lose' their healthcare if M4A is implemented. There is a disconnect and it's being planted even by the DNC. This portrays that the progressives in the race are not electable.... but it isn't true when you look at how many people want M4A, It isn't a losing proposition.

The DNC had rather lose to Trump than promote a progressive it seems.

Kamala is about done so no longer relevant, but Warren, Buttigieg and her think they have to have a conference call to find out what their core values are, not really trustworthy.
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 02:38 pm
@Brand X,
Do you have any links to the latest polls of say Medicare For All verses M4A with Public Option. Included in the question of supporting M4A, is there a question of whether you would support taxes going up to support it? The reason I ask is that every polls I have seen with questions to those or similar including in the question turn out different than simply a question of do you support M4A. Warren's national poll numbers might be better than Sander's because he has admitted taxes will go up for the middle class under his plan, but would be offset by the savings. Most people think the latter part is iffy.

Just saying.

Moreover, do you have proof the DNC would rather lose to Trump than support a progressive? They are allowed to chose who they think has the best chance of winning you know.
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 04:25 pm
Welcome to Trumpland, honey.
Brand X
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 07:17 pm
@Brand X,
Comcast kind of sort of apologizes to Andrew Yang for omitting him from many poll graphics etc.

'The clash between Yang’s camp and MSNBC over the network’s coverage of the candidates’ campaign shows no signs of slowing down. Following Yang’s refusal to return to the network until he receives an apology — and claims that MSNBC apologized in private, which were refuted by Yang’s campaign — 23 community nonprofit organizations representing Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders wrote an open letter to MSNBC addressing the situation.

The letter highlighted concerns over Yang’s coverage, noting that MSNBC moderators did not let the serial entrepreneur speak for the first 32 minutes of last week’s Democratic presidential debate. The letter also mentioned Yang being excluded by the network in favor of lower-polling candidates.

“We were troubled by these oversights and equally worried about their damage to MSNBC’s credibility, to the American democracy, and to this country’s racial equality,” the letter reads, noting the post-debate media focus on MSNBC’s controversial coverage of Yang.'

Read more: https://www.inquisitr.com/5766723/comcast-ceo-msnbc-andrew-yang/#ixzz670CLrrTt

0 Replies
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 07:57 pm
Included in the question of supporting M4A, is there a question of whether you would support taxes going up to support it?

Medicare for All proposals and policies really deserve to be carefully studied and not simply deemed indispensable because they poll well. There are some real structural challenges to instituting such a program, minor things like a shortage of doctors, and they need to be addressed. And the cost is staggering. I expect we'll get more details as the campaign develops but it's all "pie in the sky" right now. The Republicans will skewer any candidate who can't adequately defend government expansion and explain how it gets paid for.

We find that Medicare for All could be financed with:

A 32 percent payroll tax
A 25 percent income surtax
A 42 percent value-added tax (VAT)
A mandatory public premium averaging $7,500 per capita – the equivalent of $12,000 per individual not otherwise on public insurance
More than doubling all individual and corporate income tax rates
An 80 percent reduction in non-health federal spending
A 108 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increase in the national debt
Impossibly high taxes on high earners, corporations, and the financial sector
A combination of approaches


Regardless of its impact on national health expenditures, Medicare for All would shift substantial costs from the private sector to the federal government. By most estimates, a comprehensive Medicare for All plan that expands coverage to every U.S. resident for nearly all medical services and eliminates premiums and cost sharing would cost the federal government roughly $30 trillion over a decade.

Policymakers have a number of options available to finance the $30 trillion cost of Medicare for All, but each option would come with its own set of trade-offs.

In this preliminary analysis, we estimate the cost could be covered with a 32 percent payroll tax, a 25 percent income surtax, a 42 percent value-added tax, or a public premium averaging $7,500 per capita or more than $12,000 per individual who wouldn’t otherwise be enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP. Medicare for All could also be paid for by more than doubling individual and corporate income tax rates, reducing federal spending by 80 percent, or increasing the national debt by 108 percent of GDP. Tax increases on high earners, corporations, and the financial sector by themselves could not cover much more than one-third of the cost of Medicare for All.

Rather than adopting any one of the proposals above, policymakers could also consider a combination of approaches to finance Medicare for All. Reducing the cost, scope, or generosity of Medicare for All would also reduce the magnitude of needed financing.

In deciding how to finance Medicare for All, policymakers must consider the distributional, economic, and policy consequences of replacing premiums and cost sharing with various alternatives. Most of the options we put forward are more progressive on average than current law but would shrink economic output and bring the top tax rate up to its revenue-maximizing level – leaving little capacity for further taxes.

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Moreover, do you have proof the DNC would rather lose to Trump than support a progressive?

Good question.
0 Replies
Reply Tue 3 Dec, 2019 03:49 am
Yeah. We never had threats like this until Trump...

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 11/30/2020 at 09:29:21