Laurie, Always willing to please, where do you want to go with this? I am waiting about another 14 months before giving this much thought. :-)
Presidential Candidates
NYT Who is Running
CNN 2016
FOX News 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
58 comments:
It is very early in the race but I have been fascinated with presidential elections since 1980 when I took a class called American politics and elections. Here is an article that could be fun to discuss. It is very popular on reddit today:
America is ready for socialism! Massive majorities back Bernie Sanders on the issues — and disdain Donald Trump
I think Sanders and Trump are the two most interesting candidates right now.
I read the WHOLE THING and I now think the Salon is even more biased than FOX News... Or at least PAUL ROSENBERG is.
Of course people would love something for nothing, that is until someone reminds them that there is actually a cost tied to the "gift". More paid leave is a cost that comes from businesses, customers, other employees, etc. More social programs require higher taxes and reduce personal choice.
It was interesting seeing how different the world looks from the far Left.
By the way, I do agree that Trump is odd and self serving to say the least.
This seems like another "ABC" election-- Anybody But Clinton. And that seems to be becoming the sentiment on BOTH sides, oddly enough. I have been urging my fellow Republicans to just keep mum on the criticism of Hillary until after she gets the nomination. Fire all the ammo early and Democrats may flounder around and find somebody without as much baggage. That would be good for them, and bad for the country, just like last time.
The other thing I like about having 14-16 Republican candidates is that it forces the Democrats and the MSM, to the extent that is not completely redundant, to spread their attacks across a broad front until after the convention. You know they will attempt to destroy the Republican as soon as possible, rather than extolling the virtues of their candidate.
Reporting research about the opinions of American citizens does no make one biased just because you disagree with the majority view. Here is another article which finds the same thing- Bernie's socialist policy proposals have wide spread support:
Is Bernie Sanders Too Radical for America?
I found the idea that American voters prefer conservative ideology and actual liberal policies/programs very interesting.
On a different note Hillary does have some weaknesses but I don't think she will be easy to beat, if I was a republican I would be paying attention early and perhaps giving a little money to the candidate I thought had the best chance, which to me seems like none of them, I would be curious to learn about the Ohio gov, Kasich, as I currently know too little to dislike him.
I wonder how long Trump will stay near the top and how much damage he will do to the party. He seems likely to flame out to me except a fairly large froup of base voters seems to approve of his antics/diatribes.
"I found the idea that American voters prefer conservative ideology and actual liberal policies/programs very interesting."
No mystery at all, really. The Republican dilemma has always been a hard sell of practical reality and freedom vs. pie-in-the-sky Democrat promises. Remember "eliminating poverty" or "everybody gets free health care"? Who wouldn't want those things?
If so they are very confused.
Gallup: Socialist least appealing
"The Republican dilemma has always been a hard sell of practical reality and freedom vs. pie-in-the-sky Democrat promises. Remember "eliminating poverty" or "everybody gets free health care"?"
Seriously? You're going to tell me the Bush tax cuts, the War in Iraq and Medicare part D were a "hard sell of practical reality"? Meanwhile, the ACA -- which reduces the deficit (in stark contrast to Medicare Part D) -- was "everyone gets free health care"?
You're so deep in your own talking points, the oxygen is getting cut off to your brain.
Another interesting thing is that whenever I mention that the far left commenters over Minnpost sound like they are actually supporters of the Democratic Socialists of America, they deny any and all alignment.
Sean,
Please play nice and don't forget that ACA is mostly a wealth transfer program. The wealthy and all of us who had health insurance are paying more so that pre-existing condition and low to middle income folks can get and afford insurance. We quite literally are paying their premiums for better or worse.
I think the DFL folks forget ACA was just another step toward the Democratic Socialism that Laurie thinks most desire.
Wiki Medicare Part D
I think everyone liked the Bush Tax cuts, I mean the Democrats did not undo it as early as they could have, and they left most of it in tact for most of us. And if Medicare Part D is so bad, why didn't the Democrats change it when they had full control? What am I missing?
I do agree that the Iraq mess problematic for everyone.
Sean, ACA reduces the deficit??? You can't even sell that line to the CBO. And if the government subsidies for prescription drugs under Medicare Part D are increasing the deficit, how about when we subsidize ALL health care, for everybody, under Obamacare?
You are correct in one way, that I misspoke referring to the competition as between Republican reality and Democrat promises. I should have said conservative and liberal. Sometimes the party labels don't work so well. And the things you mention WERE a hard sell to the public.
"Sean, ACA reduces the deficit??? You can't even sell that line to the CBO. "
Sure, it does. Just last month, the CBO released an analysis that shows if you repealed the ACA and went back to the old system, the deficit would increase.
CBO on ACA Repeal
"And if Medicare Part D is so bad, why didn't the Democrats change it when they had full control? What am I missing?"
Democrats did change parts of it in the ACA, actually.
There still are no dedicated revenues (or spending cuts) to pay for it, though.
I think the question is how is it repealed and what is added back. (ie medicaid change) Even the report authors seem very unsure.
"For many reasons, the budgetary and economic effects of repealing the ACA could differ substantially in either direction from the central estimates presented in this report. The uncertainty is sufficiently great that repealing the ACA could reduce deficits over the 2016–2025 period—or could increase deficits by a substantially larger margin than the agencies have estimated. However, CBO and JCT’s best estimate is that repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $137 billion over that 10-year period."
"Repealing the ACA would cause federal budget deficits to increase by growing amounts after 2025, whether or not the budgetary effects of macroeconomic feedback are included. That would occur because the net savings attributable to a repeal of the law’s insurance coverage provisions would grow more slowly than would the estimated costs of repealing the ACA’s other provisions—in particular, those provisions that reduce updates to Medicare’s payments. The estimated effects on deficits of repealing the ACA are so large in the decade after 2025 as to make it unlikely that a repeal would reduce deficits during that period, even after considering the great uncertainties involved."
"An end to the ACA’s subsidies for health insurance coverage would generate gross savings for the government of $1,658 billion over the 2016–2025 period, CBO and JCT estimate. Those savings would stem primarily from eliminating federal subsidies for insurance purchased through exchanges and from reducing outlays for Medicaid."
"if you repealed the ACA and went back to the old system, the deficit would increase."
Not sure I agree with the CBO's assumptions in that analysis, but an increased deficit of $137B over the next ten years sounds a lot better than their previous estimate that ACA would create a deficit of $2Trillion over the next ten years.
As for Medicare Part D, the deficit (and worse, the unfunded liabilities) of all of Medicare are the largest concern we should have for our economic future. The fact is, it's unsustainable. I would love to see a Presidential candidate get up and tell the truth about that, but he/she couldn't possibly get elected that way-- Republican reality versus Democrat promises, again. How can a candidate promise to "protect Social Security" when it is certainly going broke?
"sounds a lot better than their previous estimate that ACA would create a deficit of $2Trillion over the next ten years."
No, that's not what they said. The $2T number you are referring to is the cost of the coverage provisions not counting any of the other offsets (medical device tax, Medicare Advantage savings, "Cadillac tax", Medicare tax on high earners, etc.).
about "If so they are very confused.
Gallup: Socialist least appealing"
they are confused and you seem to be forgetting that was one of the main ideas of the Salon article. Voters like the idea of self reliance but prefer democratic socialist type policies (even though the label socialist has been tainted and they might not like the label.) I think most voters would like the country to be a bit more like Sweeden and at this point few are full blown socialists.
So back to the presidential race. How long to people think Trump will stay in the race and how much damage will he do to the GOP. I think he may implode early and the damage may be limited (except for the latino vote.) otoh, maybe he will learn to tone it down a bit and stick around. He does seem to have a significant base of support.
The first four contests are important for specific candidates.
In Iowa, Walker probably needs to win it. Poor finishes by previous winners Huckabee (2008) and Santorum (2012) would doom them also.
New Hampshire is Chris Christie's opportunity to stay in the race.
South Carolina is the last stand for Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, and maybe Ted Cruz. And obviously Lindsey Graham -- who might be smart to pull out before then to avoid the embarrassment of losing his home state.
Fiorina might well be out by Nevada, but if she's still around, she's going to have to do well there to remain viable.
So after those four states, you're likely to be down to (IMO): Walker, Bush, Rubio, Carson, and Trump. March 15 in Florida is must-win for Rubio. Carson and Trump can hang in there for awhile because they seemed poised to draw in the 10-15% range pretty consistently. Unfortunately for them, the later states would seem to set up better for them, but without racking some actual wins in March, their path to the nomination is probably over.
Thanks for your analysis, Sean, you always think in much more detail than me. Your inclusion of Carson as a candiate to hang on longer than most surprised me. I really know nothing about him. Maybe Trump will get enough attention to tone it down and stick around, though his base seems to support his racisr views which might keep him spouting off, but should hurt him once people start voting.
So how are your crystal balls regarding the Democrats? How long until Hillary implodes? How long for Sanders? Who will sneak into the gap?
I don't think Hillary implodes, sorry. Sanders will hang around for a while, but there's probably not a state out there he can win, other than maybe Vermont. I thought O'Malley might prove to be more consequential, but it hasn't happened yet.
I just find it hard to believe that Democrats trust Hillary enough to elect her President, I don't see her having the incredible charisma of her husband.
On the other hand she does seem to say what she needs to say to excite the Left, even while behaving like a corporate hedge fund officer.
I agree with Sean, there will be no implosion for Hillary. She is much too disciplined and experienced for that. I think Sanders will have strong enough base support to go a good distance. I really think his campaign is more about widespread messaging and getting more people politically involved than it is about winning, which is very unlikely. No implosion for Sanders either as he has been campaigning for 40 years. I agree with Sean that I expected more than one percent for O'malley, but it is very early.
Hillary has had her unfavorable numbers go up recently. Too bad fewer and fewer people like GOP policies and they don't have a strong candidate or Hillary might lose. I think the only way she loses is with low turnout, which I don't see happening.
The reason I think the GOP candidates are likely to implode or at least rise and fall in popularity is based on 2012; remember Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Bachmann, and Cain each had a short lived period of popularity. I agree with Sean that Bush, Walker and Rubio are most likely to to go the distance with Bush winning at the way end.
"On the other hand she does seem to say what she needs to say to excite the Left, even while behaving like a corporate hedge fund officer."
I don't understand this line of attack against Hillary when the GOP answer is to give people like Hillary a huge tax cut?
No matter how she has behaved in her own life, Hillary Clinton is advocating policies which would take money out of her own pocket. I think that's going to play better than the idea that Jeb Bush -- whose family has been playing with house money for three generations now -- wants to pass policies designed to make himself more rich.
Bloomberg Clinton Trusts
WE Tax Shelter
Sean,
Please remember that people who vote Republican usually support lower taxes and sheltering one's income if possible. So Republican candidates are expected to behave in that way.
The people who vote Democrat are supposed to be excited to pay higher taxes because it is supposedly good for the country. Now what to do with a Democratic Presidential candidate who works very very hard to avoid paying the taxes that are there to help people?
Personally I think Clinton is to the right of Obama... That is why I am curious that she is the darling of the Democrats.
"Please remember that people who vote Republican usually support lower taxes and sheltering one's income if possible. So Republican candidates are expected to behave in that way."
Well, sure. But that defuses the "I'm on your side" talk, doesn't it? Mitt Romney didn't really care about middle class families no matter how hard he tried to pretend otherwise, which is why his message didn't resonate.
Hillary (and Bill) Clinton have a three-decade record of fighting for policies designed to make the life of middle-class folks better. The Clinton Administration was the last time the middle class saw sustained, substantial wage growth.
I must be missing something about the Clinton's, they remind me more of the folks in "House of Cards". I think they have 3 decades of working politics to make the Clinton's more wealthy and powerful.
I doubt I'll be voting for her either way, but it will be interesting to see what else comes out if she gets the Democratic nomination. And if the Democrats will give credence to the allegations or deny the questionable behavior again.
On the upside, if she wins I am pretty sure she will be a DINO. So that won't be all bad.
"defuses the "I'm on your side" talk, doesn't it?"
Personally I don't think it defuses the talk. Please remember that the villified Bush tax cuts reduced the taxes paid by everyone and created/increased some great credits that benefitted low and middle class working families. (including mine)
Remember that I disagree with Laurie's view that citizens want more government programs. I mean they may think they sound good, that is until they understand how much more in taxes they need to pay to support them. And when they figure out that most of the handouts will go to those beneath their family income. (immaterial of effort shown by recipient)
Here are a few crib notes to some of Hillary's proposals from her speech today:
....Beyond strong growth, we also need fair growth.
....We have to raise the minimum wage and implement President Obama’s new rules on overtime....crack down on bosses who exploit employees by misclassifying them as contractors or even steal their wages....defending and enhancing Social Security....encourage companies to share profits with their employees....reforming our tax code....Buffett Rule....closing the carried interest loophole....the decline of unions may be responsible for a third of the increase of inequality among men....we have to get serious about supporting workers.
contrast to the standard GOP proposal which is tax cuts for the rich and voters will prefer Hillary.
I do think Hillary is vulnerable to attack on some of the points you are raising, but I think the attacks could backfire somewhat, especially with women voters
"I think they have 3 decades of working politics to make the Clinton's more wealthy and powerful."
Like what, specifically?
"Please remember that the villified Bush tax cuts reduced the taxes paid by everyone and created/increased some great credits that benefitted low and middle class working families."
Yes, but about 2/3 of the gains from the Bush tax cuts accrued at the top of the income scale. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Laurie,
Saying the words is easy, putting her personal money there is much more challenging.
I wonder what kind of car she owns? If she owns one.
Sean,
No point going there, you will say that all those coincidences are random conspiracies. Along those lines. :-) I mean they even had the sex scandal. Talk about art imitating life.
Yes if you pay a HUGE AMOUNT of the taxes even a small percentage yields big numbers. By the way, what is your source? I am curious how they handled all of the tax credits us lower and middle income folks received, especially all those folks who got more back than they paid in.
Barstool video
I don't really understand your comment, John, and besides that I don't think your attacking Hillary in the right way (which actually might hurt her a little.) If I was going to go after Hillary these are the attacks I would use:
-private server and deciding herself which emails were personal and could be deleted
-money issues, mainly money given to Clinton foundation while she was secretary of state
-both issues raise questions about her judgement / ethics / trustworthiness
I can live with these issues and am comfortable voting for her. If the contest was between her and Obama again I would vote Obama again. My best guess now of who I will support in MN caucus is Sanders, just to try to keep the race interesting. So which candidate to others like at this point in the race?
"Yes, but about 2/3 of the gains from the Bush tax cuts accrued at the top of the income scale."
Yes, the most DOLLARS were saved by the "rich," but the highest PERCENTAGE cuts went to the lowest earners. Many got a 100% cut. And the rich now pay a HIGHER percent of the total taxes.
Not that facts matter much in presidential campaigns, of course.
After reading comments from my favorite liberal journalist who said that Rubio is the strongest candidate to beat Hillary I have listened to a bit of one of his speeches and agree - I even got a slightly worried about her chances against him :(
What does anyone here think of Rubio?
"Yes, the most DOLLARS were saved by the "rich," but the highest PERCENTAGE cuts went to the lowest earners. "
Nope.
In 2010, the effects of the Bush tax cuts raised the avergae after-tax income of the top 1% by 6.7%, the middle 20% by 2.8%, and the bottom 20% by 1%.
CBPP on Bush Tax Cuts
"private server and deciding herself which emails were personal and could be deleted"
Which, of course, is the exact same way that Jeb Bush operated, except that Hillary has opened her e-mail archive *sooner* than Bush did.
What would you have thought of Jeb's behavior if Hillary had not done the same thing? Would it have encouraged you to trust him? Or would it have convinced you that he was shady and hiding something?
How does your reaction to Hillary's behavior differ and why?
Different perspectives.
Who really benefitted from the Bush Tax cuts?
Forbes We are going to miss them
Fun facts that my state rep put together and included in his email this morning:
DAYTON FOR PRESIDENT? With Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker joining several other governors already running for president, each governor's home state will be closely scrutinized. I thought it would be interesting to see how Minnesota would stack up if Gov. Dayton were in the race. As you will see, no other state comes close to Minnesota.
Mark Dayton (MN). State/local taxes are $498 higher per household than the national average of $5,642, while median household income is $11,312 higher than the national average. Minnesota ranks #1 for business. #2 for education, #3 for quality of life, and #6 in health.
Scott Walker (WI). State/local taxes are $1,517 higher per household than the national average, while median household income is $107 lower than the national average. Wisconsin ranks #15 for business, #14 for education, #23 for quality of life, and #23 in health.
Jeb Bush (FL). State/local taxes are $866 lower per household than the national average, while median household income is $6,203 lower than the national average. Florida ranks #16 for business, #26 for education, #32 for quality of life, and #32 in health.
Rick Perry (TX). State/local taxes are $249 higher per household than the national average, while median household income is $1,110 lower than the national average. Texas ranks #2 for business, #28 for education, #33 for quality of life, and #31 in health.
Chris Christie (NJ). State/local taxes are $910 higher per household than the national average, while median household income is $16,956 higher than the national average. New Jersey ranks #39 for business, #5 for education, and #13 for quality of life, and #11 in health.
Bobby Jindal (LA). State/local taxes are $251 lower per household than the national average, while median household income is $8,768 lower than the national average. Louisiana ranks #46 for business. #42 for education, #45 for quality of life, and #48 in health.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, the Tax Foundation, and CNBC
His survey question was kind of fun as well:
TODAY'S SURVEY. To the surprise of many political pundits, Republicans in control of the MN House joined Gov. Dayton and Senate Democrats in approving a $42 billion state budget, the largest in state history, representing an 8% increase in spending. The $3 billion in additional spending was among the largest increases in state spending ever. To what do you attribute this significant change in Republican philosophy?
A. Republicans are willing to do what needs to be done to avoid a government shutdown.
B. The Republican Party is becoming more liberal.
C. Other: _______________________
I choose A
"What would you have thought of Jeb's behavior if Hillary had not done the same thing? Would it have encouraged you to trust him? Or would it have convinced you that he was shady and hiding something?"
I don't approve of the use of private e-mail by public officials. The problem, of course, is that nearly every public official has this problem at some level, but folks are acting like only Hillary Clinton has engaged in this activity.
Recall key members of George W. Bush's administration used a private e-mail domain, and then when questions arose, 5 million (or so) e-mails went missing. Where were you then?
Bobby Jindal and Rick Perry have been caught doing state business on personal e-mail systems. Scott Walker has an aide under indictment over schemes found on a private e-mail system used when Walker was Milwaukee County executive. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee each spent six digits of state money to destroy computers and hard drives on their way out of their respective governor's offices. Where are you on these stories? If Hillary Clinton isn't trustworthy because of her e-mail shenanigans, then neither are these folks.
So do I approve of Hillary's e-mail behavior? No. It should be unambiguously illegal to do so at every level of government, and Republicans and Democrats who violate the law should be prosecuted for doing so.
Personally I think MN is still operating on the benefits that Pawlenty and crew gave us, and that Dayton's "impact" is still on the way. I mean Dayton's big tax increases were just passed in mid-2013, and some did not go in effect until 2014. I think retirees and businesses are still digesting what to do. Time will tell.
And Wisc has the opposite problem, I keep hearing how Conservative Walker is, yet the taxes are still very high. My guess is that Wisc was very Liberal for a long time and that caused many problems. It will take time to recover.
Republicans have controlled the Governor's office in Wisconsin for only eight of the last 30 years.
Wait! That should read Democrats have only controlled the Governor's office in Wisconsin for eight of the last 30 years.
I thought that was odd that you would offer a fact in support of John's argument, Sean, I also thought it was odd that wisc would have so many dem governors.
How about Louisiana, whose fault is that dismal state?
A lot of other factors going on in Louisiana. Comparing MN, WI, IA and IL are probably more valid.
Here is Salon's view. Salon Wisc
I like this one... Irregular news
"Wisconsin has a great history of progressive political action, and that history continues right up to the present day. However, the national Republican elite has targeted Wisconsin as a place where they will attempt to take back the social progress of the last five decades to enact a reactionary agenda to restrict the freedoms that the people of Wisconsin have fought to bring to all of America."
"In 2010, the effects of the Bush tax cuts raised the avergae after-tax income of the top 1% by 6.7%, the middle 20% by 2.8%, and the bottom 20% by 1%." --Sean
Once again, you are talking about something other than tax cuts. Your original statement was that "2/3 of the GAINS from the tax cuts" went to the rich. The purpose of the tax cuts was not to raise incomes but to cut taxes, and a 100% tax cut is a very big gain that went to the lowest income taxpayers. Of course, if you believe that the purpose of the tax system is to redistribute income, you might look at the facts in some other way.
"The purpose of the tax cuts was not to raise incomes but to cut taxes, and a 100% tax cut is a very big gain that went to the lowest income taxpayers."
Isn't the purpose of a tax cut an increase in after-tax income? Even if some taxpayers got a 100% tax cut, the overall impact was still smaller (in absolute $ and as a % of income) if you average across the entire population.
Well, if the purpose of a tax cut is to increase after-tax income, then the Bush tax cuts, by your numbers, succeeded wildly, by boosting the incomes of (mostly) the wealthy. And if you want to average those increases "fairly" over the whole population, feel free, because it is still a positive for everybody. In fact, I like looking at it that way, because every dime the government does NOT take stays in the productive private economy, and SOMEBODY gets to use it.
OK, we'll exclude you from the next tax cut, then, and you can get the residual effects from all of our benefit.
OK. I pretty much got excluded from the last one, but the economy improved and I'm sure I benefited. That is my point. Taxes take money OUT of the economy, where they would be spent on things people want and need, and get spent by politicians on what THEY want. Government spending is the most inefficient form of spending. Do I need to post the four kinds again?
And, by the way, tax cuts are NOT "spending" as so many Democrats seem to claim.
Taxes take money OUT of the economy, where they would be spent on things people want and need, and get spent by politicians on what THEY want.
No they don't. As my conservative friends like to remind, taxes are about wealth redistribution. They don't take money out of the economy; they simply move it from one place to another, often a more productive place.
--Hiram
Ah, but you forget about "administrative overhead." Take welfare, for example. I don't know what the average welfare check is, but if you take the total amount spent and divide it up among all of the "poor," you find that a family of 3 on welfare alone makes almost $63,000 a year. And yet they're poor? Where did the rest of the money go?
Likewise, when the government spends money, even on redistribution, it is spent less wisely than it would be by the people that earned it in the first place. Those people (us, that is), would spend it very carefully on what we want and need, and seek out the best price. It is the most efficacious form of spending. Government's interest is spending the money as quickly as possible, on whatever "sounds good," and money is no object. It is the least efficacious form of spending.
Post a Comment