Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

    Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
    The poor, as you put it, don't turn out very well because they're typically minority. Rural constituencies turn out just fine.
    I don't know which of us is right, but at least this is testable. Which factor is more important in turnout: race or wealth? From an exhaustive 3 minute internet search I don't see any study that measures one while controlling for the other, despite it seeming like a pretty obvious question.

    In general, I believe that American racial disparities are really class disparities in disguise. Even racism in America is in my view actually a class issue, because people are taking the mental short cut and assuming class characteristics when they see race (expectation states theory 101). It's not that America treats black people like crap. It's that we treat poor people like crap, and because there's an overlap of poor and black we just go ahead and treat black people like crap to save time.
    Last edited by Kepler; 04-20-2016, 01:37 PM.
    Cornell University
    National Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

    Comment


    • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

      Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
      Frankly a Sanders nomination would have been very risky. Would minorities turn out?
      Why wouldn't they? He is for more free money/food than Billery is.
      Wisconsin Hockey: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 WE WANT MORE!
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Come to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Originally Posted by Wisko McBadgerton:
      "Baggot says Hughes and Rockwood are centering the top two lines...
      Timothy A --> Great hockey mind... Or Greatest hockey mind?!?"

      Comment


      • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

        Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
        Trump's changing his team. His campaign as he put it is 'in transition'. His language is changing. As of last night, he's not taking personal shots at Cruz. He's reaching out to Sanders votes.

        The great Trump pivot has begun.
        Love her or hate her, but Hillary is the only candidate who's run her primary race with the notion that she'll have to face a general election contest. Trump and Cruz based on past statements are dead to women and minorities. Sanders blasted Planned Parenthood and labeled all Southern Dems as irrelevant because they're conservatives which I'm sure blacks are thrilled about. Whining about independents being disenfranchised from voting because they can't join the Dem race last minute is also tone deaf as all hell.

        My first indication that Hillary's team knew what they were doing was when she stayed campaigning in New Hampshire all week even though she had to know she was going to get blown out. Shows that she had an eye on November.
        Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

        Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

        "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

        Comment


        • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

          Originally posted by Timothy A View Post
          Why wouldn't they? He is for more free money/food than Billery is.
          As if tax breaks weren't "free stuff."

          The GOP bribes voters every bit as much as the Dems, my friend. They just use different narratives, but in the end it's the same game.

          Or did you mean to imply that only minorities respond to "free stuff"? Nah... that couldn't be it.
          Last edited by Kepler; 04-20-2016, 01:46 PM.
          Cornell University
          National Champion 1967, 1970
          ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
          Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

          Comment


          • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

            Originally posted by Rover View Post
            Whining about independents being disenfranchised from voting because they can't join the Dem race last minute is also tone deaf as all hell.
            I vowed I wouldn't respond to your trolling anymore but for FDR's sake at least be logically consistent. Your thesis is a candidate may act in ways in the primary which also look forward to the general. Sanders' appeal to the inclusion of independents is a perfect example of that: broadening appeal despite it not necessarily paying off immediately in the nomination round.

            Your adolescent poutrage is getting in the way of your own arguments, silly.
            Cornell University
            National Champion 1967, 1970
            ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
            Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Kepler View Post
              As if tax breaks weren't "free stuff."

              The GOP bribes voters every bit as much as the Dems, my friend. They just use different narratives, but in the end it's the same game.
              At least Bernie learned from past mistakes and stopped with the "if you go to college I'll give you a tax break" crap and made it about money in your pocket. Free is easy to understand.
              a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

              Comment


              • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

                Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                I vowed I wouldn't respond to your trolling anymore but for FDR's sake at least be logically consistent. Your thesis is a candidate may act in ways in the primary which also look forward to the general. Sanders' appeal to the inclusion of independents is a perfect example of that: broadening appeal despite it not necessarily paying off immediately in the nomination round.

                Your adolescent poutrage is getting in the way of your own arguments, silly.
                I think you misunderstand. Minority voters have historically and currently are being disenfranchised by right wing legislatures putting up barriers to voting. That word is associated with this practice. Sanders supporters using the same word to describe them missing a deadline to join the party in a closed primary is extremely tone deaf.
                Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

                Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

                "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

                Comment


                • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

                  Originally posted by Rover View Post
                  I think you misunderstand. Minority voters have historically and currently are being disenfranchised by right wing legislatures putting up barriers to voting. That word is associated with this practice. Sanders supporters using the same word to describe them missing a deadline to join the party in a closed primary is extremely tone deaf.
                  LOL. Twist, man, twist.
                  Cornell University
                  National Champion 1967, 1970
                  ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                  Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                  Comment


                  • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

                    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                    LOL. Twist, man, twist.
                    And you wonder why I have fun at your expense! Since you can read minds, read Bernie's and tell us how he plans on pulling out a victory in the primary.
                    Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

                    Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

                    "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

                    Comment


                    • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

                      Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                      As if tax breaks weren't "free stuff."
                      This is one of the places where you libs always lose me. If you call a reduction in taxes a "giveaway" (most common terminology) or "free stuff", you have to believe that the thing that is being taxed never belonged to the taxee but that the taxer has prior claim to everything... right? What, are they just letting us use their stuff for a while, or what? Is your income or real estate your own, or the federal government's? Your shoes? Your education? Is there anything that you consider to truly belong to you?
                      I'm not advocating for tax cuts here, but trying to understand this view of property.
                      Huskies are very intelligent and trainable. Huskies make an excellent jogging companion, as long as it is not too hot. Grooming is minimal; bathing is normally unnecessary.
                      USCHO Fantasy Baseball Champion 2011 2013 2015

                      Comment


                      • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

                        Originally posted by Rover View Post
                        And you wonder why I have fun at your expense
                        Um... right.
                        Cornell University
                        National Champion 1967, 1970
                        ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                        Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                        Comment


                        • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

                          Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                          As if tax breaks weren't "free stuff."
                          Meanwhile in Kansas.........................................GOP lawmakers losing patience with Gov. Brownback’s Kansas tax cuts.

                          Uh, huh?

                          “We’re growing weary,” said Senate President Susan Wagle, a conservative Republican from Wichita. While GOP legislators still support low income taxes, “we’d prefer to see some real solutions coming from the governor’s office,” she said.
                          **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                          Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                          Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

                            It's pretty bad when Reaganomics is so dead even a few Republicans get it.
                            Cornell University
                            National Champion 1967, 1970
                            ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                            Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                              Meanwhile in Kansas.........................................GOP lawmakers losing patience with Gov. Brownback’s Kansas tax cuts.

                              Uh, huh?
                              Why isn't Susan in the kitchen making dinner!?!?!?!
                              a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by geezer View Post
                                This is one of the places where you libs always lose me. If you call a reduction in taxes a "giveaway" (most common terminology) or "free stuff", you have to believe that the thing that is being taxed never belonged to the taxee but that the taxer has prior claim to everything... right? What, are they just letting us use their stuff for a while, or what? Is your income or real estate your own, or the federal government's? Your shoes? Your education? Is there anything that you consider to truly belong to you?
                                I'm not advocating for tax cuts here, but trying to understand this view of property.
                                A targeted tax cut is simply a subsidy by another name.

                                Surely you would agree that the government giving corn farmers a check for $.10/planted acre is a giveaway.

                                If they give that in the form of a tax credit rather than a direct check, most people would say it's still a giveaway.

                                If they then give a tax credit of "1% of adjusted gross income" or something else which is hypothetically the equivalent to the $.10/acre giveaway, how is that not also a giveaway? It's something corn farmers get that the rest of us don't.

                                What if they instead phrase it as the base tax rate being X, but all non-corn farmers must pay X+1%. Still functionally equivalent, but you would say that's not a giveaway?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X