Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

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.

[Timothy A]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

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.

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

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.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

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.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

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.

[mookie1995]

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.

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

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.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

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.

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

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.

[geezer]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

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.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

And you wonder why I have fun at your expense

Um... right.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

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.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

It's pretty bad when Reaganomics is so dead even a few Republicans get it.

[mookie1995]

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!?!?!?!

[unofan]

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?