Decision 2016

User avatar
taki15
Temp
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:29 am

Re: Decision 2016

Postby taki15 » Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:40 pm

I'm somewhat bemused by the fact that Sanders seems to be so popular considering the fact that he runs almost explicitly against the Obama legacy.
How can Obama have 90% approval rating among Democrats and liberals and then the same people go out and vote for a guy who craps on Obamacare and Dodd-Frank and campaigns along with Cornell West? It seems schizophrenic to me. Have they been infected with the same crazy virus that led Republicans into Trump's arms?

User avatar
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 5770
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: Decision 2016

Postby flipp525 » Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:17 pm

Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee will lead to a Republican victory in the race for the White House. All of my Republican family members are currently donating to his campaign and posting pro-Bernie shit on their Facebook (and even have Bernie signs on their front lawns). So, I hope all you Bernie Bots are ready to say "President Trump."
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

Greg
Tenured
Posts: 2647
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Decision 2016

Postby Greg » Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:10 pm

Bernie Sanders Has Raised $5.2 Million Since The Polls Closed In New Hampshire

The average contribution is just $34:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/berni ... .tmM0Ad8EE
Bankers don’t like budget deficits because they compete with bank loans as a source of growth.

James K. Galbraith

FilmFan720
Tenured
Posts: 3402
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Decision 2016

Postby FilmFan720 » Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:09 pm

Big Magilla wrote:In most states you have to be a member of a party to vote in that party. In New Hampshire you have to declare a party to vote but you can declare or change your party at the last minute just before you vote.


Kind of.

Some primaries are Closed Primaries, where you must be a registered party member to vote and you must vote in your own party's primary. If you're not a registered party member, you cannot vote.

Some primaries (such as Illinois, where I live) are Open Primaries. Anyone who walks up to the polling place is asked Republican or Democrat and gets that parties ballot. You choose at each election how you want to vote.

New Hampshire, like about a dozen states, is a semi-closed primary. If you are a registered Republican or Democrat, you must vote in that party's primary. If you are undeclared, you can choose which primary you want to vote in. In a year like 2012, where one party's primary is a one-man race, states like this see an abnormal surge for the other party...everyone wants to vote in the race that means something. This can also help candidates like Kasich (or Ron Paul/Jon Huntsman in 2012), who appeal to the middle of the road candidate, or a Trump/Sanders, who appeal to the non-party members on their side of the spectrum.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7232
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Decision 2016

Postby Sabin » Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:51 pm

Ironically, the one demographic in NH that Bernie lost was people making $200K+. So, the only group not voting for him was his own people.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15394
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Decision 2016

Postby Big Magilla » Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:02 am

In most states you have to be a member of a party to vote in that party. In New Hampshire you have to declare a party to vote but you can declare or change your party at the last minute just before you vote.

Heksagon
Adjunct
Posts: 1110
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:39 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Decision 2016

Postby Heksagon » Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:30 am

I see from the exit polls that Sanders is getting a lot of votes from political independents. How do the primaries work? Are independents unable to vote in primaries in some states?

Greg
Tenured
Posts: 2647
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Decision 2016

Postby Greg » Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:25 pm

New Hampshire has been called for Sanders and Trump.
Bankers don’t like budget deficits because they compete with bank loans as a source of growth.

James K. Galbraith

Heksagon
Adjunct
Posts: 1110
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:39 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Decision 2016

Postby Heksagon » Mon Feb 08, 2016 2:34 am

I actually agree with Greg that there seems to be a bubble in the tech stocks.

But I don't see the bubble as a particular threat for the Democrats. There's no sign of the bubble bursting any time soon, and even if it did, the economy would not have much time to contract before November in any case.

Besides, stock-funded bubbles bursting don't usually have such a disastrous effect on the economy as debt-funded bubbles. Even if Facebook stock were to collapse, there would no calls for a Federal bailout of the company.

Greg
Tenured
Posts: 2647
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Decision 2016

Postby Greg » Sat Feb 06, 2016 5:16 pm

Mister Tee wrote:B) I don't see whatever bubble you see, and neither do most economists I read. Point me to someone with credentials making that argument (preferrably someone who hasn't made the same argument multiple times in the last 5 years). Of course I'm not saying it couldn't happen; just that I don't see any telltale signs


My reference to a current tech bubble is based on a graph and text on page 145 of the 2009 edition of Paul Krugman's book The Return Of Depression Economics. There, he says the dot-com bubble was an even bigger bubble than the housing bubble and demonstrates this by showing the increases of average price/earnings (total value of a company divided by its annual profits) of companies during the dot-com bubble. The ratios went from the 15-20 range to a peak of 45 when the bubble burst.

Checking today on cnbc.com, Facebook has a P/E of 80.51, almost double that of the dot-com peak; Netflix has a P/E of 294.64, over six times that of the dot-com peak; and, Amazon has a P/E of 401.87, almost nine times that of the dot-com peak.

The last I checked, Uber has a valuation of $68 billion and Airbnb has a valuation of $25 billion, although you cannot determine either of their P/Es as neither are listed in any of the public exchanges (Dow Jones, S&P, or NASDAQ).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/liyanchen/2 ... 943eea5858

http://www.wired.com/2015/12/airbnb-con ... 5-billion/
Bankers don’t like budget deficits because they compete with bank loans as a source of growth.

James K. Galbraith

User avatar
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 5770
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: Decision 2016

Postby flipp525 » Fri Feb 05, 2016 2:53 pm

"The list of reasons to worry that Sanders is unelectable is unusually long," his age, how he identifies himself as a socialist, and his support of a higher tax on middle-class labor, Brian Beutler writes. But on top of that, he adds, Sanders is now "using the term 'moderate' as an epithet to describe deviations from his agenda" -- an approach we've come to expect from Republicans but not from Democrats. "There will be no Sanders revolution without moderates," Beutler says, "and moderates are unlikely to join a revolution organized by someone who stigmatizes moderation."

https://newrepublic.com/article/129115/ ... able-keeps
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."



-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2726
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: Decision 2016

Postby criddic3 » Fri Feb 05, 2016 8:28 am

With the constant harping over the confusion caused Monday night by Ben Carson's travel plans, the race in New Hampshire could be interesting for the GOP. Cruz, who is not a natural fit for the state, is slightly damaged by his campaign's tactic in using a CNN report to sway voters to vote for Cruz, while suggesting Carson's Florida trip signaled he was leaving the race. Trump, I think, struck many as a sore loser when he called for a new election over this incident -- not for the sake of Carson, but himself -- declaring he would have won (despite about a 3,000 vote loss). I can see Rubio benefiting from this feud between Cruz and Trump, as Trump's numbers are dropping in some polls. I don't see how Carson can really capitalize much on this in NH, but maybe it will help in South Carolina. His main problem seems to be losing staff and support recently. There's a debate Saturday night, so I'm sure this incident will come up.
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

User avatar
taki15
Temp
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:29 am

Re: Decision 2016

Postby taki15 » Thu Feb 04, 2016 9:28 pm

Oops! Sorry Mister Tee, somehow I overlooked the word incumbent.

Mister Tee wrote:
taki15 wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:Favorite tweet of the day:
I'm just hoping things don't get too ugly, or drag on too long -- Lichtman's Keys system, which everyone knows I swear by, says one of the few invariably fatal keys is a serious intra-party fight for the incumbent party nomination. If people tell you it'll be good for the party to have a drawn-out contest, ask them to give you an example from history. They're wrong.


There is the example of 2008. And the battle between Obama and Clinton back then was much nastier.
But I agree generally that if Sanders somehow is the Democratic nominee then he would need a miracle to win.

Let me add to what flipp said that he also seems completely uninterested in foreign policy and that his constant trashing of the Obama presidency isn't winning him many friends in the Democratic establishment. Yesterday he tried to fix the latter but it's hard to believe him when his entire campaign is built upon the premise that both parties are beholden to Wall Street and the oligarchs.

You maybe missed the word "incumbent" in what I said. There are plenty of examples of lengthy out-party nomination fights that didn't prevent the victor from winning the general election -- Eisenhower/Taft '52, Reagan/Bush '80, and, yes, Obama/Clinton; back further, it took Roosevelt several convention ballots to get the '32 nomination. For the party that holds the White House, however, such fights are fatal -- as in the flip side of some those years ('52 & '80), as well as '68 & '76, and all the way back to 1912.

mlrg
Adjunct
Posts: 1069
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Decision 2016

Postby mlrg » Thu Feb 04, 2016 5:51 pm

much worse than any economic bubble we are entering a big civilizational/religious crash starting in Europe with the refugees crisis and ISIS terrorism. That's the big issue for the next 15 years.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6261
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Decision 2016

Postby Mister Tee » Thu Feb 04, 2016 5:06 pm

Greg wrote:My big worry about Clinton in the general election regards the effects if the country heads back into recession, which it appears it might, especially if it is the result of another bubble bursting, for example, the current tech bubble. Sanders, with his anti-Wall Street campaign, would not be as easily tied as Clinton to Republican shouts of the "Obama recession." Also, if Trump wins the Republican nomination, he would yell about Clinton's Wall-Street money, such as the $6 million her SuperPACS have received from George Soros, all the while saying he cannot be bought while not mentioning that he is a billionaire-real-estate speculator who had done the buying.

A) if there's a recession, the Democrats lose the White House, no matter who their candidate is (see William Jennings Bryan vs. McKinley, 1896).

B) I don't see whatever bubble you see, and neither do most economists I read. Point me to someone with credentials making that argument (preferrably someone who hasn't made the same argument multiple times in the last 5 years). Of course I'm not saying it couldn't happen; just that I don't see any telltale signs


Return to “Current Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest