| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to repost this link from Fergie, because having read it, I think it really sums up why the Democratic Party has failed in the eyes of young and progressive voters.
I'm disappointed by how the Democratic Party has been handling itself of late. Putting aside the whole "Sanders would have won"/"DNC corruption is why Clinton lost" narrative*, this is an awful way to energize the party. If we're going to start fighting in local and small elections, the party needs to be enthusiastic. That means bringing young people and Bernie supporters—a group of people who were undeniably the most enthusiastic and passionate during the primary—back into the fold. And that means showing a real commitment to reform.
Keith Ellison will only really be symbolic, but he'd be a nice start.
*Though you'd have to be pretty deluded to think that perceptions of DNC corruption didn't touch Clinton in the year where her perceived "crookedness" was arguably the chief reason people didn't vote for her.
There's a ticking bomb with home price deflation. First time buyers continues to set new lows, which is going to push down prices on more expensive homes as home owners can't sell to buy up. Essentially you'll have people start going underwater again, with homes valued lower than the mortgage price.
Second, China is a ticking bomb as well. Even though the government is reporting a 7% GDP increase, major indicators like amount of freight moved have decreased by 10% or more. China is covering up the shrinkage in their economy for the time being, but that's only going to compound it's impact.
In 2016 household debt was at $12.25 trillion. The problem with student loan debt isn't them defaulting, it's the drag that it presents to the rest of the economy. As more and more income is swallowed by this debt, that's less money being spent on consumer goods.
If there is a slowdown, we can't lower interest rates to drive investment and loans. In 2007 the interest rate was 5.2, but now it's 0.25. The Fed can't do anything to help.
Also, the cycle is actually every 5 years and we're 2 years overdue.
There's a ticking bomb with home price deflation. First time buyers continues to set new lows, which is going to push down prices on more expensive homes as home owners can't sell to buy up. Essentially you'll have people start going underwater again, with homes valued lower than the mortgage price.
Oregon's housing prices are going through the roof right now. Worse, houses that were once rented as homes are now being rented like hotels—expensive, short-term stays that earn the landlord more at the tenant's expense.
*Though you'd have to be pretty deluded to think that perceptions of DNC corruption didn't touch Clinton in the year where her perceived "crookedness" was arguably the chief reason people didn't vote for her.
You're seeing the linger effects of the baby boom. Not only do young people not vote in numbers, there also aren't as many of them. Something that appeals to the young is likely to drive off the old: there's more of them AND they vote, so in a democracy gets who gets to have more say on the party?
Well, the Boomers had a lot of say last year, alright. Went pretty well.
I'm getting a bit tired of the "zero-sum", false equivalency line of arguments. Like all the moderate progressives are going to bail if you bring in someone further left. Bernie supporters didn't show up for Hillary because they weren't regular voters—not because there's some mathematical formula concluding that the Democratic Party is sorted into binary factions. "The old" falls in line because it consists of regular voters who are loyal to the party. You get no such guarantee with "the young".
You can afford to slightly disappoint people who generally vote for the Left anyways. You can't afford to do so with Independents who are looking for an excuse to sit the election out. Maybe it's not fair, but it's how things work. My faction gets lectured a lot to "be practical". Well, there's some cold practicality.
EDIT: And obviously, I'd appreciate it if people don't take this post and drag it to the most extreme "We need to nominate a Lenin/Knowles-Carter ticket to capture the young vote" place. All I'm saying is, nominating someone who's further left than Clinton isn't going to send the Clinton loyalists screaming to Trump or Stein. The number you'll lose is far smaller than the number we lost last election.
|
Im trying to sell my old lady's place right now. She is going to make a mint off it. Plan was to buy a new house for us and rent mine. Not sure about the plan anymore. That's a bit of a derail though....
How much does the party chair matter for local elections? I certainly don't want to see HRCx3 and more of the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to repost this link from Fergie, because having read it, I think it really sums up why the Democratic Party has failed in the eyes of young and progressive voters.
I'm disappointed by how the Democratic Party has been handling itself of late. Putting aside the whole "Sanders would have won"/"DNC corruption is why Clinton lost" narrative*, this is an awful way to energize the party. If we're going to start fighting in local and small elections, the party needs to be enthusiastic. That means bringing young people and Bernie supporters—a group of people who were undeniably the most enthusiastic and passionate during the primary—back into the fold. And that means showing a real commitment to reform.
Keith Ellison will only really be symbolic, but he'd be a nice start.
*Though you'd have to be pretty deluded to think that perceptions of DNC corruption didn't touch Clinton in the year where her perceived "crookedness" was arguably the chief reason people didn't vote for her.
Speaking as someone who both contributed to Clinton's campaign and voted for her in both the primary and the general, I think following Obama with Clinton was a terrible, terrible move on the DNC's part. Obama, whatever your opinion of his Presidency, was a calm, cool and collected bright young thing, and we decided on Clinton, cause the kids these days looove Stern Old Ladies, can I get a holler back?!
Look, I don't know, I'm making this post immediately after watching Last Week Tonight, and running RuPaul in 2020 with the campaign slogan "Make America Fierce Again!" just might be the best idea I've heard so far, okay?
People forget that there are features in the system to slow down rapid changes. So if you get a person further left in to office, the other left leaning, not to mention the right side are going to slow down any super progressive changes.
This is what Trump has right philosophically, you ask for more, so that when you have to dial it back, you still win. Clinton should have pushed for a $15 minimum wage even if she believed a $12 was better or more likely. That way when you have to compromise, you end up at that $12 amount. She was setting herself up to get pushed down to less than $10 an hour.
11) Be swept into the dustbin of history.So to summarise thus far, Democrats need to:
1) Stop using the language of social justice.
2) Focus on economic issues.
3) Embrace the far left.
4) Give a different message to every region.
5) Lie to coal and manufacturing workers.
6) Support unfettered free speech, even involving ideas that are harmful, blatantly incorrect, or meant to encourage violence/harassment.
7) Completely dump free trade for fair trade.
8) Maybe stop talking about civil rights.
9) Cut all corporate ties and go full socialist.Sounds pretty doable...
At least you're honest about your aims. :P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the cycle is actually every 5 years and we're 2 years overdue.
There was an average of one recession roughly every five years (actually 57 months) between 1945 and 2001.
That is completely different from there being a five year cycle.
Major League Baseball pitchers have thrown an average of roughly one no-hitter every six months since 1876... that doesn't mean there is some magical cycle which comes around and grants a no-hitter to whichever pitcher happens to be up ~180 days after the last one.
Recessions have causes... not including numerology.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Though you'd have to be pretty deluded to think that perceptions of DNC corruption didn't touch Clinton in the year where her perceived "crookedness" was arguably the chief reason people didn't vote for her.That I absolutely agree with. The question is more whether it was an actual problem or just a perceived one.
The remedies are different.
Oh c'mon, you're talking like Trump said she was bought off by Goldman Sachs, and then filled his cabinet with Goldman Sachs executives without releasing his tax returns!
. . . Y'know, or something. Too on the nose?
This is what Trump has right philosophically,
and that golden mean fallacy is how you wound up with trump. To keep pushing the envelope they had to keep promising crazier and crazier things.
And then someone believes the koolaid
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not just how you got Trump, but how you got half the Republican Caucus. The older, long term Senators and Representatives know it's supposed to be a con game you use to get into office. A lot of the newer ones grew up being conned and really believe it. That's why they're willing to do things like hold the budget or the debt ceiling hostage or try to actually kill Medicare and Social Security.This is what Trump has right philosophically,
and that golden mean fallacy is how you wound up with trump. To keep pushing the envelope they had to keep promising crazier and crazier things.
And then someone believes the koolaid
On friday I was listening to The Takeaway (NPR show, I'm liberal) and they aired a soundbite of a woman calling in to say, "I want to know how a judge can block the order of the President, who is trying to protect us." I flipped my fricken lid, right there in my studio and yelled, "Oh DAYUM, your voice sounds older than mine, you must have failed 8th grade social studies before I was even born!" Then I realized I was getting over excited and yelling at myself in an empty room, yes, like a crazy person.
My point is, it still surprises me just how uneducated the average citizen is about the function of the US government.
Though you'd have to be pretty deluded to think that perceptions of DNC corruption didn't touch Clinton in the year where her perceived "crookedness" was arguably the chief reason people didn't vote for her.That I absolutely agree with. The question is more whether it was an actual problem or just a perceived one.
The remedies are different.
True, I think her perceived corruption was way out-of-whack. But the DNC's corruption is pretty hard to deny when people were literally feeding Clinton debate questions in advance. The DNC chair had to resign in disgrace for abusing her position to trade in political capital.
Also, the Golden Mean Fallacy is when you perceive a "middle ground" to be inherently superior, not when you employ basic bartering tactics. Don't misuse the term.
As an aside: People fairly poke fun at Bernie supporters who immediately conclude that Clinton lost for the exact reasons they opposed her for. I think it's equally interesting that the Clinton supporters have managed to reach conclusions that perfectly confirm they picked the right candidate. Basically, accusing someone of confirmation bias goes both ways.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the Golden Mean Fallacy is when you perceive a "middle ground" to be inherently superior, not when you employ basic bartering tactics. Don't misuse the term.
It's not remotely being misused. That "bartering tactic" makes people think the middle ground is the right way to go because it's the middle ground. Nothing in a logical fallacy implies that you have to believe your own bull for it to be a fallacy. It even shows up on the wiki page for the fallacy
Additionally, the middle ground fallacy can create the rather illogical situation that the middle ground reached in the previous compromise now becomes the new extreme in the continuum of opinions; all one must do is present yet another, radically opposed position, and the middle-ground compromise will be forced closer to that position. In politics, this is part of the basis behind Overton window theory.
That's certainly one theory, but we've tried the Democrats' "meet them halfway" approach, and we've watched the Republicans' "fight for all you've got" approach, and we've seen which one works. Maybe that's because the "fallacy" works. Maybe it's because incrementalism doesn't. Hard to say. Or, to be precise, hard to admit that we've led the party back to ruin over the last few decades.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Economic justice is a non-starter. ...
Wait! Aren't you in Sweden?
"Take Sweden. The unionization rate is extremely high--more than 85 percent of the workforce enjoys the benefits of union organization and collective bargaining. Indeed, compared to the U.S., the Swedish labor movement is, across the board, much stronger, better organized and united.This strength is the key reason why Swedish workers were able to force the passage of ambitious reforms that benefit the working class as a whole. They include: free medical care coverage for all from cradle to grave; free tuition for university students; guaranteed free housing for all; subsidized childcare; paid parental leave (13 month leave at 80 percent pay); extensive unemployment benefits (including cash transfers as well as job training and retraining programs); generous pensions; provision for the disabled; and care for the elderly.
As a result of this, poverty rates in Sweden are very low compared to the U.S. This is largely because social democratic governments in Sweden were committed to ensuring full employment. For most of the 20th century, Sweden averaged around 2 percent unemployment--a shockingly low figure when compared to the U.S.
Income and wealth inequality are also much lower than in the U.S. This isn't just a Swedish thing--the same is true in most Scandinavian countries. Denmark, for instance, has the most equal distribution of income among all OECD countries and one of the lowest infant mortality rates. By contrast, the U.S. is the third most unequal and has the third highest rate of infant mortality.
I don't mean to imply that Sweden is some perfect paradise, but I would be thrilled to achieve half the advantages you have!
Also, the Golden Mean Fallacy is when you perceive a "middle ground" to be inherently superior, not when you employ basic bartering tactics. Don't misuse the term.It's not remotely being misused. That "bartering tactic" makes people think the middle ground is the right way to go because it's the middle ground. Nothing in a logical fallacy implies that you have to believe your own bull for it to be a fallacy. It even shows up on the wiki page for the fallacy
Additionally, the middle ground fallacy can create the rather illogical situation that the middle ground reached in the previous compromise now becomes the new extreme in the continuum of opinions; all one must do is present yet another, radically opposed position, and the middle-ground compromise will be forced closer to that position. In politics, this is part of the basis behind Overton window theory.
The latter part of your post confused me because you didn't clarify it was in quotes. And I checked the article—I did not see any particular parallels between the bartering tactic and the fallacy, except in that the Republicans have been persuading Democrats to buy into the fallacy for the last thirty years.
That's certainly one theory, but we've tried the Democrats' "meet them halfway" approach, and we've watched the Republicans' "fight for all you've got" approach, and we've seen which one works. Maybe that's because the "fallacy" works. Maybe it's because incrementalism doesn't. Hard to say. Or, to be precise, hard to admit that we've led the party back to ruin over the last few decades.
Over the last few decades, though? We've only had one Republican President followed by a Democratic President in this millennium. When you say over the last few decades, you're talking about Clinton and Obama, or going all the way back to Carter?
You're focusing a little bit too much on the presidency. I'm talking about Clinton and Obama, yes. Clinton was the origin of the circular strategy that moved us to the right (support of the death penalty, support of police militarization, etc), temporarily saving the party while ceding territory we would badly miss later. But my point is more a general party trend, not the single big shiny office everyone fixates on.
That's certainly one theory, but we've tried the Democrats' "meet them halfway" approach, and we've watched the Republicans' "fight for all you've got" approach, and we've seen which one works. Maybe that's because the "fallacy" works. Maybe it's because incrementalism doesn't. Hard to say. Or, to be precise, hard to admit that we've led the party back to ruin over the last few decades.
I think The System worked exactly as the Democrats (both Parties really) wanted it to. Just look at the Walton family- The System sure worked for them! The stock market is setting records, and compensation is booming for corporate executives!
The System is working great! You were never intended to benefit from it, but that is a feature, not a flaw.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and if you don't vote for The System, you are a total fool who does not understand how things really work!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I checked the article—I did not see any particular parallels between the bartering tactic and the fallacy, except in that
Why is that apple worth 5 dollars? Because someone started at 10 and you started at free?
the Republicans have been persuading Democrats to buy into the fallacy for the last thirty years.
Yes they have been. Because they're more pluralistic and less authoritarian.
the problem is they've also drank their own koolaid. Lets get rid of the epa was supposed to be a bargaining chip for keeping regulations where they are instead of tightening them. Not something you actually did.
Why is that apple worth 5 dollars? Because someone started at 10 and you started at free?
And you call that a fallacy?
the Republicans have been persuading Democrats to buy into the fallacy for the last thirty years.Yes they have been. Because they're more pluralistic and less authoritarian.
Sorry, can you clarify this point? You've been leaning a lot on abstract theory, and I actually don't think I follow you.
the problem is they've also drank their own koolaid. Lets get rid of the epa was supposed to be a bargaining chip for keeping regulations where they are instead of tightening them. Not something you actually did.
That sounds like good reason to pick bartering levels you actually agree with, then, so the idea of only going to a $12 minimum wage to avoid seeming "extreme" doesn't actually interact with this concern. A $15 minimum wage is a reasonable standard, not an extremist bargaining chip. If we started "drinking the Kool-Aid" on that, all it would mean is we might get a livable minimum wage. So I guess I'm not seeing the connection to your concerns.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and if you don't vote for The System, you are a total fool who does not understand how things really work!
I don't see how "burn it all down" gets anything good either, except to add pyromaniac to the list of possible rulers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the pyromaniac. He'll solve our housing crisis!
the problem is they've also drank their own koolaid. Lets get rid of the epa was supposed to be a bargaining chip for keeping regulations where they are instead of tightening them. Not something you actually did.That sounds like good reason to pick bartering levels you actually agree with, then, so the idea of only going to a $12 minimum wage to avoid seeming "extreme" doesn't actually interact with this concern. A $15 minimum wage is a reasonable standard, not an extremist bargaining chip. If we started "drinking the Kool-Aid" on that, all it would mean is we might get a livable minimum wage. So I guess I'm not seeing the connection to your concerns.
A $15/hour minimum wage is reasonable at the state (or preferably local) level, but not necessarily at the federal level, which is what people tend to push for. After all, livable in San Francisco is very much different compared to what's livable in DFW, TX, just as an example.
Also, the cycle is actually every 5 years and we're 2 years overdue.There was an average of one recession roughly every five years (actually 57 months) between 1945 and 2001.
That is completely different from there being a five year cycle.
Major League Baseball pitchers have thrown an average of roughly one no-hitter every six months since 1876... that doesn't mean there is some magical cycle which comes around and grants a no-hitter to whichever pitcher happens to be up ~180 days after the last one.
Recessions have causes... not including numerology.
If we're putting words in each other's mouth, why are you claiming a recession is impossible within the next 4 years?
I'm claiming neither a magical cycle or numerology. I'm pointing out that statistically, a recession causing event or force will most likely rear it's head in the next few years. Anyone who says they can accurately predict recessions is most likely wrong, or someone who does is just lucky.
There was an economist who accurately predicted the 1987 crash a week before it happened. Afterwards someone asked him how he predicted it, he said, "I've been predicting it every week for the past 5 years."
The trend of history tells us that something will happen that causes Trump to be president during a recession. I'm not saying it's a guarantee, but if I were placing a bet, I would put my money on it happening.
I don't see how "burn it all down" gets anything good either, except to add pyromaniac to the list of possible rulers.
I don't think anyone suggested burning it all down... though it does sound like something a goblin would suggest...
EDIT: Also, I don't think Trump has the slightest intention of burning it down. When you fill your cabinet with Goldman Sachs executives and other millionaires, (like BOTH parties always do) you are basically reinforcing the system.
The next fight I'm interested in is the battle for DNC chair. While I don't think it is a cure-all for the parties ills, I think it is a solid indicator of where the Democratic Party is going. If it is Kieth Ellison, I'm going to join the Democratic Party. If it is Tom Perez, I'm going to do my best to destroy the party to make room for something useful.
Why is that apple worth 5 dollars? Because someone started at 10 and you started at free?And you call that a fallacy?
yes. That's a fallacy. If you merely take the average of the two people arguing you're using the fallacy. All the vendor has to do is keep raising his starting price to keep raising the getting price.
In this case, as the vendor has the price up to 5 dollars an apple, he's obviously already been using this...
Sorry, can you clarify this point? You've been leaning a lot on abstract theory, and I actually don't think I follow you.
The golden mean fallacy gets exacerbated if you value the other persons input simply on the basis of them being a person, kind of like you have to if you value democracy, have empathy, or think other people have a right to, you know. exist.
What stops it from working is if you think that deviance for your position renders the other person's ideas invalid : they're not just wrong they're evil, unamerican commie mutant traitors.
yes. That's a fallacy. If you merely take the average of the two people arguing you're using the fallacy. All the vendor has to do is keep raising his starting price to keep raising the getting price.Why is that apple worth 5 dollars? Because someone started at 10 and you started at free?And you call that a fallacy?
Yeah, that's why it's an effective bartering tactic. So far, you seem to be arguing pretty effectively against the compromises the Democrats have been making.
I agree there's a difference, but does that mean $15 is good for San Fran, but too high for DFW or is it good for DFW, but too low for SF?A $15/hour minimum wage is reasonable at the state (or preferably local) level, but not necessarily at the federal level, which is what people tend to push for. After all, livable in San Francisco is very much different compared to what's livable in DFW, TX, just as an example.the problem is they've also drank their own koolaid. Lets get rid of the epa was supposed to be a bargaining chip for keeping regulations where they are instead of tightening them. Not something you actually did.That sounds like good reason to pick bartering levels you actually agree with, then, so the idea of only going to a $12 minimum wage to avoid seeming "extreme" doesn't actually interact with this concern. A $15 minimum wage is a reasonable standard, not an extremist bargaining chip. If we started "drinking the Kool-Aid" on that, all it would mean is we might get a livable minimum wage. So I guess I'm not seeing the connection to your concerns.
I'm not privy to the average operating cost of businesses in DFW (particularly with regard to employees) but it would be pretty astronomically high for the area. Plus with all of the talk of automation in this thread, I can't imagine companies not wanting to make areas like DFW, where the current minimum wage is at least livable, their testing grounds for eliminating a bulk of their workforce (automated menus are already starting to replace cashiers at fast food joints in the area, albeit slowly).
I don't see how "burn it all down" gets anything good either, except to add pyromaniac to the list of possible rulers.I don't think anyone suggested burning it all down... though it does sound like something a goblin would suggest...
The next fight I'm interested in is the battle for DNC chair. While I don't think it is a cure-all for the parties ills, I think it is a solid indicator of where the Democratic Party is going. If it is Kieth Ellison, I'm going to join the Democratic Party. If it is Tom Perez, I'm going to do my best to destroy the party to make room for something useful.
I don't really consider the DNC chair to be that important. If you aren't a politician in DC, or an organizer of your states democratic party, the DNC chair isn't something that you deal with. I'd liken it to the 3rd base coach of a baseball team.
If you go back and actually read the e-mails from last year, the DNC chair didn't really do anything other than talk to other DNC personnel. People talk about her as if she rigged the whole thing, but in reality it was mostly just inappropriate b&##*ing on e-mail with no actual action. The DNC chair doesn't actually control that much.
Yeah, the DNC chair is pretty symbolic. Sadly, the two real positions the Democratic Party should have been willing to change up both went to the same establishment politicians. I can't shake the sense the DNC is planning to keep everything the same, giving the Berniecrats a symbolic win with Ellison, then keep Keith out of the loop as much as possible.
The DNC seriously sucks.
Yeah, that's why it's an effective bartering tactic. So far, you seem to be arguing pretty effectively against the compromises the Democrats have been making.
Very much so. But more against the people that keep voting for loony toons republican ideas because its the new middle ground.
Sounds like we're in agreement.
Maybe this is just an inherent problem with a bunch of leftists buckling down to bicker.
I don't really consider the DNC chair to be that important. If you aren't a politician in DC, or an organizer of your states democratic party, the DNC chair isn't something that you deal with. I'd liken it to the 3rd base coach of a baseball team.
Agreed. I think the same thing could be said about almost any individual within such a vast system. With that said, there seem to be two factions competing for control of the Party. The decision will send a reassuring message to either Hillary loyalists and wealth donors, or it will appeal to the Bernie crowd. It can't appease both.
The democrats might be willing to extend a real progressive olive branch, but they can't do that while grabbing all that sweet campaign cash with both hands.
As someone who has voted for Ellison several times, I'd rather see him stay in office.
You don't have to quit your office to become DNC chair. DWS sure didn't.
If the Chair is a symbolic position, it probably doesn't merit quitting on its behalf. On the other hand, maybe Ellison having it as his sole job would make it a more important position.