U.S. Politics

[LondonLax]

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

This is not actually true, especially the bolded part.

It’s the same reason why UK Labour keep losing. The electorate do not trust their economic credentials (whether rightly or wrongly). 

[HanoiVillan]

19 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

It’s the same reason why UK Labour keep losing. The electorate do not trust their economic credentials (whether rightly or wrongly). 

People have actually studied models that only look at 'economic fundamentals', and they perform very poorly at predicting presidential election outcomes. This piece is from 2012, but that doesn't really matter as 2016 was also a poor election for the 'economic fundamentals' theory:

'But is it true? Can political scientists “predict winners and losers with amazing accuracy long before the campaigns start”?

The answer to this question, at least since 1992, has been emphatically not. Some of their forecasts have been better than others, but their track record as a whole is very poor.

And the models that claim to be able to predict elections based solely on the fundamentals — that is, without looking to horse-race factors like polls or approval ratings — have done especially badly. Many of these models claim to explain as much as 90 percent of the variance in election outcomes without looking at a single poll. In practice, they have had almost literally no predictive power, whether looked at individually or averaged together.'

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/models-based-on-fundamentals-have-failed-at-predicting-presidential-elections/

Edited February 20, 2020 by HanoiVillan

[LondonLax]

I’m not talking about whether they are actually better economic managers or not (I think Trump is terrible at it and riding on the coat tales of the reforms Obama put in motion), the key question is the average person’s perception of it. 

For example, economic growth under the Obama years was slow and unevenly distributed across the country with many rural parts of the US not seeing any benefits since prior to the GFC, whilst places like Silicon Valley race ahead. 

The narrative the electorate saw was Trump as the successful billionaire outsider who would bring some of that success to the economy after 8 years of stagnant failure under Obama.

If the Democrats are arguing over who is going to tax the electorate more to fund grand projects whilst focusing on issues like minority rights whilst Trump is promising everyone that their 401k  pension plan will continue to race ahead due to record stock prices there is only going to be one winner in November. 

It’s frustrating but seems to be a fact of life. 

[HanoiVillan]

24 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I’m not talking about whether they are actually better economic managers or not (I think Trump is terrible at it and riding on the coat tales of the reforms Obama put in motion), the key question is the average person’s perception of it. 

For example, economic growth under the Obama years was slow and unevenly distributed across the country with many rural parts of the US not seeing any benefits since prior to the GFC, whilst places like Silicon Valley race ahead. 

The narrative the electorate saw was Trump as the successful billionaire outsider who would bring some of that success to the economy after 8 years of stagnant failure under Obama.

If the Democrats are arguing over who is going to tax the electorate more to fund grand projects whilst focusing on issues like minority rights whilst Trump is promising everyone that their 401k  pension plan will continue to race ahead due to record stock prices there is only going to be one winner in November. 

It’s frustrating but seems to be a fact of life. 

Your claim is still way too strong. You initially said that the 'only' issue that mattered is people's personal bank balance. That is provably not true. For instance, here are findings from an Emerson poll this week:

'The most important issue for voters is the economy at 29%, followed by healthcare at 20%. Social issues came in third at 12%, the Environment was at 9% and Immigration rounded out the top 5 at 8%.'

https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/february-national-poll-sanders-takes-the-lead-for-democratic-nomination-bloomberg-on-the-rise

29% may be more than any other issue, but it's clearly a very long way from 100%. 

Even shifting from 'the economy' to 'perceptions of the economy' doesn't help much. From The Economist/YouGov this week:

Are you better off now than you were four years ago?

Better off now: 44%

Better off four years ago: 33%

Not sure: 23%

Is the country better off now than it was four years ago?

Better off now: 39%

Better off four years ago: 41%

Not sure: 20%

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/m3wzkd0n59/econTabReport.pdf

Two different questions about economic perceptions, which is more important? Does one matter and the other not at all?

Essentially, your claim is way too strong. Of course candidates can benefit or suffer from perceptions of economic handling. Of course Trump is better off running in an election in which, on most indicators, the economy is performing quite well, than he would be in one in which the economy is performing quite badly. This is a long way from saying 'the only issue that matters at all is how a candidate will affect each individual's bank balance'. 

[LondonLax]

20 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Your claim is still way too strong. You initially said that the 'only' issue that mattered is people's personal bank balance. That is provably not true. For instance, here are findings from an Emerson poll this week:

'The most important issue for voters is the economy at 29%, followed by healthcare at 20%. Social issues came in third at 12%, the Environment was at 9% and Immigration rounded out the top 5 at 8%.'

https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/february-national-poll-sanders-takes-the-lead-for-democratic-nomination-bloomberg-on-the-rise

29% may be more than any other issue, but it's clearly a very long way from 100%. 

Even shifting from 'the economy' to 'perceptions of the economy' doesn't help much. From The Economist/YouGov this week:

Are you better off now than you were four years ago?

Better off now: 44%

Better off four years ago: 33%

Not sure: 23%

Is the country better off now than it was four years ago?

Better off now: 39%

Better off four years ago: 41%

Not sure: 20%

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/m3wzkd0n59/econTabReport.pdf

Two different questions about economic perceptions, which is more important? Does one matter and the other not at all?

Essentially, your claim is way too strong. Of course candidates can benefit or suffer from perceptions of economic handling. Of course Trump is better off running in an election in which, on most indicators, the economy is performing quite well, than he would be in one in which the economy is performing quite badly. This is a long way from saying 'the only issue that matters at all is how a candidate will affect each individual's bank balance'. 

We’re talking about a binary result here, I am predicting the winner will be the one that also coincides with the economic metric. From your stats above, that is going to be Trump.

Edit: I think the Democrats best chance against him would be Bloomberg. There is not a lot that Trump can attack him on and he is far less controversial for the moderates than Trump, so in a race between the two of them I could see Bloomberg winning over the moderate Republicans as well as the Democrat voters whilst Trump would be left with just his rabid base who poll at around 30%.

Edited February 20, 2020 by LondonLax

[HanoiVillan]

26 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

We’re talking about a binary result here, I am predicting the winner will be the one that also coincides with the economic metric. From your stats above, that is going to be Trump.

Edit: I think the Democrats best chance against him would be Bloomberg. There is not a lot that Trump can attack him on and he is far less controversial for the moderates than Trump, so in a race between the two of them I could see Bloomberg winning over the moderate Republicans as well as the Democrat voters whilst Trump would be left with just his rabid base who poll at around 30%.

Hang on, I can lick the end of my finger, stick it in the air and say 'I think Trump will win', it doesn't mean I have a magical predictive finger. You don't get to say 'the only issue that mattered was the economy' if Trump wins, without something more solid than that in proof. 

[Keyblade]

Bloomberg being publicly caned was worth watching another one of these debates, but self Bernie bring up worker co-ops and exploitation on national TV was a thing of beauty

[villakram]

Loving all the Dems bashing their heads off walls at the idea of Sanders stealing the candidacy... it's so much like how the Repubs were losing it at Trump somehow not politically imploding with all the stuff he was doing/saying last time out. 

 

[maqroll]

I'm assuming Trump hasn't mentioned the white terrorist rampage in Germany?

[maqroll]

32 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

Bloomberg being publicly caned was worth watching another one of these debates, but self Bernie bring up worker co-ops and exploitation on national TV was a thing of beauty

He looked completely lost and was totally ineffectual. 

 

[maqroll]

 

[HanoiVillan]

Sanders looks to have comfortably won Nevada. My favourite bit of comment:

'“He’s not the others, he’s not the other guy. His approach to politics is very different than the other candidates, said Summer Holiday, a 27-year-old who is backing Sanders and attended a debate watch party organized by the Human Rights Campaign, Mi Familia Vote and Unidos US Action.'

from: https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/nevada-caucuses-2020/261781/

Only in America.

 

[Davkaus]

7 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Sanders looks to have comfortably won Nevada. My favourite bit of comment:

'“He’s not the others, he’s not the other guy. His approach to politics is very different than the other candidates, said Summer Holiday, a 27-year-old who is backing Sanders and attended a debate watch party organized by the Human Rights Campaign, Mi Familia Vote and Unidos US Action.'

from: https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/nevada-caucuses-2020/261781/

Only in America.

 

"We're all going on a Summer Holiday" suddenly seems so inappropriate.

[Mic09]

11 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

"We're all going on a Summer Holiday" suddenly seems so inappropriate.

How did you break your leg?

Oh, I did it on Summer Holiday.

[Sam-AVFC]

@HanoiVillan I know a British guy called Christian Holiday, which I always found quite amusing.

[TheAuthority]

On 23/02/2020 at 07:41, Sam-AVFC said:

@HanoiVillan I know a British guy called Christian Holiday, which I always found quite amusing.

Worst line ever in a Bond film was based around "Christmas Jones" a nuclear physicist in The World Is Not Enough

While in bed embracing the last line of the movie was:

Bond: And I thought Christmas only came once a year.

Absolutely appalling. Which she of course is not.

 

[HanoiVillan]

26 minutes ago, TheAuthority said:

Worst line ever in a Bond film was based around "Christmas Jones" a nuclear physicist in The World Is Not Enough

While in bed embracing the last line of the movie was:

Bond: And I thought Christmas only came once a year.

I remember the involuntary groan I made the first time I heard that line. Still, there is one good joke with her name in that film:

Dr. Christmas Jones: Doctor Jones. Christmas Jones, and don't tell me any jokes, I've heard 'em all.

James Bond: I don't know any doctor jokes.

I mean, I say 'good', but we're grading on a curve here, and that one's alright.

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, TheAuthority said:

Worst line ever in a Bond film was based around "Christmas Jones" a nuclear physicist in The World Is Not Enough

While in bed embracing the last line of the movie was:

Bond: And I thought Christmas only came once a year.

Absolutely appalling. Which she of course is not.

 

 

[villakram]

The war on Sanders continues, with James Carville going off the deep end in order to protect the gains of his neo-liberal masters and then in a truly "hold my beer" moment, MSNBC corporate shill Chris Mathews invokes the Nazis!

"And I nearly fell off my chair when I saw Chris Matthews compare Bernie Sanders’ victory to the Nazi invasion of France."

https://www.juancole.com/2020/02/corporate-democrats-derangement.html

[El Zen]

On 19/02/2020 at 18:44, villakram said:

Corporate media shill. [about Chris Hayes]

How so? I quite like him. His podcast is very interesting, I think, and doesn’t at all strike me as an apparatus for the corporate liberal establishment.