U.S. Politics

[TheAuthority]

As a Brit living in the US now for over 20 years I am going to weigh in on something I think that is key, but neither @chrisp65 or @HanoiVillan have touched on yet (which is not to say neither is aware of these facts.)

Hindsight analysis of the 2016 election is that Trump owes his victory ultimately to between 60-80,000 (depending on who you read) votes spread across the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan & Wisconsin. Due to the Electoral college this gave Trump 'the pathway' to victory in the national election.

So what is the Democratic party's aim in 2020? To beat Trump? or to fundamentally swing the country into a new economic and social way of thinking?
If, like me, you want the likes of Stephen Miller, William Barr, Mike Pompeo, Pence, Kushner and the Tangerine idiot himself et al. as far as possible away from making decisions at the national level that effect your life, then we just need the Democrats to beat the Trump led GOP. Let's save huge ideological swings for after we've wrestled some sanity back into the USA. Which leads us to the question, how do we give the Dems the best chance to beat Trump?

That brings us back to the 3 aforementioned states. The Democratic primary process presented us with Biden & Sanders. If our overall objective is to oust this current incarnation of the GOP then who is more likely to get votes in those states? Are people in Wisconsin, Michigan & Pennsylvania (swing voters to boot) going to vote for Bernie Sanders? Hell no. They aren't - they will stay home or vote again for Trump. Biden is someone they will vote for. Period.

Is that right; or good; - who cares? Let's win the battle before trying to take on the war. When we're deep in the campaign Barack Obama is going to campaign for his old VP and mobilize the African American voters. Oprah will also chip in I'm sure. A Biden campaign gives Dems the best chance of victory. Of that I have no doubt, especially when Sanders is the alternative.

Sander's and Warren's policies appeal to me - and I'm someone who would probably 'suffer' under their economic plans. But Dems need to get smart and play the long game just like TurtleHeadMcConnell and the rest of those GOP fanatics have done. I am honestly happy that Biden is the candidate - it gives the Dems the best chance to beat Trump. I am equally terrified that he is going to **** up the debates beyond belief and show that he is mentally insufficient of hosting the local vicar for tea let alone running one of the worlds super powers. But if Biden's team can get him through the circus that Trump will create around the debates, have Biden's surrogates out front and center, harness the anger of the suburban white female vote in Mich. Wisc. & Penn. then the Dems can win.

Then, if Joe is President he can build a team around him to do the job far more coherently than the current 'wacky-races' style government that we have. Hell, he'll be just like Reagan, tucked up in his jammies by 5pm and let his people run the show. I have far more faith in Biden's cronies than the sycophants that crawl to the top of Trump world.

Let's look back at Corbyn. Groovy guy, created a lot of energy and support then what? No-one trusted him - they would rather not vote, or vote for an Eton educated brat to continue the cycle of Tory 'leadership' which also rubber stamping 'Brexit' - an act of economic suicide which will be felt for decades. With Sanders as the candidate, I could see the GOP not only retaining the White House, but also regaining the House of Representatives and with all three branches of Government Trump wouldn't make the same mistakes he made last time he had that advantage. 

In any normal sense of the world Biden is a terrible candidate for all of the reasons often stated in this thread. His voting history, his questionable sexual approaches to women, and his blindingly obvious failing mental capacity. However, here and right now at this moment, like it or not, he's the best chance we've got of swinging those 60-80,000 voters back over the the good side of the force. Help me Obiden-Wan you're our only hope. (Gulp.)

 

[Seat68]

On 10/04/2020 at 05:21, TheAuthority said:

As a Brit living in the US now for over 20 years I am going to weigh in on something I think that is key, but neither @chrisp65 or @HanoiVillan have touched on yet (which is not to say neither is aware of these facts.)

In any normal sense of the world Biden is a terrible candidate for all of the reasons often stated in this thread. His voting history, his questionable sexual approaches to women, and his blindingly obvious failing mental capacity. However, here and right now at this moment, like it or not, he's the best chance we've got of swinging those 60-80,000 voters back over the the good side of the force. Help me Obiden-Wan you're our only hope. (Gulp.)

 

Great post. It gives hope. A small hope, but still hope. 

[KenjiOgiwara]

I really really don't understand the economics anymore. It's like they have a magical money printing machine that spits out money to no consequence. Companies that normally would go bust are kept alive by the government buying absolute shit bonds and loans and extending credit to those who has leveraged themselves for share buybacks. It's such a clusterf*** I don't even know where to start. 

It's not like they are stimulating the working class either. 

Normally I'd worry about hyper inflation, but clearly nobody else does. Don't we have anyone here that can explain this shit? 

I'm genuinly considering throwing everything I have at the US market, cause it's clear FED won't let it have its natural life. 

Edited April 10, 2020 by KenjiOgiwara

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

Ahh yeah, the FED buying up high yield bonds through exchange traded funds. 

Who mostly buys this debt? Private equity funds. So what, you might ask?

As one analyst noted (and I’m paraphrasing): this is pretty much an indirect bail out of private equity firms. You know how the banks were being bailed out, those banks whose CEOs make $50m in bonuses? Well a bail out has started of companies whose CEOs make $500m per year in bonuses.

 

[KenjiOgiwara]

3 hours ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said:

Ahh yeah, the FED buying up high yield bonds through exchange traded funds. 

Who mostly buys this debt? Private equity funds. So what, you might ask?

As one analyst noted (and I’m paraphrasing): this is pretty much an indirect bail out of private equity firms. You know how the banks were being bailed out, those banks whose CEOs make $50m in bonuses? Well a bail out has started of companies whose CEOs make $500m per year in bonuses.

 

Yup. Taxpayers sure are nice to have. 

But I can't fathom how people aren't more worried about abusing the magical money making machine such a degree.  Wish I could understamd this stuff. 

[Withnail]

I work for a small business (used bookstore) in the states. We tried to apply for a SBA loan (loans for small businesses that are forgiven after three? months as long as the money goes to wages). The only problem is the banks are prioritizing applicants that have a loan with them. We have had the same bank for over 20 years, but no loan, so they are not processing our application. Now I am on unemployment.  Frustrating.

[LondonLax]

18 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Yup. Taxpayers sure are nice to have. 

But I can't fathom how people aren't more worried about abusing the magical money making machine such a degree.  Wish I could understamd this stuff. 

There was plenty of inflation as a result of the quantitative easing that took place after the global financial crisis, it was just that it was very specific inflation of various asset classes. Things like stocks and real estate saw significant growth while wages and bank deposits remained relatively stagnant.

Anyone who owned these assets at the time made a packet over the last 12 years whilst those who tried to buy in at a later date, using their stagnant wages and savings, had to take on significant levels of debt to get a seat at the asset table. 

It will be interesting to see what kind of fallout there is from this latest crash.

[villakram]

On 10/04/2020 at 05:21, TheAuthority said:

....Let's win the battle before trying to take on the war. When we're deep in the campaign Barack Obama is going to campaign for his old VP and mobilize the African American voters. Oprah will also chip in I'm sure. A Biden campaign gives Dems the best chance of victory. Of that I have no doubt, especially when Sanders is the alternative.

Battle for what? War against whom? 

Trickle-down doesn't appear to be affected much by who occupies the White House, e.g., see the 2 Dem house approved pork out the door spending bills that went through before anyone had even thought about covid, not to mention the corporate tax amnesty (a regular once every 10-15yr occurrence). Good side of the force... shudder, a bunch of religious fanatics!

I do see and appreciate your/that argument.

I see this mostly as people not liking the emperor jamming his nakedness in everyones face. Let us go back to the nice place of pretend instead, so we can just go about our life in peace. 

 

[Awol]

I don’t understand how the Democrats got themselves into a position where they were choosing between Sanders and Biden. 

‘Ole Joe isn’t mentally fit and Sanders wasn’t electable nationally. Can’t help thinking they’d have been better off concentrating on getting a decent candidate rather than an impeachment that was never getting through the Senate anyway.

Trump will monster Biden in the debates, horribly. It’s like they‘ve learned nothing from the Clinton disaster. 

[villakram]

6 minutes ago, Awol said:

I don’t understand how the Democrats got themselves into a position where they were choosing between Sanders and Biden. 

‘Ole Joe isn’t mentally fit and Sanders wasn’t electable nationally. Can’t help thinking they’d have been better off concentrating on getting a decent candidate rather than an impeachment that was never getting through the Senate anyway.

Trump will monster Biden in the debates, horribly. It’s like they‘ve learned nothing from the Clinton disaster. 

Russia. Spent all their time and energy on that nonsense. I'll never understand why they couldn't have done this and dedicate some resources to developing people over the last 3 years. I suspect that the Clinton take over of the DNC during the last election really left things too rudderless after Trump's election. This is one place where we have to acknowledge the R "discipline" (much like the Tories), and the reaction to Obama's initial landslide win.

I don't think they are really all that bothered about the White House. They surveyed the field and realized they didn't have a strong candidate, therefore it is important that Sanders is eliminated, for example, as he could weight down the entire ticket. They want a safe congressional election where they are on the attack, with a safe house majority and a chance to take the senate. Biden is likely to be safe(ish or er) in that respect at a minimum. Though as @TheAuthority and yourself have pointed out, the possibility of Joe really laying an egg is uncomfortably large. The University of Michigan payed $2m to the election commission to get a debate here too, tickets will be (would have been?) like gold-dust, such is the likelihood for craziness.

Covid has thrown all such calculations in the shitter and who can really tell what way things will have gone in 6 months time. As a smart-ass I read opining yesterday stated, paraphrasing... US + Fed nationalization of the markets --> US(SR)?

[blandy]

11 hours ago, Awol said:

I don’t understand how the Democrats got themselves into a position where they were choosing between Sanders and Biden. 

‘Ole Joe isn’t mentally fit and Sanders wasn’t electable nationally. Can’t help thinking they’d have been better off concentrating on getting a decent candidate rather than an impeachment that was never getting through the Senate anyway.

Trump will monster Biden in the debates, horribly. It’s like they‘ve learned nothing from the Clinton disaster. 

Ingrained conservatism is perhaps the reason?  Mix that with a hierarchical bent that places “names” above merit and surely that’s a factor?  It’s nothing to do with the Mueller investigation, or impeachment from this distance.

[Awol]

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

Ingrained conservatism is perhaps the reason?  Mix that with a hierarchical bent that places “names” above merit and surely that’s a factor?  It’s nothing to do with the Mueller investigation, or impeachment from this distance.

Im not sure that’s right. Instead of having an internal debate about what they got wrong and how to fix it, they’ve focused on the “orange man bad” narrative (obviously true but also irrelevant) and attempts to discredit him, rather than make themselves credible. 

That’s my take anyway - no expert on the US centre-right party! 

[blandy]

31 minutes ago, Awol said:

they’ve focused on the “orange man bad” narrative (obviously true but also irrelevant)

Not irrelevant (from my equally non expert perspective). It’s massively relevant that the Dem candidate is kind of, well, the opposite of Trump, in character and so on.

They also pretty much had to call for impeachment once it was known what Trump did. They knew, or strongly suspected they’d not carry it through both Houses, but they were bound to go for it. Further, such a process does not stop candidate selection, or identification. The flaw, for me is in their institutionalised, take turns, respect the known names, conservative process.  That led to HRC, then Saunders/Biden. 
maybe next time things will be different, if they learn, and because there will be no Trump, and because there are promising younger Dems who didn’t/ couldn’t have a go this time.

[HanoiVillan]

16 hours ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Yup. Taxpayers sure are nice to have. 

But I can't fathom how people aren't more worried about abusing the magical money making machine such a degree.  Wish I could understamd this stuff. 

. . . because inflation is just not a concern right now. If pumping money into the economy leads to high levels of inflation, which is not guaranteed - economic indicators do not suggest markets are afraid of this - then there are standard macroeconomic tools that can be applied over the next few years to reduce the rate of inflation. What there is not, is an alternative approach to saving the economy while putting it in the deep-freeze. If 50% of American companies went bust over the next few months, that would be a significantly worse outcome than a bit of inflation.

[Straggler]

On 10/04/2020 at 05:21, TheAuthority said:

As a Brit living in the US now for over 20 years I am going to weigh in on something I think that is key, but neither @chrisp65 or @HanoiVillan have touched on yet (which is not to say neither is aware of these facts.)

Hindsight analysis of the 2016 election is that Trump owes his victory ultimately to between 60-80,000 (depending on who you read) votes spread across the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan & Wisconsin. Due to the Electoral college this gave Trump 'the pathway' to victory in the national election.

I've been thinking about this post for a while.  It is a considered post, but I don't agree with some of the fundamental assumptions within it.  First up the idea that voters in Wisconsin, Michigan & Pennsylvania were not going to turn up for Sanders I'm not buying.

Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Sanders

Wisconsin: Trump vs. Sanders

Michigan: Trump vs. Sanders

The polling all shows that Sanders wins those states from Trump.  The fundamental point that Sanders is not electable I believe is a false one.  It is repeated a lot on American TV, but so is a lot of BS.  I agree that priority one is absolutely to get Trump out of the WH.  There has to be more to inspire voters than that though.  Biden has one main policy and it is that nothing fundamentally will change.  He will not be tackling the structural inequalities in the USA, he will tinker around the edges, ensuring that the corporate machine continues to get it's gears oiled with public money.  This is not an inspiring message and matches almost exactly with the messaging that HRC used last time against Trump and lost.

For me Biden is absolutely the worst candidate to put up against Trump.  He is the only one I could see getting chewed up by Trump in the debates when ANY of the other Dem candidates could have done better.  The Clinton / Obama playbook was the one that lost last time, I don't see where the logic is in going back to it now with a less dynamic leader.  It may be that the USA has had enough of Trump and any warm body in a suit can beat him , but I would not count on it.

A further point is that the world is reaching a time of crisis.  Not just the pandemics like corona, climate change and gross levels of inequality are getting to the pointy end of the problem.  Action is needed now.  Significant action that can prevent catastrophe down the line.  This takes a leader with vision and the energy to drive it through and take the country and the world through some tough times and hard choices.  Joe 'nothing will fundamentally change' Biden is not that man.  I worry that his impact will be to further demonstrate to the American voter that it does not matter who you vote for the results are the same. Yes I trust his team to be way more competent than Trumps, but the democratic machine is not going to stray away from serving the stock market.  4 to 8 years of corporate democrat tinkering and failure to tackle the big problems to the scale that the problems demand just paves the way for another hard right republican authoritarian to sweep away any progress that Biden makes in the first few weeks.

So yes Trump needs to be beaten.  I fear Biden won't.  I fear that even if Biden does win, he and his party are not interested in dealing with the big problems of our time.  This is a pivotal moment for the world, we need the USA to lead in a massive change of direction.  With Biden we could be waiting 16 years before someone with enough gumption to do what is needed is in place to make these changes and 16 years is too late.

[HanoiVillan]

One other issue with the post, which I meant to address at the time, is the idea that just because a group of several thousand voters were the marginal voters last time, that they would therefore be the most important voters next time as well, when this just isn't how elections end up. Maybe Sanders would have won those blue-collar Trump voters in those states. Or maybe he would have won them, but lost more white middle-class votes from the suburbs. Or maybe he would have depressed, or inflated, African-American turnout. Or Latino turnout. Or whatever really: the key point is that you shouldn't assess candidates by how well they would have fought the last election, because that's one election you can guarantee they'll never have to fight.

[KenjiOgiwara]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

. . . because inflation is just not a concern right now. If pumping money into the economy leads to high levels of inflation, which is not guaranteed - economic indicators do not suggest markets are afraid of this - then there are standard macroeconomic tools that can be applied over the next few years to reduce the rate of inflation. What there is not, is an alternative approach to saving the economy while putting it in the deep-freeze. If 50% of American companies went bust over the next few months, that would be a significantly worse outcome than a bit of inflation.

Yeah I get that's a pov, but I'm amazed it's not discussed more broadly. Stagflation will surely be a concern. You're talking about a world economical power house that could face the next 20-30 years with little growth. 

[HanoiVillan]

10 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Yeah I get that's a pov, but I'm amazed it's not discussed more broadly. Stagflation will surely be a concern. You're talking about a world economical power house that could face the next 20-30 years with little growth. 

I don't think there's any reason to be concerned that either stagflation will occur, or that the effects of this shutdown will be felt for 20-30 years.

[villakram]

58 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Yeah I get that's a pov, but I'm amazed it's not discussed more broadly. Stagflation will surely be a concern. You're talking about a world economical power house that could face the next 20-30 years with little growth. 

Economic growth tracks population growth to first order. The global population is going to top out at something around 9Billion right now, down from 15ish at the year 2000 and 10B around the year 2010. The explosive phase is over, so new paradigms will need to emerge.

Future growth will be fundamentally tricky. The US is advantaged here as they have room to grow, but the populace is unhappy about this prospect. Otherwise. inflation adjust things and there's been little to no growth, especially in the developed world, and especially, especially since 2008.

[Sam-AVFC]

I don’t see how Biden beats Trump. There is now no moral high ground to challenge the outrageous nepotism in government as Trump has ‘what about Burisma’.

I could see the Dems winning the senate but if they do end up holding both houses you can bet the Republicans will do a much better job of weaponising ‘obstruction’ than Obama did.