• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Holmes

Member
So it's going to come down to who has the better ground game, and also who can compete statewide. If Bernie just runs up the margins in urban centers like Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, or Iowa City and performs poorly in rural areas, Clinton would probably end up with more delegates even if both candidates are close in the popular vote. Another variable is O'Malley's supporters and where they'll go, because I don't see him crossing the threshold in most precincts. I mean, if they were anti-Clinton then I'm sure they would've jumped ship to Bernie by now, but if they were pro-Clinton then they would've also jumped ship to her by now. So who knows.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Crab said:
That's not true. Say America's GDP is W and population is P. Say an immigrant adds X to America's GDP, and obviously adds 1 to population. As people concerned about absolute wealth, we're obviously not concerned with absolute GDP, we're concerned with GDP per capita, or W/P. Adding an immigrant improves American GDP per capita if (W+X)/(P+1) > W/P. If you solve for X, then X > W/P, or in English, if the immigrant had higher average productivity than the existing population. This is obviously not universally true because productivities are not independent and immigration can solve supply constraints in certain industries that make workers there more productive, but it *is* true that *any* level of immigration is not necessarily good. The worst sort is immigrants who are a) less productive than the American average but b) more productive than the average of the country they come from. They then represent an infrastructure drain on America and a brain drain on their original country.
Click to expand...

It isn't necessary to assume that all immigrants must be more productive than the average American to add wealth. All you need to assume is that labor is inefficiently distributed in America because of sunk costs (basically, people should actually move to Minnesota but they don't), and that immigrants have less sunk costs. Then they're more likely to improve labor distribution and thus effectively add productivity even if they are one-for-one less effective. Capital allocation moves faster than human beings so this will probably just keep being true forever as labor requirements move around.
 
E

ErasureAcer

Banned
Holmes said:
So it's going to come down to who has the better ground game, and also who can compete statewide. If Bernie just runs up the margins in urban centers like Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, or Iowa City and performs poorly in rural areas, Clinton would probably end up with more delegates even if both candidates are close in the popular vote. Another variable is O'Malley's supporters and where they'll go, because I don't see him crossing the threshold in most precincts. I mean, if they were anti-Clinton then I'm sure they would've jumped ship to Bernie by now, but if they were pro-Clinton then they would've also jumped ship to her by now. So who knows.
Click to expand...

O'Malley supporters are going to support DWS-backed Clinton? I don't think so. Bernie will be getting a majority of his support.
 
H

Hobbestetrician

Member
Call it agism but my biggest issue with Bernie is that he would be 75 years old upon entering office.

And, yes, I know Hillary would be older than any other president other than Reagan on day one.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
CYdb2PUUkAAGNNa.png:large


.
 
V

Veritigo_X

Member
Holmes said:
Cruz: I Would Not Have a ‘Deportation Force’ as President — We Don’t Live in a Police State

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016...-as-president-we-dont-live-in-a-police-state/

RIP!
Click to expand...

A little different than what he was saying a couple days ago:

QUESTIONER: Both you and Donald Trump are really strong on immigration, but he supports deporting all the illegal immigrants. Are you willing to say the same?
TED CRUZ: Absolutely, yes. We should enforce the law.
Q: All?
T.C.: We should enforce the law.
Q: Ok.
T.C.: And in fact, look, there’s a difference. He’s advocated allowing folks to come back in and become citizens. I oppose that.
Q: So no citizens and all of them?
T.C.: So, if you read I have a very detailed 11-page immigration proposal that’s on my website it’s TedCruz.org. It was designed with Steve King and Jeff Sessions were the two who sat down with me to prepare it and it is enforce the law across the board.
Click to expand...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczy...deported-immigrants-back-in-i-wont#.sk9429vGM
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
pigeon said:
It isn't necessary to assume that all immigrants must be more productive than the average American to add wealth. All you need to assume is that labor is inefficiently distributed in America because of sunk costs (basically, people should actually move to Minnesota but they don't), and that immigrants have less sunk costs. Then they're more likely to improve labor distribution and thus effectively add productivity even if they are one-for-one less effective. Capital allocation moves faster than human beings so this will probably just keep being true forever as labor requirements move around.
Click to expand...

yes, you're agreeing with what I said re: supply constraints by essentially saying there's a labour mobility problem in America which immigrants diminish; but if you think that therefore e.g. an open border policy would maximize American wealth you're kidding yourself. As an example, say that the average American worker produces x, and there are P many Americans workers. An immigrant produces y, and also adds z to x (by undermining labour mobility issues). The new equation for "immigrants increasing GDP/capita" is for when (P(x+z)+y)/(P+1) > x. You can solve for this for a specific level of y and x, so we'll say x = 1 and y = 0.5 (i.e., the average immigrant produces half as much as the average American worker *before* adjusting the average American worker's productivity). You now have (P(1+z)+0.5)/(P+1) > 1, which solves for z > 0.5/P; which implies that if your immigrants are on average half as productive as your domestic residents, they need to increase productivity among your domestic residents by a staggeringly large amount (0.5/P, or a 50% increase in at least one person's productivity per immigrant) to increase GDP/capita. That's simply not at all anywhere near being met, not to mention the average American productivity is well over double the average Mexican productivity.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Hobbestetrician said:
Call it agism but my biggest issue with Bernie is that he would be 75 years old upon entering office.

And, yes, I know Hillary would be older than any other president other than Reagan on day one.
Click to expand...

If Sanders dies, you'll (probably) get President Warren, if that helps soften things. :p
 
I

Into

Member
Wasent he just suppose to be some kind sweet uncle who would pretend to debate Clinton and offer her "la resistance"?
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Also, I love how Sanders is progressively moving through the shitty political analogies list. First we had Dennis Kucinich, then we had Ron Paul, then we had Bill Bradley, and now it's time to compare him to Howard Dean. Where next I wonder?

600x250_SmugObama.jpg
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Roland_Gunner said:
New Des Moines Register polls coming out this week. This should tell us if the Sanders Surge is real.
Click to expand...

This week!? Gosh, I thought they were only doing one in the three days immediately prior the caucus. We are truly blessed. I get to watch Holmes and NeoXChaos squirm a little longer! :D

Love you guys. Sanders is still going to lose, let me have my fun.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Roland_Gunner said:
New Des Moines Register polls coming out this week. This should tell us if the Sanders Surge is real.
Click to expand...

Yup. I wonder who is getting the Des Moines Register endorsement?

But a devastating loss for the Gore camp was when Bradley got the endorsement of the Des Moines Register. Bradley started to gain momentum and the race become closer. A week before the caucus polls had it 40% to 49% in Gore’s favor. On January 23, 2000, a day before the primary polls had Al Gore winning by 2 or 3 points
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Democratic_caucuses,_2000

Crab said:
This week!? Gosh, I thought they were only doing one in the three days immediately prior the caucus. We are truly blessed. I get to watch Holmes and NeoXChaos squirm a little longer! :D

Love you guys. Sanders is still going to lose, let me have my fun.
Click to expand...

not worried about you. You will be okay it others I'm not so sure...................
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Aaron Strife said:
How average.
Click to expand...

It's average. It's so average, it's actually low. Nobody gets excited about average girls. I only date women, and this is no lie, I promise, I only date women who don't go the bathroom. Because they're winners. That's why they got me.
 
H

Holmes

Member
Crab said:
This week!? Gosh, I thought they were only doing one in the three days immediately prior the caucus. We are truly blessed. I get to watch Holmes and NeoXChaos squirm a little longer! :D

Love you guys. Sanders is still going to lose, let me have my fun.
Click to expand...

Mmm. I watched Mulcair give up an 8 point lead and turn it into a 15% loss a few months ago so I can always return to my happy place quickly if need be.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
Crab said:
yes, you're agreeing with what I said re: supply constraints by essentially saying there's a labour mobility problem in America which immigrants diminish; but if you think that therefore e.g. an open border policy would maximize American wealth you're kidding yourself. As an example, say that the average American worker produces x, and there are P many Americans workers. An immigrant produces y, and also adds z to x (by undermining labour mobility issues). The new equation for "immigrants increasing GDP/capita" is for when (P(x+z)+y)/(P+1) > x. You can solve for this for a specific level of y and x, so we'll say x = 1 and y = 0.5 (i.e., the average immigrant produces half as much as the average American worker *before* adjusting the average American worker's productivity). You now have (P(1+z)+0.5)/(P+1) > 1, which solves for z > 0.5/P; which implies that if your immigrants are on average half as productive as your domestic residents, they need to increase productivity among your domestic residents by a staggeringly large amount (0.5/P, or a 50% increase in at least one person's productivity per immigrant) to increase GDP/capita. That's simply not at all anywhere near being met, not to mention the average American productivity is well over double the average Mexican productivity.
Click to expand...

I think this is misleading. You're concerned about the impact of immigration on US per capita income. If an immigrant has no effect at all on anyone else's income then, like you say, per capita income goes down if the immigrant makes less than the average person. But who cares? We've stipulated that nobody else's income has changed - the immigrant is absorbing the entire reduction in per capita income. It's kind of perverse to say that we're made meaningfully poorer because one person in the world makes more money and everyone else makes the same. That's not a reason to want to deny someone the right to immigrate.

We shouldn't be concerned about the immigrant's income when doing this calculation. The more relevant calculation is of the immigrant's effect on the average income of everyone already in the US.
 
I

Into

Member
Trump: "Kelly is a 70 ovr in FIFA. Average. Ayy yay yay"

*horn*

Oh wow /wink

+420 Sniper shot

Cant stump the Trump BZZZZZ
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Gotchaye said:
I think this is misleading. You're concerned about the impact of immigration on US per capita income. If an immigrant has no effect at all on anyone else's income then, like you say, per capita income goes down if the immigrant makes less than the average person. But who cares? We've stipulated that nobody else's income has changed - the immigrant is absorbing the entire reduction in per capita income. It's kind of perverse to say that we're made meaningfully poorer because one person in the world makes more money and everyone else makes the same. That's not a reason to want to deny someone the right to immigrate.

We shouldn't be concerned about the immigrant's income when doing this calculation. The more relevant calculation is of the immigrant's effect on the average income of everyone already in the US.
Click to expand...

because typically immigrants will be the recipients of at least some state infrastructure - schools, roads, house building projects - so more immigrants below the average per capita means more spending on schools, roads, house building projects means more taxation means a reduction in income for others. This isn't as severe in America as European countries which have more rigorous and more accessible welfare systems, but it is still a problem. If you don't want to spend that money at all, you effectively create a permanent underclass with strong cultural differences - let Europe be a good warning as to how that goes (although in the US I expect it would manifest as gang violence and an increase in crime rather than terrorism).
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
also lol at Clinton calling for more debates after a poll comes out showing her behind in Iowa. It'd be so tempting if you were Sanders' campaign manager to send a reply back saying "sure, Sunday morning, 2 AM PT, to be hosted in Wyoming by NPR".
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
Crab said:
because typically immigrants will be the recipients of at least some state infrastructure - schools, roads, house building projects - so more immigrants below the average per capita means more spending on schools, roads, house building projects means more taxation means a reduction in income for others. This isn't as severe in America as European countries which have more rigorous and more accessible welfare systems, but it is still a problem. If you don't want to spend that money, you effectively create a permanent underclass with strong cultural differences - let Europe be a good warning as to how that goes.
Click to expand...

Sure, this is the sort of thing one should try to account for in the effect of immigrants on everyone else's income, but at least here it's not like we're redistributing to such an extent that we're on the hook for anything close to 100% of the gap between the immigrant's income and the average income, which is what you're assuming. You can also tell a story where culture clash or whatever means that even relatively high immigrant productivity nevertheless makes us collectively poorer over time. But of course this also not being captured by your formula.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Makai said:
What does Trump's pivot to the center for the general even look like? Imagine if he comes out in favor of single payer or something.
Click to expand...

I think if he wins, he pivots to the middle on Single Payer (using the argument listed earlier); taxing the wealthy, abortion, and campaign finance reform. Look for issues that are anti-establishment / populist and impact the working lower class disproportionately. Move more towards the economic base / policy shift and not as hard on the social policies. He can skirt around the social policies by saying that the states should be in charge.

Elaugaufein said:
I think GAF tends to be very supportive of identity politics in ways that aren't necessarily generally reflective of the population. There's a non-negligible tendency to embrace some rather traditionally right wing ideas in its pursuit that come up (pro-censorship, disdain for supporters of free speech, increased employer control over employees when they aren't at work, the digital evolution of mob justice,etc). That doesn't necessarily have the same broad support even amongst white collar liberal voters that it does on GAF.
Click to expand...

There is this also. GAF is not a representative community in any meaningful way. :p
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Crab said:
also lol at Clinton calling for more debates after a poll comes out showing her behind in Iowa. It'd be so tempting if you were Sanders' campaign manager to send a reply back saying "sure, Sunday morning, 2 AM PT, to be hosted in Wyoming by NPR".
Click to expand...

Dude.

It's one poll. If you think she relies on ANY external polling for anything, then you don't grasp how American politics actually works. Plus, it's a poll that hasn't ever been in the field this season. It also looks like their likely voter screen is "From 1-10 how likely are you to vote." which....if that's the case....okay. Good luck with that.

My lord, a plethora of polls showing Bernie losing by double digits means nothing. One poll showing him leading but within the MOE and Hilalry is running for the hills? It's stuff like this that just drives me absolutely insane. Be consistent at the very least. (And this isn't specifically directed at you Crab.)
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Gotchaye said:
Sure, this is the sort of thing one should try to account for in the effect of immigrants on everyone else's income, but at least here it's not like we're redistributing to such an extent that we're on the hook for anything close to 100% of the gap between the immigrant's income and the average income, which is what you're assuming. You can also tell a story where culture clash or whatever means that even relatively high immigrant productivity nevertheless makes us collectively poorer over time. But of course this also not being captured by your formula.
Click to expand...

Sure, so again you can solve for that by putting in a redistribution multiplier t and solve for y, x, t; although I'm not going to here because it's both complicated and boring. Thing is, all these things have been done; and the conclusion is that, generally speaking, mass migration of relatively unskilled workers is bad for the recipient country. That's why literally every state on earth capable of doing so has some sort of border control with all other countries that aren't very closely economically synched with it. Now, you can go too far the other way - you can need immigrants to smooth out demographic troughs, you can need them to fill skill gaps - but pigeon's argument seemed (unless he's qualified it badly/I've read it wrong) to essentially be an "open borders" argument. Sanders isn't anti-immigration in the slightest and definitely does not fall into the trap of wanting too few immigrants; he and Clinton have relatively similar immigration plans except Sanders is more concerned with American workers who in the short-run will have to compete with immigrants. That's a clear good; I think it's very difficult to make the argument convincingly that Clinton has a better immigration policy than Sanders.
 
I

Incognito

Troll
these polls are delicious. the salt is gonna really bern after iowa and NH when they're proved to be hilariously wrong and hillary wins by about 20.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
adam387 said:
snip
Click to expand...

That comment wasn't serious; I was mocking Clinton's sudden desire for debates. I'd actually welcome the debate, I'm always in favour of more debates, but I just find it deeply amusing given how much Dem insiders report that Clinton camp has been against debates in the past.

Mind you, I do think that Clinton's internal polling is also worrying her, or she wouldn't be up for it.

Let us have our fun, we'll be in your camp from March. ;)

EDIT: As a side note, Sanders just overtook Trump to become the second most likely next US President on predictit. Surely that's something we can all celebrate.
 
J

JesseEwiak

Member
Cybit said:
I think if he wins, he pivots to the middle on Single Payer (using the argument listed earlier); taxing the wealthy, abortion, and campaign finance reform. Look for issues that are anti-establishment / populist and impact the working lower class disproportionately. Move more towards the economic base / policy shift and not as hard on the social policies. He can skirt around the social policies by saying that the states should be in charge.
Click to expand...

No Republican candidate is going to be for single payer in any way, shape, or form. Trump will grab some plan from the Reformcons that'll he praise "as even better than single payer, Obamacare, or the trash the Republicans had before", will be pro-life because that's how you get the base to turnout, and will use the free speech argument on campaign finance reform.

Because that's what most people who would ever vote for Donald Trump believes. There is no secret left-wing economic Trump campaign coming.
 
V

vicissitudes

Banned
Iowa Quinnipiac poll from earlier:

Trump - 31%
Cruz - 29%
Rubio - 15%
Carson - 7%
Click to expand...

Iowa ARG poll:

Trump - 29%
Cruz - 25%
Rubio - 10%
Carson - 8%
Click to expand...

LRfuOSi.jpg


If Trump wins Iowa there's no way he's not getting the nom right? Good to see Bernie surging in the polls as well. If he doesn't get the nom I can always switch to Trump in the general.
 
P

PBY

Banned
vicissitudes said:
Iowa Quinnipiac poll from earlier:



Iowa ARG poll:



LRfuOSi.jpg


If Trump wins Iowa there's no way he's not getting the nom right? Good to see Bernie surging in the polls as well. If he doesn't get the nom I can always switch to Trump in the general.
Click to expand...

Hooly shit, hadn't seen the ARG poll.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom