• 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.
R

RustyNails

Member
Does Sanders even go on national media? How come no one is scrutinizing his claims of funding his medicare for all plan in the news. Carson was leading Iowa and suddenly CNN send their crack team to investigate his claims. Right now Bernie is promising unicorns, puppies and kittens to everyone and no one is asking him how he will pay for those things. I said in the debate thread: it's in media's best interest to softball Bernie and hardball Hillary.
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Yeah, Hillary's ground game isn't making up that deficit against Sanders in NH unless she just kills him in Iowa.
Click to expand...
Hillary started with a 10 point deficit in NH right after Iowa went for Obama in 2008 primaries. I wouldn't underestimate her.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Cesare Borgia said:
Iowa polls seem almost useless given how caucuses work. I'd expect Hillary to win given how concentrated Sanders support is (in college towns for instance).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I feel like this polling is sort of irrelevant considering we'll never know how many people actually are voting for each candidate. Precinct polling would be more helpful, but we don't get that.
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
RustyNails said:
Does Sanders even go on national media? How come no one is scrutinizing his claims of funding his medicare for all plan in the news. Carson was leading Iowa and suddenly CNN send their crack team to investigate his claims. Right now Bernie is promising unicorns, puppies and kittens to everyone and no one is asking him how he will pay for those things. I said in the debate thread: it's in media's best interest to softball Bernie and hardball Hillary.
Click to expand...

He released a tax plan?
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Feeling really good about IA now.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sanderss-iowa-ground-game-is-good-but-it-aint-obamas/

darr-sanders-11.png
 
H

Holmes

Member
NeoXChaos said:
Loras IA Poll

Hillary 59
Sanders 30

Hillary comeback?

http://loras.edu/About-Loras/News-E...intains-Lead,-New-Loras-College-Poll-Fin.aspx
Click to expand...
This poll is good news for Hillary because:
•Likely caucus voter was defined as those indicating they were “definitely or very likely” to vote in the 2016 Iowa Caucus. Those indicating they were “somewhat likely” were subjected to further screen question regarding their general interest in politics. Only those indicating they were “very interested” in politics were then accepted within the sample as a likely caucus voter.
• The sample was balanced for gender and age to approximate past caucus entrance polling, and divided across Iowa’s four congressional districts with reference to registration.
Click to expand...

It just confirms what we know, the more usual caucus-goes and reliable voters (the ones that actually came out in 2014) show up, the better it is for Hillary. It's Sanders' team's job to get out unconventional and new caucus-goers to the polls (well, caucuses). If his groundgame is only strong in university towns then he'll just need to hope that these people show up in the rest of the state.
 
I

Iolo

Member
ugaboga232 said:
He released a tax plan?
Click to expand...

https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Medicare-for-All.pdf

- 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers
- 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households
- Increased marginal income tax rates on $250k and above
- Cap gains/dividend tax raises from 0% or 15% to full income tax rate
- Limit deductions on households over $250k
- Increased estate taxes

You'll be forgiven if you didn't hear about it, it was released 2 hours before the last debate, and has not gotten much attention since.

edit: rereading your post, you may have been answering that he did indeed specify how he was going to pay for it. That does seem to be the case, although I haven't seen any analyses as to whether the new taxes do pay for it. Ignoring whether it's actually feasible.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
ugaboga232 said:
He released a tax plan?
Click to expand...
Even Herman Cain released his tax plan. Doesn't mean it's sound.
More problematic, however, is whether the payroll and income taxes will cover the cost of insuring all Americans. Some experts say it falls far short.

Sanders' plan hasn't been evaluated by the Congressional Budget Office or major think tanks. But a rough estimate by RAND Senior Policy Researcher Peter Hussey -- using CBO's estimate of total wages and Sanders' tax rates -- found the proposal would probably bring in around $700 billion.

Separately, RAND researchers Chapin White and Virginia Kotzias estimated a single payer program would take a nearly 12% payroll tax to cover costs. Eliminating deductibles and co-pays would make it harder to make the numbers work, especially since it would likely prompt people to go to the doctor more often or get more tests done.

"It would be a very optimistic assumption that you could pay for it with just income and payroll taxes at the level [Sanders] proposed," Hussey said.
Click to expand...
So Bernie is basically peddling fantasies to people in order to excite them, and no one calls him out on it because HORSERACE/DEADHEAT
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Holmes said:
This poll is good news for Hillary because:


It just confirms what we know, the more usual caucus-goes and reliable voters (the ones that actually came out in 2014) show up, the better it is for Hillary. It's Sanders' team's job to get out unconventional and new caucus-goers to the polls (well, caucuses). If his groundgame is only strong in university towns then he'll just need to hope that these people show up in the rest of the state.
Click to expand...

It perfectly explains why Gore floored Bradley in 2000 despite being ahead by 2 points in the final polls. Low turnout and Bradley's people just not showing up which snowballed into NH the next week effectively ending it all.
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
Iolo said:
https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Medicare-for-All.pdf

- 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers
- 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households
- Increased marginal income tax rates on $250k and above
- Cap gains/dividend tax raises from 0% or 15% to full income tax rate
- Limit deductions on households over $250k
- Increased estate taxes

You'll be forgiven if you didn't hear about it, it was released 2 hours before the last debate, and has not gotten much attention since.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have put a period, I saw his plan and it seems quite reasonable as someone joining the medical profession.
 
I

Iolo

Member
ugaboga232 said:
Sorry, I should have put a period, I saw his plan and it seems quite reasonable as someone joining the medical profession.
Click to expand...

Understood, I edited my post

I would like to see a CBO or other respected analysis of the plan. This is kind of important before we nominate someone, if this is a main reason we are nominating them...
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
RustyNails said:
Even Herman Cain released his tax plan. Doesn't mean it's sound.

So Bernie is basically peddling fantasies to people in order to excite them, and no one calls him out on it because HORSERACE/DEADHEAT
Click to expand...

Dude, it's the Paul Ryan/Ben Carson rule. The media doesn't care if you mislead about policy, just personal stories.
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
RustyNails said:
Even Herman Cain released his tax plan. Doesn't mean it's sound.

So Bernie is basically peddling fantasies to people in order to excite them, and no one calls him out on it because HORSERACE/DEADHEAT
Click to expand...

The dirty secret is that the government already pays for the costliest people (children, the old, and the poor). Theres the 20% administrative overhead (frankly its higher as it doesn't exactly mean they have to pay 80% of premiums toward healthcare), bargaining for cheaper drugs, the implementation of MUCH better payment schemes for hospitals and providers. Other countries can have a very comparable healthcare system for less money. Most doctors that have taught us are for universal healthcare as well because preventative healthcare saves so much money and lives its incredible and can't really be calculated accurately.
 
A

Allard

Member
Holmes said:
This poll is good news for Hillary because:


It just confirms what we know, the more usual caucus-goes and reliable voters (the ones that actually came out in 2014) show up, the better it is for Hillary. It's Sanders' team's job to get out unconventional and new caucus-goers to the polls (well, caucuses). If his groundgame is only strong in university towns then he'll just need to hope that these people show up in the rest of the state.
Click to expand...

Yep, the reason Obama did so well in Iowa and in the end many other states leading to his win in 2008 was because his central message was a get out to vote initiative. "If you dont like this show it at the polls." "If you like what I represent, get out and vote for it". He had a huge ground game dedicated to registering new voters, showing them how they go about joining a caucus, where they needed to go etc. I do not know enough about Sanders ground game but his rhetoric on TV is definitely more focused on policy differences and how he wants to change how washington works, but you still need to actually work the system you have now if you want to change it in the future and if you have a change message that appeals to young or disenfranchised voters then your get out to vote initiative needs to be a stronger message then it is currently (imo).
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Allard said:
Yep, the reason Obama did so well in Iowa and in the end many other states leading to his win in 2008 was because his central message was a get out to vote initiative. "If you dont like this show it at the polls." "If you like what I represent, get out and vote for it". He had a huge ground game dedicated to registering new voters, showing them how they go about joining a caucus, where they needed to go etc. I do not know enough about Sanders ground game but his rhetoric on TV is definitely more focused on policy differences and how he wants to change how washington works, but you still need to actually work the system you have now if you want to change it in the future and if you have a change message that appeals to young or disenfranchised voters then your get out to vote initiative needs to be a stronger message then it is currently (imo).
Click to expand...

yup and:

Mark Murray ‏@mmurraypolitics 2h2 hours ago
Mark Murray Retweeted Mark Murray
This is why it's different from '08: Team Sanders is taking on pretty much the entire Dem Party -- Obama didn't
Click to expand...

plus:

Three reasons why this isn't 2008 all over again

All of that said, the Democratic race is certainly more contentious than it was a couple of weeks ago. And as our colleague Andrea Mitchell notes, we're seeing some of the same attacks and themes -- experience vs. hope/change -- that we saw in the 2008 Obama-vs.-Clinton contest. But there are three BIG differences between 2008 and now, as our little brother/sister The Lid observed yesterday.

1. Obama has much more potential for expanding his base, especially among minority voters, than Bernie Sanders does.
2. Given that Sanders hasn't been a Democrat until now, he doesn't have the Democratic validators and allies that Obama had in 2008 (think Claire McCaskill, Tim Kaine, Deval Patrick, and later Ted Kennedy).
3. Due to Clinton's huge lead already with superdelegates, Sanders essentially starts out behind eight percentage points in the delegate math, according to the Cook Political Report's David Wasserman.
Click to expand...

finally

Dem camp mgr: “Don’t know how u run a campaign in a .. red state with a democratic socialist at the top of ticket”
Click to expand...
From Draft Biden on above statement
Steve Schale ‏@steveschale 2h2 hours ago Tallahassee, FL
Steve Schale Retweeted Mark Murray
Much respect for his campaign, but this purple state guy tends to agree
Click to expand...


*We can stop with the Sanders = Obama comparisons now.
 
Y

Yellowtail

Member
Allard said:
Yep, the reason Obama did so well in Iowa and in the end many other states leading to his win in 2008 was because his central message was a get out to vote initiative. "If you dont like this show it at the polls." "If you like what I represent, get out and vote for it". He had a huge ground game dedicated to registering new voters, showing them how they go about joining a caucus, where they needed to go etc. I do not know enough about Sanders ground game but his rhetoric on TV is definitely more focused on policy differences and how he wants to change how washington works, but you still need to actually work the system you have now if you want to change it in the future and if you have a change message that appeals to young or disenfranchised voters then your get out to vote initiative needs to be a stronger message then it is currently (imo).
Click to expand...

Here are the Democratic voter registration numbers in Iowa from eight years ago:

JUNE 2007. 596,737
JULY 2007 596,396
AUGUST 2007 596,602
SEPTEMBER 2007 598,186
OCTOBER 2007 598,865
NOVEMBER 2007 600,572
DECEMBER 2007 602,947
JANUARY 2008 606,209

A net gain of +10,000 over the fall. You can bet the Obama campaign were largely responsible, as Edwards and Clinton largely focused on winning over the existing universe of caucus voters.

Compare this to the past few months:

JUNE 2015. 584,737
JULY 2015 584,503
AUGUST 2015 584,404
SEPTEMBER 2015 583,621
OCTOBER 2015 583,784
NOVEMBER 2015 583,913
DECEMBER 2015 584,307
JANUARY 2016 584,111

They've barely budged. In fact they've slightly fallen. Where is this political revolution signing up?
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
I've been all for tax hikes on wealthy people (myself included) but that would just about kill me.

Not that he'd have any chance of ever getting it passed....
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
I call shenanigans on that chart at the very least on the lower income side of things. Why is the payroll tax fluctuating so much? And isn't it a little disingenuous to make it seem like payroll taxes are 100% passed on but the current cost of healthcare isn't passed on?
 
A

Atomic Playboy

Member
ugaboga232 said:
I call shenanigans on that chart at the very least on the lower income side of things. Why is the payroll tax fluctuating so much? And isn't it a little disingenuous to make it seem like payroll taxes are 100% passed on but the current cost of healthcare isn't passed on?
Click to expand...

Because payroll tax isn't just one thing, it's a combination of Medicare, Social Security and some other minor taxes (Unemployment for example), and they all have different maximum taxable amounts and percentages. Social security is the biggest, but the maximum taxable earnings for SS is $118,500, which is why you see the huge dip after that salary.
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
Atomic Playboy said:
Because payroll tax isn't just one thing, it's a combination of Medicare, Social Security and some other minor taxes (Unemployment for example), and they all have different maximum taxable amounts and percentages. Social security is the biggest, but the maximum taxable earnings for SS is $118,500, which is why you see the huge dip after that salary.
Click to expand...

So why does that chart seem to suggest these are the tax rates at every level instead of more accurately saying these are the tax rates at each PART of your income.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
ugaboga232 said:
I call shenanigans on that chart at the very least on the lower income side of things. Why is the payroll tax fluctuating so much? And isn't it a little disingenuous to make it seem like payroll taxes are 100% passed on but the current cost of healthcare isn't passed on?
Click to expand...

I just realized the chart didn't mention these are marginal rates, not effective tax rates.

The payroll tax is fluctuating because that's how Bernie's plan works much like the current plan works.

Here's the article: http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814798/bernie-sanders-tax-rates

Ok that chart is super misleading as the author treats marginal rates as average rates. Here is the article if anyone wants to figure out what the real numbers are http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/1081479...es?asfdhlkasfd
Click to expand...

He most certainly does not. He specifically mentions the difference between the two!
 
A

Atomic Playboy

Member
ugaboga232 said:
So why does that chart seem to suggest these are the tax rates at every level instead of more accurately saying these are the tax rates at each PART of your income.
Click to expand...

Yes, in that regard the graph is highly misleading, especially because people tend to not understand marginal tax rates as a general rule.
 
T

teiresias

Member
ugaboga232 said:
So why does that chart seem to suggest these are the tax rates at every level instead of more accurately saying these are the tax rates at each PART of your income.
Click to expand...

The left side and the bars are showing you the marginal rates. I haven't done the math to see if the total wage percentage tax along the right side is calculated correctly, but I don't see what's so difficult to read about the left had side of the chart.

Poodlestrike said:
What the hell is going on with that drop from 75 to 100k?
Click to expand...

Because a large percentage of payroll taxes are Social Security taxes and the cap for SS Payroll taxes is 118k so at that point you're no longer having taxes taken out for Social Security, hence the percentage drops.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
ugaboga232 said:
That is a rather large difference don't you think?
Click to expand...

It's my fault for not mentioning that it's marginal and not effective. I take the blame. I should have posted it, I assumed the chart said as much.

But the author was NOT misleading because the chart in the article was explained.

The above chart, by Vox's Javier Zarracina, shows my estimates of how Sanders would change marginal tax rates on wages, both from payroll taxes and from income taxes. You can see my full calculations here.
Click to expand...

Now, marginal rates aren't everything. Most people wouldn't see an actual tax increase of 8.8 percent, even if their marginal rate goes up that much. Effective tax rates — the amount you're actually paying as a percentage of income — also depend on deductions and credits.
Click to expand...
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
Black Mamba said:
It's my fault for not mentioning that it's marginal and not effective. I take the blame. I should have posted it, I assumed the chart said as much.

But the author was NOT misleading because the chart in the article was explained.
Click to expand...

I would say its still slightly misleading to treat payroll taxes as a 100% passthrough and barely tinge upon the savings. Taxes in a vacuum aren't quite as informative. Also my fault for needing to read up on the current payroll tax scheme.
 
I

Iolo

Member
Yellowtail said:
Here are the Democratic voter registration numbers in Iowa from eight years ago:

JUNE 2007. 596,737
JULY 2007 596,396
AUGUST 2007 596,602
SEPTEMBER 2007 598,186
OCTOBER 2007 598,865
NOVEMBER 2007 600,572
DECEMBER 2007 602,947
JANUARY 2008 606,209

A net gain of +10,000 over the fall. You can bet the Obama campaign were largely responsible, as Edwards and Clinton largely focused on winning over the existing universe of caucus voters.

Compare this to the past few months:

JUNE 2015. 584,737
JULY 2015 584,503
AUGUST 2015 584,404
SEPTEMBER 2015 583,621
OCTOBER 2015 583,784
NOVEMBER 2015 583,913
DECEMBER 2015 584,307
JANUARY 2016 584,111

They've barely budged. In fact they've slightly fallen. Where is this political revolution signing up?
Click to expand...

10,000 new people were signed up, but Obama won because turnout increased by 100,000. Turning out registered non-voters is just as good as new voters.

But, I agree that a revolution would show itself in massive new voter registration.
 
G

gutter_trash

Banned
Black Mamba said:
CZVyXD3UkAAIRVR.jpg


Yeah, this is pretty fucking stupid, Bernie.
Click to expand...

Bernie should have borrowed from Justin Tudeau's playbook to win.

Justin Trudeau cut taxes for people under 200K, and raised them for those over 200k (I got a 1.5% cut, lol)

Bernie is using a loser strategy. If he wanted to be a winner he would have CUT taxes for those under 200k
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
ugaboga232 said:
I would say its still slightly misleading to treat payroll taxes as a 100% passthrough and barely tinge upon the savings. Taxes in a vacuum aren't quite as informative. Also my fault for needing to read up on the current payroll tax scheme.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider that misleading since economists are pretty unanimous in belief that that is exactly what happens to payroll taxes.

The analysis is not whether or not the taxes are worth it. The so-called savings you describe is part of another equation. It has nothing to do with either marginal or effective tax rates.

I mean, no one applied "medicare savings" when analyzing current payroll taxes. Doesn't really make any sense.

Taxes and Spending aren't truly related for anyone that can print their own money or borrow seemingly endlessly. Bernie can push his health care plan and not raise taxes 1 penny if he wants to.
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
Black Mamba said:
I wouldn't consider that misleading since economists are pretty unanimous in belief that that is exactly what happens to payroll taxes.

The analysis is not whether or not the taxes are worth it. The so-called savings you describe is part of another equation. It has nothing to do with either marginal or effective tax rates.

I mean, no one applied "medicare savings" when analyzing current payroll taxes. Doesn't really make any sense.

Taxes and Spending aren't truly related for anyone that can print their own money or borrow seemingly endlessly. Bernie can push his health care plan and not raise taxes 1 penny if he wants to.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I agree if its seemingly endless money. Hopefully then the next president, whoever it is, will throw a few bucks back toward the NIH.
 
C

Cesare Borgia

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
Ready for Julian?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/julian-castro-possible-vice-president-218119
Click to expand...
I've found his brother to be far more impressive/talented. Still, the Clinton camp seems quite interested in him. And President Obama has done quite a bit to put Julian in position to really take off. We'll see.

It's an interesting way to propel a red state democrat who probably has hit his ceiling in Texas. Wendy Davis didn't have that opportunity and thus ran and lost there. However I could see Clinton trying to find a way to get Davis into her administration as well. Texas will be purple-ish one day, might as well introduce talented figures to the national stage/money in preparation for it.
 
G

gutter_trash

Banned
Cesare Borgia said:
I've found his brother to be far more impressive/talented. Still, the Clinton camp seems quite interested in him. And President Obama has done quite a bit to put Julian in position to really take off. We'll see.

It's an interesting way to propel a red state democrat who probably has hit his ceiling in Texas. Wendy Davis didn't have that opportunity and thus ran and lost there. However I could see Clinton trying to find a way to get Davis into her administration as well. Texas will be purple-ish one day, might as well introduce talented figures to the national stage/money in preparation for it.
Click to expand...
the genius is that they can swipe brothers at anytime and nobody will notice
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
538 now has Clinton between a 3 in 4 chance and 4 in 5 chance of winning Iowa based on their two methods.

Should Bernie lose Iowa, I wonder how the media will play it. I mean, him losing Iowa essentially ends the primary. He has to sweep it with NH.

My guess is if Hillary does win Iowa, it will get a little play, but all attention will be on whoever wins the GOP Iowa and leading that into NH. The Dem Primary will be pretty much forgotten within a couple days.
 
D

Daniel B·

Banned
Yellowtail said:
Here are the Democratic voter registration numbers in Iowa from eight years ago:

... JANUARY 2008 606,209

A net gain of +10,000 over the fall. You can bet the Obama campaign were largely responsible, as Edwards and Clinton largely focused on winning over the existing universe of caucus voters.

Compare this to the past few months:

... JANUARY 2016 584,111

They've barely budged. In fact they've slightly fallen. Where is this political revolution signing up?
Click to expand...

Hopefully, someone can explain how the total can possibly have gone down (people getting out of Dodge and the grim reaper, perhaps?), but what this doesn't take into account, is a good percentage of that 10k Obama added, will be voting for Bernie :).
 
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