• 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.
I

Iolo

Member
Holmes said:
If we're still on the topic of paper endorsements, here's two more I found. Anyone have more?

NH's Concord Monitor: http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/20636012-95/editorial-clinton-is-democrats-best-choice

IA's Sioux City Journal: http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/op...cle_2b45b476-211d-5930-a787-42b9db8ee92d.html
Click to expand...

Was going to joke about these being "establishment" and therefore invalid, but:

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday shrugged off endorsements of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination by newspapers in two early voting states, characterizing the papers as the "media establishment.”
Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-des-moines-register-218155

This mentality is starting to get a bit frightening.
 
R

Retromelon

Member
Daniel B·;193126815 said:
And when you compare Bernie to FDR, are you seriously saying he doesn't have the potential to achieve just as much?

f80kr2l.gif
Click to expand...

This will be the new lana del rey. Lol dan b always delivers
 
P

PBY

Banned
By the way - Left Right and Center is probably my favorite political podcast, and this past Friday's was exceptional. Rich Lowry was trying so hard to reason his magazine's anti-Trump stance with what they've been building for years. Was truly beautiful.
 
J

Jack Remington

Banned
campfireweekend said:
I think labor secretary would have been best. But from his blog, I'd say he largely agrees with how Yellen runs the Fed.

If you guys think there are liberal policies they are not undertaking that a hypothetical Krugman would, I'd really like to hear them.
Click to expand...

I like Yellen. I was kind of joking because I'm a bit of a Krugman stan.
 
H

Holmes

Member
Iolo said:
Was going to joke about these being "establishment" and therefore invalid, but:



http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-des-moines-register-218155

This mentality is starting to get a bit frightening.
Click to expand...
I have no faith in him. I'm more convinced now than ever that he'd get nothing done if he were to win the Presidency. He can't change minds. Actually, he's unwilling to even try. If someone doesn't agree, they're establishment, they're bad. But you can't win anything with that attitude.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Manmademan said:
Kasich-Haley isn't any more appealing than Romney/Ryan. No matter who the republicans ran, they run into a huge problem with demographic shifts (latinos are ABSOLUTELY gone this round) and the electoral college, especially since it is increasingly likely that Florida is off the table due to puerto rican immigration shifting demographics there in favor of the democrats.

Given the current field, hillary was running away with it in the general no matter who her opponent is- unless she intentionally self destructs by doing something phenomenally stupid- and i mean "John Edwards getting caught with a pregnant mistress" stupid.

With that in mind, the democrats need to look at 2024- and unfortunately their field is pretty old. They need someone young that will be ready and able to run, and a castro with 8 years experience in the white house as VP fits that bill with no "dirt" from questionable senate votes or gubernatorial decisions etc. that could drag him down in the general. VP gives the *appearance* of having all the experience in the world with none of the exposure.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily disagree, but keep in mind that Obama had Biden as his VP, who in spite of his Onion persona is an incredibly intelligent and experienced politician and debater. The only reason people were surprised by how well he did in his debate against Ryan is because that Onion persona had seemingly become his public persona, while Ryan was being touted as the numbers guy for the GOP. The trick with the Republicans is they can make themselves sound smart without actually being smart.

I'd also consider Hillary a less appealing politician than Obama.

Against Rubio I think the best-case scenario would be something similar to Obama's 2012 election result. Maybe a little better due to demographic shifts, but that was a fairly close election and not one where the Democrats could take anything for granted, and that's where you might want someone like Kaine (who's less reward, but less risk). Against Trump? Fuck it, go with Castro. Democrats are clearly trying to set him up for a presidential run further down the line, why not give him the best springboard he could possibly have?
 
B

Basileus777

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Fuck it, go with Castro. Democrats are clearly trying to set him up for a presidential run further down the line, why not give him the best springboard he could possibly have?
Click to expand...
Is that really the best possible springboard considering how few sitting Vice Presidents go on to get elected President?
 
J

JABEE

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Jesus fuck, step away from the stump speech for five seconds, dumbass. Does Rubio know how to speak in anything other than talking points? He's less spontaneous than Romney.

https://twitter.com/ajjaffe/status/691096720554364928
Click to expand...

"It's almost impossible to legally purchase a gun in New York City to murder one of your supporters execution-style in the middle of 5th Avenue. This is the real issue. When I'm President, this silly hypothetical will be put to the test."

"Vote RUBIO 2016."
 
R

RustyNails

Member
VP is a largely ceremonial role (unless you're Cheney). Castro would be shuffling from one ceremonial post to another without gaining any insight into making hard hitting choices you do as a Governor of an entire state or willing to walk the talk with your votes as a US Senator. Hell even a State Senator will give you some experience. If we springboard him into 2024 election without any "history" so to speak, he will live or die by Hillary's presidency if he's her VP.

I understand the going for broke argument. He will most definitely help with the 2016 election when positioned against Trump's venom. Hell the ticket might pull off a blue wipeout. But we're setting him up for failure in the long run. Clintons always struck me as short-sighted when it comes to political alliances.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
RustyNails said:
VP is a largely ceremonial role (unless you're Cheney). Castro would be shuffling from one ceremonial post to another without gaining any insight into making hard hitting choices you do as a Governor of an entire state or willing to walk the talk with your votes as a US Senator. Hell even a State Senator will give you some experience. If we springboard him into 2024 election without any "history" so to speak, he will live or die by Hillary's presidency if he's her VP.

I understand the going for broke argument. He will most definitely help with the 2016 election when positioned against Trump's venom. Hell the ticket might pull off a blue wipeout. But we're setting him up for failure in the long run. Clintons always struck me as short-sighted when it comes to political alliances.
Click to expand...

The VP's role depends entirely on what the prez wants from them. For Biden its being the right hand of the prez, for Cheney is was having man-sized safes and trying to find a way to have a coup. If Hillary wants she could use it to train Castro and get him some real experience.
 
D

disastermouse

Banned
Mrs. Manky said:
IMHO, from what I've seen of BLM and supporters of the movement, they are not inclined to follow the orders of any white people who want to tell them what to do. The black people who have chosen Sanders, for example (like Killer Mike and Nina Turner) have pretty much done so of their own free will and with no known SAs or whatever behind them.

So, if BLM people are not voting for Hillary Clinton, it'll be because she failed, in their opinion, to earn their vote. And not because some SA people were telling or imploring them to do so. Same for Bernie Sanders.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but SA is more black and brown people than white folks. Kshama Sawant? At least half of the local group here too, and I'm in Madison (holy shit, we're white), WI.

Wait, what did you think 'SA' meant? I meant Socialist Alternative.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Basileus777 said:
Is that really the best possible springboard considering how few sitting Vice Presidents go on to get elected President?
Click to expand...
VPs are also usually pretty old, Castro wouldn't even be 50 by the 2024 primaries.

Unless there's a Texas miracle he's not winning any statewide election in Texas any time soon. Unfortunately I think he's stuck in these ceremonial positions.

At least we'll have Kamala Harris and Cory Booker as backup plans.

FWIW of the last two VPs of a sitting president who ran for president, one won outright and one won the popular vote. That doesn't seem so bad!
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
VPs are also usually pretty old, Castro wouldn't even be 50 by the 2024 primaries.

Unless there's a Texas miracle he's not winning any statewide election in Texas any time soon. Unfortunately I think he's stuck in these ceremonial positions.

At least we'll have Kamala Harris and Cory Booker as backup plans.
Click to expand...

Duckworth 2024?
 
P

PBY

Banned
20160124184145232.png


I think after the latest polls, the W is very close. Nate even tweeted about this Trump surge - the weighted 538 projections still have Cruz tho.

This is a crushing L for JEB tho. I mean, Carson is barely trying and he's doubling Jeb up.
 
E

Enter the Dragon Punch

Banned
http://touch.metro.us//news/clinton...ord-anti-sanders-tips/zsJpav---ufir7dReqAEXE/
The Burlington Free Press reported that Daniel Wessel, press secretary for pro-Clinton super PAC Correct the Record, contacted them "by email and phone to offer 'off-the-record' story pitches."
On its website, Correct the Record calls itself "a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks." In the past, it's focused its efforts on congressional Republicans and the Benghazi hearings.

Yet, if the Burlington Free Press report is true, it seems the super PAC was playing offense recently – against fellow Democrat Sen. Bernie Sanders.
"Daniel Wessel emailed the newspaper in early January to point out that Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy 'hit Bernie on guns today,'" the Free Press claimed, and that Wessel "offered to send more information on Sanders' record if the paper was interested."

Correct the Record made national headlines in 2015 when the Washington Post reported that the organization planned on using a few arcane campaign finance loopholes to coordinate directly with Hillary Clinton's campaign. Generally speaking, political action committees cannot coordinate with candidates.

The Burlington Free Press added that when it asked Wessel why he was offering so-called "off-the-record tips" while on-the-record, Wessel took the conversation to a phone call during which he reportedly told the paper his organization only likes to be named "when speaking about Republican candidates."
Click to expand...

Entire article at the link, but it's short and this covers 99% of the meat and potatoes.

That is a shady ass PAC
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Melkr_ said:
f80kr2l.gif


what is this mess

RUN BERNIE RUN. GET YER DELEGATES
Click to expand...

Same issue Hillary had before that one debate.

PBY said:
This is a crushing L for JEB tho. I mean, Carson is barely trying and he's doubling Jeb up.
Click to expand...

Speaking of Carson, I find it no coincidence that we've heard almost nothing from him in the past month. He started his campaign solely as a way to get money/exposure, caught fire, had his poll numbers skyrocket, then immediately started saying the dumbest stuff he could to tank his campaign.
 
K

kingkitty

Member
Aaron Strife said:
VPs are also usually pretty old, Castro wouldn't even be 50 by the 2024 primaries.

Unless there's a Texas miracle he's not winning any statewide election in Texas any time soon. Unfortunately I think he's stuck in these ceremonial positions.

At least we'll have Kamala Harris and Cory Booker as backup plans.

FWIW of the last two VPs of a sitting president who ran for president, one won outright and one won the popular vote. That doesn't seem so bad!
Click to expand...

Don't forget about Julian's more accomplished brother Joaquin. This guy was in state politics for a decade before he became a US congressman. And by 2024, Joaquin will be (if things go smoothly) in congress for over a decade.

Joaquin is the change I believe in.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
I still love the fact that the Democrats get to bat last on VP picks and conventions. If Donald picks someone who matches well, I'm going to feel a lot more comfortable with a Castro pick.
 
C

campfireweekend

Member
East Lake said:
I think some of these people aren't necessarily inflation hawks, it's a lot of bank or other corporate economists worrying that the central banks are distorting asset prices. A lot of them say we need more fiscal policy, so they're not all austerity types. Also I don't think homeopathy is an apt analogy, maybe for some it is but even an economist like Olivier Blanchard recognizes the need for new tools.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2014/09/blanchard.htm
Click to expand...

We actually agree on this point. Like completely. But the argument wasn't could more have been done during the recdssion. It was what more could the Fed have done.

And really, their only tool should stay monetary policy, while incorporating things like negative interest rates. Delegating fiscal responsibilities would be too much for most people to swallow.

Sea Manky said:
Yeah, I chewed over MMT for a long time, and I never could find a good argument that refutes it. Pretty much every argument against it ended up invoking a Zimbabwe slippery slope argument that completely disregards what the theory is actually saying.

The biggest impact MMT on my thinking was realizing that a fiat currency issuer can't possibly need to borrow money, and that that vestigial requirement has hampered stimulative measures that inevitably prove themselves to fall short. It also made me realize that the way we practice federalism just makes for unnecessary problems on the state and local level because of budgetary constraints.

Wish empty vessel was back too, I loved his posts on the subject. :/
Click to expand...

They are a lot of worth while critiques that don't fall on strawmen. I imagine you haven't read them because they're pretty reliant on various econ jargon such as the IS curve and whether the interest elasticity of income has slope b=0 or b=.5

Crab said:
That's not MMT, though - at least, not exclusively. It's just a truism from what it means to have a fiat currency; essentially nobody will disagree with this, be they monetarist or whatever (obviously they'll disagree about whether doing so is beneficial or not). Most countries can't exploit this because the organization in charge of monetary policy is autonomous from the organization in charge of fiscal policy. You, as the government, need to borrow money, because you don't control the central bank and the central bank is unwilling for whatever reason to simply create new money to give to you. If you want to be able to proscribe MMT solutions (in the sense of "governments should fund short-term stimuli using created money"), you have to argue for either removing the independence of the central bank, severely curtailing that independence, or changing the mandates of the central bank to be strongly different from the status quo.

That's the important conclusion of MMT, and the one that is strongly heterodox - all of the other Keynesian branches (and MMT is a sub-branch of Keynesianism, in the sense that it draws upon the most fundamental Keynesian tenets) think there is more value in having an independent central bank. There's some overlap because there's a growing school of Keynesians who think that inflation targets are actually a pretty poor way for central banks to work, and the nominal GDP targets are actually better, and I suspect this might one day be the new orthodoxy because the early papers are promising and frankly inflation-targeting hasn't worked as well as desired [and being honest, most central banks basically gave up on it altogether anyway during the financial crisis], but most MMT people (not all, but most) are full-throttle "reincorporate the central bank". I don't see that ever happening.
Click to expand...

Yeah, NGDP targets are great. It deftly incorporates both mandates of the Fed.

And I definitely can't abide the idea that we need a less independent Fed.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Aaron Strife said:
I don't necessarily disagree, but keep in mind that Obama had Biden as his VP, who in spite of his Onion persona is an incredibly intelligent and experienced politician and debater. The only reason people were surprised by how well he did in his debate against Ryan is because that Onion persona had seemingly become his public persona, while Ryan was being touted as the numbers guy for the GOP. The trick with the Republicans is they can make themselves sound smart without actually being smart.

I'd also consider Hillary a less appealing politician than Obama.

Against Rubio I think the best-case scenario would be something similar to Obama's 2012 election result. Maybe a little better due to demographic shifts, but that was a fairly close election and not one where the Democrats could take anything for granted, and that's where you might want someone like Kaine (who's less reward, but less risk). Against Trump? Fuck it, go with Castro. Democrats are clearly trying to set him up for a presidential run further down the line, why not give him the best springboard he could possibly have?
Click to expand...

Keep in mind though that the sole reason Biden was Obama's VP pick is that Obama has (or had) a perceived problem with working class white voters. Biden was the surrogate for obama in areas like Ohio and central pennsylvania where he otherwise would have been weak on the campaign trail.

He came off as appealing in the Ryan debate, because Biden has a "tells it like it is" persona that appeals to...once again..working class white voters. Ryan's cerebral, numbers guy schtick comes off very poorly against it.

Hillary doesn't have any obvious demographic weaknesses, there's no reason to go this route. Kaine is a waste, since the democrats need him far more as a senator in virginia than they do as VP. Barring a disaster they carry virginia regardless, so why take him off the board?

and 2012 was not a "close election" by any means, speaking in terms of electoral votes. 332-206 is a goddamned landslide. the only "swing state' that was lost was north carolina, and it was shocking THAT state went for democrats in 2008 in the first place.
 
G

gutter_trash

Banned
B-Dubs said:
The VP's role depends entirely on what the prez wants from them. For Biden its being the right hand of the prez, for Cheney is was having man-sized safes and trying to find a way to have a coup. If Hillary wants she could use it to train Castro and get him some real experience.
Click to expand...

the biggest change in a VP's roll that I witnessed in my lifetime was going from George H.W. Bush being active internationally under Ronald Reagan to the total ceremonial downgrade of Dan Quayle.

a VP's roll can propel one to the Presidency, but the case of Papa Bush was that he already was a former ambassador and former head of the CIA before becoming Veep. He was given lots to do and was already ready to by President in 1988.

a Veep given a cerenominal roll, not so much future for him/her
 
T

Third Strike

Member
Yup, much safer to pick a running mate who is not a sitting Senator or Governor. Democrats can't really afford to potentially lose any more seats. Castro has already hit his ceiling in Texas, and Vice Presidency is the best route for him. However, he will likely have a hard time against Booker or Harris in 2024 if he decides to run, but Castro could be the bridge that might someday allow Texas to turn blue in a presidential election.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
gutter_trash said:
the biggest change in a VP's roll that I witnessed in my lifetime was going from George H.W. Bush being active internationally under Ronald Reagan to the total ceremonial downgrade of Dan Quayle.

a VP's roll can propel one to the Presidency, but the case of Papa Bush was that he already was a former ambassador and former head of the CIA before becoming Veep. He was given lots to do and was already ready to by President in 1988.

a Veep given a cerenominal roll, not so much future for him/her
Click to expand...

1.) it's "role", not "roll" here.

2.) you're missing the MASSIVE upgrade from Dan Quayle, to Al Gore, to Dick Cheyney.

Quayle was entirely ceremonial, Gore was not, and Cheyney was "president in everything but name" and ran the white house.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Manmademan said:
Keep in mind though that the sole reason Biden was Obama's VP pick is that Obama has (or had) a perceived problem with working class white voters. Biden was the surrogate for obama in areas like Ohio and central pennsylvania where he otherwise would have been weak on the campaign trail.

He came off as appealing in the Ryan debate, because Biden has a "tells it like it is" persona that appeals to...once again..working class white voters. Ryan's cerebral, numbers guy schtick comes off very poorly against it.

Hillary doesn't have any obvious demographic weaknesses, there's no reason to go this route. Kaine is a waste, since the democrats need him far more as a senator in virginia than they do as VP. Barring a disaster they carry virginia regardless, so why take him off the board?

and 2012 was not a "close election" by any means, speaking in terms of electoral votes. 332-206 is a goddamned landslide. the only "swing state' that was lost was north carolina, and it was shocking THAT state went for democrats in 2008 in the first place.
Click to expand...
Yeah, fair enough. I guess I see Kaine as more of an asset in an extremely close election where every extra vote Dems could squeeze out of Virginia would matter. As it becomes clearer it won't really matter because the GOP is about to nominate someone extremely unelectable, I think Hillary can afford to take a risk with Castro - with my only concern for him being a little green.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
campfireweekend said:
They are a lot of worth while critiques that don't fall on strawmen. I imagine you haven't read them because they're pretty reliant on various econ jargon such as the IS curve and whether the interest elasticity of income has slope b=0 or b=.5
Click to expand...

halp

my monetary policy

does not work
 
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