Support NeoGAF

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Wait, where is Fiorina getting that money from? Does she actually have campaign funds?

She's rich AF.

 

[tmarg]

And yes, he shouldn't be raising taxes on people earning below $250k. Even if it means "it pays for healthcare," or whatever else. It's nice that people would be getting more bang for their buck but you know how we get more bang for our buck? Not raising taxes.

This is such nonsense. If he is going to create a massive new government benefit, then yes, we are actually going to have to pay for it. And no, we can just have the super wealthy pay for absolutely everything. Compared to the amount the middle class spends on healthcare, they are still coming out very much ahead in his plan, to a likely unrealistic degree.

 

[Chichikov]

Yeah, but he's probably using some weird math like the GOP does with dynamic scoring to make it work.

Like, he's probably assuming that by raising taxes, nobody's behavior is affected at all. And that would be a poor assumption.

And yes, he shouldn't be raising taxes on people earning below $250k. Even if it means "it pays for healthcare," or whatever else. It's nice that people would be getting more bang for their buck but you know how we get more bang for our buck? Not raising taxes.

How about raising taxes on the wealthy, cutting taxes on the middle class, and still offering the same benefits! Why are we proposing to raise taxes on people whose wages haven't gone up in years but costs still go up?

Go full progressive, Bernie. Not this half assed shit. And not something so open to attack.

I'm all for more progressive taxation but the math don't work.
Also, if your raise in taxes is less than what you pay for a private, for profit insurance, that means you're left with more money at hand, so why does it matter?

 

[User 463088]

I would love to ask some people to define the word "establishment." Because, at the moment, I think the only definition a lot of people have is "Not Bernie Sanders." It's now become so devoid of meaning it's the linguistic/political equivalent of McDonald's Chicken Nuggets. Everyone has a vague idea of what it's supposed to be, but no one really knows what it is anymore.

 

[sc0la]

I would love to ask some people to define the word "establishment." Because, at the moment, I think the only definition a lot of people have is "Not Bernie Sanders." It's now become so devoid of meaning it's the linguistic/political equivalent of McDonald's Chicken Nuggets. Everyone has a vague idea of what it's supposed to be, but no one really knows what it is anymore.

As long as it's hot, crispy, and I can dip it in hot mustard sauce, I don't give a fuck!

 

[Loakum]

...in the meantime the people of Flint, MI has lead contaminated water because of Republican Rick Snyder. After 2 years they still have contaminated water. After this story finally became an national story..NOTHING is being done to change the root of the problem. The lead in the water dissolved and contaminated the pipes. No plans are being made to change the pipes! Hell, they're not even giving out facet filters to the residents! State and Federal levels continue to fail Flint! This is something you hear about in an 3rd world country like Ethiopia, about contaminated water. This is happening in the so called richest country in the world. This problem was CAUSED by Snyder, and he's still refuse to fix it! THIS should be the political story of the year, instead of all the stupid ass shit Donald Trump says for media attention!

 

[User 463088]

As long as it's hot, crispy, and I can dip it in hot mustard sauce, I don't give a fuck!

 

[ErasureAcer]

...in the meantime the people of Flint, MI has lead contaminated water because of Republican Rick Snyder. After 2 years they still have contaminated water. After this story finally became an national story..NOTHING is being done to change the root of the problem. The lead in the water dissolved and contaminated the pipes. No plans are being made to change the pipes! Hell, they're not even giving out facet filters to the residents! State and Federal levels continue to fail Flint! This is something you hear about in an 3rd world country like Ethiopia, about contaminated water. This is happening in the so called richest country in the world. This problem was CAUSED by Snyder, and he's still refuse to fix it! THIS should be the political story of the year, instead of all the stupid ass shit Donald Trump says for media attention!

Elections have consequences. Bernie will beat any of the Republicans. Vote Bernie.

 

[User 463088]

Elections have consequences. Bernie will beat any of the Republicans. Vote Bernie.

So he's going to be Governor of Michigan too after he's doing being President-Senator-Speaker-Representative-Mayor of Burlington Coat Factory Bernie Sanders.

It's like Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, but with Bernie Sanders. And you don't even need six degrees. Just one.

 

[Holmes]

Actually, speaking of which, my Sandernista husband registered to vote today, and since my Canadian ass can't vote, he told me he'd let me vote in the presidential section of the ballot and fill in the bubble for Clinton (if I so choose). Suffice to say I got pretty excited.

 

[johnsmith]

This persecution complex is just too much. Bill Gates is in the tank for Hillary!

Sanders camp suspicious of Microsoft’s influence in Iowa Caucus

The campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is raising questions about the involvement of Microsoft in the Iowa Caucuses, now just five days away, and has built a independent system to check the official results.

For the first time this year, Microsoft partnered with the Iowa Democratic and Republican Parties to provide a technology platform with which the parties will run their caucuses. The software giant created separate mobile apps for each party, which officials at hundreds of caucuses across the state will use to report out results from individual precincts to party headquarters for tabulation.

The arrangement has aroused the suspicions of aides to Sanders, whose regularly warns that corporate power and the billionaire class are trying to hijack democracy. Pete D’Alessandro, who is running the Iowa portion of Sanders’ campaign, questioned the motives of the major multinational corporation in an interview with MSNBC: “You’d have to ask yourself why they’d want to give something like that away for free.”

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-campaign-suspicious-corporate-influence-iowa-caucus

 

[danm999]

Bernie seems like a Linux guy anyway.

 

[Holmes]

I can only laugh now.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

This persecution complex is just too much. Bill Gates is in the tank for Hillary!

Sanders camp suspicious of Microsoft’s influence in Iowa Caucus

The campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is raising questions about the involvement of Microsoft in the Iowa Caucuses, now just five days away, and has built a independent system to check the official results.

For the first time this year, Microsoft partnered with the Iowa Democratic and Republican Parties to provide a technology platform with which the parties will run their caucuses. The software giant created separate mobile apps for each party, which officials at hundreds of caucuses across the state will use to report out results from individual precincts to party headquarters for tabulation.

The arrangement has aroused the suspicions of aides to Sanders, whose regularly warns that corporate power and the billionaire class are trying to hijack democracy. Pete D’Alessandro, who is running the Iowa portion of Sanders’ campaign, questioned the motives of the major multinational corporation in an interview with MSNBC: “You’d have to ask yourself why they’d want to give something like that away for free.”

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-campaign-suspicious-corporate-influence-iowa-caucus

Seems a little paranoid. Bernie should tell his campaign people to calm down.

 

[disastermouse]

These are the same type of people susceptible to Alex Jones and 9/11 truthers, to GMO foods is mind control, moon landing is fake, etc.

They aren't folks capable of proper reasoning skills.

I have an ex-girlfriend with an IQ that almost qualifies her for MENSA (this is true - her father was actually in MENSA as well) who shocked me once by confessing that she didn't think that the moon landing was real. She also had an irrational fear of little people.

I was legit shook.

 

[disastermouse]

Gonna call huge levels of shenanigans with their description of medicare for all (which definitely has a lot of details left out but the rationing healthcare and cry for savings is not very accurate). Also not sure if I believe the financial system is fully reformed and awesome yet.

To expand, insurance companies already ration a ton, and the rationing the author speaks of in europe is actually super generous, very few treatments would be denied and they would have to have a horrific cost/benefit (like 6 figures for maybe a few months of life or something around that). Doctor reimbursements in america are the highest in the world so some correction would happen but the move away from fee for service and ability to negotiate for pricing of drugs/supplies would also be big.

I thought it was well-known that most people familiar with France's health care system would kill if we could have its equivalent here in 'Murica.

 

[disastermouse]

Yeah, but he's probably using some weird math like the GOP does with dynamic scoring to make it work.

Like, he's probably assuming that by raising taxes, nobody's behavior is affected at all. And that would be a poor assumption.

And yes, he shouldn't be raising taxes on people earning below $250k. Even if it means "it pays for healthcare," or whatever else. It's nice that people would be getting more bang for their buck but you know how we get more bang for our buck? Not raising taxes.

How about raising taxes on the wealthy, cutting taxes on the middle class, and still offering the same benefits! Why are we proposing to raise taxes on people whose wages haven't gone up in years but costs still go up?

Go full progressive, Bernie. Not this half assed shit. And not something so open to attack.

I think raising taxes over $100k is just fine. If it eliminates employer-provided healthcare via insurance companies, nearly everyone would experience a net gain increase in their biweekly paychecks. Combine that with better social security increases and reduced college expenses and people still come out far, far ahead. Any reduction in anxiety regarding retirement and college education access would also be a net gain.

 

[disastermouse]

I would love to ask some people to define the word "establishment." Because, at the moment, I think the only definition a lot of people have is "Not Bernie Sanders." It's now become so devoid of meaning it's the linguistic/political equivalent of McDonald's Chicken Nuggets. Everyone has a vague idea of what it's supposed to be, but no one really knows what it is anymore.

It's pink slime, Adam. The Establishment is pink slime.

 

[disastermouse]

This persecution complex is just too much. Bill Gates is in the tank for Hillary!

Sanders camp suspicious of Microsoft’s influence in Iowa Caucus

The campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is raising questions about the involvement of Microsoft in the Iowa Caucuses, now just five days away, and has built a independent system to check the official results.

For the first time this year, Microsoft partnered with the Iowa Democratic and Republican Parties to provide a technology platform with which the parties will run their caucuses. The software giant created separate mobile apps for each party, which officials at hundreds of caucuses across the state will use to report out results from individual precincts to party headquarters for tabulation.

The arrangement has aroused the suspicions of aides to Sanders, whose regularly warns that corporate power and the billionaire class are trying to hijack democracy. Pete D’Alessandro, who is running the Iowa portion of Sanders’ campaign, questioned the motives of the major multinational corporation in an interview with MSNBC: “You’d have to ask yourself why they’d want to give something like that away for free.”

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-campaign-suspicious-corporate-influence-iowa-caucus

What? Yeah, the corporate sponsorship of Democracy(tm) (Brought to you by MicroSoft) is shady as fuck.

Shady.
As.
Fuck.

My very libertarian, materialist (philosophically), pro-capitalist friend would even find this involvement questionable.

 

[User 463088]

It's pink slime, Adam. The Establishment is pink slime.

Okay, you made me laugh.

 

[disastermouse]

Implicit in any campaign against the establishment is the argument that you want to become part of the next establishment.

Establishment isn't a problem per se. The problem is when the establishment is fundamentally failing at providing any of the goods for which it states it is there to provide.

 

[User 463088]

This persecution complex is just too much. Bill Gates is in the tank for Hillary!

Sanders camp suspicious of Microsoft’s influence in Iowa Caucus

The campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is raising questions about the involvement of Microsoft in the Iowa Caucuses, now just five days away, and has built a independent system to check the official results.

For the first time this year, Microsoft partnered with the Iowa Democratic and Republican Parties to provide a technology platform with which the parties will run their caucuses. The software giant created separate mobile apps for each party, which officials at hundreds of caucuses across the state will use to report out results from individual precincts to party headquarters for tabulation.

The arrangement has aroused the suspicions of aides to Sanders, whose regularly warns that corporate power and the billionaire class are trying to hijack democracy. Pete D’Alessandro, who is running the Iowa portion of Sanders’ campaign, questioned the motives of the major multinational corporation in an interview with MSNBC: “You’d have to ask yourself why they’d want to give something like that away for free.”

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-campaign-suspicious-corporate-influence-iowa-caucus

This .... this has to stop. I mean, this really has to stop.It's not cute anymore. We've passed tin foil hat territory.

 

[Black Mamba]

This is such nonsense. If he is going to create a massive new government benefit, then yes, we are actually going to have to pay for it. And no, we can just have the super wealthy pay for absolutely everything. Compared to the amount the middle class spends on healthcare, they are still coming out very much ahead in his plan, to a likely unrealistic degree.

Or, you know, we can just run a deficit like we've pretty much always done.

It doesn't have to be revenue neutral. In fact, taxes shouldn't matter.

As a society, we should spend what we want and then use taxes to help with inequality. Taxes and government revenue are not a balance sheet.

I'm all for more progressive taxation but the math don't work.
Also, if your raise in taxes is less than what you pay for a private, for profit insurance, that means you're left with more money at hand, so why does it matter?

I don't understand to what your first paragraph references specifically.

As to the second, not everyone currently has insurance or pays for coverage. Those people will be seeing a hike. And while I agree their benefits will be greater than the taxes, it still reduces disposable income for them.

Like, on its face it's fine but I don't want to drop the disposable income of most folks right now. I'm not convinced the consumer expenditures side of the economy is strong enough at this moment for it.

Just provide the benefit and tax those whose taxes are too low and that's it.

I have an ex-girlfriend with an IQ that almost qualifies her for MENSA (this is true - her father was actually in MENSA as well) who shocked me once by confessing that she didn't think that the moon landing was real. She also had an irrational fear of little people.

I was legit shook.

Some of the smartest people can be really dumb in other aspects. I've seen it first hand a lot.

That's why I don't call them stupid. Some people can be super bright but really gullible. Or blinded by emotions. Or just lack ability to reason in other ways. Not all are mouthbreathers.

 

[CCS]

Shillary Clinton and Shill Gates are teaming up to steal the election from Sanders! Open your eyes sheeple!

 

[Black Mamba]

I think raising taxes over $100k is just fine. If it eliminates employer-provided healthcare via insurance companies, nearly everyone would experience a net gain increase in their biweekly paychecks. Combine that with better social security increases and reduced college expenses and people still come out far, far ahead. Any reduction in anxiety regarding retirement and college education access would also be a net gain.

Sure I'm fine with that. Honestly I never should have said $250k. That's too high and probably just me stick on current politics. $100k is closer to reality.

I just don't think we should be raising taxes on households making $40k, for instance.

I want to expand all these things and not tax anyone but the relatively well off. We can do this.

And bernie should not be running on that. He should be promising it for free for these households. By promoting tax raises on these folks, he guarantees a loss in the general.

It's bad enough he'll be painted as an atheist jewish socialist, but to throw in middle class tax raiser too? Adios comrade!

 

[Chichikov]

I don't understand to what your first paragraph references specifically.

As to the second, not everyone currently has insurance or pays for coverage. Those people will be seeing a hike. And while I agree their benefits will be greater than the taxes, it still reduces disposable income for them.

Like, on its face it's fine but I don't want to drop the disposable income of most folks right now. I'm not convinced the consumer expenditures side of the economy is strong enough at this moment for it.

Just provide the benefit and tax those whose taxes are too low and that's it.

I meant there aren't enough people who makes over 250k to get to the revenue numbers that is required to fund that program* even if you introduce a >90% confiscatory tax bracket (which is something I support for different reasons).
I agree that dropping disposable income for the middle and lower classes is a bad idea, but I think with the ACA's mandate in place it should be something that we can avoid, no?
There might be some edge cases, and for sure, we should look at the details carefully and try to make sure people don't get screwed by that, I don't think doing it now is super important since such legislation would have to go through the sausage factory which is congress, but I believe in broad terms that should be pretty damn doable.

* yeah, I'm sidestepping the question about whether our budget deficit is too high or if we couldn't get that money from somewhere else like cutting military spending (I think you know where I stand on both of those issues), I'm working within the framework of making the program revenue neutral.

Sure I'm fine with that. Honestly I never should have said $250k. That's too high and probably just me stick on current politics. $100k is closer to reality.

I just don't think we should be raising taxes on households making $40k, for instance.

I want to expand all these things and not tax anyone but the relatively well off. We can do this.

And bernie should not be running on that. He should be promising it for free for these households. By promoting tax raises on these folks, he guarantees a loss in the general.

It's bad enough he'll be painted as an atheist jewish socialist, but to throw in middle class tax raiser too? Adios comrade!

I think disposable income is what matters, you can't accept the framing that taxes=bad even if you end up with more money at hand and expect to get progress on such issues.

 

[Basileus777]

Is it that hard to use multi-quote?

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Sure I'm fine with that. Honestly I never should have said $250k. That's too high and probably just me stick on current politics. $100k is closer to reality.

I just don't think we should be raising taxes on households making $40k, for instance.

I want to expand all these things and not tax anyone but the relatively well off. We can do this.

And bernie should not be running on that. He should be promising it for free for these households. By promoting tax raises on these folks, he guarantees a loss in the general.

It's bad enough he'll be painted as an atheist jewish socialist, but to throw in middle class tax raiser too? Adios comrade!

So, I've been thinking about this recently: if the GE is Trump v. Sanders, what's Trump's path to victory? He's already going to lose the hispanic vote by at least 10 points more than Romney did and the black vote is firmly on the dem side as well. Meanwhile, white people represent less of the electorate than ever, so you actually have to get a higher percent of the white vote than in 2012 just to match Romney's performance, let alone exceed it. How does Trump get over this demographic hump? I've heard people say that he'd just need to increase white vote by 5%, but I don't think this factors in that he'll be losing hispanics by a wider margin and that white people are a smaller part of the electorate now.


Edit- can't seem to share the map, but the super-optimistic best case scenario I can conjure for Trump would still have him lose 272-266.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Factors like turnout will play a role.

But the path would pretty much be to spend spend spend on defining Sanders negatively and scaring moderates I imagine. Trump will tack and the RNC is already starting to turn towards him.

 

[disastermouse]

Sure I'm fine with that. Honestly I never should have said $250k. That's too high and probably just me stick on current politics. $100k is closer to reality.

I just don't think we should be raising taxes on households making $40k, for instance.

I want to expand all these things and not tax anyone but the relatively well off. We can do this.

And bernie should not be running on that. He should be promising it for free for these households. By promoting tax raises on these folks, he guarantees a loss in the general.

It's bad enough he'll be painted as an atheist jewish socialist, but to throw in middle class tax raiser too? Adios comrade!

I respect your sensitivity to realpolitik, I really do - but I have problems when it's the primary concern and not the motivation or secondary concern.

 

[disastermouse]

Is it that hard to use multi-quote?

On a phone, yeah. On the Mac now, so...

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Factors like turnout will play a role.

But the path would pretty much to spend spend spend on defining Sanders negatively and scaring moderates I imagine. Trump will tack and the RNC is already starting to turn towards him.

That's the thing though, I can't imagine anyone who qualifies as "moderate" ever voting in support of banning an entire religion of people from the country or deporting 12 million immigrants. Trump's best case scenario is that those people stay home or vote third party.

 

[Coriolanus]

The thing that gets me about this...is the Clinton's are so evil and cunning and smart...they plan everything in advance.....but she does something stupid with an email server to jeopardize the whole thing?

It just baffles me.

I've this pet theory that Hillary is

Spoiler

Thanos

.

Or, you know, we can just run a deficit like we've pretty much always done.
It doesn't have to be revenue neutral. In fact, taxes shouldn't matter.
As a society, we should spend what we want and then use taxes to help with inequality. Taxes and government revenue are not a balance sheet.

Dude struggles to explain democratic socialism to people, and then he'd also have to explain a fiat currency economy? fuuuck is that a tall order

but yeah, inserting (and pushing) that kinda narrative into the debates would be such an immense step. Also massively depressing when one sees the (likely) dem backlash against it, but hey, omelettes and eggs.

 

[disastermouse]

I've this pet theory that Hillary is

Spoiler

Thanos

.


Dude struggles to explain democratic socialism to people, and then he'd also have to explain a fiat currency economy? fuuuck is that a tall order

but yeah, inserting (and pushing) that kinda narrative into the debates would be such an immense step. Also massively depressing when one sees the (likely) dem backlash against it, but hey, omelettes and eggs.

So much to think about, and yeah, explain fiat currency economics to a constituency that's been fed the fable that government spending is exactly like their kitchen table budgeting? Holy ouch. Might as well say, "Unicorn: It's What's For Dinner."

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Nate's grasping for indicators. Interesting, nonetheless. 2008 dwarfs 2016 thus far.

Remember that the 2008 Iowa caucus was a month earlier. In December 2007, relative interest was 17, in Jan 2016, relative interest is 19 and can only go higher (although admittedly not much) - in other words in the month proceeding the caucus, Google searches for caucuses are 12% higher in '16 than '08. The massive spike to 100 in January '08 takes place after Obama had beaten Clinton, not before. This, of course, tells you again why it is so hugely important to get a win in Iowa. Wins get awareness.

Also, Nate Silver is good at stats but he's proved to be a fairly dreadful pundit so far this race. Kind of disappointed.

 

[disastermouse]

Remember that the 2008 Iowa caucus was a month earlier. In December 2007, relative interest was 17, in Jan 2016, relative interest is 19 and can only go higher (although admittedly not much) - in other words in the month proceeding the caucus, Google searches for caucuses are 12% higher in '16 than '08. The massive spike to 100 in January '08 takes place after Obama had beaten Clinton, not before. This, of course, tells you again why it is so hugely important to get a win in Iowa. Wins get awareness.

Also, Nate Silver is good at stats but he's proved to be a fairly dreadful pundit so far this race. Kind of disappointed.

Maybe you can remind me, how does interest in Sanders line up with interest in Obama back in '08 at this point in the process? I was (embarrassed) an Edwards fan at this point in the cycle in '08.

 

[campfireweekend]

I've this pet theory that Hillary is

Spoiler

Thanos

.


Dude struggles to explain democratic socialism to people, and then he'd also have to explain a fiat currency economy? fuuuck is that a tall order

but yeah, inserting (and pushing) that kinda narrative into the debates would be such an immense step. Also massively depressing when one sees the (likely) dem backlash against it, but hey, omelettes and eggs.

You guys keep pushing MMT, termed here as a fiat currency economics, like it's so irrevocably proven and obvious.

It is neither of those things, and in fact incredibly heterodox in the field of economics. Heterodox meaning rejected by most that have studied these things immensely more than you. Analogous to homeopathy and medical science really, in that neither have models that make sense or adequately explain the theory they purport.

I get it, it offered an easy way to reject austerity, and we can and fucking should run from austerity, but let's not leap to something just as crazy.

Austerity is stupid not because deficits dont matter. Deficits matter. Austerity is stupid because of the Keynesian idea of counter cyclical fiscal policy. Run deficits during recessions because the benefits out weight the costs. Don't run them during booms because why the fuck should you?

 

[disastermouse]

You guys keep pushing MMT, termed here as a fist currency economy, like it's so irrevocably proven and obvious.

It is neither of those things, and in fact incredibly heterodox in the field of economics.

We can and fucking should run from austerity, but let's not leap to something just as crazy.

Deficits matter. Run them during recessions because the benefits out weight the costs. Don't run them during booms because why the fuck should you?

Are we in a boom now? I don't feel it. I don't think that I'm alone. And that's the fucking point.

 

[Coriolanus]

You guys keep pushing MMT, termed here as a fiat currency economics, like it's so irrevocable proven and obvious.
It is neither of those things, and in fact incredibly heterodox in the field of economics. Heterodox meaning rejected by most that have studied these things immensely more than you. Analogous to homeopathy and medical science really, in that neither have models that make sense or adequately explain the theory they purport.
We can and fucking should run from austerity, but let's not leap to something just as crazy.
Deficits matter. Run them during recessions because the benefits out weight the costs. Don't run them during booms because why the fuck should you?

Are you genuinely trying to compare MMT to a fiat currency? Certainly you know that those are quite different things. And where, pray tell, have i mentioned that deficits don't matter?

But by all means, keep jabbing at that MMT windmill.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

On the topic of busing people places - did Obama do or have to do anything of the sort to spread his vote around, or was his organisation just that much better?

Obama's ground game was hugely driven by statistical analysis; he basically brought the wonks on. They figured out what methods can maximize turnout. E.g., any given voter who already intends to vote for you is essentially 50% more likely to vote from being canvassed on the morning, 40% from canvassed in the three days in advance, 30% from being texted on the day, 20% from being phoned on the day, and 10% by seeing some sort of reminder such as a yardsign or someone wearing a T-shirt (obviously the numbers I've made up, although it's roughly the right order). There are also other small things - people are more likely to turn up when canvassed by someone from the same areas as them. You also have to remember that some demographics are just innately less likely to vote; targeting your canvassing at young and working class people is much more effective because old and wealthy people are more likely to vote without prompting (this was Clinton 08's biggest mistake, she canvassed her strongest support bloc to maximize turnout, not realizing they'd turn out anyway).

They then co-ordinated all the Obama volunteers to be doing what had the greatest marginal effectiveness. That's why having so many campaign offices was important, because it meant the likelihood of having local people was higher. He also had the time to train and vet volunteers for most campaign offices - this has some drawbacks, because it decreases the number of volunteers you have available, but it meant that the volunteers were semi-professional. Finally, the Obama campaign handpicked precinct captains long in advance, and taught ones in key precints basic persuasion techniques and also delegate math - i.e., if having some of your supporters defect to a non-viable candidate helps more than it hinders.

Some things the Sanders campaign actually leads the Obama campaign on - it's made more phone calls and has more canvassers and volunteers signed up for the final GoTV push; I am almost certain there will be more doors knocked, phones called, and cells texted in '16 than '08. Some stuff it's very definitely behind in - the volunteers are essentially all unvetted, which risks what happened to Dean in '04 where the overenthusiasm of the volunteers had a net negative effect. The precinct captains are also essentially amateurs, very few have had delegate math lessons (whereas Clinton's key ones definitely have). It's difficult to tell whether Sanders can beat Obama on localism. He has less campaign locations (23 to Obama's 38), but many more satellite locations, which are essentially loosely organized by local volunteers that act as a focal point for people to spread out from, essentially campaign centres minus the staff; nobody really knows if this will work because it's more or less the first time it has been done on this scale. Maximizing marginal turnout is something all campaigns do now; both Sanders and Clinton are copying the Obama campaign on this front.

Sanders also obviously faces a problem Obama did not, which is distribution. Obama basically didn't have a distribution problem, his delegate and vote distributions matched really well - Clinton had a distribution benefit which was almost entirely to Edwards' loss. Difficult to tell how Sanders will deal with this because again it's not been a real problem before.

I think quite a lot of the newspapers talking up Clinton's ground game are just trying to play it safe because they expect a Clinton win anyway; I think it's quite difficult to discern at this point who has the better ground game. Clinton's is solid, but no way near Obama '08. Sanders' is a bit more of a risky gamble because he doesn't have the money to Obama '08 and so is trying out a lot of stuff in political terms that is basically untested - but the fundamentals are also there, if to a lesser extent than Clinton '16. I don't think there's an easy way to compare those when they split along such different axes. We'll only know on the night of Feb 1st, I guess.

 

[campfireweekend]

Are we in a boom now? I don't feel it. I don't think that I'm alone. And that's the fucking point.

By a lot of estimates we're just out of a recovery, and your anecdote doesn't really change that.

Not a boom, and we shouldn't be jeopardizing that recovery by attempting to run a surplus, but talking about indefinitely financing a single payer healthcare system off the backs of indefinite deficits, that is MMT nuttery.

Are you genuinely trying to compare MMT to a fiat currency? Certainly you know that those are quite different things. And where, pray tell, have i mentioned that deficits don't matter?

But by all means, keep jabbing at that MMT windmill.

The post you were responding to was literally saying that deficits don't matter. Spend what we want, use taxes solely as redistribution. That is not a mainstream idea.

But by all means, keep using the language of a theory, while trying to mask it as an inherent part of a fiat currency.

Do you know what a fiat currency is? A fiat currency does not give you license to spend whatever you want with literally no consequences, unless you're talking about under an MMT paradigm.

Unless you werent agreeing with Black Mamba when you quoted him, in which case clarify what you were saying.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Maybe you can remind me, how does interest in Sanders line up with interest in Obama back in '08 at this point in the process? I was (embarrassed) an Edwards fan at this point in the cycle in '08.

Significantly higher - Sanders is pulling in about 50% more search traffic than Obama was. Obvious caveats though: firstly, even in Dec '07, Obama was better known than Sanders is right now, particularly after the '04 Convention Speech, so people knew more about him, so there was slightly less reason to Google him. Secondly, Google traffic now is almost always somewhat higher than Google traffic then because there are more internet users now than then. I don't think that makes up for a 50% margin, but it accounts for a fair bit of it.

Genuinely, though, I think the bigger issue is that national searches are totally irrelevant. If Obama had lost Iowa, all the national searches in the world wouldn't have helped; and national searches almost certainly don't correlate with Iowa searches very well. Iowa is all that matters right now, as much as that pains democracy.

EDIT: Can't read graphs, should have been 50% more, not 350% more.

 

[Coriolanus]

The post you were responding to was literally saying that deficits don't matter. Spend what we want, use taxes solely as redistribution. That is not a mainstream idea.

But by all means, keep using the language of a theory, while trying to mask it as an inherent part of a fiat currency.

Do you know what a fiat currency is? A fiat currency does not give you license to spend whatever you want, unless you're talking about under an MMT paradigm.

Unless you werent agreeing with Black Mamba when you quoted him, in which case clarify what you were saying.

In order to even get to the deficits dont matter bit, first you'd have to make people understand fiat currency, and that's a hard sell by itself. I pointed out the latter. If you disagree with his bit, quote him.

 

[disastermouse]

By a lot of estimates we're just out of a recovery, and your anecdote doesn't really change that.

Not a boom, and we shouldn't be jeopardizing that recovery by attempting to run a surplus, but talking about indefinitely financing a single payer healthcare system off the backs of indefinite deficits, that is MMT nuttery.



The post you were responding to was literally saying that deficits don't matter. Spend what we want, use taxes solely as redistribution. That is not a mainstream idea.

But by all means, keep using the language of a theory, while trying to mask it as an inherent part of a fiat currency.

Do you know what a fiat currency is? A fiat currency does not give you license to spend whatever you want, unless you're talking about under an MMT paradigm.

Unless you werent agreeing with Black Mamba when you quoted him, in which case clarify what you were saying.

Don't condescend. Yeah, it's anecdotal, but I know I'm not the only one feeling it. This is the limpest recovery evar. And your inability to recognize that is what keeps you from understanding what's behind Sanders and, to a large extent, Trump.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

In order to even get to the deficits dont matter bit, first you'd have to make people understand fiat currency, and that's a hard sell by itself. I pointed out the latter. If you disagree with his bit, quote him.

Deficits do matter, though. You can't run a deficit indefinitely unless the deficit is such that the rate at which national debt increases is smaller than the rate at which national GDP increases (such that the interest burden in relative terms remains constant); and even though that's possible, it's probably not a good idea. A more accurate statement is that deficits don't matter in the short run.

 

[campfireweekend]

In order to even get to the deficits dont matter bit, first you'd have to make people understand fiat currency, and that's a hard sell by itself. I pointed out the latter. If you disagree with his bit, quote him.

In the latter part of your post you literally go on to say that it'd be depressing to see the dem backlash to attempting to explain a fiat currency and deficits not mattering. Depressing implying that you agree with the idea.

That is the idea I'm attacking because it is simply not true. It is also MMT, which you attempted to say you werent talking about. Deficits matter.

 

[Coriolanus]

Deficits do matter, though. You can't run a deficit indefinitely unless the deficit is such that the rate at which national debt increases is smaller than the rate at which national GDP increases (such that the interest burden in relative terms remains constant); and even though that's possible, it's probably not a good idea. A more accurate statement is that deficits don't matter in the short run.

I don't disagree that deficits do matter. We already had this discussion between us, mate.

In the latter part of your post you literally go on to say that it'd be disappointing to see the dem backlash to attempting to explain a fiat currency and deficits not mattering. Disappointing implying that you agree with the idea.

That is the idea I'm attacking because it is simply not true. Deficits matter.

I'm big on lying through your teeth to voters in order to get shit done.

Worked for Reagan

 

[disastermouse]

Deficits do matter, though. You can't run a deficit indefinitely unless the deficit is such that the rate at which national debt increases is smaller than the rate at which national GDP increases (such that the interest burden in relative terms remains constant); and even though that's possible, it's probably not a good idea. A more accurate statement is that deficits don't matter in the short run.

Are the deficits funded by debt? If they are, they don't matter at all in the long run. Look at Britain for that. Kills the landed gentry but doesn't affect anyone else.

Of course, in the long run, we're all dead.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Remember that the 2008 Iowa caucus was a month earlier. In December 2007, relative interest was 17, in Jan 2016, relative interest is 19 and can only go higher (although admittedly not much) - in other words in the month proceeding the caucus, Google searches for caucuses are 12% higher in '16 than '08. The massive spike to 100 in January '08 takes place after Obama had beaten Clinton, not before. This, of course, tells you again why it is so hugely important to get a win in Iowa. Wins get awareness.

Also, Nate Silver is good at stats but he's proved to be a fairly dreadful pundit so far this race. Kind of disappointed.

If we're going to dig that deep for indicators, it's probably worth noting that "Bernie Sanders" is generating considerably higher search volume in the month preceding this caucus than "Barack Obama" was in the month leading up to the '08 caucus (and Hillary/Obama had very similar search volume up to that point). Whether this will translate into anything on feb 1st is to be seen, of course.


For shits and giggles, this is how Bernie and Hillary are being searched on google specifically in Iowa over the last 12 months:
https://www.google.com/trends/explo...12-m&cmpt=q&q=bernie+sanders,+hillary+clinton

 

[Deleted member 231381]

In particular, conscious deficits normally don't work because the amount of time it takes to firstly realize how bad the recession is and that monetary policy is not sufficient, then plan e.g. infrastructure spending, then get it passed through parliament, then get most of the money spent on the wages of the people involved, and then have those people spend their wages is like 2-3 years. Unless you're talking something 2008-like in scale, most recessions don't even last 2-3 years and you just end up overheating the recovery into a bubble. Any deficits that should be run are only really going to work if they're automatic responses - the obvious one being unemployment benefits. As unemployment rises, the number of people receiving benefits goes up, so the deficit increases, and this happens at the same time as the economy is getting worse because it is automatically triggered by unemployment. The most effective means of combating recession fiscally is actually just a very strong welfare system, and not conscious fiscal management. Obviously there are exceptions, but as a general rule that's how it should work.