If you campaign for $15 and fail, why would they give in to $12?
-
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 2016 |OT4| Tyler New Chief Exit Pollster at CNN
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
If you campaign for $15 and fail, why would they give in to $12?
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
You're giving way too much credit to Donald Trump if you think he invented some of the basic tenets of negotiation, but if it gets in a quick dig at Sanders supporters then, hey, more power to ya I guess.
Macho Madness
Member
Congress. There's always give and take.
With Congress it's the deciding vote that has the negotiating power. It's why we don't have a public option, not because Obama didn't negotiate well enough but because the deciding vote in the Senate didn't want it. It's not like haggling over a split check.
Orbis Tabula
Member
I'm not convinced that's a realistic view of how these things happen. Open to being convinced, though. I just don't see any reason why 15 getting rejected gives Democrats leverage to get 12.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
That's a pretty cynical approach. Thank god gaf isn't involved in hostage negotiation.
"Will you let all the hostages out right now?"
"No!"
"Well fuck, alright, I don't know what else to do but let you keep them. Good game."
How will a failed $15 wage vote convince the deciding vote to vote in favor of $12 wage?
Negotiating with Congress isn't the same as that though. You can only go as far as the deciding vote will let you and there's only so much leverage you have. In a hostage situation there's the specter of a SWAT team hanging over the entire thing, there's no such equivalent in a negotiation with Congress. You can apply pressure or try to sweeten the pot, but that won't always work because at the end of the day they're held captive by what their constituents will allow them to do.
Orbis Tabula
Member
I don't think that the argument is "no negotiating strategies work. Let's give up." It's that different games (games in a game theoretic sense) have different strategies that are successful. Comparing Congress to a hostage situation or haggling at a market may not be a fair comparison as different rules and forces are at play.
Primethius
Banned
I haven't had a chance to catch up to this thread in a while.
What are the expected results from today's primaries?
Edit: Figures I'd be at the top...
What are the expected results from today's primaries?
Edit: Figures I'd be at the top...
Butts-a-plenty
Banned
Well that's not true. Take Switzerland for example. The health insurance companies there are required to provide basic insurance that covers sickness and accident at a nonproft rate. The government will subsidize for people who would spend more than 8% of their income on that basic plan.
But beyond that insurance are allowed to make a profit on any other plans they offer.
Cost controls could be enabled to provide a similar model in the US. Given our history I'd expect maybe 25 years from now? I'm thinking long term for what is actually achievable. Not what I'd like to see.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
It's not a dig, it's just a stupid observation I made. I see tensions are higher than ever.
Aaron Strife
Banned
There are Republican controlled states that have expanded Medicaid, and we can get more by booting out GOP governors.
Public option can be implemented at the state level as well.
Cost controls... Well if the GOP is serious about fiscal conservatism that should be an easy sell.
Macho Madness
Member
Bernie and Cruz
Very likely not changing anything for the Dems but this could stop Trump from getting 1237.
The controlling party has all the cards. The House is gerrymandered, incumbency rates are still absurdly high.
How do you punish a failed $15 vote into a $12 successful vote? There is no storming the hostage situation with a special ops team.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I think there is. The threat that your constituency might kick you out if you vote like an asshole is the SWAT team in this scenario. The tricky part, obviously, is that what you'll get voted out for is a lot different in Alabama than it is in Minnesota.
That's an extremely weak threat with current incumbency rates. Especially since the GOP is more scared of tea party primary votes then vs Dems in many states and state govs.
There only vulnerable points is the senate and that still won't get things passed.
Macho Madness
Member
You're just making the argument for $15. If $12 doesn't bring anyone to the table that $15 wouldn't, why bother with $12?
Primethius
Banned
Thanks! Much appreciated.
That's the thing though, not everyone is in a blue state. This is closer to negotiating with a hostage than a hostage taker. There's only so far they can go. The whole reason we didn't get a public option is because the deciding vote didn't want it, they would have been voted out had they agreed. Starting from single payer wouldn't have changed that at all. Congress requires a completely different negotiating strategy than what most of us are used to.
I wonder if Trump will try to change up his formula after his expected loss tonight. Would a pivot toward establishment voters Cruz or help Cruz?
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Yeah, "the people" have a lot more power than they think. How high minimum wage could go, among a lot of other issues, is mostly a matter of public support for it being high enough. Unfortunately, a lot of "the people" right now are tea party lunatics, as you mentioned. We just saw $15 pass in California though, so it's certainly possible if the political will and the populace is behind it. California is home to one out of every eight people in the country, so we're already pretty far along.
He's just going to go HAM on Cruz before NY. Cruz was against Zadroga and combine that with his earlier comments and he's going to be destroyed in this state. All Trump has to do is go hard and he'll win big.
It's also in the next NY budget, but not everywhere is NY and Cali.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I got to see Trump last night
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze4DQAzlzRA&index=2&list=PLiZxWe0ejyv_qt5825jVFBBAC52Vp1yAK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze4DQAzlzRA&index=2&list=PLiZxWe0ejyv_qt5825jVFBBAC52Vp1yAK
Box of Kittens
Banned
Agreed. People have this view of negotiating where it's entirely about staking an extreme opening position and then negotiating down to what you really want. It's just not that simple. What leverage do you really have if everyone knows your opening position is a non-starter?
I've seen a lot of complaints over the years about "Democrats compromising with themselves" and I just think that misses a lot of nuance. I've seen it suggested that Obama should have started his health care push with single payer and then used that to get the compromise position be the public option. The problem is that there weren't even close to enough votes for single payer in Congress and everyone knew it. The response would simply be "no." Now others have suggested that Obama should have started with a proposal that was to the left of what he did propose, but short of single payer, with the hopes of getting a better deal. I think there can be legitimate debate and discussion about what would have been the optimal opening proposal for Obama to have made, but it certainly wasn't single payer.
That will depend on how big donald loss is tonight in Wisconsin. If he gets around 35% of the vote and wins some congressional districts I think he may still be on track to win the republican nomination.
ugaboga232
Member
So there you go, its a utility if they have to offer the same rates as the government. Extras are extras, its still looking at healthcare as a utility. Thats all I was saying, at some point we have to take the swiss approach. 25 years seems a bit long term given all the absurd revolutions in medicine coming out that may change the political calculus but its a decent estimate. I don't think we are particularly disagreeing either lol
We know the GOP is not serious, often the poorest and worst medicaid wise are the ones that reject it so while its working, much of the incremental progress scheme isn't that straightforward.
Captain Pants
Killed by a goddamned Dredgeling
I assume there are exceptions when it comes to increasing the minimum wage that much... I mean, I pay my one employee $16.50 here and I'd gladly pay him more if I could, but I don't see a $12 or $15 minimum wage being viable here in Idaho.
Orbis Tabula
Member
I think it comes from viewing the negotiations as two party (that is, two entities, not literally two political parties). Like, Democrats want A and Republicans want Z and we'll compromise on M. And if it were like that, maybe it would happen. But that's not what it is. It's one group of Democrats wants A, another group wants G, a few want N (but they're basically Republicans), some Republicans know M is great, but have to serve constituents who want Y. Some people want Aleph or Epsilon. Some representatives who want T might be happy with M, provided they get some federal money for a bridge. Some just want to make sure nothing gets picked. There's no simple middle ground between these positions that two rational actors will converge on. It's an entirely different type of negotiation.
Butts-a-plenty
Banned
They just got the OK to collect signatures for the fall in DC that would raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour gradually by 2020
I don't understand. $12 probably does get you support that $15 doesn't.
Beyond any concerns about that high of a minimum wage as policy, the worry here about a presidential candidate talking about a $15 minimum wage is that it will be less popular. It might seem so unreasonably high that people will believe arguments about how it will kill jobs. These people will therefore be less likely to vote for that candidate (and also other Democrats) and will more firmly believe that the Democrats don't understand business, aren't fiscally responsible, want to give out freebies without considering the costs, etc., which is a branding problem. It is possible that a candidate elected on a mandate to put into place a $12/hr minimum wage could actually get that through Congress when a candidate who argued for a $15/hr minimum wage and elected with less of the vote and with fewer seats changing parties could not. Or at least it could give the Democrats more seats even if it can't be passed itself.
Maybe it wouldn't work out that way, but that's the political risk. People, including Republicans, generally do want a higher minimum wage, so there's political advantage in advocating for that. But it is possible to go too high. Obviously it would hurt a candidate to talk about how their top priority would be to pass a $1000/hr minimum wage.
Now, it's possible to make the argument the other way, and say that you'll get more support from the voters by being more extreme, but this is mostly not very plausible. This is Sanders' political revolution or the standard conservative argument about how the problem is that Republicans aren't conservative enough. I think the much more plausible argument for advocating for a higher-than-is-probably-feasible minimum wage - and one reason why at least until somewhat recently I was very happy to have Sanders in the race - is that you're changing people's ideas about the range of acceptable political opinions in the long run. But this still isn't about trying to pass something after the next election; it's looking ahead to what you might be able to do a decade from now.
And_Gignac
Member
Wooo, what kind of prophetic skills? Sanders judgement is top notch. (Clinton supported the trade hihi)
Bernie opposed the 2011 Panama Free Trade Agreement because he was worried it would increasingly allow wealthy Americans and large corporations to evade U.S. taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens
Ugh, why is he ALWAYS on the right side of history? Is not fair for his competition.
I hope he talks plenty about this in the next debate.
Bernie opposed the 2011 Panama Free Trade Agreement because he was worried it would increasingly allow wealthy Americans and large corporations to evade U.S. taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens
Ugh, why is he ALWAYS on the right side of history? Is not fair for his competition.
I hope he talks plenty about this in the next debate.
Fenderputty
Banned
It would seem I made an incorrect assumption about UHC (for some reason I was thinking it was government ran healthcare like England and not just a statement about universal coverage), but my comment about a single payer system a la sweden still stands. We could adopt a Sweden like program (single payer) here and it wouldn't uproot our entire system and labor force currently in place.
So not fair his campaign is losing by as much as Obama lost Louisiana.
I don't hate Sestak, but he is/was much less progressive than he was letting on and then turning around and saying things like this
Fuckouttahere
Spoiled Milk
Banned
I am sure there are more Clinton emails in there somewhere. The GOP is still looking.
ugaboga232
Member
Y2kev worried his investments will be traced back to him
You know we can do this too with Sanders whenever there's a gun-related massacre. Which is like every day.
Butts-a-plenty
Banned
I saw Ben Ghazi was listed...hmmm.
ugaboga232
Member
How so? I know he was against some gun control bills for ~reasons~ but he seems to target mental healthcare and better background checks.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Fuckity fuck
Thequietone
Member
I can hear the Sanders supporters now. Even if he wins the state they'll claim that the DNC/Hillary are behind this.
Edit: Yep, just like I thought. The new voter ID laws are holding up the line. Disgusting.
Edit: Yep, just like I thought. The new voter ID laws are holding up the line. Disgusting.
QuiteWhittle
Member
Seriously fuck the DNC and their obstruction.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
It's so ridiculous how voter ID is treated even after we had that Pennsylvania Republican Leader literally say it was about winning elections back in 2012.
It's like, what else can possibly happen to change the way the media talks about it if that wasn't good enough?
It's like, what else can possibly happen to change the way the media talks about it if that wasn't good enough?
Thequietone
Member
I'm guessing sarcasm but I can't even tell anymore.
Protip in case you are serious: Blame Walker and his voter ID law.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked