2020 Democratic Nominee

[washparkhorn 9,935]

$29 Trillion for Wall Street.

Between 2007 and 2016, the average wealth of the bottom 99 percent dropped by $4,500.

Over the same period, the average wealth of the top 1 percent rose by $4.9 million.

This drop hit the housing wealth of African Americans particularly hard. Outside of home equity, black wealth recovered its 2007 level by 2016.

But average black home equity was still $16,700 lower.

Much of this decline, we will argue, can be laid at the feet of President Obama. His housing policies led directly to millions of families losing their homes.

What’s more, Obama had the power — money, legislative tools, and legal leverage — to sharply ameliorate the foreclosure crisis.

He chose not to use it.

Why?

[JimmyJames 12,271]

3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Did you read the article?  Just curious why black families lost wealth under Obama.

Yes. I get it. You’re just “asking questions.” 

Black families, along with everyone else in the middle class, lost a shit ton of wealth due to republican disastrous policies that began with Reagan, culminated with Bush 2, came to a head in 2007 well before tan suit became president, and are being exacerbated to this day by president shitstain. 

Are you somehow ignorant to this fact or do we need to answer more of your stupid ass questions for you? 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

4 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

$29 Trillion for Wall Street.

Between 2007 and 2016, the average wealth of the bottom 99 percent dropped by $4,500.

Over the same period, the average wealth of the top 1 percent rose by $4.9 million.

This drop hit the housing wealth of African Americans particularly hard. Outside of home equity, black wealth recovered its 2007 level by 2016.

But average black home equity was still $16,700 lower.

Much of this decline, we will argue, can be laid at the feet of President Obama. His housing policies led directly to millions of families losing their homes.

What’s more, Obama had the power — money, legislative tools, and legal leverage — to sharply ameliorate the foreclosure crisis.

He chose not to use it.

Why?

So many questions. 

[washparkhorn 9,935]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Washpark, you still caping for tax cuts or are you playing at collectivist populism again?

Power to the people my neoliberal friend. Still putting the jackboot down the throats of the poor?

[henrygandorf 29,179]

pete has promised to maintain or grow home equity wealth for all the gays.

[washparkhorn 9,935]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Yes. I get it. You’re just “asking questions.” 

Black families, along with everyone else in the middle class, lost a shit ton of wealth due to republican disastrous policies that began with Reagan, culminated with Bush 2, came to a head in 2007 well before tan suit became president, and are being exacerbated to this day by president shitstain. 

Are you somehow ignorant to this fact or do we need to answer more of your stupid ass questions for you? 

Neoliberal economic policy started with Carter, went balls to the wall with Reagan/Bush I, was coronated as King by Clinton and rolled along with Bush/Obama. 

Parties are an outdated filter for political stances, as I am sure you know by now. Right? Low information voters (by design) vote straight ticket - they are trapped in silos. You trapped in a silo?

[washparkhorn 9,935]

White Suburban Democratic Party voter = thinks neoliberalism is a left wing policy, so will defend it when attacked.

Reality: Neoliberalism is a right wing economic policy. It preaches subsidies for the uber-wealthy and austerity for everyone else.

Wake up. 

 

[washparkhorn 9,935]

Left-wing Democrats (Sanders, Warren) in the US line with most center-right Euro parties. They are RIGHT of UK Conservatives.  

The US is that far right on the political spectrum - thanks to the long reign of neoliberalism.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

16 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Neoliberal economic policy started with Carter, went balls to the wall with Reagan/Bush I, was coronated as King by Clinton and rolled along with Bush/Obama. 

Parties are an outdated filter for political stances, as I am sure you know by now. Right? Low information voters (by design) vote straight ticket - they are trapped in silos. You trapped in a silo?

I voted for Bush dumbass. Twice. That was obviously a huge mistake. How about you comrade?

[JimmyJames 12,271]

And low information voters have now all coalesced in the trumplican Party sharing Facebook memes and posts with each other. Total ignorance.

[washparkhorn 9,935]

Jimmy - this article might help:

Quote

“‘The good news is that we may elect a Republican president this year,’ said Republican consultant Alex Castellanos. ‘The bad news is that it may be Bill Clinton.’”

How America broke up with the Democratic Party

In the past few decades, Americans “fell out of love” with the Democratic Party. What happened?

. . . Ironically, Republican President Eisenhower (1952-1960) knew that Americans loved FDR’s New Deal, and continued FDR’s trade policies. He had, after all, grown up with them (he was born in 1890), and fought World War II as the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe under FDR and led the invasion at Normandy.

He told his brother Edgar in a 1954 letter, “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.”

Eisenhower added, “There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are… Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

But Clinton and the “moderate” DLC Democrats embraced becoming Eisenhower Republicans, even as Eisenhower would have repudiated their policies.

. . . 

As Harry Truman once said, “The people don’t want a phony Democrat. If it’s a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat…”

As jobs and economic issues became the exclusive provenance of what the media calls “far-left” politicians like Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders, and the leadership of the Democratic Party stayed with Reaganomics, working people generally failed to show up in large enough numbers to keep George W. Bush out of the White House.

But George W. Bush didn’t repudiate Reaganomics, so the working class continued to stagnate economically. Frustrated Americans decided to take another try with the Democrats.

This set up Senator Barack Obama, who promised “hope and change,” to beat John McCain’s “steady as she goes” approach to the presidency.

But, vague rhetoric aside, Obama’s “change” was largely a continuation of Clinton’s Eisenhower-like corporate- and billionaire-friendly DLC policies. He restored dignity and sanity to the presidency, but also pushed hard to expand NAFTA-like outsourcing policies by throwing several years of political capital into the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was ultimately as unpopular among a majority of Americans as was NAFTA in 1992. And his support of organized labor was weak, at best.

Since 1981, not one American president has seriously challenged the neoliberal basis of Reaganomics. Billionaires and corporations now largely run our politics, to the point that average working people’s desires are about as likely to be made into law as random chance.

As a result, Pew found that only about half of Americans qualified as “middle class” by the beginning of the Obama presidency. “From 1971 to 2011, the share of adults in the middle class fell by 10 percentage points,” they noted.

With fewer than half of Americans qualifying as middle class by 2015, Pew concluded their study: “The hollowing of the middle has proceeded steadily for the past four decades.” Four decades earlier, of course, the Democratic Party began a course that culminated in Bill Clinton leading the party to turn its back on FDR and LBJ, and embrace Republican-lite economic and trade policies. 

https://www.salon.com/2019/12/18/how-america-broke-up-with-the-democratic-party_partner/

Bernie is attempting to move the Democratic Party back to their New Deal roots. DLC Democrats are scared of losing their golden teat.

Edited December 22, 2019 by washparkhorn

[washparkhorn 9,935]

Bernie in LA with AOC:

"It's called having values. 

It's called giving a damn."

[Message Board User 12,389]

27 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Bernie in LA with AOC:

"It's called having values. 

It's called giving a damn."

That Bernie appears to be making some headway in the polls shows just how unserious some Democrats are in winning 2020.  Him as the nominee would be an absolute gift to Dotard, guarantee his re-election, and fuck over down ballot Democrats in states and areas that aren't already deep blue.

But hey - they may lose the election, but at least they have values and give a damn.  So that's something I guess that could give the Twitter Democrats consolation as Trump further shits on the Constitution through 2024 and replaces RBG with Amy Barrett.

[washparkhorn 9,935]

39 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

That Bernie appears to be making some headway in the polls shows just how unserious some Democrats are in winning 2020.  Him as the nominee would be an absolute gift to Dotard, guarantee his re-election, and fuck over down ballot Democrats in states and areas that aren't already deep blue.

But hey - they may lose the election, but at least they have values and give a damn.  So that's something I guess that could give the Twitter Democrats consolation as Trump further shits on the Constitution through 2024 and replaces RBG with Amy Barrett.

Wasn't true in 2016. Bernie would have rolled Trump.

https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders

Is it true in 2020 (or just a Republican talking point)?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by washparkhorn
Added link to RCP polling.

[henrygandorf 29,179]

jesus, this shit again?  hillary’s numbers looked good vs trump in april too. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,294]

$29 Trillion for Wall Street.
Between 2007 and 2016, the average wealth of the bottom 99 percent dropped by $4,500.
Over the same period, the average wealth of the top 1 percent rose by $4.9 million.
This drop hit the housing wealth of African Americans particularly hard. Outside of home equity, black wealth recovered its 2007 level by 2016.
But average black home equity was still $16,700 lower.
Much of this decline, we will argue, can be laid at the feet of President Obama. His housing policies led directly to millions of families losing their homes.
What’s more, Obama had the power — money, legislative tools, and legal leverage — to sharply ameliorate the foreclosure crisis.
He chose not to use it.
Why?

Huh. Way back when we argued about the effect of the 2003 tax cuts you were more positive. What changed?

[washparkhorn 9,935]

9 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Huh. Way back when we argued about the effect of the 2003 tax cuts you were more positive. What changed?

As I recall, we were conversing about the effects of taxes on the employing class. No?

For those generating jobs, an increase in the income tax burden can hurt employment. Correct?

I am all in favor of Sanders and Warren's wealth taxes. You? 

Congrats if you are at $32.1 million wealth mark. If you have $10.1 billion, bravo. 

 

[Hank Scorpio 17,723]

1 hour ago, Message Board User said:

That Bernie appears to be making some headway in the polls shows just how unserious some Democrats are in winning 2020.  Him as the nominee would be an absolute gift to Dotard, guarantee his re-election, and fuck over down ballot Democrats in states and areas that aren't already deep blue.

But hey - they may lose the election, but at least they have values and give a damn.  So that's something I guess that could give the Twitter Democrats consolation as Trump further shits on the Constitution through 2024 and replaces RBG with Amy Barrett.

Exactly. The Democrats need run a centrist campaign and focus on flipping suburban Republican voters. Don’t take radical positions like giving everyone healthcare. Play it safe and down the middle, that’s the smart plan. 

[washparkhorn 9,935]

33 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

jesus, this shit again?  hillary’s numbers looked good vs trump in april too. 

It was June, 2016. And Hillary's numbers were not as good as Sanders. 

https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

But the point was made in response to the question of whether Sanders is competitive against Trump. He was and he is. 

[washparkhorn 9,935]

5 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Exactly. The Democrats need run a centrist campaign and focus on flipping suburban Republican voters. Don’t take radical positions like giving everyone healthcare. Play it safe and down the middle, that’s the smart plan. 

That is not where the energy or the votes are for the Democratic Party going into 2020. See combined totals of Warren and Sanders v. Biden/Buttigieg. 

It may be a cozy idea for those living in white suburbs. But it was tried and failed. See 2016. 

[Hank Scorpio 17,723]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

That is not where the energy or the votes are for the Democratic Party going into 2020. See combined totals of Warren and Sanders v. Biden/Buttigieg. 

It may be a cozy idea for those living in white suburbs. But it was tried and failed. See 2016. 

Wrong. After 4 years of Trump may Republican voters are fed up with him. Just look at his polling. Those voters are ready to flip and the Democrats need to be smart and target them rather than wasting their breath with medicare for all BS that any healthcare lobbyist can tell you is a fairy tale. 

[washparkhorn 9,935]

Trump has essentially the same approval numbers as he did when he entered office. 

January 20-19, 2017 - 45%

Latest approval rating - 45%

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

He also has a fired up base now because of the impeachment.

Edited December 22, 2019 by washparkhorn

[Bozo_Casanova 26,294]

As I recall, we were conversing about the effects of taxes on the employing class. No?
For those generating jobs, an increase in the income tax burden can hurt employment. Correct?
I am all in favor of Sanders and Warren's wealth taxes. You? 
Congrats if you are at $32.1 million wealth mark. If you have $10.1 billion, bravo. 
 

Do we really need to do this again? Like everybody who takes this seriously, I understand that stimulus stimulates. That’s question is how much, and whether it’s worth it? You have repeatedly justified lowering the tax burden on the highest incomes while repeatedly arguing against cutting payroll taxes in the equivalent amount instead. So you’re... a bit inconsistent here.

As I’ve explained to you before, my Republican friend, for “those generating jobs” in the productive economy (as opposed to lawyers, who aren’t real business people) the tax burden isn’t the primary driver of employment. Demand is. Fundamentally, aggregate demand and investment in productivity is what drives job creation. So no, giving high income people more take home pay only drives employment to the extent that they spend the money. And even then it depends. Thanks though - my kid seems to be headed for someplace expensive for college.

Finally, I don’t see how a “wealth tax” works because I don’t see how you practically put a tax on unrealized capital gains. I’d far rather shift from productivity to consumption and VAT taxes. But if they are talking about a tax on economic rent or unrealized land value I could probably get behind that. Like they say, “everybody works but the vacant lot.”

[washparkhorn 9,935]

I appreciate your ideas bc. As always. I am studying VAT taxation, but a little hung up on the regressive element to it and what it does to demand. Adam Smith called for taxation of economic rent, not income. Excessive idle wealth in the hands of the few is problematic to me in an economy that thrives on the movement of money throughout the system. I am sure the tax experts who designed the system probably can figure out how to create some velocity to that idleness. Still exploring. Cheers you old codger. 

Edited December 22, 2019 by washparkhorn

[RayDog 682]

4 hours ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Wrong. After 4 years of Trump may Republican voters are fed up with him. Just look at his polling. Those voters are ready to flip and the Democrats need to be smart and target them rather than wasting their breath with medicare for all BS that any healthcare lobbyist can tell you is a fairy tale. 

Bullshit. There are a lot more new millennial and Z voters ready to vote for Bernie or Warren than Trump voters willing to flip.

The Boomer plus vote is dying off at 7% every 4 years and being replaced by Millennials and Z's. Catering to the middle is an approach doomed to failure.

So, of course, that is what Republicans and Russian trolls want Democrats to do.

Edited December 22, 2019 by RayDog

[BradInATX 9,208]

Neoliberal economic policy started with Carter, went balls to the wall with Reagan/Bush I, was coronated as King by Clinton and rolled along with Bush/Obama. 
Parties are an outdated filter for political stances, as I am sure you know by now. Right? Low information voters (by design) vote straight ticket - they are trapped in silos. You trapped in a silo?

..

[GSU&UT 1,798]

3 hours ago, RayDog said:

Bullshit. There are a lot more new millennial and Z voters ready to vote for Bernie or Warren than Trump voters willing to flip.

The Boomer plus vote is dying off at 7% every 4 years and being replaced by Millennials and Z's. Catering to the middle is an approach doomed to failure.

So, of course, that is what Republicans and Russian trolls want Democrats to do.

How long have you posted on this board that you're unfamilar with Hank.

[Js1 85,120]

And African Americans and the olds are the most likely to show up and vote in primaries. 

Joe wins. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,362]

Good thing we don’t determine the nominee by polls.

[Js1 85,120]

We know Hugo. They’re wrong. It’s in your heart. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,362]

The polls aren’t wrong.  They way we interpret data as predictive of the nomination results is wrong and there is a mountain of historical primary polling data to point to as evidence.

Look at the polling data up to this point (late December) in every previous presidential primary race and see how predictive they were as to the nominee.  

Whatever happened to Gingrich in 2012?

 

How about Giuliani in 2008?

 

Hillary Clinton in 2008?

 

 

 

 The 2016 Primary is the outlier when the front runner actually held on to win the nomination and Joe Biden has nothing close to the lead Hillary or Trump had at this juncture.

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,362]

Me watching Joe Biden win the nomination.

[HenryJames 65,890]

 

[washparkhorn 9,935]

46 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

Who in their right mind would vote for this sociopath?

Edited December 24, 2019 by washparkhorn

[workswithseed 2,037]

3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Who in their right mind would vote for this sociopath?

Kamala Harris.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,362]

 

[Hank Scorpio 17,723]

 

 

[DDD Dad 14,252]

16 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

 

She seems nice.

 

[HenryJames 65,890]

2 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Who in their right mind would vote for this sociopath?

Sixty three million Americans voted for someone infinitely worse.

[washparkhorn 9,935]

3 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Sixty three million Americans voted for someone infinitely worse.

Great point. Are we talking about Hillary, Clinton or both? 
 

the era of voting for the less worse candidate needs to end. 

[Jack Straw 2,953]

On 12/21/2019 at 11:24 PM, Hank Scorpio said:

Wrong. After 4 years of Trump may Republican voters are fed up with him. Just look at his polling. Those voters are ready to flip and the Democrats need to be smart and target them rather than wasting their breath with medicare for all BS that any healthcare lobbyist can tell you is a fairy tale. 

😂

It’s true though.  Trump’s approval among Republicans has plummeted down to 99% recently.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,362]

 

[Pancho 44,492]

On 12/21/2019 at 6:49 PM, washparkhorn said:

$29 Trillion for Wall Street.

Between 2007 and 2016, the average wealth of the bottom 99 percent dropped by $4,500.

Over the same period, the average wealth of the top 1 percent rose by $4.9 million.

This drop hit the housing wealth of African Americans particularly hard. Outside of home equity, black wealth recovered its 2007 level by 2016.

But average black home equity was still $16,700 lower.

Much of this decline, we will argue, can be laid at the feet of President Obama. His housing policies led directly to millions of families losing their homes.

What’s more, Obama had the power — money, legislative tools, and legal leverage — to sharply ameliorate the foreclosure crisis.

He chose not to use it.

Why?

Just stop. 

[tantric superman 4,667]

On 12/21/2019 at 11:25 PM, washparkhorn said:

Trump has essentially the same approval numbers as he did when he entered office. 

January 20-19, 2017 - 45%

Latest approval rating - 45%

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

He also has a fired up base now because of the impeachment.

I think they're fired up because they smell meskin and lesbian blood, but the point stands.

[Fozzz 152]

The Warren campaign has run its course.  Warren badly needs the media to get back on her side, but I don't see why that would happen.

 

[Fozzz 152]

Why would anyone support that fake Native American?  It's clear her entire purpose in this campaign is to suppress Sanders' chances of winning.

Quote

At the beginning of the year — another high point for Sanders’ campaign, before Warren surged — some establishment Democrats talked about how to stop his momentum. Brock, who has a close relationship with many Democratic donors, said he has not heard anything like that in recent weeks: “That doesn’t mean it won’t happen. This is more of an analysis in the political world than in the donor world.”

Many moderate Democrats still dismiss Sanders’ candidacy. They believe his so-called ceiling remains intact and that Warren will depress any room for growth he might otherwise have.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/26/can-bernie-sanders-win-2020-election-president-089636

[Js1 85,120]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

The Warren campaign has run its course.  Warren badly needs the media to get back on her side, but I don't see why that would happen.

 

[henrygandorf 29,179]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

It's clear her entire purpose in this campaign is to suppress Sanders' chances of winning.

if joe biden wins the nomination, there will be a lot of sanders people blaming warren and warren people blaming sanders.  those two are pals, but i guarantee you their supporters will be doing a lot of bitching and finger-pointing if shit goes down that way.  you can't stop what's coming.

[Js1 85,120]

Actually an extremely stable primary polling year in 2019

 

[tantric superman 4,667]

I'm about ready to give up.  Fuck it.

Dotard v. Dotard.  May the least continent win!