Jump to content

Trump vs Beto

Nice Guy Eddie

By Nice Guy Eddie
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30261

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

I see. Quite an active imagination you have there. Then again, I’m just speaking from the perspective of someone that has spent a considerable amount of time in all 3 of those States in 2018 talking to voters in a professional capacity. I could be way off

Then tell us how the redistricting in those three states won't have an effect on 2020.   I'm thinking it is not a small issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3660

Posted
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 Probably not. But that's a terrible reason for not raising the minimum wage when doing so has a positive impact on the economy.

The Seattle example is funny given how much the city has grown.  Guess what the only wage group is that has experienced both higher unemployment and lower monthly pay?  It shouldn't take but one.

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89738

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

I see. Quite an active imagination you have there. Then again, I’m just speaking from the perspective of someone that has spent a considerable amount of time in all 3 of those States in 2018 talking to voters in a professional capacity. I could be way off

You planning on attending Lou Barletta’s swearing-in ceremony?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13218

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Revolution512 said:

Is it? Or is it pointing out common sense often lost on libs?

What is the point you're trying (and failing) to make?

I have never heard a pro-minimum-wage-hike argument that was, "If you do not raise minimum wage, the local economy will suffer."

I'd be interested for you to show me otherwise, though.

(You won't.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85442

Posted
Posted
On ‎11‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 9:38 AM, Js1 said:

Other than random Representative announcing a while back, O/U on first official announcement from big time candidate (Beto, Harris, Booker, Warren, THE FIELD)?

I say 1/15/2019.

We know have 2 U.S. Representatives who've announced.  Eric Swalwell just announced.

No big names yet.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45992

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If only trump can slow that caravan down until they are just south of the border in early November 2020..  he can pick up 100% of the electoral votes.   Even Hawaii. 

There's no need.  There will be a 2019 caravan and a 2020 caravan fully suited for him to fear-monger with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3660

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Fine. What do you propose?

First, I want to point out that minimum wage increases can "work" given the right market conditions.  What spurred Seattle's move to a $13/$15 increase was the success of their $11 increase.  UW did a study that showed the jobs effected exhibited a very low elasticity, few vulnerable jobs affected, few vulnerable businesses effected, yada yada.  It was also tailored to be protectionist: exemptions for small and local business, certain industries, etc.   But for those reasons it also didn't have much of an impact on the overall market.

It's when Seattle broadened and further raised the wage that the scales tipped.  The elasticity was triple what the city expected, low-wage job growth declined, hours were reduced, and a single modest wage earner was able to replace multiple low earners.  All bad things for the people who thought were to benefit.

----

I don't like like price manipuation to begin with.  I don't think the risks are worth it.  If you want to effect a price, you pressure the market.

You can do this by reducing the supply of low-skill workers (mostly immigration policy on the national level), but Davis-Bacon and such also protect local workers from cheaper labor in limited applications.

The opposite side would be to increase labor demand.  Build roads, parks, schools, libraries, airports, power and tech grid improvements, etc.  Infrastructure!  Offer incentives for a large factory or corporate headquarters to locate in your municipality.  Bascially, grow your city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18938

Posted
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, JBJ said:

First, I want to point out that minimum wage increases can "work" given the right market conditions.  What spurred Seattle's move to a $13/$15 increase was the success of their $11 increase.  UW did a study that showed the jobs effected exhibited a very low elasticity, few vulnerable jobs affected, few vulnerable businesses effected, yada yada.  It was also tailored to be protectionist: exemptions for small and local business, certain industries, etc.   But for those reasons it also didn't have much of an impact on the overall market.

It's when Seattle broadened and further raised the wage that the scales tipped.  The elasticity was triple what the city expected, low-wage job growth declined, hours were reduced, and a single modest wage earner was able to replace multiple low earners.  All bad things for the people who thought were to benefit.

----

I don't like like price manipuation to begin with.  I don't think the risks are worth it.  If you want to effect a price, you pressure the market.

You can do this by reducing the supply of low-skill workers (mostly immigration policy on the national level), but Davis-Bacon and such also protect local workers from cheaper labor in limited applications.

The opposite side would be to increase labor demand.  Build roads, parks, schools, libraries, airports, power and tech grid improvements, etc.  Infrastructure!  Offer incentives for a large factory or corporate headquarters to locate in your municipality.  Bascially, grow your city.

Good answer. And while I agree that if you want to affect a price, you pressure the market, workers are often at an extreme disadvantage when it comes to the market setting the price of labor. If the market is unable to provide an adequate wage, the state has to pick up the slack. The minimum wage is an effort by the state to make sure its citizens aren't saddled with the negative social and economic costs associated with inadequate wages and/or unemployment. 

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30261

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, texastough said:

Because redistricting happens after the 2020 census and won't have an effect until 2022?

There are other ways that voting districts can be changed.  Lawsuits are a shortcut version.  North Carolina and Pennsylvania are recent examples.   Pennsylvania's  Gerrymandering suit resulted in significant changes to the districts.  North Carolina almost redistricted right before the election.  See https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/04/north-carolina-redistricting-midterms-807155 

 A federal court ruled that the Republican-controlled N.C. legislature had unconstitutionally gerrymandered our state’s congressional districts along racial lines.  The Governor, a Democrat, had a NC GOP Super Majority that stripped him of power before he took office, and he did not have the numbers to avoid an override of his vetoes.  This Mid-term ended that super majority btw.   But in a normal legislative world, a Governor as the State itself can choose to support or to oppose litigation challenging the constitutionality of the redistricting.  But the fpolitical process effected the judicial process, as the NC GOP fought the lawsuit from a position of power.

The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit alleging that the congressional district lines were unconstitutionally gerrymandered in the GOP's favor.  The trial court said it was not.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, said it "clearly, plainly and palpably" violated the state constitution.   It got changed.

The Wisconsin Gerrymandring case was sent back on procedural standing grounds months before the midterms.   I don't know enough about it to have a feel for the re-do time period, but there are ways to jump start the process.    Those suits seem to me  to be a way to jump-start a redistricting, and a way that avoids the usual give and take where both sides get bullshit safe zones.      Having Governors and AG's who are Democrats supporting the redistricting suits seems like a powerful assist.   Could be wrong.

 

  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21154

Posted
Posted
On 11/7/2018 at 6:41 PM, bad_teammate said:

He can't. Conservatives argue every time that they result in job losses. That is a lie, but it's the only lie they have.

And they can't challenge their assumptions, because the Koch brothers haven't told FOX News to challenge that assumption yet.

I'm a fiscal conservative and am ok with bumping up min wage.  Maybe not to Seattle levels but it needs to be bumped up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16584

Posted
Posted
I'm a fiscal conservative and am ok with bumping up min wage.  Maybe not to Seattle levels but it needs to be bumped up. 
It's a localalzed issue - $15 makes sense in the Seattles of the world but not Arkansas. At this point though, $7.25 is too low anywhere.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13515

Posted
  • Author
Posted

We should set a minimum wage by state and for each major metro areas based on some equalizing formula.   Then tie it to CPI or some inflationary #.   Finally adjust those min wages each January 1st or some other agreed upon date.   

Ultimately minimum wage employees retain the same buying power each year.  

Instead today we create a static min wage for the better part of a decade which then require large increases. we then hear business owners whine.  A smaller annual labor cost increase should help the owners.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Fun fact---O'Rourke's father-in-law is worth more than Trump.  He'd be a better candidate than Hillary for sure.  But I don't think he'd win.  Plus, I think/hope Trump isn't "available" for the 2020 election cycle.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13218

Posted
Posted (edited)

Beto should not, under any circumstances, go after Trump or retweet Trump. Beto's Whataburger Spicy Ketchup logo is the best brand in politics right now by miles and people genuinely love it.

He can generate media buzz all on his own. He doesn't need to ride the Trump wave.

Media types will continue to fawn over his boyish charm and drive-thru drum solos. He will travel the country with that off-center smile and the voters in Iowa will be just as in love with him as millions of Texans were. His social media will explode. He'll hang out with Obama in Chicago and the wine moms will spontaneously combust with "OH MY GOD I CAN'T EVEN!" Facebook posts. He'll throw some brush around with Dubya at Crawford and those women's husbands will shrug and say, "Well, maybe."

There is ZERO upside to him jousting with Trump. There is no point. I literally cannot think of a reason he would want to do that.

Millions and millions of Americans actually, genuinely like Beto O'Rourke. ANY association with Trump throws mud on that brand. Trump is fecal Midas, and Beto doesn't want any poop flecks on that black and white sign.

Please, Dems, do not screw this up. Do not let Donald Trump be the central idea and figure of the 2020 election.

Edited by bad_teammate
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105161

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Beto should not, under any circumstances, go after Trump or retweet Trump. Beto's Whataburger Spicy Ketchup logo is the best brand in politics right now by miles and people genuinely love it.

He can generate media buzz all on his own. He doesn't need to ride the Trump wave.

Media types will continue to fawn over his boyish charm and drive-thru drum solos. He will travel the country with that off-center smile and the voters in Iowa will be just as in love with him as millions of Texans were. His social media will explode. He'll hang out with Obama in Chicago and the wine moms will spontaneously combust with "OH MY GOD I CAN'T EVEN!" Facebook posts. He'll throw some brush around with Dubya at Crawford and those women's husbands will shrug and say, "Well, maybe."

There is ZERO upside to him jousting with Trump. There is no point. I literally cannot think of a reason he would want to do that.

Millions and millions of Americans actually, genuinely like Beto O'Rourke. ANY association with Trump throws mud on that brand. Trump is fecal Midas, and Beto doesn't want any poop flecks on that black and white sign.

Please, Dems, do not screw this up. Do not let Donald Trump be the central idea and figure of the 2020 election.

I can't decide whether this is spot-on, or 10,000 miles off the mark.

It's one of the two.  And seriously, I'm not yet sure which one it is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom

Tom 2959

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I can't decide whether this is spot-on, or 10,000 miles off the mark.

It's one of the two.  And seriously, I'm not yet sure which one it is.

 

I think he's spot-on regarding his campaign trail strategy.  No need to sling mud or campaign dirty and negative.  Don't sink to Trump's level.

But Beto was way too passive in the first debate that I watched with him and Cruz.  At some point you need to stand up for yourself and call out bullshit as bullshit.  I thought he let Cruz get the best of him in Dallas and leaned way too much on anecdotes from the trail instead of just saying "you're wrong, and here's why."  Trump will eat him alive if he debates the same way.

 In fairness, that was the only debate I saw, so he might have been more aggressive in the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13218

Posted
Posted

Debates are a different story, obviously.

#1 - Look good
#2 - Sound confident
#3 - 1 or 2 solid burns (that's all the media will be able to regurgitate anyway, even if you have 50 good ones)
#4 - Big, attractive proposals that are easy to understand (Medicare for All, federal decrim of marijuana, federal jobs guarantee, etc...)

This man came within a few points of beating an incumbent Republican Senator in Texas. He is a political force all on his own. He is a Democrat, but he is not part of the machine. He is his own brand.

Know who else were their own brands?

- Barack Obama
- Donald Trump

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LCHorn

LCHorn 2624

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I can't decide whether this is spot-on, or 10,000 miles off the mark.

It's one of the two.  And seriously, I'm not yet sure which one it is.

Sean Iling did an interview on Vox.com a week or so ago with an academic whose most recently published book was on disinformation and lies.  His advice was that addressing anything Trump repeats head on only empowers the Trump message in the empty heads of his base.  

 

He basically suggested a form of rhetorical jujitsu-you keep hammering on your message, don’t repeat anything Trump says, and hope you can bring enough attention that your voice carries above the noise.  Axelrod has echoed this without the academic foundation to justify it.  

I think a good metaphor for it is like eating sugar for energy.  Attacking Trump head on brings attention to your counter argument, but at the expense of strengthening his own, and he’s got the bigger pulpit (back to the metaphor, the sugar gives you a quick boost but ultimately leaves you empty).  

Coincidentally, this is the same strategy Beto employed against Cruz purportedly without the aid of professional strategists.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn94

Longhorn94 2456

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

Sean Iling did an interview on Vox.com a week or so ago with an academic whose most recently published book was on disinformation and lies.  His advice was that addressing anything Trump repeats head on only empowers the Trump message in the empty heads of his base.  

 

He basically suggested a form of rhetorical jujitsu-you keep hammering on your message, don’t repeat anything Trump says, and hope you can bring enough attention that your voice carries above the noise.  Axelrod has echoed this without the academic foundation to justify it.  

I think a good metaphor for it is like eating sugar for energy.  Attacking Trump head on brings attention to your counter argument, but at the expense of strengthening his own, and he’s got the bigger pulpit (back to the metaphor, the sugar gives you a quick boost but ultimately leaves you empty).  

Coincidentally, this is the same strategy Beto employed against Cruz purportedly without the aid of professional strategists.  

its also how you beat whataboutism... you have to ignore the what about .... and just follow the sage advice from Gold 5 in Star Wars to "stay on target." if you can do that, then whataboutism loses all its power. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mack Tripper

Mack Tripper 696

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Lobo said:

All Trump has to do is call "Beto", "Robby O'Rourke, the rich Irishmen from El Paso".  And it's over for most of y'all.  

Why would it be over for us on this thread? We're not running for anything. Anyone who still buys into Trump's stupid nicknames by 2020 don't have more than three functioning brain cells and wouldn't vote for Beto or any other dem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29694

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Longhorn94 said:

its also how you beat whataboutism... you have to ignore the what about .... and just follow the sage advice from Gold 5 in Star Wars to "stay on target." if you can do that, then whataboutism loses all its power. 

Whataburgerism is where it's at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted

Rahm Emanuel on Beto:

Spoiler

 

Quote

...

“If Beto O’Rourke wants to go and run for president, God bless him, he should put his hat in and make his case,” Emanuel said on MSNBC. “But, he lost. You don’t usually promote a loser to the top of party and then take a winner and say, ‘We’re going to take your knees off.'”

...

https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/29/rahm-emanuel-beto-orourke-loser/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

Rahm just jealous Beto “isn’t waiting his turn”.

He didn’t have a problem when Bill Clinton and Obama “jumped the line”.

He just announced in September he isn’t running for re-election for Chicago mayor. Maybe he had a pipe dream about running himself?

No thanks. Beto outclasses him in every category except “experience” and even that’s a stretch.

And when that experience comes saddled with Rahm’s baggage, it’s a wash anyway.

TL;DR - Shut up, Rahm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pyrohornIII

pyrohornIII 4816

Posted
Posted

Sure seem to be a lot of people scared of Beto running.  I wonder who is behind this hit piece.  Feels like an active measures type of work.  It really comes across as a hit written by a republican posing as a democrat to stir up division within the party.  The ones lining up hardest behind it are the Bernie supporters.  The author can't figure out Beto, so he must be bad.  Let's look for proof of that!

I think it needs to be pointed out that this writer basically dissed all the individuals who for the first time donated to a campaign, both in time, effort and money.  In so doing insinuates that we who did so are dupes.  Gives no credit to his actual message, but all his success was due to his political savvy.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/12/what-does-beto-orourke-actually-stand-for

Quote

Having spent nearly a decade reporting on American politics, I can say there is something very odd about “Beto-mania.” Typically, politicians have both elite friends and enemies, meaning donors, activist organizations, lawmakers, and pundits, within their own political party. O’Rourke has critics in the GOP—they successfully defeated him in Texas’s Senate race. But he should presumably also have critics within the elite functionaries in the Democratic Party as well. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders both have their elite critics across the political spectrum. The former is loathed by Wall Street, the latter is loathed by pretty much everyone who runs a Democratic-aligned think tank or has a rolodex of party mega-donors.

But O’Rourke, on the other hand, seems to have received nothing but praise from everyone from Wall Street donors like Wolf to Obama alumni like Pfeiffer to a large liberal following enamored by his skateboarding at Whataburger and his passionate defense of kneeling NFL players. He has become a uniting figure for Democrats, beloved by all and loathed by none. What kind of Democratic politician can be so adored?

Maybe one who rarely, if ever, challenged the powerful.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

He doesn't, but I'll bet dollars to donuts he made a really great Lincoln Cabin out of popsicle sticks and glue in 4th grade.  Just as every public school kid in Illinois did growing up in the 20th century.  Rahm somehow left Chicago more gentrified and segregated than he found it.  Which is really hard to do in a Democrat stronghold in the 21st century.  

Beto will need different friends among the DNC kingmakers if he is to get anywhere.  I know Democrats want to think of that group as a meritocracy, but nothing in history suggests anything along those lines on the national stage.  They got Obama past Hillary despite the machine, not because of it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...