What Atlas #Analysis will be rejected after the 2020 election?

[twenty42]

To make a meta-analysis here, the notion that presidential elections are predictable, scientific events is rather laughable. 2020 may be another 1932, and it may be another 1984. Both seem extremely unlikely at this point, but it really all depends on Trump's first term.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

That culturally conservative white working-class voters actually find meaning in arguments about "the millionaires and billionaires." Or, in other words, that populism-without-scapegoating-the-Other can actually resonate.

muh billionaires is scapegoating "others".

But I suspect that the idea that the democrats need to go full sanders will fade.

[Fuzzy Bear]

That culturally conservative white working-class voters actually find meaning in arguments about "the millionaires and billionaires." Or, in other words, that populism-without-scapegoating-the-Other can actually resonate.

You know I use to think that this argument was true and that all of the online anecdotes of "Republicans for sanders" was complete BS. Then a family friend of mine who loved Ronald Reagan and didn't like Clinton or Trump said that he actually liked Sanders the most. He's a former car mechanic who never went to college and was born and raised in Texas.

Yeah yeah I know that anecdotes aren't everything but it made me realize that I shouldn't have been so quick to dismiss all of these instances and stories of potential Republican Sanders supporters.

I like Sanders and may have voted for him had he been the nominee.

[Confused Democrat]

Voting for a candidate because he/she is "more electable."

A candidates perceived "electability" is not a legitimate reason to vote for them during a primary.

[Figueira]

Voting for a candidate because he/she is "more electable."

A candidates perceived "electability" is not a legitimate reason to vote for them during a primary.

It kind of is, if you hate the opposing party's candidate enough.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

That culturally conservative white working-class voters actually find meaning in arguments about "the millionaires and billionaires." Or, in other words, that populism-without-scapegoating-the-Other can actually resonate.

muh billionaires is scapegoating "others".

But I suspect that the idea that the democrats need to go full sanders will fade.

As opposing to going full Hillary, which was so successful. Come on now. Sanders finally re-introduced actual progressivism into the party, and a lot of his ideas were frankly incredible to even suggest in this political environment. What it really showed is that the base of the party will always be receptible to these bread and butter left wing policies. The so called social engineering that a lot of Hillary supporters were pushing was actually going against the grain, so to speak.

He was a departure from the norm in tone, but his substance wasn't radically different then what Hillary was offering before. Increased minimum wage(not as big of one, but $12.50 is still decently above the living wage of $10.10), increased taxes on the rich, etc. She won the popular vote(and did not ignore the economy), she lost three states by less then a point partially due to progressive middle-class young whites giving protest votes to Stein or Johnson or not voting at all, and a lack of African american enthusiasm that sanders couldn't solve, against someone with a unique ability to snipe voters from those states(Jeb Bush, for example, would not have won Michigan). She was uniquely unpopular due to the email "scandal"(her favorability dropped suddenly when the email story landed, and never recovered), and that, combined with attacks on her in the primary for being "inauthentic" and "in bed with wallstreet"(the sanders campaign should have stuck to substantial issues instead of attaching vague ideas of corruption to the potential nominee), is what defeated her. She would have won decently without the emails, and comfortably without the emails or bernie.

All sanders brought to the table was a strange kind of ideological purity based on feelings of how "progressive" something is(with said "progressivism" seemingly focused on the concerns of #true leftist college kids. Also I'd like to note that these people seem to see the world in a simplified form of black and white (eg "Unions = always good, "Wallstreet" = always bad") that seems likely to lead to demanding the institution of laws in a way that is ineffective or damaging, or the blocking of actions or laws either vital to the stabilization of the US economy(and thus many peoples livelyhoods) and/or highly beneficial to many people because they're "nice to Wallstreet" or "giving handouts to big business"(eg corporate tax. Our corporate taxrate is one of the highest in the world. It also forces the corporations to pay tax on income made from other countries(albeit with a tax credit for tax payed to foriegn countries), and has many loopholes. If we just closed all the loopholes, US corporations would become uncompetitive and probably move elsewhere, so we need to lower the tax rates to the normal rate(payed in most other developed countrys) of 25% as well. Corporations effectively pay around 12% right now, this policy would thus likely double revenue. The bernie wing would see this as a corporate handout, and oppose it harshly).

[pbrower2a]

^Neither of the above two predicted Trump would win. Just pointing that out.

True... but that does not mean that Donald Trump will be seen worthy of re-election in 2020.

Donald Trump gets whatever pride I ever had in being an American.
 

[pbrower2a]

To make a meta-analysis here, the notion that presidential elections are predictable, scientific events is rather laughable. 2020 may be another 1932, and it may be another 1984. Both seem extremely unlikely at this point, but it really all depends on Trump's first term.

You have the extremes involving the first terms of Presidents. 

He will be lucky to be Bush 2004. Dubya rode the political aftermath of 9/11 very well and ran against a very weak opponent. Barring some event that he can exploit he already shows signs of being very disappointing. So what does he have in common with Dubya? He won despite losing the popular vote.

Quality in a President is subjective in the extreme. It is possible to win re-election when over 40% of the public thinks one is absolutely awful.

He has done nothing to win the support of people who voted against him. He has told people simply to believe him and obey him because his politics are the wave of the future or some Mussolini-style malarkey.


...Donald Trump makes me glad that I have no children.   



 

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

If a regular Joe American citizen tries to avoid paying taxes then they get hit with tax evasion and either pay a fine or go to jail. But when a multinational corporation and or wealthy person like Romney evades taxes by putting them overseas then it's just a tax "haven". That's not a fair economic system.

From this site:http://tax.findlaw.com/tax-problems-audits/what-to-expect-if-you-don-t-pay-your-taxes.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The IRS lets "regular Joe American citizen" in a pretty similar way. The problem is that the rich have access to better means of evading taxes more subtly. They didn't just let Romney get away with tax evasion, they made him pay back what he owed. He would have been prosecuted if he hadn't payed his taxes back.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*facepalms* They avoid taxes in the US right now because there are loopholes that make it legal to do so. A major part of this proposal is closing loopholes and aggressively enforcing the tax rate. Corporations aren't ransoming anyone. The point of the cuts is making sure that US corporations stay competitive with businesses in other countries with rates of around 25%(like Sweden, Norway, and Scandinavia). Your claim is a blatant case of the slippery slope fallacy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you have any sources for the " 2 trillion dollars in corporate treasuries abroad uncommitted to investment."? And is two trillion even a big number in the context of all money in all corporate treasuries presumably all around the world?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Corporations aren't people. They're organizations. They're an organization designed to make money. They don't have motivations or thoughts. They aren't moral or immoral. The people making the decisions to do unfortunate things are usually constrained to the profit directive in a powerful way(eg their job security). These machines should not be held to a moral standard and condemned for doing wrong as if they were people. They are a force of nature to be tamed by governmental regulations.

Your moralist assertions of "this isn't right" ignores that sometimes, the thing that's best for everyone can easily be unfair. If Mr. Rich Business owner had his wealth redistributed to make everyone had the same amount, he wouldn't be able to pay his workers to produce, and would have no source of income. As such, he would become poor, and there would be no money to redistribute. If you redistributed so that Mr. Rich had enough money to run the business and have the average wealth left over, he'd get all the stress and pain of running a big business with none of the benefits, which would be unfair to him. And in addition, he wouldn't be able to invest in other ideas, startups, etc, which would lower output, growth, and competition in the market, leading to less jobs and less development. You have to take a significant amount from Mr. Rich to give the people at the bottom a decent life, but you have to leave him still rich so he can run his business and invest in other businesses. Actual morality isn't about whats "fair", its about what gives the most people the best life. In our modern economy, "fairness" often runs counter to that.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've already argued against these claims in a previous part of this post.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The pro-rich streak in our countries government was started by blind devotion to Reagan's "government and taxes are bad" feeling-based ideology taking over the republican party and its establishment. The policy problems we have don't come from corporations buying politicians(though lobbying is influential, that influence comes from charismatic, convincing people being payed to convince politicians, not bribery), they stem from an infestation of feelings based loyalty to reaganist absurdity.

[Virginiá]

1. New Hampshire is a titanium D state that a Republican will never win.
2. Young people will vote even more Democratic.

"even more Democratic" - than 2016? What exactly makes you think young people are trending Republican? You're aware that Trump's approval ratings among 18-29 are absolutely atrocious, right? The odds that 14-18 year olds right now have broken from their peers by margins large enough to further reduce Dem margins in 2020 from 2016 is pretty slim if you ask me.

This is one sword I'm willing to die by. The odds that Democrats in 2020 do even just a little better than Clinton did among 18-29 year olds is way better than the Republicans doing better than Trump among them.

[Mr. Morden]

This is one sword I'm willing to die by. The odds that Democrats in 2020 do even just a little better than Clinton did among 18-29 year olds is way better than the Republicans doing better than Trump among them.

I could see both happening at the same time, since 9% of them went third party in 2016, which is an unusually high number. 

[Xing]

1. New Hampshire is a titanium D state that a Republican will never win.
2. Young people will vote even more Democratic.

"even more Democratic" - than 2016? What exactly makes you think young people are trending Republican? You're aware that Trump's approval ratings among 18-29 are absolutely atrocious, right? The odds that 14-18 year olds right now have broken from their peers by margins large enough to further reduce Dem margins in 2020 from 2016 is pretty slim if you ask me.

This is one sword I'm willing to die by. The odds that Democrats in 2020 do even just a little better than Clinton did among 18-29 year olds is way better than the Republicans doing better than Trump among them.

But you're forgetting the best #AtlasAnalysis of all... Generation Z is all neo-Nazis who want people like Richard Spencer in the White House, but will settle for Trump.

[Virginiá]

This is one sword I'm willing to die by. The odds that Democrats in 2020 do even just a little better than Clinton did among 18-29 year olds is way better than the Republicans doing better than Trump among them.

I could see both happening at the same time, since 9% of them went third party in 2016, which is an unusually high number. 

Pfft!

I guess it then might be more accurate for me to say that the Republican candidate could do somewhat better among young voters, but the Democrat will probably do a lot better than Clinton and thus the margin between the two will be higher than 2016.

It's my belief that if Democrats put up someone like Warren against Trump in 2020, the youth vote could see a substantial shift to Democrats. Hillary was an awful pick for winning over young voters, yet she still did pretty well, all things considered. Given Trump's approval ratings (and assuming they more or less stay the same among young voters, which isn't a stretch), I think there is certainly a lot of room to grow should Trump run again.

But if Trump didn't run again and a more traditional Republican won the nomination, I suppose youth support might depend on what kind of legacy Trump left the GOP to deal with.

[Mr. Morden]

It's my belief that if Democrats put up someone like Warren against Trump in 2020, the youth vote could see a substantial shift to Democrats. Hillary was an awful pick for winning over young voters, yet she still did pretty well, all things considered.

What if they don’t put up someone like Warren though?  I’m curious as to what your reaction is to my thoughts here on Clinton and the resistance to her from Sanders-istas:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=260124.msg5563922#msg5563922

Were Clinton’s problems among the young really that specific to her, or is this something that’s just going to be a feature of politics now, that there’s a non-negligible number of (mostly young) progressives who are sufficiently turned off by any “establishment” candidate that they go 3rd party or don’t vote—something that wasn’t happening ten years ago?  Would/will Booker or Gillibrand or someone similar face similar problems in 2020 because they’re considered “establishment”?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 Hiding money in the Cayman Islands is just a fancier, harder to detect form of tax evasion. It is a fair comparison because the IRS does give everyone a chance to pay back what they owe, regardless of wealth. You claimed that the IRS gives wealthy people special treatment, which is false. Loopholes written into the tax code aren't something the IRS controls. The IRS doesn't set tax rates either. Plus, having capital gains be a flat rate lower then the tax on income in the top brackets isn't a US only thing. Sweden does it too. Sweden's Capital gains tax is 30% and the average payed income tax is about 57%

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non_sequitur
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/weekinreview/24kirkpatrick.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fail to see how spending money to extract resources from the ground is so different from spending money to buy resources, for one thing. I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A political book by Bill Clinton is totally a trustworthy source.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A gigantic organization run by dozens of people in different roles all facing extreme pressures to act in a certain way from various places is not equivalent to a human being.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it doesn't. If you were able to avoid see other peoples claims as coming from your own lens of the world, you might understand that I implied that they were mindless machines.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A series of dry examples is not a story. Where the wealth is currently at doesn't change the validity of this series of examples.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was molded by anti-communist hackery and ideology. The ideology was basically "get rid of government and taxes because it's bad". Not exactly a difficult thing to come up with. Reagan wasn't some bloke pulled out of a bankers ***, and to think otherwise shows a delusional view of the world. Reagan had been the governor of California in the 60s already, and tried to Challenge Gerald Ford in a campaign reminiscent to that of Sanders last year in 1976. He was an ideologue pushed by ideologues.

You clearly don't know how inflation works. Inflation means a dollar is worth less. So well wages were technically going up, wage-earners buying power didn't increase.

[Ronnie]

It's my belief that if Democrats put up someone like Warren against Trump in 2020, the youth vote could see a substantial shift to Democrats. Hillary was an awful pick for winning over young voters, yet she still did pretty well, all things considered.

What if they don’t put up someone like Warren though?  I’m curious as to what your reaction is to my thoughts here on Clinton and the resistance to her from Sanders-istas:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=260124.msg5563922#msg5563922

Were Clinton’s problems among the young really that specific to her, or is this something that’s just going to be a feature of politics now, that there’s a non-negligible number of (mostly young) progressives who are sufficiently turned off by any “establishment” candidate that they go 3rd party or don’t vote—something that wasn’t happening ten years ago?  Would/will Booker or Gillibrand or someone similar face similar problems in 2020 because they’re considered “establishment”?

It's possible they would, but I think it's also possible a number of them voted third party because the likelihood of Trump being elected seemed distant, and they didn't know what the consequences would entail.  Now that Trump is actually president, I think they may be less inclined to register a protest vote.  

Also, I'm not sure millennials are necessarily ideologically rigid leftists.  They did support Bernie, but before that, Obama wasn't really all that liberal.  I think that, more than anything else, they want someone who comes across as authentic and honest.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

That demographic changes don't matter, Republicans can just rely on more white voters.

Oh and that Republicans don't have a suburban problem going forward.

-Yahno. Republicans so far can just rely more on White voters (until about the 2040s), and the Republicans have an elite problem, not a suburban one in general.

[Skill and Chance]

Keep in mind that the very beginning of the term doesn't tell us much historically.  Of the 5 1-term presidents of the 20th century, the only one who looked like he was obviously going to lose at the end of year 1 was Hoover.

Similarly, it was not at all obvious that Reagan, Nixon, or Eisenhower would be reelected in landslides at the end of year 1.  It was pretty well foreshadowed that 1936 and 1964 would be Dem landslides, though.

For much of George H. W. Bush's term, it looked like he would win reelection in a landslide.  Similarly, no one looking at George W. Bush's approval in January, 2002 would have expected a close election in 2004.

[oraclebones]

Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but I think the idea that America isn't a dying democracy will be definitively disproven, for those willing to accept the message.  For what it's worth, though, that conclusion likely won't rely on any particular outcome.

[Skill and Chance]

Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but I think the idea that America isn't a dying democracy will be definitively disproven, for those willing to accept the message.  For what it's worth, though, that conclusion likely won't rely on any particular outcome.

Eh, if we survived 1850-1880 (and came out of it on net much more democratic than we were before), we can sure as heck survive this.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I see "Trump will win a supermajority of post-Millennial voters, if he doesn't lose them to the American Union of Fascists" has already been mooted.

[Virginiá]

It's my belief that if Democrats put up someone like Warren against Trump in 2020, the youth vote could see a substantial shift to Democrats. Hillary was an awful pick for winning over young voters, yet she still did pretty well, all things considered.

What if they don’t put up someone like Warren though?  I’m curious as to what your reaction is to my thoughts here on Clinton and the resistance to her from Sanders-istas:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=260124.msg5563922#msg5563922

Were Clinton’s problems among the young really that specific to her, or is this something that’s just going to be a feature of politics now, that there’s a non-negligible number of (mostly young) progressives who are sufficiently turned off by any “establishment” candidate that they go 3rd party or don’t vote—something that wasn’t happening ten years ago?  Would/will Booker or Gillibrand or someone similar face similar problems in 2020 because they’re considered “establishment”?

Sorry Morden - I missed this!

My opinion is that you are right and wrong. I do believe any establishment politician would have had a wall to climb in 2016, but Hillary Clinton was a uniquely terrible fit. She had a well-defined history full of bad decisions, flip-flopping and her husband's record to own. However, I think what really did her in was her tenure as Secretary of State. That was the worst move of her career in politics, and resulted in Benghazi & the email "scandal." Thinking about it, one of Hillary's problems was just terrible decision making. She was really tone def as to how what she did would be perceived by the masses. Meeting so many foundation donors as SoS? The email server? Come on girl!

I do think sexism played a part in her problems, but I don't think it was the sole reason. I think it would be a cop-out to think otherwise. I read this today that, even though it's about the tech industry, kind of explains things a little:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-silicon-valley-so-awful-to-women/517788/

Often, many men will value a woman's opinion less, feel she has less authority than she really has, be far less willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, less willing to forgive, more willing to treat with disrespect, much more willing to criticize - even for things that often aren't even real (eg: "her voice is so loud!" "stop screaming!" etc), nd so on. This seems to be a bigger problem for ambitious women in fields where men have typically been the overwhelmingly dominant force. As a woman who did briefly work in the tech sector, I can verify at least most of that article. I imagine its the same, maybe worse for women in politics - by definition a field based around authority and power.

Finally, a troubling problem I found Hillary to have was that she had few redeeming qualities in terms of her public personality. I don't mean to slander Hillary, and maybe that is a bad word choice, but she lacks charisma, authenticity, humour, all of it. At least that is how she is perceived. Many politicians have their own issues - Obama was a Wall St magnet too, but many of these politicians have attributes that let them deflect and smooth over the rough edges. Hillary has none of that, or if she does, she suppresses it deeply. She had no way to make up for all her other deficits. This was a big problem, and one reason I think someone like Booker even could perform a lot better.

-

As for Booker/etc facing problems in 2020 - who knows. There is a lot of time yet. I'd expect at least Booker to fare better, though. I think for all the talk of the "establishment," that particular issue can be handled by a politician at least partially if they have charisma,  the ability to charm and come off at least somewhat authentic. I don't think an establishment character is automatically doomed, even with this populist anger. For Gillibrand - I don't know much about her. Can't say.

If such anger still exists by 2020, though, I'd be worried if the party still tries to push someone like them. A big part of the Democratic base is now Millennials, and the party must track their wishes as best as they can. Those (we) want authenticity and someone who we feel we can trust to carry out what they say.

[oraclebones]

Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but I think the idea that America isn't a dying democracy will be definitively disproven, for those willing to accept the message.  For what it's worth, though, that conclusion likely won't rely on any particular outcome.

Eh, if we survived 1850-1880 (and came out of it on net much more democratic than we were before), we can sure as heck survive this.

Interesting point. But what would a literal civil war in the U.S. look like these days, and with this president?

[Rjjr77]

Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but I think the idea that America isn't a dying democracy will be definitively disproven, for those willing to accept the message.  For what it's worth, though, that conclusion likely won't rely on any particular outcome.

Eh, if we survived 1850-1880 (and came out of it on net much more democratic than we were before), we can sure as heck survive this.

Interesting point. But what would a literal civil war in the U.S. look like these days, and with this president?

Depends on the sides of the war

[LabourJersey]

Which piece Atlas #Analysis was proven right by the 2016 election, aside from NH being marginally more Democratic than expected?