dagblog - Comments for "Democratic Opportunity"

I've noted this over and over

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:34:00 +0000

In reply to Thanks Mike for a thoughtful

I've noted this over and over, but maybe this one will get through. [see new post I just put up instead]

Trust me, don't let Schumer

Michael Maiello — Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:59:28 +0000

In reply to Thanks Mike for a thoughtful

Trust me, don't let Schumer break your heart.

On the economic front, I guess you can't eat GDP and manufacturing output. Stagnant wages are a big part of this, David Kelly, chief economist for JPMorgan Funds, just sent this out as part of his weekly note:

"Inflation is still low and, despite a tight labor market, wage growth is not accelerating. In the America of 2017, the normal balance of bargaining power between employer and employee is so tilted in favor of the former that only a very sharp acceleration in activity seems capable of lifting wage growth."

Thanks Mike for a thoughtful

HSG — Mon, 28 Aug 2017 12:42:39 +0000

In reply to Putting aside the question of

Thanks Mike for a thoughtful response. A few replies:

1) I agree that the likelihood that the Democrats will take my advice is very small, if not miniscule. But, I do see glimmers of real understanding in Chuck Schumer. He did back the more progressive Keith Ellison for DNC Chair and has on several occasions called for Democrats to look inward rather than blame voters for 2016.

2) I absolutely agree that we need a "younger, more charismatic firebrand with a squeaky past and a folksy way." In fact, I wrote something very similar back in January here.

3) While it seemed somewhat counterintuitive to me, as it apparently does to you, that Trump voters might have been more dovish, this is the precise thesis that Kriner and Shen argue persuasively in Battlefield Casualties and Ballot Box Defeat: Did the Bush-Obama Wars Cost Clinton the White House?

4) We agree that "free trade" has increased greatly inequality. But I am skeptical of claims that the dynamics of lower barriers to cheap imports have had a positive effect on our GDP. What seems more likely is that the trade deals have not only caused wealth to gush upwards but have also led to less total wealth to be shared by our nation's denizens. The chart shows real U.S. income per capita. http://www.multpl.com/us-real-income-per-capita

Putting aside the question of

Michael Maiello — Mon, 28 Aug 2017 01:39:51 +0000

In reply to Democratic Opportunity

Putting aside the question of whether they should, I highly doubt the Democratic leadership is going to turn back on globalization in a serious way in order to win back some white working Trump voters. Even if they tried, there'd be no feeling behind it and no belief that it is necessary or advisable.

I mean, our manufacturing output and GDP growth since NAFTA make a very good argument for trade. The problem is the distribution of all that largesse, but this all goes away if you exit NAFTA.

But the bigger problem is cultural. The party leadership is made up of well educated and, more importantly, worldly people. Now, I think we'd both agree that this can very much support a pro peace platform when it comes to global policy. But those lost Trump voters are not peaceniks in any event, so such actions would please you and me without much moving the needle on the election front. I mean, I'm with you -- I think people with children since the W presidency should be royally angry at the abuse of their children's military service. But they just aren't that mad about it, or are not mad in large enough numbers to make it felt.

Again, none of this is about what should happen. I'm more saying that Chuck Schumer is not going to lead the party in the pivot you desire. I doubt you find that controversial. Hal -- you need to find us the next Bernie. We need a younger, more charismatic firebrand with a squeaky past and a folksy way about him who can maybe persuade the leadership to at least get out of the way if his tidal wave seems large enough. But don't even worry about telling Chuck Schumer and company what to do. They're set in their course.

oh looky here what a surprise

artappraiser — Sat, 26 Aug 2017 20:45:25 +0000

In reply to Well, I do see the peeps over

oh looky here what a surprise (not), Mattis would like to see more transparency about troop levels but the President does not seem to be a fan of that idea.

Yeah, I've been watching

artappraiser — Sat, 26 Aug 2017 20:20:31 +0000

In reply to Well, I do see the peeps over

Yeah, I've been watching Breitbart too. Last night it seems like they might be switching to Trump as victim instead of cuckold,"they" have kidnapped him for now. But you see, with things like the Arpaio pie in the RNC's face, he's fighting back, their once Manchurian candidate is fighting back like a whirling Taz, so they are watching and waiting....

Well, I do see the peeps over

Obey — Sat, 26 Aug 2017 19:26:01 +0000

In reply to Important modification to my

Well, I do see the peeps over at Breitbart aren't too happy with "President McMaster's" Afghanistan policy, regarding it as a continuation of previous administrations' nation-building plan.

I love how all sides are trolling Trump with the impression of him as a cuck getting screwed over by other powerful men in his administration, and particularly love that this trolling technique has something like a 100% success rate with him.

Important modification to my

artappraiser — Sat, 26 Aug 2017 19:03:56 +0000

In reply to If your main target is the

Important modification to my comment! What works with the type of demographic you are talking about is the word "nation building" as a derogative. You are talking about people that are isolationist "U.S.A. #1" who want to be very strong on defending the U.S. They are not anti-hawk at all, far from it. They are only fervently against getting involved in "nation building." You hit back hard with the best most expensive weapons and forces on the planet, you win, you leave. Nation building is liberal internationalism and they don't like nation building. They do like bombing and leaving type actions! ("kill them all")

This was an essential tenet of being a Reagan Democrat. It was an essential tenet of the Pitchfork Pat Buchanan movement. It is an essential purported tenet of Trump, he repeated it in his recent Afghanistan speech which promised, more like vowed that we are not getting into nation building. Another Trump lie to his base, I suspect, and I also suspect he knows it. I suspect the reason he took so long to make a final decision on Afghanistan is that he realized he was being dragged into nation building and didn't like it, but the generals weren't giving him any choices that didn't involve it, so he gave up and bullshitted.

The nation building of the neo-conservative theory is hated by this group. It hurt the Bush administration a great deal. Neo-conservatives are "neo", neo-liberals are "neo". They don't like "neo", that's globalism, not the strong nationalism they prefer. (And this is where you get the problem with the intersection with racist types and anti-immigrant types, because along with nationalism often goes: xenophobia)

If your main target is the

artappraiser — Sat, 26 Aug 2017 18:34:07 +0000

In reply to Democratic Opportunity

If your main target is the type of voter that voted for both Obama and Trump, (as I believe it is from most of your posts I have read) I doubt very much that it synchs with voters who are anti-hawk. Obama was as hawkish a Dem as any other hawk Dem. The "Hillary voted for Iraq" thing is applied personally against Hillary by such people, as a mistake in judgment. But they were happy with the "for smart wars, not dumb wars" Obama thing (i.e., Libya intervention.) This is not the making of any kind of coalition is what I am saying. Sure, Hillary probably suffered a bit for the "voted for the Iraq war" label, but I doubt that was with the little group of Obama-Trump types you are targeting. More likely just the opposite! Just as many of them or more might have supported the Iraq war and would certainly never vote for a peacenik candidate.

OGD - thanks for catching my

HSG — Sat, 26 Aug 2017 16:46:47 +0000

In reply to HSG ....Hmmm . . .

OGD - thanks for catching my linking errors. I have corrected them. The 538 article to which you cite should have been (and now is) linked to where the Weekly Standard article was. The Weekly Standard article is linked to "universal health care" a few lines down.