|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 24 2019 08:04 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2019 07:19 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2019 06:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 24 2019 05:28 KwarK wrote:
Trump pushing the Fed to lower rates by 100 basis points which is the equivalent of the giant adrenaline needle to the heart they do in medical dramas on tv. Trying to give the economy a jolt to keep spending and consumption up by making people spend money they don’t have yet and then spend less in the future. It’s normally an emergency recession measure but each time the economy stalls Trump demands another jolt and there’s not much more they can do.
And so he starts flaming the Fed Chair and calling him an enemy of the American people. This is the reality of having an incompetent narcissist as President. You’re talking like this is unusual in the world right now.And yet the US has the highest interest rate in the developed world, albeit at a pitiful 2.25%. Canada 1.75% AUD,NZD 1%. UK .75% EU 0% For the past 3 years Japan -.10% Switzerland -.75% This is simply what happens when there is too much debt in the system and interest payments become too high.There is no solution other than a new economic system/reset.They seem to be delaying that as long as possible. You cannot compare them in such a simplistic way. Different currencies have different monetary policies, rates of inflation, growth, and so forth. Recent UK interest rates are very negative if denominated in dollars, for example, because of the weakness of the pound over the period in which the interest has been paid. Comparing the dollar with its own historical trends suggests an attempt to pump up consumer debt to jolt the economy into one last spasm of activity. Even Larry Summers agrees that lowering the interest rate is just an ephemeral stop gap measure that can’t solve slackening aggregate demand. Lowering the price of credit really seems to be mostly just borrowing against the future at this point — a time shifting of future demand that isn’t generating enough to repay that which it borrowed. https://mobile.twitter.com/LHSummers/status/1164490326549118976
I wouldn't use the expression "even Larry Summers". secular stagnation is not a consensus among policy oriented economists or academic
|
the "even" signifies that even someone as orthodox as Larry Summers thinks this is an inadequate idea, not that "even" this outsider agrees with "us"
notice how in the tweet thread he says that he "usually agrees" with Janet Yellen
|
On August 24 2019 12:27 IgnE wrote:
the "even" signifies that even someone as orthodox as Larry Summers thinks this is an inadequate idea, not that "even" this outsider agrees with "us"
notice how in the tweet thread he says that he "usually agrees" with Janet Yellen
Perhaps Larry Summers isn't as orthodox as you think? Case in point, his defense of secular stagnation.
This aside, if we consider that Larry Summers is the paragon of orthodoxy, using "even Larry Summers" implies that the great consensus of economic thought is shifting to agree with secular stagnation, and that he was the last one to do so because of how orthodox he is. This is not the case.
|
Maybe not. Do you think not?
I don't think it necessarily implies that. It could imply that he's the first of an imminent cascade, that "even some of the stuffy establishment types are taking this position." It does not entail that all or almost all of them have.
|
On August 24 2019 14:18 IgnE wrote:
Maybe not. Do you think not?
I don't think it implies that. It could imply that he's the first of an imminent cascade, that "even some of the stuffy establishment types are taking this position." It does not entail that all or almost all of them have.
I dunno, I would use a different expression, but english is not my first language so maybe I'm in the wrong here.
As for wether the (academic) economic consensus is shifting towards a world of secular stagnation and permanent negative interest rates, no it's not my perception. It was widely discussed and gained traction a few years ago (2013, I want to say?) when Larry and a few other economists brought it to the forefront, but growth rebounding partially in the US took it out of favor.
If it turns out to be a problem, I think there still are monetary solutions to the problem of negative interest rates, starting with a higher inflation target.
|
On August 24 2019 07:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2019 06:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 24 2019 05:28 KwarK wrote:
Trump pushing the Fed to lower rates by 100 basis points which is the equivalent of the giant adrenaline needle to the heart they do in medical dramas on tv. Trying to give the economy a jolt to keep spending and consumption up by making people spend money they don’t have yet and then spend less in the future. It’s normally an emergency recession measure but each time the economy stalls Trump demands another jolt and there’s not much more they can do.
And so he starts flaming the Fed Chair and calling him an enemy of the American people. This is the reality of having an incompetent narcissist as President. You’re talking like this is unusual in the world right now.And yet the US has the highest interest rate in the developed world, albeit at a pitiful 2.25%. Canada 1.75% AUD,NZD 1%. UK .75% EU 0% For the past 3 years Japan -.10% Switzerland -.75% This is simply what happens when there is too much debt in the system and interest payments become too high.There is no solution other than a new economic system/reset.They seem to be delaying that as long as possible. You cannot compare them in such a simplistic way. Different currencies have different monetary policies, rates of inflation, growth, and so forth. Recent UK interest rates are very negative if denominated in dollars, for example, because of the weakness of the pound over the period in which the interest has been paid. Comparing the dollar with its own historical trends suggests an attempt to pump up consumer debt to jolt the economy into one last spasm of activity.
Comparing the dollar against historical trends, in 1971 just before Nixon dropped the gold standard an ounce of gold was $35.Now it’s $1520 or so.But this past year it has reached new highs in dozens of other currencies.Including the pound and Aus dollar.So those countries are losing value even faster.German, French, Dutch And Swiss 10 year Government bonds are all negative yield, it’s unprecedented and totally insane.
Just yesterday BoE governor Carney stated a central bank backed Libra-like cryptocurrency could replace the dollar.In my eyes a clear warning that the end isn’t too far off.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/boes-carney-floats-idea-of-new-virtual-reserve-currency-11566586800
If it turns out to be a problem, I think there still are monetary solutions to the problem of negative interest rates, starting with a higher inflation target.
The continued existence of cash stops negative interest rates at a deposit level, since cash pays no interest taxing savers would cause a run on banks.They are attempting to phase out cash so they can go negative on deposit rates but they may have left it too late.They could just introduce strict ATM withdrawal limits like they did in Greece during their crisis in 2013 or thereabouts.
|
By negative interest rate I meant the natural interest rate, aka the theoretical interest rate that would support full employment without accelerating inflation (which, as you point out, would be unacheivable by the central bank because cash exists).
|
Bernie Sanders claims incrementalism isn't a viable option and releases his GND. I think his GND leaves room for the global south to continue to be exploited and for a significant rise in global temp, but it's leagues better than the other Dem alternatives.
Dubbing the plan as his version of the Green New Deal, Sanders wants America’s electrical and transportation systems to be powered exclusively by renewable energy by 2030, and for America to be totally decarbonized by 2050. The plan calls for a $16.3 trillion public investment to make this happen, which Sanders says will pay for itself in only 15 years, partially through tax revenue generated from the 20 million new jobs the plan would create. To help kick the plan into gear, Sanders would take executive action to declare the climate crisis a national emergency.
www.rollingstone.com
I get why the DNC rejected having a climate debate now lol. Hard to say one takes climate change seriously and be accepting of any other candidates tepid proposals.
|
On August 25 2019 08:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Bernie Sanders claims incrementalism isn't a viable option and releases his GND. I think his GND leaves room for the global south to continue to be exploited and for a significant rise in global temp, but it's leagues better than the other Dem alternatives. https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1165278129394520064 Show nested quote +Dubbing the plan as his version of the Green New Deal, Sanders wants America’s electrical and transportation systems to be powered exclusively by renewable energy by 2030, and for America to be totally decarbonized by 2050. The plan calls for a $16.3 trillion public investment to make this happen, which Sanders says will pay for itself in only 15 years, partially through tax revenue generated from the 20 million new jobs the plan would create. To help kick the plan into gear, Sanders would take executive action to declare the climate crisis a national emergency. www.rollingstone.comI get why the DNC rejected having a climate debate now lol. Hard to say one takes climate change seriously and be accepting of any other candidates tepid proposals.
I don't like the way he frames this. It isn't "safe" to try to elect a candidate no one is passionate about. Clinton was not in fact a safe choice because there was a great number of people strongly against her, similar to Biden. I have a friend who I consider "moderate". He is a huge fan of Buttigieg and basically says "I'll be thrilled for anyone except Biden".
Its similar to how candidates let the media frame it as "How will you pay for medicare for all?" rather than interjecting to say "hey, you fucking idiot, this is a net savings for our country, its just that people pay for it in weird externalities that we don't account for"
Or when they say "people who like their insurance get to keep it"
No. NO NO NO. People like their *doctors and health care staff* NOTTTTTTTTT their insurance company. No one is happy with their insurance company unless they are comparing it to something that was worse prior. Insurance companies are just a giant fucking wasteful middle-man that doesn't need to exist.
|
On August 26 2019 08:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2019 08:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Bernie Sanders claims incrementalism isn't a viable option and releases his GND. I think his GND leaves room for the global south to continue to be exploited and for a significant rise in global temp, but it's leagues better than the other Dem alternatives. https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1165278129394520064 Dubbing the plan as his version of the Green New Deal, Sanders wants America’s electrical and transportation systems to be powered exclusively by renewable energy by 2030, and for America to be totally decarbonized by 2050. The plan calls for a $16.3 trillion public investment to make this happen, which Sanders says will pay for itself in only 15 years, partially through tax revenue generated from the 20 million new jobs the plan would create. To help kick the plan into gear, Sanders would take executive action to declare the climate crisis a national emergency. www.rollingstone.comI get why the DNC rejected having a climate debate now lol. Hard to say one takes climate change seriously and be accepting of any other candidates tepid proposals. I don't like the way he frames this. It isn't "safe" to try to elect a candidate no one is passionate about. Clinton was not in fact a safe choice because there was a great number of people strongly against her, similar to Biden. I have a friend who I consider "moderate". He is a huge fan of Buttigieg and basically says "I'll be thrilled for anyone except Biden". Its similar to how candidates let the media frame it as "How will you pay for medicare for all?" rather than interjecting to say "hey, you fucking idiot, this is a net savings for our country, its just that people pay for it in weird externalities that we don't account for" Or when they say "people who like their insurance get to keep it" No. NO NO NO. People like their *doctors and health care staff* NOTTTTTTTTT their insurance company. No one is happy with their insurance company unless they are comparing it to something that was worse prior. Insurance companies are just a giant fucking wasteful middle-man that doesn't need to exist.
I think what he means by that is not so much that a candidate is "safe" because people aren't passionate about him, but the idea that a candidate is "safe" because they don't give their opposition ammunition to throw at them. And I would totally agree, in this day and age, that such a candidate comes back around to not being the safe choice again. When the American Right has become this bizarre a caricature of itself, and spends most of its time lobbying insane insults and demonizations toward anyone who isn't even on the Right correctly, leave alone those on the left, there's no point in trying to reason with them, or trying not to offend them.
Republican's hot takes during the Democratic debates were a good demonstration of what I'm on about. They will rail against any candidate worth talking about in exactly the same way, but they want us to think someone like Biden, who has nothing to offer the current wave of Democrats, is the best candidate. They were keen to tell everyone how they know what really makes the ideal Democratic candidate. Because they know it's an easy win if they just lob insults, because someone like Biden isn't particularly appealing in any event.
We've reached a point where we can't care what our opposition thinks, because their only interest is in themselves, so the well is always poisoned. We need to push wholeheartedly for the candidate we want. The end.
|
Thing that gets me about the DNC and the party is that Biden and Hillary are/were definitively to the right of Obama (were when they ran against him and lost too)
Yet they keep trying to make this centrist neoliberalism (that lost to Obama and Trump) their brand. If you're going to try to convince people to support something, centrist neoliberalism is one of the worst things it could be.
|
People who like to follow many of the horse-race aspects of American politics think about which opponent would be hardest to beat, and voters in some way factor that in too. As a conservative and Republican, it is true I like none of the Democratic candidates, but still think Biden has the best chance. It's easy to see why: Biden holds the fewest positions out of sync with the electorate and has the old-nice-grandpa thing that the media can play up in his favor. Of course his positions, from my perspective, are still bad, and some of us who really do like the more political game know from looking at Biden's past that his "I'm a moderate who just wants to unite the country" is a lie (which is quite sad for the country).
But also I think in a country as closely split as ours there might be some bias at play on both sides, thinking that the person most like themselves has the best chance of winning. Just like the people who think that the Soviet-honeymooning, Fidel-loving, I-want-to-crush-the-American-energy-sector Bernie Sanders is best positioned to win the midwest. Bernie shares some similarities with the old, influential Midwestern left but....
There is no game going on here, at least for my part. I do think Biden is best positioned, at least as long as he doesn't slip any more mentally.
|
I just hope you'll forgive me if I continue not to trust when ardent Trump supporters suddenly have an interest in who'll be running against him, and want to weigh in with any seriousness. Unless you have some serious buyer's remorse, it's the fox telling the hens to cluster up neatly in the hen house, for all we care. I would suggest to Republicans, that maybe next time around you pick someone who can form coherent sentences, but that's aside from any political leanings.
|
On August 26 2019 12:58 Introvert wrote:
People who like to follow many of the horse-race aspects of American politics think about which opponent would be hardest to beat, and voters in some way factor that in too. As a conservative and Republican, it is true I like none of the Democratic candidates, but still think Biden has the best chance. It's easy to see why: Biden is holds the fewest positions out of sync with the electorate and has the old-nice-grandpa thing that the media can play up in his favor. Of course his positions, from my perspective, are still bad, and some of us who really do like the more political game know from looking at Biden's past that his "I'm a moderate who just wants to unite the country" is a lie (which is quite sad for the country).
But also I think in a country as closely split as ours there might be some bias at play on both sides, thinking that the person most like themselves has the best chance of winning. Just like the people who think that the Soviet-honeymooning, Fidel-loving, I-want-to-crush-the-American-energy-sector Bernie Sanders is best positioned to win the midwest. Bernie shares some similarities with the old, influential Midwestern left but....
There is no game going on here, at least for my part. I do think Biden is best positioned, at least as long as he doesn't slip any more mentally.
What "midwest" states are you referencing?
|
On August 26 2019 13:22 NewSunshine wrote:
I just hope you'll forgive me if I continue not to trust when ardent Trump supporters suddenly have an interest in who'll be running against him, and want to weigh in with any seriousness. Unless you have some serious buyer's remorse, it's the fox telling the hens to cluster up neatly in the hen house, for all we care. I would suggest to Republicans, that maybe next time around you pick someone who can form coherent sentences, but that's aside from any political leanings.
While I don't fall into that first category, I don't think there's any reason to believe there's a gigantic game going on out there to say that X might be the person most likely to win when they are not. Now one can be wrong, but that's obviously not the same. Biden's strengths are clear, for instance. There is a good faith, intellectually defensible case to be made for his candidacy.
And we can see this from the 2016 race. I, along with just about everyone else who wasn't a Trump supporter, thought Trump had the worst chances, and said so. Most Democrats thought Hillary had it in a lock, and obviously Trump was the #1 person she wanted to run against. Maybe I'm wrong, but xDaunt, the formerly most pro-Trump person in this thread, didn't think much of Biden's chances, at least that's what I gathered. There are people who are paid to go on TV and say whatever they have to say, but among those of us not paid I don't think there's any dishonesty.
You don't have to trust everyone else is right, but taking their positions seriously is probably beneficial. I would think that 2016 should have proved that, actually.
|
On August 26 2019 13:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2019 12:58 Introvert wrote:
People who like to follow many of the horse-race aspects of American politics think about which opponent would be hardest to beat, and voters in some way factor that in too. As a conservative and Republican, it is true I like none of the Democratic candidates, but still think Biden has the best chance. It's easy to see why: Biden is holds the fewest positions out of sync with the electorate and has the old-nice-grandpa thing that the media can play up in his favor. Of course his positions, from my perspective, are still bad, and some of us who really do like the more political game know from looking at Biden's past that his "I'm a moderate who just wants to unite the country" is a lie (which is quite sad for the country).
But also I think in a country as closely split as ours there might be some bias at play on both sides, thinking that the person most like themselves has the best chance of winning. Just like the people who think that the Soviet-honeymooning, Fidel-loving, I-want-to-crush-the-American-energy-sector Bernie Sanders is best positioned to win the midwest. Bernie shares some similarities with the old, influential Midwestern left but....
There is no game going on here, at least for my part. I do think Biden is best positioned, at least as long as he doesn't slip any more mentally. What "midwest" states are you referencing?
The typical ones + Pennsylvania? While the midwest was solidly Republican through much of the progressive era, a few of them went for the progressive party in 1912, and the midwest used to have a more populist-socialist subgroup that was distinct from the coastal leftism. Just as it later had a conservatism of its own flavor.
|
On August 26 2019 13:50 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2019 13:22 NewSunshine wrote:
I just hope you'll forgive me if I continue not to trust when ardent Trump supporters suddenly have an interest in who'll be running against him, and want to weigh in with any seriousness. Unless you have some serious buyer's remorse, it's the fox telling the hens to cluster up neatly in the hen house, for all we care. I would suggest to Republicans, that maybe next time around you pick someone who can form coherent sentences, but that's aside from any political leanings. While I don't fall into that first category, I don't think there's any reason to believe there's a gigantic game going on out there to say that X might be the person most likely to win when they are not. Now one can be wrong, but that's obviously not the same. Biden's strengths are clear, for instance. There is a good faith, intellectually defensible case to be made for his candidacy. And we can see this from the 2016 race. I, along with just about everyone else who wasn't a Trump supporter, thought Trump had the worst chances, and said so. Most Democrats thought Hillary had it in a lock, and obviously Trump was the #1 person she wanted to run against. Maybe I'm wrong, but xDaunt, the formerly most pro-Trump person in this thread, didn't think much of Biden's chances, at least that's what I gathered. There are people who are paid to go on TV and say whatever they have to say, but among those of us not paid I don't think there's any dishonesty. You don't have to trust everyone else is right, but taking their positions seriously is probably beneficial. I would think that 2016 should have proved that, actually.
I'm not implying that I don't listen to them, and that I think what they say is meaningless. Just that, with all the bias inherent to the whole play, what they say means something different to me than it probably does to them. It doesn't have to be a source of hard feelings.
|
On August 26 2019 14:01 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2019 13:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2019 12:58 Introvert wrote:
People who like to follow many of the horse-race aspects of American politics think about which opponent would be hardest to beat, and voters in some way factor that in too. As a conservative and Republican, it is true I like none of the Democratic candidates, but still think Biden has the best chance. It's easy to see why: Biden is holds the fewest positions out of sync with the electorate and has the old-nice-grandpa thing that the media can play up in his favor. Of course his positions, from my perspective, are still bad, and some of us who really do like the more political game know from looking at Biden's past that his "I'm a moderate who just wants to unite the country" is a lie (which is quite sad for the country).
But also I think in a country as closely split as ours there might be some bias at play on both sides, thinking that the person most like themselves has the best chance of winning. Just like the people who think that the Soviet-honeymooning, Fidel-loving, I-want-to-crush-the-American-energy-sector Bernie Sanders is best positioned to win the midwest. Bernie shares some similarities with the old, influential Midwestern left but....
There is no game going on here, at least for my part. I do think Biden is best positioned, at least as long as he doesn't slip any more mentally. What "midwest" states are you referencing? The typical ones + Pennsylvania? While the midwest was solidly Republican through much of the progressive era, a few of them went for the progressive party in 1912, and the midwest used to have a more populist-socialist subgroup that was distinct from the coastal leftism. Just as it later had a conservatism of its own flavor.
I'm just trying to understand which ones you think Bernie's weak in. Ironically, despite the "soviet honeymooning..." stuff Bernie actually did better than Hillary with self identified independents, Hillary's strength was with highly partisan Democrats.
|
On August 26 2019 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2019 14:01 Introvert wrote:On August 26 2019 13:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2019 12:58 Introvert wrote:
People who like to follow many of the horse-race aspects of American politics think about which opponent would be hardest to beat, and voters in some way factor that in too. As a conservative and Republican, it is true I like none of the Democratic candidates, but still think Biden has the best chance. It's easy to see why: Biden is holds the fewest positions out of sync with the electorate and has the old-nice-grandpa thing that the media can play up in his favor. Of course his positions, from my perspective, are still bad, and some of us who really do like the more political game know from looking at Biden's past that his "I'm a moderate who just wants to unite the country" is a lie (which is quite sad for the country).
But also I think in a country as closely split as ours there might be some bias at play on both sides, thinking that the person most like themselves has the best chance of winning. Just like the people who think that the Soviet-honeymooning, Fidel-loving, I-want-to-crush-the-American-energy-sector Bernie Sanders is best positioned to win the midwest. Bernie shares some similarities with the old, influential Midwestern left but....
There is no game going on here, at least for my part. I do think Biden is best positioned, at least as long as he doesn't slip any more mentally. What "midwest" states are you referencing? The typical ones + Pennsylvania? While the midwest was solidly Republican through much of the progressive era, a few of them went for the progressive party in 1912, and the midwest used to have a more populist-socialist subgroup that was distinct from the coastal leftism. Just as it later had a conservatism of its own flavor. I'm just trying to understand which ones you think Bernie's weak in. Ironically, despite the "soviet honeymooning..." stuff Bernie actually did better than Hillary with self identified independents, Hillary's strength was with highly partisan Democrats.
I continue to think Bernie's strengths in 2016 were similar to Trump's, i.e., he was running against Hillary Clinton. Put Bernie in a general I don't think his agenda sells as well in the region as it might seem, although Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are prob his hardest lifts, even though he won WI in 2016 and did about average in PA. Michigan prob his easiest, and Ohio might be ok although the state appears to be pretty red now so there is a partisanship difficulty. (And as an aside I think nominating Sanders is basically giving Florida to Trump).
The green agenda seems a killer in PA, and there are a fair number of religious or culturally conservative voters in MI and WI that might vote for a Biden but couldn't swallow a Sanders.
I suppose my guesses here don't match the 2016 primary results, but if we check the Republican side of the ledger in the primary I think it displays the dangers a less mainstream Democrat would face.
|
On August 26 2019 14:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2019 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2019 14:01 Introvert wrote:On August 26 2019 13:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2019 12:58 Introvert wrote:
People who like to follow many of the horse-race aspects of American politics think about which opponent would be hardest to beat, and voters in some way factor that in too. As a conservative and Republican, it is true I like none of the Democratic candidates, but still think Biden has the best chance. It's easy to see why: Biden is holds the fewest positions out of sync with the electorate and has the old-nice-grandpa thing that the media can play up in his favor. Of course his positions, from my perspective, are still bad, and some of us who really do like the more political game know from looking at Biden's past that his "I'm a moderate who just wants to unite the country" is a lie (which is quite sad for the country).
But also I think in a country as closely split as ours there might be some bias at play on both sides, thinking that the person most like themselves has the best chance of winning. Just like the people who think that the Soviet-honeymooning, Fidel-loving, I-want-to-crush-the-American-energy-sector Bernie Sanders is best positioned to win the midwest. Bernie shares some similarities with the old, influential Midwestern left but....
There is no game going on here, at least for my part. I do think Biden is best positioned, at least as long as he doesn't slip any more mentally. What "midwest" states are you referencing? The typical ones + Pennsylvania? While the midwest was solidly Republican through much of the progressive era, a few of them went for the progressive party in 1912, and the midwest used to have a more populist-socialist subgroup that was distinct from the coastal leftism. Just as it later had a conservatism of its own flavor. I'm just trying to understand which ones you think Bernie's weak in. Ironically, despite the "soviet honeymooning..." stuff Bernie actually did better than Hillary with self identified independents, Hillary's strength was with highly partisan Democrats. I continue to think Bernie's strengths in 2016 were similar to Trump's, i.e., he was running against Hillary Clinton. Put Bernie in a general I don't think his agenda sells as well in the region as it might seem, although Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are prob his hardest lifts, even though he won WI in 2016 and did about average in PA. Michigan prob his easiest, and Ohio might be ok although the state appears to be pretty red now so there is a partisanship difficulty. (And as an aside I think nominating Sanders is basically giving Florida to Trump). The green agenda seems a killer in PA, and there are a fair number of religious or culturally conservative voters in MI and WI that might vote for a Biden but couldn't swallow a Sanders. I suppose my guesses here don't match the 2016 primary results, but if we check the Republican side of the ledger in the primary I think it displays the dangers a less mainstream Democrat would face.
He doesn't talk to them about the "green agenda" he talks to them about the millions of jobs they lost in manufacturing from NAFTA, how trump did jack to address it, and how they'll be a crucial part of a new generation as valued (ideally more and not just superficially) as Coal miners and factory workers of generations past.
Trump will call him names and struggle to form coherent sentences that explain why he's done all of nothing for people in the midwest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
