Before we get too into why the rich prefer Warren, is there any reason to think that they (whatever they means) do?
Five seconds of googling "donor class Warren" was not informative.
I think this came from comments in Warren's tweet earlier in the thread about how Thiel hates her. There is a sub-section of folks who were saying she is more liked than Sander's by the rich.
I just don't see someone like Warren who has been a consumer advocate up to the point of getting the CPB made, being some kind of rich person side pick. Especially when you've got people like andrew yang still in the race.
The idea that Warren would be the preference of rich people for any reason other then "I actually like her policies" is basically in direct contradiction to everything she's ever done professionally and everything we've seen. Like if anyone is gonna make sure, if they do nothing else, they go after the financial industry, it's gonna be Warren.
Preference for the rich over Sanders, theyre obviously enthused about neither
Even that is ludicrous. This has been Warren's mission for over 15 years. The financial industry fucking hates her.
I said the rich, not the financial industry. And again even if they hate her she, for instance, doesnt want to wipe out all the student debt theyre making mint on.
You keep saying "but they hate her" and thats not the point, its that some seem to view her as bad for them but less bad than Sanders.
I always found this argument a bit lacking.
Sander's plan is an idea.
Warren's plan takes in the realities of radically shifting the economy and changing a whole of of intermixed debt while still helping folks.
Warren's is the plan of a person who studies the economy and tries to make sure she is doing good while doing least secondary and tertiary harm.
I would love Sander's plan. It wipes out my debt where Warren's wipes out part of it.
I think this is where I see the real split between the Warren has a lot of policy chops and is wonky. Which is great for me as a person who works in the government and was very very much educated to do "least harm" with interventions. Sander's does a lot of grand ideas, which are good. But I don't think there is the secondary and tertiary consequences really factored in.
Restructuring 1.5 trillion in debt is a huge shift in the economy.
I see Sanders demanding what we want and I see Warren asking for what she'd be willing to compromise down to. Ive had my fill of that already
I just don't see someone like Warren who has been a consumer advocate up to the point of getting the CPB made, being some kind of rich person side pick. Especially when you've got people like andrew yang still in the race.
The idea that Warren would be the preference of rich people for any reason other then "I actually like her policies" is basically in direct contradiction to everything she's ever done professionally and everything we've seen. Like if anyone is gonna make sure, if they do nothing else, they go after the financial industry, it's gonna be Warren.
And more scary for that industry she legit knows how its done there, so more likely to try and push no bs legislation.
That's what puzzles me about the whole thing.
Like out of every candidate out there, how is it possible you would somehow favor the one who knows how the sausage gets made?
Is it a delusion that you think you can fool her?
That she'll understand that what you did makes sense and was understandable and totally the best thing for America so yay, no charges, keep the money!
If you were smart and in the financial industry you would support her, because the best thing for rich people actually turns out to be financial reform and helping poor people. It's only like the most predatory people in any industry who dont support reforms to make it more stable and effective.
I just don't see someone like Warren who has been a consumer advocate up to the point of getting the CPB made, being some kind of rich person side pick. Especially when you've got people like andrew yang still in the race.
The idea that Warren would be the preference of rich people for any reason other then "I actually like her policies" is basically in direct contradiction to everything she's ever done professionally and everything we've seen. Like if anyone is gonna make sure, if they do nothing else, they go after the financial industry, it's gonna be Warren.
Preference for the rich over Sanders, theyre obviously enthused about neither
Even that is ludicrous. This has been Warren's mission for over 15 years. The financial industry fucking hates her.
I said the rich, not the financial industry. And again even if they hate her she, for instance, doesnt want to wipe out all the student debt theyre making mint on.
You keep saying "but they hate her" and thats not the point, its that some seem to view her as bad for them but less bad than Sanders.
I always found this argument a bit lacking.
Sander's plan is an idea.
Warren's plan takes in the realities of radically shifting the economy and changing a whole of of intermixed debt while still helping folks.
Warren's is the plan of a person who studies the economy and tries to make sure she is doing good while doing least secondary and tertiary harm.
I would love Sander's plan. It wipes out my debt where Warren's wipes out part of it.
I think this is where I see the real split between the Warren has a lot of policy chops and is wonky. Which is great for me as a person who works in the government and was very very much educated to do "least harm" with interventions. Sander's does a lot of grand ideas, which are good. But I don't think there is the secondary and tertiary consequences really factored in.
Restructuring 1.5 trillion in debt is a huge shift in the economy.
I see Sanders demanding what we want and I see Warren asking for what she'd be willing to compromise down to. Ive had my fill of that already
Well, we're not getting what we want, so what's Sanders' backup plan? Does he have one?
I just don't see someone like Warren who has been a consumer advocate up to the point of getting the CPB made, being some kind of rich person side pick. Especially when you've got people like andrew yang still in the race.
The idea that Warren would be the preference of rich people for any reason other then "I actually like her policies" is basically in direct contradiction to everything she's ever done professionally and everything we've seen. Like if anyone is gonna make sure, if they do nothing else, they go after the financial industry, it's gonna be Warren.
Preference for the rich over Sanders, theyre obviously enthused about neither
Even that is ludicrous. This has been Warren's mission for over 15 years. The financial industry fucking hates her.
I said the rich, not the financial industry. And again even if they hate her she, for instance, doesnt want to wipe out all the student debt theyre making mint on.
You keep saying "but they hate her" and thats not the point, its that some seem to view her as bad for them but less bad than Sanders.
I always found this argument a bit lacking.
Sander's plan is an idea.
Warren's plan takes in the realities of radically shifting the economy and changing a whole of of intermixed debt while still helping folks.
Warren's is the plan of a person who studies the economy and tries to make sure she is doing good while doing least secondary and tertiary harm.
I would love Sander's plan. It wipes out my debt where Warren's wipes out part of it.
I think this is where I see the real split between the Warren has a lot of policy chops and is wonky. Which is great for me as a person who works in the government and was very very much educated to do "least harm" with interventions. Sander's does a lot of grand ideas, which are good. But I don't think there is the secondary and tertiary consequences really factored in.
Restructuring 1.5 trillion in debt is a huge shift in the economy.
I see Sanders demanding what we want and I see Warren asking for what she'd be willing to compromise down to. Ive had my fill of that already
A full restructuring of federal student debt while also taking into account the economic realities of how it actually does more than "give free money" part of the population is not "compromising down."
I know you will disagree with this, but this is a huge restructuring of our economic system which will have good effects and actual negative effects for more than the rich. Because our capital and economic system is intertwined in a million ways.
I just don't see someone like Warren who has been a consumer advocate up to the point of getting the CPB made, being some kind of rich person side pick. Especially when you've got people like andrew yang still in the race.
The idea that Warren would be the preference of rich people for any reason other then "I actually like her policies" is basically in direct contradiction to everything she's ever done professionally and everything we've seen. Like if anyone is gonna make sure, if they do nothing else, they go after the financial industry, it's gonna be Warren.
Preference for the rich over Sanders, theyre obviously enthused about neither
Even that is ludicrous. This has been Warren's mission for over 15 years. The financial industry fucking hates her.
I said the rich, not the financial industry. And again even if they hate her she, for instance, doesnt want to wipe out all the student debt theyre making mint on.
You keep saying "but they hate her" and thats not the point, its that some seem to view her as bad for them but less bad than Sanders.
I always found this argument a bit lacking.
Sander's plan is an idea.
Warren's plan takes in the realities of radically shifting the economy and changing a whole of of intermixed debt while still helping folks.
Warren's is the plan of a person who studies the economy and tries to make sure she is doing good while doing least secondary and tertiary harm.
I would love Sander's plan. It wipes out my debt where Warren's wipes out part of it.
I think this is where I see the real split between the Warren has a lot of policy chops and is wonky. Which is great for me as a person who works in the government and was very very much educated to do "least harm" with interventions. Sander's does a lot of grand ideas, which are good. But I don't think there is the secondary and tertiary consequences really factored in.
Restructuring 1.5 trillion in debt is a huge shift in the economy.
I see Sanders demanding what we want and I see Warren asking for what she'd be willing to compromise down to. Ive had my fill of that already
A full restructuring of federal student debt while also taking into account the economic realities of how it actually does more than "give free money" part of the population is not "compromising down."
I know you will disagree with this, but this is a huge restructuring of our economic system which will have good effects and actual negative effects for more than the rich. Because our capital and economic system is intertwined in a million ways.
Its a common belief but I think it requires a fonder view of capitalism. Seems to me recessions are good for the wealthy, just not the rest of us.
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
The crucial thing is that the predictions are non-falsifiable. Cool, you did some math that I'm sure is over my head to determine that X has a 70% chance of winning Y. But we can't run the election 100 times to see if your math has any actual basis in reality, so the entire basis of your site is essentially pulled out of your ass just as much as any op-ed.
This is actually not true.
If you make predictions on 100 different races, and for each one you say that one candidate has a 90% chance of winning, you would expect to call the right candidate 90% of the time. If you're calling every single race correct, that doesn't make you awesome for getting them all right, it means you were underestimating their likelihood of winning.
These kinds of predictions, made en masse, are entirely falsifiable. Which is something 538 goes to great lengths to establish. And when you perform this kind of post election analysis on their predictions, it turns out they do pretty well, in that, say, candidates with a 70% chance of winning tend to win 70% of the time.
Their math is really not that complicated, they're extremely open about their methodology, and they perform really well. Democrats started to love Nate in 2008 because he predicted that Obama would win and then he won. They continued to love him in 2012 when he predicted Obama would win again and he did. They started to turn on him in 2016 and accuse him of doomsaying for clicks when he was one of the few folks saying that Clinton was favored, but by no means a guarantee.
While Nate's attempts at punditry are not the best, that doesn't necessarily apply to the rest of the folks on 538, who generally at least back up their thoughts with solid numbers. I don't know if "serious statisticians" don't care for them, though maybe it's because they tend to demystify all the math that goes into polling and trend analysis. Number types tend not to like it when folks are allowed to peek into the black box. They're basically like magicians in that regard.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I just don't see someone like Warren who has been a consumer advocate up to the point of getting the CPB made, being some kind of rich person side pick. Especially when you've got people like andrew yang still in the race.
The idea that Warren would be the preference of rich people for any reason other then "I actually like her policies" is basically in direct contradiction to everything she's ever done professionally and everything we've seen. Like if anyone is gonna make sure, if they do nothing else, they go after the financial industry, it's gonna be Warren.
Eh, I can kinda see it. The fact she has a well-thought plan for how she'll do it means the donor class they can anticipate how to get the least fucked by her plan; When Standard Oil got broken up, Rockefeller just bought stock in all the new companies, got on several boards and continued to rake in obscene amounts of money. Maybe not as much as before, but still enough to die the richest man who ever lived (save maybe Mansa Musa). Other candidates aren't delivering as much on detail, so there is less certainty on how the trustbusting and regulations would go down.
There is also another possibility, which isn't really provable, but just a semi-crazy theory of mine. When it comes to leftist buisness regulations, there are two statements that I think could be applied to the reasoning behind it: The very liberal/Bernie "I want to protect people from capitalism," vs. The more moderate "I want to protect people by protecting capitalism from itself." I could see a donor looking at Warren's career in buisness and banking and assume that, deep down in her heart of hearts she holds the second view more strongly than the first one.
Probably wrong, but people can convince themselves of the stupidest things.
I see Sanders demanding what we want and I see Warren asking for what she'd be willing to compromise down to. Ive had my fill of that already
A full restructuring of federal student debt while also taking into account the economic realities of how it actually does more than "give free money" part of the population is not "compromising down."
I know you will disagree with this, but this is a huge restructuring of our economic system which will have good effects and actual negative effects for more than the rich. Because our capital and economic system is intertwined in a million ways.
This might not be the best thread for it, but I have a question that's been percolating for a while: I've seen claims to this effect, basically that, unlike Warren's plan re. student loan debt which is not ideal but well thought out and doable, Sanders' plan is a pie-in-the-sky wish that could have unintended negative consequences. Which, certainly, her plan looks more detailed and thought out, but that is not in and of itself proof (Sanders could potentially have all the details thought out, just not publicly shared).
My question is: what *are* the potential negative economic ramifications of going full-bore on student loans like Sanders proposes? To be clear, I'm not doubting that there are some, I just would like to know what they *are* (and my attempts at research so far have not been useful).
For me, this informs back to what Styrofoam called out above. Compromising about what is politically doable/expedient is one thing, and certainly I share the sentiment that I've had enough of what that kind of compromise has gotten us. Compromise about what is practical without ending all of civilized society is another matter entirely, and as such I feel like filling in the blanks on the negative potentials that Sanders isn't (publicly) addressing would be more informative as to why Warren's plan is the better approach.
"Let's take a look at the scores! The girls are at the square root of Pi, while the boys are still at a crudely drawn picture of a duck. Clearly, it's anybody's game!"
I just don't see someone like Warren who has been a consumer advocate up to the point of getting the CPB made, being some kind of rich person side pick. Especially when you've got people like andrew yang still in the race.
The idea that Warren would be the preference of rich people for any reason other then "I actually like her policies" is basically in direct contradiction to everything she's ever done professionally and everything we've seen. Like if anyone is gonna make sure, if they do nothing else, they go after the financial industry, it's gonna be Warren.
Preference for the rich over Sanders, theyre obviously enthused about neither
Even that is ludicrous. This has been Warren's mission for over 15 years. The financial industry fucking hates her.
I said the rich, not the financial industry. And again even if they hate her she, for instance, doesnt want to wipe out all the student debt theyre making mint on.
You keep saying "but they hate her" and thats not the point, its that some seem to view her as bad for them but less bad than Sanders.
And this is why this entire position is silly and ludicrous. It acts like "student debt" is the only metric here. Like rich people are only making their decision based on that. There's so much more to taxation and financial regulation and all that then student debt. And Warren is way way more into all that shit and has been for decades. It's why they really don't like her.
Frankly, this entire idea seems like a fantasy concocted by someone who likes Sanders' student debt plan better and is making up some bullshit to support their preference and convince others.
I just don't see someone like Warren who has been a consumer advocate up to the point of getting the CPB made, being some kind of rich person side pick. Especially when you've got people like andrew yang still in the race.
The idea that Warren would be the preference of rich people for any reason other then "I actually like her policies" is basically in direct contradiction to everything she's ever done professionally and everything we've seen. Like if anyone is gonna make sure, if they do nothing else, they go after the financial industry, it's gonna be Warren.
Preference for the rich over Sanders, theyre obviously enthused about neither
Even that is ludicrous. This has been Warren's mission for over 15 years. The financial industry fucking hates her.
I said the rich, not the financial industry. And again even if they hate her she, for instance, doesnt want to wipe out all the student debt theyre making mint on.
You keep saying "but they hate her" and thats not the point, its that some seem to view her as bad for them but less bad than Sanders.
And this is why this entire position is silly and ludicrous. It acts like "student debt" is the only metric here. Like rich people are only making their decision based on that. There's so much more to taxation and financial regulation and all that then student debt. And Warren is way way more into all that shit and has been for decades. It's why they really don't like her.
Frankly, this entire idea seems like a fantasy concocted by someone who likes Sanders' student debt plan better and is making up some bullshit to support their preference and convince others.
I said "for instance", you should not be under the impression that was the sole reason from what I wrote.
I just don't see someone like Warren who has been a consumer advocate up to the point of getting the CPB made, being some kind of rich person side pick. Especially when you've got people like andrew yang still in the race.
Its not something I believe either but there have been reports and interviews from donor class people.
But who cares what they think and why is it Warren’s fault?
This is rhetorical, I see that you don’t agree with them.
Uhhh its the thing we're discussing in a thread about the primary? I dont get the question.
Just an open question to the notion that some in the donor class prefer Warren for whatever reason.
My general response to that is “who cares what they think”.
I mean if you really think the donor class prefers Warren and you loathe the donor class it makes sense that you might be wary like they see something you dont.
Imagine a bunch of reports came out that libertarian ancaps were warming up to your second choice. You can see how some percentage of people might be warier right?
Either way I think most Sanders supporters on the left break for Warren reliabily if she wins. His supporters on the left mind you, I've seen the polling for his supporters as a whole.
Anyone he inherited from Ron Paul (who I'm fairly confident is a small but super online minority) or voted third party in 2016 would be pretty high on the suspect list.
But outside of that it's hard to imagine someone being engaged enough to have a primary candidate preference but not practical enough to just pull the lever.
Generally Id agree but Sanders's whole thing is he attracts people who aren't usually engaged. If hes not an option a good number of those people will disengage again. Its a big part of why I think he's the best candidate on practical grounds. He'll bring in new people and the rest of you are vote blue no matter who so.
Doesn’t work that way. While mainstream Democrats will vote for “anyone but Trump” there are people who generally vote Democrat but might not vote for Socialist Bernie.
While leftists tend to hiss “centrist” through clenched teeth at anyone to the right of Karl Marx, there are actual “centrists” out there and they like Biden, not Bernie.
I don't know what it's worth, but conservative author Tom Nichols is saying "screw it, i'll take Warren, or anyone really, if it means we get rid of Trump."
I just don't see someone like Warren who has been a consumer advocate up to the point of getting the CPB made, being some kind of rich person side pick. Especially when you've got people like andrew yang still in the race.
The idea that Warren would be the preference of rich people for any reason other then "I actually like her policies" is basically in direct contradiction to everything she's ever done professionally and everything we've seen. Like if anyone is gonna make sure, if they do nothing else, they go after the financial industry, it's gonna be Warren.
Preference for the rich over Sanders, theyre obviously enthused about neither
Even that is ludicrous. This has been Warren's mission for over 15 years. The financial industry fucking hates her.
I said the rich, not the financial industry. And again even if they hate her she, for instance, doesnt want to wipe out all the student debt theyre making mint on.
You keep saying "but they hate her" and thats not the point, its that some seem to view her as bad for them but less bad than Sanders.
And this is why this entire position is silly and ludicrous. It acts like "student debt" is the only metric here. Like rich people are only making their decision based on that. There's so much more to taxation and financial regulation and all that then student debt. And Warren is way way more into all that shit and has been for decades. It's why they really don't like her.
Frankly, this entire idea seems like a fantasy concocted by someone who likes Sanders' student debt plan better and is making up some bullshit to support their preference and convince others.
I said "for instance", you should not be under the impression that was the sole reason from what I wrote.
It's the only thing you mentioned and I'm really struggling, even there, to think of what could possibly apply here. Like, what is the thing donors supposedly love Warren for exactly, in contradiction to all the evidence?
I just don't see someone like Warren who has been a consumer advocate up to the point of getting the CPB made, being some kind of rich person side pick. Especially when you've got people like andrew yang still in the race.
The idea that Warren would be the preference of rich people for any reason other then "I actually like her policies" is basically in direct contradiction to everything she's ever done professionally and everything we've seen. Like if anyone is gonna make sure, if they do nothing else, they go after the financial industry, it's gonna be Warren.
Preference for the rich over Sanders, theyre obviously enthused about neither
Even that is ludicrous. This has been Warren's mission for over 15 years. The financial industry fucking hates her.
I said the rich, not the financial industry. And again even if they hate her she, for instance, doesnt want to wipe out all the student debt theyre making mint on.
You keep saying "but they hate her" and thats not the point, its that some seem to view her as bad for them but less bad than Sanders.
And this is why this entire position is silly and ludicrous. It acts like "student debt" is the only metric here. Like rich people are only making their decision based on that. There's so much more to taxation and financial regulation and all that then student debt. And Warren is way way more into all that shit and has been for decades. It's why they really don't like her.
Frankly, this entire idea seems like a fantasy concocted by someone who likes Sanders' student debt plan better and is making up some bullshit to support their preference and convince others.
I said "for instance", you should not be under the impression that was the sole reason from what I wrote.
It's the only thing you mentioned and I'm really struggling, even there, to think of what could possibly apply here. Like, what is the thing donors supposedly love Warren for exactly, in contradiction to all the evidence?
As youre not actually reading what Im writing Ill decline to pursue this further.
I too would like more specifics on what secondary and tertiary consequences may result from wiping out some student debt rather than all, and how warren's plan is designed to address them while sanders' is not
This is an older study that looks at full forgiveness verse targeted forgiveness like Warren's plan. It is from Demos which is a rather left leaning group.
Also basically targeted plans help people of color communities more and helps close the wealth gap. Full forgiveness exasperates it since many of those with the highest incomes/debt load are white and they would gain much more wealth from the forgiveness.
Here is Brookings. They are more a center/standard DC group. They found that Warren's plan was much more regressive than Demos or Brandis did. With it effecting those with the least, the least. But those would also have the lowest loan totals and may get the full relief no matter whose plan is instituted.
I just don't see someone like Warren who has been a consumer advocate up to the point of getting the CPB made, being some kind of rich person side pick. Especially when you've got people like andrew yang still in the race.
Its not something I believe either but there have been reports and interviews from donor class people.
But who cares what they think and why is it Warren’s fault?
This is rhetorical, I see that you don’t agree with them.
Uhhh its the thing we're discussing in a thread about the primary? I dont get the question.
Just an open question to the notion that some in the donor class prefer Warren for whatever reason.
My general response to that is “who cares what they think”.
I mean if you really think the donor class prefers Warren and you loathe the donor class it makes sense that you might be wary like they see something you dont.
Imagine a bunch of reports came out that libertarian ancaps were warming up to your second choice. You can see how some percentage of people might be warier right?
Either way I think most Sanders supporters on the left break for Warren reliabily if she wins. His supporters on the left mind you, I've seen the polling for his supporters as a whole.
Anyone he inherited from Ron Paul (who I'm fairly confident is a small but super online minority) or voted third party in 2016 would be pretty high on the suspect list.
But outside of that it's hard to imagine someone being engaged enough to have a primary candidate preference but not practical enough to just pull the lever.
Generally Id agree but Sanders's whole thing is he attracts people who aren't usually engaged. If hes not an option a good number of those people will disengage again. Its a big part of why I think he's the best candidate on practical grounds. He'll bring in new people and the rest of you are vote blue no matter who so.
Doesn’t work that way. While mainstream Democrats will vote for “anyone but Trump” there are people who generally vote Democrat but might not vote for Socialist Bernie.
While leftists tend to hiss “centrist” through clenched teeth at anyone to the right of Karl Marx, there are actual “centrists” out there and they like Biden, not Bernie.
I don't know what it's worth, but conservative author Tom Nichols is saying "screw it, i'll take Warren, or anyone really, if it means we get rid of Trump."
This is a rather robust study, before Sander's said anything, on full cancellation. Though they don't go into the wealth gap stuff which I find interesting.
I just don't see someone like Warren who has been a consumer advocate up to the point of getting the CPB made, being some kind of rich person side pick. Especially when you've got people like andrew yang still in the race.
Its not something I believe either but there have been reports and interviews from donor class people.
But who cares what they think and why is it Warren’s fault?
This is rhetorical, I see that you don’t agree with them.
Uhhh its the thing we're discussing in a thread about the primary? I dont get the question.
Just an open question to the notion that some in the donor class prefer Warren for whatever reason.
My general response to that is “who cares what they think”.
I mean if you really think the donor class prefers Warren and you loathe the donor class it makes sense that you might be wary like they see something you dont.
Imagine a bunch of reports came out that libertarian ancaps were warming up to your second choice. You can see how some percentage of people might be warier right?
Either way I think most Sanders supporters on the left break for Warren reliabily if she wins. His supporters on the left mind you, I've seen the polling for his supporters as a whole.
Anyone he inherited from Ron Paul (who I'm fairly confident is a small but super online minority) or voted third party in 2016 would be pretty high on the suspect list.
But outside of that it's hard to imagine someone being engaged enough to have a primary candidate preference but not practical enough to just pull the lever.
Generally Id agree but Sanders's whole thing is he attracts people who aren't usually engaged. If hes not an option a good number of those people will disengage again. Its a big part of why I think he's the best candidate on practical grounds. He'll bring in new people and the rest of you are vote blue no matter who so.
Doesn’t work that way. While mainstream Democrats will vote for “anyone but Trump” there are people who generally vote Democrat but might not vote for Socialist Bernie.
While leftists tend to hiss “centrist” through clenched teeth at anyone to the right of Karl Marx, there are actual “centrists” out there and they like Biden, not Bernie.
I don't know what it's worth, but conservative author Tom Nichols is saying "screw it, i'll take Warren, or anyone really, if it means we get rid of Trump."
I just don't see someone like Warren who has been a consumer advocate up to the point of getting the CPB made, being some kind of rich person side pick. Especially when you've got people like andrew yang still in the race.
Its not something I believe either but there have been reports and interviews from donor class people.
But who cares what they think and why is it Warren’s fault?
This is rhetorical, I see that you don’t agree with them.
Uhhh its the thing we're discussing in a thread about the primary? I dont get the question.
Just an open question to the notion that some in the donor class prefer Warren for whatever reason.
My general response to that is “who cares what they think”.
I mean if you really think the donor class prefers Warren and you loathe the donor class it makes sense that you might be wary like they see something you dont.
Imagine a bunch of reports came out that libertarian ancaps were warming up to your second choice. You can see how some percentage of people might be warier right?
Either way I think most Sanders supporters on the left break for Warren reliabily if she wins. His supporters on the left mind you, I've seen the polling for his supporters as a whole.
Anyone he inherited from Ron Paul (who I'm fairly confident is a small but super online minority) or voted third party in 2016 would be pretty high on the suspect list.
But outside of that it's hard to imagine someone being engaged enough to have a primary candidate preference but not practical enough to just pull the lever.
Generally Id agree but Sanders's whole thing is he attracts people who aren't usually engaged. If hes not an option a good number of those people will disengage again. Its a big part of why I think he's the best candidate on practical grounds. He'll bring in new people and the rest of you are vote blue no matter who so.
Doesn’t work that way. While mainstream Democrats will vote for “anyone but Trump” there are people who generally vote Democrat but might not vote for Socialist Bernie.
While leftists tend to hiss “centrist” through clenched teeth at anyone to the right of Karl Marx, there are actual “centrists” out there and they like Biden, not Bernie.
I don't know what it's worth, but conservative author Tom Nichols is saying "screw it, i'll take Warren, or anyone really, if it means we get rid of Trump."
I just don't see someone like Warren who has been a consumer advocate up to the point of getting the CPB made, being some kind of rich person side pick. Especially when you've got people like andrew yang still in the race.
Its not something I believe either but there have been reports and interviews from donor class people.
But who cares what they think and why is it Warren’s fault?
This is rhetorical, I see that you don’t agree with them.
Uhhh its the thing we're discussing in a thread about the primary? I dont get the question.
Just an open question to the notion that some in the donor class prefer Warren for whatever reason.
My general response to that is “who cares what they think”.
I mean if you really think the donor class prefers Warren and you loathe the donor class it makes sense that you might be wary like they see something you dont.
Imagine a bunch of reports came out that libertarian ancaps were warming up to your second choice. You can see how some percentage of people might be warier right?
Either way I think most Sanders supporters on the left break for Warren reliabily if she wins. His supporters on the left mind you, I've seen the polling for his supporters as a whole.
Anyone he inherited from Ron Paul (who I'm fairly confident is a small but super online minority) or voted third party in 2016 would be pretty high on the suspect list.
But outside of that it's hard to imagine someone being engaged enough to have a primary candidate preference but not practical enough to just pull the lever.
Generally Id agree but Sanders's whole thing is he attracts people who aren't usually engaged. If hes not an option a good number of those people will disengage again. Its a big part of why I think he's the best candidate on practical grounds. He'll bring in new people and the rest of you are vote blue no matter who so.
Doesn’t work that way. While mainstream Democrats will vote for “anyone but Trump” there are people who generally vote Democrat but might not vote for Socialist Bernie.
While leftists tend to hiss “centrist” through clenched teeth at anyone to the right of Karl Marx, there are actual “centrists” out there and they like Biden, not Bernie.
I don't know what it's worth, but conservative author Tom Nichols is saying "screw it, i'll take Warren, or anyone really, if it means we get rid of Trump."
Whether or not that is a bellweather, I cannot say for sure. Popped onto my feed via Huffington Post's Jennifer Bendery.
thread goes further than that
That almost kinda sounds like the opposite. "I'd take anyone, even Warren, over Trump."
But it's for sure just blanket "Any Democrat over Trump" and not "I prefer Warren".
Kinda sad-but-expected that "not racist" isn't one of his criteria.
Yeah, honestly, this is exactly what I would expect from any sort of principled/"principled" conservative. Trump's problem is that he's a traitor and an unstable moron. His policies are, obviously, perfectly fine.
+18
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
To be upfront: I'm supporting Warren over Sanders but not explicitly because of this issue, and I would be happy seeing either of their plans implemented, although I think the method of paying for it in Warren's plan is smarter and I believe it's more likely to produce durable, broad political support.
The "potential negative externalities" question seems likely fairly minor thing to quibble over between the two plans: the most obvious negative externality would be loan companies raising rates to make up for their interest losses, and reconfiguring loan terms so as to more heavily penalize early repayment in anticipation that another round of forgiveness might be in the offing. I imagine the negative effects of Warren's plan would be slightly lesser on that count because it passes over some of the most valuable loans, but by how much? Can't say, don't anticipate it's a large delta.
I would note there's a significant difference about the method of paying for all this: Sanders would pay for it out of a tax on "Wall Street transactions", whereas Warren is taking this out of her wealth tax. I would guess that a transaction tax would be more variable due to variations in transaction volume based on how the economy is doing, whereas a wealth tax is a tax on existing wealth; it would be subject to somewhat less unpredictability. (Both methods will see the taxees changing their behavior to evade the tax, so I'd call that a wash) It's obviously worth noting that middle-class people with generic retirement 401Ks would have more exposure to a transaction tax than to a wealth tax, making Sanders' method somewhat more regressive in terms of who pays for it.
It might be a good/economical idea to wipe out the debt loads of all the doctors and lawyers who would be left out of Warren's plan, and I'd be happy to see Sanders' plan implemented. (I have lots of law school debt and am in the top 10% of incomes nationally, so my personal motivations are obvious) I think it's also viable to question whether it's "worth" it and whether people like me deserve a complete bailout. Warren's plan solves 95% of the problem; the most important 95%. Sanders "solves" that last 5% but there isn't a consensus that that 5% is important enough to ask a fairly broad portion of society to pay for it.
I just don't see someone like Warren who has been a consumer advocate up to the point of getting the CPB made, being some kind of rich person side pick. Especially when you've got people like andrew yang still in the race.
Its not something I believe either but there have been reports and interviews from donor class people.
But who cares what they think and why is it Warren’s fault?
This is rhetorical, I see that you don’t agree with them.
Uhhh its the thing we're discussing in a thread about the primary? I dont get the question.
Just an open question to the notion that some in the donor class prefer Warren for whatever reason.
My general response to that is “who cares what they think”.
I mean if you really think the donor class prefers Warren and you loathe the donor class it makes sense that you might be wary like they see something you dont.
Imagine a bunch of reports came out that libertarian ancaps were warming up to your second choice. You can see how some percentage of people might be warier right?
Either way I think most Sanders supporters on the left break for Warren reliabily if she wins. His supporters on the left mind you, I've seen the polling for his supporters as a whole.
Anyone he inherited from Ron Paul (who I'm fairly confident is a small but super online minority) or voted third party in 2016 would be pretty high on the suspect list.
But outside of that it's hard to imagine someone being engaged enough to have a primary candidate preference but not practical enough to just pull the lever.
Generally Id agree but Sanders's whole thing is he attracts people who aren't usually engaged. If hes not an option a good number of those people will disengage again. Its a big part of why I think he's the best candidate on practical grounds. He'll bring in new people and the rest of you are vote blue no matter who so.
Doesn’t work that way. While mainstream Democrats will vote for “anyone but Trump” there are people who generally vote Democrat but might not vote for Socialist Bernie.
While leftists tend to hiss “centrist” through clenched teeth at anyone to the right of Karl Marx, there are actual “centrists” out there and they like Biden, not Bernie.
I don't know what it's worth, but conservative author Tom Nichols is saying "screw it, i'll take Warren, or anyone really, if it means we get rid of Trump."
Whether or not that is a bellweather, I cannot say for sure. Popped onto my feed via Huffington Post's Jennifer Bendery.
thread goes further than that
That almost kinda sounds like the opposite. "I'd take anyone, even Warren, over Trump."
But it's for sure just blanket "Any Democrat over Trump" and not "I prefer Warren".
I saw a life long Republican family interviewed at the Iowa state fair. The mother couldn't vote for Trump the first time and wrote in John McCain, the father didn't want to vote for Trump but felt he *had* to vote against Clinton and would like to avoid voting for Trump in 2020 depending on who the Democratic nominee is. Their daughter who will be 18 next year in time to vote would vote for any other Republican, but says she and her mother at the moment would like to vote for Kamala Harris.
I just don't see someone like Warren who has been a consumer advocate up to the point of getting the CPB made, being some kind of rich person side pick. Especially when you've got people like andrew yang still in the race.
Its not something I believe either but there have been reports and interviews from donor class people.
But who cares what they think and why is it Warren’s fault?
This is rhetorical, I see that you don’t agree with them.
Uhhh its the thing we're discussing in a thread about the primary? I dont get the question.
Just an open question to the notion that some in the donor class prefer Warren for whatever reason.
My general response to that is “who cares what they think”.
I mean if you really think the donor class prefers Warren and you loathe the donor class it makes sense that you might be wary like they see something you dont.
Imagine a bunch of reports came out that libertarian ancaps were warming up to your second choice. You can see how some percentage of people might be warier right?
Either way I think most Sanders supporters on the left break for Warren reliabily if she wins. His supporters on the left mind you, I've seen the polling for his supporters as a whole.
Anyone he inherited from Ron Paul (who I'm fairly confident is a small but super online minority) or voted third party in 2016 would be pretty high on the suspect list.
But outside of that it's hard to imagine someone being engaged enough to have a primary candidate preference but not practical enough to just pull the lever.
Generally Id agree but Sanders's whole thing is he attracts people who aren't usually engaged. If hes not an option a good number of those people will disengage again. Its a big part of why I think he's the best candidate on practical grounds. He'll bring in new people and the rest of you are vote blue no matter who so.
Doesn’t work that way. While mainstream Democrats will vote for “anyone but Trump” there are people who generally vote Democrat but might not vote for Socialist Bernie.
While leftists tend to hiss “centrist” through clenched teeth at anyone to the right of Karl Marx, there are actual “centrists” out there and they like Biden, not Bernie.
I don't know what it's worth, but conservative author Tom Nichols is saying "screw it, i'll take Warren, or anyone really, if it means we get rid of Trump."
Whether or not that is a bellweather, I cannot say for sure. Popped onto my feed via Huffington Post's Jennifer Bendery.
thread goes further than that
That almost kinda sounds like the opposite. "I'd take anyone, even Warren, over Trump."
But it's for sure just blanket "Any Democrat over Trump" and not "I prefer Warren".
Perhaps more bellwether, but Anthony Scaramucci had a very public breakup/fight with Trump over the weekend and has been all over the news today calling for a Republican challenger, to bring in a "relief pitcher" for the next election. He's been kinda pleading with Republicans in Washington to not be afraid and take a stand before it's too late.
I know it's too much to hope for, but the best best bestest possible outcome for the 2020 election would be for Trump to be primaried by a sane Republican and be humiliated even more than if he had been removed from office via impeachment. Then I'll still vote for Elizabeth Warren or whoever, but it'll be soooo much less apocalyptic stress feeling.
I just don't see someone like Warren who has been a consumer advocate up to the point of getting the CPB made, being some kind of rich person side pick. Especially when you've got people like andrew yang still in the race.
Its not something I believe either but there have been reports and interviews from donor class people.
But who cares what they think and why is it Warren’s fault?
This is rhetorical, I see that you don’t agree with them.
Uhhh its the thing we're discussing in a thread about the primary? I dont get the question.
Just an open question to the notion that some in the donor class prefer Warren for whatever reason.
My general response to that is “who cares what they think”.
I mean if you really think the donor class prefers Warren and you loathe the donor class it makes sense that you might be wary like they see something you dont.
Imagine a bunch of reports came out that libertarian ancaps were warming up to your second choice. You can see how some percentage of people might be warier right?
Either way I think most Sanders supporters on the left break for Warren reliabily if she wins. His supporters on the left mind you, I've seen the polling for his supporters as a whole.
Anyone he inherited from Ron Paul (who I'm fairly confident is a small but super online minority) or voted third party in 2016 would be pretty high on the suspect list.
But outside of that it's hard to imagine someone being engaged enough to have a primary candidate preference but not practical enough to just pull the lever.
Generally Id agree but Sanders's whole thing is he attracts people who aren't usually engaged. If hes not an option a good number of those people will disengage again. Its a big part of why I think he's the best candidate on practical grounds. He'll bring in new people and the rest of you are vote blue no matter who so.
Doesn’t work that way. While mainstream Democrats will vote for “anyone but Trump” there are people who generally vote Democrat but might not vote for Socialist Bernie.
While leftists tend to hiss “centrist” through clenched teeth at anyone to the right of Karl Marx, there are actual “centrists” out there and they like Biden, not Bernie.
I don't know what it's worth, but conservative author Tom Nichols is saying "screw it, i'll take Warren, or anyone really, if it means we get rid of Trump."
Whether or not that is a bellweather, I cannot say for sure. Popped onto my feed via Huffington Post's Jennifer Bendery.
thread goes further than that
That almost kinda sounds like the opposite. "I'd take anyone, even Warren, over Trump."
But it's for sure just blanket "Any Democrat over Trump" and not "I prefer Warren".
Perhaps more bellwether, but Anthony Scaramucci had a very public breakup/fight with Trump over the weekend and has been all over the news today calling for a Republican challenger, to bring in a "relief pitcher" for the next election. He's been kinda pleading with Republicans in Washington to not be afraid and take a stand before it's too late.
I know it's too much to hope for, but the best best bestest possible outcome for the 2020 election would be for Trump to be primaried by a sane Republican and be humiliated even more than if he had been removed from office via impeachment. Then I'll still vote for Elizabeth Warren or whoever, but it'll be soooo much less apocalyptic stress feeling.
There's a guy trying to do it, the fact that nobody knows and I only found out because I saw an Esquire piece about him by coincidence says everything you need to know about that.
The bad man will not magically go away. Mueller didn't make the bad man go away. He will only go away if people make him.
The Primary is where you get the most politically aligned people voting, there is no way Trump would ever lose the primary to a moderate, like moderate republicans are voting in the democratic primary.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
They will undoubtedly all find a reason they can’t vote for the dem
First of all, because Kamala Harris will not win the nomination: they will say "I would have voted Harris, but the Democrats were too Extreme."
Second of all, in the unlikely event that Harris does win the nomination, the right-wing press will paint her as Karla Marx, the most left-wing candidate to ever stand for Democratic office, and they will vote Trump out of fear that Comrade Harris takes all their money and religion.
Yeah, Nate Silver is fine if you stick to stats. Punditry from data scientists is very disconnected, largely because of the discipline. You see enough data, you see patterns and start to muse about them as well as tie your truths to data, which can change or provide misleading insights at times.
I also think that many R's will stay home or vote someone else (not necessarily dem) if current conditions continue. During the first election it was: "this is just bluster, he'll settle in". Now he's clearly an idiot, clearly compromised and clearly cruel. Throw in the fact that working folks' lives have likely gotten WORSE in a good economy and that's where it comes home to roost. They just need someone that gives them some level of hope. That's why I worry about Biden, as he's too much like Trump in certain ways (Old, white dude who makes gaffes and blusters). Don't play their game, make them play your game. That's how Trump won before, he made people play his game.
I just don't see someone like Warren who has been a consumer advocate up to the point of getting the CPB made, being some kind of rich person side pick. Especially when you've got people like andrew yang still in the race.
Its not something I believe either but there have been reports and interviews from donor class people.
But who cares what they think and why is it Warren’s fault?
This is rhetorical, I see that you don’t agree with them.
Uhhh its the thing we're discussing in a thread about the primary? I dont get the question.
Just an open question to the notion that some in the donor class prefer Warren for whatever reason.
My general response to that is “who cares what they think”.
I mean if you really think the donor class prefers Warren and you loathe the donor class it makes sense that you might be wary like they see something you dont.
Imagine a bunch of reports came out that libertarian ancaps were warming up to your second choice. You can see how some percentage of people might be warier right?
Either way I think most Sanders supporters on the left break for Warren reliabily if she wins. His supporters on the left mind you, I've seen the polling for his supporters as a whole.
Anyone he inherited from Ron Paul (who I'm fairly confident is a small but super online minority) or voted third party in 2016 would be pretty high on the suspect list.
But outside of that it's hard to imagine someone being engaged enough to have a primary candidate preference but not practical enough to just pull the lever.
Generally Id agree but Sanders's whole thing is he attracts people who aren't usually engaged. If hes not an option a good number of those people will disengage again. Its a big part of why I think he's the best candidate on practical grounds. He'll bring in new people and the rest of you are vote blue no matter who so.
Doesn’t work that way. While mainstream Democrats will vote for “anyone but Trump” there are people who generally vote Democrat but might not vote for Socialist Bernie.
While leftists tend to hiss “centrist” through clenched teeth at anyone to the right of Karl Marx, there are actual “centrists” out there and they like Biden, not Bernie.
I don't know what it's worth, but conservative author Tom Nichols is saying "screw it, i'll take Warren, or anyone really, if it means we get rid of Trump."
Whether or not that is a bellweather, I cannot say for sure. Popped onto my feed via Huffington Post's Jennifer Bendery.
thread goes further than that
That almost kinda sounds like the opposite. "I'd take anyone, even Warren, over Trump."
But it's for sure just blanket "Any Democrat over Trump" and not "I prefer Warren".
Perhaps more bellwether, but Anthony Scaramucci had a very public breakup/fight with Trump over the weekend and has been all over the news today calling for a Republican challenger, to bring in a "relief pitcher" for the next election. He's been kinda pleading with Republicans in Washington to not be afraid and take a stand before it's too late.
I know it's too much to hope for, but the best best bestest possible outcome for the 2020 election would be for Trump to be primaried by a sane Republican and be humiliated even more than if he had been removed from office via impeachment. Then I'll still vote for Elizabeth Warren or whoever, but it'll be soooo much less apocalyptic stress feeling.
There's a guy trying to do it, the fact that nobody knows and I only found out because I saw an Esquire piece about him by coincidence says everything you need to know about that.
The bad man will not magically go away. Mueller didn't make the bad man go away. He will only go away if people make him.
Who, Bill Weld? He's obviously not a contender and no Republicans are taking his candidacy seriously. Is he even still a Republican anymore? He ran for VP last election as a Libertarian, remember that?
Like I said, it's a pipe dream. But it's nice to see somebody say it publicly. I doubt Anthony Scaramucci is taken very seriously or is respected by his party either.
I do think that it's more likely to succeed getting Republicans to find somebody with the balls to challenge Trump on moral grounds than expect them to vote Democrat. Especially in this hyper divided partisan age. It would have to be somebody a lot more competent and successful than the clown car Trump defeated in 2016
+1
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
edited August 2019
My biggest concern is that Trump is going to play his game no matter what, and the media LIKES his game. And they like his game because it lets them print big flashy headlines about how TRUMP SAID THIS CRAZY THING while preening about how they're so courageously standing up to power everytime they report THE TRUTH.
So whoever goes against him needs to either beat him at his game (which is hard, because his game is "be the loudest, most shameless asshole in the room" and he has no equal), or find a game the media likes better.
That my one fear about Warren. She has good presence and terrific charisma and she's super smart and would undoubtedly make a good president. But the one real battle she's had versus Trump was the Pocahontas thing, where he just bulldozed her by being a relentless blowhard bully, and she didn't come out on top.
I mean, that's my fear with most of the candidates, to be honest.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I mean, that's my fear with most of the candidates, to be honest.
Biden seems good at playing the moronic macho old man game. Remember when he said he could take Trump in a fight? That was incredibly dumb from my point of view, but people seemed to like it.
My biggest concern is that Trump is going to play his game no matter what, and the media LIKES his game. And they like his game because it lets them print big flashy headlines about how TRUMP SAID THIS CRAZY THING while preening about how they're so courageously standing up to power everytime they report THE TRUTH.
So whoever goes against him needs to either beat him at his game (which is hard, because his game is "be the loudest, most shameless asshole in the room" and he has no equal), or find a game the media likes better.
That my one fear about Warren. She has good presence and terrific charisma and she's super smart and would undoubtedly make a good president. But the one real battle she's had versus Trump was the Pocahontas thing, where he just bulldozed her by being a relentless blowhard bully, and she didn't come out on top.
I mean, that's my fear with most of the candidates, to be honest.
Warren so far has been the only one to pull the headlines in a positive solo direction with her big plan releases. Which is not something most others can say except so far Harris with the debate, Beto by saying "WTF?!", and some how Buttigieg who just gets random glowing pieces.
Posts
Five seconds of googling "donor class Warren" was not informative.
I think this came from comments in Warren's tweet earlier in the thread about how Thiel hates her. There is a sub-section of folks who were saying she is more liked than Sander's by the rich.
I see Sanders demanding what we want and I see Warren asking for what she'd be willing to compromise down to. Ive had my fill of that already
There's been some reporting from sources and background etc. You can look it up if you like but Im phone posting and its not important anyway.
If you were smart and in the financial industry you would support her, because the best thing for rich people actually turns out to be financial reform and helping poor people. It's only like the most predatory people in any industry who dont support reforms to make it more stable and effective.
Well, we're not getting what we want, so what's Sanders' backup plan? Does he have one?
A full restructuring of federal student debt while also taking into account the economic realities of how it actually does more than "give free money" part of the population is not "compromising down."
I know you will disagree with this, but this is a huge restructuring of our economic system which will have good effects and actual negative effects for more than the rich. Because our capital and economic system is intertwined in a million ways.
Its a common belief but I think it requires a fonder view of capitalism. Seems to me recessions are good for the wealthy, just not the rest of us.
again!
This is actually not true.
If you make predictions on 100 different races, and for each one you say that one candidate has a 90% chance of winning, you would expect to call the right candidate 90% of the time. If you're calling every single race correct, that doesn't make you awesome for getting them all right, it means you were underestimating their likelihood of winning.
These kinds of predictions, made en masse, are entirely falsifiable. Which is something 538 goes to great lengths to establish. And when you perform this kind of post election analysis on their predictions, it turns out they do pretty well, in that, say, candidates with a 70% chance of winning tend to win 70% of the time.
Their math is really not that complicated, they're extremely open about their methodology, and they perform really well. Democrats started to love Nate in 2008 because he predicted that Obama would win and then he won. They continued to love him in 2012 when he predicted Obama would win again and he did. They started to turn on him in 2016 and accuse him of doomsaying for clicks when he was one of the few folks saying that Clinton was favored, but by no means a guarantee.
While Nate's attempts at punditry are not the best, that doesn't necessarily apply to the rest of the folks on 538, who generally at least back up their thoughts with solid numbers. I don't know if "serious statisticians" don't care for them, though maybe it's because they tend to demystify all the math that goes into polling and trend analysis. Number types tend not to like it when folks are allowed to peek into the black box. They're basically like magicians in that regard.
Eh, I can kinda see it. The fact she has a well-thought plan for how she'll do it means the donor class they can anticipate how to get the least fucked by her plan; When Standard Oil got broken up, Rockefeller just bought stock in all the new companies, got on several boards and continued to rake in obscene amounts of money. Maybe not as much as before, but still enough to die the richest man who ever lived (save maybe Mansa Musa). Other candidates aren't delivering as much on detail, so there is less certainty on how the trustbusting and regulations would go down.
There is also another possibility, which isn't really provable, but just a semi-crazy theory of mine. When it comes to leftist buisness regulations, there are two statements that I think could be applied to the reasoning behind it: The very liberal/Bernie "I want to protect people from capitalism," vs. The more moderate "I want to protect people by protecting capitalism from itself." I could see a donor looking at Warren's career in buisness and banking and assume that, deep down in her heart of hearts she holds the second view more strongly than the first one.
Probably wrong, but people can convince themselves of the stupidest things.
This might not be the best thread for it, but I have a question that's been percolating for a while: I've seen claims to this effect, basically that, unlike Warren's plan re. student loan debt which is not ideal but well thought out and doable, Sanders' plan is a pie-in-the-sky wish that could have unintended negative consequences. Which, certainly, her plan looks more detailed and thought out, but that is not in and of itself proof (Sanders could potentially have all the details thought out, just not publicly shared).
My question is: what *are* the potential negative economic ramifications of going full-bore on student loans like Sanders proposes? To be clear, I'm not doubting that there are some, I just would like to know what they *are* (and my attempts at research so far have not been useful).
For me, this informs back to what Styrofoam called out above. Compromising about what is politically doable/expedient is one thing, and certainly I share the sentiment that I've had enough of what that kind of compromise has gotten us. Compromise about what is practical without ending all of civilized society is another matter entirely, and as such I feel like filling in the blanks on the negative potentials that Sanders isn't (publicly) addressing would be more informative as to why Warren's plan is the better approach.
And this is why this entire position is silly and ludicrous. It acts like "student debt" is the only metric here. Like rich people are only making their decision based on that. There's so much more to taxation and financial regulation and all that then student debt. And Warren is way way more into all that shit and has been for decades. It's why they really don't like her.
Frankly, this entire idea seems like a fantasy concocted by someone who likes Sanders' student debt plan better and is making up some bullshit to support their preference and convince others.
I said "for instance", you should not be under the impression that was the sole reason from what I wrote.
I don't know what it's worth, but conservative author Tom Nichols is saying "screw it, i'll take Warren, or anyone really, if it means we get rid of Trump."
Whether or not that is a bellweather, I cannot say for sure. Popped onto my feed via Huffington Post's Jennifer Bendery.
thread goes further than that
It's the only thing you mentioned and I'm really struggling, even there, to think of what could possibly apply here. Like, what is the thing donors supposedly love Warren for exactly, in contradiction to all the evidence?
As youre not actually reading what Im writing Ill decline to pursue this further.
What if...
Co-Presidents
One can only lie and the other can tell only the truth.
First a study from Brandis on Warren's plan. It is rather positive as most debt is canceled and it shows a positive decrease in the wealth gap between people of color and whites. It was sent to Warren's campaign and it is published on her site.
https://elizabethwarren.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Experts-Letter-to-Senator-Warren-.pdf
This is an older study that looks at full forgiveness verse targeted forgiveness like Warren's plan. It is from Demos which is a rather left leaning group.
https://www.demos.org/research/less-debt-more-equity-lowering-student-debt-while-closing-black-white-wealth-gap
Also basically targeted plans help people of color communities more and helps close the wealth gap. Full forgiveness exasperates it since many of those with the highest incomes/debt load are white and they would gain much more wealth from the forgiveness.
Here is Brookings. They are more a center/standard DC group. They found that Warren's plan was much more regressive than Demos or Brandis did. With it effecting those with the least, the least. But those would also have the lowest loan totals and may get the full relief no matter whose plan is instituted.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/04/24/how-progressive-is-senator-elizabeth-warrens-loan-forgiveness-proposal/
I am finding most of the published work with Sanders is tied to him but I can dig more.
No matter what canceling debt helps the economy overall though there are some differences in the secondary and tertiary effects.
That almost kinda sounds like the opposite. "I'd take anyone, even Warren, over Trump."
But it's for sure just blanket "Any Democrat over Trump" and not "I prefer Warren".
http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/rpr_2_6.pdf
No matter what both plans would probably be a huge overall boon to the economy.
Kinda sad-but-expected that "not racist" isn't one of his criteria.
That's because the GOP isn't racist. Just ask them, or one of their many _____ friends.
Yeah, honestly, this is exactly what I would expect from any sort of principled/"principled" conservative. Trump's problem is that he's a traitor and an unstable moron. His policies are, obviously, perfectly fine.
The "potential negative externalities" question seems likely fairly minor thing to quibble over between the two plans: the most obvious negative externality would be loan companies raising rates to make up for their interest losses, and reconfiguring loan terms so as to more heavily penalize early repayment in anticipation that another round of forgiveness might be in the offing. I imagine the negative effects of Warren's plan would be slightly lesser on that count because it passes over some of the most valuable loans, but by how much? Can't say, don't anticipate it's a large delta.
I would note there's a significant difference about the method of paying for all this: Sanders would pay for it out of a tax on "Wall Street transactions", whereas Warren is taking this out of her wealth tax. I would guess that a transaction tax would be more variable due to variations in transaction volume based on how the economy is doing, whereas a wealth tax is a tax on existing wealth; it would be subject to somewhat less unpredictability. (Both methods will see the taxees changing their behavior to evade the tax, so I'd call that a wash) It's obviously worth noting that middle-class people with generic retirement 401Ks would have more exposure to a transaction tax than to a wealth tax, making Sanders' method somewhat more regressive in terms of who pays for it.
It might be a good/economical idea to wipe out the debt loads of all the doctors and lawyers who would be left out of Warren's plan, and I'd be happy to see Sanders' plan implemented. (I have lots of law school debt and am in the top 10% of incomes nationally, so my personal motivations are obvious) I think it's also viable to question whether it's "worth" it and whether people like me deserve a complete bailout. Warren's plan solves 95% of the problem; the most important 95%. Sanders "solves" that last 5% but there isn't a consensus that that 5% is important enough to ask a fairly broad portion of society to pay for it.
I saw a life long Republican family interviewed at the Iowa state fair. The mother couldn't vote for Trump the first time and wrote in John McCain, the father didn't want to vote for Trump but felt he *had* to vote against Clinton and would like to avoid voting for Trump in 2020 depending on who the Democratic nominee is. Their daughter who will be 18 next year in time to vote would vote for any other Republican, but says she and her mother at the moment would like to vote for Kamala Harris.
Perhaps more bellwether, but Anthony Scaramucci had a very public breakup/fight with Trump over the weekend and has been all over the news today calling for a Republican challenger, to bring in a "relief pitcher" for the next election. He's been kinda pleading with Republicans in Washington to not be afraid and take a stand before it's too late.
I know it's too much to hope for, but the best best bestest possible outcome for the 2020 election would be for Trump to be primaried by a sane Republican and be humiliated even more than if he had been removed from office via impeachment. Then I'll still vote for Elizabeth Warren or whoever, but it'll be soooo much less apocalyptic stress feeling.
There's a guy trying to do it, the fact that nobody knows and I only found out because I saw an Esquire piece about him by coincidence says everything you need to know about that.
The bad man will not magically go away. Mueller didn't make the bad man go away. He will only go away if people make him.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The problem with that of course is that depending on match ups you'd basically be deciding who is serious and who is Andrew Yang.
pleasepaypreacher.net
First of all, because Kamala Harris will not win the nomination: they will say "I would have voted Harris, but the Democrats were too Extreme."
Second of all, in the unlikely event that Harris does win the nomination, the right-wing press will paint her as Karla Marx, the most left-wing candidate to ever stand for Democratic office, and they will vote Trump out of fear that Comrade Harris takes all their money and religion.
I also think that many R's will stay home or vote someone else (not necessarily dem) if current conditions continue. During the first election it was: "this is just bluster, he'll settle in". Now he's clearly an idiot, clearly compromised and clearly cruel. Throw in the fact that working folks' lives have likely gotten WORSE in a good economy and that's where it comes home to roost. They just need someone that gives them some level of hope. That's why I worry about Biden, as he's too much like Trump in certain ways (Old, white dude who makes gaffes and blusters). Don't play their game, make them play your game. That's how Trump won before, he made people play his game.
Who, Bill Weld? He's obviously not a contender and no Republicans are taking his candidacy seriously. Is he even still a Republican anymore? He ran for VP last election as a Libertarian, remember that?
Like I said, it's a pipe dream. But it's nice to see somebody say it publicly. I doubt Anthony Scaramucci is taken very seriously or is respected by his party either.
I do think that it's more likely to succeed getting Republicans to find somebody with the balls to challenge Trump on moral grounds than expect them to vote Democrat. Especially in this hyper divided partisan age. It would have to be somebody a lot more competent and successful than the clown car Trump defeated in 2016
So whoever goes against him needs to either beat him at his game (which is hard, because his game is "be the loudest, most shameless asshole in the room" and he has no equal), or find a game the media likes better.
That my one fear about Warren. She has good presence and terrific charisma and she's super smart and would undoubtedly make a good president. But the one real battle she's had versus Trump was the Pocahontas thing, where he just bulldozed her by being a relentless blowhard bully, and she didn't come out on top.
I mean, that's my fear with most of the candidates, to be honest.
Biden seems good at playing the moronic macho old man game. Remember when he said he could take Trump in a fight? That was incredibly dumb from my point of view, but people seemed to like it.
Warren so far has been the only one to pull the headlines in a positive solo direction with her big plan releases. Which is not something most others can say except so far Harris with the debate, Beto by saying "WTF?!", and some how Buttigieg who just gets random glowing pieces.