As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Dem Primary: There Are Too Many Candidates Nowadays, Please Eliminate Twenty

18788909293100

Posts

  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Trump has to retain Michigan (Ds kicked the living fucking shit out of the GOP in 2018) and Pennsylvania. Wisconsin and NC are toss ups because of the GOPs successes stealing power.

    I don’t see any state that’s gone blue recently flipping. Virginia is the closest and I feel like the GOP there is such a train wreck it should be safe. I highly doubt Minnesota even gets that close to flipping again.

    FencingsaxCantido
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Hmph. So what about the congressional part of the 2020 elections? Will the democrats finally get the majority in both house and senate? Cause I don't care the least bit who's the democratic president unless that happens

    It's not on topic I think, you're probably welcome to make a thread if you want.

    Thanks for the notice. I don't really feel like I have an argument in me there, so if nobody knows, at this point, it's fine.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Trump has to retain Michigan (Ds kicked the living fucking shit out of the GOP in 2018) and Pennsylvania. Wisconsin and NC are toss ups because of the GOPs successes stealing power.

    I don’t see any state that’s gone blue recently flipping. Virginia is the closest and I feel like the GOP there is such a train wreck it should be safe. I highly doubt Minnesota even gets that close to flipping again.

    Part of me thinks that Warren both including the military as part of her green policy and also not just spending it's funds elsewhere is to keep NOVA on board while her populism will play much better in the midwest

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
    Cantido
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    RedTide wrote: »
    Trump has to retain Michigan (Ds kicked the living fucking shit out of the GOP in 2018) and Pennsylvania. Wisconsin and NC are toss ups because of the GOPs successes stealing power.

    I don’t see any state that’s gone blue recently flipping. Virginia is the closest and I feel like the GOP there is such a train wreck it should be safe. I highly doubt Minnesota even gets that close to flipping again.

    Part of me thinks that Warren both including the military as part of her green policy and also not just spending it's funds elsewhere is to keep NOVA on board while her populism will play much better in the midwest

    Think of all the National Emergencies Warren gets to declare. Climate change, voter suppression...

    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
    Kayne Red RobeMan in the Mists
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Idk if Warren can beat Trump, but Bernie just cannot. Harris cannot. Biden cannot.

    Yang has a better chance of beating Trump in the general.

    Theres plenty of polling indicating that Sanders wins the general solidly. I think youre projecting your own beliefs on the nation as a whole.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    Phoenix-DZonugalDee KaeCrimson KingJuliusQuidEinzelMr RaySo It GoesCantideqwer12YamiB.TofystedethFANTOMASMan in the MistsKaputabrynhrtmnKristmas KthulhupainfulPleasance
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Idk if Warren can beat Trump, but Bernie just cannot. Harris cannot. Biden cannot.

    Yang has a better chance of beating Trump in the general.

    Theres plenty of polling indicating that Sanders wins the general solidly. I think youre projecting your own beliefs on the nation as a whole.

    There's polling that shows all the candidates winning the popular vote.

    I don't think we've gotten a proper per-state breakdown yet for most of them.

    Not that I'm agreeing with the grandparent comment, but it's best to remember the game we're playing.

    Kayne Red RobeRMS OceanicRchanenBigJoeMMagelljdarksunMazzyxspool32Harry DresdenLoisLaneA Kobold's Koboldqwer12LabelTofystedethNiryaKristmas Kthulhu
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Idk if Warren can beat Trump, but Bernie just cannot. Harris cannot. Biden cannot.

    Yang has a better chance of beating Trump in the general.

    Theres plenty of polling indicating that Sanders wins the general solidly. I think youre projecting your own beliefs on the nation as a whole.

    Bernie is my second choice and I fully believe a platform like Warren's has a chance of winning because he is out there.

    While there is very little difference in the overall scope and aim in their platforms (if they went to go form their own party divorced from all prior labels they would easily belong in the same tent) but the fact that Bernie is out there calling himself a socialist is doing two things.

    1.) It is absolutely destigmatizing both the policy and the label itself

    2.) But the biggest movement on that label is with young folks, who much like the Boomers are being failed by capitalism but unlike the Boomers they didn't vote for all the Nixon/Reagan bullshit and tell themselves that it was great.

    I think Bernie is in trouble with the general electorate and generally speaking more vulnerable with smears.

    Now mind you I think he does well with those smears and dismissing them. And I will admit that there probably hasn't been a better opportunity to elect a socialist since the red scare. But I think it's a bridge too far.

    And I can understand for people to the left of me/more fully committed to Bernie that they might disagree and want to push for this moment, but I have serious doubts he can win.

    That being said I think he has better odds then Beto, Biden, Harris and maybe Booker too.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Can beat Trump and absolutely will beat Trump are not the same thing.

    RchanenUndead ScottsmanPhoenix-DSpoitqwer12Tofystedeth
  • I needed a gnome to post.I needed a gnome to post. boom Registered User regular
    A lot of it comes down to campaign in ways that are often divorced from the candidate themselves. Ground game, etc.

    liEt3nH.png
    RedTidenever dieMan in the Mists
  • PhasenPhasen Hell WorldRegistered User regular
    The best part of x candidate can't beat Trump is that the candidate I like can.

    psn: PhasenWeeple
    Styrofoam SammichMagellNobeardPhillisherejdarksunFencingsaxspool32kimeButtersArdolJuliusnever dieJaysonFourGnizmoBloodsheedEtiowsaA Kobold's KoboldCantideYamiB.Man in the MistsKristmas KthulhupainfulPleasance
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Phasen wrote: »
    The best part of x candidate can't beat Trump is that the candidate I like can.

    Nobody sets out to pick a loser.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
    spool32
  • PhasenPhasen Hell WorldRegistered User regular
    edited September 2019
    RedTide wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    The best part of x candidate can't beat Trump is that the candidate I like can.

    Nobody sets out to pick a loser.

    We should all be so lucky as to pick the only person who can beat trump.

    This isn't particularly directed at you but the concept of the thing is just monumentally silly.

    Phasen on
    psn: PhasenWeeple
    Dee KaeMan in the Mists
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    the 2016 election should at long last have ended 'electability' as a point of consideration tbh

    any of the remaining viable-ish candidates could win; trying to figure out which has the best chance is impossible at this point

    NREqxl5.jpg
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
    Crimson KingMan in the Mists
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    the 2016 election should at long last have ended 'electability' as a point of consideration tbh

    any of the remaining viable-ish candidates could win; trying to figure out which has the best chance is impossible at this point

    You could easily use electable- the moniker of the pundit class and viable interchangeably here since they mean the same thing.

    And so what if someone expresses an opinion on who they think has the best shot and advocates voting that line? That's probably a solid chunk of primary voters in general with a majority giving their preferred candidate that status by virtue of the fact that their candidate is automatically the most likely win somehow.

    Like if I thought Warren was as likely to win as I thought Beto was, I would be stupid to go around advocating for her.

    Do I have any special insight into who is going to win? No, of course not. Can I at least explain my rationalization? Until a mod tells me not to I suppose.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Jragghen wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Idk if Warren can beat Trump, but Bernie just cannot. Harris cannot. Biden cannot.

    Yang has a better chance of beating Trump in the general.

    Theres plenty of polling indicating that Sanders wins the general solidly. I think youre projecting your own beliefs on the nation as a whole.

    There's polling that shows all the candidates winning the popular vote.

    I don't think we've gotten a proper per-state breakdown yet for most of them.

    Not that I'm agreeing with the grandparent comment, but it's best to remember the game we're playing.

    Yeah, national polls mean pretty much fuck all at this point. Getting state level individual matchups in battleground states would be the only thing even kind of useful, but there haven't been a lot of those, and even if there were, they're comparing a known and disliked guy against someone who has not been subjected to six months of negative campaigning.

    You could also probably craft a model like was used in 2018, that basically assumes the states break down like they did in 2016, and then uniformly increase the popular vote margin in favor of the Democrat until enough states flip to take the election. Whatever popular vote margin that happens at, that's what you need to get to.

    None of these are super predictive, though. It's all guesswork until we get to the general election.

    Tl;dr: "X can't win"/"X can't lose" is bullshit conjecture at this point, because it's impossible to even build a decent model to measure that right now.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."
    ForarRchanenMrMisterCantidojmcdonaldqwer12
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    What the heck is electability anyway

    It's trying to predict how other people are gonna vote I guess

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    Styrofoam SammichMagellCantidoZonugalFencingsaxTofystedeth
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    What the heck is electability anyway

    It's trying to predict how other people are gonna vote I guess

    "Electability" is a measure of how much the people who book guests on cable news shows would like you to be president.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    RchanenMagelljdarksunshrykeZonugalCaptain InertiaMillspool32Stabbity StyleArdolJuliusnever dieGnizmoBloodsheedA Kobold's KoboldCantideLabelYamiB.TofystedethMan in the MistsKristmas KthulhupainfulPleasance
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    What the heck is electability anyway

    It's trying to predict how other people are gonna vote I guess

    "Electability" is a measure of how much the people who book guests on cable news shows would like you to be president.

    If that's it, then who cares? The actual people that vote will continue to show that the media doesn't know what it's talking about

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    What the heck is electability anyway

    It's trying to predict how other people are gonna vote I guess

    "Electability" is a measure of how much the people who book guests on cable news shows would like you to be president.

    If that's it, then who cares? The actual people that vote will continue to show that the media doesn't know what it's talking about

    Yeah it doesn't really work like that. Voters don't really decide based on policy.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    What the heck is electability anyway

    It's trying to predict how other people are gonna vote I guess

    "Electability" is a measure of how much the people who book guests on cable news shows would like you to be president.

    If that's it, then who cares? The actual people that vote will continue to show that the media doesn't know what it's talking about

    Yeah it doesn't really work like that. Voters don't really decide based on policy.

    Whatever they vote on, they don't trust media. Or maybe most people still do; I don't.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    RedTide wrote: »
    the 2016 election should at long last have ended 'electability' as a point of consideration tbh

    any of the remaining viable-ish candidates could win; trying to figure out which has the best chance is impossible at this point

    You could easily use electable- the moniker of the pundit class and viable interchangeably here since they mean the same thing.

    And so what if someone expresses an opinion on who they think has the best shot and advocates voting that line? That's probably a solid chunk of primary voters in general with a majority giving their preferred candidate that status by virtue of the fact that their candidate is automatically the most likely win somehow.

    Like if I thought Warren was as likely to win as I thought Beto was, I would be stupid to go around advocating for her.

    Do I have any special insight into who is going to win? No, of course not. Can I at least explain my rationalization? Until a mod tells me not to I suppose.

    the point is that no reasonable basis exists for thinking one candidate is more likely to win than another, especially when we're talking about the top tier candidates (I personally exclude such as yang and williamson from the 'viable' grouping.) We don't have anywhere near enough information to say with any specificity that Biden is more likely to win than Warren or Sanders, or that they are more likely to win than he is even if we do a fictitious 'if the election were held today' type of scenario. Aside from the general impossibility of saying that one candidate will win 7/10 times and another 6/10, there's no way for us to know how the events of the next year will help or hurt each candidate's chances.

    NREqxl5.jpg
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    What the heck is electability anyway

    It's trying to predict how other people are gonna vote I guess

    "Electability" is a measure of how much the people who book guests on cable news shows would like you to be president.

    If that's it, then who cares? The actual people that vote will continue to show that the media doesn't know what it's talking about

    Yeah it doesn't really work like that. Voters don't really decide based on policy.

    Whatever they vote on, they don't trust media. Or maybe most people still do; I don't.

    I mean people say they don't trust media, but they're still awash in its influence.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    Commander Zoomnever dieqwer12Kristmas KthulhupainfulPleasance
  • NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    What the heck is electability anyway

    It's trying to predict how other people are gonna vote I guess

    It's telling that African Americans support Biden, then. Apparently they think "old white man" is what most of America prefers.

    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Maybe? Biden's support among black voters is heavily generational, which is what we'd expect for any other group as well. Black voters just aren't the left wing of the party anymore.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    JuliusYamiB.painfulPleasance
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Black people vote 90% Democrat. That presumably means that a lot of black voters are quite "conservative", just not willing to vote for a party that considers them subhuman.

    FencingsaxPhoenix-DHarry DresdenNo-QuarterLoisLaneSmrtnikA Kobold's KoboldCantideMan in the MistspainfulPleasance
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    I’m wary of ascribing general motivations based on race, even delineated by generation

    Yes, black people typically vote Democrat, and are mostly supporting Biden, but I think taking it beyond statistics and trying to explain why in a general sense is kinda weird and gross

    They aren’t a monolith

    Cantido
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    I mean I don't think black voters as a block have really moved much. They used to be the left wing of the party back when it was the 90s and the party was very conservative and a lot of white voters have moved left past them.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Sanders gave a big speech on housing policy in Nevada today


    "Under my plan, we will establish a national rent control standard, capping annual rent increases throughout the country at no more than 1.5 times the rate of inflation or 3 percent whichever is higher."
    -
    @BernieSanders

    Gendell works for the Sanders campaign

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    Dee KaewanderingZonugalkimeJaysonFourjdarksunA Kobold's KoboldMan in the Mists
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Sanders gave a big speech on housing policy in Nevada today


    "Under my plan, we will establish a national rent control standard, capping annual rent increases throughout the country at no more than 1.5 times the rate of inflation or 3 percent whichever is higher."
    -
    @BernieSanders

    Gendell works for the Sanders campaign

    Can the federal government even do that?

    CelestialBadger
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    shryke wrote: »
    Sanders gave a big speech on housing policy in Nevada today


    "Under my plan, we will establish a national rent control standard, capping annual rent increases throughout the country at no more than 1.5 times the rate of inflation or 3 percent whichever is higher."
    -
    @BernieSanders

    Gendell works for the Sanders campaign

    Can the federal government even do that?

    Wouldn't be the first time the federal government has implemented price controls.

    Should be noted in the same speech he called for significant increases in public housing expenditures.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    jdarksunpainfulPleasance
  • MonwynMonwyn Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime. A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Sanders gave a big speech on housing policy in Nevada today


    "Under my plan, we will establish a national rent control standard, capping annual rent increases throughout the country at no more than 1.5 times the rate of inflation or 3 percent whichever is higher."
    -
    @BernieSanders

    Gendell works for the Sanders campaign

    Can the federal government even do that?

    Probably not, but frankly the interstate commerce clause has been stretched so far past the breaking point that I honestly don't really think the ostensible limits on federal power are meaningful anymore.

    uH3IcEi.png
    CelestialBadger
  • SimpsoniaSimpsonia Registered User regular
    Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.

    shryke
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.

    I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.

    You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.

    And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.

  • jmcdonaldjmcdonald I voted, did you? DC(ish)Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Sanders gave a big speech on housing policy in Nevada today


    "Under my plan, we will establish a national rent control standard, capping annual rent increases throughout the country at no more than 1.5 times the rate of inflation or 3 percent whichever is higher."
    -
    @BernieSanders

    Gendell works for the Sanders campaign

    Can the federal government even do that?

    Seems like a pretty big no.

    They could probably try to influence with funding the way they do with speed limits and all, but a “the rent is too damn high” bill doesn’t seem viable.

    shryke wrote: »
    ...Barack "charisma isn't a dump stat, nerds" Obama...
    shrykeRchanen
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.

    I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.

    You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.

    And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.

    Yes. Multiple states have or have had price controls.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.

    I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.

    You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.

    And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.

    Yes. Multiple states have or have had price controls.

    Price controls on what?

  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    Housing supply has interstate commerce implications for sure. If violence against women and growing your own pot for your own consumption can be labelled as interstate commerce issues then I have no trouble believing that rent control can too.

    However, rent control is a bad policy, so despite being a Sanders fan generally I hate this.

    MrMister on
    HamHamJVishNubElJeffeAegisKristmas KthulhupainfulPleasance
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.

    I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.

    You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.

    And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.

    Yes. Multiple states have or have had price controls.

    Price controls on what?

    Oil, energy, etc. Price controls on what don't really matter to the point of authority. If a state can place price controls it can place price controls.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    I’m wary of ascribing general motivations based on race, even delineated by generation

    Yes, black people typically vote Democrat, and are mostly supporting Biden, but I think taking it beyond statistics and trying to explain why in a general sense is kinda weird and gross

    They aren’t a monolith

    So much this.

    When the African American community ask questions (or rather, anyone), only Sanders and Warren produce answers.

    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
    Styrofoam SammichDee KaeStabbity StylejoshofalltradesJuliusLoisLaneAbsoluteZeroJaysonFourjdarksunA Kobold's KoboldMan in the MistsbrynhrtmnpainfulPleasance
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.

    I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.

    You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.

    And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.

    Yes. Multiple states have or have had price controls.

    Price controls on what?

    Oil, energy, etc. Price controls on what don't really matter to the point of authority. If a state can place price controls it can place price controls.

    States can do whatever isn't unconstitutional. The Federal grant of power isn't that broad, in theory. Relics from back when we were supposed to be 13 independant governments that sorta worked together instead of our current set up.
    shryke wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.

    I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.

    You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.

    And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.

    Random thought: Landlording partially works because you can write off expenses on your federal taxes right? So if you go out of the rent control scheme you can no longer do that. I'd think that'd be enough in most places but probably not in the NYC like places.

    Not a huge fan of the general idea though. Rent Control has a huge amount of issues in implementation, though I understand the motivation.

    Rchanen
This discussion has been closed.