Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

Electoral College is a bit different than it was in 1980, Hanni.

The Rs pretty much have to win Florida and Ohio or they lose. And even if they win Florida and Ohio, they still need to flip a couple other battleground states (Nevada, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico). Virginia is a gimme if they win Ohio and Florida, and I suspect they'd get Iowa, too. And that would be enough for a narrow win. Their realistic ceiling is 292. The Ds realistic ceiling is easily 330+.

So, yeah--whatever with the Carter/Reagan thing. If you think Trump is winning California, New York, Washington, NJ, Connecticut, etc....then...well, we profoundly disagree.

He doesn't have to win those states. I just used the Reagan analogy to point out how Reagan went from a heavy underdog to a landslide victor after 8 months of campaigning. There are a lot of similarities in the landscapes although the demographics have made about 10-12 states permanently off limits to the Republicans.

Your analysis is stuck in the George W./McCain/Romney era. Trump's ceiling is well over 300.

[iam416]

IMO, if Trump wins the Presidency, it is a total confirmation that the voter insight of the "Wallace States" has somehow spread to most of the Country..... and believe me, I know this because I live in the ATL.

I'd prefer you ignore the "dog whistle" and just say that racist, uneducated white folks are "spreading to most of the Country." I highly doubt it, but just say what you mean.

I'm quite sure people are aware of who the fucking President is.

Obama and the Ds made a very calculated decision to push for a broad coalition D party and it's worked. In so doing they've largely ignored working class white folks who, contrary to ironically idiotic stereotypes, aren't a bunch of racists. Bernie was the guy to get them back because he spoke in terms of class not race. I, at least, respect Bernie's socialism for being colorblind.

Hillary and Obama are more of the same when it comes to identity politics. The Rs ramped it up in the 70s and 80s to take the Deep South from the Ds. The Ds are now the primary party of identity politics and they do so to consolidate coastal majorities and secure coalitions in enough states to win the in the EC. It's not enough to win broadly in the House or at the State level, but it works for the Presidency.

So, if white working class voters -- you know, Reagan Democrats -- are voting against the Ds, it's probably because they don't feel like that party cares too much about their interests. And I don't blame them.

[Hannibal]

If only Trump had highly detailed plans like "Change We Can Believe In".

Well I think there ought to be the same sort of skepticism

In other words, none, because nobody calling for any of Trump's specifics was calilng for them 8 years ago from Obama. Nobody.

And for the record, Trump has put out tons of specifics. Moreso than candidates usually do at this stage.

[iam416]

He doesn't have to win those states.

He has to win at least one of them. If he doesn't win in Ohio, there's no way he wins Pennsylvania or Michigan, states I'm sure you think he can easily win for your "well over 300" statement.

There's absolutely zero way he loses Ohio and wins Pa or Mi. He has to win Ohio. Michigan and Pennsylvania may follow. And in that scenario he can win w/o Florida (if he gets Virginia).

I'd be very, very surprised if Trump won either Michigan or Pennsylvania.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Speaking of Health Care Reform ....... I'm working on occasion with a solo practitioner who told me that before the ACA, his practice was doing pretty well. Since then he is barely making ends meet and has not paid himself anything in the last 3 months. Why is this?

His view is that the administrative requirements of the ACA created thousands of jobs for administrators at various levels both federal and local. He believes, on average, these are $60-80k/y jobs. His office is visited 3-4X per month by auditors who look through his medical and billing records to insure compliance with the thousand pages of regulations, imposed as a result of the ACA, for hospitals, their affiliated or owned practices and independent practices. They, in turn, report to their local superiors their results and then these local managers report to people at the Federal level and so forth and so on. You can see the staggering bill for this kind of thing.

All those jobs, by his count tens of thousands of them, are paid for with Federal Funds with the government recouping the cost through decreased reimbursements for medical services. Health Insurance companies indirectly pay the Feds for these services and recoup the cost to them in the form of higher insurance premiums.

The net effect is that Doctors, especially those in private practice, are loosing money as a result of the burdensome regulatory impact of the ACA and patients, and in most cases employers, are paying higher insurance premiums to allow the insurance companies to remain profitable.

I never looked at the cost of the ACA that way. My view as a provider and a supporter of Universal Health Care was that while the ACA was conceptually a reasonable plan, it's execution - the details of how it was going to get paid for - were hidden from even the most attentive and interested parties. You can officially count me as an opponent of the ACA going forward. Now I have to start seriously thinking about alternatives.

[hack]

In other words, none, because nobody calling for any of Trump's specifics was calilng for them 8 years ago from Obama. Nobody.

And for the record, Trump has put out tons of specifics. Moreso than candidates usually do at this stage.

I don't know what you mean in the first paragraph, but re the second what specifics do you want to talk about? Do you think Trump's going to take on the problem of money in politics? Is he gonna be anti-Wall Street? Is he going to screw multinationals and retailers with trade protectionism? Whatever the policy, the how part is another good question. What evidence is there that he knows how to work Washington? Obama learned on the job after being a Senator, and, like or dislike the result, obviously he did learn and became effective. You see a similar learning curve for Trump?

[Hannibal]

He has to win at least one of them. If he doesn't win in Ohio, there's no way he wins Pennsylvania or Michigan, states I'm sure you think he can easily win for your "well over 300" statement.

There's absolutely zero way he loses Ohio and wins Pa or Mi. He has to win Ohio. Michigan and Pennsylvania may follow. And in that scenario he can win w/o Florida (if he gets Virginia).

I'd be very, very surprised if Trump won either Michigan or Pennsylvania.

Are you talking about the coastal states or the Midwestern states that have trended blue over the past 20 years? He does have to win the latter, he does not have to win the former.

[Hannibal]

I don't know what you mean in the first paragraph

I just think that it's ironic that Trump is being criticized by Obama voters for having broad pie-in-the-sky ideals. Not only is that criticism hypocritcal, but it's just plain false.

I don't know what you mean in the first paragraph, but re the second what specifics do you want to talk about? Do you think Trump's going to take on the problem of money in politics? Is he gonna be anti-Wall Street? Is he going to screw multinationals and retailers with trade protectionism? Whatever the policy, the how part is another good question. What evidence is there that he knows how to work Washington? Obama learned on the job after being a Senator, and, like or dislike the result, obviously he did learn and became effective. You see a similar learning curve for Trump?

Good questions. He hasn't talked about money in politics, other than that he doesn't take any. He hasn't said anything about Wall Street, other than that he won't have any conflicts of interest because he is not taking any of their money. Yes, he intends to screw multinationals with trade protectionism. He has made that very clear. He has even put a number on it (35% tariff). He intends to use that tariff as leverage against countries that have protectionist policies of their own. He intends to appoint businessmen to take part in the trade negotiations with these countries. That includes leverage against Mexico to build the wall. I believe that he is also on the record as saying that he is going to cut back on H1B1 visas. WRT working with Washington, Trump has been hugely involved with politics for 30 years. He has gotten into the dirty side of it. He has donated to politicians from both sides. He knows it, so yes, he can be effective. At least as effective as anyone else.

[iam416]

Hanni

He has to win at least one of Florida or Ohio and, IMO, Ohio is probably more important because it's the gateway to M and PA.

I guess he can lose Florida, in theory, if he can do really well in B10 country. That's actually where I think Hillary is really strong, too. She crushed Obama in those states and, but for the M nonsense of moving up its primary, she may have won the nomination.

So, I think Michigan and PA are unlikely for Trump. So I think he has to get both Ohio and Florida.

[hack]

In other words, none, because nobody calling for any of Trump's specifics was calilng for them 8 years ago from Obama. Nobody.

Oh, OK. I get it now. I don't see it, sorry. Obama was out there talking about health care and Gitmo and on and on. He wasn't calling Hillary a choke artist or calling Mexicans rapists. I agree that ultimately ``build a wall and Mexico will pay for it'' is a policy, even if it doesn't seem like a serious one. But people weren't asking for specifics from Obama because they didn't have to. He offered.

[iam416]

calling Mexicans rapists

Well, I think Trump said the people Mexico sends our way aren't the best...drug dealers, rapists..etc. And then, as you will recall, amidst the firestorm -- amidst NBC parting ways with him and a number of other companies -- an illegal alien in a high profile crime in a "safe city" committed a brutal rape and murder. And he had avoid deportation TWICE in the past year.

[hack]

IMO, if Trump wins the Presidency, it is a total confirmation that the voter insight of the "Wallace States" has somehow spread to most of the Country..... and believe me, I know this because I live in the ATL.
IMO Hannibal is right that it's not just about Americans all around the country letting their inner racists out. There ARE serious policy issues Trump has talked about. I don't think he's offered policies more than opinions that would later be possibly developed into policies, but a very big one is the trade protectionism. ``Bringing jobs home'' is an interesting concept. One question is execution of those policies: i.e. is Trump going to kill TPP or engage in currency wars to the extent that he can get Yellen to go along with it, or ignore treaties and boost tariffs, or whatever. Another question altogether is whether this is the end of trickle-down. For decades the GOP told voters that what was good for ``the job creators'' was good for everyone. If you believe that trade protectionism is a major part of Trump's appeal (i.e. it's not just the racism), then that's a major GOP pillar knocked out from under them. Maybe the GOP can't continue to use security and social issues to obscure their economic agenda. This, IMO, would be a major chage.

[hack]

Well, I think Trump said the people Mexico sends our way aren't the best...drug dealers, rapists..etc. And then, as you will recall, amidst the firestorm -- amidst NBC parting ways with him and a number of other companies -- an illegal alien in a high profile crime in a "safe city" committed a brutal rape and murder. And he had avoid deportation TWICE in the past year.

There's very likely been more than one such incident, but even if there's 100 or 1000, are you saying it's reasonable to then say that the ~30m Mexicans in this country are rapists and drug dealers?

[Wild Hoss]

And, man, if Trump wins -- talk about a total fucking bitchslap renunciation of Obama.

A repudiation of Hillary maybe, but not Obama. Winning by a few points, coupled with low Dem turnout- which is the only way he wins it- isn't any overarching rebuke.


Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[hack]

Hannibal, I missed this:

Good questions. He hasn't talked about money in politics, other than that he doesn't take any. He hasn't said anything about Wall Street, other than that he won't have any conflicts of interest because he is not taking any of their money. Yes, he intends to screw multinationals with trade protectionism. He has made that very clear. He has even put a number on it (35% tariff). He intends to use that tariff as leverage against countries that have protectionist policies of their own. He intends to appoint businessmen to take part in the trade negotiations with these countries. That includes leverage against Mexico to build the wall. I believe that he is also on the record as saying that he is going to cut back on H1B1 visas. WRT working with Washington, Trump has been hugely involved with politics for 30 years. He has gotten into the dirty side of it. He has donated to politicians from both sides. He knows it, so yes, he can be effective. At least as effective as anyone else.

Again, I think parallels with Obama are instructive. Whatever these guys say on the campaign trail, if it involves a change it involves knocking out an entrenched interest. I have no idea to what extent that kind of protectionism could be achieved by executive order. I could see Trump willing to ignore international commitments codified via the WTO, etc., or at least wanting to. I don't like the idea of ignoring treaties, because the state-centric global system of sovereigns has enough exploitable cracks, and ignoring treaties creates room for more, but in principle I'm all for trade protectionism. I just don't know that Trump has the wherewithal. I guess a feasibility study would start with how much he can do using executive power.