Politics

Come here to talk about topics that are not related to development, or even Kansas City.
User avatar
beautyfromashes
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4339
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: Politics

Post by beautyfromashes » Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:41 pm

brewcrew1000 wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:34 pm
beautyfromashes wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:35 pm
I think Beto more than has the personality but not the depth. He’s probably more of a 2024, 2028 candidate. Just not enough experience or substance. He’ll definitely be a future Dem nominee. The Dems did something very smart in some races this term; they had women with military backgrounds. All of them won. That’s an ideal candidate.
Trump didn't have any experience and he won. People don't want career politicians anymore.
Yes, but Beto is not just a politician, he is an inexperienced one. I do agree that career politicians are losing favor. A Dem version of Trump, like Mark Cuban, could be a viable candidate.

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 13145
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Politics

Post by FangKC » Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:21 am

In many parts of the USA, eligible voters who didn't vote in 2016 outnumbered those that voted for either Clinton or Trump. In Jackson County, Missouri, had "Nobody" been on the ballot with Clinton and Trump, "Nobody" would have won.

Mapping Where Americans Don't Vote

https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/11/vo ... ap/574939/

Counties where none-of-the-above would have won in 2016.

https://urbanobservatory.maps.arcgis.co ... 3762d82e82

States where none-of-the-above would have won the electoral college in 2016.

https://urbanobservatory.maps.arcgis.co ... 3762d82e82

Jackson County, Missouri

Image

Johnson County, Kansas

Image

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 13145
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Politics

Post by FangKC » Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:47 am

phuqueue wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:04 pm
beautyfromashes wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:26 pm
phuqueue wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:44 pm
...aggregate national opinion on a broad range of issues is closer to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez than to Claire McCaskill, Paul Ryan, Mark Meadows, or Donald Trump.
I think you’ve been going to too many communist reading groups or antifa protests. It’s time to get out into the real world. Claire McCaskill is probably right where America as a whole is on policy.
Do you have any actual facts to cite, or is this just your own intuition?

70% of Americans (including 52% of Republicans) support Medicare for All: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-am ... ition.html
Medicaid expands by ballot initiative in Idaho, Nebraska, Utah: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/heal ... allot.html
52% of Americans thought taxes should be raised on corporations, and 21% thought they were about right, before Republicans lowered them last year: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... d-incomes/ (that poll also shows only 24% wanted to reduce taxes on high-income earners)
62% support tuition-free college: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/college ... on-n620856 (this one is kinda old, I don't see a newer one)
61% support stricter gun laws (only 8% support laxer laws): https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
81% support cutting greenhouse gases, 67% support federal carbon tax, 78% support tax on fossil fuel imports: https://news.stanford.edu/2018/07/16/po ... ns-strong/
67% want immigration to increase or hold current levels, only 29% want a decrease: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx
58% believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases: http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/publ ... -abortion/
63% oppose raising the age for Social Security, 64% support raising SS taxes on all workers, 67% support raising SS taxes on wealthy workers, 57% oppose reducing future benefits for current young workers: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1693/social-security.aspx (these are also old numbers, don't see a more recent poll)
And I previously noted that when RTW was presented to MO voters a few months ago, they obliterated it.

This is just a random sampling of issues that popped into my head. Like I acknowledged before, there are some, like abolish ICE, that the general population isn't there on. But by and large, majorities support "left" policies, even if they wouldn't identify as leftwing, even if they recoil at "socialism."
As my post above indicates, in many counties the majority of eligible voters didn't turn out in a presidential election. Vast polling support for the above issues is meaningless when so many people don't vote. While these issues are popular, apparently they aren't important enough to be bothered with taking action--for most people who want them. The lack of carry-through problem. Intention vs. action.

The interesting part in this is that the voters that oppose the things listed above, vote. They always vote. They never miss an election. Ever.
Last edited by FangKC on Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 13145
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Politics

Post by FangKC » Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:55 am

beautyfromashes wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:41 pm
brewcrew1000 wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:34 pm
beautyfromashes wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:35 pm
I think Beto more than has the personality but not the depth. He’s probably more of a 2024, 2028 candidate. Just not enough experience or substance. He’ll definitely be a future Dem nominee. The Dems did something very smart in some races this term; they had women with military backgrounds. All of them won. That’s an ideal candidate.
Trump didn't have any experience and he won. People don't want career politicians anymore.
Yes, but Beto is not just a politician, he is an inexperienced one. I do agree that career politicians are losing favor. A Dem version of Trump, like Mark Cuban, could be a viable candidate.
I predict that after Trump, Americans might prefer traditional politicians again. I don't know who that will be. No one does at this point.

User avatar
WSPanic
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3413
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Politics

Post by WSPanic » Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:14 am

I agree that it seems to soon for Beto. But I'm also tired of hearing the Warren/Biden/Sanders/HRC talk. I'm a lifelong Democrat and appreciate the years of time and effort those people have dedicated to public service, but I'm ready for some new voices. Maybe Harris - maybe someone people aren't even considering right now. Nothing would surprise me at this point.

flyingember
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6929
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Politics

Post by flyingember » Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:27 am

I would like to see a JFK-esque election in 2020. A Democratic primary where someone was born in the 1980s. At the very least this would help bring energy into the mix.

Someone born in 1980-82 would be 37-39 in 2020.

It's very possible that only having candidates the age of their grandparents is a turn off for young voters.

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2376
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue » Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:36 am

beautyfromashes wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:16 pm
Good Lord! And you trust polls too.

“Should everyone in America get a house, and car and puppy from the government while working 10 hours a week?”

“Yes, yes they should!”

“Poll says 95% of Americans want to double taxes to pay for....” smh
You could have just said "yes I'm talking out of my ass" and saved us all some time

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2376
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue » Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:16 am

FangKC wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:47 am
phuqueue wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:04 pm
beautyfromashes wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:26 pm

I think you’ve been going to too many communist reading groups or antifa protests. It’s time to get out into the real world. Claire McCaskill is probably right where America as a whole is on policy.
Do you have any actual facts to cite, or is this just your own intuition?

70% of Americans (including 52% of Republicans) support Medicare for All: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-am ... ition.html
Medicaid expands by ballot initiative in Idaho, Nebraska, Utah: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/heal ... allot.html
52% of Americans thought taxes should be raised on corporations, and 21% thought they were about right, before Republicans lowered them last year: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... d-incomes/ (that poll also shows only 24% wanted to reduce taxes on high-income earners)
62% support tuition-free college: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/college ... on-n620856 (this one is kinda old, I don't see a newer one)
61% support stricter gun laws (only 8% support laxer laws): https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
81% support cutting greenhouse gases, 67% support federal carbon tax, 78% support tax on fossil fuel imports: https://news.stanford.edu/2018/07/16/po ... ns-strong/
67% want immigration to increase or hold current levels, only 29% want a decrease: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx
58% believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases: http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/publ ... -abortion/
63% oppose raising the age for Social Security, 64% support raising SS taxes on all workers, 67% support raising SS taxes on wealthy workers, 57% oppose reducing future benefits for current young workers: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1693/social-security.aspx (these are also old numbers, don't see a more recent poll)
And I previously noted that when RTW was presented to MO voters a few months ago, they obliterated it.

This is just a random sampling of issues that popped into my head. Like I acknowledged before, there are some, like abolish ICE, that the general population isn't there on. But by and large, majorities support "left" policies, even if they wouldn't identify as leftwing, even if they recoil at "socialism."
As my post above indicates, in many counties the majority of eligible voters didn't turn out in a presidential election. Vast polling support for the above issues is meaningless when so many people don't vote. While these issues are popular, apparently they aren't important enough to be bothered with taking action--for most people who want them. The lack of carry-through problem. Intention vs. action.

The interesting part in this is that the voters that oppose the things listed above, vote. They always vote. They never miss an election. Ever.
I think this is only part of it. People who don't vote are not one monolithic bloc -- some people don't vote because they're not interested in general, some don't vote because they can't (either practical hurdles, like not being able to get off work, or, increasingly, intentional hurdles, ie voter suppression), some don't vote because they don't like their options, etc. There's a lot of chatter about how the Green candidate in AZ SEN was pulling more votes than Sinema was losing by (last I heard, Sinema was now narrowly up, so possibly a moot point if she hangs on), and I read that generally if you pulled the Green candidate from the race, 60% of the Green voters simply wouldn't vote at all, while the rest break about 2 to 1 for the Dem (caveat: not sure what the source of this data was). I think liberals who blame Green candidates for Dem losses (and I have, myself, blamed Green candidates for Dem losses in the past) assume the whole Green vote would shift to the Dem if there were no Green on the ballot, but the reality, according to that data, is that the Dem can expect more like only about 27% of those voters, and a strong majority of the would-be Greens join the other non-voters.

Point being that by actually running on these issues, Dems could potentially energize some of these non-voters. Like it's easy to say support for these things doesn't matter if people don't vote, but Dems haven't actually been campaigning on most of this stuff themselves. Medicare for All has been basically a fringe position within the Democratic Party until Bernie's surprising run two years ago, and it has still not been embraced by the whole party. Same with tuition-free college, which actually still hasn't yet caught on even to the same extent as Medicare for All. Dems have, until basically this year, been terrified of running on gun control, and plenty still won't (Joe Manchin is still cutting ads where he shoots legislation he doesn't like) or with caveats (Kander's ad a few years ago, where he has to preface by showing off his gun bona fides). Abortion is only really starting to become a live issue for Dems now that they feel it's under threat (might be closing the barn after the horse already got out on that one). And so on.

Running a candidate who actually wants the same things as the general public seems like it should be an obvious strategy that could pull in apathetic voters, but neither party has actually tried it lately. You'll still have problems with people who will put party ID ahead of self-interest (which is why such a candidate will need to run on one of the major parties' ticket -- leftists who dream about supplanting the Dems are living in a fantasy world -- and why plenty of Republicans will still vote against a Dem who's better for them, or vice versa), and of course majority support for something also doesn't mean unanimous support for something (eg there are probably some hardcore right wing guys out there who are also not voting because they don't like their options, and this progressive candidate isn't going to bring them in), but actually responding to what a majority of voters say they want seems like a good start. Unfortunately you'd lose all that sweet Wall Street and health insurer and fossil fuel money (oh yeah, 81% favor a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... eport.html).

User avatar
grovester
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3760
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: KC Metro

Re: Politics

Post by grovester » Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:32 am

Bingo on your last sentence.

earthling
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4631
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Politics

Post by earthling » Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:34 pm

JoCo defense lawyer expects booming business from new Missouri marijuana law
https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... -work.html

Will also be interesting to see if we end up with a lot of legal small pot growers on MO side of the area.
“You’re going to have people who go through all the proper channels, have a condition, get a prescription from a legit doctor, buy or grow some marijuana and then venture into Kansas to go see a Sporting Kansas City game or to go shopping, then forget they have it on them,” Davies said. “When it becomes as common to have on you in Missouri as Tylenol, you're going to forget about it. Then you come into Kansas, interact with law enforcement, they search and find marijuana on you, and you're charged with a crime. It could potentially be prison time, even for small amounts.”

Compared with other states, Kansas has strict marijuana laws. The first offense is a misdemeanor Class B, a second is a misdemeanor Class A, and a third becomes a felony. So depending on a person's criminal history, forgetting about marijuana in a pocket or car could result in some serious legal hot water on the other side of the state line.

earthling
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4631
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Politics

Post by earthling » Sun Nov 11, 2018 12:05 pm

NY Times opinion piece on KS going blue...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/10/opin ... ernor.html

earthling
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4631
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Politics

Post by earthling » Wed Nov 21, 2018 2:05 pm

In these bizarre times, where's the underground/street cultural movement justifiably if not cynically reacting to today's koolaid drinkers? Every other past decade had Socrates to Mozart to jazz to beatniks, punk and Daria...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZswmxq-K1M

Post Reply