Mark Blyth, the economist who's making sense

[ttystikk]

So all this time you've been accusing him of saying that, and he didn't even say it??

I should have known

Indeed. The more you push the Dumb Buck on his positions, the more dishonest his tactics become.

He's not interested in finding better solutions, just in jamming the ones he's invested in down everyone's throats or driving them away. It's this kind of reactionary thinking that needs to be excised from politics in general and the Democratic Party in particular if they're to have any chance of success moving forward, as it undermines their credibility with voters.

This is why I keep wondering if he's actually an undercover right wing operative, trying to sabotage the Democrats.

 

[Fogdog]

That's irrelevant, Sanders polls at or near the top of most popular politicians in every major poll, consistently. That's where your aversion to the value, accuracy, or authenticity stems from. Whenever someone cites one of those polls, you fall back on your belief that the only poll that matters is the election in an attempt to discredit the results of the poll outright. You believe that since Trump won and Republicans have murdered across the board on every level of government over the past 8 years, the polls must be wrong.. While the actual progressives on the board repeatedly tell you the Republicans have won because Democrats have not represented poor/middle class economic values. The opinion polls are right.

Link the clip

Could it be that people vote Republican because they feel like the Democratic party doesn't represent their interests? People who still hold progressive positions, like increasing the minimum wage which is supported by more than 80% of the country, including a majority of Republicans, medicare for all, 61% of the country including almost 50% of Republicans, raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations, more than 65% of Americans, an end to the war on drugs, strong majorities in both parties, etc., who feel like the Democratic party doesn't actually represent them or help progress those issues because they accept corporate contributions from industries with direct conflict of interest? Trump won because of the people in the areas of the country that have been economically depressed the most during the Obama administration.

I disagree with it

Ok, so Bernie gets a high approval rating. I'm good with that. What does it mean? Does it mean he's going to win the primary in 2020? Is that your point? I'm just saying that a single sided poll like the one you put up isn't the same as what happens in an election when two or more people participate in an election. It also doesn't change what happened in 2016 when Bernie didn't win the African American, Hispanic and women's vote by very large margins. Are you inferring what will happen or denying what did happen. For your sake, I hope you are inferring the future rather than denying the facts of the past.

Moving on to the meaning of opinion polls, opinion polls consistently paint results that would have us think the US is filled with saints who care for each other. Then the US votes in a reactionary right wing congress and Trump. and Ryan who is on record of wanting to dismantle Medicaid and he damn near did it. What you are saying is "they voted Republican extreme right wing because Democrats weren't liberal enough". You claim that people who voted for representatives who oppose social security, medicare, medicaid, abortion, public schools, environmental protection, rational treatment of the illegal immigration and so forth thirst to vote for extremely liberal politicians.That's is really funny.

A better answer to this apparent conflict between opinion polling results and election results is majority of people in red states and quite a few in purple states are more conservative than California liberals. They see their conservative representatives as the answer to problems today. Maybe they'd prefer more moderate types and that's what I think would win back house and Senate seats. Not tops down mandated California liberal policies.

Regarding this idea of yours, that "every Democrat must sign on to my specific issues or they can't run". Where "specific issues" are pledge to forego legal campaign donations from corporations and big donors and single payer healthcare. That's your bag, not anybody else's. For example, Bernie isn't saying this, he's saying he can support a person he differs with, presumably because he can work with that person to get his own job done. What I read on Justice Democrats platform is the pledge is their way of identifying candidates that they can support. I don't read anywhere that JD is demanding the entire political leadership of the Democratic party must sign the pledge. Reading on, I see JD pushing the idea that candidates who sign the pledge will be more successful also get their backing if they do so. I think this if rational and can certainly support a candidate that signs the pledge.

It's you who is taking the extreme authoritarian liberal position of mandating adherence to liberal policies party-wide right now.

Moving on to Kyle Kulinkski and his propaganda technique of quoting poll numbers without discussion as a means of concealing instead of reasoning, below is a post I made to st0 regarding this subject. Kyle's emotional and fact-light propaganda technique is on display in the youtube video link attached. Note that Jerry Brown in the short clip takes a reasoned approach to the complex idea of backing people who don't always agree on important policies. Kyle first miscasts Brown as a washed up and old man in politics, then starts cursing and squealing in an emotional appeal to get his audience worked up into a lather. It's quite a show. Almost exactly the same format used by Rush Limbaugh and Hannity. Unsurprisingly, Kyle is recycling right wing positions too.

There is a difference between accepting corporate money to stay competitive and defending corporate donations from campaign finance reform, isn't there?

That's the difference I'm speaking about. I think it's completely legitimate to make one of your criteria for choosing a candidate be "doesn't accept corporate money". The Justice Democrats effort at getting candidates to sign a pledge is fine with me. I object to a party wide litmus test that would disenfranchise voters by forcing an issue that may or may not be important to them down their throats. Let the primary election be the time to test that theory, rather than the main election. The objective is to win seats back in districts that are conservative. Not to sell out the Democratic party but to unseat extremely right wing politician who are never going to support campaign finance reform or other important legislation we both want to get done.

Here is the Sandernista thought guide of choice on the subject. Pay close attention to Kyle's use of name calling, emotional appeal, tone of voice and the rapid fire use of opinion poll numbers to conceal rather than reveal. He's good. Actually, he's very good at what he does. Jerry Brown makes an intellectual appeal for reason and Kyle calls him names, mischaracterizes his positions and disrespects his ability to govern. California is doing quite well under Brown, by the way. Better than it has in decades. I think using one's intelligence is great advice too.

 

[ttystikk]

Ok, so Bernie gets a high approval rating. I'm good with that. What does it mean? Does it mean he's going to win the primary in 2020? Is that your point? I'm just saying that a single sided poll like the one you put up isn't the same as what happens in an election when two or more people participate in an election. It also doesn't change what happened in 2016 when Bernie didn't win the African American, Hispanic and women's vote by very large margins. Are you inferring what will happen or denying what did happen. For your sake, I hope you are inferring the future rather than denying the facts of the past.

Moving on to the meaning of opinion polls, opinion polls consistently paint results that would have us think the US is filled with saints who care for each other. Then the US votes in a reactionary right wing congress and Trump. and Ryan who is on record of wanting to dismantle Medicaid and he damn near did it. What you are saying is "they voted Republican extreme right wing because Democrats weren't liberal enough". You claim that people who voted for representatives who oppose social security, medicare, medicaid, abortion, public schools, environmental protection, rational treatment of the illegal immigration and so forth thirst to vote for extremely liberal politicians.That's is really funny.

A better answer to this apparent conflict between opinion polling results and election results is majority of people in red states and quite a few in purple states are more conservative than California liberals. They see their conservative representatives as the answer to problems today. Maybe they'd prefer more moderate types and that's what I think would win back house and Senate seats. Not tops down mandated California liberal policies.

Regarding this idea of yours, that "every Democrat must sign on to my specific issues or they can't run". Where "specific issues" are pledge to forego legal campaign donations from corporations and big donors and single payer healthcare. That's your bag, not anybody else's. For example, Bernie isn't saying this, he's saying he can support a person he differs with, presumably because he can work with that person to get his own job done. What I read on Justice Democrats platform is the pledge is their way of identifying candidates that they can support. I don't read anywhere that JD is demanding the entire political leadership of the Democratic party must sign the pledge. Reading on, I see JD pushing the idea that candidates who sign the pledge will be more successful also get their backing if they do so. I think this if rational and can certainly support a candidate that signs the pledge.

It's you who is taking the extreme authoritarian liberal position of mandating adherence to liberal policies party-wide.

Moving on to Kyle Kulinkski and his propaganda technique of quoting poll numbers without discussion as a means of concealing instead of reasoning, below is a post I made to st0 regarding this subject. Kyle's emotional and fact-light propaganda technique is on display in the youtube video link attached. Note that Jerry Brown in the short clip takes a reasoned approach to the complex idea of backing people who don't always agree on important policies. Kyle first miscasts Brown as a washed up and old man in politics, then starts cursing and squealing in an emotional appeal to get his audience worked up into a lather. It's quite a show. Almost exactly the same format used by Rush Limbaugh and Hannity. Unsurprisingly, Kyle is recycling right wing positions too.

Right. So let's hurry up with the Kamala Harris coronation already since, you know, she's a California liberal and everything.

People voted for Trump because he was the only one left who threw the middle class a bone. Hillary all but made a point of ignoring the middle class. Bernie would have won in a fucking landslide, but that's over. People have seen what the right wing really represents and they're no longer interested.

Mr Sanders came a lot closer to the nomination than the monied interests were happy or comfortable with. If the Democratic Party apparatchiks won't read the handwriting on the wall, then they're just going to keep losing.

 

[Fogdog]

Right. So let's hurry up with the Kamala Harris coronation already since, you know, she's a California liberal and everything.

People voted for Trump because he was the only one left who threw the middle class a bone. Hillary all but made a point of ignoring the middle class. Bernie would have won in a fucking landslide, but that's over. People have seen what the right wing really represents and they're no longer interested.

Mr Sanders came a lot closer to the nomination than the monied interests were happy or comfortable with. If the Democratic Party apparatchiks won't read the handwriting on the wall, then they're just going to keep losing.

I'm laughing at you and @Padawanbater2 over this hair brained idea that people in Alabama, Mississippi, North Dakota and all other red states voted for hard right wing representation in Washington because Democrats weren't liberal enough.

You are still fighting the past. Bernie lost. He lost because he didn't win African American, Hispanic and women Democratic primary votes. You can't change that fact. 2016 election is relevant in analysis of what to do in 2018. Bernie isn't up for election in 2018, so he's a leader in the Senate and he's doing some good. I support him. I also support what Justice Democrats are doing and the idea that Democrats need to be open to moderate conservative candidates in districts that are conservative.

I've spent time listening to your media sources. Cenk's video posted at the main page of Justice Democrats is inspiring. What he said makes sense. He's saying no cooperation with Democrats who he identifies as corporatists. He's not advocating a pure theology of replace any Democrat who is now accepting corporate donations but he is advocating primarying certain ones. Also starting a list of candidates who sign the pledge to forego legal contributions from corporations and big money donors. Great. I support that. Might even sign up and donate. I like these folks too: https://brandnewcongress.org/about

We might pick off a few seats in 2018 from Republicans with Cenk's help. I'd also support efforts in conservative districts to run more moderate conservative Democrats to replace a hard right wing Republican. We have to take Congress back. Not by any means but ones that remain true to the idea of the Democratic party being a coalition of groups that may not always agree on everything but can work together to accomplish important objectives like repeal Citizen's United ruling, universal access to healthcare, strong unions, women's right to choose, civil rights, strong economy (who doesn't want that) and rational response to illegal immigrants already in this country. I don't think Democrats will win back Congress in 2018. My expectation is the party makes progress and my hope is they take control.

 

[UncleBuck]

So all this time you've been accusing him of saying that, and he didn't even say it??

I should have known

he said it was an educated response and impressed him. how is that any different from him saying it himself? he endorsed it 100%.

 

[UncleBuck]

Indeed. The more you push the Dumb Buck on his positions, the more dishonest his tactics become.

He's not interested in finding better solutions, just in jamming the ones he's invested in down everyone's throats or driving them away. It's this kind of reactionary thinking that needs to be excised from politics in general and the Democratic Party in particular if they're to have any chance of success moving forward, as it undermines their credibility with voters.

This is why I keep wondering if he's actually an undercover right wing operative, trying to sabotage the Democrats.

you endorsed it too.

 

[Fogdog]

you endorsed it too.

Typical of these Sandernistas, they don't take civil rights seriously, more of a posture. Lip service is paid as entry into their smug unjustifiably confident Sandernista group. Typical white guys who wants to think they are liberal but not really when it comes to civil rights. No way I'd have endorsed that statement. Not surprising, coming from people who would "kick social justice warriors to the curb".

 

[Padawanbater2]

You claim that people who voted for representatives who oppose social security, medicare, medicaid, abortion, public schools, environmental protection, rational treatment of the illegal immigration and so forth thirst to vote for extremely liberal politicians.That's is really funny.

I said Americans voted for Republicans because Democrats haven't represented poor and middle class economic values. Republicans don't, either, they represent corporations and the wealthy, but they're much better at selling it than Democrats. Some of Trump's top talking points during the campaign were about jobs and the economy

Read Donald Trump's Speech on Jobs and the Economy
Trump promises to create 25 million jobs with economic plan
Donald Trump's top 10 campaign promises

They voted for fake populism, his economic policies resonated with his economically depressed base. Democrats failed to instill the same kind of confidence in voters because they didn't prioritize improving the economy after the primary. "America is already great!"

A better answer to this apparent conflict between opinion polling results and election results is majority of people in red states and quite a few in purple states are more conservative than California liberals. They see their conservative representatives as the answer to problems today. Maybe they'd prefer more moderate types and that's what I think would win back house and Senate seats. Not tops down mandated California liberal policies.

You have one poll that allows you to draw that conclusion. Every other major poll that is conducted, the American people routinely fall on the progressive side of the issue;

PEW - More Americans say government should ensure health care coverage
Gallup - Majority in U.S. Support Idea of Fed-Funded Healthcare System
Gallup - Healthcare System
Politico/Morning Consult - Plurality of Voters Back Single-Payer Health Care System

Furthermore, your favored tactic is an attempt to earn the votes of the people in traditionally red states who voted (generally around ~50% of eligible voters - that number of course being much less in an off presidential election year, which means even less people) by supporting a conservative Democratic candidate. Why would conservative voters choose the Democratic candidate who is guaranteed to be much less conservative than the Republican choice? We've seen over the past 30 years how well that does. Conservative voters don't want to vote for a conservative Democrat, they want to vote for a "real conservative". A better way to earn votes is to try to tap into the other ~50% eligible voters who didn't vote in the last election. Offer them a genuine progressive message based on policy positions that will improve their lives and campaign non stop in those districts. Call for debates and put them to the test. That's a successful way to win votes, you're not going to change conservatives minds on voting for a weaker conservative.

Regarding this idea of yours, that "every Democrat must sign on to my specific issues or they can't run". Where "specific issues" are pledge to forego legal campaign donations from corporations and big donors and single payer healthcare. That's your bag, not anybody else's. For example, Bernie isn't saying this, he's saying he can support a person he differs with, presumably because he can work with that person to get his own job done. What I read on Justice Democrats platform is the pledge is their way of identifying candidates that they can support. I don't read anywhere that JD is demanding the entire political leadership of the Democratic party must sign the pledge. Reading on, I see JD pushing the idea that candidates who sign the pledge will be more successful also get their backing if they do so. I think this if rational and can certainly support a candidate that signs the pledge.

I will support candidates that support campaign finance reform and who don't accept corporate or PAC campaign contributions and who support enacting single payer healthcare, I won't support them if they don't.

It's you who is taking the extreme authoritarian liberal position of mandating adherence to liberal policies party-wide right now.

"The extreme authoritarian liberal position" of enacting single payer healthcare and ensuring special interests don't control our democracy... OK

I'm not demanding anything, I'm explaining my reasoning to you that if any of the establishment politicians you support want my vote, they have to represent my interests. If they don't, they won't. Many other progressives feel the same way, which will result in more lost elections if they don't change. That's how political change occurs. You seem to be against the democratic process.

Moving on to Kyle Kulinkski and his propaganda technique of quoting poll numbers without discussion as a means of concealing instead of reasoning, below is a post I made to st0 regarding this subject. Kyle's emotional and fact-light propaganda technique is on display in the youtube video link attached. Note that Jerry Brown in the short clip takes a reasoned approach to the complex idea of backing people who don't always agree on important policies. Kyle first miscasts Brown as a washed up and old man in politics, then starts cursing and squealing in an emotional appeal to get his audience worked up into a lather. It's quite a show. Almost exactly the same format used by Rush Limbaugh and Hannity. Unsurprisingly, Kyle is recycling right wing positions too.

Can you argue any of the facts he presented in that clip? Any of the policy positions he discussed?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Typical of these Sandernistas, they don't take civil rights seriously, more of a posture. Lip service is paid as entry into their smug unjustifiably confident Sandernista group. Typical white guys who wants to think they are liberal but not really when it comes to civil rights. No way I'd have endorsed that statement. Not surprising, coming from people who would "kick social justice warriors to the curb".

Something else I never said; Make Liberalism Great Again

But you've already been told that, you just constantly repeat it like the 'herd like mentality' thing. Your tactics are tired and transparent at this point..

 

[ttystikk]

Something else I never said; Make Liberalism Great Again

But you've already been told that, you just constantly repeat it like the 'herd like mentality' thing. Your tactics are tired and transparent at this point..

Because he doesn't have any arguments of his own.

 

[Fogdog]

Something else I never said; Make Liberalism Great Again

But you've already been told that, you just constantly repeat it like the 'herd like mentality' thing. Your tactics are tired and transparent at this point..

kick social justice warriors to the curb From an article you quoted in text in your post. Sorry man. If you post it you own it. It's not as if I dug it out of the article. You copied and pasted those exact words under your name. You can recant and say that's not what you endorse and I'll accept. Is that what you say? Are you saying that the idea of kicking social justice warriors to the curb is repugnant to you?

Make liberalism great again? I don't know what you are referring to here.

 

[Fogdog]

I said Americans voted for Republicans because Democrats haven't represented poor and middle class economic values. Republicans don't, either, they represent corporations and the wealthy, but they're much better at selling it than Democrats. Some of Trump's top talking points during the campaign were about jobs and the economy

Read Donald Trump's Speech on Jobs and the Economy
Trump promises to create 25 million jobs with economic plan
Donald Trump's top 10 campaign promises

They voted for fake populism, his economic policies resonated with his economically depressed base. Democrats failed to instill the same kind of confidence in voters because they didn't prioritize improving the economy after the primary. "America is already great!"

You have one poll that allows you to draw that conclusion. Every other major poll that is conducted, the American people routinely fall on the progressive side of the issue;

PEW - More Americans say government should ensure health care coverage
Gallup - Majority in U.S. Support Idea of Fed-Funded Healthcare System
Gallup - Healthcare System
Politico/Morning Consult - Plurality of Voters Back Single-Payer Health Care System

Furthermore, your favored tactic is an attempt to earn the votes of the people in traditionally red states who voted (generally around ~50% of eligible voters - that number of course being much less in an off presidential election year, which means even less people) by supporting a conservative Democratic candidate. Why would conservative voters choose the Democratic candidate who is guaranteed to be much less conservative than the Republican choice? We've seen over the past 30 years how well that does. Conservative voters don't want to vote for a conservative Democrat, they want to vote for a "real conservative". A better way to earn votes is to try to tap into the other ~50% eligible voters who didn't vote in the last election. Offer them a genuine progressive message based on policy positions that will improve their lives and campaign non stop in those districts. Call for debates and put them to the test. That's a successful way to win votes, you're not going to change conservatives minds on voting for a weaker conservative.

I will support candidates that support campaign finance reform and who don't accept corporate or PAC campaign contributions and who support enacting single payer healthcare, I won't support them if they don't.

"The extreme authoritarian liberal position" of enacting single payer healthcare and ensuring special interests don't control our democracy... OK

I'm not demanding anything, I'm explaining my reasoning to you that if any of the establishment politicians you support want my vote, they have to represent my interests. If they don't, they won't. Many other progressives feel the same way, which will result in more lost elections if they don't change. That's how political change occurs. You seem to be against the democratic process.

Can you argue any of the facts he presented in that clip? Any of the policy positions he discussed?

Wow what a tower of words.

I repeat. People always vote in their own self interest. Always. What they bring into the voting booth as their values is up to them. You don't get to decide. The only polls that matter are elections. If you can't respect that a person can look at the same information you do and vote differently yet still be a worthy person then you are an asshole.

The rest of that stuff in opinion polls is interesting but not predictive of voting. No matter what you say, the fact is red state voters vote very conservative. Your hate on the only party who represents your views, not withstanding. Not saying we can't change the way people vote but you don't even credit them for the ability to decide what's best for themselves. No wonder they hate liberals like you.

You are endorsing a tops down authoritarian imposition of liberal positions across the country. In Oregon, they will do well, feel better now?. In any case, you aren't even in step with the people you tout for information or leadership. None of them say that. You are a liberal in the middle of San Francisco (figuratively speaking) as if you and you alone are the fount of all wisdom. I'm just saying everybody else understands complexity except you and tty. By everybody else, that include Cenk and Bernie.

I'm glad you will support "blah blah" that makes me feel all warm and cozy. We actually agree on things that you support too. I'm just not authoritarian enough to demand subservience from people who don't even know I exist.

 

[Padawanbater2]

kick social justice warriors to the curb An article you quoted in text in your post. Sorry man. If you post it you own it. It's not as if I dug it out of the article. You copied and pasted those exact words under your name. You can recant and say that's not what you endorse and I'll accept. Is that what you say? Are you saying that the idea of kicking social justice warriors to the curb is repugnant to you?

Make liberalism great again? I don't know what you are referring to here.

You said I said it when I didn't say it

 

[Fogdog]

You said I said it when I didn't say it

I'm saying when you copy and paste it in your post you own it. If you want to say you don't support the idea that social justice warriors "should be kicked to the curb" then I'll accept that and stop this line of criticism.

 

[Padawanbater2]

People always vote in their own self interest. Always.

I'm not talking about "self interest", I'm talking about objectively best interest. What is good for someone who votes against their self interest

What they bring into the voting booth as their values is up to them. You don't get to decide.

I agree

The only polls that matter are elections.

In what regard? Election results serve a completely different purpose than opinion polls. Both "matter" in their own light. This is another attempt at discrediting opinion polls outright when the results don't suit your narrative. You're actively denying the results of highly respected and established polling practices that have been used to direct public policy because you disagree with their results. Do you think Gallup and PEW are "fake news"?

If you can't respect that a person can look at the same information you do and vote differently yet still be a worthy person then you are an asshole.

Where in the world did you dig up that nonsense? Where did I ever say anyone wasn't a "worthy person" because they vote differently than me? It seems like it'd be your ilk doing that seeing as you call Trump supporters and actual progressives you disagree with 'deplorables' among many other pejoratives, constantly. Not a post goes by where you/they don't resort to personal attacks.

The rest of that stuff in opinion polls is interesting but not predictive of voting. No matter what you say, the fact is red state voters vote very conservative. Your hate on the only party who represents your views, not withstanding. Not saying we can't change the way people vote

Why would a conservative voter vote for a conservative Democrat when they can just vote for the much more conservative Republican?

You are endorsing a tops down authoritarian imposition of liberal positions across the country.

No, I'm demanding the politicians we elect actually represent us and not special interests. It's very unusual you would call that "authoritarian". It's become clear you don't understand the meaning of the word.

I'm just not authoritarian enough to demand subservience from people who don't even know I exist.

Demanding fair and equal representation from elected representatives is "authoritarian" now, is it?

Please explain your reasoning, cite examples and show your work

 

[Padawanbater2]

I'm saying when you copy and paste it in your post you own it.

OK, I think that's a stupid opinion to hold

 

[Fogdog]

OK, I think that's a stupid opinion to hold

I think that's a stupid opinion to hold.

 

[ttystikk]

I think that's a stupid opinion to hold.

So everyone who's ever quoted Hitler agreed with him?

GTFO

 

[schuylaar]

it will always be a mystery why the bernie babies couldn't win a primary that was chiefly decided by women and people of color.

guess we'll never know.

RIGGED

You know Buck, I would totally support you in this, if it weren't for the facts.

 

[schuylaar]

So everyone who's ever quoted Hitler agreed with him?

GTFO

Well, mention Jew in a sentence and you ARE Hitler.