Trump versus Clinton?

[Ryantology]

In communism a person who is a farmer is equal to the programmer, they both need each other and does not make one better then the other in anyway.

That is a flawed system. They should not be on the same level. Although being a farmer is an important job, it doesn't take a very large skill set to do it. Therefore, most people can easily learn to do it.

The programming job is a lot more mentally challenging. Not everyone can do it regardless of how hard they try.

My perspective, as a Sanders-style democratic socialist (or social democrat?) is such. I'll use a more common comparison that I see.

The doctor's job is undoubtedly more painstaking, difficult and demanding of skill and education than the McDonald's employee. The doctor should absolutely be compensated considerably more than the McDonald's employee. But, the McDonald's employee is providing a service that is in demand (there are many, many people whose jobs involve enabling the McDonald's employee to serve food to paying customers), and it is a job that demands a significant portion of that employee's time and physical energy. They deserve to earn a wage that, at least, guarantees a roof over their head and food on their table. Sure, it may raise the cost of your Big Mac and fries, but since you're not paying as much in taxes to support a social safety net, since it has fewer people relying on it, it is an overall net benefit to you (even moreso if you're not killing yourself with shitty McDonald's food).

[The Grand Nudger]

IDK Kusa, the fact that farmers are disappearing and going out of business left right and center, despite decades of experience...while high school dropouts manage to succeed and profit as programmers seems to suggest otherwise.  It's not as if the market (or need) for food is smaller than the market for code.....so that wouldn't explain it. 

 I think that people are so far removed from the one that they really have no idea what's involved.  They, maybe, planted a tomato in their yard once and they think "hell, this isn't so hard".  No, that's not very hard.  It's not farming, though.  Farming is the thing that people with lots of money leaning on -many- degrees..both their own and entire universities of others, do.  

Even when it comes to doctors, the water is muddy....it's easy to imagine that the job is "worth more", in some sense, than another.  OTOH, I;d worry more about my health and wellbeing if all of our sanitation workers (read:trashmen) went on strike than if all our doctors went on strike.  Sure, people will pay whatever they'll pay, and people will accept whatever wage they'll accept...but to imagine there's some profound underlying logic or demonstrable scale that justifies the disparity between farmers and coders, doctors and trashmen.......well, gl with that.

[abaris]

Sure, people will pay whatever they'll pay, and people will accept whatever wage they'll accept...but to imagine there's some profound underlying logic or demonstrable scale that justifies the disparity between farmers and coders, doctors and trashmen.......well, gl with that.

It's also not what Marx and Engels had in mind. As usual, people lean on everyone's equal with equal pay and equal rights or obligations. That's what has been hammered into their heads for decades. But all they asked for was workers actually profiting from what they produce. Getting their fair share of the means of production. They also said that everyone should persue a career of their liking and do what they are best suited for. Total equality was never the goal.

Even in the communist countries of old, although they weren't really communist and didn't even claim to be, equality never was on the forefront. Doctors still earned more than workers. Probably not as much as in the West, even in comparison to living standards, but still enough to purchase their own small luxuries. Eve within the system.

[A-g-n-o-s-t-i-c]

In USA president is a puppet that control with hand of some giant capitalist hidden leaders.
they control people with media and they now they want push people of USA to Clinton by Donald trump.
Clinton will be win.

[Ryantology]

I think that people are so far removed from the one that they really have no idea what's involved.  They, maybe, planted a tomato in their yard once and they think "hell, this isn't so hard".  No, that's not very hard.  It's not farming, though.  Farming is the thing that people with lots of money leaning on -many- degrees..both their own and entire universities of others, do.

This is true, and why I didn't want to touch that analogy. The basics of farming are pretty simple, but that doesn't mean any idiot can be good at it. Put me on a farm and tell me to produce a yield, and I'd be lost.

Even when it comes to doctors, the water is muddy....it's easy to imagine that the job is "worth more", in some sense, than another.  OTOH, I;d worry more about my health and wellbeing if all of our sanitation workers (read:trashmen) went on strike than if all our doctors went on strike.  Sure, people will pay whatever they'll pay, and people will accept whatever wage they'll accept...but to imagine there's some profound underlying logic or demonstrable scale that justifies the disparity between farmers and coders, doctors and trashmen.......well, gl with that.

That goes into another aspect of the debate. Should compensation be reliant on the difficulty and knowledge requirements of a job? The physical or mental demands of the job? The job's role in allowing a stable, functional and advanced society to function?

I think we can all agree that a doctor is a more vital job than a burger flipper, overall, and deserves very good compensation, but should that mean the burger flipper doesn't deserve a living wage? That's not an argument that makes sense to me.

[TheRealJoeFish]

I believe I asked you to link to a post where I said it was Texas only. Why do you lack the integrity to acknowledge your dishonest argumentation?


I'm well aware of how it works, thankyouverymuch, Woggie.  As I said earlier, no one knows, and that includes you.

Hopefully you will have noticed also that I didn't assert that it would tip the scales against Trump, but only that they were doing it to stiffen opposition to Trump. You're new to this reading stuff, aren't you?

I get it, you dislike the idea of non-Aryans voting. But fer chrissakes, kid, at least target the point being made. Doing otherwise only makes you look dumber ... no mean feat, that.

Stiffen opposition?  Are you for real?  Do you really think that the Dems are going to win any Red States in November?  They'll be lucky to keep all of the Blue States with Trump running.  

Now get this through your thick skull:  The Dems don't need any of the Red States to win the Presidency if the Dems in the Blue States show up and vote for the Dem Candidate.  So it doesn't make a rat's ass difference how many Hispanics vote for the Dem candidate in the Red States.  That's because she/he can win without them.  They only matter if they vote for the Dems in the lower offices.  

Now on the flip side, the Repub candidate can get every single vote in all of the Red States and he will lose the election unless he wins a lot of the Blue States.  

So, as far as the Presidential election is concerned, the only voters that matter are the Dem voters in the Red States. They determine who will be the President.

I mean, listen... there are ways to look at this analytically.

FiveThirtyEight created an interactive map tool called "What Would It Take to Flip States in the 2016 Election?"  It displays each state in a heat map-form according to how red or blue they were in the 2012 election, and then, using demographics (updated for 2016 population levels), allows you to alter, among different voting blocs, the turnout % and the distribution of votes to see how that would effect the state and national races.

The five voting blocs, along with their turnouts and vote allocations in 2012, are:

1. College-educated White: 77% voter turnout, 56-44 split Republican to Democrat
2. Non-college-educated White: 57% voter turnout, 62-38 split Republican to Democrat
3. Black: 66% turnout, 93-7 split Democrat to Republican
4. Hispanic/Latino: 48% turnout, 71-29 split Democrat to Republican
5. Asian/Other: 49% turnout, 67-33 split Democrat to Republican

If those same ratios hold in the 2016 election, the Dems win easily, 332-206.

Let's suppose Trump runs.  If we alter only the Hispanic/Latino vote to 50% turnout, 80-20 split Democrat to Republican, which I don't think is unreasonable at all, one state changes from Red to Blue: North Carolina.

Let's keep that Hispanic/Latino distribution, and see what it takes to get the Republicans the 270 needed electoral votes.

If voter turnout remains the same across both blocs of white voters, and assuming equal increases in Republican distribution among both blocs, the Republicans would need to turn the 56/44 and 62/38 distributions into 61/39 and 67/33.  This would send North Carolina back red, and switch Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire, getting them 283 votes to 255 for the democrats.

That would be a huge swing, though, and at least a couple of those states are individually swinging more blue than red by the day.  Additionally, there are a ton of people who absolutely will not vote for Donald Trump; even within the white voter blocs, I believe the proportion of women and evangelicals who would vote for Rubio or Cruz but not Trump is being understated.  Here's my predicted split:

College-educated White: 78% turnout, 55-45 split republican to democrat
Non-college-educated White: 60% turnout, 68-32 split republican to democrat
Black: 65% turnout, 95-5 split democrat to republican
Hispanic/Latino: 52% turnout, 80-20 split democrat to republican
Asian/Other: 50% turnout, 70-30 split democrat to republic

This would put the electoral results at democrats 308, republicans 230. Ohio, Iowa, and North Carolina would be red, but Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Hampshire and Florida go blue.

I think this is pretty close to accurate.  I've said before that, of the states that voted blue in 2012, I can see maybe four of them switching, quite possibly Virginia, Ohio, Nevada, and New Mexico, with perhaps Missouri (or mayyyyyyyybe North Carolina) switching to blue from red.  A Trump candidacy, though, would almost certainly cement New Mexico as blue (this is the one state in which Hispanic/Latino voter mobilization/coordination could be the difference).  Trump would have an outside chance at Pennsylvania, but, as I've stated, the Keystone State's getting bluer by the day, and almost certainly wouldn't win Florida; the situation's reversed for Cruz, who could have a chance at Florida but almost certainly wouldn't get Pennsylvania.  My prediction is that both PA and FL will go blue, but that's not too much more likely than a 1/1 split (maybe 50 to 45, with a 5% chance of both somehow going red).

I'm resigned to the fact that Ohio will go red: they have an actually fiscally competent, moderate (if only compared to the others) conservative as a Governor, and there seems to be a little more conservative rumblings in the state than in years past.  After Florida, it's almost certainly where the republicans' biggest offensive will take place.  I have a feeling that Virginia will go red too, although objectively there's no reason they should like either Cruz or Trump more than Romney, who they didn't go for last time out (the Virginia voting bloc is the definition of "beltway insiders", and traditionally likes mainstream candidates).

So, ultimately, I think the small gains for dems in the black and muslim votes (and definitely hispanic, if Trump wins) will effectively balance out any swing red for non-college-educated white voters.  I actually believe college-educated white voters will be a touch bluer this time around, entirely due to 1) the population skewing younger and 2) more women going red to blue than men going blue to red.  This should give the dems a somewhat comfortable victory, though not quite an Obama-like romp.

[Alex K]

I don't want to derail, but the list of ethnicities seems a bit crass ;P No need to split black people into college or no college I guess?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

OK, I'm willing to blow both my legs off on this. Unless something happens Trump will win.
He will carry all of the States that went with Romney = 206 electoral votes. In addition he will pick up Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. His total will be 313 electoral votes.

[TheRealJoeFish]

I don't want to derail, but the list of ethnicities seems a bit crass ;P No need to split black people into college or no college I guess?

Nah, I agree that FiveThirtyEight maybe should have provided an explanation of why they did it like that.  It struck me as a little blunt as well, but I didn't note that in my post on the map tool.  Near as I can tell, the reasons for that particular breakdown are 1) non-white voters don't tend to vote differently based on whether they have a college degree, whereas white voters markedly do, and 2) FiveThirtyEight is first and foremost a statistical site, so they want their sample sizes to be as big as possible and their mathematical tools to be as helpful as possible; the bloc of "college-educated Asian/Other voters" is only 2 or 3 percent of the whole electorate, which might be hard to get reliable results for and wouldn't really effect the utility of the map tool.  Essentially - and I'm just guessing what FiveThirtyEight was doing, here - they didn't think it would be helpful for some of the groups in the tool to be less than a tenth the size of other groups (the current breakdown of the groups sizes is: White College Educated 37.2%, White Non-College-Educated 33.3%, Black 13.3%, Hispanic/Latino 10.6%, Asian/Other 5.5%)

[Sterben]

In communism a person who is a farmer is equal to the programmer, they both need each other and does not make one better then the other in anyway.

That is a flawed system. They should not be on the same level. Although being a farmer is an important job, it doesn't take a very large skill set to do it. Therefore, most people can easily learn to do it.

The programming job is a lot more mentally challenging. Not everyone can do it regardless of how hard they try.

       Equal in social status they should be the same, Farming can be hard as well in this day and age. With the partnership of the farmer and the programmer they can do great things together without one trying to screw over the other. Prime example, the origins of T.V Filo had the talent and got screwed out everything cause of what factor? Give up yet? The answer is money! RCA ruined him till they could get a working model. Now, back to the farmer and programmer. If the programmer helps the farmer with better equipment making the farmer's life easier they deserve equal shares of the profit. It does not happen like that, the programmer uses his abilities to take more then is owed to him from the profits of the farm. The farmer does a majority of the work on the farm and takes less profit. How is that fair? The programmer built the software to allow the farmers machines to function better, do you see the programmer helping on the farm other then that? No, you see the farmer. The people benefit from faster and greater quality and quantity of goods, that's what matters. They have both done something good and has improved society. Who is better?