Feel the Bern

[Yonadav]

I agree that we would be taking a really hard look at who he taps for his running mate. I don't think that it would be Warren, because she's another New Englander. Some have suggested Beto. Ideologically, I feel that's a mismatch. Beto is too much the New Dem to step in for Bernie, should something befall him. Kamala Harris might be good. In the past, I have speculated that Robert Reich was the man that he would have asked if he had gotten the nom the last time. That would be such a perfect match, were it not for the fact that he is also an old man.

I don't see any male democrat running with a male VP this election.  Gotta mix up those genders this time.

I sort of agree and I sort of disagree. I think that identity politics is running out of steam. People are sort of tired of it. If there is a sense that a running mate was selected primarily for their gender, ethnic, or orientation identity, that could work against them. We just aren't very enthusiastic for America's first this or that, this time. I'm not opposed to a woman. Ideologically, Bernie and Warren would be a really good match. I would totally get behind that, regardless of which of them were at the top of the ticket. But a lot of people won't see it as a good match, strategically.

[epronovost]

I don't think that there would be any chance at all that Bernie would ask Howard Schultz the billionaire to be his running mate. They are not ideologically compatible. Schultz is a fan of the New Dems and wants them to get back into power.

Is there really such a wide divide between the various sub-factions of the Demcratic party? I don't think so. Their biggest sticking point is basically their support for free trade vs a more protectionist approach to it. Those position can be conciliated by adding minimal wage and work conditions to negotiations about free trade and limit them to similarly developped countries like the EU, Japan, Canada, the UK and a few others. Political candidacy should not be domitated by dogmatism. It weakens the broad alliances required to win in a two party system.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't see any male democrat running with a male VP this election.  Gotta mix up those genders this time.

I sort of agree and I sort of disagree. I think that identity politics is running out of steam. People are sort of tired of it. If there is a sense that a running mate was selected primarily for their gender, ethnic, or orientation identity, that could work against them. We just aren't very enthusiastic for America's first this or that, this time. I'm not opposed to a woman. Ideologically, Bernie and Warren would be a really good match. I would totally get behind that, regardless of which of them were at the top of the ticket. But a lot of people won't see it as a good match, strategically.

That's tokenism, not identity politics.  Common mistake for you alt lite nutters. 

Both the dems and the reps are going to run hard on identity politics, presenting a drastically different vision of american identity, and predicating their rhetoric on it, to voters. Dems are the Communist Other, for open borders and murderers and mexicans, not americans. Reps are incompetent un-american bigots who wrap themselves in a flag.......etc etc etc.

[Yonadav]

I don't think that there would be any chance at all that Bernie would ask Howard Schultz the billionaire to be his running mate. They are not ideologically compatible. Schultz is a fan of the New Dems and wants them to get back into power.

Is there really such a wide divide between the various sub-factions of the Demcratic party? I don't think so. Their biggest sticking point is basically their support for free trade vs a more protectionist approach to it. Those position can be conciliated by adding minimal wage and work conditions to negotiations about free trade and limit them to similarly developped countries like the EU, Japan, Canada, the UK and a few others. Political candidacy should not be domitated by dogmatism. It weakens the broad alliances required to win in a two party system.

Yeah, there's a pretty wide divide between the New Democrats and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. New Democrats are basically Reaganites with some socially liberal positions mixed in. The New Dems are like the Republican Party of the Reagan era. It's not just about trade. It's tax policies. It's social safety net policies. Pretty much everything. The Democratic Party is pretty much split into two different parties that are only united by their opposition to the Republicans.

I think that your views on trade are naive. During the renegotiation of NAFTA, one of the sticking points was wages that would be paid to Mexican auto workers. The new NAFTA requires them to be paid something like $15 an hour. There was a good deal of discussion about it being sort of a moot point, because there is no way of enforcing it.  An awful lot of the things in trade agreements are just words on paper.  

The Green New Deal will almost certainly require us to engage in a good deal of protectionism. Strict environmental regulation is something that inherently needs to be protected. You can't expect someone to invest a lot of money into manufacturing that is going to be subject to strict environmental regulatation, and then tell them that people in other nations who aren't subject to such strict environmental regulation are going to be competing freely with them. We've already fucked up on this concept royally.

And most economists agree that protectionism is necessary when a nation is trying to build up its industry. South Korea was fiercely protective of its industries while building them up. They dropped their protections after they had built up a productive advantage. If we are going to establish green industries, we are going to need to be fiercely protective of them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not only would we need to be protective of our industries themselves, we would have to regulate carbon emissions by consumption of foreign goods, at some point (if we went all in on green) those would be the most significant remainder of emissions that we could apply leverage to. Or, far more likely, we could ignore it.

[Yonadav]

Bernie talking rocks Chicago. I'm glad that he's talking about himself more. He's stood up for so many great things over the decades.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/0...ts-1200723

[Yonadav]

The following article is a MUST READ! It's an interview with a New Democrat (he calls himself a Rubin Democrat) who was part of the Clinton administration. He talks about why he thinks that it is time for the centrists of the Democratic Party to pass the baton to the left.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/...rad-delong

Here is an excerpt from the article:

"We were certainly wrong, 100 percent, on the politics.

Barack Obama rolls into office with Mitt Romney’s health care policy, with John McCain’s climate policy, with Bill Clinton’s tax policy, and George H.W. Bush’s foreign policy. He’s all these things not because the technocrats in his administration think they’re the best possible policies, but because [White House adviser] David Axelrod and company say they poll well.

And [Chief of Staff] Rahm Emanuel and company say we’ve got to build bridges to the Republicans. We’ve got to let Republicans amend cap and trade up the wazoo, we’ve got to let Republicans amend the [Affordable Care Act] up the wazoo before it comes up to a final vote, we’ve got to tread very lightly with finance on Dodd-Frank, we have to do a very premature pivot away from recession recovery to “entitlement reform.”

All of these with the idea that you would then collect a broad political coalition behind what is, indeed, Mitt Romney’s health care policy and John McCain’s climate policy and George H.W. Bush’s foreign policy.

And did George H.W. Bush, did Mitt Romney, did John McCain say a single good word about anything Barack Obama ever did over the course of eight solid years?

No, they fucking did not. No allegiance to truth on anything other than the belief that John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell are the leaders of the Republican Party, and since they’ve decided on scorched earth, we’re to back them to the hilt. So the politics were completely wrong, and we saw this starting back in the Clinton administration."

[Yonadav]

Bernie is polling strongly.

https://theintercept.com/2019/03/06/bern...ters-2020/

---

Bernie goes after the CEO of Michagan's Blue Cross Blue Shield, who took executive compensation of $19.2 million last year. Please note that Blue Cross is supposed to be a not for profit insurer. You know. A not for profit that pays its CEO almost $20 million for one year of work.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/l...082504002/

[The Grand Nudger]

That's loose change for non profits.  Looks like Anthem busted Delta Dentals record of 14.3 million.  They used to be in second place.  Guess they got tired of losing.

I'm on the fence on principal...I understand why a non-profit would want to entice administrators with high compensation, and I'm the CEO of a non-profit, myself (Wife's the CFO, we both get paid..natch!). I'd gladly hire someone else to do what we do and pay them more to do it, but applications aren't exactly piling up, lol.

[Alan V]

The Green New Deal will almost certainly require us to engage in a good deal of protectionism. Strict environmental regulation is something that inherently needs to be protected. You can't expect someone to invest a lot of money into manufacturing that is going to be subject to strict environmental regulation, and then tell them that people in other nations who aren't subject to such strict environmental regulation are going to be competing freely with them.

An aggressive carbon tax for goods from a distance might work.