Dump Biden.
The Sanders - Warren comparison actually illustrates my question to you. Both were progressive in their policies, but Sanders had more success than Warren. Since they didn't differ much in policy, it suggests that style counted more here. And indeed, Warren was considered "establishment" of the two.
Could Warren have had more success if her style was more like Sanders? I doubt it -- a woman acting like Sanders does is likely to be labeled "shrill", or worse. That goes back to the gender constraints candidates still face. But that's an aside to your point, where you asked if I thought the electorate would be more receptive in 2024.
On policy, I think it doesn't actually matter that much. These are always kind of weird discussions, as we're trying to imagine what other people would find compelling, not ourselves (I myself was a big fan of Warren and the level of detail and thought she put into policy). I think in general presidents are essentially salespeople for their administrations. And so put that way, do I think that a selling style like Sanders is going to be less popular in 2024?
I could see it going both ways. On the one hand, perhaps after two failed attempts, the pitch is falling flat and those whom Sanders reached have withdrawn into defeatism and cynicism. Or maybe it goes the other way -- much as I never felt the burn myself, Sanders' popularity (and Trump's for that matter), wasn't coming from nowhere -- wealth has been increasingly concentrating, economic and cultural opportunities increasingly unequally distributed, precariousness in general heightened. All that's only increased, and promises to continue, up through 2024, so the populist style probably still has a lot of energy left to it.
So having written the above, maybe what I'm saying is that in my view it's not about policy difference and moderates vs progressives, it's about stylistic differences and populists vs institutionalists.
ETA -- or maybe a better phrasing is revolutionaries vs reformers
PVW said:
So having written the above, maybe what I'm saying is that in my view it's not about policy difference and moderates vs progressives, it's about stylistic differences and populists vs institutionalists.
A difference between Sanders and Warren is that the latter tried to explain the practical aspects and how to pay for programs (and so was challenged on that), and Bernie didn’t worry about doing that.
PVW and Nohero, couldn’t agree more. And you know I fall closer to the middle than most here.
I supported Warren because of the perception of a “reformist” position, particularly regarding finance, as opposed to what I saw as the significantly more revolutionary persona that Bernie projects. That affects electability and getting Trump out was the most important thing.
Obama was the same, to me. The focus on health care reform, at least as messaged, was more on bending the cost curve than on insuring the uninsured.
There was something in it for everyone.
You’re not going to appeal to selfish Republicans or wish-washy Independents without appealing to their self-interests.
PVW said:
So having written the above, maybe what I'm saying is that in my view it's not about policy difference and moderates vs progressives, it's about stylistic differences and populists vs institutionalists.
ETA -- or maybe a better phrasing is revolutionaries vs reformers
My take on this primarily comes down to one practical consideration: inflation.
Progressives favor more government spending on social services. Government spending is inflationary. So how well will a Green New Deal or Build Back Better redux go over when inflation is a big problem, compared with 4 years ago when inflation wasn't a problem? And I can't see Sanders and Warren pivoting to run on an austerity platform.
So that is what I mean when I say progressives face headwinds in 2024.
Smedley said:
My take on this primarily comes down to one practical consideration: inflation.
Progressives favor more government spending on social services. Government spending is inflationary. So how well will a Green New Deal or Build Back Better redux go over when inflation is a big problem, compared with 4 years ago when inflation wasn't a problem? And I can't see Sanders and Warren pivoting to run on an austerity platform.
So that is what I mean when I say progressives face headwinds in 2024.
Serious oversimplification there.
Government spending, in and of itself, is not inflationary.
Context, as always, matters.
Smedley said:
My take on this primarily comes down to one practical consideration: inflation.
Progressives favor more government spending on social services. Government spending is inflationary. So how well will a Green New Deal or Build Back Better redux go over when inflation is a big problem, compared with 4 years ago when inflation wasn't a problem? And I can't see Sanders and Warren pivoting to run on an austerity platform.
So that is what I mean when I say progressives face headwinds in 2024.
Government spending is not (intrinsically) inflationary.
So, there's that.
We've been over this many times.
You think $1000 (or whatever) checks from 18 months ago are causing today's inflation?
That's where you and Manchin agree.
the last time the GOP had control of the White House and Congress, they passed an enormous tax cut. Their answer to every economic issue is tax cuts. How is putting money in people's hands via a tax cut any different than sending them checks or building infrastructure with regard to potential inflation?
Fact is, the GOP has no plan to deal with inflation. Because there isn't anything they could do if they took the majority in Congress.
I think what's going unspoken here is the utterly depressing recognition that most voters aren't particularly well-informed or rational in their voting choices. If the GOP takes Congress because voters are angry about the price of gas and food, it would be pretty dumb considering Republicans won't be able to do anything about either.
What's also going unsaid is how much voters who cast a ballot for Republicans are motivated by bigotry and racism, as well as a huge amount of misinformation and disinformation. Roughly 40% of voters nationally wouldn't vote for any Democrat because they truly believe the party hates America, hates straight men, hates white people, hates the military and the police, and most importantly hates the values and the way of life of "real" Americans. Even if inflation comes back down to around 4% and the price of gas drops to $3.50, Democrats will still have a tough time holding on to Congress. And that's because of "CRT" and BLM, and "groomers" and all the other phony outrages that drive a lot of people to the polls.
Smedley said:
My take on this primarily comes down to one practical consideration: inflation.
Progressives favor more government spending on social services. Government spending is inflationary. So how well will a Green New Deal or Build Back Better redux go over when inflation is a big problem, compared with 4 years ago when inflation wasn't a problem? And I can't see Sanders and Warren pivoting to run on an austerity platform.
So that is what I mean when I say progressives face headwinds in 2024.
I don't know what inflation will be like a year from now. Given that when people complain about inflation, what they're mainly complaining about is "I can't afford things I used to or need to," I'm not sure that even if inflation is still an issue that cuts against a populist style that blames some group identified as "the elite" and promises that if only that group were tamed America would be Great and Affordable Again -- whether that populism is leftish or rightish inflected.
If inflation actually pushed voters to become more sophisticated economic thinker, truly reflecting and debating on what drives inflation and broader economic trends such as wealth inequality, I'd think the beneficiary would be precisely people such as Warren. But that doesn't seem likely.
No one runs on an austerity platform. During times of inflation, they might run on a platform of austerity for someone else, but not for their base. Make Wall Street/Immigrants/Globalists/Lazy Workers/Whoever pay, not you good people who are the true spirit of the country!
PVW said:
Smedley said:
My take on this primarily comes down to one practical consideration: inflation.
Progressives favor more government spending on social services. Government spending is inflationary. So how well will a Green New Deal or Build Back Better redux go over when inflation is a big problem, compared with 4 years ago when inflation wasn't a problem? And I can't see Sanders and Warren pivoting to run on an austerity platform.
So that is what I mean when I say progressives face headwinds in 2024.
I don't know what inflation will be like a year from now. Given that when people complain about inflation, what they're mainly complaining about is "I can't afford things I used to or need to," I'm not sure that even if inflation is still an issue that cuts against a populist style that blames some group identified as "the elite" and promises that if only that group were tamed America would be Great and Affordable Again -- whether that populism is leftish or rightish inflected.
If inflation actually pushed voters to become more sophisticated economic thinker, truly reflecting and debating on what drives inflation and broader economic trends such as wealth inequality, I'd think the beneficiary would be precisely people such as Warren. But that doesn't seem likely.
No one runs on an austerity platform. During times of inflation, they might run on a platform of austerity for someone else, but not for their base. Make Wall Street/Immigrants/Globalists/Lazy Workers/Whoever pay, not you good people who are the true spirit of the country!
it's pretty likely that GOP candidates are going to blame Biden and the Democrats for sending checks to the "wrong" people. Lazy, (dark-skinned) people, not like the good people of "real" America who work hard and pay for those parasites to sit around and do nothing. Of course this ignores the fact that TFG actually had his name printed on checks sent out to millions of people during the pandemic.
jimmurphy said:
Smedley said:
My take on this primarily comes down to one practical consideration: inflation.
Progressives favor more government spending on social services. Government spending is inflationary. So how well will a Green New Deal or Build Back Better redux go over when inflation is a big problem, compared with 4 years ago when inflation wasn't a problem? And I can't see Sanders and Warren pivoting to run on an austerity platform.
So that is what I mean when I say progressives face headwinds in 2024.
Serious oversimplification there.
Government spending, in and of itself, is not inflationary.
Context, as always, matters.
I didn't say progressives are evil. I didn't say progressives have no chance in 24. I said inflation is shaping up to be a headwind for progressives in 2024. This is based on the long-established and widely accepted (except on MOL) macroeconomics 101 tenet that increased spending is inflationary. If you wish to parse and analyze that further, or present alternative theses, be my guest.
Ceteris paribus, do you think a Green New Deal or Build Back Better- type proposal would be more favorably received in an inflationary environment vs a non-inflationary environment, less favorably received, or equally received? That is my question for you.
Smedley said:
This is based on the long-established and widely accepted (except on MOL) macroeconomics 101 tenet that increased spending is inflationary.
I'll admit I never took an economics class. But is this actually how this idea is presented in macroeconomics? Because that statement appears to be incredibly simplistic.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
This is based on the long-established and widely accepted (except on MOL) macroeconomics 101 tenet that increased spending is inflationary.
I'll admit I never took an economics class. But is this actually how this idea is presented in macroeconomics? Because that statement appears to be incredibly simplistic.
Note all I've said is that inflation will be a headwind for progressives in 2024. This means that voters will be more inclined to perceive progressive policies as inflationary - doesn't even need to be the case that progressive policies actually are inflationary. So there is no need to reopen another impermeable debate about economics that surely will go 5 pages and nowhere at the same time.
Ceteris paribus, do you think a Green New Deal or Build Back Better- type proposal would be more favorably received in an inflationary environment vs a non-inflationary environment, less favorably received, or equally received?
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
This is based on the long-established and widely accepted (except on MOL) macroeconomics 101 tenet that increased spending is inflationary.
I'll admit I never took an economics class. But is this actually how this idea is presented in macroeconomics? Because that statement appears to be incredibly simplistic.
Note all I've said is that inflation will be a headwind for progressives in 2024. This means that voters will be more inclined to perceive progressive policies as inflationary - doesn't even need to be the case that progressive policies actually are inflationary. So there is no need to reopen another impermeable debate about economics that surely will go 5 pages and nowhere at the same time.
Ceteris paribus, do you think a Green New Deal or Build Back Better- type proposal would be more favorably received in an inflationary environment vs a non-inflationary environment, less favorably received, or equally received?
Except that Green New Deal and Build Back Better are both dead in the water, and NOBODY is talking about them, except you. Ceteris Paribus is irrelevant, since all things are NOT equal.
ml1 said:
I'll admit I never took an economics class. But is this actually how this idea is presented in macroeconomics? Because that statement appears to be incredibly simplistic.
It is not.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
This is based on the long-established and widely accepted (except on MOL) macroeconomics 101 tenet that increased spending is inflationary.
I'll admit I never took an economics class. But is this actually how this idea is presented in macroeconomics? Because that statement appears to be incredibly simplistic.
Note all I've said is that inflation will be a headwind for progressives in 2024. This means that voters will be more inclined to perceive progressive policies as inflationary - doesn't even need to be the case that progressive policies actually are inflationary. So there is no need to reopen another impermeable debate about economics that surely will go 5 pages and nowhere at the same time.
Ceteris paribus, do you think a Green New Deal or Build Back Better- type proposal would be more favorably received in an inflationary environment vs a non-inflationary environment, less favorably received, or equally received?
Except that Green New Deal and Build Back Better are both dead in the water, and NOBODY is talking about them, except you. Ceteris Paribus is irrelevant, since all things are NOT equal.
Apparently you missed the "-type" I wrote, which showed that I'm not talking about GND or BBB either.
But thanks for playing.
Smedley said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
This is based on the long-established and widely accepted (except on MOL) macroeconomics 101 tenet that increased spending is inflationary.
I'll admit I never took an economics class. But is this actually how this idea is presented in macroeconomics? Because that statement appears to be incredibly simplistic.
Note all I've said is that inflation will be a headwind for progressives in 2024. This means that voters will be more inclined to perceive progressive policies as inflationary - doesn't even need to be the case that progressive policies actually are inflationary. So there is no need to reopen another impermeable debate about economics that surely will go 5 pages and nowhere at the same time.
Ceteris paribus, do you think a Green New Deal or Build Back Better- type proposal would be more favorably received in an inflationary environment vs a non-inflationary environment, less favorably received, or equally received?
Except that Green New Deal and Build Back Better are both dead in the water, and NOBODY is talking about them, except you. Ceteris Paribus is irrelevant, since all things are NOT equal.
Apparently you missed the "-type" I wrote, which showed that I'm not talking about GND or BBB either.
But thanks for playing.
And none of those "types" are being discussed either. You lose !
So you're saying progressives won't run on social spending programs in 2024? Wow, that turns about 125 years of a political movement on its head. But I'll take your word for it.
Economically thinking the obvious solution to the problem you pose is to offset government spending with taxes, possibly taxes on those who have benefitted the most from the growing chasm between the ultra wealthy and every other human on the planet.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
This is based on the long-established and widely accepted (except on MOL) macroeconomics 101 tenet that increased spending is inflationary.
I'll admit I never took an economics class. But is this actually how this idea is presented in macroeconomics? Because that statement appears to be incredibly simplistic.
Note all I've said is that inflation will be a headwind for progressives in 2024. This means that voters will be more inclined to perceive progressive policies as inflationary - doesn't even need to be the case that progressive policies actually are inflationary. So there is no need to reopen another impermeable debate about economics that surely will go 5 pages and nowhere at the same time.
Ceteris paribus, do you think a Green New Deal or Build Back Better- type proposal would be more favorably received in an inflationary environment vs a non-inflationary environment, less favorably received, or equally received?
I didn't open this debate, you did.
and this:
This is based on the long-established and widely accepted (except on MOL) macroeconomics 101 tenet that increased spending is inflationary.
doesn't appear to correspond with this:
This means that voters will be more inclined to perceive progressive policies as inflationary - doesn't even need to be the case that progressive policies actually are inflationary.
You didn't say that spending is perceived as inflationary. You said it IS inflationary. In fact, you seem to be saying it's should be self-evident (macroeconomics 101) to the people posting on this board that it is.
I agree that Democratic policies will be perceived by many to be inflationary, because a lot of the media will parrot that as fact, even if it's not borne out by evidence. The unfortunate fact is that BBB and GND will and have been misperceived by many voters from the start because the exaggerations and misstatements of fact about them and what they would or not do have been more effective than any attempts to accurately describe them.
They are both basically DOA because the headlines are about the total cost, and rarely about average annual cost, and even more rarely about what they would accomplish, and what the benefits would be.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
This is based on the long-established and widely accepted (except on MOL) macroeconomics 101 tenet that increased spending is inflationary.
I'll admit I never took an economics class. But is this actually how this idea is presented in macroeconomics? Because that statement appears to be incredibly simplistic.
Note all I've said is that inflation will be a headwind for progressives in 2024. This means that voters will be more inclined to perceive progressive policies as inflationary - doesn't even need to be the case that progressive policies actually are inflationary. So there is no need to reopen another impermeable debate about economics that surely will go 5 pages and nowhere at the same time.
Ceteris paribus, do you think a Green New Deal or Build Back Better- type proposal would be more favorably received in an inflationary environment vs a non-inflationary environment, less favorably received, or equally received?
I didn't open this debate, you did.
and this:
This is based on the long-established and widely accepted (except on MOL) macroeconomics 101 tenet that increased spending is inflationary.doesn't appear to correspond with this:
This means that voters will be more inclined to perceive progressive policies as inflationary - doesn't even need to be the case that progressive policies actually are inflationary.You didn't say that spending is perceived as inflationary. You said it IS inflationary. In fact, you seem to be saying it's should be self-evident (macroeconomics 101) to the people posting on this board that it is.
I agree that Democratic policies will be perceived by many to be inflationary, because a lot of the media will parrot that as fact, even if it's not borne out by evidence. The unfortunate fact is that BBB and GND will and have been misperceived by many voters from the start because the exaggerations and misstatements of fact about them and what they would or not do have been more effective than any attempts to accurately describe them.
They are both basically DOA because the headlines are about the total cost, and rarely about average annual cost, and even more rarely about what they would accomplish, and what the benefits would be.
"Widely accepted" doesn't correspond with "perceive"?
I didn't expect such a sh*tstorm from what I thought was a pretty non-controversial assertion that inflation will be a headwind for progressives in 24. But we agree that Democratic policies will be perceived by many to be inflationary, which was essentially my point from the beginning.
Smedley said:
"Widely accepted" doesn't correspond with "perceive"?
no it doesn't.
It doesn't correspond with your entire sentence:
This means that voters will be more inclined to perceive progressive policies as inflationary - doesn't even need to be the case that progressive policies actually are inflationary.
I'm sure inflation will be used as a line of attack. Whether that amounts to greater, less, or equal headwinds against progressives, however defined, in 2024 vs 2020 is not clear.
Put another way, I don't think most complaints about government spending are actually about fiscal policy at all, and don't see that inflation really changes that.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
This is based on the long-established and widely accepted (except on MOL) macroeconomics 101 tenet that increased spending is inflationary.
I'll admit I never took an economics class. But is this actually how this idea is presented in macroeconomics? Because that statement appears to be incredibly simplistic.
Note all I've said is that inflation will be a headwind for progressives in 2024. This means that voters will be more inclined to perceive progressive policies as inflationary - doesn't even need to be the case that progressive policies actually are inflationary. So there is no need to reopen another impermeable debate about economics that surely will go 5 pages and nowhere at the same time.
Ceteris paribus, do you think a Green New Deal or Build Back Better- type proposal would be more favorably received in an inflationary environment vs a non-inflationary environment, less favorably received, or equally received?
I didn't open this debate, you did.
and this:
This is based on the long-established and widely accepted (except on MOL) macroeconomics 101 tenet that increased spending is inflationary.doesn't appear to correspond with this:
This means that voters will be more inclined to perceive progressive policies as inflationary - doesn't even need to be the case that progressive policies actually are inflationary.You didn't say that spending is perceived as inflationary. You said it IS inflationary. In fact, you seem to be saying it's should be self-evident (macroeconomics 101) to the people posting on this board that it is.
I agree that Democratic policies will be perceived by many to be inflationary, because a lot of the media will parrot that as fact, even if it's not borne out by evidence. The unfortunate fact is that BBB and GND will and have been misperceived by many voters from the start because the exaggerations and misstatements of fact about them and what they would or not do have been more effective than any attempts to accurately describe them.
They are both basically DOA because the headlines are about the total cost, and rarely about average annual cost, and even more rarely about what they would accomplish, and what the benefits would be.
"Widely accepted" doesn't correspond with "perceive"?
I didn't expect such a sh*tstorm from what I thought was a pretty non-controversial assertion that inflation will be a headwind for progressives in 24. But we agree that Democratic policies will be perceived by many to be inflationary, which was essentially my point from the beginning.
your point is actually one I agree with.
Most voters are pretty dumb on the issue of inflation, and the economy in general. So they are blaming Joe Biden and the Democrats for the high cost of gas and food, without giving any thought to how that can actually be true.
They also don't really know or care what any infrastructure spending would do, or how much it would really cost.
Our politics is very, very broken, and your assertion about inflation is just one more data point that proves it.
PVW said:
I'm sure inflation will be used as a line of attack. Whether that amounts to greater, less, or equal headwinds against progressives, however defined, in 2024 vs 2020 is not clear.
Put another way, I don't think most complaints about government spending are actually about fiscal policy at all, and don't see that inflation really changes that.
IMHO a lot of the complaints about government spending are thinly veiled racism. A lot of the objection is that the spending benefits the wrong people, the "lazy" people. In the book "Dying of Whiteness," the author Jonathan Wetzl holds focus groups with low income white people who object to any government spending on health care even if it would benefit them personally. Because it would be hard-working people paying taxes to give health care to lazy people who won't work.
I don't know how that kind of thinking can really be turned around.
Smedley said:
I didn't expect such a sh*tstorm from what I thought was a pretty non-controversial assertion that inflation will be a headwind for progressives in 24. But we agree that Democratic policies will be perceived by many to be inflationary, which was essentially my point from the beginning.
Maybe the “storm” was because you started like this -
Smedley said:
My take on this primarily comes down to one practical consideration: inflation.
Progressives favor more government spending on social services. Government spending is inflationary. So how well will a Green New Deal or Build Back Better redux go over when inflation is a big problem, compared with 4 years ago when inflation wasn't a problem? And I can't see Sanders and Warren pivoting to run on an austerity platform.
So that is what I mean when I say progressives face headwinds in 2024.
It wasn’t “perceived” the first time.
nohero said:
Smedley said:
I didn't expect such a sh*tstorm from what I thought was a pretty non-controversial assertion that inflation will be a headwind for progressives in 24. But we agree that Democratic policies will be perceived by many to be inflationary, which was essentially my point from the beginning.
Maybe the “storm” was because you started like this -
Smedley said:
My take on this primarily comes down to one practical consideration: inflation.
Progressives favor more government spending on social services. Government spending is inflationary. So how well will a Green New Deal or Build Back Better redux go over when inflation is a big problem, compared with 4 years ago when inflation wasn't a problem? And I can't see Sanders and Warren pivoting to run on an austerity platform.
So that is what I mean when I say progressives face headwinds in 2024.
It wasn’t “perceived” the first time.
the internet doesn't forget
nohero said:
Smedley said:
I didn't expect such a sh*tstorm from what I thought was a pretty non-controversial assertion that inflation will be a headwind for progressives in 24. But we agree that Democratic policies will be perceived by many to be inflationary, which was essentially my point from the beginning.
Maybe the “storm” was because you started like this -
Smedley said:
My take on this primarily comes down to one practical consideration: inflation.
Progressives favor more government spending on social services. Government spending is inflationary. So how well will a Green New Deal or Build Back Better redux go over when inflation is a big problem, compared with 4 years ago when inflation wasn't a problem? And I can't see Sanders and Warren pivoting to run on an austerity platform.
So that is what I mean when I say progressives face headwinds in 2024.
It wasn’t “perceived” the first time.
OK, you got me attempting to shorthand a statement. I'll amend to "An increase in government spending is one of the factors that economists say can drive inflation."
Is that acceptable?
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Garage Sales
-
Huge Garage Sale Sale Date: May 4, 2024
More info
Progressivism is a fairly well-defined subset of the Democratic party and for the most part it's clear which candidates are progressive and which aren't. That's what I mean by progressivism.
i think progressives face broad some headwinds in 2024 due to factors such as inflation, the failure/rollback of some of the more radical criminal justice reform measures, and some polling evidence that shows more voters believe the Democratic party has moved too far left.
i take it you disagree. Do you think, say, a Sanders or Warren would find the electorate to be more receptive to their policy proposals in 2024 vs 2020? Equally receptive? Why?