Dr. Strangelove

Hyperpartizanship is mainly driven by educational attainment today. People with educations tend to see the world one way - full of inequality, they fear climate change, and are more liberal than ever. People without college educations distrust what they perceive to be elites. Elites are elected officials, the wealthy, institutions, etc. They often distrust those with college educations. Voters like this are trending towards being more and more conservative.

Apologies, I meant Biden. My original post was making an argument that Trump will win election, if he chooses to run. The systemic advantages - which are growing - mean Democrats are likely to be uncompetitive in future Presidential elections.

You see, in the United States we have something called the Electoral College. Under this system, Republicans don't even try to win more overall votes, they don't have too. In 2020, the states of Arizona and Georgia were decided by ~10k votes. Wisconsin was decided by 20k votes. If Trump wins those states, the EC is 269-269. A tie means that Trump wins. Again, Republicans don't even try to win more votes - they can't. The issue with our democracy is the popular vote gap is growing. In future elections, Democrats will likely have to win by larger and larger margins in the national popular vote in order to win elections, which simply isn't possible. If you're interested in the political Science behind this, I can link a few articles and opinion pieces.

The fact that you think Trump won by 10 million and not 40k tells me you don't know how elections work. Democrats have won more votes in every Presidential election but one since 1988 (and will continue to do so). What has that got them?

This is not true. Firstly, just because the leader of your party tried - and failed - to stage a coup in the greatest democracy in world history isn't comforting. You might shrug off things like this but this is alarming to the rest of us. The assault hasn't stopped - states are passing laws, conducting audits to appease the QAnon base of the party, etc. Furthermore, the conservative structural advantages in elections make it higher than 50% that Trump wins in 2024, despite likely losing the popular vote by 3.5%.

This is the best post on Huskerboard. Will the conservative people in this thread - who are going to vote for Trump - change their minds? Not at all. Those Democrats raising taxes on the rich and expanding social programs is just too damn scary!

Exactly! You couldn't be more correct.

I've literally linked you multiple articles - the first one specifically talking about how the Budget Control Act of 2011. Republicans used government funding and the debt ceiling hostage in order to negotiate spending cuts and sequesters. I then provided you with a lesson in Economics - governments respond to recessions by spending money and by giving their citizens money. You were provided anecdotal evidence that compares the GOP response to the 2008 recession with the 2020 recession (HINT: they acted in the complete opposite manner in 2020 when their electoral success hinged on recovery). Because they know that economic recovery = electoral success. You are just choosing not to see the obvious. You're trying to rationalize this by getting caught up in the reasoning behind the recessions. Don't. The government response to any recession is the same in a big picture: increase money supply, make credit cheap, and send money to citizens. EVERYBODY knows this. Which is why it's easy to point to the 2008 and 2020 recessions as proof.

I don't know how to explain basic economics to you any further because you want to ignore it. Employment figures, housing, the stock market, etc. had not recovered by that time. The recession technically ended but that doesn't mean the American public felt it. I understand. You can't comprehend that your party may have done something wreckless and harmful to the public in order to win an election. But they did, and it was very successful. Is easy to figure out: compare the response to 2020 to 2008. Republicans spent trillions last year while simultaneously balking at high spending in 2008-2010 and negotiating spending cuts after 2010.

I linked an article that discussed it. Read Nobel prize winning Economist Paul Krugmans many articles about it. Here are others that aren't paywalled: https://www.google.com/amp/s/nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2018/02/obamas-gone-so-republicans-stopped-sabotaging-the-economy.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2019/08/gop-suspects-economic-sabotage-because-they-did-it-to-obama.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/09/did-republicans-deliberately-crash-us-economy In times of recession, governments are better off spending money. In response to the 2008 recession Republicans in congress advocated for spending cuts, which they got. They then campaigned on "the slowest recovery in history". The nature of the 2008 and 2020 recessions (or any recession) are different, but when it comes to monetary or fiscal policy the responses are pretty much the same. The Federal Reserve sets interest rates to 0% and Governments try to send money to its citizens (see the concept of helecoptering money that I linked earlier). It's why the second Republicans are elected attempts to "balance the budget" suddenly stop, because they know that deficit spending = growth which = win elections.

The 2020 response by loaning money to businesses (PPP loans) is a unique feature of the crisis. What isn't unique was the strategy to helicopter money to people in times of economic crisis. Helecoptering money is not a new economic idea. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_money) Multiple stimulus checks, ongoing child tax credits, etc. are all part of a government stimulus strategy of helecoptering money to people. The same thing was advocated for by economists in response to the 2008 financial crisis but it didn't happen. That article talked about the Budget Control Act of 2011, which Republicans negotiated spending cuts and sequesters in exchange for raising the debt ceiling and funding the Government. The exact opposite of what should've happened and what Republicans did in response to 2020.

There are quite a few articles on this topic. Several Keynesian economists have written about this. Most Keynesians are left leaning, of course, but they're proven correct when it comes to how to respond to recessions: the government needs to spend money. But this article sums it up: https://www.epi.org/blog/congressional-republicans-smothered-rapid-economic-recovery/ After taking the house in 2010, Republicans backed by the 'tea party' tied spending cuts to government funding and debt ceiling legislation. I do think it's debatable on if Republicans intentionally were motivated to sabatoage the economy or if they simply used the wind of austerity to win elections. What isn't debatable is how insanely bad of an idea it was. The lessons learned from this are precisely why Republicans approved trillions in stimulus spending last year under Trump. The reason they didn't start pushing for spending cuts is because policy makers know that government spending helps economies and spending cuts hurt it.

The Republican Party intentionally withheld stimulus spending under Obama in response to the 2008 Financial Crisis because it was politically expedient to do so. And the debt ceiling does always get raised, however this time seems more serious than most. I trust your voting patterns will change in the unlikely chance it does not, as it should be pretty obvious who is at fault here.

I agree with all of this. I'm hopeful but full of trepidation. I'm going to wait and see if Nebraska can string together multiple games in a row of mistake free football before I predict them to win. Michigan wins 20-27, as Nebraska has more penalty yards, gives up a few more sacks and a costly turnover doom them in a game they out gain Michigan in yardage.

Yeah, I think this is accurate. Most parents are fine, but the small number of parents that aren't make the job extremely difficult. Another thing I often hear is that there is almost an expectation to coach or lead extra curricular activities. It suddenly adds a lot of time to a job, where teachers already do work at home. Teaching is a tough job, I tip my hat to you and other teachers.

My teacher friends mostly dislike their jobs. Not because of students, but because of parents. I personally have 4 friends - 3 at LPS and 1 at OPS - leave their teaching jobs. All of them complained that parents were one of the biggest reasons for leaving.

I mean, sure. But he could also allow Democrats to vote on it through a simple majority via unanimous consent. But he's willing to allow an economic catastrophe happen - just like after 2008 - because he knows voters like you aren't going to punish them for it. I mean, it's an easy choice on his part. America faces a recession, hundreds of billions will be spent on higher interest spending, tens of millions will be unemployed along with who knows what else. But the GOP wins a few more house seats and maybe they get to nominate an extra judge or two later this decade. Easy choice.

The data is difficult to find, but this website has a chart you can filter through. https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/ You can filter by "Fed Fund % of State Revenue", which separates out other classified "dependencies" like government jobs or the presence of military bases. When using this metric, Red states make up 13 of the top 15 states most dependent on the federal government to fund their state. This makes sense, Red states (in the Southeast especially) are poor and have much lower GDP. The progressive nature of our system means they're going to get more than they pay in. Of course, the irony of this is well documented in Political Science. Red States, who benefit most from government programs, vote in ways to limit them. Which is why, in the event of a secession of Red States, they would be much worse off because they would no longer have Blue states (in New England) to subsidize them.

It depends on if you're talking raw federal spending - including government jobs. In that instance, a state like Virginia is #1 because if DC. If you refer to welfare dollars, which is what I'm taking about, it's the government sending states money and not getting things in return. The number 1 state is a blue state, New Mexico, but the next 9 states are red as well as 13 of the top 15. Because states like Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, etc. have a lot of poor residents. As far as retraining, the government has provided programs with limited success. They've tried to retrain coal miners in West Virginia to learn new skills, for example, but when given the option to pick from over 100 new skills - paid for by the government - they chose coal mining. Stories are similar for other depresses areas in the country as well. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1D14G0)

I think we're seeing a lot of this already. Recent Congressional action to support a local supply chain on semiconductors is a result of this realization and was extremely bipartisan. I think there's going to be a bigger push to develop things like solar panels, battery storage, etc. all supplied locally for similar reasons.

Nothing like the financial incentive of book sales to bring the regret out of somebody.

I'm hopeful, but this feels like a tough pull. Although luckily we've done a good job developing defensive talent so there is some hope. Frost needs to do well in the final 6 games to really show recruits that the program is on a better trajectory. These kind of players aren't going to take chances on a program in flux.

Yes, however, in my sarcastic post I was trying to convey that the Red states need the money from blue states and not the other way around, which is why I'm amused at the red states. The voters are stupid and don't realize how much they massively benefit from the arrangement.

Demographic shifts are interesting, although I don't think the reasons people are moving to southern states are political. It has to do with cost of living, job opportunities, etc. I do think an argument can be made that things like CoL have something to do with politics, but if people were leaving for political reasons the states they're moving to wouldn't be turning blue (Arizona, Georgia, Virginia, Colorado). The states they're leaving are turning more and more red (Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin). I agree that the wealthy folks in California should pay more in taxes. My problem with the citizens of Red states is that they complain about government spending they benefit more from it. I was being sarcastic because as a whole, Red states rely on blue states. Not the other way around. If a split between Red and Blue happened, the Blue states would be much better off and the Red states much poorer.

Is it incorrect though?