The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[TheSker]

37 minutes ago, deedsker said:

Federal and State, but this is charity efficiency versus Federal or State efficiency. Both governmental options do it better.

 

Charity, more control, but far less efficient than government at doing things. That is the key. Charity plays an important role, but is less efficient and has no oversight other than graft (illegal uses of money).

I don't disagree that the government is efficient at sending out checks.

[TGHusker]

More on Schultz as a spoiler and allowing Trump to win the WH comes this OPED from John Fund that I just ran across.

He agrees with my conclusion above.  Schultz is just as likely to hurt Trump than the Dem nominee and he may

even help the Dem nominee -drawing conservatives from Trump while the Dem keeps their base. 

He quotes Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, who is quoted by many on HB as agreeing.  See quotes below

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/hey-democrats-youre-roasting-howard-schultz-when-you-should-be-working-hard-to-find-a-centrist-candidate

 

Quote

 

So Schultz, a lifelong Democrat who nonetheless thinks some ideas like excessive debt and the cost of entitlements should be up for debate, has gone overnight from being viewed on the left as an innovative business hero to a partisan piñata

Let’s calm down and look at the evidence that Howard Schultz is an enemy of democracy.

“It’s not at all clear – in my opinion – whether an Old Rich Business Guy running a 3rd party bid would be more likely to hurt Trump or to help him. People are assuming the latter but not really presenting much in the way of proof,” said Nate Silver, founder of the election website FiveThirtyEight, which has a good track record of prognostication. “If you think Ross Perot and Ralph Nader belong in the same category you probably ought to be doubting yourself a lot more.”

 

After doing a historical review of 3rd party candidates from 1980 to current times, Fund brings up the quote below from Silver who notes that Nader hurt Gore in Florida because Nader was the most leftist candidate.  Schultz is not a leftist and probably will not have much affect on the Dem vote.
 

Quote

 

Following Schultz’s announcement, FiveThirtyEight’s Silver pointed out that Nader wasn't cut from the same centrist cloth that Schultz has woven his campaign from.

“Nader hurt Gore because he was a leftist 3rd party candidate,” Nate Silver notes. “The centrists didn’t affect things much.” He cites exit polls showing that Gary Johnson (2016), Perot (1996, 1992), and Anderson (1980) all drew about equally from both major party candidates.

But there’s one last thing that the blowtorch critics of Howard Schultz forget. If in the fall of 2020 the former Starbucks CEO finds himself depleted of electoral caffeine and trailing badly in the polls he can always pull the plug if he thinks Trump is indeed a greater danger to his values than the Democratic nominee.

 

 

 

Quote

Rather than engage in overheated denunciations of Howard Schultz, Democrats might be better off viewing him as a warning signal that if they really want to beat Donald Trump and outflank any independent challenge they should consider running a more moderate candidate.

 

[knapplc]

It's funny how all of these articles warn Democrats about running moderate candidates... while they're up against a far-right Nazi-tolerating Putin-loving mess of a disaster of a candidate.

 

Let's treat the abrasion in the Democrat candidates' ranks and pay scant attention to the shotgun wound the Republicans are fighting.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

It's funny how all of these articles warn Democrats about running moderate candidates... while they're up against a far-right Nazi-tolerating Putin-loving mess of a disaster of a candidate.

 

Let's treat the abrasion in the Democrat candidates' ranks and pay scant attention to the shotgun wound the Republicans are fighting.

 

 

 

My opinion is that people are assuming the Republicans are going to file in line behind the at right nazi tolerating Putin loving mess. 

 

So, they are praying there will be someone from somewhere else they can vote for. 

[TheSker]

2 hours ago, deedsker said:

There are caught all the time, but they have little accountability. 

 

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3264

 

Example 1:

They only use 40% of revenue toward operating benefits. There is no repercussions for such a waste of money other than, don't give them more money. Which obviously hasn't worked to the tune of $15 million a year.

 

Government Example 2:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/10/graham-cassidy-states-federal-efficiency/541599/

 

Charity here is more than 60% less effective than the federal government.

 

Example 3:

A great charity by all measures, still less effective than the social security administration at its job.

 

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3260

Charities offer resources and services, not just distribution of funds.

 

So while the SSA is very good with the actual re-distribution of funds, there's more depth to social issues.

 

As I mentioned welfare is not going away, nor should it.

 

My point is spending other people's money is an easy solution.  I think the wealthy deserve more control and opportunity to be vested than it being mandated.

[TGHusker]

13 minutes ago, knapplc said:

It's funny how all of these articles warn Democrats about running moderate candidates... while they're up against a far-right Nazi-tolerating Putin-loving mess of a disaster of a candidate.

 

Let's treat the abrasion in the Democrat candidates' ranks and pay scant attention to the shotgun wound the Republicans are fighting.

 

 

That is why I hope Kasich runs in the primary - to address that very large shotgun wound in the Repub party.   But to the larger point - there should be more articles also lecturing the GOP about tolerating that Putin loving mess and not just lectures towards Dems about the need of Dems to run a more moderate person to counter that mess.   Put this is the "crisis" of the moment.   It is kind of like acute pain and chronic pain.  If we all of a sudden have a hurting knee we go to the doc to get it looked at while we tolerate the chronic back pain that we have lived with created by our poor posture.  Trump is that chronic pain - it becomes a big societal issue when we use crisis management of toleration or shutting our ears to his trumpism - he is the chronic pain we cannot afford to tolerate or live with.

[Moiraine]

I don’t think the Democrats need a moderate candidate to win the presidency, but I’ll vote for whoever wins the primary. Hopefully the DNC doesn’t actively try to stop someone from winning like they did last time. I don’t trust their judgement.

 

Ideally the winner of the primary won’t be moderate. We shoud be moving further to the left, especially socially and when it comes to health care. I’m far more against the GOP than I’m against conservatism, but we’ve been cutting taxes for what seems like ages and it seems like a bad idea most of the time.

[Guy Chamberlin]

It’s not that easy to vet charities for effectiveness, waste and corruption. Certainly not for the average donor. The problems typically get exposed years after the fact.

[TheSker]

21 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

It’s not that easy to vet charities for effectiveness, waste and corruption. Certainly not for the average donor. The problems typically get exposed years after the fact.

That's as true as you want it to be.

[Oade]

22 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

It’s not that easy to vet charities for effectiveness, waste and corruption. Certainly not for the average donor. The problems typically get exposed years after the fact.

 

So slightly better than the government, excellent.

[Guy Chamberlin]

13 minutes ago, TheSker said:

That's as true as you want it to be.

 

What isn't, TheSker?

 

While I generally appreciate your refreshing brevity, you have a way of saying nothing and pretending it's profound. 

[deedsker]

1 hour ago, TheSker said:

Charities offer resources and services, not just distribution of funds.

 

So while the SSA is very good with the actual re-distribution of funds, there's more depth to social issues.

 

As I mentioned welfare is not going away, nor should it.

 

My point is spending other people's money is an easy solution.  I think the wealthy deserve more control and opportunity to be vested than it being mandated.

Actually, the comparison is administrative costs of business not operating expenditures. That is the point of the charity links. How well do they convert money into the states goal. If the goal is to find research, what present goes toward research, I.e. the first example of 40%. The government actually does A MORE efficient job by keeping ongoing and outgoing expenditures below 1%.

[Guy Chamberlin]

15 minutes ago, Oade said:

 

So slightly better than the government, excellent.

 

Or slightly worse, given that government has more motivated and partisan watchdogs, while fewer are inclined to perform forensics on often beloved charities. 

 

I get the one note symphony here: government bad!

 

But no one with a bureaucracy is immune; government, private enterprise, or charity. 

[Oade]

8 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Or slightly worse, given that government has more motivated and partisan watchdogs, while fewer are inclined to perform forensics on often beloved charities. 

 

I get the one note symphony here: government bad!

 

But no one with a bureaucracy is immune; government, private enterprise, or charity. 

 

Government isn't bad, but either is personal freedom, especially over one's finances. Both are essential.

[TheSker]

15 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

What isn't, TheSker?

 

While I generally appreciate your refreshing brevity, you have a way of saying nothing and pretending it's profound. 

Nah, it's not profound.  That's why it doesn't take me 3 paragraphs.

 

I very much appreciate your mix of humor with your viewpoint btw.  Truly.