The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[RedDenver]

3 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

So theoretically reconfiguring GDP so we could better serve human beings would be good, would it not?

You're missing my point: a number doesn't better serve anything. What's Yang doing with that number? And how does that help people? Those are the questions that need details to understand if it means anything.

[Danny Bateman]

53 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

You're missing my point: a number doesn't better serve anything. What's Yang doing with that number? And how does that help people? Those are the questions that need details to understand if it means anything.

 

No doubt he needs to flesh out details more, but he's really no less detailed than anyone else in the field right now. The only one that does better than others at this point is Warren, IMO.

 

But I do think Yang is onto something here. I increasingly believe GDP is a really poor indicator of how the economy is doing for the average American. Is it a good macroeconomic indicator? Sure. Could we do better? Absolutely. You're right though. He's obviously going to have to flesh out what that means moving forward.

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

No doubt he needs to flesh out details more, but he's really no less detailed than anyone else in the field right now. The only one that does better than others at this point is Warren, IMO.

 

But I do think Yang is onto something here. I increasingly believe GDP is a really poor indicator of how the economy is doing for the average American. Is it a good macroeconomic indicator? Sure. Could we do better? Absolutely. You're right though. He's obviously going to have to flesh out what that means moving forward.

I guess I don't understand how a different metric is any sort of policy. They aren't even the same sorts of things. Measuring the economy is one thing, proposing a solution is something entirely different.

[BigRedBuster]

11 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

No doubt he needs to flesh out details more, but he's really no less detailed than anyone else in the field right now. The only one that does better than others at this point is Warren, IMO.

 

But I do think Yang is onto something here. I increasingly believe GDP is a really poor indicator of how the economy is doing for the average American. Is it a good macroeconomic indicator? Sure. Could we do better? Absolutely. You're right though. He's obviously going to have to flesh out what that means moving forward.

Looking at GDP is not the problem.  ONLY lookin at GDP can be a big problem.

 

Claiming that one statistic is worthless because it doesn't tell the whole story is the wrong mindset.  We need to know what the GDP is doing.....along with many other economic indicators such as wage growth, unemployment, debt load, personal savings.....etc.

[Nebfanatic]

10 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I guess I don't understand how a different metric is any sort of policy. They aren't even the same sorts of things. Measuring the economy is one thing, proposing a solution is something entirely different.

It's not policy, rather it shapes policy. It changes the idea around whats important. If you change the way you measure yourself you will adjust your performance to the new standard. I think the idea is to change how GDP is calculated to bring attention to issues that aren't currently valued. 

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Looking at GDP is not the problem.  ONLY lookin at GDP can be a big problem.

 

Claiming that one statistic is worthless because it doesn't tell the whole story is the wrong mindset.  We need to know what the GDP is doing.....along with many other economic indicators such as wage growth, unemployment, debt load, personal savings.....etc. 

 

Well, yeah. That was what I was trying to say.

 

My only point is I'd rather have a president that looks at all of those things instead of one that looks at GDP growth, talks about a booming economy and thinks if that one number is doing OK all sins are forgiven.

[Ratt Mhule]

 

[Danny Bateman]

Sorry Giuliani.

 

 

(One of my favorite sounds - perhaps I use it a bit too much )

[BigRedBuster]

I’m sure this poll was bought and paid for by liberal mainstream news. 

 

 

[TGHusker]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I’m sure this poll was bought and paid for by liberal mainstream news. 

 

 

So Trump is stuck at 41% basically - and even lower against a more moderate Biden.   41% seems to be Trump's ceiling for now.  So if the Dems were smart, they'd back away from the cliff of going full bore left and move to center left.  Biden could pick a VP candidate like Harris or Warren or even Buttigieg to round out the ticket.  Personally, I wish there was another moderate person besides Biden - he can be a buffoon at times but even that is better than the current butt head.

[TGHusker]

19 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

Sorry Giuliani.

 

 

(One of my favorite sounds - perhaps I use it a bit too much )

They will have to stop

[Ratt Mhule]

4 hours ago, TGHusker said:

So Trump is stuck at 41% basically - and even lower against a more moderate Biden.   41% seems to be Trump's ceiling for now.  So if the Dems were smart, they'd back away from the cliff of going full bore left and move to center left.  Biden could pick a VP candidate like Harris or Warren or even Buttigieg to round out the ticket.  Personally, I wish there was another moderate person besides Biden - he can be a buffoon at times but even that is better than the current butt head.

 

They did that in 2016 and they lost.  Im tired of the status quo corporate lackeys.  They NEED to move more to the left because the more center they move, the more right the right wing moves.  Which is why even when a bill is passed in a bipartisan way its more to the republicans liking.  Its a new day, younger folks are more progressive and the politics need to catch up.

[Fru]

7 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

They did that in 2016 and they lost.  Im tired of the status quo corporate lackeys.  They NEED to move more to the left because the more center they move, the more right the right wing moves.  Which is why even when a bill is passed in a bipartisan way its more to the republicans liking.  Its a new day, younger folks are more progressive and the politics need to catch up.

 

True. But Biden isn't nearly as disliked as Hillary.

 

I'd argue that they would NEED to move left, if that's where the energy for the party was. In 2016, Bernie was the energy of the party, and the DNC ignored it. If the energy of the party happens to be Biden in 2020, then why move left? 

 

FWIW, I'm not saying I want Biden or DNC status quo. I'm just looking at it as purely winning an election and unseating Trump. 

[BigRedBuster]

17 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

They did that in 2016 and they lost. 

That is no where close to why they lost in 2016.

[Ratt Mhule]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

That is no where close to why they lost in 2016.

 

Yes it is. Trump ran as a populist and Hilary ran as the corporatist.  Trump promised he'd look out for the small guy and that's why he won.  He will always have his base, but there are many who voted for him that are just sick of the status quo and Trump promised change.  Yes, he lied, but that's beyond the point.