Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Icky Thump]

When he just got wind of the Brett Ratner story after Halloween. For the price of buying a shrimp cocktail (and ditching his pants) he could’ve had a Halloween costume.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I’d like a three or four party system, and that looks like where we’re headed: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...clinton-244487

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

That seems like a real fancy way of saying a lot of folks are cray cray.

The old saw, “If you believe in nothing, you’ll believe in anything,” meant a relativist could follow any policy.

I think today it means, if you trust no media, or if no media appears entirely trustworthy, you’ll either become a shrewd consumer of information, or you’ll just go cray cray.

The latter is far more likely in American society at large.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So looking at the way votes are lining up, it looks entirely possible that they'll get some disaster of a tax bill through the House, and that there are Senators who can be bought on this one, unlike ACA.

It strikes me that leaves us with the traditional approach of the last four administrations: Republicans get in office, crash the economy by applying their ideological litmus tests, Dems get back in and fix it.

The difference here is that (1) we may not get a Democratic pragmatist in the form of Obama or Bill Clinton, and (2) that this particular Republican cycle is likely to see a massive outflow of working capital given the international provisions of the bill. (Nominal capital may remain here since people will use debt to formally repatriate profits while rates are low, while keeping the money at work elsewhere). Don't get me wrong, (1) may be a good thing, there are some fundamental changes I'd like to see in economic policy taking us well to the left of where Obama and Clinton were willing to go. But (2) may create work for me, but it's gonna suck for the country.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The question is: where you going?

I enjoyed my one year of living in Chi-town all those years ago, but the politics of the place were wild. Those were the days when Harold Washington was Mayor and Jesse Jackson was running for President, and the old white machine(s) were more than a little confused.

I don't know yet. I like it here. I just don't want to get caught in the Illinois pension debt spiral.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’d like a three or four party system, and that looks like where we’re headed: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...clinton-244487

On both sides, changes in campaign finance and information technology have weakened the institutional role of the parties. It doesn't mean that a third (or fourth) party is going to come into being. It means that the parties are weak. They don't control the money, or much of anything else.

Where is the point where a Republican or Democrat should rationally walk away from their party to join a third party if he or she wants more clout? Um, never? The ability to influence the choice of one of the top two people on the ballot is much more valuable than the ability to influence the choice of the third (or fourth) person on the ballot.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I don't know yet. I like it here. I just don't want to get caught in the Illinois pension debt spiral.

The total pension debt there is about 150% of the State's revenue - it's ugly, to be sure, but amortized over a reasonable period it's manageable for a state with a real economy.

I think you'll see bigger problems in the states that are gutting support for their already thin economy, which includes a lot of states Illinois borders. Next downturn in employment will crush some of those places.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

On both sides, changes in campaign finance and information technology have weakened the institutional role of the parties. It doesn't mean that a third (or fourth) party is going to come into being. It means that the parties are weak. They don't control the money, or much of anything else.

Where is the point where a Republican or Democrat should rationally walk away from their party to join a third party if he or she wants more clout? Um, never? The ability to influence the choice of one of the top two people on the ballot is much more valuable than the ability to influence the choice of the third (or fourth) person on the ballot.

We've always had weak parties. They go from really weak to very weak and back again in cycles.

Getting more parties requires a change to our voting, either to a proportional representation system with multiple candidates per district (Massachusetts did this for state elections back when we were sprouts) or a plurality wins electoral system.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

On both sides, changes in campaign finance and information technology have weakened the institutional role of the parties. It doesn't mean that a third (or fourth) party is going to come into being. It means that the parties are weak. They don't control the money, or much of anything else.

Where is the point where a Republican or Democrat should rationally walk away from their party to join a third party if he or she wants more clout? Um, never? The ability to influence the choice of one of the top two people on the ballot is much more valuable than the ability to influence the choice of the third (or fourth) person on the ballot.

Both parties are splitting. The extreme left on the D side and extreme right on the R side are unique parties, separate from their respective moderate wings.

Moderate Ds and moderate Rs (those being primarily focused on pocketbook issues) are closer to each other than they are to their respective extreme wings.

I see:

1. A right wing populist R party (socially conservative, anti-immigrant, isolationist, desirous of European safety net programs for "natives" [themselves] only, protectionist);
2. A moderate R party (socially moderate, against zealous regulation, free trade, emphasizing above all else neo-liberal economic policy);
3. A left wing populist D party (socially liberal, desirous of European safety net programs, protectionist); and,
4. A moderate D party (socially moderate, pro regulation, free trade, emphasizing above all else neo-liberal economic policy with enhancement of safety nets for those harmed by globalization/automation).

1 and 3 are actually quite close. They unite on the major economic issue of protectionism, and split on the major issue of who gets covered by enhanced safety nets (the right wants them limited to 'Muricans, the left wants them expanded broadly). If these two groups were smart, they'd come together. Thankfully, they're not.

2 and 4 are awfully close. They unite on the major economic issues of free trade and neo-liberal economic policy. They also aren't too far apart on social issues. Like the other two, they split over spending on safety nets. And they diverge on regulation, but not a ton (all moderates recognize there has to be some form of regulation).

Right now, one could say there are two parties: Extremists vs. Moderates. Or it could be 4 parties (Crazy Rs, Crazy Ds, mod Rs, Mod Ds). One could also see the Moderate Rs and Ds making peace with the extreme Left, creating a scenario in which its those three together versus the Extreme Right. Or it could be Moderate Rs and Ds together vs. the extreme Right, on one hand, and the Left on the other.

But I don't see the Warren/Bernie wing of the D party making peace with the Schumer wing. And I don't see the Bannon wing of the R party making peace with the McConnell wing.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Both parties are splitting. The extreme left on the D side and extreme right on the R side are unique parties, separate from their respective moderate wings.

Moderate Ds and moderate Rs (those being primarily focused on pocketbook issues) are closer to each other than they are to their respective extreme wings.

I see:

1. A right wing populist R party (socially conservative, anti-immigrant, isolationist, desirous of European safety net programs for "natives" [themselves] only, protectionist);
2. A moderate R party (socially moderate, against zealous regulation, free trade, emphasizing above all else neo-liberal economic policy);
3. A left wing populist D party (socially liberal, desirous of European safety net programs, protectionist); and,
4. A moderate D party (socially moderate, pro regulation, free trade, emphasizing above all else neo-liberal economic policy with enhancement of safety nets for those harmed by globalization/automation).

1 and 3 are actually quite close. They unite on the major economic issue of protectionism, and split on the major issue of who gets covered by enhanced safety nets (the right wants them limited to 'Muricans, the left wants them expanded broadly). These two groups could come together.

2 and 4 are awfully close. They unite on the major economic issues of free trade and neo-liberal economic policy. They also aren't too far apart on social issues. Like the other two, they split over spending on safety nets. And they diverge on regulation, but not a ton (moderates recognize there has to be some form of regulation).

Right now, one could say there are two parties: Extremists vs. Moderates. Or it could be 4 parties (Crazy Rs, Crazy Ds, mod Rs, Mod Ds). One could also see a scenario where the Moderate Rs and Ds make peace with the extreme Left, creating a scenario in which its those three together versus the Extreme Right. Or it could be Moderate Rs and Ds together vs. the extreme Right, on one hand, and the Left on the other.

But I don't see the Warren/Bernie wing of the D party making peace with the Schumer wing. And I don't see the Bannon wing of the R party making peace with the McConnell wing.

It's been a generation since any moderate Republicans have been elected anywhere. There are no Rockefeller Republicans any more. My governor, who qualifies as moderate in today's republican party, would have been to the right of Nixon in the 60s. and people like him don't have enough umph to form a party. There are a handful of them in blue states that the rest of the Rs tolerate only because it leaves them a blue state foothold. In the long run, the last remaining ones will go down to the trumpsters.

If there is a republican split, it will be the ultra-nationalist trump voters versus the fundies. Each is a more powerful faction than any so-called moderates.

Dems aren't going to split. We fundamentally agree on most policy issues, it's more a question of approach than policy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Both parties are splitting. The extreme left on the D side and extreme right on the R side are unique parties, separate from their respective moderate wings.

Moderate Ds and moderate Rs (those being primarily focused on pocketbook issues) are closer to each other than they are to their respective extreme wings.

I see:

1. A right wing populist R party (socially conservative, anti-immigrant, isolationist, desirous of European safety net programs for "natives" [themselves] only, protectionist);
2. A moderate R party (socially moderate, against zealous regulation, free trade, emphasizing above all else neo-liberal economic policy);
3. A left wing populist D party (socially liberal, desirous of European safety net programs, protectionist); and,
4. A moderate D party (socially moderate, pro regulation, free trade, emphasizing above all else neo-liberal economic policy with enhancement of safety nets for those harmed by globalization/automation).

1 and 3 are actually quite close. They unite on the major economic issue of protectionism, and split on the major issue of who gets covered by enhanced safety nets (the right wants them limited to 'Muricans, the left wants them expanded broadly). If these two groups were smart, they'd come together. Thankfully, they're not.

2 and 4 are awfully close. They unite on the major economic issues of free trade and neo-liberal economic policy. They also aren't too far apart on social issues. Like the other two, they split over spending on safety nets. And they diverge on regulation, but not a ton (all moderates recognize there has to be some form of regulation).

Right now, one could say there are two parties: Extremists vs. Moderates. Or it could be 4 parties (Crazy Rs, Crazy Ds, mod Rs, Mod Ds). One could also see the Moderate Rs and Ds making peace with the extreme Left, creating a scenario in which its those three together versus the Extreme Right. Or it could be Moderate Rs and Ds together vs. the extreme Right, on one hand, and the Left on the other.

But I don't see the Warren/Bernie wing of the D party making peace with the Schumer wing. And I don't see the Bannon wing of the R party making peace with the McConnell wing.

Last week, Will Rogers said, "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

No, wait, he said that several decades ago.

Also, what you call a "moderate R" is also what you call a "moderate D". As an empirical matter, those individuals are found these days almost entirely within the Democratic Party. Very few people identify as Republicans. They identify as conservatives, and understand that the party which is the vehicle for their views and those of people like them is the Republican Party. The essence of being a conservative is not so much about having particular policy views as it is about reacting to the left. Conservatives are about reaction, about moving right, which is why they keep moving farther to the right. They are like addicts who need more and more of the drug to get a high. Which is disturbing for many reasons, one of which is that you wonder what comes after Donald Trump and where it will end.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

2. A moderate R party (socially moderate, against zealous regulation, free trade, emphasizing above all else neo-liberal economic policy);

This is like 4 people. Especially if you leave out all the people who say they belong here who are actually anti-tax zealots.

4. A moderate D party (socially moderate, pro regulation, free trade, emphasizing above all else neo-liberal economic policy with enhancement of safety nets for those harmed by globalization/automation).

Nobody is "pro regulation," but yes, this is the political center.

Right now, one could say there are two parties: Extremists vs. Moderates.

The thing is the left extremists aren't really that extreme. Even those who identify as socialists are really only differing on what should be covered by the safety net and how generously. As you say, European style-political economy, which is still mostly market-based.

Many of them aren't even particularly anti-trade (which is where your analysis breaks down). Bernie's a trade skeptic, but I don't think that's really want motivated the young people who follow him.

But I don't see the Warren/Bernie wing of the D party making peace with the Schumer wing.

No, they either make like the Tea Party and take over or just continue to kill the Democratic party electorally. As they're leftists, probably the latter.

And I don't see the Bannon wing of the R party making peace with the McConnell wing.

The Bannon wing has already won.

ETA: Interesting that anti-racism isn't anywhere in your analysis. That's a fatal flaw. It's what the two lefts and two rights have in common with each other.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So looking at the way votes are lining up, it looks entirely possible that they'll get some disaster of a tax bill through the House, and that there are Senators who can be bought on this one, unlike ACA.

It strikes me that leaves us with the traditional approach of the last four administrations: Republicans get in office, crash the economy by applying their ideological litmus tests, Dems get back in and fix it.

The difference here is that (1) we may not get a Democratic pragmatist in the form of Obama or Bill Clinton, and (2) that this particular Republican cycle is likely to see a massive outflow of working capital given the international provisions of the bill. (Nominal capital may remain here since people will use debt to formally repatriate profits while rates are low, while keeping the money at work elsewhere). Don't get me wrong, (1) may be a good thing, there are some fundamental changes I'd like to see in economic policy taking us well to the left of where Obama and Clinton were willing to go. But (2) may create work for me, but it's gonna suck for the country.

Word is (from a pretty good source) that Howard Schultz is considering it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Word is (from a pretty good source) that Howard Schultz is considering it.

The tendency toward political novice uber-rich running for office is frightening. We will, one day, look back fondly on the days when it was considered a negative to be a "career politician".

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The tendency toward political novice uber-rich running for office is frightening. We will, one day, look back fondly on the days when it was considered a negative to be a "career politician".

Sorry dude. Howard Schultz grew up in the projects. That's where I know him from.