• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

Newenglanddeac said:


Highly recommend Pete Buttigieg’s speech at the Iowa Justice and Liberty dinner this past weekend. This guy can win.
Click to expand...


Tried listening to this in good faith instead of just being glib and dismissive.

Joke about Obama's funny name
Can't afford 4 more years of Trump
If you nominate Pete, Trump's playbook won't work
He drives a Chevy, built in Ohio, he gets the working class
His office won't be in DC, it'll be in Indiana?
Pro-ethanol line
Trump has betrayed American farmers?
I served in the military
Big cheers about Afghanistan
End political warfare in DC
Your blood pressure will go down if he's president
Pete won't tweet as much
Division will not exist anymore
Story about a 14 year old who has written a will (?) because she's scared of school shootings
12 year old juvenile diabetes wrote to him worried about paying
We've waited too long to act
Midwest are people too! Even farmers want to end climate change. Even republicans want no deportations?
He's gonna go deer hunting with his father in law
Medicare for All who want it (biggest applause line by far)
Tackle systemic racism (actual good line, didn't say how tho)
Stand with our teachers
People of faith will be happy because of social good
Won't back down from his own bold ideas?
Progressives, moderates, republicans of conscience, the time has come (to vote for Pete)
The point isn't the fighting, it's the other side of the fighting?
Not exclusion, but belonging
Optimistic, not naive, he's experienced! Trust him? Ah the war stuff.
South Bend isn't dead just because factories are gone
A veteran, a mayor, happily married, asking for your vote
Presidency is not for glorification of the president, it's for the unification of the country (personally disagree, but a good line)


Ultimately I think the value of this speech is that he's extremely confident. He didn't say anything about any plans, the only policy he even touched on was Medicare for those who means test qualify or whatever. I thought that was an extremely bland stump speech all told, but he's got the look and feel anyway.
 
Shorty said:
“Boomer” is the board touchstone. Want to be critical of a poster or something specific he posted? Call him a boomer. Requires no thought, wit, or originality. But it’s used on the boards a a pejorative everyday.

It’s almost as if there are posters who think people born between 1946 and 1964 are bothered by their generational nickname.
Click to expand...

1) RJ begs to differ in your second paragraph
2) “Boomer” is not about when someone was born, it’s about a mindset
 
I am interested to know from NewEngland not why you think he can win but what you like about him and his policies. He spends the first third of his speech talking about how he can win, the middle third token mentioning groups of people, a few reminders of his military service and that he's gay, and then closes with the call to action.
 
one argument might be : because that's a good speech and people historically don't care about specifics as much as they do a charismatic showman
 
ImTheCaptain said:
one argument might be : because that's a good speech and people historically don't care about specifics as much as they do a charismatic showman
Click to expand...

Is it a good speech? Why? Basically a blander Obama.
 
It's a campaign speech, it's going to be general.

My biggest concern with Pete is his ability to earn support from minority voters. Most likely can't win without the entire Democratic coalition turning out.
 
I just feel like those are good speeches for low information voters, and this board is not made up of those. It seems to me like for those of you who like the speech, it has to be because he's playing up the electability card, right?

And yea i agree with bym, he can't keep blaming nonwhite voters' homophobia for his bad poll numbers.
 
TownieDeac said:
I just feel like those are good speeches for low information voters, and this board is not made up of those. It seems to me like for those of you who like the speech, it has to be because he's playing up the electability card, right?

And yea i agree with bym, he can't keep blaming nonwhite voters' homophobia for his bad poll numbers.
Click to expand...

the vast majority are low information voters, my dude
 
TownieDeac said:
I just feel like those are good speeches for low information voters, and this board is not made up of those. It seems to me like for those of you who like the speech, it has to be because he's playing up the electability card, right?

And yea i agree with bym, he can't keep blaming nonwhite voters' homophobia for his bad poll numbers.
Click to expand...

There may be some of that baked in. Clyburn mentioned it last week. But it's not like Pete hasn't had some problems working with some minorities in SB.
 


Here's Bernie. Doesn't get nearly as much applause as Pete, but speech is so much better!

Starts off congratulating downballot wins, announces a donation to the Iowa Democratic Party.

Attacks Trump, calls for impeachment.

Then substantively goes into differences between candidates and states.

"Do we continue the status quo politics which has enabled the wealthiest people in our country, the largest corporations and their lobbyists extraordinary influence over the country? That's where the Republican party has always been. As Democrats, we must go a different way. The Democratic party must be the party of the working class in this country, not of super PACS, not of corporate interests, not of their lobbyists."

He's had more campaign contributions from any individual donors ever.
Thank teachers, waitresses, low-paid service industry workers as the donors

Quotes FDR (long, boring, poignant).

Rant about inequality.

Talks about voter turnout, that it will be tied to the pain of working families.

Quotes Nelson Mandela (short, bland, poignant).

Start here for policy stuff, 8:45.

Takes a hack at the moderates who say "no we can't" and starts to get big applause about Medicare for All.

Minimum wage, unions, education, teacher salary, student debt/tuition, green new deal, racist criminal justice system, end war on drugs, legalize marijuana and expunge records, immigration reform, Roe v Wade into law, anti-NRA.

"Good policy is good politics" is the best line of his speech imo.
 
centrist says pete is better
progressive says bernard is better

giphy.gif
 
TownieDeac said:
Is it a good speech? Why? Basically a blander Obama.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem, IMO, was that his team floated ahead of time that he was going to project as the next Obama. Which is a really high bar, when you're talking about giving speeches. (Although I'm a bit ticked at the idea that, as he's clearly courting Biden supporters, he's decided to bear hug Obama.)
 
The Big Problem With Wealth Taxes: Proposals by Senators Warren and Sanders may not pass constitutional muster. Then what?


Senator Elizabeth Warren unveiled a new wealth tax proposal last week that she says will raise — along with her previously announced wealth tax plan — $3.75 trillion over the next decade. Senator Bernie Sanders says his wealth tax will yield $4.35 trillion over the same period.

We fear these figures are vast overestimates. The likeliest outcome is that a wealth tax will raise exactly zero dollars. The problem, alas, is the Constitution. The Warren and Sanders plans run headlong into more than two centuries of precedent that cast doubt on the constitutionality of wealth taxation.

We are tax law professors who identify as liberal Democrats, donate to Democratic candidates, publicly opposed the Trump tax cuts and strongly support higher taxes on the affluent. We are heartened that prominent Democratic presidential candidates are taking the problem of wealth inequality very seriously. We are worried, though, that leading figures in our party are coalescing around an idea whose constitutionality is doubtful at best.

The constitutional objection to wealth taxation is based on two clauses that require any “direct tax” to be apportioned among the states based on population. So, since 12 percent of the population lives in California, Californians must pay 12 percent of any direct tax.

For the Warren and Sanders wealth taxes, that would be a deal breaker. To match revenue fractions to population percentages, as the Constitution’s direct tax clauses demand, we estimate that the wealth tax rate in West Virginia — the poorest state per capita — would need to be roughly 10 times the rate in more affluent California and more than 20 times the rate in prosperous Connecticut.

The Warren and Sanders wealth taxes would very likely be classified by courts as “direct taxes.” Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 36 that taxes on “houses and lands” were direct taxes. Supreme Court majorities have said on at least seven occasions that federal taxes on real property (land and buildings) are “direct taxes.” Congress enacted at least five federal property taxes in the 18th and 19th centuries and apportioned them based on state population each time.

The proposed wealth taxes would apply to real property, which would seem to make them “direct taxes.” Both plans would also tax personal property, which encompasses all assets other than land and buildings, like securities and art. Some wealth tax defenders argue that even if a tax on real property is “direct,” a tax on real plus personal property is not. The idea is that — by some feat of constitutional alchemy — combining the concededly unconstitutional tax on real property with the purportedly less problematic tax on personal property erases the flaw with the former.

Hamilton would not have agreed. In 1794, Congress passed a $16 tax on carriages, which was challenged in Hylton v. United States. Hamilton argued at the Supreme Court that the carriage tax was not a direct tax, and so did not require apportionment — and the court agreed. But in a legal brief he wrote in the case, he acknowledged that “general assessments … on the whole property of individuals” — in other words, wealth taxes — are direct taxes requiring apportionment. Hamilton’s concession is especially significant because of all the founders, he had perhaps the broadest view of Congress’s taxing power.

And again, it’s not just Hamilton who thought this. The future Chief Justice John Marshall, at the Virginia ratifying convention, said that direct taxes included not only taxes on land but at least some personal property taxes too. On at least three subsequent occasions, Supreme Court majorities have said that taxes on real and personal property are direct taxes. Chief Justice John Roberts echoed these precedents in his opinion upholding the Affordable Care Act in 2012.

A second argument made by wealth tax supporters is that the only direct taxes are taxes that can be apportioned among the states without too much hassle. They attribute this view to solo opinions by two justices in the Hylton case, Samuel Chase and James Iredell. But another member of the Hylton court, William Paterson, suggested that wealth taxes might be direct taxes too. And majorities of the court have since rejected the notion that the only direct taxes are those that can be apportioned easily. It would, in any event, be a peculiar sort of constitutional rule that applied only in cases where it had no bite.

Finally, wealth tax defenders point to the 16th Amendment, which authorizes Congress to tax “incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment.” The framers of the 16th Amendment thought about scrapping the direct tax clauses entirely, but they decided instead to limit the amendment to “incomes.” An income tax is a tax on wages and money received from property, while a wealth tax is a tax on the value of property itself. The amendment applies to taxes on income, not to taxes on wealth.

Wealth tax proponents might argue that progressives ought not trim their sails simply because they fear that hostile justices will strike down their policies. Certainly, it would have been bad advice to tell President Franklin Roosevelt not to pursue the New Deal because a conservative court would fight back. But this is not an instance of ideologically motivated jurists pulling a rabbit out of a hat. A good-faith reading of history and precedent would suggest that the Warren and Sanders wealth taxes are unconstitutional.

Several wealth tax advocates have argued that constitutional concerns can be addressed by enacting a “fallback” provision that would put in place other taxes on the rich if a wealth tax is struck down. Pushing one major tax change through Congress will be hard enough; passing two plans — a wealth tax plus a fallback — will be a herculean challenge. Legislators, moreover, have an independent obligation not to enact unconstitutional laws. Members of Congress would be abdicating that duty if they enacted a wealth tax they thought was constitutionally flawed.

Fortunately, there is much that Congress — in cooperation with a progressive president — could do to combat wealth inequality without running afoul of constitutional limitations. By closing loopholes and hiking rates on top earners, Congress could reduce inequality and raise trillions of dollars without a constitutional hiccup.

But a wealth tax that is struck down by the justices will do nothing to close the wealth gap. It will raise no money to pay for universal health care and child care, greater investments in education or ambitious efforts to halt global warming. It will, instead, mire the country and the courts in yearslong litigation. And it will most likely lead to a Supreme Court ruling that sends us back to square one in our fight to fix a tax system that all too often favors the rich.
Click to expand...
 
Bernie’s speech is better to the 5-10% of voters who are educated on the issues, can understand policy nuances, and actually give a shit at the present moment. Pete’s speech is better to the 90-95% of voters who are more swayed by how it feels. Emotion is the most powerful driver of the human condition. Bernie has always struggled to connect on that emotional level, it’s just not his forte. He’s not Obama. That doesn’t make him a worse politician, it just makes him different. Pete is going for the Obama approach and it’s working in Iowa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top