2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[larrymcg421]

Bernie: $15/hr
Hillary: $12/hr
Trump: Leave it to the states.
Bernie supporters: Trump and Hillary are basically the same!

By the way, I love that the $12/hr that Hillary proposes is actually better for most places (including here in Atlanta) than the $15/hr in Seattle, California, and New York that were championed as these huge successes.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Minimum wage is such an arbitrary number. I personally cannot wrap my brain around what works best for everybody in the lowest skilled jobs. When I was a kid, it was just spending money. So I guess I'm bias(...duh).

Isn't that exactly the issue - that years ago minimum wage jobs were largely the domain of the high school kid trying to earn some spending money, and now a significant proportion of our older workforce is stuck in these jobs, because the traditional manufacturing/labor jobs that paid a basic living salary and benefits is gone?

I had a number of minimum wage jobs when I was 16/17/18 and it was awesome, the first real money I ever had. Trying to support a family on it when I'm in my 30s is a completely different story.

And this is not a "we should blindly raise the minimum wage" argument, but I do think it's very disingenuous to suggest that everyone should be happy with the minimum wage because it was great for us when we were high school kids

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why would it? If someone isn't looking or can't be in the workforce, why would you count them?

Exactly.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why would it? If someone isn't looking or can't be in the workforce, why would you count them?

Because the taxpayers have to support them, which means less goes back into our infrastructure.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Isn't that exactly the issue - that years ago minimum wage jobs were largely the domain of the high school kid trying to earn some spending money, and now a significant proportion of our older workforce is stuck in these jobs, because the traditional manufacturing/labor jobs that paid a basic living salary and benefits is gone?

I had a number of minimum wage jobs when I was 16/17/18 and it was awesome, the first real money I ever had. Trying to support a family on it when I'm in my 30s is a completely different story.

And this is not a "we should blindly raise the minimum wage" argument, but I do think it's very disingenuous to suggest that everyone should be happy with the minimum wage because it was great for us when we were high school kids

As automation increases this becomes a more and more important argument. People sometimes thing that manufacturing has cratered in the US (because it's cheaper overseas) and that's why those jobs are gone. Actually manufacturing has never been higher in the US - it's just mostly done by robots. The jobs are now about supervising the automation as opposed to sitting there and turning a screw or something. This sort of replacement is only growing. For instance, think about what self-driving cars will mean for taxi drivers... and what else are those people trained for?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Because the taxpayers have to support them, which means less goes back into our infrastructure.

Be that as it may (though I'm not sure how much welfare spending has gone up during the Obama administration, if it has at all), that has nothing to do with the malaise that leads to populism you were talking about in that post.

[larrymcg421]

Fewer people needing to work is a good thing, not a bad thing.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

As automation increases this becomes a more and more important argument. People sometimes thing that manufacturing has cratered in the US (because it's cheaper overseas) and that's why those jobs are gone. Actually manufacturing has never been higher in the US - it's just mostly done by robots. The jobs are now about supervising the automation as opposed to sitting there and turning a screw or something. This sort of replacement is only growing. For instance, think about what self-driving cars will mean for taxi drivers... and what else are those people trained for?

Yes, and that's the really scary thing when we talk about things like the minimum wage and a living wage and benefits and really how our economy works today.

We could wave a magic wand and make the minimum wage 12 or 15 dollars, but really all you are doing is increasing the pace at which companies that rely on these minimum wage jobs to automate and eliminate them. We had automated lanes where people could order off a touchscreen in McDonalds in the UK when I worked there 15 years ago. Think they didn't really go anywhere because people generally prefer ordering from a person, but if you make McDonalds pay their employees double overnight there's no doubt in my mind those customer facing jobs are gone within a couple years.

I don't know what the answer is, but this isn't getting better in the future. Going to take a lot of smart people to figure out where we go when there are less and less jobs that require a full time human to do

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Fewer people needing to work is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I don't know. I think civilization works better when people have work. If it's just government support, there's no control over it and there's no sense of what's the right level. There's a balance between self-determination and dog-eat-dog that's lost when the government gets larger.

However, AI is replacing jobs daily, and many customer service jobs will be completely gone within ten years. The question begs whether there will be any minimum-wage jobs to preserve by the time today's babies reach teenagerdom and the desire for spending money.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't know. I think civilization works better when people have work. If it's just government support, there's no control over it and there's no sense of what's the right level. There's a balance between self-determination and dog-eat-dog that's lost when the government gets larger.

However, AI is replacing jobs daily, and many customer service jobs will be completely gone within ten years. The question begs whether there will be any minimum-wage jobs to preserve by the time today's babies reach teenagerdom and the desire for spending money.

You've neatly encapsulated the big question of the 21st century here.*

For all (nearly all?) of civilization, there's been enough work to go around. It's a big part of how humans define themselves. But that's clearly coming to an end. So what's next? How does civilization survive such a significant change in paradigm? What is a person's reasonable contribution to society, when they can no longer count on that being through a job?

It's for this reason that I'd personally focus less on minimum wage and more on minimum income.

*Shame you won't see my post, though.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't know. I think civilization works better when people have work.

Well, then the question might be how much we want people to work. For many, a 40 hour workweek is a pipe dream. They are either working what amounts to unpaid overtime (and this can be white collar jobs, where people are essentially on call 24/7), or they are working multiple jobs because their primary job just doesn't pay them enough to get by.

And what of time off? A common cry is that businesses can't afford to lose employees for things like family/maternity leave. Some employers grumble over vacation. Maybe we can spread the work around so people could have a little more time off for their families.

Which brings me to another point - how many people per household are required to work? This is another cry - "someone needs to be home for the kids!" Well, if families could make it by on just one income I'm sure some gladly would (not all, some folks just like their careers). I darn well know that if my wife didn't feel that we needed the extra money she wouldn't be working. Never mind single parents. There are people who would be doing other worthwhile things if they didn't have to work. Caring for children or other relatives, improving their community (ok, even just keeping their house and yard more presentable), donating time to schools, churches, charitable organizations...

[corbes]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Well, then the question might be how much we want people to work. . . . There are people who would be doing other worthwhile things if they didn't have to work. Caring for children or other relatives, improving their community (ok, even just keeping their house and yard more presentable), donating time to schools, churches, charitable organizations...

And while this is true, it's also true that welfare dependency has fostered a culture in which many people who don't have to work are not necessarily filling their time with what we would value as worthwhile things but instead undertake a lifestyle involving drug addictions, entertainment and social-media addictions, criminal activity, and child neglect. It's also a reality that this lifestyle is being handed down to the next generation.

My experience of the world involves work in the fields of criminal justice and child protection. My impression, based on that work, is that there is a cultural crisis occurring that is deeply intertwined with policy approaches to disability and welfare benefits.

Disability, welfare, and other forms of minimum government-guaranteed incomes have very significant benefits, but also very significant and serious adverse consequences that deserve more attention than they are getting.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Fewer people needing to work is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Only if you couple it with a corresponding reduction in the birth rate.

[mckerney]

Just when we thought the fun was over.

Cruz floats restarting campaign if he wins Nebraska primary | TheHill

[Dutch]

I'm with ya, done with the circus. That being said, there's nothing new there. A suspended campaign is just that. All he said was if he started winning again, he'll "un"-suspend the campaign. He doesn't even suggest he will start winning again.

I suspect all candidates would say the same, if asked.

[nol]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Only if you couple it with a corresponding reduction in the birth rate.

Luckily for you, that is exactly what happens when people become better off.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Just when we thought the fun was over.

Cruz floats restarting campaign if he wins Nebraska primary | TheHill

Trump only won 61-19 over Cruz in Nebraska. I sense another "agreement" with Kasich coming.

Meanwhile, Trump argues that we can always print money to cover our debts. Sounds like the old softie is more likely than Hillary to choose Bernie as his VP candidate.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Meanwhile, Trump argues that we can always print money to cover our debts. Sounds like the old softie is more likely than Hillary to choose Bernie as his VP candidate.

I would say he would have his choice of about 99% of the members of Congress with that statement.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by nol

Luckily for you, that is exactly what happens when people become better off.

Luckily for us, you mean.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Trump only won 61-19 over Cruz in Nebraska. I sense another "agreement" with Kasich coming.

I'm excited to see who Cruz announces for Secretary of the Interior.

[Ben E Lou]

Bernie how has a TrumpName.

I don't want to hit Crazy Bernie Sanders too hard yet because I love watching what he is doing to Crooked Hillary. His time will come!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 11, 2016

[flere-imsaho]

So, uh, who had the GOP nomination being over before the Democratic nomination in the pool? Anyone?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So, uh, who had the GOP nomination being over before the Democratic nomination in the pool? Anyone?

Seriously, if accompanied with a caveat like "unaccompanied by an indictment or other game-changing event, and no late-entry candidates" then the odds of that would have seemed positively Leicesterian.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Leicesterian

Oh, I like this.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So, uh, who had the GOP nomination being over before the Democratic nomination in the pool? Anyone?

Though that's only because Sanders decided not to step aside when it was obvious he didn't have a path to the nomination, while Cruz did.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Though that's only because Sanders decided not to step aside when it was obvious he didn't have a path to the nomination, while Cruz did.

Oh he has a path. It's just a completely hypocritical path that undermines everything he and his supporters have said about the Democratic primary process.

[flere-imsaho]

I like the fact that Sanders' supporters have been bitching about the "undemocratic" process and Clinton just won the Nebraska primary but won't ge the delegates since they already went to Sanders in a caucus earlier.

Right now Clinton has 12.6M votes to Sanders' 9.6M.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Seriously, if accompanied with a caveat like "unaccompanied by an indictment or other game-changing event, and no late-entry candidates" then the odds of that would have seemed positively Leicesterian.

[pedantry] As a Leicester Grammar School Old Boy (alumni), it's Leicestrian [/pedantry]

[QuikSand]

noted


We Yanks understand you people just drop the e in -ery all the time in speech, but didn't realize you actually eliminate it entirely.

[cuervo72]

/assumes that's pronounced "Listerine"

[digamma]

Lye-chest-ree-an?

[Solecismic]

A short update on the totals:

Yesterday, Trump won 70 of 70 available delegates, as expected since he is no longer opposed. Senator Ben Sasse's attempts to swing Nebraska voting population into embarrassing Trump failed badly, Trump getting 61% of the vote. Sasse is a name we're probably going to hear a lot in 2020.

Pledged totals: Trump 1,091, Others 888.
Unpledged totals: Trump 52, Others 23, Unbound 43.
Remaining Pledged: 375.

Trump needs 94 delegates for the nomination, 146 if you don't include the unpledged delegates which seem solid on a first ballot.

In other words, he's going to be the nominee, barring arrest or something similarly crazy.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

noted


We Yanks understand you people just drop the e in -ery all the time in speech, but didn't realize you actually eliminate it entirely.

They eliminate an entire 'eic' or 'ice' from Leicester, never figured out which combo it was.

[Julio Riddols]

What if Trump completely changes his narrative now that he has won the Republican nomination? I almost feel like he has been playing a character in the race for the republican nomination, and he has made statements in the past about how easy it would be to fool america into voting him in. I think he played the republican constituents like a fiddle and is about to change it up significantly when it comes time to take on Hillary. I think he can beat her if he puts on the right face. It scares me almost as much as it makes me curious.

[SackAttack]

He's already begun. "Well of course I'm for tax cuts but by the time my proposal got through Congress taxes would be going up on the upper class."

[JPhillips]

The minimum wage is too high.

It's too low.

But it should be left to the states.

No, I'll raise the minimum wage.

[bhlloy]

Taxes will rise, I could raise the minimum wage, I'm reconsidering the Muslim travel ban... he's definitely already started. Even before Cruz quit he was talking about pivoting to the election which was clearly a codeword for "getting some policies that 60% of the country don't think are insane"

I don't think he's playing anyone for a fiddle, but his plan all along (and really the only gameplan open to him) was to play to a particular role in the primary and then completely pivot in the general.

The interesting thing is whether he can do that, whether his negatives and electability numbers change at all and whether he's ever in danger of losing the republican base he already has. If the latter is true, we could be looking at an all time landslide for the Dems - but I don't think anyone is comfortable writing him off just yet.

[Dutch]

I'll say it...and I'll say it for the 18th time....no way Trump wins this time.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

What if Trump completely changes his narrative now that he has won the Republican nomination? I almost feel like he has been playing a character in the race for the republican nomination, and he has made statements in the past about how easy it would be to fool america into voting him in. I think he played the republican constituents like a fiddle and is about to change it up significantly when it comes time to take on Hillary. I think he can beat her if he puts on the right face. It scares me almost as much as it makes me curious.

We're used to politicians. They have rules.

Think of it more like dating. Every time you go on a first date, you have the opportunity to reinvent yourself a little.

Trump is treating journalists like eHarmony. Every time he has an interview, he's a different candidate.

He doesn't need to release his tax returns. He probably does need to release his STD screening.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

What if Trump completely changes his narrative now that he has won the Republican nomination?

Presidential campaigns are aspirational things. Voters, once they find a candidate, will tend to believe things about their candidate that their candidate may not be able to deliver, or even truly want to deliver. You see it in Sanders' supporters. You saw it in Obama's 2008 campaign. You saw it with George W. Bush, in that he eventually "let down" the evangelicals who rallied to him. You saw it in Bill Clinton, the bright new hope of Democrats. And of course the ultimate example is Ronald Reagan.

One could argue that this is populism, and it's more clear now than it has been for a while.

Trump's path to victory is to spread his rhetoric around just enough to get just enough people to think "you know, he might just actually to X for me". Or, given the similar unpopularity of Clinton, to get people to think "you know, he might not actually be that bad, and I really don't want her."


To me, the narrative of this campaign season is about how much voters were ready to be told by candidates that said candidates could deliver things that, frankly, are not going to happen. No, we're not going to build a multi-billion dollar wall on the border with Mexico. No, we're not going to deport Muslims en masse. No, we're not bringing manufacturing jobs back to the States, at least en masse. No, we're not going to revitalize the coal industry. No, we're not going to have Single Payer and Minimum Income. At least none of these are happening in the next Administration.


In the General, you're going to have one candidate who is happy to promise whatever to whomever in vague enough terms to get votes. This is called pandering. It has worked in elections forever, but it has especially worked this year for Trump and Sanders. You're going to have another candidate who is focused on incremental change and has been part of the Washington establishment for so long that she knows what can and can't really happen.

While we might hope that the advantage would go to the realist, the electorate doesn't work that way. The advantage, then, from a narrative standpoint, is Trump's. Were it not for the fact that he's consistently offended many demographic groups, it would probably be enough to win.


Trump can win.

[Kodos]

Trump is putting the ass back into aspirational.

[kingfc22]

Im sorry for those who this clown has already conned. He's clearly in this for one reason and one reason alone. His ginormous ego.

He's already back-tracked/switched on multiple positions and it's barely been a week since those other morons dropped out.

Really wish there was a vote NONE option that could win in November to reset this whole mess.

[digamma]

I think pretty much everyone once they get to a certain point of a career in politics is ego driven.

[albionmoonlight]

I think that Trump's biggest advantage is that the media has a strong incentive to treat every election like a horse-race. As such, the media will normalize Trump.

Hillary Clinton is a below-average, but mainstream, candidate.

Barack Obama was an above-average, but mainstream, candidate.

George W. Bush was an above-average, but mainstream, candidate.

Mitt Romney was a below-average, but mainstream, candidate.

John McCain was an average, but mainstream, candidate.

Bill Clinton was an above-average, but mainstream, candidate.

Bob Dole was an average, but mainstream, candidate.

It is what we are used to.

There will be a strong incentive for the media to tell us that Trump fits into that box. And he will help it along.

I spent the entire primary betting against him and losing money on it. I will not continue to under-estimate him.

[QuikSand]

Trump, Ryan signal unity | TheHill

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Trump, Ryan signal unity | TheHill

Not a bad move by the GOP. Have Ryan publicly say something along the lines of "I don't know if we can trust this guy. I need to see." Then have a few meetings and, at some point soon, come out with an endorsement.

It makes the endorsement look more real--like it isn't just something he had to do for the sake of the party. It also gives the cover of "Hey, don't worry, voters, we've vetted this guy, and he's ok"

Smart smart smart.

I say again, I am not going to underestimate Trump or the GOP going forward. I think that the 70%ish numbers Clinton has on the betting markets are too high. It's a real race, Jack.

[cuervo72]

Unity, huh?

[JPhillips]

I can see Trump yelling "Fuck yo' couch!"

[Solecismic]

After Tuesday's result, Trump's count is at 1,107 pledged, 61 unpledged. His unofficial total is 69 short of what's needed to be nominated on the first ballot. There are 347 pledged delegates remaining, most to be decided on June 7.

In the meantime, Trump released a list of 11 potential Supreme Court picks, the idea being that if he endorses a list presumably given to him by conservatives, it will help address Cruz's major complaints about him and will take some of the steam out of the presumably-failed Romney/Krystal drive to put up a third-party candidate (no one wanted to actually run, though).

Trump has remained in the headlines non-stop. Now at war with Jeff Bezos of Amazon, whose Washington Post has dedicated 20 full-time reporters (I didn't think they even had 20 reporters left) to putting together an anti-Trump book for release just before the election. The effort is led by Bob Woodward, who may or may not be visiting underground parking garages to get more background material exposing the genesis of Melania Trump's runway walk.

The Donald also sat down and met with Megyn Kelly for a ratings-grabbing and somewhat awkward interview that proved that all you have to do is flatter Trump just a little bit to get back on his good side.

Polling for the general election remains surprisingly close, but the number of undecideds extremely high given the recognition factor of the two major candidates. One can interpret that as deep dissatisfaction with the quality of the presumptive nominees on each side.

Meanwhile, celebrity Jeopardy takes place this week - that annual event where newsbunnies humiliate themselves much to our amusement. So far, CBS's Lara Logan has distinguished herself with stupid "look at me" backtalk and former Republican head Michael Steele managed to sit through an entire game barely speaking a word. The most impressive celeb so far? Louis C.K. Maybe he should run for president. He'd be a far more interesting far-left candidate than Bernie. Trump and Clinton wouldn't dare participate.

And, finally, Trump has given Hillary Clinton a nickname: Crooked Hillary. This is an honor that only Lyin' Ted and Little Marco earned in the past. And it seems he has one for Bill as well: Rapey McRapeface. Yep, he called our 42nd president a rapist, just to ensure one more news cycle at the top of the headlines.

Less than six months to go. Will our country survive? More importantly, will it survive the following four years?

[panerd]

Former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld confirmed as Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson's VP

Two actual fiscal conservatives with actual executive experience and no side-shows following them around. Maybe this will be the year people abandon "lessor of two evils"?

EDIT: Of course it would not shock me if the Libertarian Party found these two too mainstream and decided to go with the McAfee nut caught up in the South American murder as their presidential candidate.