Green New Deal
ml1 said:
Smedley said:But given how the ideas in it generally poll with voters, and given that the GOP is already going to ridicule any Democratic candidate as an out of touch socialist coming to take your stuff away, I don't see that much downside. The people who are going to believe the silly scare stories about it are going to believe other silly scare stories about the Democrat.
ml1 said:Of course what I stated is my opinion but i feel strongly about it.
Smedley said:I'm surprised that after 2016 anyone makes these kind of absolute pronouncements. Four years ago people were saying a washed up reality game show host had no chance to win the nomination much less the election.
But, any Dem who embraces the Green New Deal has no chance to win the 2020 presidential election.
Of course save-the-planet ideas poll well, because, well, people are generally in favor of saving the planet. I'd bet even Senate ghouls like McConnell, Cruz and Cornyn, heck even Scott Pruitt and Trump himself would say they want to save the planet.
But that means little IMO, because there is a *massive* disconnect between how save-the-planet concepts poll, and how that same stuff would poll once specifics are filled in and actual sacrifices come to light.
So in my view the Democrats picking and running with the sunny polling on the GND concepts would be a big mistake. I imagine they'd shy away from giving specifics, but the Republicans would be happy to do it for them.
voting for the GND resolution is nothing more than supporting save-the-planet concepts. And the GOP will come up with a whole lot of stupid "specifics" on climate change to tie to the Democrat anyway. People seem to forget they told voters Al Gore wanted to take their cars away back in 2000.
It's cowardly to run away from ideas because they are afraid of what nonsense the Republicans are going to throw at them. Because the Republicans are going to do it whether or not the Democrat really supports it. So might as well take a stand and reach out to the voters who are in favor of the concept.
Trying to stand for nothing hasn't exactly been a winning strategy for Democrats.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Sure GND will fire up some of the base but at much bigger electoral cost of swing voters in critical purple states, who want to keep their jobs.
Make your reservations at the Trump DC hotel for the Trump Jan. 20, 2021 inauguration!
ml1 said:
voting for the GND resolution is nothing more than supporting save-the-planet concepts. And the GOP will come up with a whole lot of stupid "specifics" on climate change to tie to the Democrat anyway. People seem to forget they told voters Al Gore wanted to take their cars away back in 2000.
It's cowardly to run away from ideas because they are afraid of what nonsense the Republicans are going to throw at them. Because the Republicans are going to do it whether or not the Democrat really supports it. So might as well take a stand and reach out to the voters who are in favor of the concept.
Trying to stand for nothing hasn't exactly been a winning strategy for Democrats.
Actually, its a lot more than that. It's a support-the-entire-leftist-agenda (as if climate change is not a big enough challenge by itself) under the mislabel of GND. That's part of the aim. Get a majority vote and then declare "we now own the Democratic Party."
My anthropomorphic flying carousel horsie Tim believes in climate change.
He says it’s Summer right now in deepest darkest Peru. And I believe him.
Smedley said:
We'll have to agree to disagree. Sure GND will fire up some of the base but at much bigger electoral cost of swing voters in critical purple states, who want to keep their jobs.
Make your reservations at the Trump DC hotel for the Trump Jan. 20, 2021 inauguration!
I agree with Smedley. The "progressive" program is toxic even if there is a lot of support for some of the specifics.
terp said:
Please remind me of the giant government program that moved humanity off of whale oil.
One answer is 19th-century tax policy.
A not stupid, even if typographically ridiculous, discourse:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/this-post-is-hopelessly-long-w
sure we can agree to disagree. And I don't presume to be able to predict the future. But I'll point out again that those who say the GND is toxic are going with their guts, and not any objective evidence that I'm aware of. But I'm basing my opinion in the fact that the ideas in the GND poll well, and even poll pretty well with Republican voters. Sure, polls have error, especially when the concepts are general and not specific. But if the concepts were polling at 30-35% favorability I'd agree that it's a political loser. But the favorability scores are very high for most of the concepts. And they're particularly high among voters who are inclined to vote Democratic.
I'm also basing my opinion on the general observation that timid, centrist politicians who are afraid to come out in favor of ideas don't tend to do all that well among voters. Republicans know that, and they aren't afraid to say all kinds of controversial, outrageous things, even pushing the boundaries of bigotry and misogyny. Donald Trump said all kinds of terrible, unpopular things for a year and a half and got himself elected president. So turning off so-called "centrist" voters doesn't appear to be a huge risk for a candidate. Turning off the base is probably a worse strategic error. Certainly it was a big factor in Clinton's inability to match Obama's voter turnout.
And at the risk of repeating myself -- it doesn't matter what the Democrats do, the GOP is going to tell voters they are crazy extremists. So if that's the case, why not support some big ideas that are actually popular with the base.
DaveSchmidt said:
terp said:One answer is 19th-century tax policy.
Please remind me of the giant government program that moved humanity off of whale oil.
A not stupid, even if typographically ridiculous, discourse:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/this-post-is-hopelessly-long-w
Perhaps an even better analogy would be how air quality in California was addressed through regulation. Science indicated that vehicle exhaust was a major factor in the creation of SoCal smog, and regulations were passed to set goals for cleaner vehicles. I know that the free marketers like to say that the marketplace would have itself phased out inefficient, polluting vehicles without government intervention, but there's no evidence of that. The air quality improvements came about only after the regulation. I wasn't around back then so I can't be sure, but I'd be surprised if the naysayers didn't tell everyone that the regulations would ruin the economy, kill the auto industry, impose astronomical costs on consumers, etc.
I’m sure it has been said before earlier in the thread, but the big problem I have with the Green New Deal is that by virtue of throwing the kitchen sink into the scope of the proposal, they’ve taken something I absolutely support (combatting global warming) and turned it into a proposal to have reservations about.
It would be better to deal with these issues a-la-carte.
jimmurphy said:
I’m sure it has been said before earlier in the thread, but the big problem I have with the Green New Deal is that by virtue of throwing the kitchen sink into the scope of the proposal, they’ve taken something I absolutely support (combatting global warming) and turned it into a proposal to have reservations about.
It would be better to deal with these issues a-la-carte.
as I mentioned earlier, people seem to be getting hung up on the fact that it's not a Green Deal. It's a Green New Deal.
I don't expect conservative leaning people to like every bit of it. But it's a platform, and a set of aspirational goals. Whatever of it ever gets enacted (if any) will have to have broad support before legislation can be passed.
I don't get all the naysayers telling Democrats to just drop all these ideas because it's too ambitious. Given that nobody anywhere typically gets everything they want, particularly in politics, doesn't it make sense to aim as high as they can and hope they get even a portion of the list?
ml1 said:
jimmurphy said:as I mentioned earlier, people seem to be getting hung up on the fact that it's not a Green Deal. It's a Green New Deal.
I’m sure it has been said before earlier in the thread, but the big problem I have with the Green New Deal is that by virtue of throwing the kitchen sink into the scope of the proposal, they’ve taken something I absolutely support (combatting global warming) and turned it into a proposal to have reservations about.
It would be better to deal with these issues a-la-carte.
I don't expect conservative leaning people to like every bit of it. But it's a platform, and a set of aspirational goals. Whatever of it ever gets enacted (if any) will have to have broad support before legislation can be passed.
I don't get all the naysayers telling Democrats to just drop all these ideas because it's too ambitious. Given that nobody anywhere typically gets everything they want, particularly in politics, doesn't it make sense to aim as high as they can and hope they get even a portion of the list?
No. It doesn't.
It's not aiming too high, its aiming too broad that's the problem. There's no excuse for political ineptitude and self-sabotage. If you have a consensus about what you and many people think is the most dangerous issue facing humanity, you don't hobble your effort out of the starting box by throwing in utopian position statements about contentious issues that are going to lose you support.
again, where other than your own personal bias and gut is the evidence that it's self-sabotage. I'll admit I'm biased in favor, but I'm also looking at the fact that virtually everything in it appears to be popular with voters.
Democrats would be absolutely self-sabotaging if they are spending one minute worrying about voters who haven't yet made up their minds about Donald Trump.
ml1 said:
Democrats would be absolutely self-sabotaging if they are spending one minute worrying about voters who haven't yet made up their minds about Donald Trump.
Oh poppycock.
From latest Rasmussen poll, Feb. 26: "The latest figures include 36% who Strongly Approve of the job Trump is doing and 41% who Strongly Disapprove."
That's ~23% of the electorate who neither strongly approve or strongly disapprove and thus can be considered swayable. In play. Up for grabs.
So I have no idea why it would be self-sabotaging to worry about 23% of the electorate.
One-quarter, even one-eighth, maybe even one-sixteenth of that number would be enough to win the election.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:Oh poppycock.
Democrats would be absolutely self-sabotaging if they are spending one minute worrying about voters who haven't yet made up their minds about Donald Trump.
From latest Rasmussen poll, Feb. 26: "The latest figures include 36% who Strongly Approve of the job Trump is doing and 41% who Strongly Disapprove."
That's ~23% of the electorate who neither strongly approve or strongly disapprove and thus by definition are potentially swayable. In play.
So I have no idea why it would be self-sabotaging to worry about 23% of the electorate.
One-quarter, even one-eighth, maybe even one-sixteenth of that number would be enough to win the election.
and where is your evidence that they lose that 23% by supporting the GND (which I'll repeat polls very well with voters)?
A candidate doesn't persuade anyone by not standing for anything. Worrying about that 23% and trying not to do anything that might turn some of them off is a losing strategy. Not to mention that anyone who hasn't really formed an opinion on Trump probably isn't paying much attention to politics at all. So why worry about turning off people who aren't paying attention anyway?
recent polling (Feb 8-9, 2019) is overwhelmingly positive on a large number of GND issues:
And adding in those who said the priorities were at least important, 66% of respondents went seven-for-seven, saying that each and every component of the plan was somewhat, very, or extremely important. That seems to back the notion of bundling these policy proposals.
I'm not going to claim that polls are the be-all, end-all. But I have to ask why anyone would look at these poll results and declare as adamantly as many of you are that the GND is a bad idea to tout.
Right now the GND polls well the same way New Year's resolutions poll well on Jan. 1. Nice and shiny and new, with great end goals. But once the costs and sacrifices become clear, fuhgeddaboutit. Support will drop faster than gym attendance in February.
Is running away from the GND cowardly, as you say? Perhaps. But it's also pragmatic. I'll take being a coward and seeing Trump lose next November over being a hero and taking a landslide.
Even at this early Santa Clause goodies-for-everyone-stage, the poll you cite shows how the socialistic elements of the "plan" can peel off support: "Just 13% of respondents said they approved of the federal government directly investing and maintaining ownership stakes in businesses working to meet the policy goals of the Green New Deal. About 42% of respondents said they either disapproved or strongly disapproved of such action."
As for me, I haven't taken a head count but I'm sure you've noticed that I'm not the only pro-green, pro-climate-change-action advocate who dissents from the rest of the goody basket, even in the self-selected word of MOL. You think we are outliers and that similar reservations about the platform do not exist "out there"
Smedley said:
Right now the GND polls well the same way New Year's resolutions poll well on Jan. 1. Nice and shiny and new, with great end goals. But once the costs and sacrifices become clear, fuhgeddaboutit. Support will drop faster than gym attendance in February.
Is running away from the GND cowardly, as you say? Perhaps. But it's also pragmatic. I'll take being a coward and seeing Trump lose next November over being a hero and taking a landslide.
If the polls were at 20% favorable, but I was here insisting that the Dems should tout it proudly because voters would love it once they heard the details, the rest of you all would rightly be telling me I was letting my own bias get in the way of seeing clearly. I would suggest that some of you are doing the exact same thing, but in reverse.
somehow the Republicans have done pretty well touting things like tax cuts for the wealthy and climate change denial that are actually broadly UNpopular. And yet the centrists tell the Democrats they can't win on issues that are very popular.
Given GND apparently polls so strongly, why aren't all Democrats embracing it? Would seem to be a layup to winning in 2020.
Pelosi won't touch this thing with a 10-foot pole.
Smedley said:
Given GND apparently polls so strongly, why aren't all Democrats embracing it? Would seem to be a layup to winning in 2020.
Pelosi won't touch this thing with a 10-foot pole.
because they are a) owned by corporate donors who aren't in favor and b) are themselves wealthy people who don't want to pay if it means higher taxes on upper incomes
interesting that as MOL has been discussing this issue, it turns up today as the roundtable discussion at fivethirtyeight.com. They essentially say the same things we're saying, and concluding that nobody truly knows if embracing the GND will be good or bad for Democrats in 2020. But here's one of the things Nate Silver said, which is pretty much where I stand on this discussion:
I think the shift would just be a generational one. There’s a *lot* of evidence that people under about age 40 are willing to consider left-wing worldviews that a previous generation might have considered too radical. People under age 40 have also lived with two really unpopular Republican presidents, Bush and Trump (along with one semi-popular Democratic one). So I think there’s a decent chance that policy in the U.S. shifts significantly to the left as those young people grow older and gain influence and power.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-the-green-new-deal-smart-politics-for-democrats/
The Democrats refusing to embrace this have tended (with some exceptions like Markey), to be the old guard. The really older guard to be specific. Maybe they are right, but it's possibly more likely that they are simply out of touch with regular folks under the age of 40.
ml1 said:
interesting that as MOL has been discussing this issue, it turns up today as the roundtable discussion at fivethirtyeight.com. They essentially say the same things we're saying, and concluding that nobody truly knows if embracing the GND will be good or bad for Democrats in 2020. But here's one of the things Nate Silver said, which is pretty much where I stand on this discussion:
I think the shift would just be a generational one. There’s a *lot* of evidence that people under about age 40 are willing to consider left-wing worldviews that a previous generation might have considered too radical. People under age 40 have also lived with two really unpopular Republican presidents, Bush and Trump (along with one semi-popular Democratic one). So I think there’s a decent chance that policy in the U.S. shifts significantly to the left as those young people grow older and gain influence and power.The Democrats refusing to embrace this have tended (with some exceptions like Markey), to be the old guard. The really older guard to be specific. Maybe they are right, but it's possibly more likely that they are simply out of touch with regular folks under the age of 40.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-the-green-new-deal-smart-politics-for-democrats/
Which reinforces my view that the failed Baby Boom generation and older needs to step aside and let younger people deal with the mess we have left them.
tjohn said:
ml1 said:Which reinforces my view that the failed Baby Boom generation and older needs to step aside and let younger people deal with the mess we have left them.
interesting that as MOL has been discussing this issue, it turns up today as the roundtable discussion at fivethirtyeight.com. They essentially say the same things we're saying, and concluding that nobody truly knows if embracing the GND will be good or bad for Democrats in 2020. But here's one of the things Nate Silver said, which is pretty much where I stand on this discussion:
I think the shift would just be a generational one. There’s a *lot* of evidence that people under about age 40 are willing to consider left-wing worldviews that a previous generation might have considered too radical. People under age 40 have also lived with two really unpopular Republican presidents, Bush and Trump (along with one semi-popular Democratic one). So I think there’s a decent chance that policy in the U.S. shifts significantly to the left as those young people grow older and gain influence and power.The Democrats refusing to embrace this have tended (with some exceptions like Markey), to be the old guard. The really older guard to be specific. Maybe they are right, but it's possibly more likely that they are simply out of touch with regular folks under the age of 40.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-the-green-new-deal-smart-politics-for-democrats/
I'm pretty sure that there has been low turnout among young voters. Could it be that despite baby boomers warning them that if any Republican became president there was a risk of a conservative majority on the Supreme Court thus risking the overturn of Roe, that they just didn't believe it was possible. Well here we are on the brink and the risk will not be to baby boomers but to the under 40 crowd.
Baby Boomers fought for it and reaped the benefits. It is only the young voters to lose and I wouldn't hang my hopes on Roberts holding the line on every challenge. Nor cross my fingers that Trump will not get another pick.
A father who is probably too young to be a baby boomer, but old enough to have a college age daughter had no idea how illegal abortions were performed. Coincidently when his daughter overheard a few of us discussing the risk of a woman's right to chose she glibly said "who cares? The political discussion was just too boring.
For those who didn't protest the draft, the war. sit in at a lunch counter, or march for women's rights, it is not very objective to conclude that they were left a mess.
I'm very hopeful that new activists will keep working to improve the world. Most of the activists that I know are baby boomers.
Rentals
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
Advertisement
oh, I've already asked him what the John Galt plan is for GW. I'm sure he's working on it.