2020 Election Thoughts

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, pettie4sox said:

To me evidence of this was looking at BS's WV primary vs HRC in 2016.  He overwhelming won the support the rural voters because he actually offered them some substantive policy.

Primaries aren't general elections. 

[pettie4sox]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

Primaries aren't general elections. 

True but I would rather the dems take a risk and run a candidate like this than to keep shoveling the bland ones they have been.  I rather see it rejected on a national scale then in a primary where the party makes up all these rules to prevent democracy and the like lol.

[The Beast]

4 hours ago, GenericUserName said:

I don't believe that needs any amendments. It appears it hasn't been done because it is politically untenable. The whole thing about the fair tax allowing the government to tax retirement income was a quote taken out of context from a politician saying it would be more likely with the fair tax because it would allow the retirement income to be taxed at different rates so seniors who rely on theirs could basically be taxed at a 0% while other larger ones were taxed at a different rate.

As for ways to raise more revenues? Pritzker could still try to create the fair tax with a loophole. The state could raise the income tax percentage on everyone, but then have varying deductions or waivers or something like that at the different income levels so it is effectively a progressive structure. It would probably face lawsuits, but if things are bad enough, maybe the state supreme court finds it as a tenable solution.

Aside from raising taxes or ignoring unfunded liabilities, I’m not sure how legislators improve the state’s finances. I think taxing retirement benefits would be a tough sell but possibly necessary with those collecting pensions leaving the state. Even if people won’t agree with that, there is definitely a spending problem and an issue with revenues in the state.

5 hours ago, Stinky Stanky said:

Look forward to other ways of raising revenue to pay the state's bills.  Tax retirement income like all the other surrounding states.  Would that require a constitutional amendment?  Reducing pension liabilities?  That would require an amendment.  Raising the general tax rate on our already regressive income tax?  Why do I say regressive?  Because those folks "lucky" enough to have a $15,000 real estate tax bill can deduct 5% of that on their income tax returns and you apartment dwellers can deduct zero.

I’d like to see a pension reform measure put on the ballot to have people vote on it with the messaging being that it is to keep pensions and retirement benefits for current employees but reducing pensions for future retirees so that the system works better. Otherwise I fully anticipate getting a property tax increase because of not meeting these liabilities.

5 hours ago, hogan873 said:

I'm surprised and pleased that this thread is still alive.  When I started it a while back I fully expected it to be closed by election day.  But SoxTalk continues to be one of the best sites to visit with a bunch of great folks having (for the most part) courteous conversations.

The few times I woke up last night, I went right to this page to see if there were any updates.  I certainly appreciate those who have been relaying what they've heard.

I went to bed last night certain that 2016 was repeating.  Now it seems like Biden has a more clear path to winning.  We won't know for a couple days, I'm sure, but we may have a better idea by later today or tomorrow.  Regardless, this is an historic election.  If there wasn't so much on the line, it could be more enjoyable to watch.

I often said privately to some moderators my displeasure of closing down the Filibuster because I felt that I learned more here than anywhere else with comments, thoughts and educated opinions with civil conversation. You don’t get that on Facebook and it is something lacking in our society. I have always felt that we should educate ourselves on opposing viewpoints and engage in conversation with people who we disagree with. Soxtalk is the perfect place to do so since personal attacks are minimal and there aren’t snarky memes and mud slinging as there are on Facebook.

Thanks to @Chisoxfn and the admins and moderators for allowing conversation for the election. I appreciate it!

4 hours ago, Harry Chappas said:

I am not disappointed that Trump lost but also not really happy to see Biden and/or Harris run the country but what I really find disappointing is how some local things played out.   

As with the White Sox managerial hiring.  We are in a better place today than we were yesterday but I am not all that excited about it.

Can I ask what would you make you excited about them governing or what you aren’t excited about?

4 hours ago, Jerksticks said:

Totally.  It really shows just how awful the democratic message really is.  The far left scares the shit out of most Americans over 25, and the middle left is just a mess of messaging and policy confusion.  The only reason the dems won is because they “weren’t Trump”.  That won’t work in 2022 midterms.  This isn’t a mandate for anything.  
 

 

What messaging could Democrats use to be more appealing, in your opinion?

4 hours ago, hogan873 said:

One thing is clear from this election, especially based on what we saw from Florida and Texas: The Democratic party is out of touch with Latinos.  That is something they need to fix moving forward.  Even if Biden wins, 2024 looks iffy.  It will be increasingly difficult to keep a Democrat in office if the Republican party regroups and puts up a better candidate.

How do you think the Democratic Party could do better with messaging and policies to appeal to Latino voters?

3 hours ago, Tony said:

Once the election is over we will close the thread and are going to continue to keep politics off the site.....but we felt it was important to give people an outlet for this event. 

Maybe we'll open the 'Buster back up at some point, we'll see. 

I hope so but understand if this is just not possible. If anyone wants to have conversations about politics in a PM thread when this ends, let me know. Like I said, I learn a lot from each of you and think we need more civil discussion to grow as a country.

17 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

sigh.... things will never ever change with this attitude. How far right does the "liberal" party in America need to go before people understand it's a problem?

Yes, how exciting was it when all those former republican war mongers came out in support of biden. Really moved the needle.

What policies from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party would work for voters, particularly the groups that the party underperformed with in this election?

[mqr]

Can someone explain to me what the fuck the strategy is to stop the count when you’re trailing by tens of thousands of votes?

[Texsox]

1 minute ago, mqr said:

Can someone explain to me what the fuck the strategy is to stop the count when you’re trailing by tens of thousands of votes?

He's always a couple moves ahead.

[Balta1701]

5 minutes ago, pettie4sox said:

True but I would rather the dems take a risk and run a candidate like this than to keep shoveling the bland ones they have been.  I rather see it rejected on a national scale then in a primary where the party makes up all these rules to prevent democracy and the like lol.

Then show me the wins at the Congressional level. There were races  where the candidates endorsed M4A up against R challengers. Where are their wins? One lost near me in a competitive small R advantage district. Where are those wins?

[Balta1701]

Just now, Balta1701 said:

Then show me the wins at the Congressional level. There were races  where the candidates endorsed M4A up against R challengers. Where are their wins? One lost near me in a competitive small R advantage district. Where are those wins?

Also worth considering is that a standard Sanders concept is that he will bring new voters into the process. Based on both that not happening to a measurable amount in 2 primary races, and Biden accomplishing that with huge turnout numbers, I would argue that concept isn’t holding well either.

[Dick Allen]

4 minutes ago, mqr said:

Can someone explain to me what the fuck the strategy is to stop the count when you’re trailing by tens of thousands of votes?

You would have to be a stable genius to understand. Person, woman, man, camera , TV.,

[Jose Abreu]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

Then show me the wins at the Congressional level. There were races  where the candidates endorsed M4A up against R challengers. Where are their wins? One lost near me in a competitive small R advantage district. Where are those wins?

To be honest, the biggest difficulty I've had in answering your question is that the vast majority of candidates who support M4A were in districts they were expected to win (maybe that means something?). With respect to contested races or ones slightly favoring Republicans, I could only find a handful of candidates who support it.

[southsider2k5]

37 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

What groups? You are missing the point.

Those people voted Democrat for YEARS. They switched, and it's not because they're all racist goons and it certainly isn't because they believe in Trumps fiscal policies and gold toilets. This is what I meant by I hope democrats can self reflect but I think many will be incapable of doing so.

I think you are missing the point.  Groups of people trend directions for a perceived shared reason.  No that doesn't mean something stupid like every single Trump voter is a racist or that every single Cuban voter thinks Biden is a socialist.  What it does mean is that you can play politics to that group for inroads with the group.  This is exactly what you keep trying to tell me didn't work with one group, but it is totally a reason why some people left the Democratic Party.  Not sure why that reflection only works one way in your eyes.  It is a fair question to ask people who support a leader who openly supports racism and has been sued for his own racist policies by the same federal government he now leads, just like it is a fair question to ask why Democratic policies haven't brought back the rust belt.  If that hurts some people's feelings too much, maybe they need to self-reflect instead of feeling sorry for themselves.

[pettie4sox]

6 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Then show me the wins at the Congressional level. There were races  where the candidates endorsed M4A up against R challengers. Where are their wins? One lost near me in a competitive small R advantage district. Where are those wins?

I would need to do research but I know the squad were all BS endorsements, I think Cori Bush who won a primary against a long term establishment Dem.  She won her race yesterday.  Jamall Bowman in NY-16.

3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Also worth considering is that a standard Sanders concept is that he will bring new voters into the process. Based on both that not happening to a measurable amount in 2 primary races, and Biden accomplishing that with huge turnout numbers, I would argue that concept isn’t holding well either.

Biden got huge turnout because of Trump not because of him.

[turnin' two]

I'm pretty happy that neither party is happy.

[mqr]

5 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

To be honest, the biggest difficulty I've had in answering your question is that the vast majority of candidates who support M4A were in districts they were expected to win (maybe that means something?). With respect to contested races or ones slightly favoring Republicans, I could only find a handful of candidates who support it.

Newman successfully primarying Lipinski is not for nothing, though the general was pretty much a forgone conclusion. 

[Texsox]

Dems need to embrace law and order and distance themselves from supporting illegal acts. 

 

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, Texsox said:

Dems need to embrace law and order and distance themselves from supporting illegal acts. 

 

The irony of course is that Biden called for an end to the rioting.  But no one cared who talked about law and order.

[Balta1701]

7 minutes ago, pettie4sox said:

I would need to do research but I know the squad were all BS endorsements, I think Cori Bush who won a primary against a long term establishment Dem.  She won her race yesterday.  Jamall Bowman in NY-16.

Biden got huge turnout because of Trump not because of him.

Ny 16 went 56-40 for Clinton in 2016 and Obama won it by 5 in 2012. And by definition beating long term establishment Dems isn’t winning competitive races. This theory of change says voters in rural areas and the rust belt are just waiting for populist democrats to vote for, and I don’t see it.

[Texsox]

Just now, southsider2k5 said:

The irony of course is that Biden called for an end to the rioting.  But no one cared who talked about law and order.

It needs to be all the way down. We seem to be the party that excuses protestors and undocumented workers. We need to flip a few more percentage points of voters. I believe that's the easiest path. 

[pettie4sox]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

Ny 16 went 56-40 for Clinton in 2016 and Obama won it by 5 in 2012. And by definition beating long term establishment Dems isn’t winning competitive races. This theory of change says voters in rural areas and the rust belt are just waiting for populist democrats to vote for, and I don’t see it.

You are not trying to win republican voters as much as you're trying to get the non voters off their butts to vote for you.  There is a huge untapped market of people who simply don't vote that the dems  have refused to tap into for whatever reason.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

7 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Dems need to embrace law and order and distance themselves from supporting illegal acts. 

 

illegality is a response of the oppressed. There is a reason crime is higher in impoverished communities and it's not because none of them have a moral compass and etc. The laws are made by the elite and in the current environment are only enforced on the poor; the war on drugs vs the Sacklers accountability is a great example of this. 

It's easy to do right when you're not desperate; in fact, it's why the rich who do so much wrong are that much worse imo. Desperation for the entirety of man kind has led to people lashing out; hell, it's how most democracies we adore were established.

We seem to excuse greed - when it entails stealing billions - as the way it is but when people steal out of need or necessity, we refer to them as losers and criminals. It's really odd.

Edited November 4, 2020 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[ron883]

2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

The irony of course is that Biden called for an end to the rioting.  But no one cared who talked about law and order.

Yeah, and Trump has denounced White Supremacists about 30 times. But no one cared about him saying that.

Biden and some Dems denounced the rioting, but didn't take a hard enough stance against it. Cities were getting ransacked but the Dems didn't want to accept aid from the national guard on behalf of Trump, strictly because it was from Trump. 

[southsider2k5]

5 minutes ago, Texsox said:

It needs to be all the way down. We seem to be the party that excuses protestors and undocumented workers. We need to flip a few more percentage points of voters. I believe that's the easiest path. 

Why doesn't the GOP hold the President to that standard, and why doesn't the voters of Law and Order punish them for it?

[TaylorStSox]

34 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I mean, they all dropped out at a time that could not have been more planned.

And yes, Bernie has issues with minorities at times because he focus on class first. This has led some to even call him racist, which is a media talking point.

I actually think if you uplift class, you would see a dramatic reduction in racism and etc. I think it's a viable plan, but it does not play into the identity politics that has overtaken discord and politics in general in this country.

Social issues typically evolve with political issues.

The resistance to Sanders, and socialism in general, is a generational issue. We're still a few years away. There are still too many active voters who grew up during the Cold War. I believe 64% of Millenials view socialism positively. We'll get there in time. 

[mqr]

Uh, the Trump campaign is just declaring themselves winners in PA

[southsider2k5]

2 minutes ago, Yearnin' for Yermin said:

Yeah, and Trump has denounced White Supremacists about 30 times. But no one cared about him saying that.

Biden and some Dems denounced the rioting, but didn't take a hard enough stance against it. Cities were getting ransacked but the Dems didn't want to accept aid from the national guard on behalf of Trump, strictly because it was from Trump. 

Except when he was saying and acting the opposite. 

[ron883]

2 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

illegality is a response of the oppressed. There is a reason crime is higher in impoverished communities and it's not because none of them have a moral compass and etc. The laws are made by the elite and in the current environment are only enforced on the poor; the war on drugs vs the Sacklers accountability is a great example of this. 

It's easy to do right when you're not desperate; in fact, it's why the rich who do so much wrong are that much worse imo. Desperation for the entirety of man kind has led to people lashing out; hell, it's how most democracies we adore were established.

We seem to excuse greed - when it entails stealing billions - as the way it is but when people steal out of need or necessity, we refer to them as losers and criminals. It's really odd.

Ray ray defending looting and rioting once again. Surprise surprise. 

It's possible to be against looting and rioting while ALSO not excusing greed and white color crime from billionaires.