Who wins the democratic vote?

I mean do you think 401ks, wages, jobs increase under Sanders or Trump
I think it's hard to predict, and Sherdog-level analysis isn't going to be very good. I'm happy just noting a few things that I think the president has a lot of influence on.
 
Turn it around, though. Does anyone think the economy would be expected to do better under Trump than under Sanders? Presidents don't generally affect the economy. If there's no recession, there wouldn't be a difference. If there is a recession, I'd expect Sanders to initiate a more-effective response, though Republicans in Congress would be more likely than Democrats to try to block it if the other party were in the WH. So maybe still a wash.

Come on, man. You’re telling me a president who enacts policies such as tax cuts and the like doesn’t have an effect on the economy? Bernie taxing the shit out of everything wouldn’t have an effect?
 
Come on, man. You’re telling me a president who enacts policies such as tax cuts and the like doesn’t have an effect on the economy? Bernie taxing the shit out of everything wouldn’t have an effect?

Increasing deficits (though tax cuts or spending increases) could have a stimulative impact if the economy is below capacity, though in normal times, it wouldn't. A tax increase that wasn't accompanied by a spending increase could be contractionary if interest rates are very low (if rates are high, such action would lead to a rate cut). In both cases, the range of impacts for realistic policies in normal times would probably all be too small to even distinguish from noise.

A president could have more of an impact on growth by Fed picks, though in practice, the reasonable range of picks wouldn't be that different (to see why, note that during Obama's presidency, there were qualified people calling for rate hikes even without any good reason, but Obama would have to be an idiot to put any of them in a position to determine policy).

Ed: I'm talking about "normal" times because turning things around when there is a recession can be different--higher deficits can actually help. I can't really imagine a president being so committed to fiscal conservatism that he'd support a recession while he's in office, but different presidents would take different approaches (and Bernie would do better than almost any Republican because his would be more focused on spending and putting money in the hands of people who would spend it).
 
2,762 is the only number that matters as you watch this unfold.

Pledged Delegate Total: 3,981
Unpledged Delegate Total: 771 (775 but 8 abroad count as .5 per vote)

Technically you need 1,991 pledged delegates in Round 1 or 2,376 delegates in total in Round 2 to secure the nomination.

Practically what will likely happen is Unpledged delegates will enter the race in Round 1 if by the time of the convention Bernie has the delegates to win.

Bernie will need 2,762 pledged delegates to secure the nomination to defeat the superdelegates. None of the other candidates will need that number. If it's down to just Bernie and one other person that other person will need just 1,605 pledged delegates to win.

Just to put this into perspective Clinton got 2,205 out of 4051 pledged delegates and she had taken over the DNC prior and had built up 30 years of favors that she called in.
 
Nobody is buying that shit anymore. They called Obama a socialist lmao. Nobody is afraid of these boogyman words. They're afraid of going broke from healthcare costs.

we are more afraid of Bernie taxing us to death to cover deadbeats.
 
we are more afraid of Bernie taxing us to death to cover deadbeats.

That is a pretty dumb old conservative talking point that is so meaningless at this point. It's like it comes straight from the TV and out of your mouth without going through anything in between
 
That is a pretty dumb old conservative talking point that is so meaningless at this point. It's like it comes straight from the TV and out of your mouth without going through anything in between

It's not a talking point as much as just a natural tendency for some people to think in terms of fairness and proportionality and come to that conclusion. If you want to actually have single-payer, many people, millions of people, who think in those terms will have to change their minds. And if that's your argument, it's not going to work.
 
It's not a talking point as much as just a natural tendency for some people to think in terms of fairness and proportionality and come to that conclusion. If you want to actually have single-payer, many people, millions of people, who think in those terms will have to change their minds. And if that's your argument, it's not going to work.

“The rich must exploit the poor. The poor must never exploit the rich.”

The idea that millions of people who don’t have healthcare are all “deadbeats” is not so popular as all that. It’s just rarely seriously challenged.
 
Back
Top