Donald Trump is a verbally-abusive megalomaniac who has a long track record of business failures, no discernible moral commitments, no discernible policy stances, and no apparent understanding of how government works. If he wins the nomination he’ll probably be the least qualified, least capable major party nominee in the history of the US. For comparison, Sen. Ted Cruz is a cold-blooded sociopath. (Seriously, has anyone checked Cruz for The Mark of the Beast? $20 says he answers to “Hey, Damien.” if you say it when his back is turned.) They’re both awful but I prefer Trump hands down. Why? Because he provokes a greater immune response than Cruz does. Most people are quick to recognize Trump to be a buffoon. In contrast, Cruz is an under-the-radar sociopath. The more people who recognize Trump as a threat and call him out the more likely I think (hope?) that they’d make it harder for him to inflict his will on the country. Because Cruz flies under most people’s radar I bet he could get away with more awfulness than Trump could as president. Pres. Trump would pose a significant risk to civilization, mind you, but I think less of a risk than a Pres. Cruz.
Category Archives: Politics
Not the political revolution I was hoping for
Massachusetts Presidential primary participation, 2008 vs 2016:
- 1.256M Democratic ballots cast.
- 499k Republican ballots cast.
2016 Results with 99.95% of precincts counted
That’s a record turnout. The previous high for a Presidential primary was 2008. What gets me is the nature of the change from 2008: a 4% decrease in Democratic ballots and a 26% increase in Republican ballots. The latter increase is huge. Massachusetts has an open primary, meaning independent (“unenrolled”) voters can pick up a ballot for either primary. There are 4.27M registered voters in MA: 35% are Democrats, 10% Republicans, and 53% are unenrolled. My guess is that the jump in Republican numbers isn’t due to a huge turnout among registered Republicans. 163k more people voted in the Republican primary than there are registered Republicans so clearly a lot of unenrolled voters picked up a Republican ballot. (That brings to mind the saying “‘Unenrolled’ is just a euphemism for ‘Republican with a sense of shame’.”) I’d hoped that a lot more unenrolled voters would pick up a Democratic ballot to vote for Sanders. Sanders lost by slightly more than 17k votes, about 1/8th of the overall increase in Republican participation. That’s disappointing. There was a political revolution last night, but definitely not the one I was hoping for.
Drumpf
John Oliver with a public service announcement:
Music for Super Tuesday
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard resigns as a vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee in order to endorse Bernie Sanders for president.
Thought for the Day: February 26, 2016
I think it’s fair to say that a common goal of Sanders supporters is a more democratic distribution of political power. The wealthy hold a disproportionately large share. (Has it ever been otherwise?) That needs to change. To the extent that Sanders supporters embrace heterodox economics (I don’t particularly) I’ll hazard that it’s as part of an overall approach to creating a more democratic and equitable society. Many things influence quality of life. The macroeconomic climate is one them. With respect to recent arguments over what Sanders’ plan would do for GDP growth, I doubt that I would support a candidate whose economic policies who likely lead to economic contraction – of the countries I might care to live in if I couldn’t live here, I don’t believe any have had a contracting GDP on a regular basis – but so long as the trend is upward I don’t think I care too much about the details. Positive is good but more isn’t necessarily better. To the extent that economic considerations are a priority for me, I’m much more concerned about how economic gains are distributed, opportunities for gainful employment, job stability, and that I’m compensated fairly than I am about the particulars of GDP growth.
“A democracy is not a graduate seminar.”
Steve Randy Waldman, Your theory of politics is wrong:
I support Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. I don’t support Sanders because I think he is brilliant in some academic way. I don’t support Sanders because I am particularly impressed with the details of his policy proposals, although they are not nearly as hopeless as some self-proclaimed technocrats make them out to be. A democracy is not a graduate seminar.
Thought for the Day – February 19, 2016
GDP will take care of itself
I noted yesterday that there is much fussing in housebroken liberal circles about UMass economist Gerald Friedman’s prediction that, if implemented, Sanders’ economic agenda would cause GDP growth to rise to 5.3%. That’s higher than the yearly average has been since prior to WWII. Friedman defends his prediction here. Former MN Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota, a reality-based individual, implies that it’s not a ridiculous number:
Professor Gerald Friedman has argued here that, by adopting Senator Bernie Sanders’ economic proposals, the US economy would grow in excess of 5% per year over the next decade. Previously, former Governor Jeb Bush put forward (different) proposals that he has argued would lead to 4% economic growth over an extended period. These kinds of growth outcomes are often dismissed as prima face unachievable given the historical behavior of the US economy. (That’s one way that some readers have interpreted this letter.)
I don’t attempt a full examination of Senator Sanders’ or Mr. Bush’s proposals in this post. Rather, I make three points related to this discussion that don’t receive sufficient attention:
-
There is no technological reason why real gross domestic product (GDP) cannot grow at a materially above-normal rate over the next decade
-
Given (1), the relevant issue is: are the benefits of achieving such a growth path higher than the costs of doing so? I suggest that there are good reasons to believe that the answer to this question is more likely to be positive than at any time since the end of World War II.
-
If the answer to (2) is affirmative, the question becomes: what set of economic proposals will best allow the country to achieve those positive net benefits? As noted above, I don’t attempt a detailed examination of the consequences of Senator Sanders’ proposals or those of Mr. Bush. I only make the broad point that, given current economic circumstances, demand-based stimulus is likely to be more effective than supply-based stimulus.
I think that’s an excellent frame. Based on how the US economy has performed over recent decades, I remain skeptical of being able to hit 5.3% with Sanders’ or anyone else’s plan but I believe Kocherlakota is right, there’s no technological reason why GDP can’t grow at a much higher rate than it has been. There are huge political hurdles and technical challenges to generating that kind of growth but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. And even if 5.3% isn’t in the cards I do believe we can do much better than we’ve done. We’re at about 2% now. Would we not be happy with 4% or even 3%?
Whether or not it’s theoretically possible to hit 5.3%, one argument against putting that number forward is that it smacks of delusional optimism and that’s not good practice. A serious candidate should not adopt implausible policy positions [see Note 1 below]. I concur. I also believe that whether Sanders’ economic plan would generate 5.3% growth or 3.5% or 2% growth is beside the point. His campaign isn’t about goosing GDP, it’s about changing the rules of the game. I doubt there are many Sanders supporters who are with him because of an expectation of any particular GDP growth rate. It’s about changing the power dynamic to improve the quality of life for most Americans.