2016 Presidential Primaries [ SUPER TUESDAY | 3-1-'16]

sturg33 said:
He keeps talking about a shrinking middle class... yet that is only because the middle class has gotten richer.

He appears to want to make everyone poorer in order to keep people closer together. He's an idiot
Click to expand...

Middle class hasn't gotten richer.

Look at the median income, it's not outpacing inflation.
 
sturg33 said:
By my count, the Republicans had about 20% higher voter turnout... Wasn't Bernie saying something about that tonight?
Click to expand...

New Hampshire requires you to register to a party. So someone could be voting for Hillary or Bernie but decided to vote Republican because they didn't want Trump, Cruz, or Bush or someone else to win.
 
zitothebrave said:
Middle class hasn't gotten richer.

Look at the median income, it's not outpacing inflation.
Click to expand...

I misspoke. The middle class hasn't gotten "richer." What has happened is that more people have gotten rich.

In 1971, the "middle class" made up 61% of adults. The lower class made up 25%, and upper class made up 14%.

Today, the "middle class" makes up 50%. GASP! THE MIDDLE CLASS IS SHRINKING!!! But the upper class now makes up 21% of adults, a 50% increase. In contrast, the lower class now makes up 29%, a 16% increase.

Unless you're in fantasy land, this is a net positive as more people have shifted from the middle class to the upper class, meaning people have better lives.
 
sturg33 said:
I misspoke. The middle class hasn't gotten "richer." What has happened is that more people have gotten rich.

In 1971, the "middle class" made up 61% of adults. The lower class made up 25%, and upper class made up 14%.

Today, the "middle class" makes up 50%. GASP! THE MIDDLE CLASS IS SHRINKING!!! But the upper class now makes up 21% of adults, a 50% increase. In contrast, the lower class now makes up 29%, a 16% increase.

Unless you're in fantasy land, this is a net positive as more people have shifted from the middle class to the upper class, meaning people have better lives.
Click to expand...

By your metric any household making over 100K as being "upper class" Which in many parts of the country isn't true. I know plenty of people who make that much and certainly aren't living that well.
 
zitothebrave said:
By your metric any household making over 100K as being "upper class" Which in many parts of the country isn't true. I know plenty of people who make that much and certainly aren't living that well.
Click to expand...

To you specific point - which seems to be the Sanders talking point

It’s worth taking the time to examine Sanders’s claim that the middle class is worse off now than in the past. He doesn’t cite a source for his statistic, but it seems to rely on looking at the median household income over time and adjusting for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

This is a problematic methodology because it does not control for the well-known fact that the median household has itself grown smaller over time. Even if median income stayed the same over time, a decline in the number of people in the median household over time would lead to an increase in income per household member.

Additionally, Sanders’s statistic looks at income before taxes and transfers. Transfer payments and tax credits (like the Earned Income Tax Credit) make up a significant portion of income for many lower-income families. Not controlling for these factors understates their true economic well-being.

The figures cited by Sanders also fail to take into account the fact that a larger proportion of worker compensation comes in the form of non-cash benefits (such as health insurance) now than in the past.

Acording to research published by the National Tax Journal, “Broadening the income definition to post-tax, post-transfer, size-adjusted household cash income, middle class Americans are found to have made substantial gains,” amounting to a 37 percent increase in income over the 1979-2007 period.

Similarly, in 2014, the Congressional Budget Office found that adjusting for changing household size and looking at income after taxes and transfers, households in all income quintiles are much better off than they were a few decades ago.

The incomes of households in the three middle income quintiles grew 40 percent between 1979 and 2011. Somewhat surprisingly, given the histrionics about the state of America’s poor, income in households in the lowest quintile was 48 percent higher in 2011 than it was in 1979.

Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis comes to even more optimistic conclusions.

The Consumer Price Index is widely understood to overstate inflation — among other reasons, by failing to accurately account for improvements in quality and consumer substitutions for newer or cheaper goods — which is why the Federal Open Market Committee uses an alternative measurement for inflation, the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) price index, which includes more comprehensive coverage of goods and services than the CPI.

If the CPI does, in fact, overstate the extent to which prices rise over time, then it also consequently understates the growth in real, inflation-adjusted incomes over time.

Indexing median household income (post taxes and transfers) to inflation using the PCE, rather than the CPI, and adjusting for the long-run decline in household size shows that median incomes have “increased by roughly 44 percent to 62 percent from 1976 to 2006.”

Moreover, the focus on statistical categories ignores what is happening at the level of individuals and households, which may move up or down the income ladder, through different income quintiles. And studies have consistently shown that this income mobility has not changed in decades.

While the rate of growth for some income categories in recent years has been sluggish, the claim that middle incomes are declining precipitously is false. Based on these findings, it seems appropriate to conclude that Sanders’ claim that there exists a “long-term deterioration of the middle class” is patently untrue.
Click to expand...

Link
 
Bernie was up on 30% to Hillary the day after Iowa.

He is up by 21% with 75% counted. Hillary's team knew they weren't going to win but wanted to close the gap to spin it as she is gaining momentum.

Hillary is beating Bernie in NV and SC right now, but if Bernie manages to close the gaps and make it competitive like he did Iowa, we're talking a different story for Super Tuesday. If Bernie won Iowa, we're talking a VERY VERY different story.
 
sturg33 said:
I think this is the end for Bernie... Howard Dean part 2
Click to expand...

Howard's campaign never got anywhere close to what Bernie is doing.

Hillary's brand is a little tarnished, but her name and brand is still a big political force. The fact Bernie almost beat her in Iowa, and stomped her in New Hampshire means he's going to be here longer than we thought.

I'm not sold on him winning the nom, but if he continues to rack up momentum in SC and NV, then Super Tuesday will be very interesting.
 
The Don said:
Bernie was up on 30% to Hillary the day after Iowa.

He is up by 21% with 75% counted. Hillary's team knew they weren't going to win but wanted to close the gap to spin it as she is gaining momentum.

Hillary is beating Bernie in NV and SC right now, but if Bernie manages to close the gaps and make it competitive like he did Iowa, we're talking a different story for Super Tuesday. If Bernie won Iowa, we're talking a VERY VERY different story.
Click to expand...

He probably did win Iowa.
 
The Don said:
Bernie was up on 30% to Hillary the day after Iowa.

He is up by 21% with 75% counted. Hillary's team knew they weren't going to win but wanted to close the gap to spin it as she is gaining momentum.

Hillary is beating Bernie in NV and SC right now, but if Bernie manages to close the gaps and make it competitive like he did Iowa, we're talking a different story for Super Tuesday. If Bernie won Iowa, we're talking a VERY VERY different story.
Click to expand...

Bernie was up 30% on one poll. His average from RCP which was based off multiple polls was 54.5 to Hillary at 41.2 The poll you're citing is a WMUR poll that had Sanders at 61% and Hillary at 30%, another poll released that same day had Sanders at 50% and Hillary at 41%. Don't act like the polls were universally calling Bernie to beat Hillary by 30+%. She was not expecting to be beaten this bad.
 
The Don said:
Howard's campaign never got anywhere close to what Bernie is doing.

Hillary's brand is a little tarnished, but her name and brand is still a big political force. The fact Bernie almost beat her in Iowa, and stomped her in New Hampshire means he's going to be here longer than we thought.

I'm not sold on him winning the nom, but if he continues to rack up momentum in SC and NV, then Super Tuesday will be very interesting.
Click to expand...

Where is his next victory? Hilary is gonna go on a bit of a roll here and all that momentum will be gone.

I hate them both... so it's a no-win for me
 
sturg33 said:
Where is his next victory? Hilary is gonna go on a bit of a roll here and all that momentum will be gone.

I hate them both... so it's a no-win for me
Click to expand...

If there's one thing Hillary is good at, it's killing momentum.

O'Donnell on MSNBC brought up a telling stat. In every political race Hillary has ever been in, she's never grown her base. When she ran for Senator of NY, she polled at 67% in the first, and stayed at 67%. In her races against Obama, whatever she polled at in the beginning never got higher it only went lower.

She was up by a blowout margin over Sanders and he's made the gap smaller considerably.

I don't buy the Sanders "backyard" argument. The Clinton brand has been successful in New Hampshire plenty, and should not have gotten stomped like this.
 
Bernie is saving his endorsements for the tougher contests.

This campaign season has defied any typical campaign logic.

Trump is winning as is Bernie.

I think Bernie has a slightly better chance at the Dem nomination than Trump at the (R).

The (D) establishment isn't as much Anti-Bernie as the (R) establishment is Anti-Trump. But it's hilarious that everyone is Anti-Cruz. The (R) estab isn't giving up on Rubio, Jeb, or now even Kasich. They aren't going to fully support Trump until it actually happens.

Nobody could have foreseen Bernie winning ANY states, let alone tying in Iowa.
 
Sanders has been up in the polls since at least August from what I see on RCP (that's as far as it goes back to)... it's not like this was some huge surprise.

He definitely won by more than people may have thought. But I think that's from Iowa spillover... He'll get trounced in SC and then we'll see.
 
sturg33 said:
Not comparing the candidates... just saying.. all the "momentum" after NH, and then ran into a buzz saw in the south
Click to expand...

Howard Dean is more comparable to Hillary. He was the clear frontrunner before Iowa, he entered a slugfest with Gephart and Kerry went in and beat the piss out of both of them, same with Edwards. Kerry then beat Dean in New Hampshire, and pretty much everywhere on "mini-tuesday"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top