For Mayor Pete to accelerate and win the nomination....he has two major things that must be accomplished.
1. He has to move ahead of Biden and Warren....to win the Iowa Caucus, and the Nevada primary. The NH and SC matches don't really matter.
2. Then you arrive to Super-Tuesday (14 states). Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia. He has to win seven of these (my humble opinion), in order for the path remaining (at least ten of the remaining states).
Odds in southern states like Texas, Alabama or Arkansas? ZERO.
I think he has pretty good chances in Minnesota, Virginia, Colorado and California. Maine and Massachusetts are 50-50 shots. It's hard to say how people would view him in states like North Carolina or Utah.
In a Trump-Mayor Pete election? Southern Democrats and blacks in general....will shy away from Mayor Pete, and lessen their showing at the polls in November. I won't say it's a guaranteed loss for Mayor Pete, but he'd have to work people into a frenzy to show up and vote, and he's just not the Obama-type of candidate to accomplish that.
Monday, 21 October 2019
A TV Series That I'd Like to See Come Back (In Different Form)
This is what I'd like to see come back:
The Addams 'Couple'. Instead of bringing the Addams Family back....I'd like to rewind the clock and have this moment in college where Gomez meets Morticia. Yes, I'd have the younger version of Uncle Fester there, but minus the other characters.
I'd do the whole thing in black and white, set in some college. I'd tell the story of the early days of this passionate love affair, and how they were simply love-struck from the first minute of their meeting.
For background characters, I'd add a British butler for Gomez, a retired Taiwanese General as a neighbor, Morticia's room-mate (a Doris Day type), and a mildly insane professor who has been paid by Gomez's father to pass the kid....no matter what happens.
The Addams 'Couple'. Instead of bringing the Addams Family back....I'd like to rewind the clock and have this moment in college where Gomez meets Morticia. Yes, I'd have the younger version of Uncle Fester there, but minus the other characters.
I'd do the whole thing in black and white, set in some college. I'd tell the story of the early days of this passionate love affair, and how they were simply love-struck from the first minute of their meeting.
For background characters, I'd add a British butler for Gomez, a retired Taiwanese General as a neighbor, Morticia's room-mate (a Doris Day type), and a mildly insane professor who has been paid by Gomez's father to pass the kid....no matter what happens.
Mayor Pete and His 35-Percent Corporate Tax Rate
To help make Medicare-for-all a possibility, and cover the cost impact, Mayor Pete's idea is that you'd raise the corporate tax rate to 35-percent (currently, it's set at 21-percent). So you'd see a 14-point rise on the corporate world. The feeling is....they'd just give 14 points of their profit, to make this happen, and everyone would be happy.
Is this a realistic assumption? No.
Once companies are given the 14-point rise....they merely insert that into cost, and it's passed onto consumers. If you made a product that went overseas....you'd likely stop production in the US, and quickly move production into Mexico or Brazil.
So that new US-made truck that you were going to buy? You can figure that it's going up by $1,000 minimum. That $900 refrigerator? It's going up by $50 to $70.
You, whether you like the idea or not....would be paying for Medicare-for-all....all by yourself. Corporate would simply hand you the bill, and you'd pay it. Eventually, some idiot with the car industry would figure out that it's cheaper to make cars in Mexico, and they'd shift a lot of production there.....destroying US jobs, and raising the unemployment rate.
But hey.....this is the reality of Mayor Pete and how he promises you such a good deal.
Is this a realistic assumption? No.
Once companies are given the 14-point rise....they merely insert that into cost, and it's passed onto consumers. If you made a product that went overseas....you'd likely stop production in the US, and quickly move production into Mexico or Brazil.
So that new US-made truck that you were going to buy? You can figure that it's going up by $1,000 minimum. That $900 refrigerator? It's going up by $50 to $70.
You, whether you like the idea or not....would be paying for Medicare-for-all....all by yourself. Corporate would simply hand you the bill, and you'd pay it. Eventually, some idiot with the car industry would figure out that it's cheaper to make cars in Mexico, and they'd shift a lot of production there.....destroying US jobs, and raising the unemployment rate.
But hey.....this is the reality of Mayor Pete and how he promises you such a good deal.
Explaining This Obama-Trump Jobs Chatter
Over the last month or two, several news groups have been hyping up the jobs situation under President Obama as being better than President Trump. Oddly, even the NY Times and Washington Post jumped into this with charts and hyped-up enthusiasm for what President Obama did.
So I spent two hours this weekend look at the past twenty-five years. Oh, I know....I should just be talking about only the Obama and Trump period, but there's this odd story laying out there.
Back in early 1994, NAFTA came along, with unions telling President Clinton and these Republican and Democratic political figures that hundreds of thousands of jobs were at risk.
Around a decade after NAFTA came in, the numbers were mostly verified....it just under 1-million US jobs lost. Those were the direct jobs.....so the secondary group probably was in the 250,000 range.
No one ever talks much about those jobs which went to Mexico, and the Dominican Republic. I had a high school friend who had a decent $12 an hour job in that 1995 period, and he watched the company fold up and move off to the Dominican Republic. Because of zero commerce growth in this period.....it was fairly rough time for him.
But that's not the only crippling action.....a number of new products led back to the manufacturing stage in China. You can argue that five to ten million jobs that should have been within the US.....were now in China instead.
So then in 2008/2009, we had the banking crisis. From the first year of Bush, the unemployment rate was 4.2-percent By the last year of Bush (end of 2008), we now had 7.8 percent unemployment. Hundreds of thousands of people were put at risk with their jobs and stability.
Based on Team-Obama's effort....at the conclusion of the 2016, they had been able to reduce the unemployment rate to around 4.7 percent.
Corporate profits during the Obama period....they went sharply up, compared against the Bush period.....almost doubling.
So what's the difference between the Obama numbers and Trump numbers? What Trump is carving into....has nothing to do with the banking crisis. It's more to do with China manufacturing and NAFTA. Industrial jobs.
These are the jobs that both Bush and Obama said were permanently gone. I highlight that key word because both spoke to this issue on numerous occasions, saying that they could never come back.....mostly because of the global market. Under Trump, the phrase has never occurred.
In fact, in every occasion that Trump found unfair trading practices existing....he's put his foot down. Either it's a level playing field, or we will call it a foul.
In the spring of 2019, the numbers say around 5.2-million jobs created in the US since Trump arrived. Those jobs dig into Mexico, Europe, and China. If Trump stays on to 2024? I would imagine almost 10-million jobs will have been created by that point.
About a week ago, I noted out of my home state (Alabama), that unemployment had fallen to the lowest level of fifty years...3-percent unemployment. In fact, in the Huntsville area....in August of this year, it got down to 2.3 percent unemployment. If you simply wrote a 5th-grade kid-type resume, put on clean clothing, cleaned-up your drug habits, and simply applied yourself....you'd have a job within a week or two within Huntsville.
On occasion, I admire the writings of the Washington Post and NY Times, but on this one single story.....they basically told only half of the entire story. For both of them to do the same thing? It has to have a political purpose behind it, and be of a biased nature.
So I spent two hours this weekend look at the past twenty-five years. Oh, I know....I should just be talking about only the Obama and Trump period, but there's this odd story laying out there.
Back in early 1994, NAFTA came along, with unions telling President Clinton and these Republican and Democratic political figures that hundreds of thousands of jobs were at risk.
Around a decade after NAFTA came in, the numbers were mostly verified....it just under 1-million US jobs lost. Those were the direct jobs.....so the secondary group probably was in the 250,000 range.
No one ever talks much about those jobs which went to Mexico, and the Dominican Republic. I had a high school friend who had a decent $12 an hour job in that 1995 period, and he watched the company fold up and move off to the Dominican Republic. Because of zero commerce growth in this period.....it was fairly rough time for him.
But that's not the only crippling action.....a number of new products led back to the manufacturing stage in China. You can argue that five to ten million jobs that should have been within the US.....were now in China instead.
So then in 2008/2009, we had the banking crisis. From the first year of Bush, the unemployment rate was 4.2-percent By the last year of Bush (end of 2008), we now had 7.8 percent unemployment. Hundreds of thousands of people were put at risk with their jobs and stability.
Based on Team-Obama's effort....at the conclusion of the 2016, they had been able to reduce the unemployment rate to around 4.7 percent.
Corporate profits during the Obama period....they went sharply up, compared against the Bush period.....almost doubling.
So what's the difference between the Obama numbers and Trump numbers? What Trump is carving into....has nothing to do with the banking crisis. It's more to do with China manufacturing and NAFTA. Industrial jobs.
These are the jobs that both Bush and Obama said were permanently gone. I highlight that key word because both spoke to this issue on numerous occasions, saying that they could never come back.....mostly because of the global market. Under Trump, the phrase has never occurred.
In fact, in every occasion that Trump found unfair trading practices existing....he's put his foot down. Either it's a level playing field, or we will call it a foul.
In the spring of 2019, the numbers say around 5.2-million jobs created in the US since Trump arrived. Those jobs dig into Mexico, Europe, and China. If Trump stays on to 2024? I would imagine almost 10-million jobs will have been created by that point.
About a week ago, I noted out of my home state (Alabama), that unemployment had fallen to the lowest level of fifty years...3-percent unemployment. In fact, in the Huntsville area....in August of this year, it got down to 2.3 percent unemployment. If you simply wrote a 5th-grade kid-type resume, put on clean clothing, cleaned-up your drug habits, and simply applied yourself....you'd have a job within a week or two within Huntsville.
On occasion, I admire the writings of the Washington Post and NY Times, but on this one single story.....they basically told only half of the entire story. For both of them to do the same thing? It has to have a political purpose behind it, and be of a biased nature.
Friday, 18 October 2019
The Bubble Within a Bubble Crowd
At different stages of my life, I lived around or worked around, with people who lived in 'bubbles'. You'd be standing there and in some state of confusion why so-and-so really didn't grasp the events going on, or why their logic was so flawed.
I sat this week and watched a campus-demonstration video, and some kid....probably around 20 years old....was in some moment of a 'fit'. It was the kind of 'fit' that you'd suggest of a 8-year-old kid who was hyped up and unable to control himself. The 20 year old....supposedly in college, was trying to convey the massive 'evil' confronting civilization, and how people needed to take to the street to rebalance society.
Twenty years ago, without YouTube, you would have never seen this type of behavior, or witnessed something this 'stupid'.
I look upon alot of these wannabe adult characters of today, that just seem to be living in a bubble 'of a bubble'. They can't associate with regular working-class people. They can't agree with regular people. They can't work in some company with regular people. I doubt that they could even attend some church with some regular people. In an emergency situation, they could not be depended upon for team-effort.
In some ways, they seem to be on some mental trip to 'save the world'. Some have decent intentions but just haven't assembled all the information to make this trip, or to understand the gravity of what they are talking about.
As for some maturing likely to occur, and a sudden wake-up situation developing? Maybe, but I'd hate to be standing there where they realize how far they'd fallen and the extent of their massive 'failed' agenda.
I sat this week and watched a campus-demonstration video, and some kid....probably around 20 years old....was in some moment of a 'fit'. It was the kind of 'fit' that you'd suggest of a 8-year-old kid who was hyped up and unable to control himself. The 20 year old....supposedly in college, was trying to convey the massive 'evil' confronting civilization, and how people needed to take to the street to rebalance society.
Twenty years ago, without YouTube, you would have never seen this type of behavior, or witnessed something this 'stupid'.
I look upon alot of these wannabe adult characters of today, that just seem to be living in a bubble 'of a bubble'. They can't associate with regular working-class people. They can't agree with regular people. They can't work in some company with regular people. I doubt that they could even attend some church with some regular people. In an emergency situation, they could not be depended upon for team-effort.
In some ways, they seem to be on some mental trip to 'save the world'. Some have decent intentions but just haven't assembled all the information to make this trip, or to understand the gravity of what they are talking about.
As for some maturing likely to occur, and a sudden wake-up situation developing? Maybe, but I'd hate to be standing there where they realize how far they'd fallen and the extent of their massive 'failed' agenda.
Thursday, 17 October 2019
Juvenile Journalism
I must admit....I've reached a level with watching CNN now....that 15 minutes is typically all I can stand before I hit mute. If they leave Trump-news and do some worldwide 'minute', I'll flip it back on.
So in the morning....they had their day-program on with John Berman and Alisyn Camerota.
They wanted to hype a CNN slant on the Turkish invasion into Syria deal, and go bitter negative on Trump. So they pull up the letter that Trump sent to Erdogan (the leader of Turkey).
They pull points off, in what you'd typically call Trump-language, which is blunt-talk....the stuff you'd hear on a street in NY City. It's what regular people would say.
Berlin turns to CNN correspondent and says basically: "We have this letter with this language that isn't exactly at Ph.D. level."
At that point, I hit the mute button.
What kind of journalist says something like that? An intellectual type. But then you kinda wonder....is Berman a PhD type? Well....no. Is Camerota a PhD type? No. I would imagine the White Correspondent was also a non-PhD type.
So you got CNN's 'best' telling you that whenever something is written to any leader, it needs to be in PhD-speak? Amusingly enough....yes.
When the CNN team addresses the President at some press conference....do they speak with respect and PhD-speak? Well....no.
I'm guessing Berman sits around and collects this Trump themes, and just throws two or three out each day....to get his points, and show his loyalty to the network.
But behind all of this....it just makes CNN look like a bunch of juvenile high school kids. Why would you watch something like this?
So in the morning....they had their day-program on with John Berman and Alisyn Camerota.
They wanted to hype a CNN slant on the Turkish invasion into Syria deal, and go bitter negative on Trump. So they pull up the letter that Trump sent to Erdogan (the leader of Turkey).
They pull points off, in what you'd typically call Trump-language, which is blunt-talk....the stuff you'd hear on a street in NY City. It's what regular people would say.
Berlin turns to CNN correspondent and says basically: "We have this letter with this language that isn't exactly at Ph.D. level."
At that point, I hit the mute button.
What kind of journalist says something like that? An intellectual type. But then you kinda wonder....is Berman a PhD type? Well....no. Is Camerota a PhD type? No. I would imagine the White Correspondent was also a non-PhD type.
So you got CNN's 'best' telling you that whenever something is written to any leader, it needs to be in PhD-speak? Amusingly enough....yes.
When the CNN team addresses the President at some press conference....do they speak with respect and PhD-speak? Well....no.
I'm guessing Berman sits around and collects this Trump themes, and just throws two or three out each day....to get his points, and show his loyalty to the network.
But behind all of this....it just makes CNN look like a bunch of juvenile high school kids. Why would you watch something like this?
Why Enthusiasm in Presidential Primaries Matters
Back in 2016, the Democratic primary resulted in 40,000,000 people coming out for Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton (between the two of them).
The 2012 Democratic primary (with strictly one candidate) had only 6,000,000 people out. He didn't need the enthusiasm, but it hurt his situation for the House and Senate members who were running.
The 2008 Democratic primary? It had roughly 35-million folks show up (I should note, on pure numbers....Hillary had around 300k extra votes in that primary).
The 2004 Democratic primary? It had 14 to 15 million people show up for the primary election.
The 2000 Democratic primary? It had around 14 million people show up for the primary election.
Some people now believe that you need 'hype' or enthusiasm going on, to attain the bigger vote in November. All of these debate forums and 15-plus candidates on the party platform....was supposed to deliver more people showing up and attaching themselves to the November election (2020).
Well, here's the thing, if Warren is settled upon by late February as the only viable candidate from the group....meaning Bernie and Joe are out entirely....then the dismal numbers will appear at Super-Tuesday, and Warren probably won't top more than 15-million votes for the entire primary (more than enough delegates to win the convention).
A bad formula for the November election? Yes. But this is how strange the 2016 and 2020 elections are constructed. The odds of ever constructing another Bernie-Hillary primary season? I'd say it could take another thirty years to get that much hype over two entirely different candidates, from the same party.
So I'd advise you to watch the Super-Tuesday event with the 12 states involved, and the likely scenario that you only get 50-percent of the voters showing up....compared against 2016. If this is the occurrence.....you can forget the chat or hype business, and give Trump another three or four states more than the 30 states he won in 2016.
The 2012 Democratic primary (with strictly one candidate) had only 6,000,000 people out. He didn't need the enthusiasm, but it hurt his situation for the House and Senate members who were running.
The 2008 Democratic primary? It had roughly 35-million folks show up (I should note, on pure numbers....Hillary had around 300k extra votes in that primary).
The 2004 Democratic primary? It had 14 to 15 million people show up for the primary election.
The 2000 Democratic primary? It had around 14 million people show up for the primary election.
Some people now believe that you need 'hype' or enthusiasm going on, to attain the bigger vote in November. All of these debate forums and 15-plus candidates on the party platform....was supposed to deliver more people showing up and attaching themselves to the November election (2020).
Well, here's the thing, if Warren is settled upon by late February as the only viable candidate from the group....meaning Bernie and Joe are out entirely....then the dismal numbers will appear at Super-Tuesday, and Warren probably won't top more than 15-million votes for the entire primary (more than enough delegates to win the convention).
A bad formula for the November election? Yes. But this is how strange the 2016 and 2020 elections are constructed. The odds of ever constructing another Bernie-Hillary primary season? I'd say it could take another thirty years to get that much hype over two entirely different candidates, from the same party.
So I'd advise you to watch the Super-Tuesday event with the 12 states involved, and the likely scenario that you only get 50-percent of the voters showing up....compared against 2016. If this is the occurrence.....you can forget the chat or hype business, and give Trump another three or four states more than the 30 states he won in 2016.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)