2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumQuestion about polls--is the sampling always of "likely voters"?
That would leave out most of the 63% who sat out 2014. Is it even possible for a poll to account for the involvement of large numbers of the previously alienated, most of whom don't even have landlines?
I have yet to hear a single story about self-organizing by previously uninvolved people who support Clinton. There are thousands of examples for Sanders. The local organizer for South Seattle is a 26 year old woman who has never voted. She just missed being old enough in 2008, and never saw a reason to get involved since. She and most of the younger attendees are very turned off to Democrats, but they do realize that they need us old leftover New Deal farts to teach them how to navigate the caucus system.
On September 6, a young man in SW King County has called a Sanders meeting in the Burien public library. Looked him up in VoteBuilder--No Data for party ID classification. No one in the 33rd or 34th LD Dem organizations has heard of him, and I don't know him from any of the issue groups I work with either. (Check the Events thread under WA State--I do get around quite a bit and am on lots of lists.)
There is no way in hell that Clinton appeals to any of these kids. They despise banksters and anyone perceived to be in league with them.
The older crowd of Sanders supporters are Democrats, and therefore willing to support Clinton in the general election. But the kids are not, and they will just stay home is she is the nominee.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Gallup added some cell phone sampling. But the polls are showing they can be accurate...2012, but that there are starting to have a few cracks. Most do likely. Very few look at other things like people who have never voted.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)that they will likely be voting. Most people understand that this far out polls aren't that meaningful,
Clinton still had a good lead over Obama at this time in 2007.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Right now they are useful to ignore people, if they are not catching, and for campaigns to adjust messages, nothing more. I treat them as useful noise, especially the national polls. When State polls are within six months, they start to be far more important than just trends.
I just chuckle, my poll, your poll. I share them, not here, but am aware of how much noise they really are.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)This is from the Gallup link above, in a piece written in September of 2008. And it describes generally accepted polling practice.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)in September of 2008.
They mostly report results of registered voters till closer to an election. Even in September they were still reporting mostly results of registered voters.
Here's how the last paragraph sums it up:
eridani
(51,907 posts)Still not even one anecdote about anyone self-organizing for Clinton, or any answer at all for the question of how to involve alienated voters.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)would people need to self-organize?
eridani
(51,907 posts)People who don't stand around passively waiting to be recruited get far more done.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)there is no need to self-organize.
eridani
(51,907 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)--and threatened them with consequences regarding their possible political careers if they didn't get on board with the inevitable candidate. In contrast, Obama's organizers asked PCOs what their issues were. This time around, Sanders is getting people involved in the caucus system who have never before been involved. The Clinton campaign has no presence whatsoever here at summer community festivals or other outreach events that are deluged with delegations of candidates running for state and local office.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)I haven't been in touch so I don't know about this time. If I run into her I'll be curious to find out what her take on this is.
eridani
(51,907 posts)They were totally freaked out by the threats. Old timers just saw business as usual.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)No Clinton supporter has yet explained her plan for attracting alienated voters. Helpful hint--most are turned off by blow-dried scripted campaigns.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)They should get off their asses and vote.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Not. They prefer hearing about policies that will benefit the 99%
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)It's certainly not my job to make them vote of select a candidate which "appeases" them...
eridani
(51,907 posts)--they favor Democratic policies. More business as usual contempt for people who are being fucked over is not what we need.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Then what does that say about them? Guess what it's America you can write in anyone you want, don't like the candidate du jour? Pick your own.
There is no excuse for people who just "choose" not to vote.
It's bullshit. Especially considering the people who are still regularly disenfranchised by RW tactics.
Vote. It's that easy.
eridani
(51,907 posts)People who have never voted are now committed to caucusing for Sanders in WA State. We'll need them in November next year.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)They choose not to.
I really have no patience for people who sit out elections... Again you can write in anyone you want.
You could have been voting for Bernie Sanders for the last 20 years... Sitting out an election? No excuse.
eridani
(51,907 posts)That's exactly it.
We all have the right to excercise our vote, you choose not to do it, you have to live with the consequences of that action.
I've always been able to vote "for" someone it hasn't been a problem for me.
Guess I'm lucky having lived in VT I got to vote for Sanders, and having lived in Mass I got to vote for Warren.
Sure feels good.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Not. I'd rather vote for war as only a last resort, for reigning in banksters, for no more shitty "trade" agreements, etc.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)To not vote is an exercise in futility.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--through involvement. I know because I didn't pay attention to any political policies until the Iraq war. Dean and Kucinich changed a lot of us in 2004, and those of us who stayed with the Democratic Party learned to think more long term. Sanders is inspiring more of that. Clinton is not.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Not on you or me.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Address that issue, and you will address the problem that they aren't voting.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)You can write in anyone you damn well please.
"Sitting out" an election is bullshit.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Write-ins? Okay. So you get the same effect that you would by staying home, but without hte comfort of actually staying home. That sounds like a winning strategy, doesn't it?
The answer is to find out what's going on there and field candidates that have appeal to people who feel disillusioned and disaffected.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Vote.
It's not that hard.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And your glib, smug dismissal is a perfect example of what makesp eople stay home.
You can't complain when they do so, then.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Wow... I am a "successful" anonymous internet poster than.
Get over it, vote.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)to an election, at which point they switch to polls of likely voters.
This can cause some confusion, because the switch can mean they're comparing apples to oranges.
Right now they're probably reporting registered voters.
P.S. I think your last sentence is a generalization that isn't borne out by the young people I know. They are often just like his older supporters. They prefer Bernie but will vote for Hillary rather than see a detestable Rethug as President.
And many young women like the idea of the first Female President, even if they're not thrilled with Hillary.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Sancho
(9,067 posts)There are very few polls, but it's not hard to get anecdotal evidence. For example, I was at a State Senator rally yesterday with some college faculty, teachers, and students.
Lots of college students know about Hillary. Immigrants, lots of young women interested in equal pay, and women's health. Much less awareness or support for Bernie. Nothing like the lunch rally I saw yesterday.
Hillary is known and liked in most Florida Democratic communities. College students here appreciate her efforts on the part of children and women. Many have not heard much from Bernie. His reputation on Univision is awful. Hillary on Univision is positive. It's very international here. 25% born out of the country. Almost half have some international connection.
Polls here are difficult. Most people simply refuse to answer the phone because we are bombarded with push polls and robocalls.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Endless war and unaccountable banksters turn them on?
Sancho
(9,067 posts)they are outside the system even though they have lived in the US for 20-30 years since they were children.
Also, their parents were fleeing war and terror in many cases.
So no, with over 25% in Florida born outside the US, they don't care about Wall Street or Iraq.
They DO care about a path to citizenship, social justice, and voting rights. That's why Hillary appeals to them
Sorry you don't get it.
eridani
(51,907 posts)And public banking can help the unbanked--something that I can't see Clinton ever supporting.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)I guess you can't see it...Bernie simply is wrong and not in touch with social justice. This is just one area where his proposals are naive, simplistic, and unworkable.
College students in Florida get it. At least the few hundred I saw yesterday did...even when they are legal over half have a relative in the US who isn't.
Clinton has proposed EXACTLY what is needed - voting rights, path to citizenship for starters.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Funny how all the born again "social justice" folks think that keeping people poor is no big deal.
Social justice is irrelevant as a campaign issue mainly because there are no serious distinctions among Democratic candidates on these issues. Any Democrat will support reproductive rights, a good pathway to citizenship and demilitarizing the police. OK--not quite irrelevant. Clinton supports the death penalty, which targets minorities disproportionately. Sanders and O'Malley do not.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)I don't have time to post AGAIN Hillary's proposals and years of work on immigration. It's easy to find and different than other candidates.
Same with voting rights. Look it up if you wish.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Sancho
(9,067 posts)I can tell you that there are real differences. I'll give you one small one, but these have been argued before.
NY and Maryland have tuition equity. (So does Florida for most public colleges). That means that if you were brought to the US as a 5 year old and you are undocumented - you pay in state tuition.
If you live in VERMONT (note that's Bernie's state), you either pay out-of-state tuition or maybe can't get into college at all if you are undocumented. Immigrants are very aware of these differences.
Those "little things" are part of a large fabric of efforts by Hillary. She has been on Univision here for years. A lot of the work has been through the Clinton foundation, not the US Government. She has had an outreach for decades in the schools, with women, with minorities, and with immigrants. Here's a snippet:
http://correctrecord.org/ and the Clinton Foundation. If anything, there's no hagiography that really captures ALL that Hillary has done over the decades - and she has constantly been on the front lines (we see it on Univision, etc.) or working with African American churches...you can be critical of Hillary for whatever you want, but her hands-on record with minority and latinos is the best of all the candidates of both parties.
-------------------------------
Hillary Clinton has called passage of DREAM Act long overdue.
She was one of the two cosponsors of Senator Ted Kennedys 2004 bill, the S.O.L.V.E. Act, and during her time in the Senate she continued to cosponsor and vote for comprehensive immigration reform legislation.
Hillary Clinton introduced the Legal Immigrant Childrens Health Improvement Act.
Hillary Clinton developed and introduced legislation to expand job training access to people with limited English language skills.
Hillary Clinton called for passage of legislation so that All immigrants on the verge of gaining residency status should not be forced to leave this country while they wait for the INS to process their application.
In 2007, during debate over the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, Hillary Clinton introduced an amendment to reclassify the spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents as immediate relatives.
Senator Clinton stood with the nations governors and mayors in 2003 against budget reductions to the AmeriCorps program.
The Alliance for a Healthier Generation, founded by the American Heart Association and the Clinton Foundation, works to reduce the prevalence of childhood obesity and to empower kids to develop lifelong, healthy habits. The Alliance works with schools, companies, community organizations, healthcare professionals and families to transform the conditions and systems that lead to healthier children. - See more at: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work/alliance-healthier-generation#sthash.ROXdcrsH.dpuf
Were working with our partners one playground at a time to transform public, community spaces into inclusive environments that are fully accessible to children and families of all backgrounds and abilities. With conversation prompts in both Spanish and English, we hope to encourage fun, language-rich interactions between parents and children as a regular component of playtime. - See more at: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/blog/2015/07/18/transforming-playgrounds-make-play-time-talk-time#sthash.Wgz3M2ut.dpuf
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-attend-clementa-pinckney-funeral-119448.html
Clinton was in Charleston on the day of the shooting, which killed nine African-American churchgoers on June 17, though she left the state earlier in the evening after a pair of campaign stops and a fundraiser in town.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/univision-hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-117851.html
Inside the Univision-Clinton network
The ties between the Clintons and the Spanish language television network run deep.
Hillary Clinton Has Deep History With Latinos And Theres Not A Lot The GOP Can Do About It
Hillary Clinton applauds United Farm Workers President Arturo Rodriguez during a rally in Salinas, California, on Jan. 22, 2008.
Republicans are keenly aware that they must begin to peel away Latino voters from Democrats, who gave President Obama 71% of their vote in 2012. But theres a huge problem for those 2016 efforts, rarely discussed and largely forgotten.
Hillary Clinton, the presumptive favorite for the Democratic nomination, beat Obama 21 among Latino voters in the 2008 primary. It wasnt just name recognition, either. The Clintons have a robust network of Latino leaders and activists, and long history with outreach that dates back to 1970s in Texas.
This is not to say Clintons path is totally clear her 2008 campaign was not without stumbles, and she faced difficult questions last year from activists on immigration. If Jeb Bush were the Republican nominee, some argue, he might actually compete for a significant share of Latino support, something activists arent totally closed to. But there is no other candidate both as likely to win a party nomination and who will start with the established, enduring Latino support, as Clinton.
Republicans have a Latino problem, said Alfonso Aguilar, a former official in the George W. Bush administration and director of the American Principles Projects Latino Partnership, which promotes conservative values to the Latino community. He described the Republican policies around immigration that put the party stuck between an Obama amnesty position and a Steve King enforcement-only stance.
Hillary would be a formidable candidate with Hispanics, he said.
Even for a candidate who has been on the national stage for decades, Clintons history with Latino voters goes back a surprisingly long way.
In 1972, when a young Hillary and Bill Clinton were working the ill-fated George McGovern campaign, she worked closely with well-respected union leader, Franklin Garcia, who took her under his wing as she helped register Latino voters in south Texas and along the Rio Grande Valley.
Hispanics in South Texas were, she wrote in her 2003 memoir Living History, understandably, wary of a blond girl from Chicago who didnt speak a word of Spanish. But Garcia took me places I could never have gone alone and vouched for me to Mexican Americans who worried I might be from the immigration service or some other government agency. Garcia drove her and Bill across the border to Matamoros, a dive that had only a decent mariachi band, she wrote, but where she indulged in barbecued cabrito, or goat.
Garry Mauro, one of her first contacts in Texas, told the San Antonio Express in 2008 that back then she had a cultural affinity with Hispanics, asking questions and listening to their concerns, a dynamic that would be on display again, more than three decades later in Nevada, as she tried to woo an influential Latino activist.
Eddie Escobedo was a flashy dresser suits and hats to match and hotly in demand by Democratic politicians.
The owner of a radio station and El Mundo newspaper, both of which he used to great effect, the late Escobedo was an important ally for anyone who wanted to get their message out to Latinos in Nevada. Thats why Brian Greenspun, a Clinton ally who runs the Greenspun Media Group (which includes the Las Vegas Sun, Las Vegas Weekly, and Las Vegas Magazine), invited Escobedo along with other minority leaders to his home for dinner to meet with Clinton as she was exploring a 2008 campaign.
She had a way about her, says Eddie Escobedo Jr., who was at the dinner. His father died in 2010 and left El Mundo to him
The way my dad explained it, she was somebody you could talk to, Escobedo Jr. said. She spoke from the heart and asked about what the Hispanic community was going through and what had to be done. My dad was taken aback by Hillary, by how she was able to communicate and listen and how she wanted to help Hispanics.
"Escobedo supported Clinton tooth and nail, his son says but of course she did not win. Obama campaign senior advisers repeatedly went to the El Mundo offices to wear down the activist, and finally got him to take a call from Obama. The two eventually had a meeting at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, where Escobedo presented Obama with a T-shirt and hat with the words El Jefe the boss on them.
When Escobedo died from cancer in 2010, the Clintons offered their condolences in a letter to the family and Obama called Escobedo Jr.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/hillary-clinton-has-deep-history-with-latinos-and-theres-not#.puq3DPp9X
eridani
(51,907 posts)And executing people of color on death row is no big deal to HRC.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)simply put, NONE of the Democratic candidate have the experience and track record in the trenches that comes close to Hillary. You can throw out irrational criticisms all you want, but most of us who are objective can see the evidence.
That's why polls of immigrants and women and minorities have her way ahead: it's NOT a "plan" or a "speech". They have seen Hillary in their neighborhood for 35 years!!
It's not just work as a Senator - but work with Children's Defense Fund, the Clinton Foundation, Women's rights and personal interventions. People in those groups have seen it first hand.
No other candidate is in the ball park.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Tough on crime, financial deregulation (foreclosures disproportionately affecting people of color obviously don't matter), shitty "trade" deals that have lost millions of family wage jobs. BTW, her best pal Marian Wright Edelman from the Children's Defense Fund denounced welfare "reform" in 1996 with no effect whatsoever on HRC.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)read all the empirical evidence and links in this thread. When you finish that one I'll get you plenty more.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251561348
eridani
(51,907 posts)Sancho
(9,067 posts)You'll see why it's not so simple. You don't have to agree with me, but I see what the majority see, and that's why Hillary is ahead in the sunbelt with voters outside of the NE and Mid-west suburbs.
I've listened to Bernie for years on Thom Hartmann, so I know his positions well. For my issues and in my view, Hillary is by far the better candidate.
After all the arguments on DU, I've looked into the candidates more carefully. If anything, I've lowered my opinion of Bernie as I've investigated, and that has nothing to do with the constant personal attacks on DU.
I'm very objective, I don't vote on "one issue", and I try to consider what's practical.
The vast majority of voters won't carefully examine all the candidates; they will vote a certain way because they are affiliated with a group (union, Democrat, race, gender, etc.), or they will vote on the basis of an issue (woman's rights, SS, path to citizenship, etc.) or they will vote for a particular personality (Bill and Obama were good ones). The undecided with be influenced by a barrage of advertising.
Right now, Hillary is winning on the group identifications and majority of the issues for me. She has the resources to put up a fight against the GOP on advertising. Neither Bernie or Hillary are "TV" type personalities. On balance, she's the stronger candidate.
eridani
(51,907 posts)I don't vote on one issue either. Wherever Clinton is right on an issue, she is very little different than all the other Dem candidates. Where she is wrong, she is a walking disaster.
Being a Democrat, I'll campaign for her if she gets the nomination. But it is going to be damned hard to get my old bones out of bed to campaign for the following--
--endless war
--TPP
--Keystone XL
--sucking up to banksters and fucking over homeowners
--tough on crime
--welfare "reform"
--the death penalty
--chained CPI
Sancho
(9,067 posts)and I would disagree with Bernie on some of those.
As to endless war (my father was an MD during Korea and I was A1 in the Vietnam draft), watch the new Michael Moore movie when it come out. Hillary did not vote a declaration of war - and neither did Congress:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=556376
The TPP is not done yet, and trade agreements are not all bad. I pointed that out in other thread.
Keystone is dead, but Hillary has worked nationally and internationally for decades to deal with renewables. Again, that is touched on in my response linked earlier.
Crime when Bill was coming into office was at an all time high. Now it's at an all time low. It's not prison, but demographics that likely are the reason for the change. Also, environmental factors.
At any rate, SS will only be protected by a Democratic President.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--and Cheney were capable of.
And yes, modern "trade" agreements are all bad. They used to be about negotiating mutual tariff reductions, and I certainly have no problem with that. NAFTA and everything since have been about empowering corporations over elected governments, racing to the bottom, and nothing else.
Just in the past few years:
A French company sued Egypt after Egypt raised its minimum wage.
A Swedish company sued Germany because Germany wanted to phase out nuclear power for safety reasons.
A Dutch company sued the Czech Republic because the Czech Republic didn't bail out a bank that the Dutch company partially owned.
Philip Morris is using ISDS right now to try to stop countries like Australia and Uruguay from implementing new rules that are intended to cut smoking rates because the new laws might eat into the tobacco giants profits.
There are no significant differences among Dem candidates on protecting reproductive rights and enacting the DREAM Act. There are significant differences on SocSec, though. O'Malley and Sanders have come out for expanding Social Security and Scrapping the Cap. Clinton said that the latter hurts "the middle class," as defined by her 1%er perspective. Unless she comes out in direct opposition to chained CPI, I'm assuming that it's on the table. She has not endorsed the existing Expand Social Security Act, as Sanders and O'Malley have.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)There are easy tax dodges for wealthy people if the cap on SS is lifted. The tax will end up hurting the middle class and the rich will not pay it anyway.
Sorry, but almost all the items you mention are not what you think. On NAFTA and TPP alone (and I've posted this before). Read the links, but first listen to the Rhem shows.
ttp://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-12-30/nafta-20-years-after-neither-miracle-nor-disaster
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/pros-and-cons-of-nafta.aspx
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/u-s-economy-since-nafta-18-charts/
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nafta-20-years-later-benefits-outweigh-costs/
http://www.ttgconsultants.com/articles/freetrade.html
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-06-16/what-the-proposed-pacific-trade-deal-could-mean-for-u-s-jobs
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-02-03/understanding_the_trans_pacific_partnership_and_what_the_trade_deal_could_mean_for_the_u_s_economy
eridani
(51,907 posts)The thing about FICA is that you can't dodge it, so spare us the nonsense about how it gives anyone a tax break. What kind of tone-deaf idiot thinks that $110K to $500K is "middle class"?
Clinton is shilling for 1%ers and banksters, and it will be very hard for me to work for her in the general election. Though I'll do it because of the far worse alternative.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)All you have to do to avoid FICA is move income to a "nontaxable" shelter - you can talk to your favorite tax lawyer about that, but I've posted a link already. Since the rich move money offshore they don't even need a shelter in many cases.
Bernie (and you) simply don't understand and I'm not an "idiot" or "tone-deaf". See what I mean by the personal attacks. You are the one who is not looking at the links and you don't seem to understand. The fact is that Bernie has a plan that will not work.
Clinton is NOT shilling. I'll give you the link again:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=561850
Bernie is trying to hawk another of his simplistic economic solutions that he thinks would make a difference to the inequity we've all talked about for a few years. He proposes raising the SS cap on taxable income. NOTE THEY LAST PART: Taxable Income. Even a post on DU this week demonstrated a tax dodge to get around this new law - if it ever passed:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251560231
[the Forbes tax dodge]
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2015/08/30/tax-planning-for-the-risk-of-a-bernie-sanders-win/
Social Security
This proposal is huge in my mind. They would apply the social security tax on incomes over $250,000 The current limit is $118,500. So it seems like there would be a tax-free bubble between $118,500 and $250,000. Its hard to see the policy justification for the bubble, but that is neither here nor there. This change would cost Sanders main opponent Hillary Clinton well over $1,000,000 in self-employment tax on her self-employment income, mainly from speeches, of over $13,390,499. The current solution, not open to Hillary probably for political reasons, is to do what Newt Gingrich did and run your income through an S Corporation.
If you have thought about converting your business to an S Corporation and passed it by, you should probably think again. There is an immediate savings on the medicare tax, as long as you are not piggy about it and it would pay off big time if this change went through. Certainly if you are running a professional practice as a C corporation and bonusing everything out, you should really take another look. You probably should do that anyway, but here is an extra incentive.
Hillary is well aware of ways to protect SS, and she has mentioned raising the cap as a possible change years ago. She is also aware it's a waste of time without closing loopholes. Hillary has repeatedly states she would protect SS. She also does not want to increase taxes on the middle class. Simply raising the cap would likely affect more middle class families, while the wealthy would simply use a tax dodge to avoid paying the increase. Bernie's plan needs to avoid that regressive problem, and that's the main reason it's not a simple fix. Remember that with inflation, what affects the rich now will be "middle class" in a decade or two. Raising the cap might work in favor of the rich and against the middle class if it's not implemented correctly, so maybe it's not a good idea.
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm
Privatization off the table; but maybe payroll cap increase
During her 2008 presidential bid, Clinton was relatively non-committal about reforms to the Social Security program. She said in 2007 that certain reforms such as cutting benefits, privatizing the program or raising the retirement age were "off the table." There were some articles at the time that gave mixed signals on whether she would be willing to increase payroll taxes.
One account from the Associated Press featured a conversation between a campaigning Clinton and an Iowa voter in which the candidate said she might consider committing more of workers' income to Social Security. "She told him she didn't want to put an additional tax burden on the middle class but would consider a 'gap,' with no Social Security taxes on income from $97,500 to around $200,000. Anything above that could be taxed," according to the article.
eridani
(51,907 posts)I'm in the 1040EZ class. There are always ways to close loopholes. Clinton would prefer not to raise taxes on her bankster friends. If we could have much higher tax rates in the 50s (to afford stuff like the interstate highway system) we can have it again Your attitude seems to be that the non-rich should just bend over and take it.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)Bernie's plan allows the rich to avoid SS tax increases. Hillary is the one being careful to say we need to close the loopholes instead of simply raising taxes on the average person, small business, and middle class while the rich continue to pay nothing.
Sorry if you didn't read the article or understand it.
Bernie's plan WON'T WORK! Even though it's just a proposal (probably would never pass Congress), Forbes magazine has ALREADY written an article stating one way to avoid Bernie's SS cap tax!! The wealthy will have no problem getting around it just like they often do.
Hillary is correctly explaining that raising the SS cap will affect family businesses (middle class), and as inflation raising wages (just like the alternative minimum tax, etc.), raising the SS cap will include more and more middle class families. It will become a regressive tax, where the average tax payer loses out and the rich get away again.
I sent you links. Bernie has a number of proposals that are too simple and won't work. If you don't like it, that's fine, but those are the facts. Bernie is wrong on this issue. That's as clear as anyone can make it.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Job creators are those who have enough disposable income to buy things. Legislation can always be modified to cut off possible consequences at the pass. Clinton doesn't give a shit, because her constituency is people making more than $110K.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Methodologies differ from poll to poll but most pollsters ask the respondents if they are likely to vote and if the answer is yes they are categorized as likely voters. Consequently if a voter who never voted before or voted regularly he or she would be included as a likely voter, regardless of who he or she is voting for.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's pretty much their only real value-add, for that matter, is having a model for who will actually vote.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)What should excite those who do not make the effort to vote is getting more responsive answers from the ones in power. Under current conditions the ones elected can make a judgement everything I just fine with any decision is made so they do not have to make anyone happy but the Republicans who have voted in the majority.
I am sure the GOTV campaigns made enough noise to have been heard, but maybe it hasn't. The Grassroots campaign run by Obama worked hard on getting people out to vote.
What would motivate me to vote every election is knowing if I dont vote the party in favor handling the issues near and dear to me. If I dont vote then I should not bitch because I have not put forth an effort. Everyone wants to ride on the wagon on easy street but does take a turn to push the wagon.