2020 Democratic Party primary thread

[highlander]

You don't mention the decades long effort by the GOP and the SCOTUS to destroy unions.

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 - SCOTUSblog

The Democrats are not as bad but they're getting there. Gotta have goals.

You simply make it sound as if the usefulness ran its course and oh, corruption with zero outside influence.

I have to admit that I am influenced by my dad on this topic. He worked in factories for the better part of his life - much of it in the auto industry and part of it in the aircraft industry. He's not someone to say much bad about anything or anyone but he did have some pretty negative things to say about unions. I don't think he was a republican or a democrat and he grew up in England. The negative things he mentioned included their strong-arm tactics to get him personally to join one at one point.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I have to admit that I am influenced by my dad on this topic. He worked in factories for the better part of his life - much of it in the auto industry and part of it in the aircraft industry. He's not someone to say much bad about anything or anyone but he did have some pretty negative things to say about unions. I don't think he was a republican or a democrat and he grew up in England. The negative things he mentioned included their strong-arm tactics to get him personally to join one at one point.

So you have a personal bias.

What I would ask you then, why the absolute position that unions are bad? You've highlighted valid problems with the unions, but why instead not advocate for reforms rather than total abolition of unions? It just seems off to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[highlander]

So you have a personal bias.

What I would ask you then, why the absolute position that unions are bad? You've highlighted valid problems with the unions, but why instead not advocate for reforms rather than total abolition of unions? It just seems off to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It's a philosophical bias as well. I think they can benefit their members in the short term but they do things like:
1. hurt consumers who are charged more for products
2. make companies less competitive by artificially increasing wages above market demands and negatively impact their ability to be agile to changing market conditions
3. make it very difficult to fire people who underperform and make companies more risk averse in hiring as a result
4. retard economic growth by making companies less competitive and reducing the number of jobs in an economy
5. drive artificial behavior such the early retirement of teachers and unchecked pension liability debts in states and local municipalities, thereby hurting all of the taxpayers in a given state

I look at negative things that companies and organizations do that are harmful - such as hiring many part time workers so they don't have to give out benefits. In cases like that, I'd opt for putting labor laws in place that make it more difficult to engage in those kinds of abuses.

I guess it's not a blanket thing though. In certain cases, I think it's good. The NFL players need representation from a union because the players are in dangerous jobs and exploited while they are young, leading to long term health problems.In developing countries, I think unions are probably a very good idea.

So yeah, I'm not advocating the abolition of unions. I just think in the long term in most cases they seem to do more harm than good these days.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

It's a philosophical bias as well. I think they can benefit their members in the short term but they:
1. hurt consumers who are charged more for products
2. make companies less competitive by artificially increasing wages above market demands
3. make it very difficult to fire people who underperform and make companies more risk averse in hiring as a result
4. retard economic growth by making companies less competitive and reducing the number of jobs in an economy
5. drive artificial behavior such the early retirement of teachers and unchecked pension liability debts in states and local municipalities, thereby hurting all of the taxpayers in a given state

I look at negative things that companies and organizations do that are harmful - such as hiring many part time workers so they don't have to give out benefits. In cases like that, I'd opt for putting labor laws in place that make it more difficult to engage in those kinds of abuses.

I guess it's not a blanket thing though. In certain cases, I think it's good. The NFL players need representation from a union because the players are in dangerous jobs and exploited while they are young, leading to long term health problems.

Those are fair criticisms.

I think what I would want to ask of people like your dad who had negative experiences with unions would be: would he expect to have received the same level of benefits and wages he got had there been no union protection in his industry?

Wages have steadily declined as union membership has declined since the 1950s. For that matter, many of the current labor laws we have in place in the US (child labor laws, overtime pay laws, etc) were only enacted after years of lobbying from labor unions. If the proper regulations existed to protect workers' safety and rights, I could understand the argument that unions have outlived their usefulness. That said, it seems like many republicans not only want to do away with unions, but with some of those regulations that exist to protect workers. This is one reason I can think of that unions are still necessary. Business leaders and owners can more easily lobby for laws that benefit them. The individual worker has little say in this, whereas having a collectivized union makes it easier for them to also have a voice in policy that directly affects them. I think unions are inherently democratic in making it far easier for workers' voices to be heard alongside those business leaders. And as long as anyone seeks to enact laws that potentially harm workers, those workers deserve a voice and a say in the process. Their ability to vote in elections isn't nearly enough guarantee that those in office will work in their best interests (especially given the way big business will lobby and buy elected officials). Unions are an important tool to lobby for continued protections of workers. I believe it's naïve to assume businesses will always act virtuously and protect their workers' best interests when left unchecked.

 

[highlander]

Those are fair criticisms.

I think what I would want to ask of people like your dad who had negative experiences with unions would be: would he expect to have received the same level of benefits and wages he got had there been no union protection in his industry?

Wages have steadily declined as union membership has declined since the 1950s. For that matter, many of the current labor laws we have in place in the US (child labor laws, overtime pay laws, etc) were only enacted after years of lobbying from labor unions. If the proper regulations existed to protect workers' safety and rights, I could understand the argument that unions have outlived their usefulness. That said, it seems like many republicans not only want to do away with unions, but with some of those regulations that exist to protect workers. This is one reason I can think of that unions are still necessary. Business leaders and owners can more easily lobby for laws that benefit them. The worker has little say in this, whereas having a collectivized union makes it easier for them to also have a voice in policy that directly affects them. I think unions are inherently democratic in making it far easier for workers' voices to be heard alongside those business leaders.

My understanding is he never joined. The last company he worked for definitely paid its workers more money for a period of years. Eventually, the products became overpriced relative to value and quality suffered. US companies stagnated. The result was that a whole new set of foreign competitors took over much of the industry and large number of jobs moved overseas and to Mexico as the US companies moved manufacturing jobs to locations that were more economical. The company never recovered to anywhere near the market share they had previously and thus it impacts the US economy and jobs.

You are right in what you say about companies lobbying for laws that benefit them. Look at the NRA. As I said much of Washington being broken has to do with the influence of corporate interests. Something needs to fundamentally change there. I don't think unions are necessarily the answer.

 

[Maou]

@highlander

@Maou

So far these criticisms of unions seem to be general criticisms that could apply to many types of organizations. For instance, as another member already pointed out, the criticism that unions stifle productivity levels is generally true about a lot of non-union businesses as well. I worked in a factory in a non-union state and we also had to deal with quota levels, being told to essentially pace our work, even at times when we could've completed weekly work rates early. I also saw obviously less-qualified people sometimes promoted or given raises purely on the basis of seniority or how well they got along with the boss rather than any consideration of merit. These problems are in no way limited to unions, and singling them out as though they are whilst naively pretending non-union companies only care about innovation, maximum productivity and merit-based advancement is dishonest--it involves comparing one on the dirty reality and the other on the flowery ideal. It doesn't seem based in any objective comparison so much as is in a tendency to evaluate unions only on their worst aspects whilst evaluating non union business practices only on their best traits or their ideal operating models. I don't claim unions to be perfect or ideal, but at least evaluate them in a fair light rather than just repeating the same tired anti-union talking points replete with words and phrases such as "stifle growth", "innovation" etc.

You're not looking at the big picture, and what happens when a "merited worker" is an asshole and hated by everyone in the work group? Many people play their cards right entirely for their own benefits, while getting away with murder. Being in a union makes it harder to fire these assholes who have been in the business forever. Sometimes, even committing crimes while being protected. You see this in teacher unions all the time. Merit should only go as far as the boss's judgement on what is best for the company. It allows for competition, and healthy changes. Having the same old fucks in the same building forever, means nothing will ever change and improve. Synergy is just as important as merit, but only one gets benefits. The other gets a better time at work. Non-unionized jobs are far more likely to change hands often as well, if people do a poor job.

 

[highlander]

I watched Elizabeth Warren's town hall tonight. As much as she rubs me the wrong say in the debates, she killed it in the town hall. Very persuasive performance and good connection with the audience.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Bernie Sanders Boards the Wrong Private Jet, Campaign Brain Fart

 

[Tellenbach]

3% of the vote in. Biden with a sizable lead (he's over 51%) over Steyer and Sanders. Warren coming in dead last with 4%.

 

[JocktheMotie]

it's a shame biden won't be able to stay awake to see his win tonight

 

[Virtual ghost]

it's a shame biden won't be able to stay awake to see his win tonight

However the irony is that this could create serious problems for the establishment. Because this means that Joe is staying viable, what means he will split the vote with Bloomberg. Which invested too much to just give up. Therefore since those two "alphas" will fight on the centrist side someone like Pete or Steyer will probably stay just for the sake of it, hoping for a miracle. While on the other hand Warren really isn't going anywhere.



Therefore it can be questionable which side is really winning or losing here.

 

[Tomb1]

only thing tom steyer can win is bobblehead-in-chief:

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

However the irony is that this could create serious problems for the establishment. Because this means that Joe is staying viable, what means he will split the vote with Bloomberg. Which invested too much to just give up. Therefore since those two "alphas" will fight on the centrist side someone like Pete or Steyer will probably stay just for the sake of it, hoping for a miracle. While on the other hand Warren really isn't going anywhere.



Therefore it can be questionable which side is really winning or losing here.

I want him to stay in and split the moderate vote. It gets that much harder for everyone to coalesce around Buttigieg or Bloomberg if he's in the picture.

 

[Stigmata]

I really hate Pete Buttigieg's smug expressions -- he's like the arrogant antagonist of every Disney channel original movie.

 

[Nicodemus]

Meh, Biden survives. After Tuesday, I expect Klobuchar and Warren and probably Pete to exit. Then we have Bernie and Biden and, given the stupidity of people in great numbers, likely a nominee Biden who will stumble through speeches, fall from a stage and embarrass himself with half-remembered anecdotes. It is anyone's guess then if the American people want an old fart or a deranged clown as their president.

Considering how many remarkable people there are in this world, it is quite sad that it is always such mediocre men who end up at the top.

We should probably move on from democracy. It hardly worked out for the people. Sorry, Abe.

 

[Jaguar]

America’s nightmare
Bernie Sanders, nominee
The senator from Vermont would present America with a terrible choice

Sometimes people wake from a bad dream only to discover that they are still asleep and that the nightmare goes on. This is the prospect facing America if, as seems increasingly likely, the Democrats nominate Bernie Sanders as the person to rouse America from President Donald Trump’s first term. Mr Sanders won the primary in New Hampshire, almost won in Iowa, trounced his rivals in Nevada and is polling well in South Carolina. Come Super Tuesday next week, in which 14 states including California and Texas allot delegates, he could amass a large enough lead to make himself almost impossible to catch.

Moderate Democrats worry that nominating Mr Sanders would cost them the election. This newspaper worries that forcing Americans to decide between him and Mr Trump would result in an appalling choice with no good outcome. It will surprise nobody that we disagree with a self-described democratic socialist over economics, but that is just the start. Because Mr Sanders is so convinced that he is morally right, he has a dangerous tendency to put ends before means. And, in a country where Mr Trump has whipped up politics into a frenzy of loathing, Mr Sanders’s election would feed the hatred.

America’s nightmare - Bernie Sanders, nominee | Leaders | The Economist

 

[Tellenbach]

Yesterday morning, CNN's Smerconish had a Democrat superdelegate on who said that Bernie should expect that the DNC would follow the rules if no one gets a majority of the votes. Basically, unless Bernie gets 50% +1 of the votes, they're going to give the nomination to Biden or Hillary.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Meh, Biden survives. After Tuesday, I expect Klobuchar and Warren and probably Pete to exit. Then we have Bernie and Biden and, given the stupidity of people in great numbers, likely a nominee Biden who will stumble through speeches, fall from a stage and embarrass himself with half-remembered anecdotes. It is anyone's guess then if the American people want an old fart or a deranged clown as their president.

I understand your concerns, and personally, I view Biden as a disaster of a nominee, but you should keep in mind that he poured everything he had into Super Tuesday. Sanders poured a lot into Super Tuesday. Biden may pick up a couple of southern states, but everything else looks like it's going for Sanders, including California and even Texas. The real danger here is a brokered convention; I see it as very unlikely that Biden will win even a plurality votes. Here's hoping the margins of victory in the states Sanders wins on Tuesday are big enough to make those concerns unlikely.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Bloomberg campaign manager says they have considered naming running mate during primaries | TheHill

Clinton? His campaign never denied it, i should note. The response was a non-denial. If so, I can't believe the bubble this guy lives in. That would make it even harder to vote for him.

I voted for her last time; I find the idea that I should vote for a loser again just because it was "her turn" and "she should have won" regunant (especially when she'll lose again). That would make it even more likely that I would not vote for a Democrat for President for the first time ever.

Also, the thing nobody ever points out about Bernie Trump voters is that, ironically, more people who voted for Clinton in 2008 voted for McCain. Not only does it seem like Clinton supporters are less committed to not voting Republican than Sanders voters, but even in that case it didn't cost Obama the election. Unlike Hillary, Obama didn't run a shitty campaign that rested on his laurels because his opponent was "not strategically difficult."

The Bernie voters who defected to Trump, explained by a political scientist

Moreover, defections from a primary to general election are common. More voters went from Hillary Clinton to John McCain in 2008 than went from Sanders to Trump in 2016; about 13 percent of Trump’s 2016 voters also voted for Barack Obama in 2012.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Warren and Buttigieg supporters I know are going off the rails a bit now. They'll get over it.