|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Your article said he needs to hang tight in Nevada to have a chance in securing the nomination. He did that.
I'm skeptical, but he still has a chance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Krugman is back to attack Bernie Sanders
| Quote: |
To explain the costs and benefits of his Medicare-for-all health care plan, $15-an-hour minimum wage, gender pay equity, increased infrastructure spending and other programs, the Sanders campaign has touted an analysis performed by University of Massachusetts Amherst economist Gerald Friedman.
Earlier this week, four economists -- Alan Krueger, Christina Romer, Austan Goolsbee and Laura D’Andrea Tyson -- wrote an open letter accusing Friedman of making "extreme claims" in that study that "undermine the credibility of the progressive economic agenda." Krugman then published multiple blog posts citing the letter as evidence that the Sanders campaign was engaging in "fantasy" and "voodoo."
The problem with these condemnations, according to former JEC Executive Director James Galbraith, is that none of the economists involved in the fracas actually crunched any numbers to show why Friedman's study was supposedly such a sham. Galbraith now teaches economics at the University of Texas at Austin.
"You write that you have applied rigor to your analyses of economic proposals by Democrats and Republicans," Galbraith wrote in a letter to Krueger, Romer, Goolsbee and Tyson. "On reading this sentence I looked to the bottom of the page, to find a reference or link to your rigorous review of Professor Friedman's study. I found nothing there."
Friedman, who is a political supporter of Hillary Clinton, had projected a 5.3 percent economic growth rate under Sanders' platform. That rate is high relative to the current figure of about 2.4 percent, but Galbraith said it is clear from the paper that Friedman reached the figure by relying on "standard impact assumptions and forecasting methods."
Economic growth did in fact reach that level in 1983, 1984 and 1985, Galbraith noted, as the economy bounced back from recession and responded to the 1981 Reagan tax cuts.
"What the Friedman paper shows, is that under conventional assumptions, the projected impact of Senator Sanders' proposals stems from their scale and ambition," Galbraith wrote. "When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result."
"It is not fair or honest to claim that Professor Friedman's methods are extreme," Galbraith added. "Nor is it fair or honest to imply that you have given Professor Friedman's paper a rigorous review. You have not."
The four economists who wrote the original letter have all been chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers under either President Barack Obama or President Bill Clinton. Galbraith suggests that the real sham in the wonk scuffle is not Friedman's work, but the willingness of prestigious economists to rely on their mere authority to demean the work of others without actually analyzing it. |
Actually, they are economists, so it is probable that they are all wrong in some major way, and we should just do what seems fair, best, and just. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brooks
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2016 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
I voted in the global primary. Deadline is March 8.
Look at the Democrats Abroad website.
Republicans have no primary.
www.democratsabroad.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus2
Joined: 06 Sep 2015
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2016 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Clinton is going to have a very difficult go of things in states like Michigan and Ohio. Those states have been screwed hard by trade deals, and she's in favor of the TPP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slothrop
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's your relevant math: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/04/bernie-sanders-outraises-hillary-clinton-for-third-consecutive-month/
| Quote: |
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s fundraising juggernaut outraised Hillary Clinton’s campaign in March, surpassing her for the third consecutive month.
Clinton announced on Monday that her campaign had raised $29.5 million for the month compared with the $44 million raised by the Sanders campaign. Sanders’s March fundraising haul surpasses the campaign’s own record-setting $43.3 million raised in February. |
If a candidate keeps raising money, he never has to drop out.
By the way, the reason why you subtract super-delegates is because they are unpledged until the Convention itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#Comparison_to_pledged_delegates
| Quote: |
By contrast, the unpledged PLEO delegates (Rule 9.A) are seated without regard to their presidential preferences, solely by virtue of being current or former elected officeholders and party officials. Many of them have chosen to announce endorsements, but they are not bound in any way. They may support any candidate they wish, including one who has dropped out of the presidential race.
Unpledged PLEO delegates should not be confused with pledged PLEOs. Under Rule 9.C, the pledged PLEO slots are allocated to candidates based on the results of the primaries and caucuses.[5] Another difference between pledged PLEOs and unpledged PLEOs is that there is a fixed number of pledged PLEO slots for each state, while the number of unpledged PLEOs can change during the campaign. Pledged PLEO delegates are not generally considered superdelegates. |
Clinton's refusal to quit in 2008 haunts her in 2016:
While some allies want her to nudge Sanders out,
others say he's only behaving like she did eight years ago |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
The article itself is not bad in how it lays out the scenario, but the headline is overly dramatic, as I doubt that HRC is feeling "haunted" these days.
Anyway, I am fairly confident that there will eventually be a meeting of the minds - HRC will probably make some concessions favorable to Sander's supporters -and the Democrats will unite to soundly defeat the Orange Menace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Clinton camp keeps insisting that Bernie quit. When Clinton was clearly losing, she insisted that she should keep on going. Why should things be different for Bernie? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| The Clinton camp keeps insisting that Bernie quit. When Clinton was clearly losing, she insisted that she should keep on going. Why should things be different for Bernie? |
Who in the "camp" is insisting on that? The only thing I have heard is that they are asking that he tone down the attacks a little. (Don't fire inside the tent). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sure, he can continue to kick around and say things with that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ultra liberals are just as much about their constituency as any other type of politician, and that includes Sanders. You think Sanders would give a flying **** about me? He would be to busy supporting immigrants with other cultures, Allah bless them all. I would have to take my place in society, what ever place was deemed acceptable for me by the ultra flakes, but with his constituency that's different. There is no difference between Sanders and the others in fact he might be worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2016 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| young_clinton wrote: |
| Ultra liberals ... You think Sanders would give a flying **** about me? He would be to busy supporting immigrants with other cultures, Allah bless them all. I would have to take my place in society, what ever place was deemed acceptable for me by the ultra flakes, but with his constituency that's different. There is no difference between Sanders and the others in fact he might be worse. |
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-and-immigration-its-complicated-119190
| Quote: |
| [In 2007, the] independent warned that the immigration bill — a product from then-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — would drive down wages for lower-income workers, an argument that’s been used by hard-liner reform opponents. He paired with conservative Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on a restrictive immigration amendment. And Sanders backed provisions characterized as poison pills to unravel the bill, while voting to block the final measure in June 2007. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
