That ain't happening lmao

Sounds like Keith Ellison is a lock.

Then again I thought HRC was too.

Its a shame that due to the hang over of the present economic system we have to worry about a development (robots) that will let us hang at the beach whilst HAL does all the heavy lifting.

Hanging at the beach time will probably be delayed for several decades (probably until after I die though as life's final sick joke I will probably be fully cognisant of it right round the corner before I buy the farm) as people refuse to accept the new paradigm, which is a shame because the big winners now can be the big winners then, we can hang at the beach and they can pay the big dollars required to enter the 24/7 West World style roman orgy.

Not going to mention Hegel's master and slave theory.

You left out tech and finance, but overall there are obviously more good paying jobs now than in the past. As for why immigration, out of the 8 people in my group 6 are immigrants (3 from china and India). It would certainly hurt the quality of the work we do if we had increased artificial barriers to hiring who we think is the best. Its not an insult to Americans, but unavoidable given the population of the rest of the world.

Holy crap.



source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...s-gain-suburbs

I meant more in the middle class where the jobs seem to be getting gutted by improved efficiency and automation. Not really the "knowledge industries" that are going to be replaced.

Obviously if you go get a masters in data analytics you stand a pretty good chance to find a job.

We still need society to be a major meritocracy but I do wonder if in an age where the newest enterprises are more nimble, more efficient, smaller in scope and size and still able to scale, if we just simply have too many people for it. I don't really know.

Look at something like coal industry, that isn't close to the number of jobs lost as robo-vehicles and transportation would bring and it is a major problem.

So in some ways I feel like we are at the tip of the iceberg.

This was clearly wrong but that specific quote from Schumer was from July, not today. It's making the rounds today in a strange way like Schumer said it today as a prediction about 2018 or something. I mean obviously he's completely wrong but in ways that were more or less consensus. He was also correct on the phenomenon, just not on the scale: Democrats are shedding blue collar whites and are gaining suburban moderates on the whole and that played out on Tuesday. The problem is the "no worry" part of it since a miscalculation of scope should have been a cause for worry.

Also as I've said, perhaps the wrong question to ask -- maybe the better one was shoring up undependable Democratic voters than converting suburban moderates.

I mean if the Dem/GOP two-party system were to ever legit collapse, wouldn't it look a little like this? Seems like somewhere in the range of possible outcomes for 2020 is that we have an election with like four or five or six legit candidates

First past the post system, hard to imagine anything more than 2 parties being logical for more than a short period of time. I mean Trump just won 100% of the power with like 47% of the vote. That's a huge, ringing incentive for perpetuating the two party system (if you're a Republican, this time). At some point, even if we agree the parties are at an inflection point, failing, etc. -- any nascent party beyond the 2nd will figure out a coalition of interests to be one of the major two parties to grab 100% of the power is better than winning 25% of nothing.

In real, not fake news along the lines of the Schumer quote above, turns out the opposite is happening and Schumer wants Keith Ellison to run the DNC.

Wow. That would bring some progressive excitement. The parties are changing.

I don't disagree. Maybe you will wind up with a total realignment, a total collapse of the Democrats or whatever. Parties with different names. A reorganization of the coalitions. I mean the 1850s Republican Party was just a bunch of reformed Whigs from the 1840s. It was just a trivial rebranding exercise after the tensions of the Compromise of 1850 and questions around slavery. Daniel Webster couldn't shake the influences of slave holders out of the Whigs so after he died, the rest of the northern Whigs just started the No (Southern) Whigs Club, called it the Republican Party after the Kansas Nebraska Act.

But without huge Constitutional changes, the end result in short order will be a return to the two party duopoly. The incentives for it are baked deeply in our Constitutional order.

In both cases they filled the void left by other parties falling apart. They weren't third parties, lol. The 1824 election (before Jackson became first Democrat president in 1828) was contested by four people from the same party jfc.

Dingell Says she tried to warn the WH that her MI constituents were not happy with the party. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...6d4_story.html

O'Malley seemed really weird to me from the beginning. Did he just not get the memo that it was HRC's turn. Or did the dems decided that they needed someone to run against her to give the appearance of the race. It just seemed so random.

Maybe....the thing is the "knowledge industries" are totally cool with subsidizing everybody else. But everybody else seems to want to build a wall and ban Muslims.

In case people are confused what you mean.

She's my Congresswoman which gives me no great authority here other than to say the following:

1. the Dingell dynasty has always skated the line between centrist and progressive
2. I get tons of her fund-raising emails daily and was exposed to a lot of her campaign rhetoric and posturing and I honestly can't remember her clarion calls about Trump's appeals. She can pretend she was Michael Moore but I sincerely can't remember it
3. she knows the GOP are huge favorites to control the redistricting process in 2020
4. related, she probably remembers what happened to Lynn Rivers the last time the MI state GOP took aim at the Dingells, sees the writing on the wall that she's going to get Ann Arbor cracked and half of her voters are getting stuffed into Tim Wallberg's district or she is going heads up with John Conyers (who will be like 94 years old or something) in some new Wayne County + downriver (read: angry whites) district and that either way becoming a half-Trumpkin is now entirely convenient for her.

Full disclosure, I may have had some personal/professional stakes in the 2002 primary that are coloring my analysis here.

On the other hand she's going to be fascinating to watch as emblematic of Democratic posturing in the Trump Era and beyond since the Republicans ARE going to target Democrats with chaos and create some MI districts that are colorful in ways that are entirely emblematic of the problems with the Democratic coalition. You're going to get one or two districts out of like a 200 sq mile area with Dearborn (Muslims) + downriver (angry whites) + Ann Arbor (effete white liberals) + Wayne county (mix of blacks, angry whites) and Democrats are going to have to figure out how to make it work there.

So far:
President
Hillary Clinton 60,467,601 votes
Donald Trump 60,072,551 votes
Clinton is expected to end up with 1-2 million more votes than Trump after all votes are counted.

Senate (preliminary)
Democratic Senate Candidates 45.2 million votes
Republican Senate Candidates 39.3 million votes
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...-too/93598998/

House of Representatives
It's hard to say at this point for a couple of reasons, but it looks like this vote was within a couple of percentage points as well nationwide.

I think there could be popular support for ending the electoral college. Obviously partisan Republicans would want to protect it right now, but their advantage isn't necessarily baked in. The right Republican candidate, someone like Bloomberg, could shift their votes enough towards California and New York and away from the Midwest/South that they could end up winning the popular vote and losing the electoral vote.

Yeah, it's absurd that 500k people from Wyoming have the same representation in the Senate as 30+ million people in California. Wyoming is not a province, it's just a part of America where 500k people live and they should have 500k/300M say in what the Federal Government does.

The Democrats aren't any more or less democratic, they're just disadvantaged by how the system is set up. Like it sucks that the constituencies that make up modern Democrats weren't available to take advantage of the Homestead act to flood the middle plains with 50 people a square mile and get as much political power as another million people and thus get relatively disenfranchised and yet to have that relative disenfranchisment be called democratic is a bit odd.

The fact of it is its always a balancing act between the will of the majority and the protection of the minority and while there should obviously be both, how much or how little will always be a point of contention. Getting rid of the electoral college right after losing would guarantee havoc though because it would destroy the idea of commitment to shared political norms. The problem is that we're losing the baseline rules that we're all supposed to play by.

But some of those Founders sure did like owning people with no political power from a far away land.

I know, to whatever degree we're a collection of independent states as opposed to a country of individuals with one vote each, we should have a tax that is assessed per state and then the people living in that state can divide that up however they want.