I'm voting no.moorlander wrote:What about this Prop A cig tax for transportation?
- 9,555
Stl Public Radio - Election 2016: Pros and cons of Missouri’s Proposition A, the 23 cent proposed tobacco tax
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/ele ... obacco-tax
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/ele ... obacco-tax
Huh. Well.
Definitely not a landslide.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk
Definitely not a landslide.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk
- 1,868
America has spoken. Black Lives Don't Matter.user28 wrote:How did this happen
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 103
Thats the one thing you took away from Trump's victory in the election?MarkHaversham wrote:America has spoken. Black Lives Don't Matter.user28 wrote:How did this happen
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Who Wrote That Ballot Measure You’re Voting On?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... asure.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... asure.html
AND:
Since Alexis de Tocqueville, restlessness has been accepted as a signature American trait. Our willingness to move, take risks, and adapt to change have produced a dynamic economy and a tradition of innovation from Ben Franklin to Steve Jobs.
The problem, according to legendary blogger, economist and best selling author Tyler Cowen, is that Americans today have broken from this tradition―we’re working harder than ever to avoid change. We're moving residences less, marrying people more like ourselves and choosing our music and our mates based on algorithms that wall us off from anything that might be too new or too different. Match.com matches us in love. Spotify and Pandora match us in music. Facebook matches us to just about everything else.
Of course, this “matching culture” brings tremendous positives: music we like, partners who make us happy, neighbors who want the same things. We’re more comfortable. But, according to Cowen, there are significant collateral downsides attending this comfort, among them heightened inequality and segregation and decreased incentives to innovate and create.
The Complacent Class argues that this cannot go on forever. We are postponing change, due to our near-sightedness and extreme desire for comfort, but ultimately this will make change, when it comes, harder. The forces unleashed by the Great Stagnation will eventually lead to a major fiscal and budgetary crisis: impossibly expensive rentals for our most attractive cities, worsening of residential segregation, and a decline in our work ethic. The only way to avoid this difficult future is for Americans to force themselves out of their comfortable slumber―to embrace their restless tradition again.
https://www.amazon.com/Complacent-Class ... alrevol-20
Since Alexis de Tocqueville, restlessness has been accepted as a signature American trait. Our willingness to move, take risks, and adapt to change have produced a dynamic economy and a tradition of innovation from Ben Franklin to Steve Jobs.
The problem, according to legendary blogger, economist and best selling author Tyler Cowen, is that Americans today have broken from this tradition―we’re working harder than ever to avoid change. We're moving residences less, marrying people more like ourselves and choosing our music and our mates based on algorithms that wall us off from anything that might be too new or too different. Match.com matches us in love. Spotify and Pandora match us in music. Facebook matches us to just about everything else.
Of course, this “matching culture” brings tremendous positives: music we like, partners who make us happy, neighbors who want the same things. We’re more comfortable. But, according to Cowen, there are significant collateral downsides attending this comfort, among them heightened inequality and segregation and decreased incentives to innovate and create.
The Complacent Class argues that this cannot go on forever. We are postponing change, due to our near-sightedness and extreme desire for comfort, but ultimately this will make change, when it comes, harder. The forces unleashed by the Great Stagnation will eventually lead to a major fiscal and budgetary crisis: impossibly expensive rentals for our most attractive cities, worsening of residential segregation, and a decline in our work ethic. The only way to avoid this difficult future is for Americans to force themselves out of their comfortable slumber―to embrace their restless tradition again.
https://www.amazon.com/Complacent-Class ... alrevol-20
- 9,555
not the best phrase to use when the winner doesn't win the popular vote....MarkHaversham wrote:America has spoken.user28 wrote:How did this happen
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Trumps first term
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/ ... first-term
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/ ... first-term
Joining the army of armchair political analysts, here's my take.
Hillary was an extremely flawed candidate who didn't inspire a Democratic turnout in the same way Obama did. That's also a matter of perspective, as Obama inspired a turnout that was truly unprecedented. But it is, I think, fascinating that Trump actually did better, slightly, among minorities than Romney did. That throws a wrench in the "Romney was an honorable man that we disagreed with but called wolf while Trump is a true racist fascist" chorus that has been echoed by some pundits on the left in the past week (Bill Maher, Seth McFarlane).
So that's one. Two is what Steve Schmidt, a former Bush strategist, has been saying this past week of how the voting dynamics are changing. As he says, we used to view everything as Right v. Left and "debate everything over the 50 yard line, between the 45s". Now there's a horizontal line where above it are those who have benefitted from the technological revolution and globalization and below it are those who have been hurt by it. I think this largely encompasses that "angry white male" vote that often gets generalized and dismissed as something entirely racist, but is really a coalition of coal miners, factory workers, union members, etc. that used to be the foundation of the Democratic Party switching to Trump.
And finally, I think these "left behind" voters were able to form a coalition with social and religious conservatives, who don't share Trump's values at all, but who have been beaten, mocked, and derided by the progressive left so aggressively over the past decade that they fell in line behind Trump. To summarize a line in a Catholic article that I read yesterday (and that I now can't find), "Desperados will cling to a cold-hearted mercenary if that's the only protector left standing."
Another discussion that needs to be had is what does this mean for the Republican Party? I said it before, but it's worth repeating: Trump isn't a conservative. The Supreme Court will sway that way because I don't think he really cares about the issues one way or the other and it'll be politically expedient for him to keep his promises on that. But protectionism trade policy, weakening NATO, etc. These aren't traditional Republican positions at all.
Hillary was an extremely flawed candidate who didn't inspire a Democratic turnout in the same way Obama did. That's also a matter of perspective, as Obama inspired a turnout that was truly unprecedented. But it is, I think, fascinating that Trump actually did better, slightly, among minorities than Romney did. That throws a wrench in the "Romney was an honorable man that we disagreed with but called wolf while Trump is a true racist fascist" chorus that has been echoed by some pundits on the left in the past week (Bill Maher, Seth McFarlane).
So that's one. Two is what Steve Schmidt, a former Bush strategist, has been saying this past week of how the voting dynamics are changing. As he says, we used to view everything as Right v. Left and "debate everything over the 50 yard line, between the 45s". Now there's a horizontal line where above it are those who have benefitted from the technological revolution and globalization and below it are those who have been hurt by it. I think this largely encompasses that "angry white male" vote that often gets generalized and dismissed as something entirely racist, but is really a coalition of coal miners, factory workers, union members, etc. that used to be the foundation of the Democratic Party switching to Trump.
And finally, I think these "left behind" voters were able to form a coalition with social and religious conservatives, who don't share Trump's values at all, but who have been beaten, mocked, and derided by the progressive left so aggressively over the past decade that they fell in line behind Trump. To summarize a line in a Catholic article that I read yesterday (and that I now can't find), "Desperados will cling to a cold-hearted mercenary if that's the only protector left standing."
Another discussion that needs to be had is what does this mean for the Republican Party? I said it before, but it's worth repeating: Trump isn't a conservative. The Supreme Court will sway that way because I don't think he really cares about the issues one way or the other and it'll be politically expedient for him to keep his promises on that. But protectionism trade policy, weakening NATO, etc. These aren't traditional Republican positions at all.
- 9,555
Trump didnt win because of people who had economic anxiety.shimmy wrote:Now there's a horizontal line where above it are those who have benefitted from the technological revolution and globalization and below it are those who have been hurt by it. I think this largely encompasses that "angry white male" vote that often gets generalized and dismissed as something entirely racist, but is really a coalition of coal miners, factory workers, union members, etc. that used to be the foundation of the Democratic Party switching to Trump.
They'll fall in line to stay elected. Tradition is out the window now.Another discussion that needs to be had is what does this mean for the Republican Party? I said it before, but it's worth repeating: Trump isn't a conservative. The Supreme Court will sway that way because I don't think he really cares about the issues one way or the other and it'll be politically expedient for him to keep his promises on that. But protectionism trade policy, weakening NATO, etc. These aren't traditional Republican positions at all.
- 1,054
These next four years will be horrific for St Louis. Expect any and all progress we've made to be destroyed. This is what Eric Greitens will do to us.
- 9,555
i dont think so, he is a city resident...seen the progress first hand.Chalupas54 wrote:These next four years will be horrific for St Louis. Expect any and all progress we've made to be destroyed. This is what Eric Greitens will do to us.
How does that compare to 2012?dbInSouthCity wrote:Trump didnt win because of people who had economic anxiety.
NY Times- Life Outside the Liberal Bubble
To suggest that Trump voters are worried about anything real is to invite scorn from certain corners of the mainstream media. The “economic anxiety” tweet, a special brand of sarcasm that mocks the suggestion that Trump supporters are buttressed by economic forces, has entered the online lexicon. Many cannot stomach the fact that people are driven to Trump by anything besides racism.
Yet the decline felt in certain corners of the country isn’t just about economics; it’s about every element of life — from family to life expectancy to the drugs that have infected communities. The feeling that so many of America’s opinion leaders see your concerns as the product of stupidity at best, or racism at worst, confirms the worst fears of many. They already worry that the coastal elites don’t care about them, and many among those elites seem happy to comply.
Obama beat Romney by a 60 - 38 margin in incomes under $50,000 in 2012. So Trump cut the deficit in half.(http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/result ... exit-polls)
This is right on. Reminds me of that article I posted a few pages back that delved into the rural/urban divide. But, rather predictably, many dismissed the reasons and concerns outlined in the piece because they weren't racist enough to possibly be true.quincunx wrote:To suggest that Trump voters are worried about anything real is to invite scorn from certain corners of the mainstream media. The “economic anxiety” tweet, a special brand of sarcasm that mocks the suggestion that Trump supporters are buttressed by economic forces, has entered the online lexicon. Many cannot stomach the fact that people are driven to Trump by anything besides racism.
Yet the decline felt in certain corners of the country isn’t just about economics; it’s about every element of life — from family to life expectancy to the drugs that have infected communities. The feeling that so many of America’s opinion leaders see your concerns as the product of stupidity at best, or racism at worst, confirms the worst fears of many. They already worry that the coastal elites don’t care about them, and many among those elites seem happy to comply.
I got a running battle in my head on who is the better politician - The current POTUS who was 2 two years into his Jr Senator term from Illinois who was barely known outside of Chicago when elected or the next POTUS who is well known loud mouth business man who never held a political office in his life but has been featured on a fair share number of tabloids. Both defeated a Clinton on their way to the White House?
The other thought, the democratic nomination process essentially giving Hillary 440 super delegates if I got the number right before the Iowa primary pretty much guaranteed that she was going to be consider a political/Washington insider. It wouldn't have mattered if it was Jeb vs Hillary. But Trump, whether you like him or not, played that up the moment he stated the Democratic primary was rigged against Bernie.
You could argue the 2.5-3% vote that Gary Johnson got in the swings states where margin between Trump and Clinton was 1 to 1.5% might have been from the Democratic side/Ind who didn't want to vote Trump but did not get behind Hillary. Republicans kept to the party ticket conservative or not..
The other thought, the democratic nomination process essentially giving Hillary 440 super delegates if I got the number right before the Iowa primary pretty much guaranteed that she was going to be consider a political/Washington insider. It wouldn't have mattered if it was Jeb vs Hillary. But Trump, whether you like him or not, played that up the moment he stated the Democratic primary was rigged against Bernie.
You could argue the 2.5-3% vote that Gary Johnson got in the swings states where margin between Trump and Clinton was 1 to 1.5% might have been from the Democratic side/Ind who didn't want to vote Trump but did not get behind Hillary. Republicans kept to the party ticket conservative or not..
- 9,555
Hillary won more primary votes and primary delegates (excluding supers) than Sanders.....taking the supers out she was still about the 23xx needed to win.dredger wrote:, the democratic nomination process essentially giving Hillary 440 super delegates if I got the number right before the Iowa primary pretty much guaranteed that she was going to be consider a political/Washington insider..
Understand that part. But I do believe it made it easier for Trump to claim to be an outsider while stating that Clinton was the insider who was going to keep the status quodbInSouthCity wrote:Hillary won more primary votes and primary delegates (excluding supers) than Sanders.....taking the supers out she was still about the 23xx needed to win.dredger wrote:, the democratic nomination process essentially giving Hillary 440 super delegates if I got the number right before the Iowa primary pretty much guaranteed that she was going to be consider a political/Washington insider..
- 182
I am bullish for the future on St. Louis. Sure they'll pass Right to Work, but the real game now needs to be getting Rural Missouri to pull the rug out from under themselves and in instituting the smaller government they say they want. Why is that good for St. Louis? St. Louis and Kansas City pay a majority of state tax revenues, any cut then is majority beneficial to St. Louis and Kansas City. Rural areas get less "big gov't" roads/schools/hospitals and we can have more of those here. Bully!
- 182
Maybe. But at this point a scorched earth strategy shouldn't be out of the question. Won't even let cities self govern? Then we ride this race to bottom into the ground and try to elect state reps/senators that make defunding the Missouri Government a priority.quincunx wrote:Don't think they'll get rid of the earnings tax?
St. Louis doesn't need Missouri. Missouri needs St. Louis.
I would qualify it with Missouri needs St. Louis and KC but that is splitting hairs. Being a right to work state won't change the fact either no matter how many people believe a rush of manufacturing jobs will be coming back. Manufacturing you could argue has gone from labor intensive to material intensive as automation has dramatically reduced the need for large unskilled labor pool.ajwillikers wrote:Maybe. But at this point a scorched earth strategy shouldn't be out of the question. Won't even let cities self govern? Then we ride this race to bottom into the ground and try to elect state reps/senators that make defunding the Missouri Government a priority.quincunx wrote:Don't think they'll get rid of the earnings tax?
St. Louis doesn't need Missouri. Missouri needs St. Louis.