urbanSTL

I can't believe people on an urbanism website aren't excited about having a builder as President!

But seriously though, my sources tell me that major and serious infrastructure projects are a big part of the plan. Maybe we get our North South metrolink fast tracked? The Trump line? Yes?

leeharveyawesome wrote:I can't believe people on an urbanism website aren't excited about having a builder as President!

But seriously though, my sources tell me that major and serious infrastructure projects are a big part of the plan. Maybe we get our North South metrolink fast tracked? The Trump line? Yes?

.....google GOP transportation platform. Summary; calls for federal defunding of all transit projects, biking, walking etc and dumps all the money into highways

dbInSouthCity wrote:

leeharveyawesome wrote:I can't believe people on an urbanism website aren't excited about having a builder as President!

But seriously though, my sources tell me that major and serious infrastructure projects are a big part of the plan. Maybe we get our North South metrolink fast tracked? The Trump line? Yes?

.....google GOP transportation platform. Summary; calls for federal defunding of all transit projects, biking, walking etc and dumps all the money into highways

Trump is not a member of the GOP.

leeharveyawesome wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote:

leeharveyawesome wrote:I can't believe people on an urbanism website aren't excited about having a builder as President!

But seriously though, my sources tell me that major and serious infrastructure projects are a big part of the plan. Maybe we get our North South metrolink fast tracked? The Trump line? Yes?

.....google GOP transportation platform. Summary; calls for federal defunding of all transit projects, biking, walking etc and dumps all the money into highways

Trump is not a member of the GOP.

Trump also doesn't pass laws and appropriate dollars

ajwillikers wrote: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!

Unless they grant the county the ability to pass an income tax, this won't help us. We'll struggle to pay for services without state assistance while the rich get richer, and the rural areas crumbling even faster will be small consolation.

MarkHaversham wrote:

user28 wrote:How did this happen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

America has spoken. Black Lives Don't Matter.

Mainly because black lives didn't vote. Numbers way down in urban areas. Everyone raised concerns for the past 2 years but didn't show up when it counted. Typical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

downtown2007 wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote:

user28 wrote:How did this happen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

America has spoken. Black Lives Don't Matter.

Mainly because black lives didn't vote. Numbers way down in urban areas. Everyone raised concerns for the past 2 years but didn't show up when it counted. Typical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Black lives are the target of nationwide voter suppression.

I think it's more about White rural and suburban voters needing their manufacturing jobs back. They want a return of a strong middle class.

moorlander wrote:I think it's more about White rural and suburban voters needing their manufacturing jobs back. They want a return of a strong middle class.

By and large, those jobs don't exist anymore. Manufacturing workforce numbers have dropped since the mid-90's while productivity per employee has more than doubled. Technology is replacing people. That's not something that any President can effectively fix. IF DJT brings jobs "back" it will be at the expense of the consumer.

ricke002 wrote:

moorlander wrote:I think it's more about White rural and suburban voters needing their manufacturing jobs back. They want a return of a strong middle class.

By and large, those jobs don't exist anymore. Manufacturing workforce numbers have dropped since the mid-90's while productivity per employee has more than doubled. Technology is replacing people. That's not something that any President can effectively fix. IF DJT brings jobs "back" it will be at the expense of the consumer.

I know they don't exist anymore but Trump claimed he'd bring them back (I'd love to see how his could work) by ending free trade agreements. His message to Michigan voters was that he'd tax Ford cars built in Mexico by 35% so Ford would be encouraged to move jobs back to the states.

Here is another...

"Trade pacts are no good for us and no good for our workers

Trump said "Carrier (US air conditioning company) is moving to Mexico. I would go to Carrier and say, "You're going to lay off 1,400 people. You're going to make air conditioners in Mexico, and you're trying to get them across our border with no tax." I'm going to tell them that we're going to tax you when those air conditioners come. So stay where you are or build in the United States because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers.""

moorlander wrote:

ricke002 wrote:

moorlander wrote:I think it's more about White rural and suburban voters needing their manufacturing jobs back. They want a return of a strong middle class.

By and large, those jobs don't exist anymore. Manufacturing workforce numbers have dropped since the mid-90's while productivity per employee has more than doubled. Technology is replacing people. That's not something that any President can effectively fix. IF DJT brings jobs "back" it will be at the expense of the consumer.

I know they don't exist anymore but Trump claimed he'd bring them back (I'd love to see how his could work) by ending free trade agreements. His message to Michigan voters was that he'd tax Ford cars built in Mexico by 35% so Ford would be encouraged to move jobs back to the states.

Here is another...

"Trade pacts are no good for us and no good for our workers

Trump said "Carrier (US air conditioning company) is moving to Mexico. I would go to Carrier and say, "You're going to lay off 1,400 people. You're going to make air conditioners in Mexico, and you're trying to get them across our border with no tax." I'm going to tell them that we're going to tax you when those air conditioners come. So stay where you are or build in the United States because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers.""

Right. So it appears his two choices are tax imported goods (Higher cost to consumer>lower sales>need to reduce workforce) or bring back manufacturing jobs in lieu of more efficient/cheaper technologies (Higher cost to consumer>lower sales>need to reduce workforce). I "get" the irrational "they took our jorrrbs" murmur, but the fixes don't really fix anything.

To be clear, I don't have a better solution. Just pointing out that either obvious solution he picks doesn't necessarily provide the results he's promised.

China, with whom we have no free trade agreement, took way more manufacturing jobs than Mexico. And robots took more than all of the above. Trump won because he promised to solve Rust Belt America, but unfortunately he'll fail because he doesn't know what the problem is.

MarkHaversham wrote:China, with whom we have no free trade agreement, took way more manufacturing jobs than Mexico. And robots took more than all of the above. Trump won because he promised to solve Rust Belt America, but unfortunately he'll fail because he doesn't know what the problem is.

The problem is very well described in this here book:
https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-F ... 1491591617

As to the solution...it basically has to lie with some sort of government redistribution of wealth. Taxing capital to build something. Or just a universal basic income. But I'd prefer the former, because building work skills and having a job is personally fulfilling at least. Better than just handing it out.

No need to force anyone to work 50 hours a week, though. Get more people to work 20 hours a week, but pay them a decent wage.

Trump may be economically populist, but that's directly at odds with the GOP half of the Senate and most of the House. If anyone thinks Trump's going to have enough power to go directly against everything the AEI and Chamber of Commerce has ever wanted, they're deluding themselves. Obama was elected on a much bigger mandate, and even he had to struggle to get stuff done, and much of that was watered down.

Finally got my hands on the election data for the City/County. Full map here.

Some interesting things to unpack here, notably that compared to Obama 2012, Clinton picked up Bonhomme and Gravois townships (heavily educated white middle class) while narrowly losing Lemay township (white working class) though all in all not too terrible a result for her there considering how badly she was thrashed in similar communities around the country. Once I get around to making a trend map, what should become obvious is that Clinton made massive gains in West St. Louis County (Chesterfield, Missouri River and the middle and upper middle to downright upper class inner ring suburbs (Clayton, Creve Coeur, Bonhomme, Gravois and Hadley) while suffering mild attrition in some black townships in North County and white working class heavy townships like Lemay, Midland and Florissant. In regards to the City, Clinton experienced massive improvement in the highly educated white middle and upper middle class wards like 16 (my ward), 18 and 28 while suffering moderate losses in the few areas with significant numbers of white working class residents (such as Ward 11, which contains the Carondelet and Patch neighborhoods). And, of course, the story of the black wards and townships in the northern part of the City/County is that of a substantial drop off in support for Clinton (except for notably Ferguson, where turnout was up), though Trump didn't really gain any voters, and in most cases also had fewer votes than Romney got in 2012. Turnout was generally high in white working and middle class areas (both Democratic and Republican strongholds) and low in black and white upper class areas (Republican strongholds).

downtown2007 wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote:

user28 wrote:How did this happen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

America has spoken. Black Lives Don't Matter.

Mainly because black lives didn't vote. Numbers way down in urban areas. Everyone raised concerns for the past 2 years but didn't show up when it counted. Typical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Idk what typical means but black voters tend to vote at rates very comparable to whites. would love to have 2016 numbers but turnout overall was pretty even from 2012.

http://www.electproject.org/home/voter- ... mographics

hebeters2 wrote:Here’s the deal: Donald Trump is going to get his ass kicked. Anyone who says otherwise is either a) afraid of jinxing it and/or making Hillary Clinton voters complacent (understandable); b) afraid of being wrong (Nate Silver); c) supporting Trump; or d) interested in making this a “horse race” for the sake of maintaining public interest (most of the television media, along with grotesque Mark Halperin).

But this isn’t close, and never was. The evidence right there in front of you. Donald Trump has never led in an aggregate of polls for any significant stretch of time. He hasn’t personally raised any money for his campaign in over a month. He lost all three debates. He’s made virtually no effort to get his voters to the polls, instead relying on a Republican party that is being badly outspent and reduced to waging repugnant (and likely illegal) voter-suppression efforts that—despite being successful in some small areas—will ultimately turn legions more voters against them.
https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/donal ... 1788618628

wow

Haversham is exactly the type that is causing the Democrat party to lose support at an alarming rate. I've basically watched it happen in slow motion over last few years. It's astonishing. Keep it up dude.

Ellison for DNC chairman!!!!

whitherSTL wrote:Ellison for DNC chairman!!!!

You mean the guy who once advocated for a separate black state in America? Seems like a cheap tactic by the DNC to regain the white supremacist vote but I'll reserve judgment until I hear Havesham's thoughts.

leeharveyawesome wrote:Haversham is exactly the type that is causing the Democrat party to lose support at an alarming rate. I've basically watched it happen in slow motion over last few years. It's astonishing. Keep it up dude.

The Democrat party has consistently gotten more votes than the Republicans for most of the last twenty-something years for president and Congress. The Republicans are surviving based on gerrymandering and favorable population distribution.

In any case, I'm more right than ever that the GOP is basically a reactionary white nationalist movement at this point. And Republicans are still running and hiding from the media to avoid answering questions about Trump, now the president-elect. They are aware they're unpopular with the majority of Americans, which is why they're doubling-down on voter suppression efforts. Unfortunately, now they'll have SCOTUS support.

shimmy wrote:Whither, seeing as how you're relatively new to the forum, this is how arguing with Haversham generally goes. Facts, such as:

1. The Republicans having a historic control of state houses (33 governors, control of both houses in 32 states - compared to 5 for the Democrats)
2. The Republicans having their largest majority in the House since the 1920's
3. The 2018 Senate map being incredibly favorable to Republicans
4. The popular vote being completely meaningless, seeing how we live in a federal Republic

None of these matter. He's right, the GOP is dying, and everyone who disagrees is a racist. As someone said before, this is exactly the attitude that's costing Democrats.

Republicans are faced with a continuing demographic challenge: the only demographics they can win are white people, and white men in particular, while the minority population is growing. They are winning by championing a white Christian monoculture that is losing ground nationally. Because they have a favorable population distribution and control the rules of the elections, they've been able to maintain electoral success while losing or barely winning a majority. If you think Republicans control 2/3rds of state legislatures and Congressional seats because they have the support of 2/3rds of US voters, I'd love to see your math.

The problem for the GOP is that this won't last forever. At some point Democrats will inevitably win a wave election, and if they use that time to roll back the GOP-favoring gerrymandering and voter suppression, the Republican party as we know it will be finished. GOP politicians know this, which is why they are running away from guys like Trump even after he won the election.

shimmy wrote: When people who aren't racist, misogynistic, bigoted get so sick of you calling them racist, misogynistic, and bigoted that they vote against your candidate, what do you do?
A) Change tactics to try and persuade them to vote for your cause, or
B) Scream louder that they're racist, misogynistic, and bigoted to serve your own self-righteousness

From what I see, most of my liberal friends are opting for B.

Trump ran an extremely racist campaign of white nationalism that nobody was excited about except literal Nazis, and he won. I dunno how you can retcon reality and say that Trump voters aren't, at minimum, okay with racism and misogyny. Which is very depressing.

Racism and misogyny are wrong, Trump winning doesn't mean that suddenly women and minorities don't deserve human rights. Do liberals need to do a better job articulating a progressive message to voters? Sure. But that doesn't excuse the people who voted for a white nationalist. Trump's behavior was extremely obvious throughout the primary and election, and he won. Sad!