Have you ever noticed that the Democrats...

[Badger]

Beet... this was bad.  And you've written some legit good stuff lately.

Focusing on poverty, the environment, infrastructure, equality and fairness and justice for all.. these are all things that affect every voting American.

Your post was borderline Naso.  Yuck.

Oh and which party is proposing paid family leave?  Higher minimum wages?  Rights to organize and bargain for better wages and benefits?  More vacation/leisure time?  Mass transit?  Public funding of the arts and outdoors so artists and outdoors enthusiasts with limited means can create/do what they are passionate about?

Who promotes subsidies to prop up family farmers and thus our smaller towns?  Organic agriculture which is LESS EFFICIENT and thus takes more labor and contributes to many farmers who would otherwise leave the profession?

Please Beet... you have deluded yourself.

Beet is wrong in substantive terms, but I think he's more correct about how Democrats have come off in the past couple of election cycles.

For all of Barack Obama's faults, this was never the case when he was the party's standard bearer. He made it clear that the party was standing on policies that stood to benefit Americans universally while also defending the rights of particular groups.

I don't see any of the candidates talking this way now, not even Bernie Sanders, whose success in 2016, I'm convinced, had more to do with this than anything else.

Whether it's a problem of media ecology or a problem in how Democrats are communicating, it has already lost them one presidential election and it might lose them another.

This.... Is a very good post. Frighteningly and painfully accurate.

[Nyvin]

Democrat's policy positions help the WWC more than they help minorities or low income people.   Republican (and Trump's...) positions do nothing but help the rich.

If you disagree,  see who benefits more from the ACA (it's the WWC) and who benefits from Trump's tax cuts (it's the rich).

[GP270watch]

... will passionately defend every minority or special interest with zeal, but have little passion for anything else? Like, if you're gay, black, illegal, woman (not a minority but still a separate identity), a Felon, trans, make under minimum wage, have a preexisting condition etc. etc. the Democrats will go all out for you and your difference. But for the regular stiff who just works hard, gets married, has kids, has a normal life, the Democrats don't say sh**t. Have you ever noticed that? Like Trump he'll talk about the low unemployment rate & focus more on things that affect *every* voting American. It's more unifying and inclusive. I think that's why he holds his own even though GOP positions are unpopular.

 There is a disconnect with straight white voters(mostly men) thinking these other issues that Democrats have to focus on, and they focus on them mostly because Republicans force them to are not pocketbook issues for the groups they effect.

 If you're black then racism is a pocketbook issue.

 If you're a women struggling to make ends meet and you have an unexpected and unplanned pregnancy access to abortion healthcare services is a pocketbook issue.

 If you're gay and and can be fired from your job or denied housing simply for being gay that's a pocketbook issue.

 Democrats wouldn't have to focus on this stuff so much if Republicans were not constantly trying to undermine the rights people have on paper or simply refuse to grant people equal protection under the law. How is is that in 2019 people still don't get this?

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Beet... this was bad.  And you've written some legit good stuff lately.

Focusing on poverty, the environment, infrastructure, equality and fairness and justice for all.. these are all things that affect every voting American.

Your post was borderline Naso.  Yuck.

Oh and which party is proposing paid family leave?  Higher minimum wages?  Rights to organize and bargain for better wages and benefits?  More vacation/leisure time?  Mass transit?  Public funding of the arts and outdoors so artists and outdoors enthusiasts with limited means can create/do what they are passionate about?

Who promotes subsidies to prop up family farmers and thus our smaller towns?  Organic agriculture which is LESS EFFICIENT and thus takes more labor and contributes to many farmers who would otherwise leave the profession?

Please Beet... you have deluded yourself.

Beet is wrong in substantive terms, but I think he's more correct about how Democrats have come off in the past couple of election cycles.

For all of Barack Obama's faults, this was never the case when he was the party's standard bearer. He made it clear that the party was standing on policies that stood to benefit Americans universally while also defending the rights of particular groups.

I don't see any of the candidates talking this way now, not even Bernie Sanders, whose success in 2016, I'm convinced, had more to do with this than anything else.

Whether it's a problem of media ecology or a problem in how Democrats are communicating, it has already lost them one presidential election and it might lose them another.

Obama was different from Democratic politicians since then for two reasons:

1. As a black politician^*, he didn't need to rhetorically appeal to minorities to get racial justice bona fides^**. Clinton didn't have this luxury and she (felt like^***) had to lean very hard into campaigning on racial justice to retain those voters and to continue to keep the issue relevant to the party. The white 2020 candidates like Beto, Bernie, Warren, etc. are following the same script.

2. Since Obama was reelected in 2008^**** voting became polarized heavily on views on race. Obama was campaigning in environments in 2008 (and arguably in 2012) where racial resentment wasn't as much of a deciding view on race as in 2016 and 2020. As a racially illiberal slice of the electorate inhabits the right the natural consequence is that a very racially liberal slice of the electorate bunkers down on the left. Politicians know this and are campaigning explicitly on these identities because they know it's much more salient for driving turnout than anything else.

^* - there are some theories about how Obama specifically benefited from being half-Black in a way that would not have generalized as well to someone like Maxine Waters who has two black parents. I don't know how valid these theories are.

^** - indeed there is a part of the intellectual black left that argued that Obama wasn't race progressive enough, which may be something that motivated others within the party to move further left.

^*** - I don't know how much of this was perception versus reality. It is worth noting though that turnout in a lot of urban black cores like Milwaukee and Detroit were down in 2016 so it could definitely be reality.

^**** - I don't know when this started. There's evidence that it picked up steam in 2009/2010 with the dog-whistling parts of, e.g., the Tea Party. Obviously it's happened since 20 My pet theory is that Ferguson/BLM is the event that really escalated a sort of white grievance politics in many of these voters. I am very curious to see what would have happened if the 2014 elections happened without Ferguson or, conversely, if the 2012 elections happened with it.

[Hammy]

Beet wants to get his "worst poster on Atlas" spot back by the looks of things because this post reads as whining because "oh no the people who most need it are being given a voice"

"A" voice, alright: one put into their mouths much like a ventriloquist. There's a reason the "woke" left are mockingly called NPCs.

Anybody who isn't espousing some superiority of straight white christian masculinity is considered part of the "woke' left from everything I've seen on here and elsewhere. Just hive-minded buzzword the right likes to parrot while ironically calling the left NPCs.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

I'm curious to hear from the people agreeing with Beet's shtick, if Democrats are only in this to virtue signal to minorities and "victims," why am I, at lest a somewhat rational self-interested white male living a pretty nice privileged life, a Democrat? Why has the Republican party failed so hard at winning my support when I would, under this philosophy, seem like a pretty low-hanging fruit for them?

Republicans aren't holding to their values. Mitch McConnell is universally disliked. If they actually passed a tax platform that didn't just help the ultra rich, they would probably be much better off right now.

They are spending at a record rate. This will turn off the majority of libertarians or independents that want to see the deficit and national debt reduced.

Not to mention Trump's divisiveness.  If they had say, a Nigel Farage-style leader that is eloquent and level-headed in comparison to Trump they might be dominating politics.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Beet wants to get his "worst poster on Atlas" spot back by the looks of things because this post reads as whining because "oh no the people who most need it are being given a voice"

"A" voice, alright: one put into their mouths much like a ventriloquist. There's a reason the "woke" left are mockingly called NPCs.

Anybody who isn't espousing some superiority of straight white christian masculinity is considered part of the "woke' left from everything I've seen on here and elsewhere. Just hive-minded buzzword the right likes to parrot while ironically calling the left NPCs.

The irony here is palpable.  Not every liberal is in the "woke" left; it's a loud, annoying and droning minority.  Much like a crowd with vuvuzelas.

[TDAS04]

If "special interest" means oppressed group, then maybe Democrats are quick to defend them.

Democrats defended the majority in South Africa during the 1980s.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Of course. It's all based on victim status and how high your victim points are.

If anything that is some projection right there. Because that is what has made the Trump era Republicans so successful lately. They use this exact tactic because right wing voters tend to be attracted to assertions that they're the real ones being oppressed just because the issues of more institutionally marginalized people are being addressed more publicly by Democrats.

Even if you aren't economically or socially disadvantaged by virtue of your ethnicity, gender, race, sex, sexuality, etc. you are still allowed to have problems, and the Democrats are the party who are actually addressing those issues too rather than distracting those people with red herrings of people who are different. But to completely avoid historical context and claim that one is being discriminated against because you belong to the most privileged demographic in the country, is completely irrational.

[Grassroots]

I'm curious to hear from the people agreeing with Beet's shtick, if Democrats are only in this to virtue signal to minorities and "victims," why am I, at lest a somewhat rational self-interested white male living a pretty nice privileged life, a Democrat? Why has the Republican party failed so hard at winning my support when I would, under this philosophy, seem like a pretty low-hanging fruit for them?

Republicans aren't holding to their values. Mitch McConnell is universally disliked. If they actually passed a tax platform that didn't just help the ultra rich, they would probably be much better off right now.

They are spending at a record rate. This will turn off the majority of libertarians or independents that want to see the deficit and national debt reduced.

Not to mention Trump's divisiveness.  If they had say, a Nigel Farage-style leader that is eloquent and level-headed in comparison to Trump they might be dominating politics.

I agree completely. The Republican party needs to restructure itself, and what it really needs to do is take notes from the European right.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Why would this "working stiff" prototype need defending if his life is perfectly normal? If anything this prototype usually wants to be left alone and hates the government. With that said, without Democratic policies the "working stiff" wouldn't have job, his children wouldn't get a decent education and he might not even have health care to stay healthy enough to keep working. The better question is why do Republicans have an issue with everyone who doesn't fit a certain prototype. The Republican Party has become a cult that subscribes to the idea that only some Americans should have opportunities.

     Because a perfectly normal life is hard going (that you would even see fit to ask that question is baffling). Doubly so if you are unfortunate to be in a major metropolitan area where the cost of living is sky-high. A big reason why people ridicule the sanctimony of Democrats acting like they are valiant defenders of the masses: look at how little they have done to deal with the fact that places like the Bay Area are rapidly becoming totally unlivable.

"That restaurant is so overcrowded nobody goes there anymore."  Yogi Bera

     So do you deny that the cost of living in the Bay Area is unreasonably high?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm curious to hear from the people agreeing with Beet's shtick, if Democrats are only in this to virtue signal to minorities and "victims," why am I, at lest a somewhat rational self-interested white male living a pretty nice privileged life, a Democrat? Why has the Republican party failed so hard at winning my support when I would, under this philosophy, seem like a pretty low-hanging fruit for them?

I would guess it has to do with your cultural values.

[Badger]

Why would this "working stiff" prototype need defending if his life is perfectly normal? If anything this prototype usually wants to be left alone and hates the government. With that said, without Democratic policies the "working stiff" wouldn't have job, his children wouldn't get a decent education and he might not even have health care to stay healthy enough to keep working. The better question is why do Republicans have an issue with everyone who doesn't fit a certain prototype. The Republican Party has become a cult that subscribes to the idea that only some Americans should have opportunities.

     Because a perfectly normal life is hard going (that you would even see fit to ask that question is baffling). Doubly so if you are unfortunate to be in a major metropolitan area where the cost of living is sky-high. A big reason why people ridicule the sanctimony of Democrats acting like they are valiant defenders of the masses: look at how little they have done to deal with the fact that places like the Bay Area are rapidly becoming totally unlivable.

"That restaurant is so overcrowded nobody goes there anymore."  Yogi Bera

     So do you deny that the cost of living in the Bay Area is unreasonably high?

I think his point is that in that sense the Bay Area is a victim of its own overwhelming success. Supply and demand and all that. I'm sure that some Municipal housing and Zoning codes could be modified to encourage more development to try to lower housing costs at least somewhat. However, if you're trying to say that the main reason Bay Area Housing costs are so high has to do with government over-regulation, as opposed to the fact that essentially every well-paid educated person in the Western Hemisphere tried to move there in the past 20 years - - ironically, supply and demand - - then I think you're off base.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Why would this "working stiff" prototype need defending if his life is perfectly normal? If anything this prototype usually wants to be left alone and hates the government. With that said, without Democratic policies the "working stiff" wouldn't have job, his children wouldn't get a decent education and he might not even have health care to stay healthy enough to keep working. The better question is why do Republicans have an issue with everyone who doesn't fit a certain prototype. The Republican Party has become a cult that subscribes to the idea that only some Americans should have opportunities.

     Because a perfectly normal life is hard going (that you would even see fit to ask that question is baffling). Doubly so if you are unfortunate to be in a major metropolitan area where the cost of living is sky-high. A big reason why people ridicule the sanctimony of Democrats acting like they are valiant defenders of the masses: look at how little they have done to deal with the fact that places like the Bay Area are rapidly becoming totally unlivable.

"That restaurant is so overcrowded nobody goes there anymore."  Yogi Bera

     So do you deny that the cost of living in the Bay Area is unreasonably high?

I think his point is that in that sense the Bay Area is a victim of its own overwhelming success. Supply and demand and all that. I'm sure that some Municipal housing and Zoning codes could be modified to encourage more development to try to lower housing costs at least somewhat. However, if you're trying to say that the main reason Bay Area Housing costs are so high has to do with government over-regulation, as opposed to the fact that essentially every well-paid educated person in the Western Hemisphere tried to move there in the past 20 years - - ironically, supply and demand - - then I think you're off base.

     Good thing I didn't try to say that.

[Badger]

Why would this "working stiff" prototype need defending if his life is perfectly normal? If anything this prototype usually wants to be left alone and hates the government. With that said, without Democratic policies the "working stiff" wouldn't have job, his children wouldn't get a decent education and he might not even have health care to stay healthy enough to keep working. The better question is why do Republicans have an issue with everyone who doesn't fit a certain prototype. The Republican Party has become a cult that subscribes to the idea that only some Americans should have opportunities.

     Because a perfectly normal life is hard going (that you would even see fit to ask that question is baffling). Doubly so if you are unfortunate to be in a major metropolitan area where the cost of living is sky-high. A big reason why people ridicule the sanctimony of Democrats acting like they are valiant defenders of the masses: look at how little they have done to deal with the fact that places like the Bay Area are rapidly becoming totally unlivable.

"That restaurant is so overcrowded nobody goes there anymore."  Yogi Bera

     So do you deny that the cost of living in the Bay Area is unreasonably high?

I think his point is that in that sense the Bay Area is a victim of its own overwhelming success. Supply and demand and all that. I'm sure that some Municipal housing and Zoning codes could be modified to encourage more development to try to lower housing costs at least somewhat. However, if you're trying to say that the main reason Bay Area Housing costs are so high has to do with government over-regulation, as opposed to the fact that essentially every well-paid educated person in the Western Hemisphere tried to move there in the past 20 years - - ironically, supply and demand - - then I think you're off base.

     Good thing I didn't try to say that.

So then, what is your point?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Why would this "working stiff" prototype need defending if his life is perfectly normal? If anything this prototype usually wants to be left alone and hates the government. With that said, without Democratic policies the "working stiff" wouldn't have job, his children wouldn't get a decent education and he might not even have health care to stay healthy enough to keep working. The better question is why do Republicans have an issue with everyone who doesn't fit a certain prototype. The Republican Party has become a cult that subscribes to the idea that only some Americans should have opportunities.

     Because a perfectly normal life is hard going (that you would even see fit to ask that question is baffling). Doubly so if you are unfortunate to be in a major metropolitan area where the cost of living is sky-high. A big reason why people ridicule the sanctimony of Democrats acting like they are valiant defenders of the masses: look at how little they have done to deal with the fact that places like the Bay Area are rapidly becoming totally unlivable.

"That restaurant is so overcrowded nobody goes there anymore."  Yogi Bera

     So do you deny that the cost of living in the Bay Area is unreasonably high?

I think his point is that in that sense the Bay Area is a victim of its own overwhelming success. Supply and demand and all that. I'm sure that some Municipal housing and Zoning codes could be modified to encourage more development to try to lower housing costs at least somewhat. However, if you're trying to say that the main reason Bay Area Housing costs are so high has to do with government over-regulation, as opposed to the fact that essentially every well-paid educated person in the Western Hemisphere tried to move there in the past 20 years - - ironically, supply and demand - - then I think you're off base.

     Good thing I didn't try to say that.

So then, what is your point?

     Polls show widespread dissatisfaction with the trajectory of the Bay Area driven primarily by the cost of living and housing, and indicate that nearly half of people living here want to leave. If the Democratic Party's press is accurate, then I would imagine that they could take advantage of their monolithic power in our cities and in the state of California to make life better for those of us outside the tech industry and tackle the serious problems we face. Instead I see a solid consensus around me transcending party lines that the situation is bad and getting worse. It makes these glowing endorsements of liberal policy ring quite hollow.

[136or142]

Why would this "working stiff" prototype need defending if his life is perfectly normal? If anything this prototype usually wants to be left alone and hates the government. With that said, without Democratic policies the "working stiff" wouldn't have job, his children wouldn't get a decent education and he might not even have health care to stay healthy enough to keep working. The better question is why do Republicans have an issue with everyone who doesn't fit a certain prototype. The Republican Party has become a cult that subscribes to the idea that only some Americans should have opportunities.

     Because a perfectly normal life is hard going (that you would even see fit to ask that question is baffling). Doubly so if you are unfortunate to be in a major metropolitan area where the cost of living is sky-high. A big reason why people ridicule the sanctimony of Democrats acting like they are valiant defenders of the masses: look at how little they have done to deal with the fact that places like the Bay Area are rapidly becoming totally unlivable.

"That restaurant is so overcrowded nobody goes there anymore."  Yogi Bera

     So do you deny that the cost of living in the Bay Area is unreasonably high?

I think his point is that in that sense the Bay Area is a victim of its own overwhelming success. Supply and demand and all that. I'm sure that some Municipal housing and Zoning codes could be modified to encourage more development to try to lower housing costs at least somewhat. However, if you're trying to say that the main reason Bay Area Housing costs are so high has to do with government over-regulation, as opposed to the fact that essentially every well-paid educated person in the Western Hemisphere tried to move there in the past 20 years - - ironically, supply and demand - - then I think you're off base.

     Good thing I didn't try to say that.

So then, what is your point?

I wondered the same thing. The population in the Bay Area is now 7.5 million people, a 10% increase in about 20 years.  So, the literal answer to your question is that, for millions of people, the cost is not unreasonably high.

Others have already addressed part of this question:  it is a beautiful area that millions of people want to live in, so it stands to reason that it's going to be an expensive place to live.  It's also an area, probably not a coincidence, where there are a lot of very high paying technology sector jobs.  

It makes sense that it's ideal for people who provide the public services and the public accommodations in this area to also be able to live there.  What these various communities that make up in the Bay Area do to enable or assist in that, I don't know too much.

[136or142]

Why would this "working stiff" prototype need defending if his life is perfectly normal? If anything this prototype usually wants to be left alone and hates the government. With that said, without Democratic policies the "working stiff" wouldn't have job, his children wouldn't get a decent education and he might not even have health care to stay healthy enough to keep working. The better question is why do Republicans have an issue with everyone who doesn't fit a certain prototype. The Republican Party has become a cult that subscribes to the idea that only some Americans should have opportunities.

     Because a perfectly normal life is hard going (that you would even see fit to ask that question is baffling). Doubly so if you are unfortunate to be in a major metropolitan area where the cost of living is sky-high. A big reason why people ridicule the sanctimony of Democrats acting like they are valiant defenders of the masses: look at how little they have done to deal with the fact that places like the Bay Area are rapidly becoming totally unlivable.

"That restaurant is so overcrowded nobody goes there anymore."  Yogi Bera

     So do you deny that the cost of living in the Bay Area is unreasonably high?

I think his point is that in that sense the Bay Area is a victim of its own overwhelming success. Supply and demand and all that. I'm sure that some Municipal housing and Zoning codes could be modified to encourage more development to try to lower housing costs at least somewhat. However, if you're trying to say that the main reason Bay Area Housing costs are so high has to do with government over-regulation, as opposed to the fact that essentially every well-paid educated person in the Western Hemisphere tried to move there in the past 20 years - - ironically, supply and demand - - then I think you're off base.

     Good thing I didn't try to say that.

So then, what is your point?

     Polls show widespread dissatisfaction with the trajectory of the Bay Area driven primarily by the cost of living and housing, and indicate that nearly half of people living here want to leave. If the Democratic Party's press is accurate, then I would imagine that they could take advantage of their monolithic power in our cities and in the state of California to make life better for those of us outside the tech industry and tackle the serious problems we face. Instead I see a solid consensus around me transcending party lines that the situation is bad and getting worse. It makes these glowing endorsements of liberal policy ring quite hollow.

Some problems just don't have solutions. 

There is a partial solution based on significantly increasing density.

However, by and large, the Bay Area has two choices:

1.Significantly increase the amount of home construction to (hopefully) reduce the housing prices and increase the amount of traffic and pressures on public amenities.

2.Discourage population growth by not building new housing developments in order to reduce this pressure on public amenities, and have even higher housing costs.

A lot of people who are used to more suburban living don't seem to like very high density.

There may be some things that San Francisco could do, as Vancouver has done, to make it very difficult for people not living in the area to own empty homes (basically using it for investment purposes) by mandating that they either rent out the homes or pay a speculation tax, and this certainly can take pressure off of  housing demand.  However, ultimately this issue of 'pick your poison' can't be avoided.

The public, lying politicians and especially lying pressure groups like to tell the public that they can have lower cost housing without increasing density or pressure on public amenities, but they can't change reality.

[Sir Mohamed]

Where is the evidence Dems don't support ordinary working people based on gender or race? Meaning white males. Their 2020 frontrunners are white males + a majority of House+Senate members. Come on... This is one of the most hilarious posts I've read in a while.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Why would this "working stiff" prototype need defending if his life is perfectly normal? If anything this prototype usually wants to be left alone and hates the government. With that said, without Democratic policies the "working stiff" wouldn't have job, his children wouldn't get a decent education and he might not even have health care to stay healthy enough to keep working. The better question is why do Republicans have an issue with everyone who doesn't fit a certain prototype. The Republican Party has become a cult that subscribes to the idea that only some Americans should have opportunities.

     Because a perfectly normal life is hard going (that you would even see fit to ask that question is baffling). Doubly so if you are unfortunate to be in a major metropolitan area where the cost of living is sky-high. A big reason why people ridicule the sanctimony of Democrats acting like they are valiant defenders of the masses: look at how little they have done to deal with the fact that places like the Bay Area are rapidly becoming totally unlivable.

"That restaurant is so overcrowded nobody goes there anymore."  Yogi Bera

     So do you deny that the cost of living in the Bay Area is unreasonably high?

I think his point is that in that sense the Bay Area is a victim of its own overwhelming success. Supply and demand and all that. I'm sure that some Municipal housing and Zoning codes could be modified to encourage more development to try to lower housing costs at least somewhat. However, if you're trying to say that the main reason Bay Area Housing costs are so high has to do with government over-regulation, as opposed to the fact that essentially every well-paid educated person in the Western Hemisphere tried to move there in the past 20 years - - ironically, supply and demand - - then I think you're off base.

     Good thing I didn't try to say that.

So then, what is your point?

     Polls show widespread dissatisfaction with the trajectory of the Bay Area driven primarily by the cost of living and housing, and indicate that nearly half of people living here want to leave. If the Democratic Party's press is accurate, then I would imagine that they could take advantage of their monolithic power in our cities and in the state of California to make life better for those of us outside the tech industry and tackle the serious problems we face. Instead I see a solid consensus around me transcending party lines that the situation is bad and getting worse. It makes these glowing endorsements of liberal policy ring quite hollow.

Some problems just don't have solutions. 

There is a partial solution based on significantly increasing density.

However, by and large, the Bay Area has two choices:

1.Significantly increase the amount of home construction to (hopefully) reduce the housing prices and increase the amount of traffic and pressures on public amenities.

2.Discourage population growth by not building new housing developments in order to reduce this pressure on public amenities, and have even higher housing costs.

A lot of people who are used to more suburban living don't seem to like very high density.

There may be some things that San Francisco could do, as Vancouver has done, to make it very difficult for people not living in the area to own empty homes (basically using it for investment purposes) by mandating that they either rent out the homes or pay a speculation tax, and this certainly can take pressure off of  housing demand.  However, ultimately this issue of 'pick your poison' can't be avoided.

The public, lying politicians and especially lying pressure groups like to tell the public that they can have lower cost housing without increasing density or pressure on public amenities, but they can't change reality.

     So your contention is in essence that there exists no magic cure and due to fundamental mechanics of populations the Bay Area is likely doomed to suffer from severe dissatisfaction even as general economic metrics look good here. I don't really disagree with that. Note that the post I initially responded to had a basic gist of "things are alright, Democrat policies make life good". It's a very pollyanna view of how policy works out, and my thoughts in this thread are in reaction to that.

     I notice often on Atlas that people adopt this sort of view and then are befuddled that voters don't overwhelmingly prefer liberal politicians. The people I know who find themselves struggling to pay their bills, even if they are very liberal themselves, are generally more pessimistic about the prospects of government to change things for the better. They certainly won't subscribe to the idea that if your life is perfectly normal then you're fine and don't need help.

[pbrower2a]

Beet is like a million miles ahead of all the red avatars here and it’s honestly pathetic how purile the reactions above are rofl

Literally the only reason Trump won in 2016 or has a shadow of a chance in 2020 is because most Democrats are just toxic to engage on any level due to their incessant need to remind you what an awful person you are if you don’t agree with them on literally everything. The vast majority of people both do not want Trump of all people to be president and also don’t support the majority of his policies. They just hate the toxicity of moralism that is the modern day Democratic Party more.

Donald Trump appealed to the basest drives in human nature on the assumption that Americans have a fascination with rogues who seem to get something done. Trump appeals to misogyny, anti-intellectualism, religious and ethnic bigotry, economic sadism, rent-seeking, and rapacious nationalism. He rips the veneer of civility and exposes a primitive mind capable of any cruelty and stupidity. Like other populist demagogues he appeals to the 'forgotten man' who has seen 'model minorities' do far better due to enterprise and expertise.  It may have been a matter of time before someone like Donald Trump could garner a majority appeal.  Trump may not have won the plurality of American votes, but he won the 'right' votes, by hook or crook.

Trump appealed to moralizers without morality. People can moralize all that they want about the subjection of women, subordination of ethnic and religious minorities, the promotion of religion that is more superstition than charity, the enforcement of economic hierarchy, and contempt for anything seemingly 'foreign' -- but all of that is grossly immoral! The only ethnic minority with which Trump did well was Cuban-Americans in Florida, some of whom have a fantasy of going back to Cuba and re-establishing their old plantations under a Batista-like dictator. Trump has shown himself to be a thoroughly-base person with great resources.

Jews, Muslims, middle-class Hispanics (other than Cuban-Americans in Florida), the Black Bourgeoisie, and seemingly every Asian-American group -- almost all of whom have little in common in culture except for being well-educated Americans -- voted heavily against Donald Trump in 2016. Maybe every country is vulnerable at some point to a demagogue who appeals to what lies beneath the civilized veneer of an advanced society.   

On the vast majority of issues Dems win. Newsflash: why else do they lose so many elections if most of their policy proposals are winners?

Democrats won as a whole in 2018 because what Trump has offered is empty... and he has done little other than to enrich, indulge, and empower economic elites as they have never been enriched, indulged, and empowered since the 1920s.

[136or142]

Why would this "working stiff" prototype need defending if his life is perfectly normal? If anything this prototype usually wants to be left alone and hates the government. With that said, without Democratic policies the "working stiff" wouldn't have job, his children wouldn't get a decent education and he might not even have health care to stay healthy enough to keep working. The better question is why do Republicans have an issue with everyone who doesn't fit a certain prototype. The Republican Party has become a cult that subscribes to the idea that only some Americans should have opportunities.

     Because a perfectly normal life is hard going (that you would even see fit to ask that question is baffling). Doubly so if you are unfortunate to be in a major metropolitan area where the cost of living is sky-high. A big reason why people ridicule the sanctimony of Democrats acting like they are valiant defenders of the masses: look at how little they have done to deal with the fact that places like the Bay Area are rapidly becoming totally unlivable.

"That restaurant is so overcrowded nobody goes there anymore."  Yogi Bera

     So do you deny that the cost of living in the Bay Area is unreasonably high?

I think his point is that in that sense the Bay Area is a victim of its own overwhelming success. Supply and demand and all that. I'm sure that some Municipal housing and Zoning codes could be modified to encourage more development to try to lower housing costs at least somewhat. However, if you're trying to say that the main reason Bay Area Housing costs are so high has to do with government over-regulation, as opposed to the fact that essentially every well-paid educated person in the Western Hemisphere tried to move there in the past 20 years - - ironically, supply and demand - - then I think you're off base.

     Good thing I didn't try to say that.

So then, what is your point?

     Polls show widespread dissatisfaction with the trajectory of the Bay Area driven primarily by the cost of living and housing, and indicate that nearly half of people living here want to leave. If the Democratic Party's press is accurate, then I would imagine that they could take advantage of their monolithic power in our cities and in the state of California to make life better for those of us outside the tech industry and tackle the serious problems we face. Instead I see a solid consensus around me transcending party lines that the situation is bad and getting worse. It makes these glowing endorsements of liberal policy ring quite hollow.

Some problems just don't have solutions.  

There is a partial solution based on significantly increasing density.

However, by and large, the Bay Area has two choices:

1.Significantly increase the amount of home construction to (hopefully) reduce the housing prices and increase the amount of traffic and pressures on public amenities.

2.Discourage population growth by not building new housing developments in order to reduce this pressure on public amenities, and have even higher housing costs.

A lot of people who are used to more suburban living don't seem to like very high density.

There may be some things that San Francisco could do, as Vancouver has done, to make it very difficult for people not living in the area to own empty homes (basically using it for investment purposes) by mandating that they either rent out the homes or pay a speculation tax, and this certainly can take pressure off of  housing demand.  However, ultimately this issue of 'pick your poison' can't be avoided.

The public, lying politicians and especially lying pressure groups like to tell the public that they can have lower cost housing without increasing density or pressure on public amenities, but they can't change reality.

     So your contention is in essence that there exists no magic cure and due to fundamental mechanics of populations the Bay Area is likely doomed to suffer from severe dissatisfaction even as general economic metrics look good here. I don't really disagree with that. Note that the post I initially responded to had a basic gist of "things are alright, Democrat policies make life good". It's a very pollyanna view of how policy works out, and my thoughts in this thread are in reaction to that.

     I notice often on Atlas that people adopt this sort of view and then are befuddled that voters don't overwhelmingly prefer liberal politicians. The people I know who find themselves struggling to pay their bills, even if they are very liberal themselves, are generally more pessimistic about the prospects of government to change things for the better. They certainly won't subscribe to the idea that if your life is perfectly normal then you're fine and don't need help.

I was referring to the Bay Area specifically and not to the United States in general.  

I personally would certainly argue that liberal Neo-Classical economics does both provide 'the greatest good for the greatest number' and that over time it provides greater good for greater numbers.

I discussed this same thing with the slavery issue in the Bible.  At the time of Ancient Rome they did not have the wealth to keep prisoners of war, so they could either kill them or allow them to be made slaves.  I'm certainly not going to say that the money couldn't be better spent elsewhere, but the U.S has 2.2 million people in jail at any given point in time, and it's not that a significant cost to the treasury.

This is also the main moral defense of capitalism. It isn't just that 'people can buy more stuff' it's that the increased wealth provides greater and more moral options for society.

In this case, as it is true for a society, it's also true for the individual.  Over time, an increase in wealth provides people greater options and can provide them greater security.

Of course, that gets in to the notion of the 'destruction' that occurs in a vibrant economy.  In the case of the Bay Area, it's a case of 'you must pick one or the other', in this case, all governments, to the degree they can, try to manage the trade-off between stability and creative destruction.

There is also, I think, no question both an irony and a ridiculousness to Trump and the Congressional Republicans benefiting from the dissatisfaction.  It's the Republican policies of anti-union, tax cuts for the rich, social spending cuts and (some) deregulation that have many people feeling the sense of dislocation both economically and socially that helped elect Trump and the Republican Congress in 2016.  Trump ran, at times, as a repudiation of these 'Reagan Revolution' economic policies, but the Congressional Republicans promised to keep them and do more, and, yet, they both benefited.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For a defense and explanation of liberal neo-classical economics, I recommend reading "Grand Pursuit: The Story of Economic Genius" By economist and author Sylvia Nassar (Nassar also wrote 'A Beautiful Mind.')  

There are a couple historical disputes with the book.  Nassar claims that Karl Marx was basically a self-promoting layabout while Engels was the real ideas person.  That Marx was a shameless self-promoter and a layabout isn't in dispute, but there seems to be a lot of disagreement with the idea that he wasn't also the greater intellectual.

Nassar, also claims that Alfred Marshall, the father of modern micro economics, was also the father of modern macro economics, as he disproved Malthusian based classical economics theory.  Most economists don't credit Alfred Marshall for this, or at least, they dispute that was the central focus of his work.

However, the book is an excellent explainer of liberal neo-classical economics and its support for free trade, investments in infrastructure and people and other social spending and health and safety and environmental regulations as the best way by far of building an economy over time that benefits by far the most people.  

The book also takes on the twin evils of populist nativist economics and the right wing so called 'economic freedom' which is really nothing but rent seeking by wealthy and powerful people.  Of course, under Trump and the Republican Congress, we had both of these things.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.There is an underlying problem with your critique of Democrats: you aren't comparing Democratic policies to Republican policies, you are comparing them to utopia.  

Actual Republican policies are either the neo-Feudalist policies of the Congressional Republicans, or are the populist policies of Donald Trump, that nativism, the (attempts) to interfere in monetary policy that have devastated the Argentine economy for more than 100 years now.

As with most things, these policies don't have effects overnight but they do have large negative impacts in the long run.

2.This is also true with the benefits of liberal neo-classical economic policies.  What should be emphasized here are the positive feedback effects.  A 2% annual real GDP growth rate may not sound like much, but it results in a doubling of an economy in real terms every 36 years.  (Slow and steady wins the race.)

The reason this doesn't always appeal is the same reason, for example, why Argentina has followed failed populist economics for more than 100 years now: because demagogues who promise quick riches unfortunately sometime have more appeal than those who promise slow and steady growth through hard work and some short term sacrifice (deferred gratification.)  This is true on the right with Donald Trump, and it's somewhat true on the left with, somewhat, Bernie Sanders.

For those who would falsely claim that Republican ideology embraces 'deferred gratification' I note, as I noted in another thread here, that Republicans and conservatives in general are great at sloganeering, 'the party of personal responsibility' 'the law and order party' to the degree that they actually believe they stand for these things, while being bad at governing, and not at all interested in living up to the ideals inherent in these slogans.

3.Finally, this is an article that details the macro economic impacts of systemic discrimination: https://hbr.org/2017/11/the-insidious-economic-impact-of-sexual-harassment

So, far from 'liberal identity politics' being of concern for only a small number of people for purely social reasons, in fact, systemic discrimination has fairly large negative economic impacts for society as a whole.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Where is the evidence Dems don't support ordinary working people based on gender or race? Meaning white males. Their 2020 frontrunners are white males + a majority of House+Senate members. Come on... This is one of the most hilarious posts I've read in a while.

There's actually nothing hilarious about it. It's more depressingly pathetic, if anything.

[Badger]

Why would this "working stiff" prototype need defending if his life is perfectly normal? If anything this prototype usually wants to be left alone and hates the government. With that said, without Democratic policies the "working stiff" wouldn't have job, his children wouldn't get a decent education and he might not even have health care to stay healthy enough to keep working. The better question is why do Republicans have an issue with everyone who doesn't fit a certain prototype. The Republican Party has become a cult that subscribes to the idea that only some Americans should have opportunities.

     Because a perfectly normal life is hard going (that you would even see fit to ask that question is baffling). Doubly so if you are unfortunate to be in a major metropolitan area where the cost of living is sky-high. A big reason why people ridicule the sanctimony of Democrats acting like they are valiant defenders of the masses: look at how little they have done to deal with the fact that places like the Bay Area are rapidly becoming totally unlivable.

"That restaurant is so overcrowded nobody goes there anymore."  Yogi Bera

     So do you deny that the cost of living in the Bay Area is unreasonably high?

I think his point is that in that sense the Bay Area is a victim of its own overwhelming success. Supply and demand and all that. I'm sure that some Municipal housing and Zoning codes could be modified to encourage more development to try to lower housing costs at least somewhat. However, if you're trying to say that the main reason Bay Area Housing costs are so high has to do with government over-regulation, as opposed to the fact that essentially every well-paid educated person in the Western Hemisphere tried to move there in the past 20 years - - ironically, supply and demand - - then I think you're off base.

     Good thing I didn't try to say that.

So then, what is your point?

     Polls show widespread dissatisfaction with the trajectory of the Bay Area driven primarily by the cost of living and housing, and indicate that nearly half of people living here want to leave. If the Democratic Party's press is accurate, then I would imagine that they could take advantage of their monolithic power in our cities and in the state of California to make life better for those of us outside the tech industry and tackle the serious problems we face. Instead I see a solid consensus around me transcending party lines that the situation is bad and getting worse. It makes these glowing endorsements of liberal policy ring quite hollow.

Okay, so you ARE blaming overcrowding and high property values on liberal Democratic governance, rather than the Bay Area being a magnet for everyone and their code writing brother to move too. Glad we have that straight.