President Joe Biden

[FogBlueInSanFran]

There's really quite a contradiction here. If you assume that there is quite likely to be overlap between a misogynist and a racist, you have to explain why so many people voted twice for Obama and then voted for Trump. The answer lies in Clinton being one of the all-time corrupt people - even by Washington standards. The Clintons had got away with Whitewater, Castle Grande, insider trading on Cattle Futures, and a whole host of corrupt dealings. The chickens finally came home to roost. She was possibly the only major Democrat who could have lost to Trump.

I don’t agree that there’s necessarily overlap between being a misogynist and a racist. It’s just personal experience — the vast majority of my male friends are misogynists in some way, shape or form, but I’d suggest that very few are racists, and if so, not overtly. I don’t think the idea of the Clintons being corrupt had nearly as much to do with her loss as her perceived unlike-ability, the fact that Post-Bush America is somewhat more uncomfortable with “dynasty” (ie the perception is she’d never have been Sec of State or a Senator without her husband, true or not), that her campaign took swing states for granted (arrogance), and the fact that blue voter apathy and the given assumption that she’d win meant that turnout was low anyhow since no one “in their right mind” would vote for Trump. Oops. Turn out in 18 and likely in 20 suggests blue voters have learned a lesson. She still won the popular vote by 3 million.

 

[lasereyes]

I don’t agree that there’s necessarily overlap between being a misogynist and a racist. It’s just personal experience — the vast majority of my male friends are misogynists in some way, shape or form, but I’d suggest that very few are racists, and if so, not overtly. I don’t think the idea of the Clintons being corrupt had nearly as much to do with her loss as her perceived unlike-ability, the fact that Post-Bush America is somewhat more uncomfortable with “dynasty” (ie the perception is she’d never have been Sec of State or a Senator without her husband, true or not), that her campaign took swing states for granted (arrogance), and the fact that blue voter apathy and the given assumption that she’d win meant that turnout was low anyhow since no one “in their right mind” would vote for Trump. Oops. Turn out in 18 and likely in 20 suggests blue voters have learned a lesson. She still won the popular vote by 3 million.

None of which has anything to do with her being a woman which was the original statement

 

[lasereyes]

It is, but the immediate punishment was being dragged before the Senate Banking Committee in chains, and the idea of the CFPB was to create an organization that would hold finance institutions accountable later. The punishment IS the additional red tape/oversight/cost/threat to investigate the CFBP brings — its the additional security camera/watchful eye as opposed to its legislative/executive ability (ie its fourth branch power).

I don't think this is right. The bank regulation (some of which was very necessary) that led to red tape stemmed largely from Basel-3, Dodd-Frank, Mifid-2, Resolution planning, AML and Conduct mandates. The CFPB played no part in any of those.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I don't think this is right. The bank regulation (some of which was very necessary) that led to red tape stemmed largely from Basel-3, Dodd-Frank, Mifid-2, Resolution planning, AML and Conduct mandates. The CFPB played no part in any of those.

Dodd-Frank created it. Mifid-2 (don’t get me started), AML, Basel-3 are to prevent different kinds of systemic abuse, protect depositors and investors from eroding capital bases. and prevent crime that doesn’t necessarily have any connection to consumer credit (ie securities investments). CFPB is consumer-centric and focused on consumer goods used every day. It’s a specific bureaucratic arm that’s consumer-facing. Recall I said and believe CFPB was to keep up with non-bank lenders — and rapidity of product proliferation relative to other regulatory bodies.

Anyhow, we agree that used correctly it can be a force for good but also could be a force that stems capital markets innovation and increases costs of financial products to consumers.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

None of which has anything to do with her being a woman which was the original statement

Well I think being married to Bill Clinton does! But did systemic misogyny cost her the election? Hard to know — she was the first major party Presidential candidate who was one. I do believe there was an element, but to your point, I doubt Harris, Condoleeza Rice, Michelle Obama or Klobuchar would be received quite as negatively just based on gender but obviously I’m just guessing.

 

[inbetween]

I don’t agree that there’s necessarily overlap between being a misogynist and a racist. It’s just personal experience — the vast majority of my male friends are misogynists in some way, shape or form, but I’d suggest that very few are racists, and if so, not overtly. I don’t think the idea of the Clintons being corrupt had nearly as much to do with her loss as her perceived unlike-ability, the fact that Post-Bush America is somewhat more uncomfortable with “dynasty” (ie the perception is she’d never have been Sec of State or a Senator without her husband, true or not), that her campaign took swing states for granted (arrogance), and the fact that blue voter apathy and the given assumption that she’d win meant that turnout was low anyhow since no one “in their right mind” would vote for Trump. Oops. Turn out in 18 and likely in 20 suggests blue voters have learned a lesson. She still won the popular vote by 3 million.

California made up 12% of her popular vote so there isn't much relevance on that. Clintons problem was she was just edged out by the popular vote in the swing states like Florida.

The most interesting thing about Democrat voting is it generally comes as one sizeable majority in a city but then that popular vote is crowded out by cumulative Republican votes in smaller counties.

Texas is a good example, virtually all of Clintons vote there came from Houston and Dallas, but she lost most of everything left. In Florida she lost by a figure that could of been fixed by a greater turnout.

It seems to me their appeal is often limited by their failure to appeal to working class Americans which is strange given that is who the Democrats should be representing.

Maybe those other counties find it easier to swallow BS from people like Trump though... I don't know.

 

[FCBarca]

I hope for the Dems a ventriloquist will be available tonight

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

I hope for the Dems a ventriloquist will be available tonight

Most trump fans have been led to believe that Biden is a senile old man that can barely string two words together. Having pushed this view so hard the main takeaway from tonight is that he wont be any worse than Trump.

 

[DrBlueBob]

Most trump fans have been led to believe that Biden is a senile old man that can barely string two words together. Having pushed this view so hard the main takeaway from tonight is that he wont be any worse than Trump.

It will most certainly be two different debating styles. Should be interesting.

 

[FCBarca]

Most trump fans have been led to believe that Biden is a senile old man that can barely string two words together. Having pushed this view so hard the main takeaway from tonight is that he wont be any worse than Trump.

I am not a fan of Biden but even less so of Trump. As for his senility, I have eyes & ears apart from being a trained & experienced clinician - the assessment of that is clear as day