2020 Presidential Election

[DU82]

This may be PPB material, if so mods please delete, but I don’t see it as political, but legal/ethics. Brought this up here since it was from the recent debate.

Saw this on Bill James’s twitter feed on his site (yes the baseball writer):

Julian Castro said that legal ethics would have prevented him from voting against the interests of a client, in his role as a member of the city council. Is that true? No agenda here; it just struck me as a curious interpretation of legal ethics, and I wanted to double-check.

For the lawyers out there, your comments? Seems to me to be a conflict of interest at a minimum, and to me a betrayal to his primary client at the time, the citizens of his city.

[OldPhiKap]

This may be PPB material, if so mods please delete, but I don’t see it as political, but legal/ethics. Brought this up here since it was from the recent debate.

Saw this on Bill James’s twitter feed on his site (yes the baseball writer):

Julian Castro said that legal ethics would have prevented him from voting against the interests of a client, in his role as a member of the city council. Is that true? No agenda here; it just struck me as a curious interpretation of legal ethics, and I wanted to double-check.

For the lawyers out there, your comments? Seems to me to be a conflict of interest at a minimum, and to me a betrayal to his primary client at the time, the citizens of his city.

Didn’t see the exchange, but a local government official should recuse himself/herself from any vote in which there is a financial interest or the perception of same. The city likely has a conflict provision in its local ordinances too which may be controlling.

[Jeffrey]

All I can say is that if every politician that can be perceived as prioritizing their brand above the US financial system really scares you, you must spend a lot of time really scared.

Bush and Obama, from opposite sides of the aisle, made the prudent choice. Neither of them scared me. I suspect Biden and Trump would also make the prudent choice.

Bush believed, and still believes, in free markets but was smart enough to recognize Paulson, Bernanke, and Geithner were the most capable minds.

Many falsely believe it was a socialist act. In reality, the more socialist candidates are the ones who would not do it. Yes, Sanders and Warren scare me since this is one of the very few subjects I understand well.

[PackMan97]

This may be PPB material, if so mods please delete, but I don’t see it as political, but legal/ethics. Brought this up here since it was from the recent debate.

Saw this on Bill James’s twitter feed on his site (yes the baseball writer):

Julian Castro said that legal ethics would have prevented him from voting against the interests of a client, in his role as a member of the city council. Is that true? No agenda here; it just struck me as a curious interpretation of legal ethics, and I wanted to double-check.

For the lawyers out there, your comments? Seems to me to be a conflict of interest at a minimum, and to me a betrayal to his primary client at the time, the citizens of his city.

Right, his only option would have been to recuse himself. He didn't want to do that, so he resigned his attorney position. There is nothing special about it other than he felt like his vote was needed to oppose the project and so recusal was not an option.

[bundabergdevil]

Bush and Obama, from opposite sides of the aisle, made the prudent choice. Neither of them scared me. I suspect Biden and Trump would also make the prudent choice.

Bush believed, and still believes, in free markets but was smart enough to recognize Paulson, Bernanke, and Geithner were the most capable minds.

Many falsely believe it was a socialist act. In reality, the more socialist candidates are the ones who would not do it. Yes, Sanders and Warren scare me since this is one of the very few subjects I understand well.

Many disagreements aren't about what happened but what to call what happened. The 'Rose by any other name' conundrum. I think I understand why I agree with much of your analysis on things but rarely your characterization of what does or not constitute a socialist act. You must be operating on a definition with which I'm wholly unfamiliar.

To attempt to make this post thread-relevant, it's clear that both Republicans and Democrats are navigating uncertain waters when using the term 'socialism' or describing this or that policy as socialistic. Americans are divided on the definition or perhaps more fairly, confused. In terms of perceiving the term as positive or negative, there is a demographic divide. Younger generations are becoming more positive on the term and less positive on the term capitalism. I use term intentionally to tee up this commentary by two economists discussing why and how the various demographics - but mostly young Americans - misunderstand the term. Please note that the commentary/economists are right-leaning but I think their discussion of textbook definition versus popular perception underscores the uncertain political waters these candidates (and DBR posters) face in deploying the term as a weapon or rally cry.

[DU82]

Right, his only option would have been to recuse himself. He didn't want to do that, so he resigned his attorney position. There is nothing special about it other than he felt like his vote was needed to oppose the project and so recusal was not an option.

Thanks. I didn’t watch the debates, so didn’t know the full context. Although in a follow-up, James indicates that he didn’t think Castro recused or would recuse himself.

[Jeffrey]

Many disagreements aren't about what happened but what to call what happened. The 'Rose by any other name' conundrum. I think I understand why I agree with much of your analysis on things but rarely your characterization of what does or not constitute a socialist act. You must be operating on a definition with which I'm wholly unfamiliar.

True, I must have a very different definition.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/10/soci-o15.html

https://origins.osu.edu/history-news/bailout-far-cry-socialism

[JasonEvans]

FWIW Democratic Senator Coon said today that the video of Beto, and the reaction by the Dem crowd to it, will be played at NRA rallies for decades. Which of course is true.

I strongly suspect the total number of NRA rally attendees who would consider voting for a Democrat is close to zero anyway. I'm not sure this harms the Dems all that much. The folks who fiercely want to protect their assault rifles are already probably strong GOP supporters.

[OldPhiKap]

I strongly suspect the total number of NRA rally attendees who would consider voting for a Democrat is close to zero anyway. I'm not sure this harms the Dems all that much. The folks who fiercely want to protect their assault rifles are already probably strong GOP supporters.

True, but it allows a GOP lobbying group that was on the ropes to turn around and raise huge dollars. Beto proved that the conspiracy theory the NRA has been peddling — that “Democrats want to come for your guns” -- is in fact true.

If you are in favor of gun control as most seems seem to be, then you want a weak NRA. This helps strengthen them for years.

[alteran]

True, but it allows a GOP lobbying group that was on the ropes to turn around and raise huge dollars. Beto proved that the conspiracy theory the NRA has been peddling — that “Democrats want to come for your guns” -- is in fact true.

If you are in favor of gun control as most seems seem to be, then you want a weak NRA. This helps strengthen them for years.

As a matter of tactics, speaking softly and denying that you ever want to take a gun from anyone has been tried for the last 30 years.

I Don’t think there’s much to be lost in standing up to them.

[JasonEvans]

True, but it allows a GOP lobbying group that was on the ropes to turn around and raise huge dollars. Beto proved that the conspiracy theory the NRA has been peddling — that “Democrats want to come for your guns” -- is in fact true.

If you are in favor of gun control as most seems seem to be, then you want a weak NRA. This helps strengthen them for years.

I dunno. The NRA is supposedly in serious financial trouble already and has been telling their supporters that they are on life support for a while now. I guess this might goose some donations, but if you really care about that organization, you have likely already been told to give until it hurts.

[OldPhiKap]

I dunno. The NRA is supposedly in serious financial trouble already and has been telling their supporters that they are on life support for a while now. I guess this might goose some donations, but if you really care about that organization, you have likely already been told to give until it hurts.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...for-your-guns/

Unwittingly or not, O’Rourke and his acolytes have stuck a dagger into the exquisitely calibrated gun-control messaging on which their party has worked for the better part of 20 years. No voter can now say he wasn’t warned.

I agree with this article, but of course reasonable minds can differ.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...for-your-guns/



I agree with this article, but of course reasonable minds can differ.

That is an extremely partisan article - I had a lot of trouble reading it with a straight face (and without my blood pressure rising).

The Republicans do a really good job of putting words in the mouths of Democrats and equating all Democrats to the most extreme parts of the party. Most (but not all Dems) support restrictions on certain types of guns, but not all guns. Many Republicans agree with this. The devil is in the details. I know there is a fear of a slippery slope on this. What Beto said really is not that extreme. But it can easily be spun to appear to be.

Once it gets closer to the actual election, the Democrats have to do a much better job of making Trump take stands like this on policy issues. As others have noted, every Democratic candidate is now going to get the question "do you agree with Beto on this?" Democrats need to get Trump to take a stand on issues. Health care is a great example. They are circular firing squadding themselves into the ground by having a lot of specificity on policy, while Trump is able to largely avoid this.

[sagegrouse]

True, but it allows a GOP lobbying group that was on the ropes to turn around and raise huge dollars. Beto proved that the conspiracy theory the NRA has been peddling — that “Democrats want to come for your guns” -- is in fact true.

If you are in favor of gun control as most seems seem to be, then you want a weak NRA. This helps strengthen them for years.

As a matter of tactics, speaking softly and denying that you ever want to take a gun from anyone has been tried for the last 30 years.

I Don’t think there’s much to be lost in standing up to them.

To me, there ain't a lot of difference between "banning sales of AR-15's" and "banning ownership of AR-15's." We'll see how this plays out.

[OldPhiKap]

That is an extremely partisan article - I had a lot of trouble reading it with a straight face (and without my blood pressure rising).

Well, the first article I linked making the exact same argument was from CNN which I assume is left-leaning enough to meet the standards of this board. But yes — this is exactly how the right is spinning this to gin up their base and to fundraise. That’s my point.

The issue isn’t whether I agree or disagree with Beto — that is beyond the scope of this thread for PPB reasons. It’s whether having desperate candidates saying controversial things to try and gain relevance is smart politics or not. I think not. But the DNC apparently disagrees, thus keeping folks like this on the national stage.

[PackMan97]

I strongly suspect the total number of NRA rally attendees who would consider voting for a Democrat is close to zero anyway. I'm not sure this harms the Dems all that much. The folks who fiercely want to protect their assault rifles are already probably strong GOP supporters.

I think it does fire up the Republican base in a campaign in which they may not like their candidate. Right now I feel there is a significant enthusiasm gap between a casual democrat (may or may not like the front runners, but certainly dislikes Trump and that's motivation enough) vs a causal republican (who may or may not be sufferent from Trump fatigue but doesn't dislike the Democrats like they did Hillary). I think things like this will help close that enthusiasm gap. Not to mention once confiscation is on the table, it makes all the other "common sense" ideas like registration seem much more sinister.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Sanders is coming off the trail for a bit to "rest his voice".

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-b...232621154.html

[dudog84]

I think this is a lot of hand-wringing over a 3rd-string candidate trying to make waves. Beto is polling at 2% in IA, 1% in NH, 3% in NV, and 1% in SC. If he even makes it to the Texas primary he'll be crawling, and most of the TX polls don't even have him cracking 15% to even get a few delegates. He's really screwed up even his chances for a Texas Senate seat at this point. In six months we'll be saying "Beto who?".

Seriously, it's like Ben Carson saying "We'll be taking away (insert favorite D program)".

Of course the Rs will try to make hay with it. And a lot depends on how the real contenders react. But so easy to say "We have no intention of taking any guns away from law-abiding citizens. Period.". The vast majority of even Ds don't mind people having guns, they just don't want the nuts to have them. Hence the popularity across the board of background checks. Some types of guns are more unpopular, but Americans aren't into nuance.

[Troublemaker]

I think R-voting gun owners mostly already assumed what Beto said was the case anyway.

On the other hand, D candidates going on record as wanting to impeach Justice Kavanaugh seems like something that could be much more impactful to the 2020 election.

[budwom]

I dunno. The NRA is supposedly in serious financial trouble already and has been telling their supporters that they are on life support for a while now. I guess this might goose some donations, but if you really care about that organization, you have likely already been told to give until it hurts.

I think their problems are heavily overstated...they still have over $400 million/year in annual revenue...if Wayne Pierre bought just a few dozen fewer suits (I'm channeling Bilas here) the ten million dollar deficit for the most recent year would be greatly reduced (they do spend excessively on travel and entertainment as has been noted)...more importantly, they still have $145 million in net assets, so the sky isn't falling...and next year is an election year in which the members will be cranked up, ammunition sales will soar once again, and NRA revenue will increase.