First Impression Democratic Party Debate

[Mr. Deez]

tex2000, people don't vote based on where they live or even necessarily on their age. If you moved to San Francisco, would you suddenly start voting for Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein? I doubt it. Most people on the coasts vote Democratic, because they're liberals. They're socially liberal (pro-gay, at least leaning pro-abortion rights, anti-gun) and favor a powerful central government (generous entitlement programs, large public infrastructure, etc.).

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see a lot of liberalism coming from Asian Americans. I see discipline, a strong work ethic, and self-reliance - pretty much the opposite of the values that drive virtually all Democratic policies. I see mostly indifference on social issues. Ideologically, they at least seem like they'd be closer to the GOP. In fact, most Democratic policies do little or nothing for your average Asian American, and some (affirmative action) blatantly screw them. Despite all that, they vote Democratic, and I don't think it's just because of where they live or how old they are.

I'm not suggesting that Asians are militant about identity politics, like most blacks and a few Hispanics are. I also don't think most Asians are truly offended by it. However, nobody wants to vote for politicians who seem to be indifferent to whether or not they insult you.

The bottom line is that Huckabee said a stupid thing. It's true that he qualified it a little by referring to a North Korean chef, which I think is the reason why he thought it was OK to make the comment. However, if he's the GOP nominee (highly doubtful), the political message that gets pushed by the media is going to omit the term "North," just as it omits the term "illegal" when characterizing Republicans who want to stop illegal immigration. They're described as "anti-immigration" or even worse, "anti-immigrant." Similarly, Huckabee would be described as making a comment about "Koreans" or "Asians," not "North Koreans."

Also, don't forget that plenty of white voters don't want to vote for candidates who are racially or ethnically insensitive, so the political costs of saying that sort of thing go further than the group at issue. For example, if the GOP nominee drops N-bombs in public, he's not just going to piss off black voters whose minds were never open to voting for him in the first place. He's going to lose white voters (guys like SH) who may not feel so hot about supporting a N-bomb-dropping redneck.

 

[texas_ex2000]

tex2000, people don't vote based on where they live or even necessarily on their age.

You would think so. I know it really doesn't make sense, but geography makes a difference. Do you really think a 1st gen asian kid in Katy will have a lot in common with a 1st gen asian kid who grows up in Queens?

My filipino family in Texas, they vote republican. My Boston, NYC, SF extended family vote democrat. They all came to this country at about the same time.

It made me think why is that? Well, we all go to church, but churches in Texas (even Catholic churches) are more conservative. My friends growing up were all republicans as were my parents' friends and coworkers. My mom, a nurse founded her own dialysis business, something that's a lot easier to do and do succesfully in Texas. We lived in a community where republicans weren't lampooned as evil villains. That's a huge factor and the opposite of where my cousins grew up.

It's assimilation. The difference is, those coastal metro port of entry areas already have a critical mass of asian diasporas. So that's naturally where the last several generations (the huge influx of asian imigrants in the late 70s early 80s) of asian imigrants have settled.

Plus in SF or Honolulu or Queens, you're not going to have viable GOP candidates to even get excited about.

 

[Mr. Deez]

You would think so. I know it really doesn't make sense, but geography makes a difference.

My filipino family in Texas, they vote republican. My Boston, NYC, SF extended family vote democrat. They all came to this country at about the same time.

It made me think why is that? Well, we all go to church, but churches in Texas (even Catholic churches) are more conservative. My friends growing up were all republicans as were my parents' friends and coworkers. My mom, a nurse founded her own dialysis business, something that's a lot easier to do and do succesfully in Texas. It's assimilation. The difference is, those coastal metro port of entry areas already have a critical mass of asian diasporas.

Plus in SF or Honolulu or Queens, you're not going to have viable GOP candidates to even get excited about.

If it really is a matter of geography, then two things of note. First, I've been overestimating Asians. Second, instead of trying to convince them on the merits to vote GOP, we should just get them to move to red states, and the problem will take care of itself.

 

[NJlonghorn]

That chart doesn't tell you the weights. E.g. how big the 18-35 group is compared with 65 and plus. It also doesn't tell you where they live. How do Filipinos and Vietnamese in Texas vote vs Japanese voters in San Francisco.

I bet if you normalize the voter blocs to the age distribution of the greater US voting demographic, the aggregate amount would be pretty close to the general US.

Look at the data more closely. Asians lean heavily Democratic in every age bracket. Even the 65+ category prefers Democrats by a margin of 39 to 28. It is mathematically impossible to overcome this by re-weighting the data.

Interestingly, as you go up in the age progression, support for Republicans does not increase meaningfully (27, 27, 29, 28 in the four age brackets shown). To the extent that there is a shift, it is from D to undecided, not from D to R. Older (and presumably wiser) Asians grow to dislike Democrats, but continue disliking Republicans. This has to mean something, and distaste from Republican insensibilities seems like a reasonable possibility to me.

 

[Crockett]

As a centerists, supporters on both the left and right baffle me.
My Republican friends have no problems looking at the math and correctly assessing that no tax on the rich is going to be able to pay for the Democrats' proposed new programs.
My Democratic friends have no problems looking at the math and correctly assessing that there is no way there can be enough economic growth to pay for Republicans proposed tax cuts and simultaneous upgrades of our military capabilities.

Is there anyone besides NJLonghorn, Seattle Husker and myself who can clearly see both?

 

[texas_ex2000]

Second, instead of trying to convince them on the merits to vote GOP, we should just get them to move to red states, and the problem will take care of itself.

I know you were joking when you typed that, but honestly, that would make a huge difference.

Look at the data more closely. Asians lean heavily Democratic in every age bracket. Even the 65+ category prefers Democrats by a margin of 39 to 28. It is mathematically impossible to overcome this by re-weighting the data.

Interestingly, as you go up in the age progression, support for Republicans does not increase meaningfully (27, 27, 29, 28 in the four age brackets shown). To the extent that there is a shift, it is from D to undecided, not from D to R. Older (and presumably wiser) Asians grow to dislike Democrats, but continue disliking Republicans. This has to mean something, and distaste from Republican insensibilities seems like a reasonable possibility to me.

And again, I will point you to this

ages 55 and older, are split more evenly across ideological groups with 30% conservative, 25% liberal and 35% moderate.

You're also giving a stat from the Washington Post, but ignoring obvious demographic variables that polling over the last 20 years confirm. E.g. younger demographic and geography.

How also does the party preference by age compare to the districts Asian Americans live in?

And back to the real point of this derailment as 6721 articulately puts it:

"I bet if you asked every "Asian" in USA if they thought this tweet mentioning a North Korean chef was racist toward them less than 1/50th of 1 % would say yes. Most hate them with a passion."

The only Asian Americans who would claim to be offened by that are dyed in the wool blue Democrat/Obamatons.

Hell...political incorrectness is basically part of every Asian culture. It doesn't
mean Asian Americans are racist, it just means we're not easily offened, don't take oursleves seriously, and instead of living down to victimization we focus on winning and accomplishment.

In fact Asians Americans are the biggest victims of liberal social engineering programs that democrats push. Many Asian Americans, who's parents had basically nothing when they got here must meet a much higher academic standard to get the same opportunities other minorities and white kids get in the interest of "diversity." I cannot tell you how many non-Asian minorities I've come across as a naval officer (a line officer) and as banker get promoted into a position or get an internship they were completely not up to par for and then crash and burn. It's a joke.

 

[theiioftx]

As a centerists, supporters on both the left and right baffle me.
My Republican friends have no problems looking at the math and correctly assessing that no tax on the rich is going to be able to pay for the Democrats' proposed new programs.
My Democratic friends have no problems looking at the math and correctly assessing that there is no way there can be enough economic growth to pay for Republicans proposed tax cuts and simultaneous upgrades of our military capabilities.

Is there anyone besides NJLonghorn, Seattle Husker and myself who can clearly see both?

Interesting post. As a Conservative (note I no longer identify with the Republican Party), I can see both. However, neither one of those is not a mutually exclusive answer or solution. I do not like taxes simply because I think too much is wasted by the government. If I was told my taxes would increase, but the money would be effectively used, I could be for it.

What republican has endorsed an overall tax decrease? It seems more are advocating for a simpler tax system where everyone pays (except for Trump's lie).

The current democratic candidates who are advocating for more and more free giveaways cannot comprehend that it is unsustainable. If you create an environment where it becomes more advantageous to move your money (and even your residence) to a less taxable situation, the rich will do it. That is why Trump's plan to lower corporate taxes and create incentives to bring money back from foreign havens does make sense.

 

[Horn6721]

It is interesting that as the economy and people struggle the fed has seen nice increases in tax revenue. ( as well as many cities and states)
So the problem isn't not enough money, it is too much spending.
I am sure both Pubs and Dems can see that.

 

[Crockett]

Look at Trump and Carson's tax simplification plans. They will also dramatically reduce revenues ... unless economic activity grows at an unimaginable rate.

 

[Horn6721]

Croc
would either plan leave more money in a tax paying person's pocket?

 

[zork]

Wasn't there a rule put in place by the feds that said govt jobs had to be raised to within a certain percentage of similar private jobs? Well, why not regulate those down, cap them, to no more than 5% more than those same private sector jobs? (including benefits of course which will cause a huge salary decrease given the government bene package largesse)

There was a recent study that implicated fed government salaries are growing much faster than the private sector for years and an significant imbalance now exists.

 

[Horn6721]

zork
reading how much federal gov't employees are paid including benefits and perks was startling.
and of course there is the never can get fired perk which is priceless.

 

[Monahorns]

To the conversation about voting patterns of Asian Americans, I read a book about the different cultures in the USA. What they find is that the culture of the original inhabitants remain in place to this day and as people move in they are more or less assimilated. It takes time but it shows that as children grow up in a place they tend to identify with the areas dominant culture. It is true of whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, etc.

 

[UTChE96]

that there is no way there can be enough economic growth to pay for Republicans proposed tax cuts and simultaneous upgrades of our military capabilities.

I would agree with this for the most part. No need to reduce income taxes for now. Military spending certainly does not need to be increased. We just need better leadership on foreign policy. However, reducing the corporate tax rate plus a repatriation tax break makes a lot of sense to spur job creation.

The real challenge will be reducing spending. Our politicians on both sides are like crack addicts when it comes to spending. Its one reason that I do not like increasing the debt ceiling every year. This will force politicians to prioritize spending and actually make some difficult decisions. Of course, that is exactly why it will never happen.

 

[Mr. Deez]

As a centerists, supporters on both the left and right baffle me.
My Republican friends have no problems looking at the math and correctly assessing that no tax on the rich is going to be able to pay for the Democrats' proposed new programs.
My Democratic friends have no problems looking at the math and correctly assessing that there is no way there can be enough economic growth to pay for Republicans proposed tax cuts and simultaneous upgrades of our military capabilities.

Is there anyone besides NJLonghorn, Seattle Husker and myself who can clearly see both?

I can see both but only to a point. Neither side is entirely right, but the Right's position has more merit. Liberals scoffed at the Laffer Curve and dismissed it as snake oil, and not only were they wrong, they were utterly discredited. A tax cut can pay for itself and then some by unlocking economic growth. Furthermore, economic growth has always driven revenue more than tax rates. That's why the federal government got much higher revenue in the '80s than it got in the '70s, even though tax rates were much lower. That's also why the Left is so horrifically wrong when it says it will raise taxes to finance large programs.

So what's wrong with the Right? It forgets that the Laffer Curve is a curve. When you're cutting taxes from 70 percent to 28 percent, I think it's pretty easy to see how that would unlock a lot of growth - enough to boost revenue. That's a fundamental shift in tax policy in favor of the taxpayer. It's also easy to see how raising them back to 70 percent would stifle a lot of growth - enough to undermine revenue. However, when they claim that cutting taxes just a few percentage points (like from 39.6 to 35 percent) will do the same thing or that raising them from 35 to 39.6 will bring economic Armageddon, they blow their credibility with me. However, they aren't as blatantly full of **** as the Left was and still is.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

However, when they claim that cutting taxes just a few percentage points (like from 39.6 to 35 percent) will do the same thing or that raising them from 35 to 39.6 will bring economic Armageddon, they blow their credibility with me.

I think that's a valid point - the issue of course is that 39.6 today means 42 next year, which means 48 next year. The argument goes that "we raised taxes a little last year and the world didn't end", so therefore let's raise it more.

We set record tax revenues this year yet again, despite flat salaries. There's a never-ending list of spending items out there, and raising taxes always goes toward those. And it's never enough.

Patricia Cohen of the NYT makes this really clear in her logic:

If the tax increase were limited to just the 115,000 households in the top 0.1 percent, with an average income of $9.4 million, a 40 percent tax rate would produce $55 billion in extra revenue in its first year.

That would more than cover, for example, the estimated $47 billion cost of eliminating undergraduate tuition at all the country’s four-year public colleges and universities, as Senator Bernie Sanders has proposed, or Mrs. Clinton’s cheaper plan for a debt-free college degree, with money left over to help fund universal prekindergarten.

A tax rate of 45 percent on this select group raises $109 billion, more than enough to pay for the first year of a new $2,500 child tax credit introduced by Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida.

Move a rung down the ladder and expand the contribution of those in the 95th to 99th percentile — who earn on average $405,000. Raising their total tax rate to 30 percent from a quarter of their total yearly income would generate an additional $86 billion. That’s enough to cover the cost over eight years of repealing the so-called Cadillac Tax on high-cost health plans, which Senator Sanders and Mrs. Clinton have endorsed.

So we keep raising taxes, the really rich people (the ones who we could tax huge amounts of money but would still take home more money than you, so it's fair to do it...) use their accountants to lessen the financial blow while that 95th percentile, and eventually the 90th and 85th, find themselves with increasing taxes and more and more expensive options for health care and education and a lot less disposable income than plenty of people farther down the economic ladder would enjoy.

So the people with the really big money who are they key to pulling in all that income don't prove to be as much of a bottomless pit as people think, but those great projects are still there, and someone has to pay for them. Keep on moving down that rung...

 

[Mr. Deez]

I think that's a valid point - the issue of course is that 39.6 today means 42 next year, which means 48 next year. The argument goes that "we raised taxes a little last year and the world didn't end", so therefore let's raise it more.

We set record tax revenues this year yet again, despite flat salaries. There's a never-ending list of spending items out there, and raising taxes always goes toward those. And it's never enough.

Patricia Cohen of the NYT makes this really clear in her logic:



So we keep raising taxes, the really rich people (the ones who we could tax huge amounts of money but would still take home more money than you, so it's fair to do it...) use their accountants to lessen the financial blow while that 95th percentile, and eventually the 90th and 85th, find themselves with increasing taxes and more and more expensive options for health care and education and a lot less disposable income than plenty of people farther down the economic ladder would enjoy.

So the people with the really big money who are they key to pulling in all that income don't prove to be as much of a bottomless pit as people think, but those great projects are still there, and someone has to pay for them. Keep on moving down that rung...

You are correct. The real fear isn't the relatively small tax hike. It's the slippery slope. However, that's rarely how the issue is argued by the GOP. They usually argue that a tax increase of any size or scope is a horrific injustice that will bring tyranny and economic ruin, and in the long run, that kind of crying wolf will lead to more tax increases than if they just argued the point logically as you have.

Sometimes you're going to lose and the tax increase will happen over your objections and not cause the calamity you claimed it would cause (such as in 1993 and in 2013). If you end up being wrong over and over again, people will stop listening to you, and raising taxes will become an easier and easier task.

 

[Mr. Deez]

@texas_ex2000 - interesting article on why Asians vote Democratic.

 

[NJlonghorn]

@texas_ex2000 - interesting article on why Asians vote Democratic.

Thanks for posting that, Deez. Particularly interesting to me was the comparison with another topic that has been debated ad nauseum here and elsewhere -- why do American Jews lean heavily Democratic? I think the answer in both cases has more to do with culture and philosophy than it does with demographics.

 

[texas_ex2000]

@texas_ex2000 - interesting article on why Asians vote Democratic.

Deez, this article is descriptive. It says Asians are "liberal" on X, Y, and Z and therefore vote Democrat. We've already discussed this.

It doesn't analyze WHY there has been such a distinct shift. And if you don't know how such a shift is happening, you cannot conclude that having Asian genetics is the driving factor. (As an aside, the fact that there has been a recent voter shift tells me that race is only a tangential factor behind Asians voting Democrat.)

As you have stated, and has the article, the shift seems odd given Asian culture and values.

Asian-American voters, combining personal wealth, entrepreneurial success, high incomes, traditional family values and a strong work ethic, would seem to be ideal recruits for the more conservative political party. Nonetheless, the Republican Party has steadily lost their support.

You're a smart guy, I'd go with your gut feeling and start considering other more elegant theories.

Monahorns' book would be a good start.

To the conversation about voting patterns of Asian Americans, I read a book about the different cultures in the USA. What they find is that the culture of the original inhabitants remain in place to this day and as people move in they are more or less assimilated. It takes time but it shows that as children grow up in a place they tend to identify with the areas dominant culture. It is true of whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, etc.

 

[Joe Fan]

Will need to click on the volume