Mark Blyth and Wendy Schiller - Election 2016: What Happened and Why?

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
  • Skip ahead to main speakers at 1:34
    The result is in - but does it really matter and for whom does it matter? Will the U.S. p​resident-elect be able to address the problems faced by the voters that put them in charge, or will we ​ be here again in four years time. Join Professors Wendy Schiller and Mark Blyth to discuss what happened and why, and perhaps, what happens next.
    Co-sponsored by the International Relations, Political Science, and Public Policy Departmental Undergraduate Groups.

ความคิดเห็น • 647

  • @6idangle
    @6idangle 7 ปีที่แล้ว +76

    The funny thing about this is we got answers to who was right.... Blyth was. He nails it everytime. He is my new favorite political thinker.

    • @zitools
      @zitools 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      you should check out victor davis hanson.

  • @janellethecat
    @janellethecat 7 ปีที่แล้ว +75

    Schiller seems to have a lot of ways of saying "HRC should have won, but voters on election day somehow didn't understand that they needed to vote accordingly, for reasons of their reasons."

    • @mysticjbyrd
      @mysticjbyrd 7 ปีที่แล้ว +17

      No, you see all the voters magically changed their minds between the last poll, and election day, cuz reasons.
      I am sorry, what? Your dumb ass teaches at fucking Brown?!

    • @roc7880
      @roc7880 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      the same answer I give in meetings when I have no clue what I am talking about

  • @wellsrutland
    @wellsrutland 7 ปีที่แล้ว +124

    These two are not on the same level. Blyth is giving a detailed account of things to come in the future. Schiller can barely verbalize in a sensible manner the events of the immediate past.

    • @milesblue638
      @milesblue638 7 ปีที่แล้ว +31

      She is more interested in absolving HRC (and the DNC) of any responsibility for Trump's victory than in taking a sober look at how we got here and what it means in the near future.

    • @g0vinda337
      @g0vinda337 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      It was nice of them to have someone without an education on the panel though.

    • @cynthiadavis10
      @cynthiadavis10 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      She's an emotionally charged sockpuppet for Clinton. That's why.

  • @MikeH_PR
    @MikeH_PR 7 ปีที่แล้ว +81

    I don't know how Blyth keeps his patience here, while the whole problem that led to Trump is played out a few inches to his left.

    • @roc7880
      @roc7880 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      I bet he is the only one in the whole room who travelled to the poor part of Providence

  • @WorldlyBong
    @WorldlyBong 7 ปีที่แล้ว +18

    Mark Blyth speaks at 13:10, 34:40, 1:01:05, 1:04:18, 1:05:23, 1:08:55, 1:11:16, 1:15:11, 1:19:32, 1:25:47

    • @alst4817
      @alst4817 ปีที่แล้ว

      Thanks man

    • @sandworm9528
      @sandworm9528 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Legend

  • @PhoenixSirius
    @PhoenixSirius 7 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    this presentation is invaluable: it puts side by side the sound of the establishment and that of what actual reasoning sounds like. it's harder to realize how mind blowing the difference really is when you hear them separately.

  • @BillyCosmosis
    @BillyCosmosis 7 ปีที่แล้ว +41

    Blyth's perspective is very interesting. Fast forward through Schiller, she essentially just parrots the clueless MSM view.

  • @mr.d.8121
    @mr.d.8121 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Mark Blythe is awesome. An eloquent, informed and charismatic straight talker.

  • @Embrigh
    @Embrigh 7 ปีที่แล้ว +35

    "I'm not going to blame the polls or the mainstream media for this", Wendy are you for real????

  • @bladedaemon666
    @bladedaemon666 7 ปีที่แล้ว +44

    Perfect example how smart voices are drowned out by confident ignorant ones, Pr. Schiller should have shown a modicum of decency and stop talking and allow Mark Blyth to speak, but i guess that's too much to ask from someone like her !!

  • @julshz
    @julshz 7 ปีที่แล้ว +144

    This woman teaches political science? Yikes. She's nothing more than a neoliberal apologist. We're doomed.

    • @learntospellpeople
      @learntospellpeople 7 ปีที่แล้ว +24

      Depressing, how she seemed to have not a clue why Clinton lost so badly (even if the eventual result was so close). If Schiller is an example of how the Democratic "elite' and party will respond to Trump's presidency & the Republicans, there's no hope whatsoever for liberalism or the Democratic Party. Better get ready to lose to them again in 2020, and probably 2018 as well.

    • @julshz
      @julshz 7 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      Couldn't agree more. After seeing the continued hubris and lack of introspection from Democrats (and not just those elected) I'm starting to understand the "ear-wig" grip neoliberalism has on this party-- one I've been a member of for 40 years. It's like trying to talk to a creationist or flat-earther-- reason just doesn't work. Maybe it's too soon, but I am not encouraged.

    • @alexsharpe5743
      @alexsharpe5743 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Anything specific that you disliked about what she said or are you just going to call her names

    • @julshz
      @julshz 7 ปีที่แล้ว +18

      I specifically hated that a professor of political science regurgitated like a scripted CNN guest. Too hard to understand? Not my problem.

    • @learntospellpeople
      @learntospellpeople 7 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      ***** Yep. Pretty clear and self-explanatory the first time.

  • @leecanon
    @leecanon 7 ปีที่แล้ว +104

    Skip to 13:11 to the beginning of Mark's opinion. 34:41
    Wendy Schiller is out of touch. Spouting Clinton line excuses and her analysis is terrible. It is Hillary's fault. She is a TERRIBLE candidate who couldn't beat a candidate with as many flaws as Trump. Just look at how she spouts sexism as a reason why Hillary lost then when asked about Bernie she says people just wanted to vote for something new.

    • @lotlievaart6823
      @lotlievaart6823 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Yep...the fact Trump won is proof of the huge credibility problem Clinton had....and the fact people voted for Clinton because they are horrified of Trump only masks that enormous credibility problem...:-)

    • @MrBoreray
      @MrBoreray 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@lotlievaart6823 -- To take it further,the US government is FULL of elected officials with sinister and shady pasts,Trump included,but at least he doesn't pretend to be a saint,the Dems don't seem to like people their mud doesn't stick to and now they appear to have someone in the opposite corner who enjoys the same immunity to criticism THEY'VE had for decades !

    • @taylorroth2258
      @taylorroth2258 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Thank you, yea the Clintons are straight evil.

    • @roc7880
      @roc7880 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      even now she does not realize that it was her fault. she somehow thinks that the people own her to vote for her because she had experience.

  • @vannayclearwater1935
    @vannayclearwater1935 7 ปีที่แล้ว +57

    I hope Wendy Schiller is not tenured. If so, then the "the bar is too low" at Brown [see South Park].
    She is really out of her league in this discussion. I felt embarrassed for her.

  • @hrmIwonder
    @hrmIwonder 7 ปีที่แล้ว +16

    Mark has it right. Wendy is completely delusional. She does not understand at all what just happened. The Democratic establishment was completely and utterly humiliated. They are totally discredited. She's in total denial of where to lay the blame.

  • @applejinx7172
    @applejinx7172 7 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    Mark, please continue to give your simple and direct message just as you've given it here, but without Wendy Schiller yelling next to you. Rarely have I heard such a polarization of understanding, and we need to be hearing from you: not least because we're rather off the map as far as 'mainstream parties running the show' and not likely to depart from your projections anytime soon, for the reasons you yourself have given.

  • @Ojja78
    @Ojja78 7 ปีที่แล้ว +74

    Listening to Wendy Schiller talk is unbearable.

    • @bowecho
      @bowecho 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      It's like swimming thru razor blades.

    • @Beretta249
      @Beretta249 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      It really is risible. Starting with "you lost, get over it k" was magnificently tone deaf. Deciding that the smart call is defending HRC personally was a mistake.

  • @dubois2.024
    @dubois2.024 7 ปีที่แล้ว +35

    He gets it. She doesn't.

  • @Nordlaw382
    @Nordlaw382 7 ปีที่แล้ว +64

    When does she stop talking?

    • @rickylarch
      @rickylarch 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      When do you stop posting?

    • @SnowmanTF2
      @SnowmanTF2 7 ปีที่แล้ว +31

      13:10 first monologue
      34:40 second monologue

    • @nickblain18
      @nickblain18 6 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Thank you Snowman, saving my ears from Dem Est BS

    • @zitools
      @zitools 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@rickylarch I think he was looking for timestamps. she had nothing to say. some of it was bordering dangerous. like becoming more engaged without a mention of understanding other point of views. the last thing we need are idiot activists. i dont mind, however, id be lying if i didnt admit thqt a little part of me enjoys watching things backfire.

  • @tschak909
    @tschak909 7 ปีที่แล้ว +18

    Damn it, Wendy. It wasn't because of the negative vitriol regarding HRC, it was the fact that she represented more of the same non-incremental progressive change, at a time when we need more far sweeping positive change, than ever.

  • @martinwermuth5012
    @martinwermuth5012 7 ปีที่แล้ว +24

    "I have some perspective because I am older" What a load of bollocks. She did NOT see the rise of fascism and she has no clue how bad it can and will get.

  • @pettsnjam
    @pettsnjam 7 ปีที่แล้ว +28

    Wendy seems so out of touch.. Marks hitting it right on the head.

  • @michaelmcclure3383
    @michaelmcclure3383 7 ปีที่แล้ว +65

    Yes, and after Reagan came the Clinton era with mass incarceration, deregulation of wallstreet, nafta and all our the seeds of the current malaise...

    • @jonathancampbell5231
      @jonathancampbell5231 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Huh. Small world. Hi, Michael.

    • @michaelmcclure3383
      @michaelmcclure3383 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Hi Jonathan 😊

    • @DAngelo136
      @DAngelo136 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Yes, and YOU asked for it. Who elected the Congress that approved the treaties and passed the legislation?

    • @michaelmcclure3383
      @michaelmcclure3383 7 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      You want to blame anything but the Clintons?

    • @DAngelo136
      @DAngelo136 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      michael mcclure You want to blame nobody but the Clintons?

  • @ArtsAlign
    @ArtsAlign 7 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    In 2015, seven years after they were bailed out, Wall St. BONUSES ONLY totaled $28.4 Billion. Just let that sink in...

  • @sheldondunnjr
    @sheldondunnjr 7 ปีที่แล้ว +16

    Schiller is in complete denial. It only gets more painful to watch as the video goes on. Of course I had my suspicions when she tried to argue with an economist about what inflation is.

  • @caseybv74
    @caseybv74 7 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    A nice contrast between someone who gets it and someone who doesn't

  • @adamwebb241
    @adamwebb241 7 ปีที่แล้ว +103

    Bernie would have steamrolled Trump. You'd have felt sorry for him.

    • @patternsofdisorder1695
      @patternsofdisorder1695 7 ปีที่แล้ว +17

      … and pretty good for your American friends and the rest of the world.

    • @bozo5632
      @bozo5632 7 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      I have zero doubt. The DNC had to have known it too, but defeating Trump was much less important than defeating Sanders. Trump poses no threat to what the DNC holds dear. Sexism, global warming... my ass. Those are just their "public positions."

    • @aliasmiles6711
      @aliasmiles6711 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Bernie Sold Out!

    • @peterciurea7771
      @peterciurea7771 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      love how no Bernie bro ever notices the achile's heel of Bernie=Math!!!. When the entire wealth of billionaires in the country tallies 1.5Trillion, you cannot plan to fund 40-90T worth of change by taxing them.....so to anyone that CAN do math Bernie comes off as a willful liar. To them, they don't assume he is dumb, they assume he is deceptive. And the longer you see the performance the more deceptive morphs into evil. Most liberals, especially locally educated ones, grew up with the popular idea of a"when will you ever use this" vs math. It's not they they don't know how, it's that they don't bother to. They simply assume it must have been done, and therefore true. Bernie is more of a threat to the DNC then ever to the GOP - Trump never needed to worry about him, DNC will never allow him to win, even if he ends up convincing the majority of their base AND the GOP base. They will take the loss

    • @hippyjason
      @hippyjason 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      3 years later, and history has not been kind to your comment, lol.

  • @bikerjosh07
    @bikerjosh07 7 ปีที่แล้ว +159

    The Jimmy Dore Show brought me here

    • @cwallen18
      @cwallen18 7 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Me too

    • @1110-s1t
      @1110-s1t 7 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      bikerjosh07 I found this guy a while ago, hes a champion.

    • @shiluxx
      @shiluxx 7 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      Me too! I wanted to hear more of what Mark had to say! He's awesome! But this Wendy lady needs to go! She's a total Hillbot and taking away from the whole talk smh.

    • @1110-s1t
      @1110-s1t 7 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      shiluxx Mark is a gem. I've listened to a lot of his stuff. He knows his shit and makes it relatable like only a good economist can.

    • @shiluxx
      @shiluxx 7 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Australian Progressive Yea, I'll definitely be listening to him a lot more from now on!

  • @poisongods
    @poisongods 7 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    "Smartest guy on TH-cam explains election, economics, middle class, and predatory capitalism and gets glared at by Clinton apologizer deflecting with head in sand."
    Fixed that title for ya...

  • @nikzanzev2402
    @nikzanzev2402 7 ปีที่แล้ว +50

    I wish Mark Blyth would talk more... Wendy Shiller had many good points, true, but she sort of hogged the mic...

    • @studentmele
      @studentmele 7 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      After listening in full to Wendy Shiller first bit, I skipped the rest of her talk. There was no meat inside. No specific substance other than what you can get out of mainstream media.

    • @samuelglover7685
      @samuelglover7685 7 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Can't blame you for that, but I think you'll find that Blyth's insights are really worth the effort of skipping past Schiller.

    • @petergorian535
      @petergorian535 7 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Not wrong - Hillary was a flawed candidate - obvious pre-vote let alone post vote and Schiller just can not accept it??!!

    • @mysticjbyrd
      @mysticjbyrd 7 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      She had good points? Where? I didn't hear one... I heard a bunch of parroted bullshit propaganda from the mainstream media.
      HRC wasn't a flawed candidate?
      Bernie would have lost, because the 2016 exit polls?!
      Completely fucking clueless!

    • @nikzanzev2402
      @nikzanzev2402 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      john handcock
      I like your passion, keep it burning and fuel it with knowledge, because the US will need passionate people like you over the next 4-8 years.
      Maybe I exaggerated a bit, since I can recall only one memorable point she made. She said that since the Republicans now own the Senate, the House and the Presidency, all the failures that will come from their governance (and we know there will be many of those, lol) will be entirely theirs, and they cannot blame anyone else. Left wing people (I don't want to say democrats because they are not left leaning) should use this to their advantage.
      Other than that, I cannot disagree with you and that is why I said that I wished Mark Blyth could have had more time on this forum...

  • @ryancurtis2623
    @ryancurtis2623 7 ปีที่แล้ว +36

    Bernie polled 15 POINTS BETTER against Trump. This woman is a Hillbot. She teaches at a university? !?!

  • @Highcaloriegrappling
    @Highcaloriegrappling 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Perhaps we should only be hearing from the person who correctly predicted the Rise of Trump and the Results of Brexit. The person who is shocked and didnt see this coming should probably just sit there and listen up.

  • @davidanderson9664
    @davidanderson9664 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Mark is terrifying b/c he almost always gets his predictions right. Hard predictions. Then he says; "What if Putin invades the Baltic?" etc. Damn. Listen to a bunch of Mark's talks - he is incredibly bright.

  • @samuelglover7685
    @samuelglover7685 7 ปีที่แล้ว +17

    Schiller puts in an awesome performance as a droid with volumes of data, and pretty much **no** real comprehension, no sense of context.
    Next time the school produces a video like this, please put Dr. Blyth on first, so I don't have to skip ahead so much!

  • @driveagoodmanbad642
    @driveagoodmanbad642 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Watch Blyth's nonverbal as she speaks. Sadness. Consternation. Despair.

  • @_AutoCoder
    @_AutoCoder 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Amen Mark Blyth! You nailed it sir.

  • @jomow9335
    @jomow9335 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Mark Blyth, I must read his books. The looks he gives Wendy Schiller, when she lays bare her patriotism... That's all it is, she is a true believer in America's greatness and further potential. It is unfortunate this trait tends to be religious in nature, otherwise the people might become more empirical about it and find more nuanced interpretations of history, and even seek more favorable compromise with their superiors, instead of fighting questionable wars on their behalf, reveling in the red on the flag, which flows through our hearts.

  • @mrbadguysan
    @mrbadguysan 7 ปีที่แล้ว +16

    I haven't met a living, breathing human being who wouldn't pick Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump.

    • @MrBoreray
      @MrBoreray 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Ahem....Let me introduce myself!

  • @Edgar-Friendly
    @Edgar-Friendly 7 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    Blythe says few words but so much when he does speak. He's a more serious George Carlin.

  • @rsmith4339
    @rsmith4339 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Ohh yes ! this is a classic . Definitely worth a re-view .

  • @Sukerkin
    @Sukerkin 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Finding humour amidst the grinding Progressive Soapboxing, the part where one of the panel members reveals a dumbfounding lack of economic understanding (regarding inflation) raised a smile :).

  • @erby1kabogey9
    @erby1kabogey9 7 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    Why is Schiller even on this panel?

  • @alisdairhamilton-wilkes5394
    @alisdairhamilton-wilkes5394 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Wendy Schiller does most of the talking but has nothing to say. It's a shame because Mark Blyth is his mercurial self with concise and precise analysis.

  • @CountSarpulus
    @CountSarpulus 7 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Wow. Just wow. Not only is Schiller woefully out of touch, but shockingly uninformed. Perhaps CNN would be a better fit for her...

  • @billiamc1969
    @billiamc1969 7 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Voting in the current American political system and expecting change is a dead end. If Americans really want change, it's way past time to start voting for a third party to shake things up here...once this happens we will see politicians dig deeper to please the people...as long as the 2 party system continues, NOTHING WILL CHANGE!!!!

    • @billiamc1969
      @billiamc1969 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Schiller is encouraging us to be content with the status quo...

  • @JurijPopotnig
    @JurijPopotnig 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    I agree with your comments! He's a genius! :)))

  • @michelled5137
    @michelled5137 7 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    I would like to volunteer for that Prof. Schiller focus group. She needs to listen and learn rather than bang on so assuredly about Hillary. She was a nightmarish choice of a candidate. Also, she was the sole beneficiary of a stolen primary.

  • @JohnnyKidder
    @JohnnyKidder 7 ปีที่แล้ว +15

    1:08:40 "I think there might have been a negative reverb among women for Bernie [ If had won the primary ] "
    Buuuuuullshit

    • @learntospellpeople
      @learntospellpeople 7 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      She's a near total Hillbot, and hence not creditable at all as any kind of authority on the subject. She also kept yammering on when I wanted to hear Blyth speak. Neither his manner or voice is abrasive the way hers was.

  • @Kevin-Schmevin
    @Kevin-Schmevin 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Would have liked to hear significantly more from Blyth, the other prof just spouted the exact same talking points of every other Dem

  • @cartertrobinson
    @cartertrobinson 7 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    I am a former student of both of these professors and can attest that both are pretty brilliant. I think people on here should realize that this talk was intentionally set up to offer two different perspectives- Blyth is an economist who is giving a very "macro" analysis of global trends and Schiller is a political scientist who is giving historical context to this based on past election cycles and the history of both parties. She isn't "clueless" about the broader economic trends, she's just speaking to how they will actually affect the government over the next four years...and what this will mean for the audience of students, who are presumably interested in becoming politically involved.
    There is no one reason why Trump won- each voter had a different set of values and a different circumstance. I think there is a lot of truth to what Blyth is saying about economic frustration, but that doesn't mean you can totally discount that some votes for Trump were based on sexism/xenophobia.

    • @cartertrobinson
      @cartertrobinson 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      I don't think you can definitively say that Bernie would have won...even if he had gotten the nomination, the Republicans could have put forth a candidate like Rubio or Kasich that would have drawn in way more moderate voters. Hindsight is 20-20, of course, but it's a lot tougher to figure out all the forces at play when these things happen simultaneously. Makes me wonder how these conversations about "inevitable" political movements would be framed differently if it had gone any other way.

    • @cartertrobinson
      @cartertrobinson 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      I agree with your sentiment (I voted for Sanders in the primaries) but I also don't think we can ever really know for sure how these things would have played out, since those polls were taken before any of the candidates really got the attention/scrutiny that would have come in the general election. I won't deny that the current Democratic Party is very flawed, though.

    • @mysticjbyrd
      @mysticjbyrd 7 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Ahh, she sure as hell ain't brilliant here... Damn near everything she said was laughably wrong.

    • @mysticjbyrd
      @mysticjbyrd 7 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Yah, I can definitely say that Bernie would have won.
      Her "Argument" that bernie would have lost is the exit poll data of HRC vs Trump.
      Idk whether to cry or laugh at how stupid that is...

    • @satyricon451
      @satyricon451 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Looks like Blyth is IPE.

  • @TeddehSpaghetti
    @TeddehSpaghetti 7 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    What set off my PoliSci academic curiosity, if you will, was Trump's professionalism during the September Commander-In-Chief forum. I think it was a big turning point after which followed the leaked tapes, allegations of sexual assault and other attempts to undermine Trump's character. The R.S.S. DNC spotted the iceberg and did all it could to avoid the inevitable.
    It was one thing when he was the ridiculous game show host who would be easily defeated; but his support base solidified as the Dems were fractured by WikiLeaks, Clinton's corporatism and rigged Primary elections despite Bernie's populism. That Commander-In-Chief forum was a red flag for the Dems and Clinton to put a stop to their "elevating Trump" as the leaked emails worded it.
    Side note: I totally understand the self-selected regional political homogeneity!
    I returned to my home state of MS after military service abroad. I cannot wait to move to a left-leaning state next year. It is excruciating (or unfulfilling, maybe) being educated in the #50 ranked in education and highly politically engaged amidst widespread disinterest. I was socialized a centrist Libertarian who rejected the Tea Party and swung far, farrrrr left after college...so being in a Red state I totally get migrating because of political ideology...

    • @nived3211
      @nived3211 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      TeddySpaghetti Youre probably not going to be intellectually challenged by a
      bunch of people who agree with you.
      You will never experience anything more intellectually diverse as the military.

    • @TeddehSpaghetti
      @TeddehSpaghetti 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Heinvandah I agree! And I am open to diverse views and discourse. But living under the strict Repub policies...ranked #51 in education, rejection of welfare, heinous corruption and closed-mindedness...
      I'll talk about the issues with an open mind, no problem. Living under that leadership style is a bit much, IMO.

    • @kbee3713
      @kbee3713 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      +TeddySpaghetti I've lived in California and I live in a Republican run state. Each has its benefits and disadvantages. I recommend you move out of country to a truly socialist/communist society. That would give you the best experience, Although, you might want to stay away from Venezuela, it's pretty dangerous right now, as they're collapsing.

    • @TeddehSpaghetti
      @TeddehSpaghetti 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Kay Bee
      I lived in Boise, Idaho for 5 years and, honestly, it was the most perfect place I've experienced ideologically, regarding socioeconomic status, diversity and even politically in some respects.
      Pre-PoliSci degree, I would frequently visit California (SF and Berkeley areas) and Portland. Admittedly, it felt Utopian as a vacation but I was usually eager to leave. My friends living at these places moved each year and lived a very volatile life. The political progressivism bugged me at the time, but I was (economically) right-leaning libertarian then. (I now lean left.)
      I just returned from Michigan on holiday and saw some of the discrete differences there. Higher taxes/Cost of Living, 4x higher costs of vehicle registration, seemingly fewer predatory lenders, one university campus I visited had electric mobility scooters as seen in grocery stores (I'm just more curious about this one...).
      _I know this is a small sample size to base any analysis on._
      (I deployed to Saudi Arabia in 2011 and experienced strict Sharia law, if that accounts for anything. If by "best experience" you mean contrast to liberal democracy.)

    • @kbee3713
      @kbee3713 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      +TeddySpaghetti Thank you for your service!!! I also served! I also hold a degree in political science. I can't really say I subscribe to one party. I take the best if each. For instance I favor reasonable environmental laws. I think anything in the extreme is going to far. When I left California and went to a gas station in the south, I wanted to vomit fron the smell. I don't mind paying extra as we did in California. I also think they do an amazing job with roads, and the overall beauty on the coast. But they also have stupid laws that protect species that aren't endangered, like the snowy plover. I'd like to see a common sense approach that encompass people's freedom to enjoy the beauty, while holding them accountable for destroying it. We've been given a beautiful earth and we need to take care of it. I'm fiscally and morally conservative. I believe in states rights above the federal. I think the power should mostly be in the hands of the people, which is more libertarian. Yet, I recognize the need for law enforcement, military and just and common sense laws. California has a lot of problems, but it is a gorgeous place to live and I enjoyed every second of it! I hate where I'm at now!

  • @michielbeelaerts5355
    @michielbeelaerts5355 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Really interesting stuff! Both speakers made some good points. Would love to interview Mark Blyth one day

  • @edclee1997
    @edclee1997 7 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Lady, I like your spirit but independents and millennials came out in droves for Bernie. Of course he would have won! By several landslides!

  • @fishysnake1
    @fishysnake1 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    What happened? The left felt they had no one to vote for, they'd been told over and over a vote for Jill Stein was a wasted vote, so they didn't vote at all.
    Here in Australia, voting's compulsory, so we regularly hand the balance of power to microparties and independents - basically, we hang parliament. And we do it for the same reason Clinton lost in the US: no left, just liberals.

  • @Zakdayak
    @Zakdayak 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Well, she got the commitment part right, but then I skipped her and the rest of her talk as soon as she said that "You can't attribute this to a turn-out failure....blah blah" The fact is, Brooklyn didn't care about Wisconsin and Michigan and the turn out was depressed all around as several million people strayed home. How in the world did you miss that?

  • @roberteagle1192
    @roberteagle1192 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Now she sounds like she's speaking to some kind of support group or something. People don't need ignorant coddling, they need truth. Without truth all the best laid plans are for naught.

  • @youbiscuit2146
    @youbiscuit2146 7 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    She doesn't acknowledge the ways in which this election is in fact different from past ones, the many ways in which it's historically unprecedented, and the reality that in the course of the pendulum going back and forth, massive amounts of damage can be done to human lives and history. As if all of history were a matter of balance and give and take, and politics a matter of balancing opposing viewpoints, not real struggles and real lives - as if there were no trajectory in any direction, it all comes out in the wash?. She talks patronisingly to the young people, as if the young people are the only ones shocked and hurting right now. A true political scientist.

  • @TheAgTeam
    @TheAgTeam 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Enjoyably concise and very insightful exploration of many topics. Total under emphasis on climate policy though and it's inevitable political ramifications and likely economic implications, so Mr Blyth certainly needs to broaden his mind and scope and on the topic.

  • @interceptorm5
    @interceptorm5 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Mark is genius and I enjoy listening his well educated and extremely intelligent and factual discussions. This sheila on the other hand is incompetent despite her degree and completely blind to what is going on.

  • @comeonman8191
    @comeonman8191 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Wow. Even if you have watched this before jump to what Blyth says at 42:34 it will blow your mind hearing him predict what is happening today in April 2022 in November 2016.

  • @AramakiMakisan
    @AramakiMakisan 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Is this Professor a spokesman fore the Democratic party?

  • @biegenrules637
    @biegenrules637 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    This is a very interesting and informative discussion.

  • @gengiz80
    @gengiz80 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I'm very liberal in terms of economic and political beliefs but the Wendy is being biased not with her beliefs but the assumption that the whole crowd agrees with her.

  • @theodoreruleoflaw2277
    @theodoreruleoflaw2277 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Ashley grant, Blyth and I are in agreement with you…

  • @lostinusa09
    @lostinusa09 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I don't think that Professor Wendy Schiller is right in what regards polling. From my own experience: I have been called about once a week the entire spring by polling agencies. After I made it clear to them, after the California primary, that under no circumstances would I vote for Clinton, THEY ALL STOPPED calling me.

  • @Chalwaman
    @Chalwaman 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Can't believe she's a lecturer at a top University, sounds like a politician just repeating the stats. He's bang on and seriously insightful. Been watching a few of Mark Blyth's talks, he really understands the bigger picture and international affairs.

  • @lukesmith1939
    @lukesmith1939 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    If I paid Wendy Schiller for an education id sure her for my arrested development. The gulf in intellect is staggering

  • @jeffgerritsen972
    @jeffgerritsen972 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Whats with the audio levels? Very interesting information but audio levels drop out to almost nothing then come back to normal.

  • @nicholasdarraugh7626
    @nicholasdarraugh7626 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I really don't understand why Mark said rebuilding manufacturing by creating new industries _such as sustainable energy_ or allowing existing viabilities _such as repurposing car manufacturing facilities to produce mass transit_ ''is dishonest''!

  • @Picklemedia
    @Picklemedia 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    she has a very firm grasp of the obvious.

  • @denken_dunken
    @denken_dunken 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Love this. This needs to go viral. As for the article Blyth quoted, Thomas Frank deserves a shout out too. Read him!

  • @Critikaalis
    @Critikaalis 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    I live in Baltics and just cant believe what i just heard.

  • @drweetabix
    @drweetabix 7 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    to say that women wouldn't have voted for bernie because they would have had some kind of hissie fit due to bernie pushing her out must be pretty insulting to women.

  • @pasquinomarforio
    @pasquinomarforio 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Is Wendy Schiller speaking to college students or kindergarten?

  • @smirky75
    @smirky75 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Schiller - very apt surname

  • @speculawyer
    @speculawyer 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    They are both right.

  • @positivevibes115
    @positivevibes115 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Mark starts an ends at 13:11-18:55, 34:45-43:44, then Q&A 52:42-54:46, 1:00:13-1:02:37, 1:04:15-1:04:47, 1:05:14-1:06:16, 1:10:47-1:12:33, 1:15:00-1:16:58, 1:19:04-1:21:07, 1:24:47-1:26:53

  • @shawngwin3302
    @shawngwin3302 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    is it just me or did Wendy Schiller seem a bit uncomfortable with and dismissive of Mark Blyth's points? Could kind of reinforce Jimmy Dore's idea that mainstream democrats hate it when others are more left than they themselves are.....

  • @Warsie
    @Warsie 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    19:35 huey long didnt pit blacks against whites. afaik he talked about giving them an ewual share

  • @wosbwosb4128
    @wosbwosb4128 7 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    why not vote online ,we do taxes online .
    why not have politics ,reality tv style ?

    • @petrfiddle
      @petrfiddle 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I wouldn't trust a machine (or specifically the people who behind the machine) just look at the gerrymandering and re-districting of voting districts which actually both Democrats and Republicans do. In Canada we have a paper ballot and a pencil and we still know who won within a few hours.

    • @wosbwosb4128
      @wosbwosb4128 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      didnt u vote on "a machine" ? then its just an app .
      keep all traditional voting methods , mail ,email,pigeons....

    • @mysticjbyrd
      @mysticjbyrd 7 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      They should just mail everyone a ballot.

    • @wosbwosb4128
      @wosbwosb4128 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      that 2

  • @LitoMasters
    @LitoMasters 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    im still not convinced trump will be able to do anything about interventionism...
    oh and Mark is so off on his perception that Putin will invade baltics, Stephen Cohen has some great insight on this

  • @mrbluemaui
    @mrbluemaui 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Is there any way to get a Transcript of this talk. I would like to know exactly what they are saying.
    It's all about economics.

    • @xyzsame4081
      @xyzsame4081 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      The year is 2021 - still interested in a transcript of the Blyth analysis of the 2016 Trump win ?? (and clueless Wendy Schiller "political scientist" also speaks). Go to the video window to the right bottom corner, you will find 3 dots. (like ... but the dots are larger) click on then select transcript. you can select, copy and past - as usual.
      Watson Institute have even uploaded edited subtitles / transcript. (else most videos have automatic subs / transcript enabled. If they also have the language setting right ;) the language recognition of youtube is pretty good).

    • @xyzsame4081
      @xyzsame4081 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      I disagree with some of his points. LIke: the "gaming" of the system. The increase of productivity easily paid for all what the unions demanded in better wages (and companies preemtively increased prices so there was somewhat higher inflation - so they gamed the system in direction of inflation - but it did not harm the population, it was a side effect of a booming economy.
      Productivity wins (from a growing population and workforce !) outweighed wage growth (it was plus 97 % for average hourly wages adjusted for inflation. Productivity rose by 112 % in the same time: 1947 - 1970. That was a good time also for biz. But a major share of the wins went into the pockets of people who spent the money.
      Those increases made sure they could buy what was produced with ever more efficiency (more output).
      Also: we do not need "capital" (it is money/currency not capital, but never mind). Banks create most of the money that they give out in form of loans. (FIAT money). And the government _can_ directly create debt and interest free money. They only ever do that in a crisis - see QE for the banks to the tune of trillions (Blyth mentions 13 trillion EURO, I know of 4.5 trn in the U.S. (only under Obama). and 700 - 800 billion created by the Bank of England (the U.K. only has 65 million people).
      W/o crisis (often war) the banks protect their turf. And if direct money creation is used - they fast return to the investor friendly status quo and do not mention the former schmes anymore. The unwashed masses could be getting ideas.
      Plus: The rich want to be seen as indispensable as "givers" of "capital" and buyers of gov. bonds (government debt).
      The owners of rich fortunes ("Capital") are not needed to finance a vibrant economy.

  • @beauallen272
    @beauallen272 7 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    she seems to be talking about maintaining the system. I don't think he agrees...

  • @matthewfroelich3142
    @matthewfroelich3142 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Wow, she would have a great career at MSNBC.

  • @kevichiking3563
    @kevichiking3563 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    43:33 this dude called it

  • @mau5che
    @mau5che 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Is anyone else disturbed that a student calmly asked why they should even engage others in debate? Frankly, I want to write a bunch of mean things and swear about it... But I'm running into this a lot, trying to engage people at random, many people would rather try to shut conversations down with mean words rather than actually provide arguments. Where is this coming from? Why do people think this is okay?

  • @unmasked1728
    @unmasked1728 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Better late than never but I found this Watkins Institute discussion because of a recent Jimmy Dore segment and I must admit that I am glad that I never had to take a class with this bimbo, Schiller ! I have an advanced degree and am by NO means even close to poverty and I voted for Trump ! Why, because I did not want nuclear war with Russia ! And, I did not want to be humiliated by the first woman president of the U.S.A. to be a hypocritical liar, mocked by most of the intelligent "deplorables" of the world

  • @videodog52
    @videodog52 7 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    Blyth is interesting. That chic is a Hillarycrat.

  • @xyzsame4081
    @xyzsame4081 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    1:07:58 I found this download in a dusty nook on my computer ;) so I listened to it today (Oct. 2021) till the end. Priceless - and she is a _political scientiest:_ Sanders would NOT have won because women that liked HRC would have continued to been offended. And wealthy voters would have avoided him. The latter is true. - but Sanders did not need to win those voters in masses (the HRC affin females usually roam in large numbers in the solidly blue states). Sanders only needed to win the Electoral College, did she still not understand that in 2016 - after 2000 ??
    HRC tried to win over the mythical moderate Republicans, and did some vanity campaigning in Arizone - Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania were considered a safe bet, they owed her the vote. She utterly failed to turn around Republicans and turned off the D base, it was so bad that she even turned blue states purple.
    Sanders did not NEED the wealthy suburban voters. Many of them will vote Trump or any Republican candidate, no matter what. They did in 2016 and doubled down in 2020, which is quite remarkable if you look at the "performance" of Trump.
    Fact is the people that the Corporate Dems like to woe, may have a degree, nice houses and have manners - but they are not disturbed enough by Trump to consider voting for HRC, Biden or Sanders or anyone with a D to his or her name. They would be embarrassed in many cases to admit that they vote Trump(and likely did not admit it in polls as well), they will not have the signs or run around with red caps, that would be uncough.
    But they vote money, gentrification, and their privilige. If need be with Trump at the helm. End of.
    The progressive grassroots made Georgia 2020 (and the 2 Senate seats) possible and secured Minnesota, and the Rustbelt states.
    The typical suburban liberals that are not only motivated by money would have to weigh Sanders against _Trump._ If they are just solidly middle class they would have liked climate change, federal jobs and infrastructure program (if they are smart) and M4A - would still help _them_. And student loan forgiveness.
    The well off females (usually middle aged and older) that were so offended that he dared to run against the anointed one - would have had to make a hard choice.
    No one would have taken a Sanders win for granted. I think Trump maximized turnout in 2016 (what a candidate like HIM could achieve. The affluent Republicans did not stay home and be disgusted as the Democratic establishment had hoped).The ardent feminist fans of HRC would have needed to reconcile themselves with voting for a real progressive, a honorary feminist (Gloria Steinem), and real civil rights activist with no scandal in his personal life that treats his wife with respect (Jane was a cutie back in the day, but also a poltiically engated single mom of 3 kids, and she is smart and eloquent. Not a trophy wife). So that was one package - OR Trump.
    I guess it would have been a struggle but some ardent HRC supporters would have come round. Sure, many that voted for her in the primaries voted for McCain in the general. But McCain apart from the lust for war wasn't that uncough.
    The U.S. had 68 % turnout in 2020, that was a 100 year record. In other wealthy nations 78 % turnout is kinda lame if it is an important election (like the German federal election of Sep. 2021 - parliament and determines which party gets to chose the Chancellor).
    Sanders would not have needed the affluent suburban voters that would vote their tax cuts plus Trump over a decent man that looks out for the little guy an gal.
    He just would have needed not to lose the typical blue states.
    HRC lost Florida - I think Sanders might have lost it too (the Republicans AND the Corporate Dems would have brought up his Castro remarks. Now - he could have activated low income turnout. And they had a good Latino approach in 2020, maybe they could have worked some of that magic with Chuck Rocha in AZ and FL.
    But let's say he would have lost FL, too.
    Like HRC. And Biden.
    Then he would have needed to win MI, WI, and PA. Clinton managed to lose those 3 over a total of 70,000 votes. And win IL (which Clinton pulled off, I guess Obama could not have avoided campaigning for Sanders, would have looked weird if he would have been too obvious about the desire to have Sanders lose).
    Sanders would NOT have lost MI, WI and PA - even Clinton almost pulled off a win in those states.
    And I think he would have given Nina Turner of Ohio a big role - think black females backing her up and the matriarchs telling their families how to vote.
    Obama won Ohio twice - and then Trump won it twice. To be fair with 8 % margin each time.
    But I think in Ohio it is economics and I guess Sanders would have had sway with the union base. And the union leadership would have needed to work with him. Would look kinda bad for them if they would campaign for the real estate hustler that now ran for the Republican party, who had defrauded small companies and their workers.
    So Sanders either needed to win the usual blue states (HRC also won Illinois) plus either Fl or VA or OH. One of the 3 would have sufficed. And maybe winning all 4 electors in Maine (HRC manged to lose 1 to Trump as well - the first time since 1988).
    After they had screamed "Trump bad" at the top of their lungs I wonder how the Democratic establishment AND their media buddies would have tried to undermine Sanders and make him lose (likely by talking constantly about how bad his chances are). That would have been interesting to watch.
    Young people would have campaigned their heart out and I think he would have activated many non voters. In the few marginal states.

    • @dogeared100
      @dogeared100 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      In 2016 Bernie had locked in the vote in rural areas. Trump took some of that but the Dems should have thrown their support to Bernie, not Biden in 2020.

  • @damo5701
    @damo5701 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I understand Mark’s theoretical point “….what if Putin invades the Baltic states what would Trump do then…” But here’s the rub why would Putin invade the Baltic states? The threat of war with Russia is being driven by the Bush/Obama Foreign policy. Remove the driver, remove the tension. Same goes for most of the world’s hot spots. I don’t see Putin’s Russia as expansionist but I could be wrong. It is the Bush/Obama/Clinton foreign policy that's at fault, will Trump's foreign policy actually be different ie no illegitimate wars and proxy wars, no funding "rebels", no destabilizing and removing other governments? If so the opportunity to reduce conflicts across the globe rises dramatically.

    • @damo5701
      @damo5701 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      A follow up thought. Will Trump be allowed to succeed if it means reduced wars and conflicts across the globe? Reduced arms sales, reduced aid, reduced rebuilding contracts, reduced financing and interfering opportunities, reduced debt, reduced access to cheap resources and of course increased competition. Some very rich and powerful people have a lot to lose.

    • @mysticjbyrd
      @mysticjbyrd 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      He just said it was a possibility to consider. He actually said Trump's better relations was generally a good thing, and I agree.

  • @bettysman
    @bettysman 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Dr. Schiller, outside the world of politics are phenomena like climate change that have stringent dynamics not waiting for one country's particular election cycle. Humanity is bumping up against the rigid surface of how it now has global effects. Peer-reviewed climate research recently coming out and reviewed positively by people like Dr. Michael Mann at Penn State, indicates that the next few years may be crucial to human survival.

  • @leslierobtduncan7823
    @leslierobtduncan7823 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Interesting to listen to 2 academics.......one learned and aware of a global response to actions and consequences
    and the other painfully as usual only aware of what happens in her classroom and in the US, typical of most
    educators in USA.........don't understand or care about anything that happens beyond her tiny sphere.

  • @gatgoggle
    @gatgoggle 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    It was very telling they were uncomfortable with each others understanding. The long expressions (especially his) at the end of his first exchange just nailed it. lol funny!
    Markarticulated deeper underlying reasons. where she could only point to the surface of things. What an apt name Wendy Schiller, presenting a professional spin which totally misses the point that Hillary IS actually responsible for almost all, if not all, the other reasons she tried to give. She lost me after that.

  • @EyeoftheAbyss
    @EyeoftheAbyss 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Amazing how little they discussed and properly perceived Bernie Sanders and the huge numbers of supporters at his rallies throughout the country despite the almost non-existent media coverage, the very likely voter disenfranchisement in various states, including the prominent Arizona and New York. Bernie Sanders has basically for decades been talking about what Blyth has only recently been discussing, albeit beautifully, I would expect he'd find in Sanders at the very least a rare politician to throw his support toward, even if he has, as an expert would and should, valid criticisms. Let alone Shiller, her clueless dismissal of Sanders et al entirely is the problem witnessed among almost all Clintonites, that blithe ignorance of ignorance itself, to be tactlessly blunt but honest. Though polls are rarely to be trusted, there were numerous polls and averages of polls that consistently showed more supported Sanders and a win over Trump far in excess of Clinton. They could at least have discussed why the DNC undercut Sanders as proven in the Wikileaks release of Podesta's emails and that the typical Clinton voter did not delve deeper into Sanders and his supporters' values. But look now what Sanders and his new progressives have done, rather than give up, he and thousands of others began and continue to grow and work, as these speakers suggest, at more local levels, via "Our Revolution" (ourrevolution dot com).

  • @gusdupree9076
    @gusdupree9076 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    america is past it's best days , rome lasted 600yrs ,we didn't even make it to three hundred. i like the idea america is no longer the worlds dad . go on beat it . we will see who rises next

    • @tomgjgj
      @tomgjgj 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      I'd argue that the catholic church grew out of late roman imperial institutions, so arguably even longer.

  • @markfrank0924
    @markfrank0924 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I have to admit I'm amazed at this presentation by these two partisans. Back in the old day's, information would be presented and students could have drawn their conclusions. These two presenters, brilliant as they may be, performed a disservice and did not educate in as much as they brainwashed the few needing brainwashing and confirm to the majority unfounded conclusions. The reasons Clinton lost are many, and I sincerely doubt either of these presenters have the clarity of mind to remove their blindfolds and consider that the majority of Americans are simply pissed off and demanded change. Mark got it, but I did not believe the other presenter did.

  • @TheAtlantaMafia
    @TheAtlantaMafia 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The DEMOCRATS played the "Racism" and the "Sexism" game - NOT the Republicans. Her smack about this topic of race and sexism undercuts the remainder of the discussion about banking and corporatism that deserves a sincere analysis.

  • @Stewiehleba
    @Stewiehleba 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Why does she assume she is speaking to a room full of democrats. Was that the case?

  • @beaujeste1
    @beaujeste1 7 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    She hasn't woken up to reality yet...

  • @gerardodmedina
    @gerardodmedina 7 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    schiller giving a rubbish analysis of the whole thing....basically she could be saying this crap at any major mainstream network...she is just loud and boring....

  • @michelled5137
    @michelled5137 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    OMG did she just suggest that the Dems didn't have enough success in scaring the crap out of voters?! And that we have to look forward to more fear in Dem Party politics in 2018. Wendy needs to resign her post. She is WAY OFF.