Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Voter turnout is always low for the incumbent party. Democrats aren't as anxious to guarantee a Democrat in the White House because we're not following Bush. There was still record turnout.
That's scary. Bunch of people riled up by fearmongerers are filling the polls. Hmm. Fear of people stirring up fear creating more fear ...
A nice butterfly
Fear is efficient in creating a specific behavior though.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Lost in Space
If we run around constraining the criteria too much, those statistics lose their meaning. Record turnout compared to what?
edited 12th Feb '16 8:51:12 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
The election's Serious Business and everything, but I hope Conan does some Seriously Lousy Presidential Slogans like he did for the 2012 election.
CHINA!
Compared to every primary of the last four elections?
Anti-Gnosis Weapon
@Fighteer: I haven't had a chance to look at the conclusive numbers yet. However, several points:
- 1) Firstly, as I am a sad, pedantic little man: NH is a primary, not a caucus.
- 2) Even if turnout was lower than in 2008, that does not preclude turnout being high this year unless turnout in 2008 was also low, and although I could be wrong, I don't recall that it was.
- 3) None of the above says anything about the rate of new or otherwise non-"likely" voters, which is what's crucial to the premise.
- 4) None of the above says anything about the turnout and voting of Independents, either, which is at least as crucial as Dem turnout in this question. He took 73% of Independents, which I believe was based upon exit polling. Again, I can't comment on the actual final vote data, not having seen it yet.
Do you have a link to the Maddow segment, perhaps?
edited 12th Feb '16 9:14:27 AM by darksidevoid
GM of AGOG S4: Frontiers RP; Sub-GM of TABA, SOTR, & UUA RPs
Lost in Space
Unfortunately, MSNBC doesn't let you link directly to full episodes due to the scripting of their site. Or at least I can't figure out how to do it. Maybe there's something on her FB page that will let me link to the specific segment.
Edit: Found it.
edited 12th Feb '16 9:37:16 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
I think Jeb could have his moment as the establishment candidate, assuming that Kasich can't get pull with conservatives and Rubio-bot continues on his downward spiral. A poor performance by Kasich in some redder states and continuing decline for Rubio could then put Bush in a good position, although the problem is that the more moderate GOP states seem to be breaking for Trump.
Clinton and Sanders are tied in Nevada at 45% each.
First Nevada Poll In Weeks Shows Sanders Tied With Clinton
edited 12th Feb '16 9:47:58 AM by SolipsistOwl
Lost in Space
The political shows I watch all said that polling in Nevada is really difficult.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Why, exactly?
Lost in Space
Because, for whatever reason, it is never predictive. The accuracy rate of polls predicting the actual results is terrible there.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
It's difficult to poll in Nevada is the same reason polling in Iowa was always within the margin-of-error: they're caucus-voting states rather than primary states.
This is also the first election where the Latino vote is arguably a larger bloc than black Americans. It depends on whether they choose to leverage that power in the caucus.
edited 12th Feb '16 10:28:59 AM by SolipsistOwl
Queen of Good Things, Honest
What's more important, number of states won or number of delegates? Everyone talks about "X won the state!" but Google and Wiki rank who's winning based on how many delegates they came away with. If one candidate has more states and the other has more delegates, which one gets the nomination?
edited 12th Feb '16 10:35:30 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.
I think the primary process has much less winner take all states, so I'm going to tentatively say that the number of delegates matters a bit more. Then again, getting more delegates tends to mean you've won in a state anyway.
And I kind of hate the idea of winner takes all; it's a pretty good way to devalue one's vote, really.
edited 12th Feb '16 10:41:19 AM by AceofSpades
Anti-Gnosis Weapon
Delegates are more important, although they do correlate somewhat to number of states won, and delegates pledged via election are more important than so-called "super" delegates, who don't vote against the demonstrated (via primary or caucus) wishes of their state unless the contest is very, very close or split between three or more candidates. They could, but the Party would implode if they did, so they won't.
GM of AGOG S4: Frontiers RP; Sub-GM of TABA, SOTR, & UUA RPs
Debbie Wasserman Schultz continues to prove her utter incompetence:
DNC allows donations from Federal Lobbyists and PACs
The decision was viewed with disappointment Friday morning by good government activists who saw it as a step backward in the effort to limit special interest influence in Washington. Some suggested it could provide an advantage to Hillary Clinton’s fundraising efforts.
“It is a major step in the wrong direction,” said longtime reform advocate Fred Wertheimer. “And it is completely out of touch with the clear public rejection of the role of political money in Washington,” expressed during the 2016 campaign.
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
The point of mass-voting primaries is to avoid Chicago 1968, where party elites made decisions in marked contrasts to a large portion of the base, and there was rioting. Superdelegates would not nakedly override democratic will because that would void the whole point.
Although there would still be much gnashing of teeth if there was a brokered convention decided by the superdelegates.
Can we have Howard Dean back?
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
DWS is just asking for somebody to oust her, but i don't know anything about DNC structure to begin to suggest who.
I don't even know who's going to be running for the Democratic ticket in 2020/2024 @_@
Lot of talk about the Castro brothers, particularly Joaquin (I think).
EDIT-
![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
Damn. 50/50 chance though.
Also yeah, I've heard about Cory Booker, though that depends on the state of the Senate by then.
edited 12th Feb '16 11:59:12 AM by FFShinra
Julian. I think I heard something about some fellow named Cory Booker, too.
