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
I hope Clinton comes out of the next two primaries at least looking like she's on top of things. Bloomberg is going to announce whether or not he's running in early march, so there's a lot hinging on Clinton doing better in the next two states.
edited 12th Feb '16 1:06:00 PM by DrDougsh
Student of Story
On one hand, Democratic younger governors and congresspeople not being hyped to death probably prevents some of the flame outs that have been endemic with Republican governors who seem for about 5 seconds like they can be a political force and then screw up massively and make themselves a punchline before their career ever properly gets started. So up and comers like Kristen Gillibrand or Cory Bpooker do get a chance to get their sea legs under them.
On the other hand, the Democratic party's insistence on being the party of strict seniority rules, where plum assignments and leadership are always given to party elders means that those up and comers don't get much chance to distinguish themselves unless they either go out of their way to seize it, or come into congress with a buzz already behind them. It also means leadership is always behind the curve a bit and has to catch up with the times. Lastly, I think the fact that so much of the Democrat's leadership came of age during the Reagan or the Clinton triangulation years, (see Harry Reid, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, etc.) means they're very much of the (at best) centrist neoliberals who are forever paranoid that actually proposing liberal or progressive policies will bring about another Reagan revolution, and they spend their entire times in office playing defense against that possibility rather than trying to actually push for anything like an actually liberal/progressive agenda.
And DWS has pretty much proven that her main, if not only talent is in raising money. Democrats simply cannot go forever not doing enough to develop talent in local races, or hoping that simply playing defense long enough will let gains just drop into their lap. They have to be willing to fight in state races, they have to drag the argument back their way, they have to be willing to stand up for themselves instead of just spending forever being "not that Republican nutcase that's running against me".
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
So unless DWS is gone, we'll go the same way as the Republicans are now?
Basically all the Neoliberals have to go. Systematic issue, and that's currently what much of the Democratic Primaries are about: The Neoliberal Wing vs The Progressive Wing, at this point.
Why should people who are moderate be forced out of both parties? Bad enough it's happening with the GOP...
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Who?
Oh really when?
I'm more talking about the party establishment (the big power players/donors, the DNC).
To be honest, a lot of the current economic conditions lay at the Neoliberal Establishment's feet (not the moderates but the party power structure and party bosses) and fault along with the Republicans. And I think the Democratic Establishment needs a pretty hard spanking and wake up call to reality, as the last decade or two, they've been kind of swaddled in a blanket of reality-proof luxury.
It's nothing against moderation, but more the DNC/Clinton/MSM are getting awfully Tammany Hall/Boss Tweed in terms of questionable behavior, and I think they need to be shaken and scared straight. Especially if we're increasingly looking at the early quakes of another recession/depression.
I have nothing against moderation or compromise, but I personally think compromise anymore has been dragged WAY too far to the right than it should be.
edited 12th Feb '16 4:37:23 PM by PotatoesRock
Fair point.
Yankee Doodle Dandy
And then there were 6.
In other news, Cruz just released a new ad against Hilary.
edited 12th Feb '16 6:11:48 PM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.
Rock on, Gold Dust Woman
An Office Space reference?
I'd ask why, but the answer should be obvious: Ted Cruz, that's why.
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
So who are the six? Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Bush, and...Fiorina? Christie? I haven't been paying that much attention.
Rock on, Gold Dust Woman
Carson, mate. Fiorina and Christie dropped out.
And now I'm laughing at how Carson was once relevant. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
edited 12th Feb '16 6:16:53 PM by AdricDePsycho
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
Carson's still in it? I'm kind of shocked by that.
Rock on, Gold Dust Woman
I'm surprised too. I'm betting he's gonna be dropping out next, to be honest.
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
Carson being a semi-serious contender was always the most baffling thing to me. At least Trump has a ridiculous amount of money and a bunch of fanatical followers. How did Carson ever get this far? I don't recall him ever holding office.
edited 12th Feb '16 6:21:51 PM by Kostya
A procrastination in of itself
He's never held office, but he's a deeply religious nut who's probably also held on in part due to a perception that he'd have minority appeal.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Being the token black guy, maybe? Like Herman Cain, but apparently with less sex scandals.
Rock on, Gold Dust Woman
Yeah, but Carson is an out an out idiot who I'm surprised even made it through med school.
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
A procrastination in of itself
So? Being (or seeming to be) a know nothing idiot isn't a handicap when it comes to being a candidate for the nomination, it's a benefit.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
If memory serves, Carson's whole Super PAC system backing him is pretty much a giant embezzling system. They're more running him for the sake of running him rather than the concept of actual presidency. They skim a couple million dollars of money and likely take it and run, and Carson gets probably more book deals and TV spots.
Reminder, half the guys running aren't running for President.
They're running for book deals, show deals, and media deals.
Carson's is, without a doubt, intelligent in the field of neurosurgery (though not in politics).
"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"
He's a successful (and therefore, "intelligent" enough) religious conservative, and this likely overrides any issue of race and turns it into a mere novelty (yay progress...).
Carson is a perfect example of how being a genius in one field doesn't guarantee competence in another.
@Token minority appeal: I suppose that has some appeal but I seriously doubt that will help much. Black voters aren't stupid. They're not going to suddenly switch parties just because the Republican candidate looks like them.
edited 12th Feb '16 6:35:34 PM by Kostya
It's harder to see for the Democrats' side because of the paucity of governors and their weakness in congress.