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
If memory serves, evidence indicates that the correct answer on 2018 is "both". Trump - unusual for a president in a midterm election - campaigned heavily in 2018 and encouraged his supporters to vote. It did work for him, but Democrats also turned out.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
State of Mind
Both, it seems. Turn out for both parties was much higher than average in 2018, but Democrats had it much much higher. I know one district in California that had been Republican since it was created in the 80's had their Republican turnout increase by like 30% compared to 2014. But the Democrats won because they increased their turnout by like 150%.
"What a century this week has been." - Seung Min Kim
Which is why many pundits are predicting that turnout in 2020 will likely be record breaking. Extremely disappointing that it took the election of someone like Trump to get people to wake up and realise voting matters, but better late than never.
Life is unfair...
@Grafite
It usually takes something shocking to wake people up.
Remember, these idiots drive, fuck, and vote. Not always in that order.
State of Mind
George Washington himself said as much when Shay's Rebellion finally got enough people scared enough to get a Constitutional Convention rolling.
"What a century this week has been." - Seung Min Kim
A procrastination in of itself
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
X6 And that’s the really scary thing, Trump’s numbers are bad, but he’s manage to win with worse. Now once the campaign gets fully going he should hopefully drop even further, on top of that as long as the democratic nominee doesn’t have as bad numbers as Hillary did things shouldn’t be to bad.
Trump had a lot of people who didn’t like him vote for him, that makes his low favourability numbers not as much of a problem for him if he can pull that off again.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
That's human nature. We do not take any risk seriously until someone gets killed. Sad fact about pretty much every tragedy in history - from an airplane crash over a volcanic disaster and Hurricane Katrina to political disasters like the rise of Nazism - is that there was plenty of forewarning but people didn't act on it.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Far easier to sit on one's arse and hope nothing bad happens than to get up and prevent it.
One wonders what sort of large scale disaster will have to happen for people to take Climate Change seriously.
Disasturbator
> One wonders what sort of large scale disaster will have to happen for people to take Climate Change seriously.
Lots and lots of people suddenly dying,that's normally gets the "We should probably do something now,also panic"
New theme music also a box
Foreign Troper
By that point of time it'll probably be too late.
Probably when the value of currency goes the way of the dodo...
One correction, it was both. So it's both true that he was popular enough amongst the base to cause them to turn out and unpopular amongst the #Resistance to cause them to also turnout.
Which is very bad for Trump and the Republicans because when both Republicans and Democrats turn out then Republicans lose, for the simple fact that more people are Democrats. 2018 being a clear example of that, both Republican and Democratic turnout was high which resulted in Republicans losing the House and making modest gains in a Senate heavily slanted in their favor.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
warrior93
So even if Trump loses 2020 how soon will the concentration camps get closed and shut down?
Place your past in a book burn the pages let them cook.
Disasturbator
Decades I reckon,there will be a lot of paperwork to go through,especially when it comes to prosecuting the ones who ran them
New theme music also a box
The big problem is that the bureaucracy that runs them will attempt to conceal matters, slow them down, and probably continue operations as best they can. It's why I think ICE needs to be dissolved and all members fired.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Its a lot harder to clean up a mess then it is to make it.
Edited by Imca on Sep 15th 2019 at 1:59:06 AM
There’s simply no practical way to do that, and no reason to. An aggressive inquiry into agency practice would have the exact same effect, and it’s something the next Democractic president could do very easily on his or her own.
I remind people that Obama made shutting down Guantanamo Bay's detention facility a top campaign promise and he failed to do so.
Does it end with all members fired because their actions are human rights violations and people all were a part of it.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 15th 2019 at 2:14:09 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
If you fire everyone involved with Human Rights Violations on ICE and replace them with other people, woupdn't it both be easoer and effectively have the same result?
ICE needs to die. I stand by this. I still don’t get why so many people are willing to keep the organization after all the harm it’s done.
Like reflections in the glass!
Not quite, the members maybe gone, but the name and thus the stigma lingers still. The name has to change as were you to give them the Ship of Theseus treatment, and at that point I'd think it might be better to just disband them and put a new agency in its place.
Of course I'm of the opinion that they should be disbanded anyway and their actors brought to a Nuremberg-style trial held by the UN.
Edited by MorningStar1337 on Sep 15th 2019 at 2:40:20 AM
"Let's just get rid of the bad apples in the Nazis." Is how I think it comes off after you kidnap children and sell them to white people.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
A procrastination in of itself
California is trying to force some of the camps down now by outlawing private prisons, we’ll see how it works.
Hopefully the camps are shut down fast if a democrat wins, though public promises to do that may run the risk of ICE agents engaging in massacres, so the entire situation has to be handled carefully and not with my desired solution of “deploy national guard reigns and ship all camp staff to The Hague for trial for crimes against humanity”.
Don’t forget about some of the prisoners being used as literal slaves until California got a judge to force the camps to pay the prisoners.
Edited by Silasw on Sep 15th 2019 at 9:41:15 AM
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
What relevance is this?
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
tldr, the aggregate before the election had Trump at net -21% (37.5 favorable to 58.5 unfavorable), compared to Clinton's -12.6% (41.8 favorable, 54.4 unfavorable). The article discussing post-election only refers to a single poll, but says Trump's favorability spiked nine points to 46% while his unfavorability dropped 15 points to 46%, leaving him at net 0%. They note that this is fairly common occurrence for presidents-elect.
Which more or less matches what I was suggesting — there were a lot of people going "well, he's going to be president now, he'll have to get his shit together, right?" and then pretty much immediately turned on him when it became clear that no, he wasn't going to get his shit together after all, and President Trump was going to be just like Campaign Trump.
However, turnout in 2018 was 50%, which is unusually high for a midterm election (2014 was 36%, 2010 and 2006 both 41%, and 2002 was 40%), which suggests that Trump is driving voter engagement. That could be because he's either really popular among his base so they turn out to support him or because he's really unpopular among the Democratic base so the turn out to oppose him, but the fact that the 2018 midterms were a landslide in the Democrats' favor strongly suggests the latter.
Edited by NativeJovian on Sep 15th 2019 at 3:15:07 PM
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.