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
![]()
No. The people in the organization favoring aren't abusing any power so long as they're not acting on it.
Apparently there was some inappropriateness (correct me if I'm wrong) but a lot of Sander's more diehard supports act like they just gave the thing to her on a silver platter and it's just blatantly false. The man lost, get over it.
This. This is what galls people about the situation, because it's the DNC's way of putting their thumb on the scales. Regardless of legality, it looks unfair/biased as hell, and that will rankle people by itself. Coupled with that is the fact that, as proven with Trump, people will sometimes just vote for the front-runner without actually digging into policy positions because they want to be on the "winning side".
As for my apparent bitterness, it's because I don't want Trump to just lose - I want the election to be an utter Curb-Stomp Battle akin to Reagan vs. Mondale in '84, to show that nobody in the US actually supports the shit he's been spewing. Unfortunately, and partially because of Comey pulling what he did, the contest is looking like it might be a repeat of 2000 at worst, 2004 at best, which will reinforce the "basket of deplorables" belief that people support what they've been saying, as Trump has been saying it.
edited 6th Nov '16 7:48:18 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
I'm saying that if the various Superdelegates hadn't publicly declared who they were supporting before even the first vote was cast, the result would be much easier to swallow, and remove the ability of people like me (and those that are a lot more ardent, e.g. "Bernie or Bust" assholes like the Washington State delegate) to justifiably complain about how the Primary went.
I'd say keep them in place, but don't have them openly declare "I'm voting for this candidate!" until 3/4 of the country has voted. Instead, we had a situation where 359 Superdelegates came out for Clinton, and 8 for Sanders
before 2016 even started.
edited 6th Nov '16 8:21:21 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Unfortunately, this was always going to be a somewhat closer election than it should be if only because of one singular fact... The right hates Hillary Clinton almost as much as the left hates Donald Trump. It may be an irrational hatred, but it is hatred on a similar level to the rational hatred that Donald Trump gets. People who only trust Fox News Channel are going to have a hard time being convinced to vote for someone who Fox News Channel has been making out to be the ultimate villain for the last 25 years.
edited 6th Nov '16 8:37:20 AM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food Badly![]()
![]()
That's not a justifiable complaint, is the thing. When they announce it doesn't matter, and there's nothing keeping them from changing the mind.
Whether you think the system should exist at all is one thing, but don't act like they're doing something wrong while the system is in place. Them telling who they've declared for changes nothing. She got more votes than him and more ordinary delegates than him.
For whatever complaints about the super delegates you could have, that just comes off to me as pretty shallow.
edited 6th Nov '16 8:47:13 AM by LSBK
"Them telling who they've declared for changes nothing."
And that's where I respectfully disagree - by declaring that early, they're announcing their preferred candidate, which the electorate will notice. Every time I went to Google to look at the Clinton vs. Sanders "pledged delegates" list, Clinton was given an artificial lead by the Superdelegates having declared their intent early on - and I think it's foolish to assume that that wouldn't influence voters.
I'm not saying it depressed turnout for Sanders - I'm saying that at least a few undecideds tend to be the "go with the flow" types when it comes to Primary voting, due to a desire to vote for the winner of the contest. And by "artificial lead", I mean the fact that the delegates were declaring support before any of the election contests took place, when they're ostensibly there to act as tie-breakers. And the article linked in my previous post noted that, while Clinton had Superdelegate support against Obama, it was nowhere near the amount she had against Sanders - 2007 she had 96, 2015 she had 300+.
edited 6th Nov '16 9:53:55 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Not really seeing how that counts as artificial, did any of them change their mind? If not, then it was entirely accurate.
Considering that, and how they're only a small number compared to the others, and that even without super-delgates Sanders would still have lost, this just comes off as a complaint for complaining's sake. Personally, I'd need actually proof of this depressing turnout for Sanders, like I think you're implying. I'm not willing to just assume it.
But I've already said that, so, eh. I don't want this to turn into a big thing.
edited 6th Nov '16 9:00:45 AM by LSBK
@Ramidel: That was more a statement about general sentiment and what would inspire a social push to achieve that particular goal, not a statement about what Trump, or really any one candidate specifically, would do about it. I'm not sure how that could have been construed as being about any one specific person.
DWS tried to shut down primary debates to keep Sanders' message under wraps, but Clinton wouldn't allow it. (DWS put in some punishment for anyone participating in an "unauthorized" debate, but when Clinton agreed to participate, that fell apart.) Also, there were a lot of local irregularities caused by DWS supporters, but nothing that affected the election - just a lot of party hacks who were really scared of Sanders (unnecessarily) and Sanders' movement.
You said that the populist fury would hasten the decline of the Electoral College. I'm saying that in this election, that would be unlikely because the side that would benefit from such a defection doesn't care about either the opposing side's populist fury or the legitimacy of the democratic process.
edited 6th Nov '16 9:12:00 AM by Ramidel
Anyone who believe the Democratic primary was rigged is an idiot, to be frank.
It's practically, if not literally impossible to rig the elections in the USA.
I'd be willing to say that it'd be easier for a rogue nuclear launch to happen than someone successfully rigging a primary or an election
New Survey coming this weekend!
Rigging the actual votes is nigh-impossible. But rigging the scales of political speech, the budget the campaigns get, in favour of this or that special interest, that's a whole 'nother basket.
"Rigged" in what sense? In te sense that Hilary had far more support from the DNC from the start? That's true, straight up. The actual votes were not rigged, but the fact that we have a system in which the only real option is to put absolute faith in an organization that basically chooses its preferred candidate so far ahead of time is very, very fucked up. It's fucked up that the only real choice for liberals in the Presidential race is the DNC, and it's fucked up that the DNC exerts such a disproportionate influence on the elections.
Neither is illegal, both are wrong from the perspective of wanting a nation that actually respects the democratic process it so heavily boasts. And while I understand that Hilary is atm the only viable choice and she has the chance to make some genuine positive contributions should she be elected, that doesn't mean I should support the process that brought her to this point.
edited 6th Nov '16 9:32:46 AM by InAnOdderWay
Ramidel, you say that there will be opposition as if opposition has ever actually stopped anyone from trying to achieve a goal. So what if Trump wouldn't care? Wouldn't stop people from trying, or discussing it, or making moves towards that end goal. Or that said goal would be accomplished so quickly as to be within one or two presidential terms. So.... again, not sure what you're trying to say here.
To be sure, I mean hasten largely in the sense that people would actually be talking about; I don't think the Electoral College is very much on many people's radar as a thing regarding our votes. Most people dont' even seem to know what it is. It's not something I recall being covered very well in my government class and it's a subject that could use more focus in school.
edited 6th Nov '16 9:47:50 AM by AceofSpades
![]()
Obama was fucking spectacular.
Personally, I'm looking forward to what Cory Booker has in store for us in the future. The man can speak. Compare:
And yeah, I do think the ability to get people fired up and enthusiastic and hopeful is crucial for a President-type figure. Leave the technicalities to the technocrats: the President is the nation's face. Of course, it's awesome that Obama could do both.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.![]()
![]()
![]()
To reiterate a point I made on the last page with an edit, while Clinton had more Superdelegates in '08 than Obama did
, it was nowhere near the same amount - she led Obama 169 - 63 (~2.5:1 ratio), while she led Sanders 359 - 8 (45:1 ratio). That's a hell of a detriment to overcome for Sanders right out of the starting gate without a single ballot being cast.
Again, it's all perfectly legal, but the DNC under DWS was a weird fucking combination of Stop Helping Me and Dick Dastardly Stops to Cheat. And I will say that all of this debate largely amounts to nothing this year, but it's something to keep in mind in subsequent elections. Hell, I've a feeling that Republicans will be looking to alter their "Winner-takes-all" approach in the future should Trump lose, as that's the reason he skyrocketed in delegates.
edited 6th Nov '16 10:01:43 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Inside Donald Trump's Last Stand: An Anxious Nominee Seeks Assurance
Aboard his gold-plated jumbo jet, the Republican nominee does not like to rest or be alone with his thoughts, insisting that aides stay up and keep talking to him. He prefers the soothing, whispery voice of his son-in-law.
...
He requires constant assurance that his candidacy is on track. "Look at that crowd!" he exclaimed a few days ago as he flew across Florida, turning to his young press secretary as a TV tuned to Fox News showed images of what he claimed were thousands of people waiting for him on the ground below.
...
The contrasts pervade his campaign. Aides to Mr. Trump have finally wrested away the Twitter account that he used to colorfully and often counterproductively savage his rivals. But offline, Mr. Trump still privately muses about all of the ways he will punish his enemies after Election Day, including a threat to fund a "super PAC" with vengeance as its core mission.
...
His polished older daughter, Ivanka, sat for a commercial intended to appeal to suburban women who have recoiled from her father's incendiary language. But she discouraged the campaign from promoting the ad in news releases, fearing that her high-profile association with the campaign would damage the businesses that bear her name.
...
Mr. Trump's campaign is no longer making headlines with embarrassing staff shake-ups. But that has left him with a band of squabbling and unfireable advisers, with confusing roles and an inability to sign off on basic tasks. A plan to encourage early voting in Florida went unapproved for weeks.
The result is chaotic. Advisers cut loose from the campaign months ago, like Corey Lewandowski, still talk to the candidate frequently, offering advice that sometimes clashes with that of the current leadership team. Mr. Trump, who does not use a computer, rails against the campaign’s expenditure of tens of millions on digital ads, skeptical that spots he never sees could have any effect.
...
Back on his plane, heading into the campaign's final weekend, Mr. Trump reclined on his leather chair and refused to entertain any suggestions that he had erred at any point in his unorthodox, unpredictable and now uncertain campaign for the presidency.
"I'm going to win," he said.

If Super Delegates can keep out people like Stein then I think we should keep them. To my knowledge they've never actually changed a result to ignore the will of the people.
edited 6th Nov '16 7:36:52 AM by Kostya