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 notice that their "State of the Race" layout puts Clinton in a position where she only needs two electoral college votes from the undecided swing states in order to win the race.
2 out of 72 electoral votes shouldn't be hard to win.
edited 7th Nov '16 3:20:06 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.So, does anyone think that maybe people got, for lack a better word "spoiled" with Obama and voting for a candidate they actually really liked to such a high office, and now they're looking on things worse, because that's gone even though it's usually like this?
Or rather, Clinton has the average percentage of voters voting for her specifically, while Trump is way down in tat department.
I'm finding 538's odds a lot more credible than the sites which are predicting 90% odds of a Clinton win. It's still looking like a close race.
I really, really don't want Trump to win. If he takes North Carolina and Florida (which are complete toss-ups at the moment) and manages to swing Pennsylvania, he wins. I was extremely worried earlier these evening when I saw two recent polls showing him tied or ahead in Pennsylvania (the first time any poll has shown him ahead now), but it looks like they're Republican-associated polls and 538 (which chooses and rates its polls based on their methodology and accuracy) hasn't even included them in its model. So that's moved me back from "very worried' to 'moderately worried". Unlikely to improve beyond that state of mind for the next 30 hours.
The good news is that if Clinton wins Florida, she wins the election, no contest. The bad news is that, well, it's Florida, and no one want to rely on that again, and if Trump wins Pennsylvania, he almost certainly wins the election.
edited 7th Nov '16 3:37:21 PM by Galadriel
Florida does have some nice numbers with regards to early voting for Clinton though. If Hispanics turn out in force, Trump loses Florida (and the White House).
Other polls have Clinton ahead in Penn, and outside of the margin of error. 538 recently gave her a slight uptick there as well.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/07/politics/presidential-polls-new-hampshire-pennsylvania/index.html
edited 7th Nov '16 3:38:55 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.By Republican standards, Trump is doing terribly among Cuban-Americans. And young Cuban-Americans aren't inclined to vote for the GOP (let alone the Trumpenfuhrer) the way their parents and grand parents are.
Polls had Trump getting between 15-20% of the Hispanic vote. Bush got 40% in 04, and Romney managed 26%.
edited 7th Nov '16 3:42:52 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.![]()
American politicians think they can weasel out of granting represention by not taxing Puerto Rico, but they forget that the Founders went straight from "No taxation without representation" to "No legislation without representation". It's a travesty that people in the US territories (or rather, colonies, if we're going to be honest about it) are denied the franchise.
And I agree that the electoral college is antiquated. The US is in a perfect position to elect presidents by popular vote, unlike parliamentary systems that are tied to the first-past-the-post system. A Democrat in Alabama deserves to have their vote matter. A Republican in New York deserves to have their vote matter.
edited 7th Nov '16 3:48:39 PM by Galadriel
![]()
![]()
![]()
First African Americans (and the LGBT+ community, but they aren't big/concentrated enough to swing things. Unless their allies are driven away from the GOP's position that they are sub-humans), and now Hispanics. And they very well could be driving out young people and educated white women next (which means political oblivion).
edited 7th Nov '16 3:50:02 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.![]()
Everyone keeps saying that, but the Republicans keep being able to compete, even when they choose a candidate who is vulgar, stupid, and evil. I don't see them just fading into oblivion. They haven't had a crushing defeat (on the scale of '72, '80, '84, and to a lesser degree '88 for the Democrats) since '64, before the Southern Strategy. In electoral terms, racism has paid off for them, big time.
After about 10 years of people predicting their demise, it shows up pretty clearly as just wishful thinking. The political climate is degenerating, not improving, and Trump is the clearest sign of that.
The GOP may be spelling their doom if they don't reform, but it'll be in 10 years or more from now if it happens at all, not in the immediate future.
edited 7th Nov '16 3:56:51 PM by Galadriel
I don't think it's octogenarians that are filling Breitbart. There's something ugly growing in America now, and it goes beyond old folks fearing change. It's young and middle-aged men, fearing that they're no longer the undisputed rulers in society. And, more understandably, seeing that they'll never have the same steady jobs and good pensions as their fathers, or that their sons will never have the same steady jobs and good pensions as they did - and blaming all the wrong people for that. In short, it's the people who have powered fascism throughout history.
Conservatism may be a movement of the old. Fascism isn't. That's one of the things that makes it frightening.
edited 7th Nov '16 4:05:58 PM by Galadriel

I mean, two years ago I was actually considering Zoltan Istvan.
The damned queen and the relentless knight.