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
He'll be fine, but Canada's going to revert to its typical approach of "Define ourselves by being different than America". Only this time it not lazy or a sign of an inferiority complex, but the defense of Canadian values in the face of a bordering fascist (if still friendly) superpower on our border.
If Trump does cut off trade, we'll have to realign towards the EU (if it survives...) and China. And hope that Trump makes investing up north appealing when he ruins the US economy.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.![]()
![]()
Born of compromise of a very different American political world in the late 18th Century, when individual states were a lot more important, electors were initially selected by state legislatures and not popular vote, and the small states were afraid of being drowned out.
edited 10th Nov '16 9:43:38 AM by megarockman
The damned queen and the relentless knight.That was when they were in power, we should see a rerun of 2006, 2002 only happened because of 9/11, so assuming Trump's government isn't incompetent enough to allow another 9/11 we should be okay electorally and if they are that incompetent we have other things to worry about.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThat's what I'm afraid will happen. This election result was extremely demoralizing, and who knows what else Trump and the GOP will do in terms of voter suppression in the 2 years until then.
I'm trying to brace myself mentally for that outcome, but I think we owe it to ourselves to motivate everyone we know to vote in those to begin taking back the country.
edited 10th Nov '16 9:49:54 AM by Draghinazzo
![]()
Voter turnout was a lot lower this year.
https://twitter.com/jonathanwebber/status/796448989931417600/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Even voter suppression couldn't account for all of it.
Disgusted, but not surprisedBecause both sides are just as bad, right?
You know, I'm going to college next school year, and many of them have a study abroad thing. I was hesitant on doing it, since I figure I be too freaked out at being in a totally new environment, but maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea if Trump going to be president. Here's hoping the country hasn't gone to shit by the time I'm out of college.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet Unless I grew it. In that case, throw it in the trash.The electoral college is an attempt to balance power between states and individuals, as both are subject to federal law. The point is to keep someone from becoming president by proposing policies that benefit larger states at the expense of smaller states, without making the reverse true and allowing the more numerous less populous states to dictate policy to the handful of more populous states. So population counts for a lot, but it's slightly weighted by state, too.
That's fine. The problem is when states award all their electoral college votes in a single block. That's what causes "swing states". If the electoral college vote of a state was proportional to the popular vote of that state, then it would be worth campaigning there on the chance of picking up one or two more electoral college votes, even if the state as the whole is reliably red or reliably blue. It would also still be possible for the popular and electoral college votes to disagree, but it would be much harder.
Problem is, I don't actually know why states use winner-take-all systems. I believe it's determined by state law (and there are a handful of states that do split their electoral college votes), but I'm not sure what the advantage of doing things that way is. I mean, in reliable states, presumably the party in charge wants to make sure that their entire state goes for their party, but in swing states it's a gamble.
It'd be interesting to see a federal law requiring states to assign their electoral college votes proportionally. I'm not actually sure if that would require a constitutional amendment or not.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.And interesting opinion piece came out of the Washington Post of all places that Sanders was probably better equipped to defeat Trump than Clinton, not an uncommon opinion, but quite shocking considering the venue.
edited 10th Nov '16 9:57:49 AM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
![]()
1. The two states are Nebraska and Maine.
2. Re winner-take-all, my impression is that this is just inertia from when the electors in most if not all states were voted on by state legislatures, not popular vote. I believe it is state-law-determined, ultimately.
3. Federal law alone may or may not be enough l since I think the election is technically all the states running their own elections, with those for president electing this given slate of electors that will go to the Electoral College and vote for this candidate. Though I do know that single-seat election districts for the House of Reps is mandated via federal law (was passed in the late 60's, IIRC).
edited 10th Nov '16 10:00:30 AM by megarockman
The damned queen and the relentless knight.Yeah, you accused me of firing up the circular firing squad when I said it, but it bears saying again: Focus on the proposed policies that may have worked and the policies that should be proposed instead of wondering about Sanders. He's not going to get any younger in 2020.
Better to study what can be made to appeal to the demographics the Democrats lost out in this time. Better to focus on finding similarly charismatic talent.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot![]()
whether or not Sanders would've been able to win over the pivotal demographics in the rustbelt is an extremely important question considering there were similar looking upsets in the primary in those states what we saw on the general election. if the answer is yes or maybe leaning towards probably we need to identify what it was that enabled him to do that, and seek a candidate that shares that quality/those qualities in 2020.
edited 10th Nov '16 10:10:53 AM by CaptainCapsase
Right now Elizabeth Warren is looking like one of the favorites, though she'll be 71 when the next election rolls around. There's also Corey Booker supposedly, but he's got little substance for all his flash and has a lot of ties to the big banks. I do wonder if in 2020 the Republicans will boot Trump at the primaries out of lack of faith or if they'll try to keep him because they can manipulate him.
Bernie Sanders doesn't rule out a 2020 White House run.
People on social media want Michelle Obama to run in 2020.
Fans call on Kanye West to run for president in 2020.
Yeezus 2020.
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.

Took a bit to get my head around how the Electoral College works, but that's still unfair.