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
This discussion about Perez and Ellison is ridiculous. Sometimes, I envy those who live in first-world countries who can debate on "Which candidate is better?" than "Is there even a good candidate?"...
Only an experienced editor who has a name possesses the ability to truly understand my work - What 90% of writers I'm in charge of said.I think the problem I have is best described as the difference between sportsmanship and gamesmanship. Too many people on both sides of this discussion engage in gamesmanship and therefore don't appear to deserve their win. And I am including both the DNC chair election and the takeover of the California Democrats.
Taking the latter example first, the left has won those elections not by winning the debates but by stuffing the ballot. And yes, getting your base out is how you win elections. But thinking of elections as just a crude numbers game is gamesmanship. You win, but you cheapen the whole process. To unify people, you need to win in a sporting fashion. Where if you have the organisational advantage, you concede it to make it a fair debate. Of course, one can only be sporting if the other side is too: in other words a classic prisoners dilemma.
The DNC chair vote appears to be a different story. But I think because the debates centred on election strategy and not policy it again became a question of who was better at gamesmanship and not sportsmanship. And so it divided people not unified them. Of course, the problem here is that the role of the DNC chair is to get the party to win elections so you want the person who can play the election game the best in that position.
I suppose the solution with regards to the DNC chair issue is to restructure the party to have a president or something similar who represents the public face and policy position of the party. No real power over the party, just a symbolic head. Then the role of DNC chair can be about tactics and organisation alone and not have to worry about what the Democratic party stands for: just make sure that they win.
Unfortunately, part of the issue is that strategy has become inseparable from policy. The only significant difference between Ellison and Perez was that Ellison has been more outspoken about getting money out of politics (as far as I can tell), and the whole race - rightfully or not - became illustrative of that divide over that issue (among others).
The BBC has been talking to political scientists at Stanford and Oxford and they have their own theory about the US election:
Did Trump win because his name came first in key states?
At first sight Krosnick's idea might seem to make little sense. Are voters really so easily swayed?
Most of them are not.
"Most of the people that voted Republican were always going to vote Republican and most of the people that voted Democrat were always going to vote Democrat," says James Tilley, professor of politics at the University of Oxford.
But a minority are.
"There is a human tendency to lean towards the first name listed on the ballot," says Krosnick, a politics professor at Stanford University. "And that has caused increases on average of about three percentage points for candidates, across lots of races and states and years."
Political scientists call this the primacy effect.
It has the biggest impact on those who know the least about the election they are voting in.
"If all of those states had rotated name order fairly, most likely George W Bush would not have been elected president in 2000, nor would Donald Trump have been elected president in 2016."
"Donkey votes" is an established concept. So yeah, the idea that one's location in the ballot list influences how many votes one gets has merit. And I suspect in elections with large amounts of undecided voters and disliked candidates, simply checking off the first box will matter much more and happen more frequently.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThere's been some weird shuffling of name order on ballots in Wales in recent years, that's probably related to this concept. I posted it because I didn't realise the average percentage point effect was as high as 'three'.
edited 26th Feb '17 5:04:18 AM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.Indeed, some polities in the world randomize the names on ballot papers to resolve this issue. According to Wikipedia, in Colorado it's been observed that state senators tend to have names early in the alphabet, presumably because it gives them an advantage in the donkey vote count.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanVoila! Normalization....
Trump shock factor fading in Washington Republicans, once unnerved, are now shrugging off many of Trump’s more audacious statements.
In Washington, where politicians and their spokespeople often stonewall and mislead, Trump's unconventional information flow once unnerved Capitol Hill leadership, rank-and-file legislators, and even some of the most jaundiced watchers of his campaign.
Now, when Trump makes public declarations that aren't true or clash with what his Cabinet secretaries say, Republicans barely look up, aides and members say. Even some Democrats are now trying to assess if pointing out a misstatement will get any traction.
"The president is in danger of people on Capitol Hill simply tuning him out because of the flood of misinformation that comes out of the White House," said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, a Brooklyn Democrat.
Trent Lott, the Republican former majority leader of the Senate who keeps in close contact with members, said people are "learning to disregard more of the things he says and tweets."
His comments still send shockwaves across the globe.
Mark Rozell, dean of the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, said past administrations have been quite careful to present a consistent message because they know the president's words greatly matter. "This is not that presidency,” Rozell said. “Now, we wonder: ‘Who do we take seriously? Who speaks for the administration?’ We just have to ask those questions every time now."
But GOP lawmakers are starting to get desensitized, even if they don't like his misstatements. Last week, after saying he was not a fan of the "daily tweets" and the president's off-message fights, Senate Majority Leader Mitch Mc Connell said he didn't expect Trump to listen. At an overseas conference last week, Sen. John Mc Cain helpfully encouraged foreign officials to simply follow the president's actions because he said Trump often contradicts himself.
Republicans now prepare for questions with non-answers to deflect and move on. They back-channel with top Trump aides who they trust. For example, they were assuaged soon after his conflicting comments on the timing of repealing the Affordable Care Act that the administration's plan of getting it done this year hasn't changed. After some of his Twitter posts, they have been reassured that it would die down — or that it didn't matter. White House aides have even shrugged off some of his comments to them, several GOP Capitol Hill sources say.
"He says some crazy shit sometimes," one senior GOP aide said. "We are getting used to handling it."
[Trump's] fact-challenged remarks come from a wide spread of sources - New York friends he talks to late at night on the phone, people he meets at parties and events, television segments he consumes every night, blogs that are printed out and given to him, videos he is shown on his computer, and aides and advisers, who compete for his ear. He is not interested in lengthy briefings or long meetings where issue experts pass along information about the world's problems. He likes to ask questions and soaks it in. "If you're talking to him the most, you can control the information," one longtime adviser said...He has repeated cable news chyrons word-for-word on Twitter, and repeated dubious broadcast reports, as he did with the claims of the terrorist attack in Sweden.
...bashing Trump isn't a useful exercise for Republicans. As one senior GOP aide said, attacking him would hurt their chances to get him to sign what they want...There’s also the fact that many voters give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Republican and Republican-leaning voters are more likely to side with Trump over Republican leaders if there is a disagreement, a Pew poll last week showed. Some 52 percent would trust Trump, while only 34 percent are likely to trust Republican members of Congress, the poll shows. Others said they were unsure.
Even more, they are broadly happy with his Supreme Court pick, his tougher line on immigration, his Cabinet choices and his aggressive executive orders, said Jeff Kaufmann, the chair of the Iowa Republican Party. Kaufmann said his misstatements seem trivial compared to what he's done, and he gets "wiggle room and forgiveness."
[Trump's] voter fraud allegations have led to foreign officials wondering if the U.S. president truly believes the election was rigged, even when he won...
Trump has continued to repeat the voter fraud allegations. At the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday, Trump said a crowd stretched six blocks outside to see him speak, even though pictures showed that was not true. He also doubled down on his claim of a terrorist attack in Sweden.
@m84: You do realize Sanders was obligated to return the senate as an independent given he ran as an independent in the first place?
@Tactical: If you don't think the center is at least equally culpable in the fracturing the democrats, you are utterly blinded by partisan loyalty. Would you rather we'd taken the Sampson option and run Sanders on the Green ticket? They actually made the offer to do that, and he turned them down.
Okla. AG's office confirms Pruitt used private email for state business
Trump's new EPA head used his own email server for DEM EMAILS during his time as Oklahoma's attorney general..
However, the revelation is in direct conflict with Pruitt’s written and oral testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee during the confirmation process. Pruitt, who is now the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, told lawmakers he had never used private email for state business.
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., asked Pruitt directly, “Have you ever conducted business using your personal email accounts, nonofficial Oklahoma attorney general email accounts, text messages, instant messenger, voicemails, or any other medium?”
“I use only my official OAG [Office of the Attorney General] email address and government-issued phone to conduct official business,” Pruitt replied.
Do we think it's just a case of a crazy Republcan Party?
Do we think there's some heavy rot in the Democratic Party too? Or are we fine with the way it is?
The correct response to these problems is "fix the problems", not "burn down the system and start over". When the system generally works except for a few glaring issues, you apply an Obvious Rule Patch and move on with the system as intended rather than creating an entirely new system (and almost-certainly introducing new flaws into the system in the process).
The main problems with the American political system as it stands now are: 1) voting is far more difficult than it should be. 2) first-past-the-post voting enforcing a two-party system and resulting in tactical voting and wasted votes. 3) gerrymandering creating "safe" districts for candidates, effectively making them unaccountable to the voters they nominally represent. 4) too much big-money influence in politics. 5) for the presidential election specifically, the phenomenon of safe states and swing states.
There are fairly simple (but not necessarily easy) solutions to all of these problems. In order: 1) make voting easier. Election day should be a national holiday. Eligible voters should be registered automatically unless they specifically request not to be (an opt-out process rather than opt-in). There should be more polling places and more early voting days. 2) get rid of FPTP voting. I personally favor a single transferable vote
system, but there are a lot of different systems that solve the problems of FPTP voting. 3) get rid of gerrymandering, either by getting rid of districts entirely (STV voting allows for that), or by making sure that the districts are drawn by a nonpartisan committee and not subject to approval or alteration by elected officials. 4) to reduce the influence of money in politics, overturn the Citizens United decision. By far the simplest thing on this list. 5) the safe state/swing state divide isn't caused by the electoral college itself, but by winner-take-all states. Since the electoral college is in the Constitution, but how each state assigns their votes is up to state law, it's much easier to change winner-take-all laws than get rid of the electoral college entirely. Assigning state votes by district is a bad idea (see: gerrymandering), but assigning them proportionally from the statewide results would work, as would doing an end-run around the electoral college by writing it into law that the state will give all its votes to the winner of the national popular election.
Specific problems, specific solutions. Screaming about the "rotten system" and axiomatically taking it that all parts of it and everyone involved in it are evilbadwrong is madness.
edited 26th Feb '17 6:44:13 AM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Did anyone catch that Caitlin Jenner is regretting her vote for Trump because he undid the transgender bathroom order?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/caitlyn-jenner-trump-transgender-trnd/
I admire her for coming out as trans in such a hostile environment, but what exactly was she expecting when she voted for a republican? That was such a dumbass move.
He's not doing the Correspondents Dinner.
edited 26th Feb '17 7:14:45 AM by 3of4
"You can reply to this Message!""So do we all agree that there's something rotten in the system itself?"
[Raises hand] I do! I do!
I also think Native Jovian's summary of the major problems and their solution is pretty good. I would only add that people joining a protest movement to apply pressure to all policy makers is a natural and necessary part of the correction process.Both parties are part of the problem, though not to the same extent, and both will need to change if they dont want to become an electoral target.
edited 26th Feb '17 7:15:48 AM by DeMarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.![]()
Ever heard of the expression "screw you, got mine"?
Well, the first-past-the-vote system might want to have a word with you there. As it is anyone starting their own party claiming to be a more pure alternative to the current establishment will only further split the votes for the target demographic.
edited 26th Feb '17 7:21:32 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotHonestly, this whole farce over whether Ellison or Perez are more deserving of a post as dry and bureaucratic as the DNC chairman makes me wonder whether the Party leadership will have to be put into commission from now on, like a triumvirate at the top. We're clearly not united enough to be led by one guy.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.""Everybody looks at the Democrats as being better with these [LGBT] issues. But Trump seems to be very much for women. He seems very much behind the LGBT community because of what happened in North Carolina with the bathroom issue. He backed the LGBT community. But in Trump's case, there's a lot more unknowns. With Hillary, you pretty much know what you're gonna get with the LGBT community," Jenner said at the time.
Can anyone follow this logic? Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
She deluded herself; that's the only answer. Any person that thinks the Anti-Abortion, Anti-Health, Anti-LGBT Republican Party is good for Women or LGBTQ people is deluding themselves (or outright lying). Trump may be better for L's, G's and B's then your standard Republican, but he clearly doesn't give a crap about T's or Q's.
edited 26th Feb '17 8:47:54 AM by DingoWalley1

Indicators are that he can read, he just hates to and probably does so with difficulty.
Which is probably why he doesn't take many briefings, he's have to read intelegence reports or have someone read them to him. The former would take to long and the later could be a huge security risk.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran