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
@justhelping: I'm not sure too many people here link to HuffPo without backup sources or at least the recognition that they're a bit nutty at times. If so, feel free to call us out.
edited 5th Apr '17 11:38:39 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
x14: The WSJ non-opinion sections are mostly fine, although that depends on whatever Murdoch thinks he can get away with next.
If the answer were yes, I would not walk but run in the opposite direction.
x8 Since when?
edited 5th Apr '17 11:39:58 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotJeez this thread moves fast-yes, I prefer not to read Huff Post and never without citation, but at least they are only sensationalist rather that actually malicious.
Ah yes, the quality paper putting out such high-quality thinkpieces as 'no, it's actually impossible for a man and a woman to just be friends.' Lel.
edited 5th Apr '17 11:44:17 AM by math792d
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.I remember my professor for Tech Management (it was a broadening elective for graduation requirement) said that one of the best ways to increase your chances at getting hired was to bring in a physical copy of the Wall Street Journal to your job interview, make sure to have at least skimmed through it, and be able to discuss it with the hiring manager. He also made it a requirement to subscribe to the WSJ for the course. I never got the nigh-fanatical devotion to it, and considered it mildly informative when it came to things specifically about business and finance, and laughable when it came to anything else.
![]()
Well, it is not untrue that hiring managers in finance-related jobs tend to hold an almost fetishistic regard for the WSJ; it's part of the "we've got money and we're the most important people in the world" circle-jerk. You should be able to speak the talk even if you don't believe it. Stay in that system long enough and you'll start to.
edited 5th Apr '17 11:56:38 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The problem with trying to reach out to conservative voters is that, when you get right down to it, what they want out of Washington is:
- A Republican
- Instituting left-wing ideas.
in that order. They're willing to slide on not getting their leftist policies. They're used to that. But that the ideas are proposed by a Republican and not an evil hippie commie muslim jew Democrat is non-negotiable.
What, exactly, do you hope to say that will convince a voter whose first and foremost priority is that you, personally, shut the f*ck up and go away? Hate is a powerful barrier against discussion.
edited 5th Apr '17 11:46:59 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I don't have the precise demographics and polling to mind, but my understanding of the WWC swing towards Democrats in the 2008 election is basically anger at the catastrophic economic (and military) mismanagement of the Bush administration. They held their noses and voted for a black guy because he talked like "one of the good ones" and gave us the "Change" mantra that they are so enamored of.
Unfortunately, Clinton had the problem of riding the coattails of someone with significant progressive accomplishments to his name but who had earned the ire of the WWC for daring to give them health insurance (I know, it makes no sense), and she wasn't promising "Change", but essentially, "more of the same". Which was good in most respects, but try telling the WWC that.
Tell any low-information voter that you're going to "change the system" and they'll perk up like Pavlog's dogs at the dinner bell, even if you offer no feasible or even meaningful policy ideas. This is because they've been sold on the idea that The Man is screwing them over at every opportunity.
edited 5th Apr '17 11:54:34 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Re: reaching conservative voters
As an ex-Republican now Democrat, the thing is that 1. this is a process that takes years, and 2. there are certain types of people who are more open to changing their minds than others. My own conversion, I estimate, took 8 years, with me dragging my fingers into the floor all the time along the way. I've met other people who've also left the right like me, but it is not an easy step by step process that those on the left can expect to trigger by just pressing the right buttons.
The thing is that the right has vilified left causes so much that most Republicans aren't willing to even hear left issues debated. "Healthcare is a precursor to communism", "Gay marriage is the start of decadence in America", "Islam wants to conquer the country", "the ACLU is the devil's arm." That sticks in a lot of people's minds when they're taught it all their lives. It didn't stick in mine and other friends' as hard because of internal issues that caused us to constantly question, one friend for being gay, myself possibly because of my autism. Then it took years of seeing people being affected by the GOPs policies, just trying to live their lives, and no longer being able to dismiss them as a statistic.
And even if a person is reasonable enough to even engage in level debate, they don't usually defeat after being beaten in an argument. Their usual course of thought is: "I've run out of arguments, but someone else who's studied this more has to know the answer even if I don't." Like I said, it took years and years of being outargued, and of seeing the effects with my own eyes too.
So is it possible to reach GOP voters? To be honest, not most of them. It's like the Parable of the Sower
; some people simply do not grow. It can be worth it to try for the few that will change their minds and affect the tide however much, but that burden of reaching out doesn't fall on the left; it falls on the people who have changed and thus can more safely and openly associate with the right with less fear of retaliation. A dog can more easily speak to wolves than a deer can.
edited 5th Apr '17 12:06:45 PM by Tuckerscreator
Goes pretty hand-in-hand with this Cracked article
. Honestly, the best way to go about it is not to divert resources to outreach, but to continue presenting policies that are geared toward benefiting all people, and hopefully a few will see the light, then over time talk others into doing the same.
Is that a paraphrase of this joke (whose phrasing I forget) about something be a gateway to homosexuality?
On the topic of appeals to (white) conservative voters, I kind of think you have to hope that progressive economic policies will win some over, but while better salesmanship is important and candidates should visit those states a fair amount, I'm not sure about how much overall rhetoric can and should change.
Two things strike me. One, is that a lot of people who voted third party or didn't vote last election are probably both economically and socially progressive. And so while they would certainly like the same kinds of economic policies as WWC voters, they probably would be turned off with a campaign that isn't good about the socially progressive policies.
The other thing, is that while the economy is certainly quite important, I think it's also important for Dems to run against the Muslim Ban and Trump's deportation policies, and those are things (especially the latter) that are pretty likely to turn off WWC voters. So like I'm not accusing anyone of wanting Democats to drop social issues here, but these two areas are a good example of how you kind of would have to if the focus was on winning WWC votes.
Also, I lied. The third thought is that while it's not a good strategy to try to win without winning any WWC votes and arguably isn't necessarily good morally either, but needless to say, if various voter suppression laws weren't in place, that approach might actually work from a strategic perspective.
edited 5th Apr '17 12:39:58 PM by Hodor2
.. Seriously, you need to propose concrete changes which a: Will help. And b: Will be hard to shoot down. Strategic plays that are obvious.
Move voting the hell off tuesday. Or make it a national holiday. The USA has uniquely low turnout for it's elections and the fact that a lot of people really can't practically vote has a heck of a lot to do with that. And the counter argument against making it a national holiday is.., what exactly? That people who work for a living don't deserve a vote? This will help because it reduces the influence of small minorities with unusually high turnout.
Break the back of citizens united. Not via the courts, write an amendment, get it on ballots and in front of legislatures. The primary requirement for constitutional amendments is very broad support, and this would have it - because everyone is convinced the other party is in the pocket of moneyed interests (.. because they are. ) The primary problem here is that current politicians are bought, but.. this is surmountable, because, well having to spend all their time trying to get oceans of money to be reelected must be personally distasteful to an astronomical degree - people dont enter politics to spend all their time begging rich guys for money. Not even republicans.
We could possibly make it work after getting the Voting Rights Act back, but we need control of congress to do that.
My biggest concern here is that people may fall into the same trap as the so called WWC has fallen into. I don't want us to end up willing to loose the election because we'd rather loose than give the WWC anything, even if we could do so without betraying our principles and while helping minorities.
The WWC will refuse help if it also helps minorities, we can't start refusing help/victory if it also helps the WWC.
edited 5th Apr '17 1:10:14 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranOne important issue involving the NSC that I didn't realize: not every issue reaches the president. Which is obviously a plus in this administration, and if Bannon has less access to the NSC then he can't stir shit as much.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/jimmy-gomez-california-june-runoff-236902
Sanders wing dealt setback in Calif. special election
Though the race for state Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s former House seat remained undecided early Wednesday, Jimmy Gomez, a state assemblyman backed by establishment Democrats, had secured a spot in the June runoff with 28 percent of the vote, according to the Associated Press.
Story Continued Below
Rival Democrat Robert Lee Ahn, who startled observers with his sizable fundraising and inroads with the district’s Korean American community, was running a solid second, 9 percentage points behind Gomez.
The election — the nation’s first congressional contest since President Donald Trump’s inauguration — was once viewed as an early test of the Democratic Party’s base ahead of congressional elections in 2018. But in a district that Sanders narrowly carried last year, Arturo Carmona, a deputy in Sanders’ presidential campaign, and Wendy Carrillo, a progressive activist, were drawing only 5 percent each as of Wednesday morning.

The Economist is probably the best market liberal publication out there, largely because of its insistence — no, devotion — towards Viewers Are Geniuses. They assume their readership is educated, and it shows. But their Oxbridge perspective makes them sound so old school Tory, I half-expect their editor to be a periwig-wearing earl talking about the South Sea Bubble.
You're not going to really get great conservative opinion from American news because of its entertainment focus. I mean, Fox News doesn't even pretend to be fair and balanced, anymore. They're basically Fascist Pravda.
"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."