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
Honestly, it worries me.
The Democrats have made A LOT of bad decisions in the past. Remember that quote from Spaceballs? "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb".
Yeah...
That said, I will vote whoever they put forth. Not sure it'll do much good, but still
The hardest thing in this world is to live in it."How do you guys think the veritable cornucopia of democratic presidental candidates will work for the party in 2020?"
I think it will winnow out quickly. We don't hate each other like Republicans hate each other. There's no gain in sixteen people campaigning to the bitter end.
"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."I don't know. Maybe I'm just overly cynical.
I just feel like we on the left want our candidates to be perfect, so we pick them apart to uncover every little flaw, and then use that not to vote for them. As a self-admitted social justice warrior, I'm certainly guilty of this (I will never not vote again, though)
It's terrible that it really is a "lesser of two evils" decision when it comes to Trump, but there you go
Edited by MrHellboy on Jan 29th 2019 at 12:17:53 PM
The hardest thing in this world is to live in it.If I wanted perfect, I'd dig up Abraham Lincoln's mummified corpse and vote for that.
I'm fine with qualified candidates hashing it out in the courtroom of public opinion. Let them make their stances clear and work hard to convince me why I should support them. This is a healthy part of democracy and we should not discourage it just because of Trump.
We saw what happened when the same thing happened to the Republicans in 2016.
One candidate will quickly overshadow the others.
And we will all praise and raise our hands in glory to Biden/Bloomberg 2020!
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jan 29th 2019 at 10:24:39 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.The whole 'lesser of two evils' framing bothers me, because, well, of course it will be a 'lesser of two evils' situation. Every decision ever is about choosing the least evil option. Especially when you're choosing between two different people, because people are inherently flawed.
So it really doesn't strike me as a meaningful concept.
To me, lesser of two evils as a phrase has always implied that the two candidates in offer are both deeply flawed and that the decision is about who will be the least terrible.
It's an iffy concept to apply to our current situation because there isn't a single democratic candidate I can think of that is anywhere near as terrible as Trump (though some of them like Gabbard are obviously pretty awful in their own right).
The other problem with the "Lesser of two evils" logic is that it is not universally persuading. See 2016 where most "both candidates suck" voters broke for Trump as an example.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanOne thing Pod Save America pointed out about the 2016 Democratic Primary was that having just two candidates in the unique situation of that year made bitter polarization inevitable. If you liked Sanders, you had to hate Clinton and vice versa.
That won't be the case this year. Liking one candidate won't make you hate all the others, if for no other reason than it's too hard to keep track of them all and you'll need a back-up or two in case your preferred candidate drops out.
Well, I will always believe a severely-flawed Democrat is better than a Republican anyday.
Sanders or Warren seem like the best choices IMO. But then, the fear becomes that that unconscionable moron Howard Schultz will run to oppose him/her and end up siphoning votes from the Dem, thus guaranteeing Trump another win.
The hardest thing in this world is to live in it.I feel like Schultz is going to steal votes from Trump more than whoever the Dems run. He's basically a libertarian, at a point where leftist economic ideas are fairly popular...
As far as the massive number of Democratic candidates goes, I imagine it'll be down to around three serious options by the time voting actually starts
Which is precisely why the left needs to be extra careful in who they choose to nominate.
Part of the reason Trump won is many left-wingers and independents who hated Hillary threw their votes to him
Edited by MrHellboy on Jan 29th 2019 at 12:50:13 PM
The hardest thing in this world is to live in it.I kind of think that Schulz will be a flavor of the week and then forgotten. He has money, but not exactly heavy name recognition. (How many people knew who owned Starbucks before he decided to do this?) And while he has money, he doesn't exactly have a lot of access to infrastructure or political experience, and doesn't seem like the kind of person to take advantage of the Run For Something organization. Independents, for good reason, tend not to get a lot of air time.
Hillary was coming off from a very popular President in Democrat circles and a very unpopular one in Republican so she had her work cut out for her. Quite a few people who voted for Obama weren't terribly keen on her as well. Not necessarily a lot of them but enough.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Good is not dumb. In fact, "Good", as in engaging in mutually beneficial behaviour towards other humans, is the rational choice (assuming there is such a thing as "rational" in this cold material universe that doesn't give a crap about the goals of certain molecular configurations). However, it only works because of a certain degree of mutual trust in your fellow human beings, and people can abuse said trust for personal gain. This is not smart, it is literally the easiest thing in the world.
"Good" can seem powerless because of how easily evil can exploit it and steal stuff, but it is only because of "Good" that there is any stuff worth stealing.
Edited by Kayeka on Jan 30th 2019 at 12:35:24 PM
I'm currently cheering for Warren to win the race, but it's a whole year until the whole deal gets hot, so who the hell knows what I'll be thinking until then.
Personally, I think it's a mistake to dismiss Starbucks Guy note out of hand. Sure, he was far more well-known, but your current President was also written off at first, and look at what happened.
Even if Starbucks Guy doesn't win, him syphoning off enough votes from more moderate Democrats could end up being what keeps Trump on the White House for another 4 years.
Edited by HailMuffins on Jan 30th 2019 at 9:07:26 AM

Freestyle martial arts
Biden starts glowing "AHHHHHHHHHH!"
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jan 29th 2019 at 10:01:34 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.