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
There has never been a mathematically or economically sound argument against higher taxes on the wealthy. Whether the arguments are philosophically sound is a different matter, and one that I have strong opinions on, but that's not strictly relevant here.
"But socialism" is a straight-up Chewbacca Defense; however, the "individual liberty" (aka strong Libertarian) argument against taxation may have merit when considered in a vacuum.
note
Edited by Fighteer on Apr 22nd 2019 at 9:57:44 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'm at the point where I'm like, "Can I just vote now?" I've heard pretty much all I needed to hear: a lot of generic politic-wanking from most of the candidates and a f*ckton of sound policy ideas from Warren.
She seems to be trying to saturate the press with her ideas for how to run a country before her primary opposition and Trump even has a chance to really debate her. And given how eagerly they trumpeted that Hillary had "no policies", that's probably a good idea. She's marching straight into the primary as the unmistakable Policy Candidate.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Yeah, I'm hoping Warren avoids any slipups, because she seems like a pretty great candidate. I just hope she can manage to handle Trump in debates. My biggest fear is that he'll manage to just bully her around or goad her into saying something that people won't like. Or that she won't get a word in over him.
I think/hope she’s learned from the flap back in December. I don’t think she’ll make that mistake again.
Few Trump voters will flip; the debates are about exciting the Dem base to donate/volunteer and getting nonvoters excited to register. Why aim to flip those who still like Trump (approximately 20-25% of eligible voters) when there’s nearly 50% of eligible voters who didn’t show up in 2016, just waiting to be engaged and excited?
People are freaking out over her student debt plan btw, my entire twitter feed this morning is people losing their shit about how great it is.
Few Trump voters will flip; the debates are about exciting the Dem base to donate/volunteer and getting nonvoters excited to register. Why aim to flip those who still like Trump (approximately 20-25% of eligible voters) when there’s nearly 50% of eligible voters who didn’t show up in 2016, just waiting to be engaged and excited?
Now see I was pretty certain that nowadays most voters are motivated by their dislike of the other party so convincing some Trump voters to not vote for him (or the scum in the Senate) is actually more important than bringing your own guys to the ballot box, as most of them will reflexively vote against Trump irregardless of who the Democrat is.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanNah- look at how high Dem turnout was for Obama in 2008. He took freaking Indiana. Getting people who usually don’t vote excited and running to the polls is the best way to win.
Out of all eligible voters in 2016, 25% ish voted for Trump, 26% ish for Hillary, and 49% ish stayed home.
Why on earth would you try to rely on flipping 1% of the people who love Trump, even after all the evil things he’s done, when there’s so many nonvoters just waiting to be engaged????
Edited by wisewillow on Apr 22nd 2019 at 7:23:21 AM
The thing I remember about Obama's election is how it came after almost a decade of Republican rule,in the UK we went from Labour Prime minster to another,I can't recall if Gordon Brown was even voted in(which is my biggest gripe with our system,parties can elect a new Prime Minster and general public elects the party when the public should be deciding on both)
Edited by Ultimatum on Apr 22nd 2019 at 2:28:43 PM
have a listen and have a link to my discord server@Ultimatum: That's completely misunderstanding the role of the PM.
The whole point to being the PM is supposed to be having the parliamentary following to get policy voted through from white paper to law. Not a public popularity contest for head of state that doesn't necessarily reflect parliamentary distribution (we've got a head of state — she's a queen).
Separate voting for PM would get us into worse problems than we currently are in when it comes to parliamentary gridlock, cabinets vs parliament fights and generally stupid cross-purposes.
Edited by Euodiachloris on Apr 22nd 2019 at 3:39:39 PM
This.
I don't remember who it was, but I recall somebody during the midterms talking about categorizing voters between 1 and 5. 5 means absolutely 100% will vote for you, 1 means 100% going to vote for the other person. For the purposes of voter outreaches, debates, etc. 1's and 5's are both pointless to appeal to.
It's the 2 - 4 categories that you want to try and loop in.
The worksheets we filled out to track voters during the 2018 door-to-doors used similar logic. If someone asserted that they were definitely going to vote for your guy (or, alternately, never would) then we tracked that so that we knew to skip this person with follow-up campaign advertising and outreaches.
All the campaigning, advertising, etc. is strictly for the benefit of the Undecideds and the people who Lean Democratic or Lean Republican. Those are the ones you gotta work on. Not the proud MAGA hat-wearers, but the person standing next to the MAGA hat-wearer who looks kinda uncomfortable and waves his American flag a little slower.
And now's a better time than ever to snatch up those 2's because a lot of them are already dissatisfied with Trump. There are a ton of Republicans and "Moderate, Formerly Republican" folks that hate Trump. They just don't hate him enough to vote Democrat. Not yet.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Apr 22nd 2019 at 8:50:19 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Trump is absolutely hiding something, and at this point I can't believe it's just he's not as rich as he said he was. There's going to be something criminal in his Tax Returns. Also, if Trump is suing someone over 'Political Harassment', which doesn't exist, I say everyone Trump has insulted or threatened (Obama, Omar, Ocasio-Cortez, Hillary Clinton, a lot of Republicans) should also sue him for 'Political Harassment'.
Aye, this one sounds like frivolous litigation. Courts are explicitly prohibited by the constitution from ruling on internal Congressional procedure.
As for appealing to Trump voters: You need to do that in order to win Senate elections since that system favours Republicans. Besides, a fair amount of Trump voters don't actually like him.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

I’m at the point where I’ve just decided to not pay attention to anyone who’s joining the race now. We’ve seen all the candidates actually worth considering. These guys aren’t adding anything.