TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

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

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#282451: Jun 8th 2019 at 10:53:06 AM

Biden's numbers took a dip, but that was more or less just an initial bubble bursting. He's still pretty solidly in the lead. Especially going by the most recent two polls I mentioned.

Disgusted, but not surprised
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#282452: Jun 8th 2019 at 10:58:19 AM

We're super early days yet, and the fact that Warren is consistently holding onto third place means she's staying relevant to the conversation — not a bad place to be at this point in the campaign cycle. As the field narrows, she's very likely to remain in contention, and she'll only be in trouble if her numbers remain low after candidates drop out and the amount of undecided primary voters falls.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Oruka Since: Dec, 2018
#282453: Jun 8th 2019 at 10:59:31 AM

I think I'll unfollow this topic until I see that we're done looking into crystal balls.

Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#282454: Jun 8th 2019 at 11:02:27 AM

so that's like..never?

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#282455: Jun 8th 2019 at 11:03:36 AM

Also the DNC has said that they will spread the top candidates amongst both nights of the first debate, so as to avoid one night becoming the main event. So Warren is likely to be on stage with either Biden or Bernie for the first debate, not both.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#282456: Jun 8th 2019 at 12:13:32 PM

[up][up][up][up]As Drag pointed out though, even polls this early have historically been indicators. And while candidates in Warren's position are not never winners...she's got an uphill battle.

[up][up][up]Looking at the polls as indicators is hardly fortune-telling. Unless you're trying to dismiss polls entirely for some reason.

[up]There are too many candidates in the first debate anyway for all of them to be on one night.

Edited by M84 on Jun 9th 2019 at 3:15:23 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised
Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#282458: Jun 8th 2019 at 1:11:53 PM

[up]Unsure whether to file that under "ironic" or just "moronic".

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#282459: Jun 8th 2019 at 1:14:38 PM

Call it "Ronic" and cover both.

ShinyCottonCandy Everyone's friend Malamar from Lumiose City (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Everyone's friend Malamar
#282460: Jun 8th 2019 at 2:23:47 PM

[up]Totally, flat out ronic.note 

My musician page
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#282461: Jun 8th 2019 at 3:27:04 PM

I would like to point out that despite the "Blue hue" of New England, that does not always translate to electoral results.

For instance, Vermont and Massachusetts both have Republican Governors, despite being considered "Blue States". Warren won her first election against a Senator who had already fought off a Democratic challenger, and the Republican Party dumped a lot of resources into her race to try to unseat her.

New England may vote blue in Presidential Races, but in statewide races you'd be surprised at what races Republicans can win

Granted, New England is one of the few places that the Liberal wing of the Republican Party hasn’t quite died out yet.

Edited by megaeliz on Jun 8th 2019 at 6:29:35 AM

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#282462: Jun 8th 2019 at 3:39:42 PM

Looking at the polls as indicators is hardly fortune-telling. Unless you're trying to dismiss polls entirely for some reason.

It may not worthless but it's seriously early to be using polls as evidence of a candidate's chance, they don't have the best record.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jun 8th 2019 at 3:51:46 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#282463: Jun 8th 2019 at 5:22:43 PM

Another thing to consider is the fact that the Warren campaign is touting, in that they aren't courting big donors. As in no gala, $1,000/plate dinners, no PAC money - and as such, that has hurt her funding. But admittedly, that's also part of why I find her appealing - it's one thing for candidates to talk about how we need to get "big money" out of politics, but how many actually refuse to accept that money during their campaigns?

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#282464: Jun 8th 2019 at 6:19:19 PM

[up][up]Still, it does seem like a lot of people are trying to downplay the polls because said polls so far are not really in Warren’s favor.

Including Warren, considering she tried pointing at Obama’s and Trump’s wins.

And 538 already did an analysis of decades of polls and found that even this early they tend to be fairly reliable indicators.

[up]Not like too many big donors would have her as their first pick anyway, given how much of her political career has been about keeping the rich in check. Which is also why she did not do so well in her state’s suburbs in 2018.

Edited by M84 on Jun 8th 2019 at 9:28:15 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#282465: Jun 8th 2019 at 6:35:54 PM

Who led?

514 DAYS TO GO: 2008 Dem: Clinton led by 9.5 points. 2008 GOP: Giuliani led by 10.1 points. 2012 GOP: Romney led by 11 points. 2016 Dem: Clinton led by 47.5 points. 2016 GOP: Bush led by 0.5 points.

So, 2/5 chances of the leader a year and half before the election winning the nomination?

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#282466: Jun 8th 2019 at 6:37:43 PM

Including Warren, considering she tried pointing at Obama’s and Trump’s wins.

Uh no, she said that in response to questions about her 'electability'.

Which was entirely fair, electability as a term is just a bullshit method of gatekeeping that's used to consciously or otherwise to make unconventional candidates seem uniquely unable to win elections.

Obama won, Trump won. Electability is frankly nonsense.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jun 8th 2019 at 6:39:44 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#282467: Jun 8th 2019 at 6:42:27 PM

[up]People really should not be pointing to those two to counter it though. Warren is no Obama or Trump.

[up][up]Trying to establish a trend with that few data points is not a great idea.

Edited by M84 on Jun 8th 2019 at 9:45:58 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#282468: Jun 8th 2019 at 6:46:52 PM

You're missing the point, electability arguments are nothing more than the self-fulfilling prophecies that arbitrarily and often discriminatorily disadvantage certain candidates and are in no way reliable.

Her point by bringing up Obama and Trump was to show that there's no reason to believe that certain candidates are intrinsically more unelectable the others.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#282469: Jun 8th 2019 at 6:58:37 PM

The lesson taken from Obama and Trump is that bad “electability” is an obstacle that can be overcome — Obama did it by being a very good campaigner, and Trump benefited from the GOP primaries being such a shitshow. But it is still an obstacle.

Disgusted, but not surprised
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#282470: Jun 8th 2019 at 7:21:25 PM

If being really good and being really lucky are the two means of overcoming "electability" then we're back to "It's anyone's game." As much as we complain about the number of candidates and bicker about some specific thing each of them has done that we dislike, I'm pretty sure all of us would be okay with about 16 of them being president. The only ones this spells trouble for are all the straight white dudes hovering around 1% in the polls. Which does kinda suck, since I do like Inslee and Swalwell.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#282471: Jun 8th 2019 at 7:31:39 PM

The issue is that Warren lacks Obama’s frankly amazing campaigning ability and Trump’s lucky circumstances. Her bucking trends when it comes to polling may be less likely.

Disgusted, but not surprised
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#282472: Jun 8th 2019 at 7:46:21 PM

I'd argue the bigger issue with the campaign is that a lot of the candidates more or less agree on the same stuff so that it's a matter of name recognition for a lot of them versus branding.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#282473: Jun 8th 2019 at 7:46:44 PM

Your assumptions that 1) "electability" is a concrete phenomenon and 2) that you need either amazing campaigning ability or luck to overcome it are equally unfounded.

Electability is very much a coded term, it has far more to do with being white and male than actually being electable or not.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#282474: Jun 8th 2019 at 7:53:43 PM

[up]That said, Biden and Sanders' own favorability have dipped somewhat recently. Biden in particular saw his initial bubble fade.

Warren by contrast increased her own favorability very slightly over the last few months. Only slightly though (along with all of the other candidates save Buttigieg who saw the biggest bump).

And here's 538's take on electability from last year:

What We Actually Know About ‘Electability’

While it can and often is coded for "white straight man", it's really more complicated than that. See the sections under "Women" and "Race and Ethnicity".

What is interesting to me personally is that Atheists are the second least trusted and thus "electable" people in the USA, beaten only by Socialists.

It only surprises me because I figured atheists would be seen as the least trustworthy. We are after all considered worse than rapists or something.

Edited by M84 on Jun 8th 2019 at 11:00:49 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#282475: Jun 8th 2019 at 8:03:03 PM

Going by the poll numbers from back then, Obama lacked Obama's amazing campaigning ability in the June before election year. At least, he was still in second place, which makes him the Bernie Sanders of now. Which makes Edwards the other 4000 candidates by all their powers combined.

Which candidate is which Planeteer? Real questions to be answered.

By the way, Marq, if you're still wondering why some days this thread grows really fast and others it slows down rapidly it because most people barely post on the weekends and breaking news tends to come to a crawl on those same days. So those of us left make do with relatively nebulous discussions that we are still passionate about but don't make us all pop blood vessels.

Hence, we've been having a genial discussion about what Elizabeth Warren's poll numbers mean for about 14 hours.

Speaking of which: New Poll from CNN.

Overall, 24% say they favor the former vice president, with 16% backing Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, 15% Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and 14% South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. California Sen. Kamala Harris rounds out the five over 5% with 7% support.

Edited by Parable on Jun 8th 2019 at 8:03:51 AM


Total posts: 417,856
Top