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
Anyone have any good video summaries of the debates (moreso Night 2 then Night 1, I think)?
Oh God! Natural light!This doesn't make electability less real if people believe in it, if people refuse to believe that non-centrist non-white men are viable then lo and behold they suddenly won't be viable.
Self-fulfilling prophecies can be a pain like that.
Still, the primary isn't over and just because Biden is ahead doesn't mean that Warren or Sanders can't take him down a few pegs.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangSomething that gets me about the electability conversation:
Democrats are not like Republicans. They have a significant turnout problem, because they can't be relied on to just show up at the polls and stamp a ballot for anyone with a D in the name the way Republicans do for R's. Republicans express discontent with the country by voting, while Democrats express discontent with the country by not voting.
Democrats often need to be inspired to show up. That's why they chase unicorn candidates so much. If they don't have a candidate who really wows them, then they're just going to sit at home with their arms folded and their tongues out.
Given this substantial motivation problem, the electability argument baffles me. What part of "Boring moderate white guy who just wants to maintain the status quo" sounds like someone who will IIIIIIINSPIIIIIIIIIIIIIRE unicorn-hungry Democrats to turn out?
Edited by TobiasDrake on Aug 1st 2019 at 11:25:44 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I get your point and all, but that honestly makes me angrier at democrats due to their inability to do a proper Enemy Mine, one of the easiest alliances ever.
Watch me destroying my countryA lot of people forget that there are two factors in winning an election (how much of the public supports you and how many of the people who support you turn out to vote), they know that breadth of support matters, but forget about depth.
The thing is it comes from both sides, you get democrats who want a progressive unicorn that inspires them and you get democrats who want a moderate unicorn who will win the election easily and bring about a new era of bi-partisan cooperation.
Edited by Silasw on Aug 1st 2019 at 5:32:13 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranHonestly I feel like if Biden's safeness doesn't win him the primary, Sander's massive cult of personality (plus the "Bernie got berned" narrative) that not even Warren has will. I'd like to think things will get better, but as long as people are hyperfocused on "beat Trump", I worry we're gonna end up with either a centrist nonstarter or a progressive nonstarter.
Edited by PhysicalStamina on Aug 2nd 2019 at 8:54:48 AM
i'm tired, my friendDemocrats are also like statistically a generation younger on average. If you are angry, like retired-old-man angry, you make yourself heard no matter the circumstances, and if that means voting in someone distasteful, so be it. Younger people are flakier, less committed in everything, and can disengage at the drop of the hat because they haven't developed the kinds of ideological grudges old people have.
"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."It would be helpful if millennial and centennials were more spiteful. Idealism doesn't bring out votes, anger and resentment does. Ideals are the kind of thing that motivates people to write thinkpieces, rather than vote. You need to get mad, goddammit.
That doesn't mean we're wrong, but being right doesn't mean anything if you don't have that coldblooded, cutthroat need to win at all costs. Old people understand politics as a means to an end, whereas young people are turned off by politics. It's a different kind of cynicism, the realpolitik kind, rather than the edgy kind.
Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Aug 1st 2019 at 2:02:56 PM
"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."
X6 Bernie’s personality cult isn’t that large, that’s kinda his problem, he’s lost most of the people who were with him for other reasons (hatred of Hillary, a desire for a strong leftist agenda, a desire for a male candidate, a desire for a candidate who connects with blue-collar union workers, ect...) and that’s left him with the 15-20% he’s sitting at currently, he’s having serious trouble bringing in anyway outside the cult, which simply isn’t large enough.
No candidate is getting over 40% support, so right now nobody has enough support to be the nominee, it’s going to come down to where the 10% who are undecided go, then where the 15% who support candidates outside the big 4 (Bernie, Biden, Harris, Warren) then at some point one of the big 4 will drop and their support will go somewhere.
Unless all of the big 4 stay in until the convention and a deal gets worked out at the convention, which is possible.
This race will only really be even seriously guessable when we’re down to 4 candidates and even then it’s probably going to come down to who gets strong support from others within the 4.
Turnout amongst younger people isn’t low only because they aren’t motivated to vote, they’re more likely to have jobs that prevent them voting, be of a minority that is targeted by voter suppression or be poor and thus not be able to afford the things needed to vote.
Edited by Silasw on Aug 1st 2019 at 6:04:32 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI'm with you on that first point. Older people tend to have jobs that afford them time away to vote, while younger people are more likely to have work for hourly wages without paid off-days and be living paycheck to paycheck.
But. Uh. I don't think younger people are any more likely to be minorities than older people are. It's not like Hispanic people abruptly turn white when they hit 35.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "not being able to afford the things needed to vote". Of course, that could just be a knowledge gap. We do mail-in voting in my state, so I have literally never been to an actual polling station in my life.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Aug 1st 2019 at 12:17:39 PM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I don't think younger people are any more likely to be minorities than older people are.
Actually, I am pretty certain that younger people are more likely to classify as a "minority" owing to differences in birth rates, both historical and present.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynmanjust watched the debates from recording (was travelling). My takes:
Last night in no particular order -
Biden held his own, but thats mostly because of low expectations and Harris being oddly bad this time. He's gonna have to do better than hide behind Obama though.
Gillibrand was less annoying this time, had one major swing for the fences against Biden and had a good line about Clorox. She needed this debate last time. I don't think she makes the next round, but weirder things have occured.
Castro - Still on fire, but I'd like to hear more from him other than immigration (which I blame CNN for more than him).
Yang - Is it just me or did he seem apathetic about everything not connected to his plan (whenever he wasn't trying to make his one plan be the solution to everything that is). I found him well spoken and all, but its a sad day when Williamson seems to have more thoughts than he does. Yet he will be at the next debate.
Harris - I can't figure out why I think this, but she seemed bad. Less fire? Less energy? I dunno, but I think Booker stole her thunder. She let Gabbard of all people get the best of her too.
de Blasio - Somehow managed to be even more annoying than he was last time. Extremely grating voice to me. I hope this is the last we see of him.
Bennet - Doin' better than Hickenlooper, but that doesn't say much. I don't expect him to make the next debate. Forgot he was there half the time.
Inslee - Well spoken and unlike Yang has thoughts on multiple things even if he is the "climate change guy". Alas will not likely make it to the next debate. Maybe a potential VP though.
Booker - Had the fire tonight. I expect will get about as good a bump as Harris did from last time. He gets to be considered top tier like her after this. Eventually those two will have to go head to head though. Probably what the next debate will be about.
Gabbard - I hate her, but she is well spoken and made her dumb points well. Clearly angling for a VP position with Biden. May or may not make the next debate depending on the bump she gets.
Day before yesterday -
Sanders - Seems to be visibly getting his mojo syphoned by Warren. He just seems angry and irritated. No real answer to details unlike her. Did her a solid for not attacking her like the mods wanted, but I don't think it will help him as much, polling wise (not that attacking her would have either, so he was kinda screwed either way).
Delaney - Got way more airtime than I expected, but he easily set himself up to be torn to shreds due to lack of ability to counterpunch and having the charisma of a wet towel. And was. His points were well articulated though, and will likely benefit the other moderates, just not himself.
Bullock - I liked him and he was well spoken, but he smiled waaaay too much. Almost stepford-like. He likely won't make the next debate but I kinda hope he does. He seems to be the most magnetic among the governors.
Hickenlooper - ZZ Zzzz...
Klobuchar - Was there. Needs to do more to connect her record to her plans or to go on the offensive so as to draw contrasts next time, if she even gets a chance to do so.
Buttigieg - He did okay, but he's clearly playing for time to the next debate.
O'Rourke - Same as Buttigieg, except by not face planting, I guess thats a win? Seemed forgettable.
Williamson - Dark psychic forces? Go home.
Warren - Was great at the beginning, but I think Delaney got under her skin toward the end. Made her takedown all the more impactful, but its a case of short term gains. The points he had made will require more thoughtful answers for when a better-debating moderate asks them...and for the general electorate later. That said, she is clearly the better of the two progressives on stage and should continue to syphon from Sanders.
Ryan - Got bitch-slapped last time, got bitch-slapped this time. Go home buddy. Also, his bug-eyed stare creeps me out.
If a state has a voter ID law you need to buy an ID to vote, this hits young people especially hard as some states have banned the use of student I Ds to vote, on top of that if you have to go to a polling station that isn’t walking distance you need to be able to afford some form of transport to the polling station.
Let’s use rural Georgia as an example, you can easily have two democrat voters in rural Georgia who live right next to each other, one is older and one is younger. The older one is more likely to be a retiree (so free time to vote), white (so not taken off the voter rolls) and have both a car and driving licence (a way to access the polling station and a valid ID to cast their ballot). A younger person is more likely to work (so not have the time), be a minority (so have had their name taken off the voter rolls) and not have a car and driving licence so that they can vote.
Now that’s the two extremes, but you need all three things to be able to vote, youth correlates with the three big blockers to voting (free time, minority status and lack of money).
And yeah age does correlate to minority status, the average age of white people is 58, for black people its 27 and for Hispanic people it’s 11. The American system isn’t particularly set up for minorities to live as long as white people.[1]
Edited by Silasw on Aug 1st 2019 at 6:39:40 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranWhile there is some truth to the idea that young people face impediments that stop them from voting the same can be said of older minorities and yet they vote come hell or high water.
I truly do think it has to do with motivation, I don't want to push the fallacious "it's all about personal responsibility" nonsense but young people's low turnout cannot solely be explained by context outside their control. I think young people in-general just aren't motivated enough and as a consequence of that are not nearly as engaged or informed as they could be.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangI wasn’t claiming that the reasons I listed were the only reasons, I was providing additional reasons to refute the claim that it was only because of generational mindset.
I’d love to see some turnout data that controls for other factors, what’s white millennial turnout like when compared to white boomer turnout, what’s black millennial turnout when compared to black boomer turnout? What’s full time worker turnout amongst millennials compared to amongst boomers? Because that’s the variance that really matters, we loose a lot of data if we don’t control for the fact that millennials are more likely to be part of groups that get hit hard by voter suppression and in some states are a direct target of voter suppression.
Edited by Silasw on Aug 1st 2019 at 7:15:39 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI recently learned about something that absolutely floored me.
You know Yang the guy who's running on UBI and did decently during yesterday's debate?
It turns out that he has an absolutely galaxy brained policy, slashing the size of the Federal workforce
.
Now, some of you may ask "Surely those people do things and thus firing a bunch of them can't be a good idea" well Yang has got an answer for you. Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon don't have two million employees so why should the Federal government? Because as we all know, there is absolutely no difference between a government that is responsible for governing 300 million people and tech companies that exist to sell their customer's data.
Jesus Christ, tech bros not even once.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 1st 2019 at 12:06:10 PM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
x5 Huh, we've got wildly different views on Bullock...
That man...I don't know if it was his disdain for everyone less fortunate than him in the healthcare section or his advocacy for a nuclear first strike policy that angered me more, but he got under my skin in a way few others did. He's currently in serious competition for my last place spot, with Gabbard, Williamson, and Biden.
The rest of it is an interesting analysis. A different one than mine, but I'll take it under consideration all the same.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Aug 1st 2019 at 3:06:37 PM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerSo I’ve been looking at some Pew data on voter demographics and there is a nice positive in the numbers. When millennials were 18-24 their turnout was 20%, when Gen x were that age their turnout was 21%, when boomers were that age their turnout was 26%. So that’s not good right?
Except gen Z joined the fight in 2018, with a starting turnout of 30%, above any other generation’s starting turnout, and a generation turnout rate tends to go up as they age, so their turnout rate should hopefully climb fast.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI’d love to see some turnout data that controls for other factors, what’s white millennial turnout like when compared to white boomer turnout, what’s black millennial turnout when compared to black boomer turnout? What’s fully time worker turnout amongst millennials compared to amongst boomers? Because that’s the variance that really matters, we loose a lot of data if we don’t control for the fact that millennials are more likely to be part of groups that get hit hard by voter suppression and in some states are a direct target of voter suppression.
My post was more of a general response to the idea that the main reason young people don't vote is because of economic conditions, it wasn't meant to imply that you personally said anything.
And yes, that data would be rather interesting.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang

Electability does not matter, because the media is going to handicap the general until it is a close race. Trump had a list of scandals a mile long, a row of skeletons doing a conga-line behind him, but the new york bloody times spent far, far more time on Hilarys nothing burger email than all of Trumps misdeeds combined. Because if they ran coverage which was objective, the election would obviously be a land-slide, and in their minds, noone buys papers to read about a predictable walk to victory.
If the democrats nominate a frothing at the mouth Trot who is known to audibly mutter about guillotines, then come 2020, the news will be all Trump scandals all the time until the bookmakers say the race is razor close. If they elect the most squeaky-clean boring centrist possible, well, they will bloody well make up shit until they can paint him as as bad as Trump.
So the "optics" do not matter. Pick the candidate you actually want.
Edited by Izeinsummer on Aug 1st 2019 at 6:10:26 AM