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
Reposting from previous page:
538: Why Warren Can’t Count On A ‘Women’s Vote’
But it also suggests that both Warren’s gender and her ambitious menu of policies to help women may not do much to help her broaden her coalition where she needs it most — particularly among black and Hispanic Democrats, who are largely sticking with Biden so far. “Warren might be able to chip away at Biden’s lead — but I wouldn’t expect it to be primarily driven by female voters,” Hayes said.
Also from 538: Don’t Let Crowd Sizes Mislead You
The short answer is: No. While the ability to generate big crowds is certainly nice — it may signal enthusiasm among highly engaged voters or produce favorable media coverage — you should ignore any candidate, surrogate or media outlet that tells you that large crowd sizes mean that the polls are underestimating a candidate’s support. It’s just spin; polls are much more accurate at forecasting elections than crowd-size estimates, which don’t tell us all that much.
Some news: Howard Schultz has dropped out (thank GOD), saying "“If I went forward, there is a risk that my name would appear on ballots even if a moderate Democrat wins the nomination, and that is not a risk I am willing to take". Glad he finally came to his senses.
And four states have scrapped the GOP primaries entirely, going all in on Trump.
So much for freedom, right? Opposition of any kind is not allowed in Trumpland.
Isn't at least one state trying to pass laws to deny ballot access without the release of a candidate's tax returns? Given how the Electoral College works, this won't affect the results of the election noticeably (I doubt there is any risk of Trump winning California, for example), but it intrigues me.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Right. I wonder if Trump will try to get on the ballot anyway. It's a body blow targeted directly at his ego.
Edited by Fighteer on Sep 6th 2019 at 9:14:01 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Well, I'd expect it to be. But the Constitution explicitly lets states decide who gets on the ballot, so I don't think there's any grounds for that challenge.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Doesn't seem like a good idea either, honestly. Nothing stops other states from passing laws requiring candidates to release their birth certificates or other even more nonsensical things, if politicians decide to go down that path.
Life is unfair...I mean, it's not that unreasonable to ask for birth certificates of all things. Obama's birth certificate was publically published in short form in June 2008, a few months before the election. It wouldn't really stop anyone who was actually eligible.
I think anything we need to worry about in this area is on a whole different level, and going down the route of a slippery slope argument.
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."The problem with a slippery slope argument is that it only applies if it does, in fact, lead to a slippery slope. Otherwise it's a fallacy. To require that a candidate for public office be transparent about their finances in order to demonstrate that they are not seeking or likely to seek personal gain from their office, nor are a potential target of compromise attempts, nor have conflicts of interest, is entirely in keeping with the standards of our democracy.
Here's how you ask if something is reasonable: flip the sides and see if you'd be happy with the test being applied to your preferred candidate, or indeed any hypothetical candidate.
Heck, I wouldn't even be terribly upset if producing a birth certificate or naturalization document were a standard applied to all candidates for whom natural birth or naturalization is a Constitutional requirement. It's not that I am worried about Obama failing that test, but the blatantly racist way in which the test was applied.
Edited by Fighteer on Sep 6th 2019 at 9:43:08 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That's my thought on it too.
Demanding to see Obama's birth certificate wouldn't be a clearly racist political ploy if John McCain had to provide his too.
And so had George W. Bush, John Kerry, and Al Gore.
Etc. etc.
The problem is not "Birth certificates are ALWAYS RACIST." The problem was that they singled out Obama for special scrutiny to advance a racially-motivated conspiracy theory about him being a secret Kenyan Muslim usurper. If everyone had to provide a birth certificate, it wouldn't be a problem.
In much the same way that California's law does not state, "Donald J. Trump, and only Donald J. Trump, must provide his tax returns to be on our ballot." It says that everyone has to do it.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Sep 6th 2019 at 8:03:09 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Is that what we're calling it?
I liked Colbert's proposal. Since Trump is lying about where the hurricane will be dumping vast amounts of water, he suggested it be dubbed Watergate.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.@538 articles: That reminds me of an interview on Pod Save America with Axelrod and a Republican strategist, of all people. They both agreed that Warren's best bet for peeling off Biden voters was to turn up the folksy charm she displays on the stump and apply it to TV crowds. We've seen Professor Warren, now show Grandma Betsy from Oklahoma, was their idea, essentially.
I don't buy this, yes a specific tax might have been unconstitutional but that doesn't mean that her tax plan as a whole is illegal.
Furthermore, for those recent plans, you'll have to give some examples because it's impossible to properly respond to claims as vague as this.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang"Her tax plan is illegal" seems to be based on the idea of a wealth tax, which is not explicitly provided for by the Constitution according to common interpretation. This is missing the point that we do already have several forms of wealth tax, in the form of state property tax. The question seems to be whether this could be assessed at a federal level, which is not settled law. Therefore, calling it "illegal" is skipping several steps and betrays the individual's bias.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Either it's liable to face a constitutional challenge (and with this Supreme Court...) or it's a thought experiment to get people to think about the wealth gap.
It's not an actual feasible plan either way.
I suspect that if she actually becomes POTUS she'll use a plan that doesn't run the risk of facing the Supreme Court. Maybe something like Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's idea.
Edited by M84 on Sep 6th 2019 at 11:29:32 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised

Nuclear energy did get attention...the wrong kind.
Edited by M84 on Sep 6th 2019 at 8:35:21 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised