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

ScubaWolf from South Carolina Since: Feb, 2020
#328326: Sep 21st 2020 at 8:57:28 PM

It can be hard to elect a Democratic senator here in the south. Gerrymandering exists and blaming Democrats does nothing here due to that same reason. It would require federal law to stop that from happening.

But as we've seen, gerrymandering can only help so much. Lindsey Graham is in serious danger of losing his seat, as are Mc Connell and a lot of Republican senators this year. You anger enough people, and that gerrymandering means nothing, because your own people are the ones getting angry enough to flip that against you.

"In a move surprising absolutely no one"
nova92 Since: Apr, 2020
#328327: Sep 21st 2020 at 9:09:21 PM

[up] Don't disagree with your overall point, but Senate seats aren't gerrymandered because Senators are elected by the entire state.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#328328: Sep 21st 2020 at 9:20:10 PM

It feels wrong to pin the blame for the damage the GOP does in red states on the Democratic Party.

Disgusted, but not surprised
nova92 Since: Apr, 2020
#328329: Sep 21st 2020 at 9:39:13 PM

Looking at longtime Senators like Lamar Alexander, Chuck Grassley, and Pat Roberts, it's incredible how many of the principles these people supposedly espoused over their careers were a complete sham. Alexander and Roberts are retiring. They don't have to be beholden to Trump or fear primary challenges. They can afford to act on their conscience and have shown how utterly lacking they are. This is who they always were.


Edit: Editing out previous edit. NVM

Edited by nova92 on Sep 21st 2020 at 10:50:35 AM

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#328330: Sep 21st 2020 at 11:15:00 PM

Some discussion of how problems with mail ballots could win Trump re-election. To whit, given that a lot of mail ballots are invalid on technicalities and even more so will be during a COVID-19 election, if a substantial partisan bias in where-do-I-vote procedures opens up it will give Trump a nonegigible edge.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#328331: Sep 21st 2020 at 11:17:21 PM

Not really a new consideration, it came up immediately after the primaries. But it's worth remembering.

nova92 Since: Apr, 2020
#328332: Sep 21st 2020 at 11:18:39 PM

The state Supreme Court in Pennsylvania, a critical battleground state that's seen as increasingly likely to determine who wins the White House, last week ordered officials to throw out "naked ballots" - mail ballots that arrive without inner "secrecy envelopes." Pennsylvania uses a two-envelope mail ballot system: A completed ballot goes into a "secrecy envelope" that has no identifying information, and then into a larger mailing envelope that the voter signs.

If you're voting in Pennsylvania, make sure to put your ballot in the proper secrecy envelope. Election officials are thinking up to 100k ballots in the state could be invalidated.

[up] The courts recently upheld the law, which is why it's coming up again.

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#328333: Sep 21st 2020 at 11:25:00 PM

Plus side, the ruling allowed drop boxes.

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#328334: Sep 22nd 2020 at 12:03:38 AM

It feels wrong to pin the blame for the damage the GOP does in red states on the Democratic Party.

Yeah. I actually agree with the general point that Republicans are working very hard on state and federal levels to cripple our democracy and ensure that they can remain in power on a minority of support. But I don't really see the logic for how that necessarily continues into, "Therefore, the Democrats are the ones at fault here."

Like, I get what Charles is saying that red states have rigged elections where crippled shells of democracy consistently ensure that Republicans always win. But then the Democrats are bad for not committing very hard to losing rigged elections where crippled shells of democracy consistently ensure that Republicans always win?

Should the Democrats be spending lots of time and money on Kentucky or shouldn't they? You can't shit on them for not trying to compete in Kentucky and then turn around and say that Mitch has rigged the system so hard that they wouldn't be competitive anyway. That's not really an argument in favor of putting more money and campaign time into the state.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Sep 22nd 2020 at 12:06:51 PM

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
nova92 Since: Apr, 2020
#328335: Sep 22nd 2020 at 12:12:42 AM

Should the Democrats be spending lots of time and money on Kentucky or shouldn't they? You can't shit on them for not trying to compete in Kentucky and then turn around and say that Mitch has rigged the system so hard that they wouldn't be competitive anyway. That's not really an argument in favor of putting more money and campaign time into the state.

What I was trying to say, but you put it far more succinctly than I could have.

Also, even with fair elections, there would be some states that remain red, too. The GOP is winning more states than they ought by voter suppression, gerrymandering, felon disenfranchisement, etc., but it doesn't necessarily follow that these are the only reasons the Republican Party is winning in currently red states.

Edited by nova92 on Sep 22nd 2020 at 12:15:29 PM

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#328336: Sep 22nd 2020 at 12:33:40 AM

The argument in favour is that most Republican Senators are just Mooks while Evil Turtle is the Big Bad. Removing a lot of the former is just a temporary setback for the Dark Side.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#328337: Sep 22nd 2020 at 12:40:53 AM

Presumably most Republican senators were Republican voters before they became senators, or even politicians.

In line with that, I wouldn't find it that hard to believe that like said voters, they consider their agenda ahead of everything, including their own political careers. That easily be the reasoning why some of the more vulnerable ones would still be up for pushing something throw here.

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
#328338: Sep 22nd 2020 at 1:11:01 AM

On senate maths, 538 had a talk about it and worked out that you’d need to add something like 5 democrat leaning states to make it so that control of the chamber mapped to public support nationally.

So short of both adding DC and splitting Texas up into rural Texas + 4 City State states, Democrats need to find a way to compete in Republican states. So build a huge government department HQ in Wyoming?

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#328339: Sep 22nd 2020 at 1:36:29 AM

Or have people move into the low-population red states such as Montana, Wyoming and Alaska. I think I did post an article about this, which says that such a process (West Coasters moving to these three states) is already underway and Montana in particular could become more competitive thanks to this shift. Unfortunately I don't remember the link.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
nova92 Since: Apr, 2020
#328340: Sep 22nd 2020 at 1:58:57 AM

[up][up] According to a 538 analysis here, there are 31 red states to 19 blue states; if you count anything within 5% as a tossup, 10 purple states, 26 red states, and 14 blue states. So Democrats need 12 states for a full balance of the Senate, or they need to do a full sweep of blue and purple states.


If you're looking at just needing 5 states, add DC, combine the Dakotas, split a few of the larger states? But I'm beginning to think the fundamental concept of the Senate is flawed for the current state of the US. The Senate still gives an enormous advantage to smaller states.

Edited by nova92 on Sep 22nd 2020 at 1:59:32 AM

Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Dating Catwoman
#328341: Sep 22nd 2020 at 2:24:48 AM

I imagine the smaller states will say that’s a feature not a bug.

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#328342: Sep 22nd 2020 at 3:14:11 AM

I personally am not a fan of minority rule.

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#328343: Sep 22nd 2020 at 3:15:27 AM

I am not assuming he doesn't, I'm just asking what his policies are.

I also feel it would be hypocritical to say you run for the entire country, then turn around and tell large swathes of the country it would be too expensive to campaign there, so they'll just ignore them, especially since they can't win there anyway.

Well of course you're never going to win a red state when you leave the campaigning to the Republicans and don't push back. If you don't run a 50 state campaign, I don't blame the states you skip for thinking you don't care about them. And they do, Clinton lost an election partially because she thought a few swing states were not important enough to visit.

Edited by Redmess on Sep 22nd 2020 at 12:28:14 PM

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
Heatth (X-Troper) Relationship Status: In Spades with myself
#328344: Sep 22nd 2020 at 3:28:13 AM

But I'm beginning to think the fundamental concept of the Senate is flawed for the current state of the US. The Senate still gives an enormous advantage to smaller states.

This is the problem. States as political entities with powers in themselves made sense back when people didn't move as much and thus were more in tune with their local concerns than anything else. Nowadays it is just arbitrary lines on the sand. The entirety population of North Dakota is not more similar to itself than it is to the entirety of California, that is just not how modern people work. The fear that the large states would dominate politics is predicated on the idea that every person in NY and California would agree on every issue, which is just pure nonsense.

The Senate is an outdated entity but, unfortunately, it is hard to get rid of.

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#328345: Sep 22nd 2020 at 3:43:11 AM

Just to be clear, I am not trying to assign blame. I just believe that someone who runs for national office should run everywhere, not just in places they think you can win. Even without gerrymandering, you should still make an effort to reach everyone you can, because you never know, and if they don't vote for you because you thought they were not important enough, but vote for the other guy who does, well, whose fault is that?

I mean, it would be crazy if a major party in the Netherlands ignored an entire province because they felt it was a lost race anyway. Only starting parties get away with that sort of thing, and not to their benefit.

And even with gerrymandering, I feel it is important for Democrats to build a base of public support especially in those states where the deck is stacked against them.

I think the "don't even try if you can't win at all" mentality is ultimately damaging to the Democratic cause. Democrats should always try, even if they can't flip a state to their side.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#328346: Sep 22nd 2020 at 3:55:00 AM

I'm angry at the Democrats because the Republicans are flat out evil in my state and worrying about them is pointless because they're irredeemable. The Democrats are the only side to turn to but it feels like they don't realize the problem exists (which is that they have to dismantle the power blocks the Republicans have made in rural states).

But is it misblamed? Yes, probably. Just very frustrating. I'd like genuine democracy in my state and others.

Poster: "Kentucky is a bunch of losers. They keep electing Mitch!"

Me: "Mitch cheats."

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 22nd 2020 at 3:56:05 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
RedSavant Since: Jan, 2001
#328347: Sep 22nd 2020 at 4:00:04 AM

California has twice the population and is ten times the size of the Netherlands. Texas is half again as populous and is sixteen times the size of the Netherlands. And those are just the top two most populous states out of fifty.

Campaigning everywhere, to reach everyone, is not feasible when the opposition party is so fervently devoted to making sure elections aren't fair anyway, and there's decades of culture in the deepest red states that make them a hostile environment anyway.

It's been fun.
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#328348: Sep 22nd 2020 at 4:05:16 AM

I find it a rather incredulous argument to say that a national party in the richest country in the world doesn't have the money to run in the entire country. Heck, Bloomberg just spent 500 million dollars on a national ad campaign. Sure, it didn't do him any good, but that's more on Bloomberg himself than anything else.

[up] So? More people also means you can get more campaign money from them. I find that a rather flawed argument to say that Democrats can't get enough money because there are just too many people in the US.

I find this a really strange argument, that the largest party in the richest country in the world is somehow too poor to run in the entire country. If a national party in a small country like mine, which is arguably less afluent than yours, can raise enough money to run in the entire nation, then surely the Democrats, with access to so many more voters with more money, can raise enough to run in the entire US? If they can't, I have serious questions about either their money raising tactics or their spending behaviour.

Edited by Redmess on Sep 22nd 2020 at 1:17:13 PM

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
nova92 Since: Apr, 2020
#328349: Sep 22nd 2020 at 4:17:16 AM

I just believe that someone who runs for national office should run everywhere, not just in places they think you can win.

There are a couple different things that your statement could be describing:

1. Should Presidential candidates be campaigning in all 50 states?

2. Should the Democratic party be campaigning in every single district/state?

3. Should the Democratic party/Biden's platform include issues most relevant to states/regions/rural areas that do not vote for them.


My opinion, mostly from a pragmatic standpoint is:

1. No. There is very little benefit to Biden running in many of the reddest states (an effect of the Electoral College); Biden should be focused on the tipping point states first, then on making inroads in redder states that could flip down the line. The campaign should use their resources in the most effective way. Furthermore, there are states where Biden runs the risk of tying local candidates to the national party too much and actually hurting their chances, see: Alaska, Montana.

2. Yes. Democrats should be running candidates on every level, even in districts that don't look favorable at the moment. It's how you keep up the party infrastructure in those states, and you never know when districts/races can start to shift in your favor. Local candidates can also be hyper-focused on local issues and distance themselves from some of the positions of the national party that are more unpopular where they are, brand themselves as "independent". It's why Montana, a red state at the presidential level, has elected a lot of Democrats statewide. Use downballot candidates to build up support, a la Beto O'Rourke.

3. Yes. As you pointed out, Joe Biden will be the President of all Americans, not just the ones who voted for him. It is his responsibility to tackle issues that affect voters who didn't vote for him. And he and other Democrats have done so. Democrats in running in rural areas (and even those in less rural districts) run on issues affecting those voters. They run on expanding Medicaid and assisting struggling rural hospitals, on expanding broadband access, on helping farmers. And keeping margins down in redder areas is what helps them win purple districts/states, which is what happened in 2018, when rural voters actually saw a larger swing toward Democrats than suburban or urban ones; Democrats still lost them, but the smaller margin helped them in difficult races.

RedSavant Since: Jan, 2001
#328350: Sep 22nd 2020 at 4:21:54 AM

And the geographical size doesn't matter at all? You're talking about TV ads, radio ads, print ads, for hundreds of thousands of local stations, newspapers, etc., across a country that varies wildly in population density, local concerns, and political landscapes.

It's been fun.

Total posts: 417,856
Top