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
Gary Johnson and other Libertarians are living in a dreamworld of Free Market Superiority. Even though I agree with them in principle (if not in practice) on the social and military issues, I'd rather vote for a candidate who won't completely screw up the economy, even if he's a bit weaker on the other two.
It comes down to practicality in this case. I'm willing to accept the near-zero risk of being detained indefinitely as a law-abiding citizen against the risk of being enslaved in a state of perpetual economic feudalism.
edited 6th Nov '12 1:49:41 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Really? That seems like a strange idea. How could this influence the election?
![]()
That being the same reason I never vote Green - their economic policies bear no resemblance to practical reality.
People are influenced by the way results have already gone, it's human nature. Box office figures alone can dictate whether someone sees a film, for a vaguely sane comparison.
edited 6th Nov '12 1:51:01 PM by CaissasDeathAngel
My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.@Kostya: The risk is that the release of polling data from the eastern time zones will unduly influence voters in the western areas who haven't gone to the polls yet. Not that it will make them change their vote, but that it will make them stay home rather than contribute to an election whose outcome has already been declared.
@Cassias: The Greens' economic platform is one that would have massive benefits except to those very rich folks who are hoarding all the wealth. What makes it impractical is that it would never pass in today's political environment, not that it wouldn't work. The Libertarian agenda suffers from the exact opposite problem: far too many people showing willingness to put into law ideas that would be terribly destructive.
edited 6th Nov '12 1:53:53 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It appears that half my Politics class (and teacher) are going to be staying up late to watch The BBC's electoral coverage.
It's going to be a fun evening.
So, how does the coverage work, exactly? How do the news agencies and whatever do shit?
In Finland the early ballots are counted during the final election day, but the early voting results aren't published until voting has closed. So if you're watching live coverage of a Finnish election the moment that polling places close is the very same moment that all the results of early voting come out.
After that each polling station counts all the votes and publishes the results as soon as they're done.
BBC live coverage:
10 points to anyone who knows why I highlighted Wisconsin. (If you don't know, don't try to guess - you'll just clutter up the thread.)
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.![]()
They generally have a dedicated group of people called poll watchers that keep an eye on a few specific states that are assigned to them. As info comes in on them they report it to whomever's currently on the air and change the electoral map and website info accordingly. The polls don't close until 7 in most states though so we're probably not going to know which states went to who until about 10 pm eastern standard time (the West coast is three hours behind us so it will be 7 for them).
That's Ryan's state?
edited 6th Nov '12 1:58:32 PM by Kostya
Voted this morning, Obama was my main man.
We will see what happens tonight i guess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXkI1sTDoEgI don't see why making a prediction in favor of one party or another is called partisan. It's like it's partisan to call it anything but a dead-heat.
Anyway, the "vote no" people are out in full force today. I can barely walk fifteen feet without getting asked if I voted yet today. It's really annoying. At least after today they'll be gone.
edited 6th Nov '12 2:01:35 PM by ohsointocats
Pretty interesting figures. The numbers for conservatives are surprising especially if they lose. I wonder how the pacs will react if their money was essentially wasted.
edit:
edited 6th Nov '12 2:05:58 PM by Kostya
I'm asking people I talk to if they've voted. I'm not being an asshole about it, though.
Pure Libertarianism comes down to the principle of "negative liberty", which can be summarized as, "Don't step on my toes and I won't step on yours." The problem is that it simply doesn't work on a large scale. Libertarianism presumes a basic form of egalitarianism that can be enforced at the individual level, but not at a national level without a strong government, which defeats the purpose. Libertarianism, like Communism, is an ideal that relies on perfectly rational individuals to function, which is patently not the case.
Libertarianism as expressed in the United States tends to get mixed up with Objectivism, which discards negative liberty in favor of the ultimate "dog eat dog" mentality. This is the Tea Party version, which then gets further stirred in with a heavy helping of social conservatism, which is neither Libertarian nor Objectivist but seems inexorably mixed up with the conservative movement.
The result is a situation in which a person can be simultaneously for small government, government-enforced morality, free markets, and social equality. That these things are contradictions seems to get lost somewhere.
@Kostya: We had some discussion a while back about how Karl Rove may just be the ultimate political shyster: conning rich people out of millions of dollars that he never spent on advertising. In any event, if Romney loses this will definitely cast doubt on the viability of dumping cash into SuperPACs.
@Vertigo High: This question was asked before in some form. If Romney wins, I'm going to shrug, sigh, and hope that his Etch-a-Sketch settles on "moderate" rather than "hardcore conservative". If the latter, I'm going to grit my teeth and pray that the country comes to its senses after four years of what he's going to do to us.
edited 6th Nov '12 2:10:49 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Really? That seems like a strange idea. How could this influence the election?
Kostya: The main thing it can do is cause people who would have voted stay home.
"Oh, the news is calling it for the other guy. Well, since my vote doesn't matter, I'll stay home."
Not a big deal in a race where one candidate is 10 points ahead, but in a close race, it can make a big difference.
(Hilariously, if that is true, you might see a jump in Super PAC funds for Democrats. Hrm.)
edited 6th Nov '12 2:16:10 PM by PotatoesRock
Linda McMahon of Connecticut has been engaging in a false-flag operation,
performing "get out the vote" operations featuring herself on a ballot next to Obama as an "independent" candidate. She is a Republican.

Voted for Gary Johnson. He's the only one who makes any logical sense so unfortunately that means America doesn't want to hear about him, but I'm sticking to my guns and going down with my ship.
Easy street has no parking signs.