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
One thing I've noticed during the past few days is how insanely demographic all your discussions about the elections are.
Here in the Netherlands, when a party wins or loses significantly in elections, our pundits discuss questions like: Were they seen and heard enough in the campaign? Did they manage to present themselves as a good alternative to Party X? Do they have a clear idea of what they stand for, and did they manage to get it across to voters? Did they focus on topics the voters actually care about? Were they seen to be internally divided, or did they look like a solidly united front? Is their party leader an appealing figurehead, and how did he/she do in the debates?
Sure, after a week or so, someone will crunch a few numbers and publish an article about voting preferences by ethnicity, sex, income, level of education, etcetera. But that's mostly seen as a "fun fact", only interesting for hardcore statistics freaks. The chance it will be discussed on television is extremely small. (The exception are the geographic data - North vs. South, cities vs. countryside - which are taken a tad more seriously).
How different it is in the US. From CNN to the Huffington Post to the discussions here, it's all about: how did each candidate do among women? Among men? White people? Black people? Hispanics? Old people, young people, rich people, poor people?
I mean, c'mon, what are you going to compare next? Hair colours? Heights? Blood groups?
It's especially the race thing that bothers me. 47 Years after the Voting Rights Act you're still counting "white votes" and "black votes" like they're two different species... your country has issues.
Mache dich, mein Herze, rein...We count stats on like every freakin' possible detail. I'm pretty sure someone out there has a tabulation of Yankees vs. Red Sox fans in terms of electoral college results.
As for redistricting, I suggest this: A computer program that, using the locations of all residents, draws the smallest number of straight lines that divide up the state into roughly equal-population districts.
We measure stats on any two groups that can be noted to vote in particular patterns, MR. Probably not going away anytime soon. Particularly the whole black vote versus white vote, as noted in this election was very influential.
But yeah, it's not going so far as hair color and blood groups unless you get someone with a special hard on for stats.
It's not that we don't address the issues you first stated, mind. It's that we particularly view them through the lenses of the demographics. "How well did they get their message across to women?" and so on.
And, as has been noticed, Obama's campaign was MUCH better about getting their message out. Anyone gunning for a political office should take note of what he and his staff did.
edited 9th Nov '12 12:27:29 AM by AceofSpades
![]()
![]()
Identity politics. Also, the United States is a lot more diverse than the Netherlands. And groups that are different from white, straight, protestant males typically stick close together and form a subset of the body politic. It'd be exactly the same in the Netherlands if your nation had a similar level of diversity. The very same thing happens in other diverse democracies such as India or Canada.
People who aren't the majority do in fact have different concerns. And in a country where the minority is a larger proportion of the population, politicians are going to make more of an effort to appeal to these voters. It's considered the progressive thing to do to appeal to minority voters in the United States. Specifically seeking out the black vote, or the hispanic vote, or the LGBT is a sign that the party wants to be as diverse as possible; it is not seen as something negative, but rather progressive and positive.
Viewing things through the lens of demographics won't stop because different demographics vote differently.
Also, Americans love statistics.
And as a poster below me mentioned - first past the post. Every little percentage matters in this system. Our politicians are going to attempt to kiss your ass in ways unseen in other countries.
![]()
Won't work, because the Supreme Court requires that minority voters have to make up a certain percentage of the population for a district. (I might be wrong on that, but I know there's a decision relating to redistricting and race. It had to do with "packing", which is where they pack as many minorities into a district as possible so they don't affect other districts.)
edited 9th Nov '12 12:43:25 AM by Completion
I don't see the issue with reporting demographic trends. I'd like more of that whole journalism thing, like, instead of "did X connect with voters?" how about "X just lied to your faces."
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?In addition, the US doesn't focus on geographic data because we already know the trends... Republicans are typically voted by people in the country while Democrats are typically voted by people in the city. In fact, we pretty much know how an election will turn out in most states save for those defined as being swing states like Ohio and Florida, so geographic data is relatively pointless unless it significantly changes from the status quo.
Wizard Needs Food BadlyWhich now that as those ethnic minorities are growing in population, having come from those microcosms, they and their descendants tend to come with specific policies they want to see implemented by the government. As a result, because of an increasing population representation by them, our two only functional parties need to appeal to those racial groups to be elected. Thus they need to appeal to the wonk issues of those etnic group
America's a very highly racist country still, andddd that's probably not something we're going to be able to deal with for a while. Not while one of our parties has decided trying to regress to Victorian England during the Industrial Revolution is a really really cool idea and we should totes try it out.
Though I do wonder if our First Past The Post System is might be an unintended issue enabling a lot of this.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/11/07/romneys_transition_site.html
Actually a rather decent website.
edited 9th Nov '12 1:04:21 AM by GlennMagusHarvey
Oh, I'm sure Dutch politicians pay just as much attention to demographics as American politicians do; these days every business is constantly researching how well they're doing with different segments of the population. However, most of the time it's only industry insiders who worry about this stuff; you'll find loads of it in trade magazines, but not much in the mainstream media.
Except when it comes to elections. Whenever election season rolls around, every newscaster becomes a campaign manager, analyzing everything candidates are doing or failing to do to win over voters, and offering their own two cents on what the campaigns should be doing. That's what the vast majority of election news coverage is; reports on actual political issues just can't compete with discussions about which candidate has the best "ground game".
In many ways, Presidential elections are our national sport, and like the sports fan who hated Math in high school but remembers every statistic about their favorite team, we become obsessed with all the nitty-gritty intricacies involved in selling a product (in this case, a politician) that would normally be of no interest to us.
edited 9th Nov '12 1:57:06 AM by RavenWilder
Like it or not, people's votes tend to be affected by the fact that we have a party who has essentially made it their mission statement to alienate people of color. It's like how women tend to be unwilling to vote for the party that wants to limit their healthcare options, Latinos aren't likely to vote for a party whose stance on immigration shows explicit hostility towards them, and atheists aren't likely to be enthused with a party full of many people who all but call for the separation of church and state to be done away with.
The reason we focus so much on demographics is that we currently have a political party that has positions that have a major impact on many groups of people. I mean, would I like it if we had a more sane political system, one in which we didn't have a party that held extreme positions that alienated large demographics of people? Of course I would. But we don't. You can't just ignore that.
edited 9th Nov '12 2:19:45 AM by HilarityEnsues
Indeed. Haven't rechecked the exact stats, but I think it's something like 44% of Latinos were happy to vote for G.W. Bush in 2004, but by 2012, only 27% were happy to vote for Romney.
Given that many Latinos are religious, business owning, family orientated American citizens, the Republicans have been driving their own constituency away from them.
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
Bingo. In many ways, a lot of immigrant communities are, by inclination, conservative by nature. Note small C: they might not share what some would consider "core values"... whatever those are. But, after all the upheavals getting to where they are, they have a strong wish to keep the apple cart upright, and better than where they left.
It's when you start denying/withholding their rights that they start to get proactive at you. For some strange reason.
edited 9th Nov '12 3:22:50 AM by Euodiachloris
@ Euo:
In other words, some Republicans want "Taxation without Representation" — which means, if the USA was founded today, they'd be against it...
Keep Rolling OnSo, who are the Republicans going to run against Hillary Clinton for the next Presidency? And yeah, I do think Hills from Hell is the shoo-in candidate to take over the Democratic nomination. I see no way in hell that she will not go for the job with all guns blazing after having to play second fiddle to Barack this time and last time around.
Republicans are freaking out over the Latino vote. They were a swing constituency when they had an immigration-friendly Republican in 2000 and 2004, so the party is likely to believe that they're not a Democratic lock.
My guess is that Republicans will field someone from either Florida or Texas. Those are the only two states where a Republican politician will have a somewhat reasonable view on immigration. Maybe California, but that state doesn't have any real Republican stars.
edited 9th Nov '12 4:39:23 AM by Completion
The state is almost minority-majority. How do you think they get elected?
But anyway, George W. Bush had reasonable views on immigration and tried to push amnesty through until his party stabbed in him the back basically. Rick Perry during the primary said he would not veto the Dream Act and said that he thought Mitt Romney's "self-deportation" stance was disgusting.
Not saying Rick Perry is reasonable anywhere else. Just mentioning that Texas Republicans are generally reasonable on immigration because a good chunk of their electorate are Latinos.
edited 9th Nov '12 4:46:47 AM by Completion
@shima- still better than this systems where the minority wins just because of how voting areas are set up...
they should really have a non-biased group draws the lines based on thins like city borderlines and such and just lock them in place, only changing slightly to account for population movements.
I'm baaaaaaackAbout Latin immigration policy; will somebody explain what's so wrong about saying "Hey guys, it really doesn't make sense, nor is it sustainable, to have people just show up in a country without having gone through any kind of process to get there."
I mean, I know Canada and Europe are so much better than the US, but the last I checked, they don't just let you show up and be there either.
It was an honor^^
Something like the British Boundary Commissions
?
^
No. Immigration is also a major Political Issue in Europe*, too.
edited 9th Nov '12 5:22:41 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnHm, I see. Look, as a man of color, I think a bunch of hard-working Hispanics is a good thing. A country with porous borders where-in you can just show up and be here.....
I mean, this is the kind of "pie-in-the-sky" Liberal thing that sounds so "frickin' cool", but then you actually look at it, and you're like "How the fuck is this supposed to work??"
It was an honor

The problem with sorting for maximum human variety means that minorities will have almost no voice. They'll always be drowned out as part of the larger sea of people. You'll end up with a government that is only representative of the majority and ignores everyone else.
edited 8th Nov '12 10:39:18 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick