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

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#45451: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:36:39 PM

[up][up]The problem is that bipartisanship is good in the general election but to pander to the GOP base you need to be insane in some fashion. Look at what happened to Romney.

[up]What exactly disqualifies her?

edited 30th Dec '12 9:36:55 PM by Kostya

Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#45452: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:37:53 PM

[up]

Not being on the pocket of corporations.

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#45453: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:38:56 PM

I think that would be a positive for a lot of people. It certainly is for me. Money is a big deciding factor but Obama had less money and still won.

edited 30th Dec '12 9:39:34 PM by Kostya

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#45454: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:40:07 PM

I could see Elizabeth Warren as vice president under a more bipartisan-reaching candidate. If Ted Kennedy was still around...

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#45455: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:41:20 PM

Who's the most bipartisan of the Democratic prospects?

edited 30th Dec '12 9:41:46 PM by Kostya

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#45456: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:41:34 PM

If you thought that big corporate money came down on the Republicans' side in 2012, just wait until Warren gets nominated. They will be throwing tens of billions into defeating her.

Of course, we've seen only too well now how having tons of money alone doesn't make your campaign effective.

As for Christie, the fact that he's been observed to cooperate with Obama would make him anathema to large swathes of the right. He doesn't stand a chance of getting nominated unless the party experiences a major shift in the politics of its base.

edited 30th Dec '12 9:42:50 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#45457: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:42:55 PM

My point is that money didn't decide this election. I think if Warren is marketed properly she can win. There's a lot of resentment towards corporations and she could very easily tap into that.

She's also female which could swing things in her favor a little more and the country seems to be growing even more liberal which will give the Republicans an even harder battle.

edited 30th Dec '12 9:44:12 PM by Kostya

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#45458: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:44:23 PM

[up][up][up][up][up]

There's always the possibility of her becoming the VP, and then something bad happening to the president.

Only reason Andrew Johnson got to be president.

edited 30th Dec '12 9:45:03 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#45459: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:44:36 PM

Obama is a much better politician.

Warren reeks of partisanship. She's everything people hate about Democrats and liberals. Her most famous speech is almost identical to Obama's "You didn't build that" speech, the most unsuccessful of his career. Warren will probably win a primary filled with anti-corporation folks like you, but she'll never win independents.

By the time four years rolls around, the GOP will probably be tired enough of Obama that "able to win" is more important than "true conservative."

And remember, Republicans wanted Christie to run this year. He's popular enough within the party already.

edited 30th Dec '12 9:45:26 PM by Ultrayellow

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#45460: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:44:49 PM

Well, here's my prediction, for what it's worth. It would only be possible for Warren to get elected if the Republicans continue to push the Tea Party-based agenda for the next four years, to the point where inequality remains unaddressed and the country either remains in a doldrum or falls into another recession as a result.

If Obama manages to preside over a continued recovery, however lethargic, the Democrats won't be able to tap the outrage that they did in 2012 to carry someone like Warren to a victory.

Republicans may not realize this, but if they succeed in crashing us via failing to raise the debt ceiling, they're all but guaranteeing that a Democrat will win in 2016.

edited 30th Dec '12 9:45:55 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#45461: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:46:43 PM

If Biden chooses to run in 2016, the Democrat nomination is almost certainly his.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#45462: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:47:08 PM

Most bipartisan Democrats...I really don't know. Biden, maybe? He's quite the hawk.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#45463: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:49:56 PM

By the time four years rolls around, the GOP will probably be tired enough of Obama that "able to win" is more important than "true conservative."

That wouldn't be too bad, if it's someone everyone can live with (and I assume you mean their idea of conservative). I mean, that's how we had presidents like Eisenhower.

Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#45464: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:50:07 PM

Biden is too old. Really. He'll be like 75 when he runs.

That means he would be 79 when he ran for reelection, and that he would end his 2 terms at the age of 83.

He doesnt have the age to be president that's for sure.

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#45465: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:50:31 PM

Ultrayellow: Just to clarify I am not anti-corporation. I just don't like how much power they have over the government and their workers.

I think you're underestimating how mad people could be at corporations. Corruption is a big issue for a lot of people and if she can sell her anti-corporation rhetoric as being a cure I'm sure people will flock to her.

Fighteer: You think a recession makes another Democratic candidate more likely? I'd think it would hurt them.

[up]That's probably the biggest strike against him. Hillary would be my first choice after him but she's not interested and even if she was these recent health concerns could make damage her chances.

edited 30th Dec '12 9:51:41 PM by Kostya

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#45466: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:50:41 PM

[up][up]He doesn't have to run two terms though.

edited 30th Dec '12 9:51:05 PM by Trivialis

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#45467: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:50:52 PM

[up][up][up][up]

Cuomo is easily the most bi-partisan choice. Even more so than Schweitzer or Nixon, and there both governors of Red states

His only major obstacle would be that Unions hate him with a passion.

edited 30th Dec '12 9:51:43 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#45468: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:51:27 PM

[up][up]

But thats the political calculation everyone makes because the incumbent has advantage over the challenger.

Also, having a siting president die is fairly disruptive.

edited 30th Dec '12 9:52:19 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#45469: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:53:19 PM

@Trivialis: I could live with Christie. Ryan would be horrible. Not sure about Rubio.

@Kostya: I actually wasn't specifically addressing you at all. But yes, for the purposes I'm talking about, you count as an anti-corporation voter.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#45470: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:54:00 PM

Most Americans are anti-corporation do.

Specially a couple years back.

edited 30th Dec '12 9:55:03 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#45471: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:56:15 PM

Okay. A lot of people do think corporations should have less influence though. Unfortunately this is outdated but I have a hard time believing the numbers have dropped. They might even have increased.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#45472: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:57:03 PM

I think the term "anti-corporation" is a bit strong for most people. I think that most liberal voters are quite happy with capitalism as a general concept but think that corporations have been allowed to run wild for so long that they de facto run the system that is supposed to restrain them from doing the kinds of things that crashed us in 2008.

It is entirely possible to address inequality by returning us to, say, 1970 levels of taxation. That wouldn't crush corporations; they'd do just fine, and so would their owners and shareholders. But they would no longer command the massive amounts of excess cash needed to buy our politicians and media.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#45473: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:58:50 PM

Whatever we choose to call it is irrelevant do.

Anti corporation or not, somebody who does not have a strong lobby to back that person up can never be president, and Warren dared to talke against the banks. So she can kiss the presidency goodbye.

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#45474: Dec 30th 2012 at 9:59:54 PM

That's why I said she's more suited for vice president. I mean, if we keep having junior senators as presidents, then the candidacy becomes unstable.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#45475: Dec 30th 2012 at 10:00:11 PM

[up][up][up]Citizens United should also be overturned and lobbying should be illegal or severely restricted. I believe there's bipartisan support for all these things so as long as Warren doesn't come on too strong she can run on that basis.

Heck, if Obama gets us out of the recession and into full recovery she could campaign on these reforms as a way of preventing this from ever happening again.

[up][up][up]Banks weren't exactly big fans of Obama either, at least not compared to Romney.

[up]How so?

edited 30th Dec '12 10:01:22 PM by Kostya


Total posts: 417,856
Top