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
He won because of timing and a viral campaign. There's pretty much no way the Republicans would've won 2008 after Bush. While being darker-skinned may have added to the viral image as something unusual, you could've painted Obama lime-green and given him horns and a proboscis and he would've won by the same landslide.
edited 11th Apr '13 4:41:00 PM by Pykrete
I don't recall him winning by a landslide. And I'm pretty certain Sara Palin fucked up a campaign Mc Cain could have won.
Is it really that hard to admit that he was better at getting his message out there than the other guys? One of which was the incredibly inept communicater Mitt Romney? (And that he is certainly better for the country in general terms that the Republicans are proving to be?) The idea that his race was a significant factor is something that needs to go die in a fire, along with the birtherism bullshit that some people are still trying to pull.
Now, I'm not denying there were some that voted because he is black, but I think it's a significantly smaller percentage than people like to claim. Considering that the people making the most fuss against him tend to use it as a detraction, I'd say more voted against him because of it. Institutional racism at work here. I think that most who voted for him voted for him because they genuinely thought he was better than what the Republicans were offering. Particularly the second time around.
@Ace of Spades: From what I've observed from people around me the thought is "Democrats and Republicans both suck, why should I bother?"
Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.The hilarious part is that between them, the non-voters could viably push a third party, but none of them want to be the first ones to do it.
The 2008 election had about 130 million votes, with Obama taking about 70 million. From the Census Bureau, there were about 225 million of voting age in 2008. If those non-voters picked the same third party they'd have beaten Obama and Mc Cain by even more of a landslide than Obama won. Even if they split between Green and Libertarian or something, they'd have been significant enough to take up almost half the voting pool and force the other parties to pay attention in the future.
Furthermore, a significant chunk of the people who voted for either of the main contenders did so specifically because they didn't want the other one to win. If we had IRV, genuine support for the two main parties would likely drop out from under them.
edited 11th Apr '13 5:06:15 PM by Pykrete
![]()
Those tend to be the people who don't vote, and therefor cut themselves out of the process, which means that as a practical effect they've made themselves not matter. I'm talking about the people who ACTUALLY GOT OFF THEIR ASSES AND VOTED.
Which, because of Republican obstructionism, means a whole lot of people got out there and voted against the Republican. Hmm. This might actually motivate some people in the 2014 election. God I want that to be a thing.
Which is another thing that bugs me. If you decide nothing matters, then nothing actually happens and the situation stays in exactly the same sucky spot. Why should I care for the opinion of the people who have decided to do exactly nothing?
edited 11th Apr '13 4:57:56 PM by AceofSpades
Specifically, Obama and Hillary got the base fired up together in 2008. "The first African-American President" and "The first female President" became enough of a clash of Cool Versus Awesome that John Edwards couldn't get a word in edgewise. And while McCain was well-known and widely-acceptable, he wasn't going to win against that tide, especially with Obama's campaigning skill and Palin's ability to talk while she's choking on her foot.
Also, Obama's race is behind a lot of how the Republican Party has turned toxic. And the Tea Party is what's dragging Democratic voters to the polls. Obama isn't liked, but Congress and the Republicans are hated by everyone who isn't them.
2012 had a smaller turnout by about 5 million. Likely because the people who jumped on the bandwagon in 2008 realized in the four years since that Obama is in fact not a messiah.
edited 11th Apr '13 5:03:35 PM by Pykrete
I don't know. Would you be able to make the argument that to create a truly representative government everyone must give their opinion?
I'm not a student of constitutional law but from what I know I don't think there'd be anything specifically prohibiting it. There might not be a lot of basis for implementing it though.
edit: Obviously I'd do a few other things before implementing this to make it easier for people to get accurate data on the candidates. Preventing news organizations from lying and creating a database that provides info on the various candidates would be one step.
edited 11th Apr '13 5:34:50 PM by Kostya
While it would be nice to get all that in place beforehand, I think it would work best to do the mandatory voting thing first. Focus on one thing at a time. And it would be easy for the "no lies in media" to be painted as some evil censorship (not to mention that if the wrong people are involved in writing the law, it could be evil censorship). Sane people outnumber the crazies; the problem has always been that the crazies are good about getting out and voting. Make that a non-issue, and I think we'll see things progress far more smoothly.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.
An idea I had was to make voting a three day event that occurs from the first friday in November to the first Sunday. Every employee is required to have at least one day off so they can vote. There would also be more voting areas.
This would, hopefully, cut down on the massive lines and make it easier for people to fit it into their schedule.
edited 11th Apr '13 6:07:51 PM by Kostya
So I have a question. What's worse the Sequester continuing or Obama's budget?
GOP Representative Jeff Duncan likens gun registration to Rwandan genocide
(Take a drink.)
Mc Cain was becoming his party's Standard-bearer after the massively unpopular W. Presidency.
Honestly, Democratic victory was practically assured victory irregardless of who was on the ticket.
I just want to mention I think this idea is borderline Fascist (in my opinion). It's definitely not democratic and almost certainty unconstitutional.
I'm proud to have the right to vote. Being forced to vote is nothing to take pride in.
edited 11th Apr '13 6:57:21 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
It'd be unconstitutional if the US government forced people to vote. Mostly because the Feds can't make voting laws. Those are set up by each individual state.
A state could institute mandatory voting... But it would require them to set up some system in which they know who is living in the state at all times(and registering everyone in the state to vote, and ensuring that everyone does in fact vote)...
But it wouldn't be unconstitutional for a state to set up such a system... Not after the health care ruling, at least, because that said the government can penalize/tax a person for failing to do something...
Of course, because it'd have to be created and implemented by a state, the first state to attempt to implement such a thing would be accused of vote-rigging. Either by preventing citizens(of the state) from voting or allowing non-citizens(of the state) to vote... Which complaint would depend on the color of the state...
![]()
How is it fascist? I'm legitimately confused about that. I suppose you could argue it's nationalistic but that's not the same thing as being fascist.
Also I fail to see how it's not democratic. It's not like they're forced to vote for one party. They can choose to vote against both major candidates if they want.
If it is unconstitutional I'd like to know why. So far I haven't been able to think of any particular reason.
They can't? Not even for federal elections?
edited 11th Apr '13 8:05:39 PM by Kostya

Only reason? No. But I have a feeling it made a great impact.