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
The hypothesis here is that the collective wisdom of many people is greater than the conclusions of a few. Those myriad people feed in the best information and analysis they can because their own financial rewards depend directly upon this. And it really is a case of “follow the money” because those who know the most, and are best able to process the available information, tend to bet the most.
Prediction markets are the composition of humans, and humans are often flawed. In fact, they are sometimes flawed in ways that are common among many people, meaning that it doesn't average out.
For example, one case of a major failure was how far the ceremonial first kick of the 2014 World Cup would travel
where many people predicted 40+ meters, even though anyone who knew how ceremonial soccer kicks worked would have known that it would only go 1-3 meters before being stopped.
If you want a bigger scale example, just look at how often the stock market behaves irrationally. That's probably the biggest betting market of them all.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play"Representatives Walter Jones Jr. (R-NC) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) have introduced a bill which would strip former House Speaker John Boehner of a little known right of former House Speakers to keep an office on Capitol Hill for up to five years with up to three highly paid staff."
Eh...whatever. Republicans want to be petty toward each other, I don't really care.
"A run off vote or such would probably make such a move by Trump less damaging to Republican chances and I hope that someday people will seriously look at changing how our voting works."
Normally, I would agree, but I want to see the Republican Party implode. I don't really care how much infighting a brokered convention causes.
edited 11th Dec '15 10:39:17 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Not necessarily. If the split would lead to a three-party system (see: France), then I predict that the dominant party will stay together and deal with their disputes in-house, barring a Democratic equivalent to the Taft/Roosevelt feud.
A broken and marginalized Republican Party might still win if the Democratic vote is split.
edited 12th Dec '15 12:25:55 AM by Ramidel
Hell Politico had a thing on it on less than a week ago
and Donald's knocking on it that it makes him look a weirdo and creepy.
edited 12th Dec '15 2:53:24 AM by PotatoesRock
How is drinking water supposed to be weird? This is the most absurd political attack I've ever seen.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayDrinking water is not weird. However, the mannerisms that Rubio has developed around it make him look nervous and awkward, which is the very last thing you want in a Presidential candidate.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Because, despite his presence in the race, Rubio has done so little to distinguish himself to the public that we latch on to any perceived quirks.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Well, it's a Democrat thing. Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley talk about policy. Republicans argue about which one is the more Pure Conservative and about how horrible Obama is. /yawn
edited 12th Dec '15 7:08:16 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Well, to be fair to Sanders, his general view is if you sort the economic issues out, most of the other problems with the country should more or less rectify themselves.
Bar you, know, foreign policy. To which the vast majority of his argument is "We need far less cowboy diplomacy and more real diplomacy, and using the military should be my last and final resort".
As to my point with Rubio: He's not going to do well with the generals. Yes Obama pulled the same shit as him but he's going to be characterized as a deadbeat who failed to live up to his campaign promises from 2010, the water thing while utterly stupid, is a big enough distraction/elephant that he could get "Tina Fey'd Sarah Palin-ized" (turned into a mockery), and this isn't the fact that soon after election?
DREA Mers he was targeting for his immigration law pretty much attacked him for being an asshole. Because his immigration plan was too strict/unfair. And he dropped that plan because he was terrified of getting shit wrecked by an even more "True Tea Partyman" conservative.
So anyone with a good enough spin machine is going to argue he's too lazy/unprincipled to govern, too 'weird' to be President, and he's a flip flop.
Establishment be damned, I can't see the guy holding up when a stress test is applied.
Double Post and speaking of Rubio weirdness:
(Vox) "Marco Rubio's strategy is utterly baffling"
Basically, Rubio is refusing to strike a strong ground game on New Hampshire and Iowa, viewing them as a complete waste of his time since he doesn't fit with the Evangelical nature of Iowa and the outside-thinker oddball style of New Hampshire. However, candidates who don't win or at least perform well in these states tend to flame out much later on.
As well, Rubio thinks having a ground game/get out the vote strategy is a waste of his resources, when he could be spending money on TV ads that'll reach many more people, who his team is sure will come out to vote.
edited 12th Dec '15 9:07:57 AM by PotatoesRock
Did we talk about the bipartisan bill which is going to replace No Child Left Behind?

What is the dam water thing? It's the first I've heard of it.