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 country functioned when the Republicans were the party of plutocrats. It may have had its ups and downs, but I would personally rather have fights over the merits of Keynesian vs. neoclassical economics and the proper balance of military power overseas than over whether the government will be funded or whether we should evict all Muslims.
The noise of "too many voices" is one thing, but I think the writer of that article is overly optimistic about the cause of the Republicans' problems. It's not the quantity, it's the quality.
edited 13th Jan '16 8:14:35 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The Republicans have a quantity and quality issue. They have a ton of candidates, offering thus too many choices, a lot of them are also LOW quality, so to speak, candidates.
Basically, their market got flooded by cheap low-quality imports, if you want to go about it that way.
Though I am amused that Clinton's problem isn't her quality as a politician, it's that she represents too much of the same, potentially.
The current dissatisfaction over the stagnation of government comes from both sides, and is justified from both sides, but to different degrees and for different reasons.
Those Democrats dissatisfied with the Clinton and Obama administrations for their relentless appeal to centrism and conciliation would clearly not be excited by the prospect of another Clinton in the White House. However, they tend to ignore the dynamics of the political environment in the pursuit of a version of the Perfect Solution Fallacy. As long as Republican majorities exist at any level of government, no Democrat will have a clean slate to accomplish their agenda, and there are moderate Democrats who won't accept too rapid change.
Republicans, by contrast, have established a rhetorical paradigm in which governance by Democrats is fundamentally illegitimate and must be overthrown at any cost. Their voters see the failure of their personal economic fortunes to improve and reflexively blame that on "hoity toity" Democrats in office, having deeply drunk of the Never My Fault Kool-Aid.
Quite frankly, any corporate Republican looking objectively at the situation should adore Clinton and Obama and hate Bush due to how they fared under those respective administrations.
edited 13th Jan '16 8:29:22 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I think the Republicans also have a Perfect Solution Fallacy. They can't handle compromise of any kind, even though compromise is how things get done a lot of the time.
Anyway, isn't the country as a whole turning further to the left, or at least turning away from the Republican party, and getting more and more pissed off at them or scared of them?
I find it amusing that liberal causes like gay marriage and raising minimum wage and so on are slowly winning. Conservatives don't want to admit that maybe "conservatism" is relative.
Now the problem has been, for whatever reason, translating that at writ large populism/lefter leaning social values to you know.
Actual votes. And consistent actual votes.
The only people that vote in large numbers consistently are old white people.
The Democrats will be announcing their candidate between July 25–28, 2016, at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.
What is currently going on is delegates are being decided between the 50 states. These Delegates' votes are decided at primaries that will be held through much of Winter to Spring 2016.
Both parties are holding their conventions unusually early. It was started by the Republicans, as they were terrified of having the preferred candidate of choice (which was expected to be Scott Walker or Jeb! Bush), from getting roughed up during the primaries by being forced extremely to the right during a drawn out battle while being unable to 'realign' during the General Election season.
edited 13th Jan '16 9:00:25 AM by PotatoesRock
![]()
When the accord is complete, the final sacrifices will be tallied in the Pit of Despair, where the offerings piled high of each candidate are weighed by robed men who speak only in troillettes. Afterwards the incantations begin, and the summoning of the name Ialdaboloth ushers the participants into a frenetic speech. They are unhindered by wounds, threats, or even the complete removal of their entire lower jaw and tongues: They will continue to energetically gesture and harangue the masses into a frenzy of chants.
The Most Exalted name in the end is nominated. The other participants are melded with the flesh of the altar, their ever loud cries of agony serve as a warning to those who in the future would stand in the Podium and face the Eternal Beast of Politics.
It is a big beast, and it stomps the ground hard. Only the savviest of promises sate it.
edited 13th Jan '16 9:23:06 AM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesNote that while the candidates will not be officially announced until the conventions the way the system works (primary votes being done state by state, with candidates dropping out along the way) means the candidates will be effectively decided (and we will know the results) well before the conventions.
edited 13th Jan '16 9:13:32 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranRight now we're in the primary stage, where each party is selecting its own representative that will be its final and sole candidate for president. Due to the fact that primaries have not been reformed for who knows how long, the dates when the primaries happen are staggered, with the first 2, Iowa and New Hampshire, coming early in February. (Although I think Colorado's Republican primary also moved up earlier so it comes in early February too.) After that a few more states will go before what's popularly known as "Super Tuesday" when a bunch of states will go and have their primary on the same day. Sometimes Super Tuesday has included 20-25 states, this year it's March 1, and apparently it's less Super, as it will only be about a dozen or so and many of the others will be split throughout March.
Basically though, by mid-March it should all be decided, it almost certainly will be for the Democrats, the intriguing factor is what happens if Republican delegates split their votes between all the different R candidates and especially what kind of backroom wheeling and dealing might go on to get candidates to withdraw and throw their support behind another candidate, etc.
In any case, there are party conventions during the summer where the parties will officially launch their grand platforms and legislative agendas. By then it should have long since been clear who the nominees will be, although again, the sheer number of Republicans and especially those who are basically narcissistic sociopaths has some journalists and pundits drooling over the possibility that Republicans may still be fighting all the way to the convention, because of how much that would boost potential ratings and headlines, although even they point out that it's exceedingly unlikely and everything should be decided by mid-March, or April at the latest.
The other possibility that has those journalists and pundits drooling is whether Trump will run as a third party candidate after he (probably) loses the Republican nomination, because people too often treat elections like an entertainment event and want to be entertained, and Trump does that with the crazy things he says and does. Although in all honesty it should be doom the Presidential race to be less interesting if Trump runs, since if he peels off more than a few percentage points from the Republican candidate the whole thing will automatically go from "almost certain Democrat victory" to "absolute slam dunk for the Democrats, they could literally run a rabid, leg humping wolverine for president and still win*".
*Note: this is assuming that no major terrorist attacks or economic collapses come shortly before election time, which are about the only factors that may radically alter the calculus.
edited 13th Jan '16 9:39:33 AM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |Since the police refused to do anything the Yeehawdists are now harassing and intimidating government employees.
On the two parties (yargh I'm doing a lot of Voxing today, but they're putting out some interesting stuff:
Vox, Ezra Klein: Chief differences between the Democrats and Repubs:
- Democrats like Compromise, Republicans don't
- Democrats have a much more strongly connected network between candidates and interest groups than Republicans do.
- Democrats focus on specific policy while Republicans are motivated by broader philosophical principles.
edited 13th Jan '16 9:21:59 AM by PotatoesRock
Posting because schadenfreude: An organiser of an anti-Obama march shot the co-founder of the march between the eyes over a gun dispute
. Namely, the co-founder in question tried drunkenly grabbing the guy's gun out of its holster.
"Yo, dawg, I heard you like more guns in your guns?" I don't do memes well.
All I see here is two idiots conspiring to remove one of themselves from the gene pool, and thus doing mankind a service. I am, of course, sympathetic to the family of the victim, but I have to wonder if they were previously or are still in favor of gun rights.
edited 13th Jan '16 9:53:44 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Doesn't qualify due to the self-removal requirement (it would if he had shot himself with his own gun in the course of the argument), but it would make a great Honorable Mention.
edited 13th Jan '16 12:33:14 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'm holding a kids' book in my hands right now called Hillary Rodham Clinton: Some Girls Are Born to Lead.
It's for ages 4-8 and it paints a pretty nice picture of her. I guess even if she doesn't win the presidency, she's still a good female power icon.
You gotta believe me when I scare you away, all that I wish for is that you would stayRE: the country moving left:
i say it looks more like Republicans are leaving social conservatism(or at least trying to downplay it) for more Libertarian policies, while the Democrats are moving towards being Social Democrats.
Bumbleby is best ship. busy spending time on r/RWBY and r/anime. Unapologetic Socialist
The way I look at it is that the Millenials have seen the kind of crap that the Republicans have pulled in the past decade or so, as well as their going further and further Right, and want to counterbalance that on the other end of the see-saw (or teeter-totter, depending on personal preference), rather than have the Right wing on the very end while the Left wing is sitting damn-near the pivot.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"![]()
![]()
I had one about Teddy Kennedy, odd given that my mom is a committed Republican, and told me horror stories about Chapaquidick, according to her the woman in the car with Kennedy was pregnant with his child, giving more evidence for the murder theory.
I think it is more the Cold War being over and easy access to information, since there is no longer the "socialist boogeyman" of the Soviet Union to scare people with, the younger generations are looking up what socialism actually means with minimal propaganda and censorship in the way, and they like it
advancing the front into TV Tropes

(Vox) Why Bernie Sanders is surging in the polls in Iowa:
He's looking like the system smashing change people want, while Hillary, a nuance-wonk lacks the "Ideals" Democrats are after and represents the stale Obama status quo. (That and Sanders, on average, appeals to younger voters who have no love or embrace for the New Democrats who formed after Reagan, and seem more in-tune with the likes of Sanders and the Working Family Party and Warren. Basically the Democrats' 'hard left'.)
(Vox) Republicans' lack of coherency is due to overenthusiasm of people willing to run.
Basically, too many cooks makes for a bad stew. So many people running for Republican seats is basically causing a giant amount of signal noise, causing party instability.