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
Are people still trotting out the myth that Sanders is unelectable among minority voters? A six-month poll is certainly not recent enough to gauge anything about minority perception of Sanders, who has continually gained among blacks and Hispanics while Clinton's base has reduced to whites aged over 65.
Sanders and Clinton split the Latino vote in California right now.
And he's surging in Nevada and South Carolina, majority minority voter states.
Also, Trump's support is actually from the *least* racist demographic of GOP voters: Republicans aged 18 - 29, of whom over 50% support him. It's purely an anti-establishment and/or troll vote. Their support would go to Sanders in a head-to-head.
edited 25th Jan '16 12:41:31 PM by SolipsistOwl
Because the U.S has not engaged in Free Trade
The U.S' trade good have so much protectionist shit built around them that really, "Free Trade" agreements from the U.S are a no brainer to take. You take it or you get fucked.
And if you take it, the U.S is still going to benefit more because Free Trade is not something that eases an equitable distribution of the profits.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes![]()
![]()
Where are you getting your numbers on California? This late September poll
had him receiving 17% of Latino votes to Ms. Clinton's 55%.
edited 25th Jan '16 12:44:56 PM by Nihlus1
I fail to see how wanting to have some control over the flow of immigration is "nativism". If anything hearing this has made me like the man more, as he has some regard for the United States of America as an independent nation, which many leftists don't. And I've never seen any sources saying that Americans "won't do illegal immigrant jobs because they are to lazy", beyond redneck jokes.
Edit: Maybe it's just the companies won't hire anybody who isn't an illegal because then they'd have to pay them a living wage, and couldn't threaten them with deportation if they reported abuse.
edited 25th Jan '16 12:46:45 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.Which isn't surprising if he's gaining support.
Overal QOL may have improved, but there's enough anecdotal cases of QOL going down (people going bankrupt, wages not keeping pace with inflation, etc.) that people question free trade. People like being told they're not going to lose their house or job or car or retirement funds/pensions.
And enough internal business policy has ratfucked people that protectionism sounds like a damn good idea.
edited 25th Jan '16 12:50:08 PM by PotatoesRock
![]()
It's not that they're "lazy" (the US has one of the world's longer work weeks, IIRC), it's that they're usually bad jobs. Hence why illegal immigrant incomes are roughly 72% of the average even though they likely work longer hours.
It's been
repeatedly shown
that immigration creates jobs by boosting demand for local consumer goods, and providing relatively cheap labor for crap jobs.
edited 25th Jan '16 12:50:44 PM by Nihlus1
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Nevada and South Carolina are the first two states with strong minority voters to vote in the primary elections. (Latino and black, respectively)
![]()
![]()
![]()
As of this month, Investor's Business Daily had Sanders at 33% support among Latinos to Clinton's 37%, with 21% unsure.
https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/686701679052500992
![]()
![]()
![]()
A little more recently, Univision showed Sanders with slightly higher favorability.
https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/688453780719951872
edited 25th Jan '16 12:51:33 PM by SolipsistOwl
Sanders seems to have chosen his words poorly. No one is bringing the unskilled workers. They are coming. And they will keep coming until the situation in their homes is better, or liveable, in comparison to the U.S'.
It is the companies and the lack of regulation, impossible to regulate, that makes it a haven and worth the risk for any immigrant. Sanders is right, however, that companies would prefer a native to an immigrant if they had to pay them both the exact same thing.
But he fails to see the problem. The kids who do not get the unskilled jobs should not be asked "Why are they not getting these jobs?" it should be "Why are these people not skilled enough to take a better job?"
Which is why I brought more attention to the trade deals thing. THAT is likely to have more impact on immigration than a wall, or more papers, or a minimum wage.
edited 25th Jan '16 12:52:55 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes![]()
![]()
![]()
My five-day old sources disagree
.
Blacks and Latinos form Clinton’s greatest buoy of support, with their support of Clinton actually growing across the last month. Last month, Clinton received 61% of support from this group to Sander’s 18%. Now, Clinton receives 71% support from this group to Sanders’s 21%.
edited 25th Jan '16 12:54:56 PM by Nihlus1
![]()
I never said that minorities were the majority voters? Nevada and South Carolina are just recognized as the first two states where minorities vote in large numbers; Iowa and New Hampshire have majority white voters.
Your source doesn't disagree with me at all. Did you read the crosstabs of the poll rather than the write-up? Clinton may lead overall, but trendlines show her support shrinking.
edited 25th Jan '16 12:57:53 PM by SolipsistOwl
![]()
Sanders currently holds 1/5 of black voters; twice what Clinton had in '08, and she almost won.
Can you show any source showing Clinton actually *growing* among minority voters? All I've seen recently is her base recede into whites 65+.
The following article shows that even establishment black politicians are recognizing that black voters are more open to listening to Sanders than before:
I may have worded my initial post poorly, but I've since clarified. I hope you understand now what I meant.
edited 25th Jan '16 1:08:02 PM by SolipsistOwl
He, of all presidential candidates I remember, has mentioned that the U.S has done unfavorable deals to other countries. This alone is at least something other than the same old deal of "We are going to keep fucking up over other countries just because".
His immigration policies are pretty absurd and will change little regardless of what he proposes: Immigrants will keep coming and no bureaocratic or physical barrier will impede this. These proposals are really a zero to the left.
Ask Germany.
But at least he admits "Treaties can be renegotiated so we do not fuck over others so much" and that is more than any other candidate has said
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesSpeaking of South Carolina, guess who's losing the black vote by a factor of 2.5-1? Not Clinton.
![]()
Uh, did you read the poll I posted? It outright says that her support has grown among minorities even as her general support has fallen, recently to the point that it's now more than seventy percent.
edited 25th Jan '16 1:11:06 PM by Nihlus1
![]()
Obama was losing South Carolina among black voters to Clinton in '08, too, until *after* he won the Iowa primary.
It's always a slow gain when you're untested and unknown. Sanders still has low national name recognition compared to Clinton.
Yes, I did mean the Democratic primaries.
edited 25th Jan '16 1:24:10 PM by SolipsistOwl
It does seem that something to keep in mind that Sanders, like Obama in '08, is honestly not that well-known to those that don't follow politics, while Hillary's been in the political spotlight for the better part of 3 decades (First Lady -> NY Senator -> Presidential candidate -> Secretary of State), so she's got a shitload more name-recognition. As a result, Sanders might be seen as just another "Old White Guy In A Suit" like 90% of the other politicians at this point.
edited 25th Jan '16 1:26:43 PM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Agreed. Pollsters like Nate Silver of Five-Thirty-Eight have said it's better to have support in Iowa and New Hampshire than high national support, since it indicates real excitement over just name recognition.
Sanders' national support has been slow to catch up to where he's actually had offices and campaigning in place. He received a big spike following each debate; especially the last, which put him well into a double-digit lead of Clinton in Hew Hampshire and a statistical tie in Iowa.
Let's get a few things on the table.
Economically speaking, having one's borders completely open to anyone who wants to enter and work is a good thing if and only if those people are given legal status such that they are required to be employed under the same labor conditions as citizens, including minimum wages, benefits, and so on.
If we do not do this, then we are giving businesses the opportunity to exploit cheap labor and drive down wages for everyone at the low end of the scale. This, too, would not be a terrible wrong if the prices for the goods and services thus produced also decrease, but in most cases the business owners simply pocket the difference.
Having lots of cheap labor is not a net benefit for the economy if all we're doing is creating an ever-growing underclass of impoverished wage slaves.
For similar reasons, "free trade" is a Big Lie that most people seem to have bought into. Generally, it means that we have the ability to import stuff as cheaply as we want from other countries whilst subsidizing our own industries such that they still enjoy a competitive advantage. In practice, free trade means that we are free to exploit other nations' cheap labor pools while we drain out their natural resources and crush their local enterprises.
When people bring up free trade in the context of agreements like TPP and TTIP, what they are really talking about is two things: free movement of capital and increased intellectual property protections.
Free movement of capital does not empower businesses to offer products more competitively. Rather, it empowers them to move their operations to whichever nation offers the lowest taxes, so they can retain more of their profits. This doesn't help anyone.
Intellectual property protections, for their part, are no longer used to encourage innovation; rather, they are used by large conglomerates to stifle competition. If you try to produce anything even remotely like their stuff, especially if it's better or cheaper, you get your business locked up in infringement suits for decades until you fold because you don't have the deep pockets of your accusers.
Sanders is broadly correct to oppose these things.
edited 25th Jan '16 1:59:46 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Ok sorry.
edited 25th Jan '16 12:39:56 PM by Know-age