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
I'd honestly think the Democrats would be best off if Cruz gets the nomination. While Trump is pretty damn toxic; Cruz literally can't interact with someone on a personal level without pissing them off. No way he could run a campaign for a few months and not piss off vast swathes of the electorate; even if you ignore his reactionary views on basically everything.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.![]()
When the race is as close as it has been between Clinton and Sanders, 5% can make all the difference. Obama won Iowa with a slight margin, too.
And it's a big enough deal for the Clinton campaign to throw support O'Malley's way rather then let it go to Sanders:
“Our precinct leadership teams have worked hard to get to know as many people in their precincts as possible and they’ll use those relationships to maximize Hillary Clinton’s delegate count depending on which groups are viable on caucus night,” the aide said.
The goal, in the caucuses’ complex terms, is to cost Clinton no delegates in the state’s 1,681 caucuses while ensuring stray O’Malley supporters don’t defect to Sanders.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/hillary-bernie-math#.ttYbK9zrq
I have yet to meet an O'Malley supporter, so I have no way of predicting whether they would naturally gravitate towards Clinton or Sanders once he inevitably drops out.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Sanders is the second choice of 57% of O'Malley supporters, while only 27% would select Clinton.
That's why the Clinton campaign has been instructed to shift caucusers to O'Malley to keep him viable, rather than allow those votes go to Sanders. It influences the delegate count.
edited 30th Jan '16 10:22:47 PM by SolipsistOwl
On Bloomberg:
The survey found that 41 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers and 57 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers do not know Bloomberg well enough to share an opinion. For those who do know him, 50 percent of Republican caucus-goers have an unfavorable view of the former New York Mayor, versus just 9 percent who hold a favorable opinion.
Among those likely to attend the Democratic caucuses, 26 percent had an unfavorable view and 17 percent had a favorable view. Bush had a 53 percent unfavorability rating while Palin had a 50 percent unfavorability.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/01/iowa-poll-bloomberg-218467
edited 30th Jan '16 10:55:47 PM by SolipsistOwl
The Tea Party doesn't believe in government, and wants to basically put things in perpetual shutdown if they cannot make us some Dominionist hellscape.
And Marco Rubio, as their darling, would do all that and more. And hopefully - hopefully - Cruz gets nowhere near the White House he would be a complete and total unlikeable disaster.
We...kinda need Trump to win the nomination. At least if he somehow wins the general election, there'll be a State instead of a Theocracy or a deadlocked wreck.
I am confident in Hillary / Bernie's ability to defeat the Trumpenfuhrer, but until the general election, march on you wacky, storming nincompoops.
edited 30th Jan '16 11:02:55 PM by NickTheSwing
17% of Dems and 9% of Republicans is enough voters to screw the Dems out of a win.
A state maybe but a Facist state it would be.
edited 30th Jan '16 11:06:25 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranSomething perhaps to remember is that the winner in Iowa isn't always the Democrat nominee. In '72 and '76 there were more 'uncommitted' votes than votes for the eventual nominee (McGovern was 3rd in '72). In 1988 Dukakis trailed Dick Gephardt and Paul Simon (sorry, who?), in 1992 Bill Clinton was fourth with only *3%* of the Iowa caucus vote, behind Tom Harkin, 'Uncomitted', and Paul Tsongas, who would later also win New Hampshire.
Schild und Schwert der ParteiIn lighter news, Phoenix city council seeks to amend rules to prevent Satanists from leading a prayer.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster could not be reached for comment.
Millennial political views don't make any sense.
According to the Atlantic.

The mainstream media is notably anti-Clinton in a lot of cases, or at least the Beltway media is, although now that the Clintons are insiders maybe they'll pull in for one of their own. It was said that the media helped to hype Sanders because they wanted to see Clinton sweat.