TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

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

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#110351: Feb 1st 2016 at 3:41:16 AM

Outside their actual church structure, are plenty of members purely for religion-bashing. Any that want statues of Satan built are, Ironically, going against the grain of the actual "Church of Satan", which, itself, does not believe in him.

Au contraire. They don't have to believe in Satan to want to put up statues of him, because of his value as a symbol. (And remember that there's a fair bit of Aleister Crowley neopaganism in their religious chop suey - symbolism matters.)

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#110352: Feb 1st 2016 at 7:10:21 AM

Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders is spoiling for an upset of Hillary Clinton in Iowa’s Democratic presidential caucuses Monday, and a key factor could be whether he taps into the Hawkeye State’s growing bloc of Latino and African-American voters.

Black and Hispanic voters usually are considered a strength of former Secretary of State Clinton’s campaign in other states. But in a tight race where as few as 140,000 participate in the Democratic caucuses, Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley have invested much time and effort to connect with potential first-time voters among these groups even though more than 90 percent of Iowans are white.

Clinton has a small lead of 47 percent to Sanders’ 44 percent in an average of recent polls, according to Real Clear Politics.

Veteran observers of Iowa’s caucuses say Clinton’s campaign has largely targeted reliable Democratic caucus-goers who religiously show up at their precincts every four years, while Sanders and O’Malley have made extra efforts to recruit new voters into the state’s complicated nominating process. Latinos make up 5.6 percent of the state’s population and blacks comprise 3.4 percent, according to U.S. census data.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/31/iowa-caucuses-clinton-sanders/79621372/

edited 1st Feb '16 7:11:46 AM by SolipsistOwl

Bense Since: Aug, 2010
#110353: Feb 1st 2016 at 7:22:08 AM

All right, Iowa voters, let's inject some much-needed sanity into the Presidential election.

Let's show the country we demand better than a reality show star with a habit of running his mouth and someone whose most notable accomplishment is who she's married to.

I'm counting on you, guys.

edited 1st Feb '16 7:25:06 AM by Bense

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#110354: Feb 1st 2016 at 7:25:34 AM

Less than 12 hours for the circus to close.

Know-age Since: May, 2010
#110355: Feb 1st 2016 at 7:27:26 AM

we need to get rid of this shit where iowa always caucuses first

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#110356: Feb 1st 2016 at 7:33:29 AM

I read somewhere that if Iowa chooses the eventual candidate and said candidate loses the election, it will give the leverage required to shake up the schedule. Wish I new which article it was. Want to say it was on Sabato's crystal ball, but I could be mistaken...

Know-age Since: May, 2010
#110357: Feb 1st 2016 at 7:36:26 AM

lets hope so because i for one an chaffing under the yoke of our corngrowing overlords

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#110358: Feb 1st 2016 at 7:38:27 AM

Wouldn't the problem simply change from "Iowa caucuses first" to "X caucuses first"?

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#110359: Feb 1st 2016 at 7:50:51 AM

Well someone always has to go first. The question is whether or not that is set in stone or not. I could see a revolving schedule so that its a different seeding every cycle.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#110360: Feb 1st 2016 at 8:10:27 AM

I would prefer there to be a national primary voting day, TBH. Unfortunately, the Constitution punts on this one by explicitly leaving the nomination process to the individual states.

edited 1st Feb '16 8:10:56 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#110361: Feb 1st 2016 at 8:30:38 AM

I think Iowa goes first because they somehow have the median population of the US? Like, they're the most average average state? It's a region that's been moving west for 200 years

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#110362: Feb 1st 2016 at 8:31:53 AM

It's also too impractical. Primary candidates don't get the same about of funds and support as a party candidate does, and retail politics kind of demands focus as it is. It's for that same reason, I've heard Super Tuesday states aren't too happy with their status because even though they got a lot of delegates, they get very little focus because candidates have to pick and choose which states to hold their ground in.

EDIT-

[up]Once upon a time maybe, but now that is almost certainly not the case. Iowan democrats are more to the left than the average democrat, and republicans there are super evangelical compared to just about every other state. It's also very very white, so minority issues get no traction.

edited 1st Feb '16 8:33:20 AM by FFShinra

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#110363: Feb 1st 2016 at 8:52:46 AM

The media blitz in the early primary states is almost entirely due to their unnatural focus and the one-upmanship that's part and parcel of the escalation of spending enabled by Citizens United. If we were to intentionally dilute the primary media craze by having all of them held at the same time, it would force the candidates to pay attention at a national level, or at least diversify their efforts.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
SomeSortOfTroper Since: Jan, 2001
#110364: Feb 1st 2016 at 9:04:13 AM

[up][up] More like never. It was just an accidental result of some bureaucratic changes after the Democratic convention of 1968 that made them go early in 1972 which lead to them getting more attention in 1976 and then Iowa decided that it liked the attention and the extra money that gets thrown at the state economy.

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#110365: Feb 1st 2016 at 9:09:29 AM

Well, a quick google search leads me to this

So I gotta ask, why is the Iowa thing important

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Ekuran Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#110367: Feb 1st 2016 at 9:12:17 AM

It's important because it's important. Tautology, but a very real one. People focus on Iowa and New Hampshire because they are the first states and so they are the first indicator of what people think of the candidates for real.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#110368: Feb 1st 2016 at 9:18:38 AM

Seems to me the only importance it is going to end up having is finally kicking the eleven thousand republican candidates and leaving just two

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#110370: Feb 1st 2016 at 9:37:56 AM

@Fighteer I'm not even talking about the media blitz, I'm talking about the practical campaigning the candidate has to do, retail politics, network building, yadda yadda. It's an expensive business as it is and making it nation wide all at once means a lot of states get no love, if at all. You may think thats okay, but at the state level, being ignored by a candidate actually does affect how people will vote. And also, national issues are a lot less important locally, depending on the issue and the state. Now, because its currently the same couple of states at the front of the line, their issues get more exposure than necessary, such as farm sudbsidies and ethanol for Iowa. Randomizing it puts less permanent importance to an issue only one state cares about while also bringing to national attention other local issues in other states that otherwise wouldn't get the needed coverage.

It's a better bargain than we currently get since states get the attention they want, while everyone else can be freed of the Iowa yoke. It would also, I think, generate more interest and turnout than currently because depending on the year, their state can actually make a difference.

Bense Since: Aug, 2010
#110371: Feb 1st 2016 at 9:43:36 AM

I like the idea of a random "who's on first" for primaries. I don't see how such a thing would be accomplished, however. The states would have to agree to it, meaning the current "firsts" would have to decide to give up that place.

It would be nice to move the primaries further back in the year as well. Say, to June instead of the first day of February. I think everyone would benefit from a shorter Presidential campaign over all. Again, I don't see how to practically accomplish such a feat.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#110372: Feb 1st 2016 at 9:49:09 AM

[up][up] You remain mired in this idea that states matter, or should matter, at all for the voting process. Obviously, as long as it's wired into the process, focusing on specific states that are likely to vote your way is crucial to the process, but I would rather everyone have some say than a few people have a huge say and most of us have none at all.

edited 1st Feb '16 9:51:11 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#110373: Feb 1st 2016 at 9:49:45 AM

So I gotta ask, why is the Iowa thing important
Because Jimmy Carter convinced Iowa to go first, and it's stuck ever since, as Fighteer said, as a Tautology thing. It's important because it's important because goddamnit, it's important. A thing shaped like itself sorta-kinda issue.

Bense Since: Aug, 2010
#110374: Feb 1st 2016 at 9:51:14 AM

You remain mired in this idea that states matter, or should matter, at all for the voting process.
Well, it is the United States.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#110375: Feb 1st 2016 at 9:51:55 AM

States are obsolete, or should be, for political purposes. They should be jurisdictional entities only.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Total posts: 417,856
Top