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

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#112726: Feb 21st 2016 at 7:55:09 AM

Rare footage of Jeb! today:

Schild und Schwert der Partei
SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#112727: Feb 21st 2016 at 9:37:26 AM

Ironically, will it be organized labor working with organized business against Sanders?

Ahead of Nevada's Democratic caucuses, the Service Employees International Union is distributing literature to members touting Hillary Clinton's support for a $15 hourly wage for workers. But Clinton, who won SEIU's endorsement in November, has not actually endorsed a federal $15 minimum wage. Clinton has said since the beginning of her campaign that she backs a federal minimum wage of $12 an hour.

“Hillary Clinton supports our fight for $15 and a union,” read the SEIU fliers, which were distributed in English and Spanish. The literature also featured quotes from Clinton supporting New York’s proposal to raise wages for fast-food workers to $15 an hour.

“As president, I will work to raise the federal minimum wage back to the highest level it’s ever been — $12 an hour in today’s dollars — and support state and local efforts to go even further,” Clinton wrote last week on Medium.

SEIU fliers paint Clinton as $15 minimum wage supporter in Nevada

LogoP Party Crasher from the Land of Deep Blue Since: May, 2013 Relationship Status: You can be my wingman any time
Party Crasher
#112728: Feb 21st 2016 at 10:05:48 AM

I just love how Berniebros have been on full damage control-mode since last night, trying to spin defeat into "tie" or victory in a way that would make Rubio blush.

Bonus points if they bring up conspiracy theories and/or advocate for violent revolution.

It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#112729: Feb 21st 2016 at 10:09:28 AM

[up]Sanders and Clinton left Nevada with the same number of delegates, so clearly it was a tie.

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#112730: Feb 21st 2016 at 10:15:05 AM

tie in delegates is not the same as a tie in votes. Do not be disingenuous.

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#112731: Feb 21st 2016 at 10:19:36 AM

Sanders is working towards the nomination right now. Delegates matter more than the popular vote.

Clinton won the popular vote in '08, but the (super)delegates awarded the nomination to Obama instead.

edited 21st Feb '16 10:20:08 AM by SolipsistOwl

ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#112732: Feb 21st 2016 at 10:21:47 AM

And you suppose that the superdelegates of this current DNC will give it to Sanders?

storyyeller More like giant cherries from Appleloosa Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
More like giant cherries
#112733: Feb 21st 2016 at 10:21:57 AM

but right now I don't see how Trump isn't set for the nomination.

Actually, he's still likely to lose. The key thing to realize is that Trump hasn't gotten a majority in any state. The only reason he's been winning is because the non-Trump vote is split between so many other candidates. Once Cruz, Carson, and Kasich drop out and it becomes Trump v Rubio, Rubio's almost certain to win.

The only way Trump can win the nomination is to play divide and conquer and hope that he can rack up a big enough lead before the field consolidates.

[up][up] Sanders isn't getting any superdelegates unless he manages a clear mandate in the vote too. Which so far he hasn't.

edited 21st Feb '16 10:22:50 AM by storyyeller

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#112734: Feb 21st 2016 at 10:21:57 AM

Because Obama outright won more states IIRC. And there is no way that the super delegates will go for Sanders, unless he starts winning by landslides. And even then, they might go for Clinton.

[up]That's assuming that many Cruz/Carson voters don't go over to Trump. Some Kasich supporters might stay home altogether if he drops, with all the other moderates gone. And it also banks on Rubio not imploding again (not a guarantee, but it could happen).

edited 21st Feb '16 10:23:48 AM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
DrDougsh Since: Jan, 2001
#112735: Feb 21st 2016 at 10:23:45 AM

[up][up] I wouldn't count on all of Cruz's voters to migrate Rubio's way. Nor Carson's. They're part of the dissatisfied voter base who just flat-out don't want a career politician in the White House.

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#112736: Feb 21st 2016 at 10:24:55 AM

My point is that we're three states down out of 50. Literally anything can happen. It's disingenuous to discuss chances for either candidate until at least after Super Tuesday.

Especially when all we've seen so far is an undecided Democratic base. There's not yet a clear frontrunner, delegate-wise.

edited 21st Feb '16 10:25:29 AM by SolipsistOwl

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#112737: Feb 21st 2016 at 10:26:14 AM

Oh I agree on that front, the Democratic race is an actual race rather than a coronation. Provided that the eventual loser and their supporters fall behind the nominee, this is probably good for the party.

edited 21st Feb '16 10:37:20 AM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#112738: Feb 21st 2016 at 11:17:22 AM

Can someone explain how exactly super delegates come into play here? Are they just party members throwing in a vote or something?

Anyway, yeah, I don't see either of them not throwing their support behind the eventual candidate. The it's what Clinton did when Obama won back in 08, and the democrats aren't exactly in the habit of tearing their nominee down once it's all decided. I highly doubt Sanders would try running third party at this point.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#112739: Feb 21st 2016 at 11:30:58 AM

Superdelegates are certain officeholders - in the Democratic party governors and members of Congress - who can vote in the party convention in favour of their preferred candidates (although some are bound to specific candidates, I think). Together with delegates elected in the primaries they select the eventual candidate.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#112740: Feb 21st 2016 at 11:51:18 AM

Sanders losing in Nevada is plainly not good for him, not when some bad states for him are coming around the corner.

So much of the primary, even more than the general because of the spaced-out states, is about narrative and momentum. Clinton losing NH was problematic because it allowed for two weeks of the "Clinton in trouble" narrative to reign, simply for lack of other primaries, and that helped Sanders. Now we're gonna have two in a row go for Clinton, which'll lead to bad vibes out there for Sanders before the general rout (outside of Vermont, Massachusetts, and maybe Oklahoma) on Super Tuesday, which'll make things even worse.

LogoP Party Crasher from the Land of Deep Blue Since: May, 2013 Relationship Status: You can be my wingman any time
Party Crasher
#112741: Feb 21st 2016 at 11:51:24 AM

Why can't candidate pickings be simple people votes like we do it here in Europe?

edited 21st Feb '16 11:52:51 AM by LogoP

It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#112742: Feb 21st 2016 at 11:59:21 AM

Because America did it first and didn't feel like changing to simpler methods when those were developed?

Seriously, a lot of the idiosyncrasies of our system is a result of being the first to do it. Others could look at us and decide that there was probably a more efficient way to do it.

storyyeller More like giant cherries from Appleloosa Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
More like giant cherries
#112743: Feb 21st 2016 at 11:59:50 AM

Anyway, yeah, I don't see either of them not throwing their support behind the eventual candidate

If Sanders gets a clear win, then they will support him. But if it's like Sanders 51% Clinton 49%, they'll probably stick with Clinton.

The whole point of superdelegates is to make sure that the party chooses a viable candidate. Which means that if there is a tie or anything that can be spun as a tie, they'll break it in favor of Clinton.

Seriously, a lot of the idiosyncrasies of our system is a result of being the first to do it. Others could look at us and decide that there was probably a more efficient way to do it.

Actually, the modern primary system was only created in 1972. Before that, nominees were chosen largely by backroom deals among the party elite.

edited 21st Feb '16 12:01:22 PM by storyyeller

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#112744: Feb 21st 2016 at 12:10:15 PM

Why can't candidate pickings be simple people votes like we do it here in Europe?
Because the political elites in the US, when founding the country and the parties, ran on the premise that the common man was too fucking stupid to be entrusted with the decisions of directly picking a leader. It's also done so states like Vermont and New Hampshire and Rhode Island and the like aren't treated as non-entities politically, and get a say in leadership decisions, instead of leaving everything to Texas, New York and California.

Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#112745: Feb 21st 2016 at 12:10:50 PM

Why can't candidate pickings be simple people votes like we do it here in Europe?

Republicans do that. Which is why they have so many candidates, and why their vote is always so split. At least they don't have some stuffed shirts go "You know what? We know what you want more than you do, fuck you."

It's a sad world when Republicans have to be given credit for something.

Artificius from about a foot and a half away from a monitor. Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Norwegian Wood
#112746: Feb 21st 2016 at 12:11:43 PM

@Logo P Because we're 'Mericans, goddamnit.

Also, as superdelegates are appointed by and for the party leadership, they have a clear bias against Sanders, who was less than a year ago simply caucusing with the Dems when he wasn't actively railing against them as part of a corrupt system. He may have been correct to do that, but it hasn't endeared him to the leadership by any means. If Sanders gets a simple majority and not a clear one, they may still be inclined to throw their weight behind Clinton, who plays the edition of the political game which they prefer. The party chair/Killer Game Master is doing her best to Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies him, too.

"I have no fear, for fear is the little death that kills me over and over. Without fear, I die but once."
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#112747: Feb 21st 2016 at 12:17:27 PM

I am a tad worried that Bernie's supporters won't back up Clinton if she wins and/or that moderate Clinton supporters will stay at home if Sanders wins. It wasn't much of an issue in 08 because Obama and Clinton were basically the same on nearly every issue. But this time we have two distinct candidates, where supporters of one might not agree with the other; though the sheer terror that the GOP provides by running nothing but lunatics (and Kasich) might get them to grit their teeth in November.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#112748: Feb 21st 2016 at 12:17:40 PM

Superdelegates are not entirely appointed by the party leadership.

Rather, certain elected officeholders (members of Congress and governors) are ex officio superdelegates. Some members of the DNC are also superdelegates, not sure how that is appointed.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#112749: Feb 21st 2016 at 1:22:46 PM

Also some important figures like ex presidents are also Dem super delegates.

As for the Reoublicans, they don't do it by popular vote, they still have delegates.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#112750: Feb 21st 2016 at 1:48:27 PM

Once Cruz, Carson, and Kasich drop out and it becomes Trump v Rubio, Rubio's almost certain to win.

Cruz will not drop out until the last day, if then. He has very strong support among evangelicals, the Tea Party, and the hard core fundamentalists/anti-government type of all stripes, unlike Rubio he's actually won a state, he outperformed Rubio in a state (New Hampshire) which actually is known for preferring moderates, and in South Carolina he finished less than 1,100 votes behind Rubio for second place.

Cruz isn't going anywhere. Carson is unimportant except that he's probably primarily siphoning votes away from Cruz, (and the fact that he was relegated to playing spoiler in a state where he was considered as strong as he could get says something) and Kasich is the last "moderate" standing, but this year's Republican primary has no real taste for moderates.

The real contenders are Cruz, Rubio, and Trump, and because Cruz has more enthusiastic support than Rubio, (who is playing the role of everyone's second choice) there is zero reason for him to step down. What's more, Cruz has his insane, fundamentalist belief in himself and his cause. It won't matter what happens in the polls, Cruz is all but incapable of backing down.

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |

Total posts: 417,856
Top