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
![]()
Hmmm. My bad; you're right, it's far from a majority of battlegrounds. I forgot to discount WI. I was mainly thinking of OH, PA, and NC.
edited 27th Feb '16 9:03:19 AM by darksidevoid
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.![]()
Not if the Republican screed of disenfranchising voters to "protect against Voter Fraud"note pan out like they want it to. Of course, then the Establishment is Hoist by His Own Petard if Trump gets in because of it.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Just because Trump caters to racist, sexist, homophobic jerks does not mean he isn't progressive on other issues. I think the biggest mistake that progressives make is assuming that only people who follow the standard conservative view can be racist, sexist, homophobic jerks. People who are liberal in regards to a whole host of other issues can still also be racist, sexist, and/or homophobic jerks.
Wizard Needs Food BadlyThis may be a stupid question, but I'm sincere in asking it:
Do we know that blacks and Hispanics are going to be "in lockstep" opposition to Trump (as in are there polls and such saying so) or is it a (reasonable) assumption being made due to Trump's... how do I put this... everything he says & does?
Also, a thought has occurred that I may a bit slow in reaching, but as I typed this I was thinking to myself how I could never view Trump as electable because, whatever his qualifications, the man unleashes stuff like "going after terrorists' families" and calling Mexican immigrants rapists and, regardless of sincerity, thinks that's what will get him elected.
The thing that's just hit me: That's probably rather indicative of how he views the people of the United States, if he thinks that will get the majority behind him.
My personal ranking on who I'd vote for when election day rolls around is Sanders > Clinton > Rubio > Trump > Cruz (despite the above, Cruz ranks lower because I'm heavily biased against evangelicals in positions of political power)
P.S. Who's the governor whose state wants to recall him within a month of being sworn in? I was curious and wanted to follow up. Partly because California's recall of Gray Davis was my first real firsthand experience in politics.
edited 27th Feb '16 9:52:23 AM by sgamer82
Remember Trump has the lowest favour ability rating of any candidate, Nate Silver (the guy who called the called 2012 election state by state I belive) did a bit in January on how Trump is not as popular with general election voters as the Republican big doners think.[1]
edited 27th Feb '16 9:53:38 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.” ~ CyranThat's the one. Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin. Thanks darksidevoid.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims are "in lockstep" opposition to the Republican Party as a whole. To get around that, the Republican Party would have to drop their talking points in regards to Blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims, which the Republican Base would revolt against. See Donald Trump and how he pretty much eliminated everything except those talking points and just ramped up those particular talking points.
edited 27th Feb '16 10:20:26 AM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyClinton has low favourability as well, but a large number of Democratic voters seem resigned or content with voting for her as the Democratic nominee.
Logic suggests many traditional Republican voters (even Latino and black) might vote for Trump simply due to party-loyalty or a resignation to lack of alternative.
At best, the Latino voting demographic is fairly new, so Trump alienating them wouldn't necessarily lose the Republican party any votes it wouldn't have tried too hard for anyways. It might, however, steer them towards the Democratic nominee and boost their turnout.
edited 27th Feb '16 10:22:47 AM by SolipsistOwl
@Septimus Heap if you mean Bevin, as I've understood from reading, the guy won the election by getting a surge in votes when he'd been trailing up to the end, then as soon as he was in office began to slash budgets on planned parenthood and the like, as well as ethics committees and watchdog groups that might potentially call him out. The current result being a petition to impeach him.
The general view seems like he's beholden to the religious right.
edited 27th Feb '16 10:28:49 AM by sgamer82
Clinton is -22. Kerry lost to Bush in '04 with -7 favorability.
All evidence suggests Clinton and Trump are within a similar range of unpopularity. A race between the two would be a toss-up.
Then there’s the data about how each candidate is perceived. Put simply, Hillary Clinton is an extremely unpopular political figure. By contrast, even after enduring months of attacks from the Clinton camp and its large number of media surrogates, Sanders remains a popular figure.
A Gallup poll released this week reported that “29 percent of Americans offer a positive observation about Clinton while 51 percent express something negative.” As Gallup rather starkly put it: “Unfortunately for Clinton, the negative associations currently outnumber the positive ones by a sizable margin, and even among Democrats, the negatives are fairly high.” Sanders is, of course, a more unknown quantity, but “the public’s comments about Sanders can be summarized as 26 percent positive and 20 percent negative, with the rest categorized as neutral, other or no opinion.”
Or look at the same metric for critical states. In Ohio, for example, Sanders’ favorability rating is +3 (44-41 percent), while Clinton’s is negative 20 (37-57 percent).
edited 27th Feb '16 10:51:42 AM by SolipsistOwl
If that were true, why run her?
Clinton herself and her staff have worked with the the media on how to cover them—as far as suggesting specific phrases and words that were then used by journalists in said articles.
Her unpopularity has more to do with her and her policies than any impression created by the media, right-wing or otherwise. The Democrats running her is a risky gamble.
edited 27th Feb '16 11:22:11 AM by SolipsistOwl

If Clinton and Trump are the nominees, historically low turnout can throw the election towards either party regardless of traditional demographics. They're both extremely unpopular candidates.
edited 27th Feb '16 8:59:19 AM by SolipsistOwl