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
@Ilovedogs: I think maybe you should take a break when you start freaking out. Also, never rely on just one poll. I've found in this thread that pretty frequently different polls taken in the same time period can often contradict each other. It also does good to take into account if the poll takers reveal how many people they polled and how they did so.
In any case, all commentary has stated that the South was probably going to be a strength for Clinton and a potential roadblock for Sanders. Clinton just has more infrastructure here going back years, and it seems like Sanders kind of gave up on visiting significant parts of the South and that's not helped him at all. (One person that got interviewed stated she favored Clinton specifically because Clinton showed up in her city to talk to people.)
Basically, Sanders appears to be making a gaffe by not spending more time in the South around this time. These things can cost a candidate.
but Sanders isn't a generic Democrat, he is further to the left than pretty much all of them
Bumbleby is best ship. busy spending time on r/RWBY and r/anime. Unapologetic Socialist![]()
![]()
Why shouldn't he have given up on the Deep South, though? Clinton's infrastructure there is virtually insurmountable, so he's better off spending his time and money elsewhere rather than utterly wasting it in places he has no chance of winning.
Speaking of not winning, why should any Democrat honestly care whether their candidate won South Carolina or take that as an indicator of anything at all regarding the chances of winning in November? It's North Carolina that's a battleground, while South Carolina hasn't gone Dem in the General since Jimmy Carter forty years ago. Moreover, turnout was down among Dems there and has been up among Repubs in general, which doesn't bode well for the Dems in November.
edited 1st Mar '16 10:57:30 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.![]()
But he isn't even a US citizen. He's not even originally from Earth, if I remember correctly.
Because he needs some of it to win. Because primaries aren't winner takes all, so he can still garner delegates from weak performances.
The trouble is, once 'places he has no chance of winning' pile up, he has to win somewhere or he'll go into the Convention without enough delegates to be nominated. He also has no chance of convincing Clinton's superdelegates to defect unless he takes the party's vote.
edited 1st Mar '16 11:10:41 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
That's basically saying because it's hard no one should bother with trying to convince voters. "Giving up" in this case looks like "doesn't care about us" and it's kind of a perpetual chicken and egg scenario. It's not even like any of them have to spend a lot of time, just making the attempt to appear available would help a lot.
And quite frankly, this whole "Dems should give up on the South" is very insulting to the South. We're not stupid down here. And the Republicans would have much less of a stranglehold if the Dems would kick out DWS (and the paradox is if Clinton wins like I want her to we're probably stuck with Schulz for a bit longer than otherwise) and get it into their heads that they need to make more effort to move Southern voters to their side. And don't repeat any of that bullshit defeatism you just spouted, because that's what prevents shit from being done.
edited 1st Mar '16 11:06:23 AM by AceofSpades
Lots of die-hard republicans would rather vote Clinton than trump.
I'm rather confused.
- That being wealthy makes one morally superior.
- That material wealth is a measure of a man’s true worth.
- That boasting about sexual conquests is something to be admired or cheered.
- That every challenge to your ideas should be met not with a sound argument about the idea, but with smears, insults and put downs about the person uttering the disagreement.
- That legitimate challenges to your ideas should be met with threats of financial ruin or lawsuits.
- That the force of government should be wielded by the wealthy against the weak.
- That your failures or lack of success must always be attributed not to your lack of intelligence or initiative, but to someone else getting something that’s rightfully yours.”
WHAT ARE THESE PRINCIPLED, SOUND, RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE DOING IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?!
Oh...
edited 1st Mar '16 11:41:44 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Guy is not even rich. He is rich in other people's money. Enough time with investors failing to pump money into him, and he's in the streets trying to whore his own daughter for a can of expired mashed Drumpf Steaks
brb getting sued
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes@Achaemenid: Point taken about proportional allocation of delegates, but there's not much of a reason for him to make the huge push he'd need to in SC or AL or MS or AR, for example, since he'd get more delegates for the same degree of effort put into states with larger delegate counts (TX, FL, GA, NC). Campaign resources are limited, after all.
@Ace: I don't mean to say that Democrats overall should give up on the South or any other states which lean heavily Republican, but that Sanders in the context of the primary, given his low name recognition and the greater degree of effort required, should not pour the disproportionate resources needed to win lots of delegates into states with low delegate counts where Clinton's advantage is as longstanding as it was in SC. I phrased this incredibly poorly earlier, as that obviously doesn't encompass all of the South. As a fellow Southerner who likewise finds people outside the South writing us off one of the most irritating things ever, my sincerest apologies.
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.About that "purity of diversity" article, Adobo Chronicles is actually the Onion of the Philipines
Aren't those things what conservatism is all about?! I'm so confused!
What are these people talking about?!
edited 1st Mar '16 12:13:11 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.No one has done more for equality than Donald Trump, says Donald Trump.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/01/politics/donald-trump-equality-white-supremacists/index.html
edited 1st Mar '16 12:11:09 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.![]()
Conservatism, in the basic sense, is about upholding traditional mores and taking a sensible, measured approach to change. Trump has no morals and wants to tear the system down in order to remake it as a monument to his ego.
edited 1st Mar '16 12:16:32 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Really? Thought it was about giving tax breaks to the rich, subsidies to the mega-corps, and the shaft to anyone who wasn't WASP? And about constantly blaming the poor for being poor? And invoking Jesus in every other sentence, and stopping women from getting abortions, and teaching kids Creationism and a mistrust of science? And denying climate change? Generally an "I reject your reality and substitute my own" attitude?
edited 1st Mar '16 12:21:52 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.So according to the latest poll, any Democrat can beat Trump, but only Sanders can beat Cruz or Rubio.
Also, everyone has forgotten about Kasich and Carson. Bernie's not electable, huh? Emphasis mine.
In the scenario that appears most likely to emerge from the primary contests, Clinton tops Trump 52% to 44% among registered voters. That result has tilted in Clinton's favor since the last CNN/ORC Poll on the match-up in January. But when the former secretary of state faces off with either of the other two top Republicans, things are much tighter and roughly the same as they were in January. Clinton trails against Rubio, with 50% choosing the Florida senator compared to 47% for Clinton, identical to the results in January. Against Cruz, Clinton holds 48% to his 49%, a slight tightening from a 3-point race in January to a 1-point match-up now.
Sanders — who enjoys the most positive favorable rating of any presidential candidate in the field, according to the poll — tops all three Republicans by wide margins: 57% to 40% against Cruz, 55% to 43% against Trump, and 53% to 45% against Rubio. Sanders fares better than Clinton in each match-up among men, younger voters and independents.
The race for the presidency hits its primary season peak as 78% of voters, including almost the same share among Democrats, Republicans and independents, who say that the nation is more deeply divided on major issues facing the country than it has been in the past.
The survey asked voters to choose which of all the remaining top candidates, regardless of party, they trust most to handle seven top issues. Trump tops the list on the economy, terrorism and immigration, while Clinton is the top choice when it comes to health care, race relations and foreign policy. Voters are about evenly split between Trump and Clinton on gun policy. Adding up all the candidates from each party, Republicans have the edge on the economy, terrorism, immigration and gun policy, while more voters choose one of the Democrats' candidates on race relations and health care, with about an even split between the two parties on foreign policy.
Voters' choices broken out by party provide an interesting window into areas where Trump might hold cross-party appeal. Though the share of leaned Republicans choosing Clinton on any of the tested issues tops out at 8% on health care, Trump is the most trusted for 15% of leaned Democrats on terrorism, 14% on the economy and 13% on immigration. As noted above, Sanders holds the most positive favorability rating of any of the top candidates for president: 60% of registered voters view him positively, 33% negatively. [Sanders] is the only candidate seen favorably by a majority of voters, and one of four who are seen more positively than negatively.
The two front-runners, Clinton and Trump, are seen unfavorably by majorities of voters. Almost 6-in-10 have a negative view of Trump, 59% with 38% favorable, and 53% have a negative view of Clinton, 44% see her positively. Cruz also has a net negative rating, while impressions of Carson, Rubio and Kasich tilt positive.
Clinton's husband, former president Bill Clinton, has a broadly positive favorability rating. Melania Trump, wife of the billionaire GOP front-runner, is broadly unknown, but among those who do express an opinion, more have a negative one than a positive one.
The economy remains far and away the country's top concern as the election campaign rolls on, with 47% calling it most important as they decide how to vote for president, followed by 19% citing health care, 14% terrorism, 10% foreign policy and 8% illegal immigration.
Should Michael Bloomberg, the independent former mayor of New York City, throw his hat into the ring as an independent candidate, his candidacy would do more harm to Clinton's bid to beat Trump than it would to Sanders' effort. All told though, few say they would consider backing Bloomberg if he did run. Interest is strongest among political independents, and just 49% of them say they would definitely or probably consider voting Bloomberg for president.
![]()
Trump holds, or held many views before he ran for president, that are abhorrent from the American conservative standpoint. He's been pro-choice, he's supported government-funded health care, he doesn't seem to particularly care about gay marriage or state rights, he doesn't seem particularly enthusiastic about tax cuts for the rich or the concept of "small government", he's defended Planned Parenthood to an extent, and vehemently criticised George Bush and the Iraq War. It's why many fellow Republicans accuse him of being liberal, and it's why many people consider Trump's support base to be a revival of the "Dixiecrat" demographic — people who have left-leaning stances on many economic and social issues, while at the same time embracing a racist, xenophobic, nationalistic and militaristic approach to politics.
edited 1st Mar '16 12:25:53 PM by DrDougsh

EDIT: Or vandalism. Also I'm now imagining a movie poster of the Teddy Best on a boat with the title Ted Cruise...
edited 1st Mar '16 10:39:30 AM by sgamer82