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
Let me answer that question with a question: why would someone go to a website like TvTropes to exclusively discuss non-fictional political current events?
Having a political agenda in a political thread is all well and good, but if politics is all you're interested in talking about, why do it here?
edited 18th Mar '16 10:18:48 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Clearly because his birth certificate was forged.
Some people have just that one track of a mind.
Come on. I don't want to defend him. It's just woefully dishonest and kinda slimy to start conspiracy theorizing after having banned someone for (among other things) doing just that.
edited 18th Mar '16 10:20:05 AM by Luminosity
I agree with that. I think that topic should probably be dropped.
![]()
Yeah, that's the thing. Winning primaries is really no reflection on whether someone would do well in the general and basically, Sanders and Clinton both do well with minority groups depending on demographic and age factors (I kind of owe Sanders an apology on that one) but either would clobber Trump among those groups.
edited 18th Mar '16 10:23:00 AM by Hodor2
Wait, Clint's prospective veep is called "Castro"? Wouldn't that be awkward?
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Of course Michigan isn't the only stated with a Muslim population but it's probably the only even slight swingy state where the population is large enough to make a difference. And even then not really because Michigan is hardly swingy. If he can do well with Muslims, great, but I'm not seeing a reason why doing well with that demographic well be of much help in the real election.
edited 18th Mar '16 10:27:28 AM by LSBK
Oh damnit. You people move way too fast. From two pages ago:
edited 18th Mar '16 10:33:19 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.![]()
Because she won't be up against Sanders in the general (assuming she gets the nomination) that'll make a huge difference. Like, all those people aren't suddenly going to vote Republican if Sanders doesn't win. And if these people care enough to go to the primaries they probably care enough to still vote against the person they hate more.
Speaking of turnout, against which one would Republican turnout be highest, Clinton or Sanders?
edited 18th Mar '16 10:33:47 AM by LSBK
According to this
(from 2012, might be outdated, but it's the most recent numbers I can find), Illinois is the state with the highest proportional Muslim population...and Clinton won there.
So they're not likely going to have a significant impact on overall results.
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)@Ramiel: Then there isn't a way to generalize if Clinton or Sanders is the better nominee if following the premise that the Democratic primary in a red state like Tennessee doesn't matter because it will obviously vote Republican in the general or that the Republican primary in a blue state like Michigan doesn't matter because Michigan will obviously vote blue in the general. However, Clinton has won the most delegates in Democratic primaries and Trump has won the most delegates in Republican primaries. Both Clinton and Trump have at least a mandate so far from their respective voter bases to be their party's nominee, no matter how much I may like Sanders and pray to every religious deity that Trump does not become president.
However, should Sanders sweep the deep blue states, it could suggest that the push towards the right may partially be due to deep red states having primaries first.
@darksidevoid: Yes, Independent voters in swing states are the most important, and Samders is motivating them more than Clinton. I even consider myself Independent even if I effectively vote Democrat, and this is the first time I am seriously considering voting third-party and vote Democrat downticket given the two apparent choices. I likely won't, but it is purely because no matter who Hillary nominates for the Supreme Court, he or she is bound to be to the left of Scalia even if it is a moderate like Judge Garland. (After Mayor Bowser and this guy, I am now expecting President Wily)
edited 18th Mar '16 10:58:18 AM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food Badly@Darksidevoid-
"Any Dem candidate is going to win minorities, so the fact that she's winning them now says nothing for her general election prospects. To say that they do enhance her general election prospects would be embracing exactly the same reasoning that you renounce in the immediately following sentence"
I think I was unintentionally conflating too things- the issue of Sanders winning heavily white states (i.e. New Hampshire) and not doing well in states where the main/only group voting for democrats were African Americans (i.e. Alabama)- and as a second issue the argument of what the primaries if anything say about who is more electable in the general election.
It's funny, while unintentionally doing it myself, I was reacting against what I saw as goalpost moving by Sanders and supporters about support among different demographics and whether those show greater electability (and as you suggest, those things don't always line up).
I'll also admit that Clinton's surprisingly narrow (super-narrow) win in illinois does suggest that she may have issues among minority voters in non-Southern and Western states.
Edit- As a sort of tl; dr, I think there's two different premises- If you (as in the general Sanders supporter) are arguing that it's Clinton's race to lose, then Sanders doing surprisingly well and Clinton not as well as expected is an argument for Sanders and his staying in the race.
If on the other hand, you are arguing that Sanders is or at least should be the most popular, then you can't just brush off the states Clinton won, especially because while several of them are Southern states, not all of them are.
edited 18th Mar '16 10:54:15 AM by Hodor2
This part I take some exception to, as there are several legit complaints to be had against Israel's behavior, and there's a major distinction between condemning those types of actions (their reaction to relief groups trying to get through their blockade
, having missiles strike civilian housing in retaliation strikes, etc.) and wanting Israel to be wiped out. From my perspective, the entire thing has become a Cycle of Revenge at this point, and I'm not sure peace is feasible without some major changes on both sides.
edited 18th Mar '16 11:03:58 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"I'm seeing people outside this thread say on non-politics threads (like general discussion, etc.) say that the election stresses them out or really upsets/scares them. This truly is the biggest election of the US in a long time.
Looking at the five candidates currently available, all I see is:
- A fundie dominionist nutcase asshole.
- A Dixiecrat dickhead with a big mouth and a bigger ego and inconsistent positions on various issues.
- A goldbug.
- An establishment corporate Democrat.
- A guy with a true drive to do good by the people, who has ideas that may well be unrealistic and who is likely unelectable.
I'm not liking my choices.
And with people earlier speculating on the existence of hypothetical people who see Sanders as their first choice and Trump as their second... that was me actually. But Trump has only gotten worse and worse, to the point where even though I do see Hillary as just another Corporate Democrat™, I'm more afraid of Trump by far than I am of whatever corruption Hillary has and whatever gifts she might give to her corporate donors.
How truly sad. I agree with Bernie that money needs to be separated from politics. I really wanted him to win. I still do. I'm hoping Trump continues to fuck up his chances in the general and also hurt Republicans downticket, and that Clinton does something that harms her a lot in the primaries. Sanders may have some unrealistic ideas, but fuck it, I want him to at least get a few big positive things done before his inevitable lack of a second term.
Y'know, there's at least one forum that I visit only for the political chat there. The Alternate History Channel, to be precise. I like the Political Chat there because the people are history buffs, and also have a relatively balanced environment. In fact, they even have a Conservative Club! Hooray!
Leviticus 19:34@Hodor: Thanks for your quick and thoughtful reply! In any case, I suspect (tying into what you were just saying) that we'll see more evidence as to which one is more electable as we get through more primaries in other regions of the country. It's really very silly how people are saying it's over when only half the states are done with.
edited 18th Mar '16 11:02:11 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.Just because someone only posts about current political events doesn't mean that's the only reason they visit the site. Lots of people read stuff on the site without ever editing pages or making posts on the forums.
There's also the possibility that they typed something related to politics into a search engine, OTC came up as a result, and that's the only thing that brought them here.

Michigan is likely to go Democrat either way so not really.