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
Whether total population should be acceptable for districting is rather debatable.
I've thought about drawing up my own map of where each state's districts should be defined but then I discovered one online that communicates my thoughts pretty well. Here
◊ is what I think is a reasonable definition of what each district should be.
In order to avoid outing myself as a fake intellectual snob, I'm going to pretend I was not completely lost in all the big, hyphenated words used and just say, "Yes, of course."
But yes, I support eliminating the "districts" concept, hence my little joke. It seems like the best cure for gerrymandering.
edited 4th Apr '16 10:29:57 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.My fear is a brokered convention leads to a more electable GOP candidate, so i'm kinda rooting for Trump in WI, the first-round majority is much easier if he gets a clean win there.
Same for me and Cruz is the most likely alternative to Trump, which is even less inspiring. (Kasich may be the one most likely to beat Hillary, but with that delegate count he's very much a rejected candidate.)
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI don't know how I feel.
On the one hand, I've heard the arguments that Cruz would be more electable than Trump and therefore more dangerous.
On the other hand, the immense fervor that Trump whips up in the voterbase has done a great job of making him seem plenty electable. He has TONS of supporters that Cruz doesn't. That's why he's winning.
In short, both Cruz and Sanders are on the receiving end of arguments that don't make sense to me. Somehow, they're both "more electable" despite losing the primary by a rather large margin because not enough people are voting for them?
What's more electable than getting a majority of votes from people who would rather see you in office than the other guy?
edited 4th Apr '16 11:11:04 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
This, exactly. The population of primary voters is significantly different from the population of general election voters. On the one hand, you have only to appeal to your own party's base; moreover, you have to appeal to that subset of your base that votes in primaries. On the other hand, you have to get enough of all voters to take an electoral majority.
edited 4th Apr '16 11:14:13 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"And speaking of, an interactive NYTimes article
with delegate counts, that lets you adjust how it looks based on the percentage of votes your candidate receives. For Bernie to get a majority, he has to pull a minimum of 57% of the vote in every remaining state - not impossible, but difficult. By comparison, if Kasich got 0 votes, and Cruz pulled an unprecidented 90% of the votes, he still would not have the majority needed to win. Trump only needs to pull 40% to have enough delegates to get the first vote pick.
See, my impression is that usually New York and California vote late in the primary and thus usually don't matter.
In this primary (with Sanders playing catch-up and Trump playing run away to the magic 1237 delegate treshold) instead they will be key players, being delegate rich states and strongly contested.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynmanthe LA Times on that
. It scares me a lot that I live 10 miles away from that place.
That close? I've probably driven past your house then.
I have, indeed, driven past entire countriesnote , but except for Spain, Morroco, Malaysia, and Singapore, I've been more than 10 miles away from them.note And depending on which direction those 10 miles are, I might have been even closer to his house.
Which is kind of cool. Want to meet for dinner or something next time I drive through?
That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - SilaswUpstate NY could go either way - a significant number of people around here don't exactly "like" Clinton (whether via Republican smear tactics or just a general sense of "she's not trustworthy"), and she's not exactly winning huge fans in the hunting community with her newfound advocacy on stricter gun control, so Sanders has the advantage in both of those points. That said, figuring out the Democrat-only voters (just got my notice informing me that my affiliation change will take effect after November 8th) is a harder call to make.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"

Jesus, the fact that people would even CONSIDER...