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
Hmm, you may be correct. A "dog whistle" is a seemingly innocuous phrase designed to appeal to a specific category of voter, such as Reagan's "welfare queens" and "strapping young bucks". It's so called because most people may ignore it, but it makes its target audience perk their ears up and start barking.
edited 15th Apr '16 2:05:15 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"On the whole Hillary and Sachs issue:
(Vox) The real problem with Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees is judgment, not corruption
Simply put, as I keep pointing, Hillary is in a bubble. That bubble makes her oblivious and doesn't grasp why those fees would be political poison pills, among other things, during a period of time when most Americans are still enormously pissed at Wall Street. And she has no reasonable defense for taking the money besides "Understanding their point of view" but it fails to take into account a significant amount of American voters think Wall Street best serves the country by having their execs torched and pitchforked.
For all her policy wonkery, Hillary suffers a major problem of failing to grasp what might make her look bad in the public lens. Or doing anything to meaningfully refute it.
I won't disagree with that, and Krugman has also criticized her for that sort of "insider" mentality. It's an advantage while in office, as she comes in with bridges already built instead of having to make them, but a disadvantage in an election cycle in which there is a large amount of anti-establishment populist fervor.
Seriously, though, Trump and Sanders are like flip sides of a coin in terms of their populism and in terms of the nastiness they can evoke in their supporters. In terms of policy, they are light-years apart, and I would never even consider that Trump might be a good President while I would not be embarrassed to have Bernie leading the nation, but their campaigns have eerie parallels.
Aside from their personal character, the other major difference that I see between Sanders and Trump is that, if the latter gets elected, he would almost certainly enjoy a favorable Congressional environment in which some of his more crazy ideas could actually see the light of day. Sanders, unfortunately, will almost certainly face an obstinate legislative branch even if Democrats manage to squeak out a narrow majority in the Senate.
No amount of electoral math will flip the House note , no matter what Sanders says about a revolution, and that means that his major policy proposals are simply doomed. If he cannot achieve any major successes in his first two years, then 2018 will probably see another dismal Democratic turnout, returning the Senate to Republican control and guaranteeing that he will fail and taint the progressive cause.
There's that, too, which makes Sanders' implications about minority voters not being "true Democrats" all the more disgusting.
edited 15th Apr '16 2:34:48 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'm skeptical that being out of step with the mostly white, mostly middle-class, mostly male
demographic of American opinion-formers (and Bernie supporters) makes Hillary "in a bubble". If we look at the people who form Hillary's demographic coalition, it's a considerably more diverse slice of America than Bernie's, and many of her voters are just as, if not more, familiar with poverty and deprivation than Bernie's.
There's very little to suggest she hates her voters either, so if you want to claim Bernie knows what it's really like "on the ground" then you have to have a convincing explanation as to why Clinton is getting the backing of more Dem voters, and in particular more Dem voters from the most marginalized and economically disenfranchised demographics in the United States.
Preferably without nasty insinuations about those people being "low-information".
edited 15th Apr '16 2:35:44 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiThat parallel between Sanders and Trump is pretty worrisome. As they both have huge fanbases with anti-establishment demographics, there is an alarming concern that Sanders voters will choose Trump over Clinton in the general election.
EDIT: Does the back-and-forth formality of the candidates names strike anyone as odd?
Sanders is referred to as Sanders or Bernie about equally. Almost nobody says Clinton, however; she's just called Hillary. Meanwhile, on the Republican side, no one ever talks about Donald versus Ted and John; Republicans are surname-exclusive.
edited 15th Apr '16 2:37:30 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.It's hard to talk about Clinton without having to specify which Clinton. At least in my mind. In most cases it's clear, but not always.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Hillary has name brand value due to being in the public spotlight, and has earned respect/knowledge, and via her husband has a proven track record of the 90s economy and plummeting crime rate which helped minorities due to ~20+ years of neglect from Republican presidents. Voters skew older and the Clintons are fondly remembered and have the public trust with significant number of voters
When I say she's She's in a bubble of she keeps doing things like the private E-Mail server (no, I don't think there's a conspiracy, and I get why she did it because the NSA's provided Department of State phones and computers are utter fucking garbage) and the speeches (As noted, they're likely nothing burgers of no actual value and import), but it goes against for the E-Mails: A push of government transparency and that speaking fees represent a conflict of interest.
She may be getting the most votes but she's also contrasted by having the lower favorability ratings
of the two Democratic candidates
Just because she's winning the majority of votes doesn't mean she shouldn't be criticized for lousy optics / information bubble syndrome.
Reminder, she has to make sure she doesn't turn off the Sanders voters during the general, and has to answer to them why they should vote for her in the general.
edited 15th Apr '16 2:49:31 PM by PotatoesRock
To distinguish her from her famous husband. Nobody is gonna think you're talking about Jane Sanders when you type Sanders.
edited 15th Apr '16 2:47:43 PM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.@That article: I'm not exactly sure why you would link that in support of your opinion. It says because minority are more poorly educated and don't especially care about politics they don't side with reformists, which seems the opposite of you're trying to say.
Unless you're saying they're a Sanders supporter and that's kind of talk is the problem? But they seem to be criticizing him, so I dunno.
With Clinton I'd say she gets referred to as both, it bounces a lot and varies depending on if you have to make it clear that you're referring to her over her husband.
As for Sander's and demographics, I was under the impression that he was loosing older blacks to Clinton, but he was doing equally well in Hispanics and winning the youth vote regardless of race, I don't know how he does when it comes to income though, does he win the working class?
![]()
Clinton's foreign policy is one thing I suspect some on the left do worry about, I think she's smart enough to not do enough Iraq, but I could see her going Regan style with foreign policy, which wouldn't be that much better. There's being practical and then there's forgetting to try and bring some humanity to the international arena.
edited 15th Apr '16 3:38:24 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
I have also heard that Hillary & Bernie are doing equally well with Hispanics and that Bernie does amazingly well with Millennials regardless of race. In addition, I have heard that Hillary is more popular with older voters in general, which includes older blacks as well.
![]()
![]()
Bad in a bad for liberals way or bad for American national interests, because to be honest Reagan did kind of good on that front. Please don't kill me Forum
Edit: And certainly not as bad as Bush 2. Though I don't think we ever had one worst than the First Bush administration.
edited 15th Apr '16 4:15:52 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
I'd be bad for the world generally and bad for world stability.
![]()
Maybe he isn't and it's all wishful thinking by people who want a contested convention for their own reasons? I certainly don't think he's going to contest the convention in such a case. .
edited 15th Apr '16 4:47:36 PM 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.Plot Twist: Donald Trump was lying to us the whole time. He's actually going to run the nation well.
Leviticus 19:34As a Middle-Easter, I generally don't want a warhawk in the White House, because that strikes terror in my heart. If the non-warhawk happens to be socialist and good for US Citizens, then that warms my heart. But mostly I just want a president that isn't likely to bomb the shit out of my homeland.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Not the whole Middle East. There are other places in the ME aside from Syria, y'know.
I'm going to revise what I said earlier. Hillary needs to win 1,090 — or 63.5% — of the remaining pledged delegates to win outright. This strikes me as very unlikely, as I expect the contests to remain close, so I'd say a contested convention is, in fact, likely.
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.

"Dog whistle"? Methinks you are using the term in a different way than the rest of the world does.
"Talking point"/"Attack line" seems much more appropriate.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman