TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

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

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#119226: Apr 16th 2016 at 1:16:36 PM

That still doesn't do him much good. It's something for someone in like 12 or so years to keep in mind but it doesn't invalidate things now or make him more fit for the job, not necessarily, anyway.

Edit: Plus, I doubt there are many people in any age group who think "everything is fine", and that seems a bit disingenuous to me to just paint it that way, even if older people do tend to lean towards less drastic change.

edited 16th Apr '16 1:18:11 PM by LSBK

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#119227: Apr 16th 2016 at 1:17:36 PM

Again: so what? When the people voting for Sanders-style candidates make up the majority of the electorate, then their preferred candidate will be the one to get nominated. In the meantime, he's not the party's preferred choice. You're trying to sneak in implications of "old people are wrong and we should be electing Sanders because we'll elect someone like him eventually anyway" without actually admitting that doing so is basically saying that old people are, in your view, bad at voting.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#119228: Apr 16th 2016 at 1:22:32 PM

Someone is just a little impatient for the glorious far left future.

I'm fine with that, but that future will have difficulties if the majority of people oppose it.

Non Indicative Username
Deadbeatloser22 from Disappeared by Space Magic (Great Old One) Relationship Status: Tsundere'ing
#119229: Apr 16th 2016 at 1:28:36 PM

A MIC DROP! A FREAKING MIC DROP! THIS RACE IS BASED!

In fact pretty much the only reason he's got a regular mic there is to do it. (He's already wearing a lav mic as well, so it's blatantly a prop.)

"Yup. That tasted purple."
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#119230: Apr 16th 2016 at 1:38:20 PM

Ugh, Sanders is pretty awesome when it comes to domestic policy but I just wish I could trust him to be realistic when it comes to foreign policy.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#119231: Apr 16th 2016 at 1:46:29 PM

As well as domestic policy, actually. Trump might have a serious policy plan about how to implement his immigration policy (with the help of the actual politician Jeff Sessions (R-Al)), while Sanders's proposals have been earning complaints about lack of detail a number of times.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#119232: Apr 16th 2016 at 1:51:11 PM

Again: so what? When the people voting for Sanders-style candidates make up the majority of the electorate, then their preferred candidate will be the one to get nominated. In the meantime, he's not the party's preferred choice. You're trying to sneak in implications of "old people are wrong and we should be electing Sanders because we'll elect someone like him eventually anyway" without actually admitting that doing so is basically saying that old people are, in your view, bad at voting.
Pft. That's some pretty loaded assumptions.

I just think it's worth noting that Hillary's voter base matches up as the party reflection because they are the party reflection of the party through what? 80s? 90s? 00s? But going forward, a candidate that is Sanders esque is probably going to win Party nominations in the future based on the data of this election thus far regarding the primaries. And that should be taken into account if Democrats want to attract young voters going forward, they'll have to shift left, since young voters seemingly want more left policies than their parents.

I have 0 clue where you think I'm attacking old people, and it completely goes over my head. If you're implying I'm doing it subconsciously, maybe, that I'll admit I might be doing.

But I'd like it if you would stop accusing of things.

CassidyTheDevil Since: Jan, 2013
#119233: Apr 16th 2016 at 2:08:10 PM

Again: so what? When the people voting for Sanders-style candidates make up the majority of the electorate, then their preferred candidate will be the one to get nominated. In the meantime, he's not the party's preferred choice. You're trying to sneak in implications of "old people are wrong and we should be electing Sanders because we'll elect someone like him eventually anyway" without actually admitting that doing so is basically saying that old people are, in your view, bad at voting.

I'm fine with waiting 40-50 years, but most young people may not, and given how shitty things have gotten (standards of living not only stagnating for decades, but actually dropping) I can't really blame them. Steady-as-she-goes is fine in the abstract, but reversing the bad policies since like the 70's is going to require more than that, and asking people to tolerate things being crap for a few more decades is making people start to question democracy.

As for older people being more conservative than their kids, it's not really a good thing or a bad thing, per se. Just a fact of life.

PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#119234: Apr 16th 2016 at 2:20:59 PM

[up] What Cassidy said. Each generation seems to be slightly more to the left than the previous one. That's not a positive or a negative. Older generation had stuff they pushed left on. Current generation pushes left on what they push.

desdendelle Hooded Crow from Land of Milk and Honey (Sergeant) Relationship Status: Hiding
Hooded Crow
#119235: Apr 16th 2016 at 2:28:37 PM

I've read a Cracked article some time ago that said that the US of A is farther to the right than it thinks. Every political quiz I take seems to agree with this — they put me, a centrist, as a leftie all the damn time.

On empty crossroads, seek the eclipse -- for when Sol and Lua align, the lost shall find their way home.
flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#119236: Apr 16th 2016 at 2:33:00 PM

Left and right are relative. Women suffrage was considered leftist as the time.

Non Indicative Username
darksidevoid Anti-Gnosis Weapon from The Frontiers (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Robosexual
Anti-Gnosis Weapon
#119237: Apr 16th 2016 at 2:34:23 PM

[up][up]America's established center of political gravity is indeed quite rightward as far as comparisons to other democracies.

@Jovian:

Seems like a distinction without a difference to me. We're talking about trends and averages of people's voting preferences and their demographic. "It doesn't apply to 100% of the people 100% of the time" isn't really a valid criticism.
It's a completely valid critique when we're talking about population versus a subset of the population. You're saying that if Clinton wins the a majority proportion of the Democratic electorate in a state whose population is representative of the Democratic electorate overall, that would be license to say that the win is representative of the national Democratic electorate? That doesn't make sense. Should I have capitalized Population to make it clearer?

And there's no projections in that article. It only compares established census records with states that have already completed their primary.

Although it will be a couple of decades before the electorate as a whole is majority-minority, the Democratic vote is already getting there. In 2012, only 55 percent of President Obama’s voters were white, according to the national exit poll. Our demographic projections of this November’s electorate, which account for population growth since 2012, calculate that the white share of the Democratic vote will tick down another percentage point, to 54 percent. The rest of the Democratic vote will be black (24 percent), Hispanic (15 percent), or belong to Asian or other races (7 percent), according to our projections.

So let’s take those projections as being maximally representative of the broader Democratic electorate as it stands today.

Yes, it is a projection. The projection is what the extant voting results are being compared to, and it's a projection model that assumes a 2012-like electorate. It's entirely possible that the electorate will turn out not to be 2012-like in the end of this crazy election cycle.

edited 16th Apr '16 2:37:26 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.
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#119238: Apr 16th 2016 at 2:39:48 PM

Maybe. According to My Political Compass, Clinton is right of me (and she's the one closest to me. I'm center right, and centrist on liberty/authority issues). Meanwhile, another political quiz says that Clinton is the candidate I agree with least, and that I'm closest in views to Ted Cruz.

Leviticus 19:34
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#119239: Apr 16th 2016 at 2:43:37 PM

These compasses tend to be very heterogeneous, so it's to be expected.

Hypothetical "What if you were a congresscritter and an interest group is rating you" questions are much more meaningful.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#119240: Apr 16th 2016 at 2:45:16 PM

The US also has the really weird case that the government is to the right of the people on average. The evidence for this comes from people actually wholeheartedly supporting Obamacare and Democrat policies...when the best-known terms for them are stripped away. Because, when you look at it, the Republicans are actually very, very good at not clearly explaining their positions. They give just enough information and use enough dog whistles that they can sneak by without people noticing what they're actually trying to do.

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#119241: Apr 16th 2016 at 3:36:54 PM

I just think it's worth noting that Hillary's voter base matches up as the party reflection because they are the party reflection of the party through what? 80s? 90s? 00s?
Again: what does that even mean? It's 2016, and she her voter base matches up with the party base in 2016, because 2016 is when all this is happening. She's not somehow reaching into the past and getting people from decades ago to vote for her.

It's worth noting that there's no way in hell that Hillary would have been a serious presidential candidate in the 80s or even the 90s. The US had had nothing but white Christian males until 2008, recall. The idea that the two potential Democratic nominees to replace the outgoing African-American Democratic president would be a woman and a Jewish guy would have gotten you laughed out of the room twenty or thirty years ago.

But going forward, a candidate that is Sanders esque is probably going to win Party nominations in the future based on the data of this election thus far regarding the primaries. And that should be taken into account if Democrats want to attract young voters going forward, they'll have to shift left, since young voters seemingly want more left policies than their parents.
That assumes that the young people pulling for Sanders now don't moderate their politics in the coming years, which isn't a given. It's easier for young people, who have no stake in the current system and relatively little to lose in political upheaval, to vote for radical sweeping change. Give them ten or twenty years to settle down, start families, buy houses, etc and they may feel differently. Or they may not. We won't know until we get there.

I have 0 clue where you think I'm attacking old people, and it completely goes over my head. If you're implying I'm doing it subconsciously, maybe, that I'll admit I might be doing.
The claim that, essentially, Clinton is only winning because older people are voting for her struck me as an attempt to suggest that Sanders, who is clearly the wave of the future, deserves the nomination so that the country can be on the right side of history, rather than letting a bunch of old farts keep us anchored in the past. I was probably reacting more to generic Sanders supporters I've seen online than to you specifically, which is my bad.

I'm fine with waiting 40-50 years, but most young people may not, and given how shitty things have gotten (standards of living not only stagnating for decades, but actually dropping) I can't really blame them.
Oh, sure, I agree completely. I didn't mean to suggest that the younger voters shouldn't count either. Just that the electorate as a whole has been pretty clear so far in their preference for Clinton. People should vote for the candidate they support — but if their preferred candidate loses, then they should accept that they're in the minority, rather than trying to come up with reasons why they voted the "right" way and everyone else voted "wrong".

You're saying that if Clinton wins the a majority proportion of the Democratic electorate in a state whose population is representative of the Democratic electorate overall, that would be license to say that the win is representative of the national Democratic electorate?
No, those are two separate statements. Clinton has received more votes from the Democratic electorate overall. In individual states where the local population more closely resembles the demographics of the Democratic party as a whole, she's also received more votes. In individual states where local population includes more minorities and fewer white people than the national average, she's also received more votes. The only places where Sanders has received more votes is where the local population skews significantly whiter than the Democratic party as a whole. These are all statements that are true independently of each other — none of them is intended to "prove" any of the others, because they're all facts that don't need any proof other than the fact that they happened.

The only reason that it was brought up in the first place is because Sanders, in the last debate, suggested that Clinton was only doing better than him in the Deep South, because that's the most conservative part of the country. While Sanders is correct in saying that she did do better than him in the Deep South, and the Deep South is the most conservative part of the country, he's wrong in suggesting that that's the only place she's done better than him, and he's wrong in suggesting that she did better than him there because it's the most conservative part of the country. She did better than him there because it's got the highest minority population in the country, and she does much, much better than him among minorities.

Yes, it is a projection. The projection is what the extant voting results are being compared to, and it's a projection model that assumes a 2012-like electorate. It's entirely possible that the electorate will turn out not to be 2012-like in the end of this crazy election cycle.
It's a projection of the demographics, yes. I thought you meant it was a projection of the votes, which it's not. My bad.

edited 16th Apr '16 3:38:33 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#119242: Apr 16th 2016 at 3:53:52 PM

Give them ten or twenty years to settle down, start families, buy houses, etc and they may feel differently.

Unlikely, the reasons. Lot of young folks are angry is because they're being denied the chance to do this. They can't buy houses, they can't get a job that I'll support a family, they can't build up savings. I know over here that my generation is the first one in a long time that will be worse off then their parents, because the housing ladder has been pulled up by others, we're stuck paying for healthcare and benefits for the people who pulled it up, we're stuck fixing the environment that said people ruined and we've got to try and rebuild an economy that they trashed.

We'd love to settle down, but we've been denied that, we're instead being kept in low end jobs and our parents basements.

As for Sander's, he seems to have simply confused (maybe deliberately) the Deep South with the South. Still while the racial democracies favour Clinton I'm curious as to how the economic, age and political view democracies go, it seems that racial demographics are the only ones people talk about.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
CassidyTheDevil Since: Jan, 2013
#119243: Apr 16th 2016 at 4:13:38 PM

Unlikely, the reasons. Lot of young folks are angry is because they're being denied the chance to do this.

Yeah, Weird Al's song is no longer accurate.

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#119244: Apr 16th 2016 at 4:25:16 PM

Something to consider Re: Young/Old Demographics and Future Presidential Elections:

Assuming Clinton gets the nomination and wins the general election (which is the most likely outcome at this point), it's pretty much guaranteed she'll be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020 as well. So the next time the Democratic Party chooses a nominee will be in 2024. At that point, the 2008 financial crisis will be sixteen years in the past, and the economic recovery will have been going on for over a decade. That means you'll have a lot of younger voters for whom the recession will be a distant memory. Will those voters necessarily feel the same sense of economic outrage and injustice as the current crop of young voters, who can vividly recall trying to get a job or plan their education while the economy was in the pooper?

CassidyTheDevil Since: Jan, 2013
#119245: Apr 16th 2016 at 4:28:31 PM

Maybe. How dramatic a recovery are you expecting in the future?

Or are saying that now that the recession is over, there's since been no issue with the economy and future voters will feel that way too? I'm not sure I agree, but okay maybe.

I don't see that as likely though, personally.

edited 16th Apr '16 4:34:29 PM by CassidyTheDevil

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#119246: Apr 16th 2016 at 4:34:35 PM

It might be a bit of an issue for people just entering high school but the Republicans have a lot of other positions that would make young people reject them.

GameGuruGG Vampire Hunter from Castlevania (Before Recorded History)
Vampire Hunter
#119247: Apr 16th 2016 at 4:37:10 PM

Unlikely, the reasons. Lot of young folks are angry is because they're being denied the chance to do this.

Indeed. Young people will settle down when they get what they've been demanding, which among other things includes a wage that a family can live on from the jobs that are available in the US... hence the massive push for $15 minimum wage for service workers. These people just want the life that their fathers and grandfathers had.

edited 16th Apr '16 4:37:47 PM by GameGuruGG

Wizard Needs Food Badly
RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#119248: Apr 16th 2016 at 4:41:12 PM

[up][up][up] My understanding is that, if you factor in that the years prior to the recession were buoyed up by an unsustainable economic bubble, the economy's gotten back about to where it should have been in the late 2000's.

edited 16th Apr '16 4:41:49 PM by RavenWilder

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#119249: Apr 16th 2016 at 4:49:38 PM

[up]X5 You're assuming that we don't get another crash by 2024, perhaps originating in Europe this time, I belvie the idea of a possible second crash has been floated a few times, especially if the banks aren't reigned in.

Admittedly I'm coming at this from a Euroepan perspective, we haven't had a recovery here, thus why we're all pretty angry still.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
CassidyTheDevil Since: Jan, 2013
#119250: Apr 16th 2016 at 4:51:22 PM

Not yet, I believe. Regardless, the decades-long wage stagnation is a problem that's only been made more acute by the recession, and the issue isn't going to go away by ignoring it.


Total posts: 417,856
Top