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
If Trump gets the nom, a lot of moderates will stay home or vote for Clinton. If Trump loses, a lot of his populist following will stay home. So it's not a clear-cut win either way.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"On MSNBC last night, Lawrence O'Donnell talked with conservative radio host John Ziegler, who claimed that Trump's rise is due to people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannitty selling out for ratings
, reinforcing the prejudices of their viewers to keep them returning. He pointed out that Fox News, Limbaugh, etc. benefited from Obama's presidency because their ratings were boosted due to the outrage from the right, which they helped stoke.
Ironically, it's in the right-wing media's best interests for Democrats to be in power. Kind of mind-blowing, isn't it? And one could make the converse point about left-leaning media: I know I wouldn't tune in to O'Donnell or Maddow nearly as often if Republicans weren't pulling all kinds of crazy shenanigans.
Now, it's hardly news that the media benefits from controversy, scandal, and conflict. However, most programs don't go out of their way to incite said conflict in order to benefit downstream. Trump, however, has brought that out in a way we haven't seen in a long time.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It's not just in the interest of Right wing media for the Dems or be in power, it's also in the interest of right wing politicians, they can't scream about how government is horrible and can't be trusted if they run the government, they can't go on and on about how they do X on day one if they actually win, if they win they would be expected to follow though on their empty promises.
Look at the senate right now, the Republicans have backed themselves into a corner over the Supreme Court, they accept Obama's nomination and they look weak, they accept the same nominee/a similar one from an incoming Democrat and they look weak and will outrage their base, the only out Mitch Mc Connell has is to loose control of the Senate in November and then talk about he's helpless to stop the new Democrat Senate enforcing a "Liberal agenda pushing legislator from the bench" on the country.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranSo, this evening there will be more primaries. Delaware, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maryland and Rhode Island.
On the Democrat side, seems like it's going to be a Hillary sweep. On the Republican side, Trump will win but the complicated delegate allocation rules in the last four states - per-congressional-district, proportional, unbound delegates all at once - means a lot will depend on how wide Trump will win.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanYeah. I'm heading out to do my duty as a voter, but the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Mainly I'm doing it because it's a show of support, a way to increase those turnout numbers and help boost Democrats' morale going into the general.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Take note that the Democratic primaries are proportional votes, a few votes of difference can make delegate numbers differ.
There are also Senate primaries again in Pennsylvania - for the challenger to Toomey on the Democrat side - and in Maryland - for the successor to Barbara Mikulski.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanAgreed. I'm more or less ambivalent about who wins the Democratic Senate primary as long as they have a good chance to beat Toomey, and the current numbers don't look that great. Sestak has longevity and name recognition going for him, at least.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yeah. I'm going to do another pass at the platforms and history of each candidate today.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Oh, lord, they want us to pick delegates? How the heck is anyone supposed to stay informed about them? Not that it really matters on the Dem side; a brokered convention is extremely unlikely at this point.
edited 26th Apr '16 8:02:26 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I am guessing that they want you to pick the delegates because it's more democratic this way - even if impractically so. It's similar to Switzerland where I have to adjust the ranking of candidates on the party list when I am casting my legislature vote.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
It tells you who they're pledged to vote for. I'm just confused by why it specified two should be female and three male. Why not just say we should pick five?
But it also asks you which candidate you want to be on the ticket. Why do that then make me pick individual delegates?
edited 26th Apr '16 8:11:42 AM by Kostya
How odd. Forced diversity?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"~Kostya: Are delegates bound to support whichever side they are pledged on, come hell or high water?
Because if no, if say Hillary is indicted her delegates may bail to Sanders but it's their decision.
This is even more important in the GOP primary, in case there is a brokered convention.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThey could be disloyal and pick the other candidate but why should that matter? If you want candidate A to win you're not going to vote for B's delegates on the off chance they jump ship to A.
edit: I guess it could theoretically make sense if you support multiple candidates but even then wouldn't you want to give as many votes as possible to your preferred choice?
edited 26th Apr '16 8:20:42 AM by Kostya
Unless a candidate leaves the race or is disqualified (such as by being the subject of a criminal indictment, although there is no legal bar to being elected in such conditions), their pledged delegates are required to vote for that candidate in the first round.
If that round does not result in a clear (50% or higher) winner, then all delegates become unbound and may vote for whomever they want in subsequent rounds.
Superdelegates' votes are unbound in all rounds of voting, anyway. A pledged delegate could revolt (witness 2008 and 2012 on the GOP side, when Ron Paul mounted an insurgent campaign), but it's relatively rare.
edited 26th Apr '16 8:22:02 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

That's like saying that one type of cancer is marginally less painful than the other, though.