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
And that doesn't apply to sanders because... I mean if the argument is "Neither will really do anything so we might as well go with the guy says what I like more" it's a terrible argument.
Like, I get being a bit depressed that she's the best option, but putting Sanders on some pedestal isn't going to make anything better. Especially now that he seems to have no actual chance of getting the nomination.
edited 26th Apr '16 10:28:41 PM by LSBK
To his benefit, Sanders has focused of getting young people to understand that they need to vote for Democrats downticket and in non-presidential years if they want to have their voices heard. If there is one huge flaw with the Democrats and Democratic voters, it is their focus on the Presidency to the exclusion of Congress. This is very much an Anvil That Needs To Be Dropped especially if the future of the Republican Party is defined by Donald Trump.
Wizard Needs Food BadlyGiven Obama's use of executive action, Clinton is probably going to have to use that ability at some of the time to get things done, too. Anyway, having control of at least one section of Congress would tilt things in her favor.
@Knowlessman; You're kind of single issue wonking and fearmongering there. Even if SOPA or some other legislation passes (And I find that generally unlikely at this point) I very much doubt a wiki/forum like Tv Tropes would be brought down due to it. It's a wiki and a forum. Kind of hard to take that to court without getting laughed out of it. People interested in pursuing such legal issues are more likely to go to Youtube or something.
edited 26th Apr '16 11:07:26 PM by AceofSpades
I'm pretty sure Sanders said that when he started his whole Presidential run on pushing people to vote downticket and in non-presidential elections with his whole revolution talk. I will admit that was like a year ago, though. At this point, the election should be consolidating around Clinton and Trump, but it seems like Sanders, Cruz, and that other guy aren't dropping out.
Wizard Needs Food BadlySanders did say he was in it to the end. Especially since he did better than expected. The other guys are in it to spite Trump at this point, I'm pretty sure.
Potentially less than they think, though, since a lot of people have responded so positively to him. Still, I think him and Clinton would face many of the same challenges simply by factor of being the Democratic president who is likely to continue or go further than many of Obama's policies.
edited 26th Apr '16 11:10:09 PM by AceofSpades
![]()
The whole electability thing doesn't quite make sense to me given what exactly Sanders would have been facing in the general election. I mean, if it were Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio who was the Republican choice, it would be understandable, but the Republican most likely to win the nomination at this point is Donald Trump. Is Bernie Sanders really less electable than Donald Trump?
edited 26th Apr '16 11:17:41 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyRead this article in its entirety and then come back and tell me, what you think would happen.
New Survey coming this weekend!Much of that article is about things Republicans throw at every Democratic candidate. "It's slightly less factually false/irrelevant" does not strike me as a difference that would matter much in an election. I agree with the general sentiment but that article is overtaxing the less relevant points.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanBernie was initially non-committal on the question of down-ballot funding ("We'll see"
) and only in April decided to start fundraising
for only three(!) Dem candidates.
edited 27th Apr '16 1:05:19 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei![]()
I never bother. I don't need racist assholes ruining my day anymore than it already is.
Someone I know once fell for that kind of thing - and worse: he actually tried knocking some sense into them.
edited 27th Apr '16 2:51:19 AM by yoneld
Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself.If he redirects funding more so, it's likely to be after the DNC convention. The reason he's not dropping out is he wants to have his peace and ask the Super Delegates at the convention to throw their weight behind him and trust in voters under 40 (where he leads). Apparently while he's behind Clinton, it's at such a point that the party has to accept a brokered convention based on current trends.
And because it can, and likely will, be brokered, Sanders has the right at the convention to ask the Super Delegates to pick him over Clinton. Which he has basically said he's going to do.
The basic argument: He has no choke chain holding him back, and it's very likely due to his ally Roger Stone, that they'll try and frame her as being complicit with alleged sexual abuse against women committed by her husband, Bill Clinton. And it could lead to Republicans, even if she gets elected, framing Hillary as weak on Sexual Assault, Rape and Domestic Abuse.
edited 27th Apr '16 5:25:29 AM by PotatoesRock
Sanders' logic is ridiculous. Since there are only two candidates, unless Smokey the Wonder Dog gets some spoiler votes, one of the two must, mathematically, win a majority on the first ballot (or on any ballot). His version of a "contested convention" is based on neither candidate having a simple majority of pledged delegates, at which point he'll make a bid for the superdelegates to break ranks. But that's an absurdly long shot, especially because it would deny the basic principle of democratic legitimacy that his campaign has been trying to claim.
edited 27th Apr '16 5:41:59 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Hell if I know what his argument is going to be.
Things he could argue:
- He could argue the party is heading in a more left wing direction and he would be the best to spearhead that.
- Hillary, of no fault of her own, has a much toxic public image. Where he isn't tainted as her, besides being Pinko Commie Comrade Sandersky. (Polls have previously shown Sanders basically curbstomps every Republican in the General Single Handedly, where as Clinton has a much more tight and difficult race.)
- He's more capable at getting poorer and unengaged voters to vote.
Who knows. Ultimately he still has the right to argue for it, since the Democrats apparently wrote rules in place that this 60 to 40 split between them gives him the right to force a brokered convention. If they say no, they say no, and he's more or less said he'll respect that final decision, and focus on helping to stomp Trump or whoever the RNC pulls out of their magic hat, for the General.
I say let the man say his two cents, let the delegates do the voting and shrug. Even if the Democrats get brokered, it's not going to be the shit show the RNC is going to be which'll be a 9th Circle of Hell on Earth formerly called Cleveland, Ohio.
Basically, Ryan is going to get Boehner'd if he stays Speaker, and if Trump torpedoes the election.
edited 27th Apr '16 5:54:13 AM by PotatoesRock
Yes, Paul Ryan is epically screwed here, but so would any Republican put in his position. The Speaker of the House doesn't have the luxury of being an ideologue: he has to govern, and the current Republican movement despises governance.
I wasn't aware of the 60/40 rule for the Democratic convention, but I have to wonder what form a brokered convention would take. It doesn't change the number of candidates, and as I understand the rules, all pledged delegates are still bound for the first ballot. Do they really insist on a 60% supermajority to win the nomination in round 1, or is it just to get the winner declared before the convention?
Unfortunately, Bernie's narrative about getting poor voters to the polls is demonstrably false. He's certainly captured the imaginations of disaffected millenials, but that's not anywhere near the same thing. As I understand it, Clinton has a much better record with the truly poor, as well as minorities.
edited 27th Apr '16 6:32:43 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

The thing is... What can Hillary do if the Republicans remain in control of Congress? They will stonewall her like they stonewalled Obama. The hope from the Democratic Party right now is that the Republican Party collapses downticket because of Trump, but it is very possible that the Republicans remain in control of the Senate and the House while Hillary wins the election. In this scenario, there will still be a Republican Congress who refuses to compromise with a Democratic President. Even the best hope is the Democrats winning only the Presidency and Senate, leaving the House in Republican hands.
Wizard Needs Food Badly