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
edited 13th May '16 6:42:25 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The truth is, the Democratic primary results have been driven almost entirely by demographics. White, young, middle class voters prefer Bernie. Minority, older, and poorer voters prefer Hillary. That's about the size of it — and there are more old, minority, and poor Democratic voters than there are young, white, and middle class and up.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Honestly, despite the recent posts expressing worry about her chances, my impression has always been that this is Clinton's election to lose. Trump's alienated far too many people, groups and individuals, Republican and otherwise, I would be genuinely shocked if he manages to win the general election.
edited 13th May '16 7:26:42 AM by sgamer82
![]()
![]()
Quite frankly, Hillary's voters look like what one might imagine as the "real" Democratic party, whereas Sanders seems to have captured a lot of relatively privileged white males. Interesting, no? It's kind of like how Trump's median demographic is white males earning ~70K per year.
I think that the "privileged white male" demographic is what's castrating our nation's ability to enact progressive change, even though I count myself among their number.
![]()
I'm growing somewhat numb to Republicans saying horrible things about LGBT rights.
Despite all the rhetoric and bluster, elections come down to demographics, and demographics quite simply favor Clinton in this race.
edited 13th May '16 7:29:00 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'd be shocked if the comes anywhere near Republican Nomination (which I admittedly like).
We live in a really volatile world with a very volatile reality showrunner. Trump is certainly the underdog here, but don't we have 2 certain tropes about underdog?
Non Indicative Username@Zephyr: And if you don't fall into the extremely narrow ideological band permitted under the two party system than what? The way our system works makes third parties completely non-viable in most cases, and while that would be alright if the parties functioned like the multi-party coalitions seen in parlimentary democracies, that's pretty clearly not the case; control over the parties is far, far more centralized than in your typical coalition.
@Fighteer: I doubt you'd be in favor of measured designed to make it harder for people to vote in the general election, and that's ultimately what I feel this is about; you prefer to see the two parties as private organization, when in reality they're arms of the state in all but name, functioning much like the parties found in one party systems like China or Russia.
I also don't particularly appreciate your insinuation that Sanders' supporters are sexist and racist, much like I imagine you didn't appreciate being called a racist for voting for Clinton in 2008 over Obama, assuming of course that you did indeed vote for her then.
edited 13th May '16 7:57:03 AM by CaptainCapsase
Who said I favor the system? I'm just saying it is what it is. The two parties are required by law to be independent from the government itself, but some amount of incest, so to speak, is unavoidable. And there are no party affiliation requirements for the general election, which you know very well.
As far as my "insinuation", you can read into my words whatever you like; they are something of a mirror one holds up to oneself. After all, it's Sanders supporters who are dismissing the overwhelming support that Clinton enjoys among minorities on grounds that are awfully hard to justify.
edited 13th May '16 8:00:36 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
It's not just "some", it's a total monopoly (actually oligopolgy, but you know...) on power. Outside of oddballs like Sanders, it flat out isn't possible to run outside of one of the two parties, which comes with a number of stipulations that prevent any ideology even slightly outside of the party orthodoxy from having any impact on policy whatsoever.
Also, when you're making a comparison to Trump supporters, I don't see how you can claim with a straight face that you aren't indinusting Sanders's supporters are sexist and racist. It's also not overwhelming outside of non-millenial African Americans, and non-racial minorities pretty consistently favored Sanders. His inability to successfully court blacks and Latinos older than about 30 is obviously why he lost the election, but that does't mean his support came from racists or sexists like Trump's does.
edited 13th May '16 8:07:15 AM by CaptainCapsase
And all these proclamations from the hard left that disappointed Sanders supporters will vote for Trump instead of Clinton?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Are either referring to people who would prefer to see a violent leftist revolution over the current status quo or who just won't come out to vote in the first place. There are probably a few nuts who refused to vote for Clinton because she's a women, but I have yet to see any actual evidence that is a significant number of people.
edited 13th May '16 8:10:11 AM by CaptainCapsase
"Violent leftist revolution" => "Vote for Trump".
Yeah, no. The left has its share of racists. I'm going with the simpler explanation.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It's kind of funny. I'm seeing #Never Trump and #Drop Out Hillary hashtags and even some disillusionment for Bernie.
My dad got a Hillary For Prison bumper sticker, so I can guess who he's not voting for.
Is this just the election where the main question is who is least popular to pick?
You gotta believe me when I scare you away, all that I wish for is that you would stay
Most are, really. It's rare that a super-popular candidate comes along who captures their party's vote with unrestrained enthusiasm. Part of that is because parties are not monolithic entities; each represents a wide variety of interest groups and voting blocs that will variously approve or disapprove of each element of its candidate's platform.
You might like Clinton for her stance on civil rights but not like her stance on gun control, for example. You might like Trump for... something he said yesterday, but not the version of it he said today. /shrug
edited 13th May '16 8:12:39 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Fighterr: Accelerationism is a classic part of Marxist-Leninist thought, heighten the contrast and elevate class tensions until there is no longer any room for compromise, and armed civil conflict becomes inevitable.
I'm not saying it's a good idea, just that there are reasons why people would do this that do not involve racism.
edited 13th May '16 8:13:26 AM by CaptainCapsase
Well, Captain, you'll forgive me if I can't stand behind Marx's ideology here. Whether violent revolution is coming in the future or not, I prefer my life without one, thank you very much.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yeah no, it's definitely a race and sexism thing. The ones jumping ship to Trump aren't hard left working class bitter proles.
They're privileged white children who just got the ability to vote and have never done a day of hard work in their life and probably never will.
edited 13th May '16 8:16:58 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?Actually, from what I've seen some West Virginia voters are preferring Sanders to Clinton because she's associated with a black president. And will gladly jump to Trump in November.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Maddow noted that Bernie's win in West Virginia set him back rather than helping him, since he needed to average 65 percent in every remaining state to pull even, and he didn't reach that mark.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"