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
It can also hurt Trump. It bears repeating that every debate Trump's been in has been against people who are not willing to wholeheartedly reject his ideas or rhetoric. That would not be the case in a debate against Sanders, and however much Sanders himself relies on broad appeals to emotion, he's never been shy about criticising Trump's bile.
It can also help Clinton, in the sense that a high-profile clash between Sanders and Trump could make Sanders's supporters less likely to jump over to Trump in the general election.
edited 26th May '16 3:30:52 AM by DrDougsh
~Tactical Fox 88 and ~Jasaiga: We recently banned some rabid Bernie supporters who were repeating character assassination lines against Clinton. We won't hesitate to do the same thing to people who ape character assassination lines against Sanders. This topic only works when it's kept civil.
edited 26th May '16 6:19:28 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That, at least, I'll agree with. There is plenty of stuff in his past that could become interesting fodder for a general election scuffle.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I've been getting the feeling for a long time now that a large part of the flavor of the Democrats' side of the fight has been built up around Clinton's respective handicaps and advantages as a seasoned campaigner, versus Sanders, who has been more of a localized entity. People assume like there's more dirt on Clinton just because she's been active in the public consciousness and open to scrutiny and attack for so long, whereas no one really gave a damn about Sanders until recently.
But it'd take a lot of mud to sling to make anyone look dirtier than Trump, I'll tell you that for free.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.No kidding. I wonder if Trump's mechanisms for deflecting criticism of himself will work in the general election:
- Threatening to sue the parties criticizing him.
- Digging up all kinds of counter-dirt and throwing preemptive accusations.
- Name-calling and belittling.
He recently attacked the governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez
, who happens to be the first woman governor of that state, is the nation's first Latina governor, and is also the chair of the Republican Governors' Association, calling her "lazy", a common racial slur against Hispanics.
Martinez, of course, has refused to endorse him or attend his rallies, and even considered not attending the Republican National Convention before being reminded that it's her obligation as RGA chair.
edited 26th May '16 6:54:19 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"This doesn't benefit anyone but Trump. Not even Bernie — he's going to lose no matter what at this point, so what does winning a debate against Trump do except provide an ego boost? It would just divide the Democratic electorate further, which hurts him in the long run. He's old enough that it's unlikely that he's going to make another presidential run (especially if Clinton wins and he wouldn't be running again until 2024), and pissing off the people he's trying to convince to enact his policies isn't going to help his case.
It's pretty much a no-win situation.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Trump gets the 1237.
Dammit. Just, dammit. What the hell is wrong with people.
I'll reiterate everything that Native Jovian just said. Sanders vs Trump will, one way or another, hurt Clinton and help Trump. Even if Sanders doesn't say a single bad thing about her it will reinforce the idea among his supporters that it should be him and not Clinton running against Trump in the general. By letting them see what they want to see it gives them the chance to further harden their resolve.
As for the attack ads thing, I again agree with Native Jovian. Sanders and his supporters have several times now, fallen back on his supposedly being more electable than Clinton based on current polling. The problem is that said polling does not take into account that Sanders' record has not come under the kind of sustained attacks that Clinton's has. There's not much you can say about Clinton that hasn't been said—her negatives are about as high as they can get. Conversely, Sanders' ability to survive an assault on his character is completely up in the air, and with Trump as the presumptive GOP nominee, this is going to be a negative campaign even by their standards.
For better or worse, a major political shakeup in more or less inevitable in America in the near future. It's something that's happened time and time again in our political history, and while the current political status quo of the past few decades was able to remain for far longer than usual, the mechanisms that enabled that-strategic capture of mass media coupled with electoral tampering (chiefly gerrymandering)-are breaking down.
In political news, seems like a spending bill in the House just failed after a pro LGBT amendment got attached, the same whose close defeat in another vote short ago has got a number of Republican congresscritters in potential reelection trouble.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanSpeaking of staying in the race, Clinton's lead in California has dropped inside the margin of error
. Still not up to Sanders' miracle-needed 70% lead though.
The poll, released Wednesday night by the Public Policy Institute of California, showed Mrs. Clinton leading Mr. Sanders among likely voters, 46 percent to 44 percent — within the margin of error. A survey by the organization in March found Mrs. Clinton with a lead of 48 percent to 41 percent over Mr. Sanders.
The survey came as both Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton have stepped up their campaign appearances here in anticipation of the June 7 primary. Mr. Sanders, after initially saying he would not advertise on television here — California is one of the most expensive states for television advertising, given its size and the number of media markets — took to the airwaves this week.
And Mrs. Clinton has quickly responded, with ads set to begin running on Friday in the Los Angeles, Fresno and Sacramento markets: one narrated by the actor Morgan Freeman, another highlighting Mrs. Clinton’s endorsement by the civil rights activist Dolores Huerta. The Clinton campaign will also run Spanish-language ads aimed at Latino voters, and translated commercials in Cantonese, Mandarin, Vietnamese and Korean.
For Mrs. Clinton in particular, the ad buy is a significant reversal: Her campaign had halted its advertising after her decisive victories in the mid-Atlantic states on April 26, aside from a brief return to television in Kentucky.
Mr. Sanders’s aides said he intended to spend nearly all his time in California until the June 7 primary, a signal of how much importance he has attached to a victory here as he tries to keep his campaign going through the convention. His rallies have drawn big, enthusiastic crowds in many parts of the state.
Even with a loss in the primary, Mrs. Clinton would almost certainly win enough delegates to capture her party’s nomination. That said, a loss to Mr. Sanders in this state — which she won in 2008 and which Bill Clinton won in the 1992 primaries — would provide a sour and deflating end to her primary campaign.
It could also encourage Mr. Sanders to stay in the race through the Democratic National Convention in July, at a time when many Democrats would be asking him to step aside and join with Mrs. Clinton in turning the party’s attention to defeating the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump.
The new poll takes into account both Democrats and independent voters who said they would vote in the Democratic primary. Among Democrats alone, Mrs. Clinton leads Mr. Sanders by 49 percent to 41 percent, according to the institute. But there has been a surge of people registering as independents, which Democrats say could be aiding Mr. Sanders.
The poll showed that both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders would defeat Mr. Trump in a hypothetical November contest, though Mr. Sanders appears to have the stronger position at the moment. Mrs. Clinton is leading Mr. Trump among likely voters by 49 percent to 39 percent; Mr. Sanders would beat him 53 percent to 36 percent.
The poll was based on a telephone survey of 1,704 California adults taken from May 13 through Sunday. Of those, 996 were identified as likely voters. The margin of sampling error among that group was plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Sanders VS. Trump debate upcoming.
I await this with some trepidation.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.I'm Australian, so US politics is not something I understand very well.
I figured you here might know, but I was just talking to some folks from 'Dixieland' in an online game, and they kindly explained that they will vote for Trump because "he recognises the reality than white America is in a race war"? and that "white people" are "an endangered species" because of "multiculturalism". Apparently this was a question of "much more than skin", and indeed one of "civilization" itself. That I don't recognise "the danger" is apparently the product of "indoctrination" from my "liberal college professor". The whole thing was very, very odd. And we all performed terribly, because we were too busy typing messages.
TLDR: do many people in the USA still believe that the Aryan-Germanic races are uniquely gifted with intelligence and moral character, and that they must be preserved and strengthened? And if so, why? And why are they pinning their hopes on Trump? I mean, what exactly are they hoping he will do - lop all non-Germanic American citizens' cocks off?
edited 26th May '16 12:06:05 PM by MAI742
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. — Mark Twain

And by "more people saying what I've been saying" you mean the author of one article who happens to agree with your views. Then again, you have a very cynical understanding of the situation which does no favours for what is supposed to be a democratic process.
edited 26th May '16 2:47:50 AM by germi91
"It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few."