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

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#124176: May 31st 2016 at 1:08:51 PM

[up]If what's stopping people from voting for your candidate is not their positions but their personality, that sort of piece is worth doing.

And I'll note that no, you can't do a piece like that about just any politician. Back at the height of the Stephen Harper ministry a couple of papers tried to get to know the real Harper. McClane's published a whole article about him, and his personal life, and the human side of him. It failed spectacularly. Nothing could humanize the guy, nothing could make him come off as less of, in my dad's words, "a cigar store Indian."

As for Trump, an article I was reading a couple days ago argued the exact opposite. That when you go looking for the "real Donald Trump" you find nothing. The man is always on stage, even in private, always playing the cartoon character he's been since the eighties.

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#124177: May 31st 2016 at 1:12:39 PM

Serious question, when the Democratic candidate is chosen and everything finally settles down to D vs R, will their platforms actually matter?

To my mind, once that part's done doesn't it just boil down to "it's my party and I'll vote even if I don't want to, cry if I need to, you would cry to of you had to choose from these two?"

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#124178: May 31st 2016 at 1:12:41 PM

[up][up] A candidate's personality is totally irrelevant to me, though I'm almost positive you won't believe that, and it should be totally irrelevant to any voter. That's unfortunately not the case, particularly in systems like America's where you're voting for people rather than parties. Which sounds good until you realize it exacerbates things like the aforementioned "I can have a beer with him" problem.

[up] In all likelihood no, especially not with the abysmal voter turnout in America. Moreover, America's system is designed to force an extremely narrow Overton Window; if the parties (not their bases the politicians) become polarized, everything grinds to a halt.

edited 31st May '16 2:54:12 PM by CaptainCapsase

ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#124179: May 31st 2016 at 1:15:51 PM

The good thing is that it seems like the Republicans haven't had a beer-worthy candidate in a while. I feel like that's part of why Bush beat Gore and Kerry, but now look-you think anyone would like Cruz or Rubio for their personalities?

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#124180: May 31st 2016 at 1:17:13 PM

As for Trump, an article I was reading a couple days ago argued the exact opposite. That when you go looking for the "real Donald Trump" you find nothing. The man is always on stage, even in private, always playing the cartoon character he's been since the eighties.

I suppose it's possible that the "real Donald Trump" doesn't exist any more.

edited 31st May '16 1:17:22 PM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#124181: May 31st 2016 at 1:17:47 PM

Some people did consider Rubio charismatic. But he did not persuade a sufficient amount of voters.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#124182: May 31st 2016 at 1:17:52 PM

[up][up][up] Well they have one now; as outrageous as he is on most issues, Trump's showmanship is what got him this far.

edited 31st May '16 1:18:05 PM by CaptainCapsase

ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#124183: May 31st 2016 at 1:20:05 PM

He's got a personality, but he's not personable. Part of Trump's aura is that he seems to be above everything, to be better than everything, and it has been since the 80s.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#124184: May 31st 2016 at 1:21:27 PM

Given that Trump is running solely on personality (or at least what he's projecting at his personality) I'd say that it does kind of matter.

Things tend to matter when people decide to talk about them. And personality tends to shine through even in those who try to present themselves solely on issues. Your insistence on impartiality to such things isn't exactly convincing to the vast majority of people. And also a tiny bit illogical; personality is but one aspect of what influences us to vote for a particular candidate, but it is an aspect that is often unconsciously considered.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#124185: May 31st 2016 at 1:28:37 PM

@Captain Caspase

I have no issue with your belief that personality shouldn't matter. I happen to agree with it for the most part (exception: if both candidates have roughly the same positions, I'll vote for the guy I like more). But like it or not we're stuck with a system where it does matter to a lot of people, and giving them what they want is a lot better than refusing and letting the other guy win.

@Greenmantle

There's a really good article, by the way, that I saw a while back that examined Trump's relationships with various women. Definitely worth a read.

EDIT: Good little article on why Trump can't count on an easy ride in the general. I think one of the first points it makes is a good one. We've all talked about to what degree Trump's celebrity has helped him, but I think that what often doesn't get mentioned is that he was running against a bunch of guys who had failed to define themselves in the public eye. Worse still, there were a lot of them. If it had been just Trump vs Bush, Trump vs Cruz, Trump vs Rubio, Trump vs whoever, he might well have done worse because the media would have had the time and energy to help the voters figure out who he was running against.

edited 31st May '16 1:45:28 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#124186: May 31st 2016 at 1:41:10 PM

Yeah, all politicians are human but not all of them are relatable. I think the point was that there's this big impression that Clinton isn't relatable when that impression largely exists for unfair reasons.

Contrast with say, Mitt Romney, who had the same problem only worse, and yet all attempts to dispel the notion either failed spectacularly or even reinforced it.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#124187: May 31st 2016 at 1:46:43 PM

[up]Harper is the Canadian example of Romney. Attempts at humanizing him just seemed laughable, most notably his awful "sweater vest" ads. Not that it stopped him from being PM for far too long regardless.

edited 31st May '16 1:46:57 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#124188: May 31st 2016 at 1:57:05 PM

Communist support of Republicans dates back to the Cold War in general (re: North Korea and Trump), and persists in ex-Com countries today. There's the idea, forged between Korea and Vietnam, that the idealistic Democrats are out to horn in on your territory because they want to liberate your people, while the Republicans are realist, still dangerous, but in a manner that is predictable and that jives with the foreign-policy realism generally practiced by dictatorships.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#124189: May 31st 2016 at 2:04:28 PM

Nixon and Reagan's habit of funding every neofascist dictatorship they came across certainly came in handy as a recruitment tool for various Communist groups worldwide. It's always handy to have real atrocities you can lay at your enemies' feet, rather than having to invent them.

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#124190: May 31st 2016 at 2:19:45 PM

I don't really know about Harper but I recall there being some home movies of the Romneys (shown at the Republican Convention when he was running IIRC) that painted a much more sympathetic figure and a couple of months back he was only Jimmy Kimmel and came across as very likable.

So in his case, I feel like through some combination of his advisers bad judgment and his own he presented the worst possible version of himself on the campaign trail. I wouldn't have voted for him if he had come across the way he did in the video and interview but I would have had a much more positive view of him as a person.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#124191: May 31st 2016 at 2:28:31 PM

@Ambar: The odd part of that article is that it seems to actually do more harm to Clinton's case than it does good despite clearly being intended to humanize her; she's portrayed as not particularly charismatic, and perhaps because of prior experience, tends to handle scandals in a way that only makes her seem more suspicious, that's why so many of them have stuck in the public conscious. Contrast with Obama; nobody who'd even consider voting democrat in an election buys any of the numerous character assassination attempts directed at him. Or, for example, contrast with Bill Clinton. He's not particularly well liked among the left, but other than the one that was actually genuine, democrats have tended to give him the benefit of the doubt.

edited 31st May '16 2:33:00 PM by CaptainCapsase

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#124192: May 31st 2016 at 2:30:03 PM

[up]That's not damaging to her case. It's explaining something that has already been damaging to her case.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#124193: May 31st 2016 at 2:34:37 PM

[up] It's damaging against the claim that she'd be the best in a general election because she's "battle-tested"; the way this article portrays it, she's battle-tested, and it's abundantly clear that she's a easy target for character assassination, since her response to scandals has unfailingly made it look like she has something to hide, compared to Sanders, who, much like Obama at the time, is an unknown quantity as far as how that will go. We can almost guarantee the Republicans will have another faux scandal prepared to drop right before the general election; they had one for Obama, they had one for Kerry, and they probably had one planned for both the possibility of Clinton and of Sanders given the primaries were more competitive than initially expected. We already know how it will go for Clinton, and with her polling so close to Trump, that makes her look like a risky candidate.

It adds credence to the worries about her polling in the general election versus Trump compared to Sanders. In fact, if I recall correctly, the same issue was present in 2008 versus Romney.

edited 31st May '16 3:22:51 PM by CaptainCapsase

JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#124194: May 31st 2016 at 2:46:19 PM

[up][up][up][up] Mind you the Communists in those countries had little trouble recruiting to begin with, that's why they all became neo fascist dictatorships.

Edit: Also most of the Communists hated Regan like the plague. Probably because he combined the idealism of the Democrats with the nationalism of the Republicans.

edited 31st May '16 2:47:27 PM by JackOLantern1337

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#124195: May 31st 2016 at 2:59:50 PM

@Aces: I mean personality in terms of how likable I find the candidate. Other aspects, like how trustworthy I believe they are are things I count separately.

hamza678 Red Like Santa from Christmas Beacon. Since: Apr, 2013
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#124197: May 31st 2016 at 3:47:09 PM

[up] As a gamer, I'm accustomed to people blaming my hobby for all the world's ills, but that's a new one.

ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#124198: May 31st 2016 at 3:53:29 PM

[up][up] The definition of "antihero" is hella broad in that article. Frank Underwood's a Villain Protagonist, if anything.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#124199: May 31st 2016 at 3:54:57 PM

[up] Yes, but literary critique terminology differs a fair bit from tvtropes terminology; ie we call Mac Beth a clear Villain Protagonist, whereas in the literary sphere he's an example of the Tragic Hero archetype.

ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#124200: May 31st 2016 at 3:56:25 PM

Regardless, that article's bullshit. We only like Walter White or Tony Soprano or Don Draper because we see both their public and private lives. We only see Trump's public life, and he comes across as a loud-mouthed bullying boor.


Total posts: 417,856
Top