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
I still don't see how anyone is surprised by his rise. Come on, now. Key points: Once he got away with calling Mexican's rapists, it was a done deal that he'd rise.
Then when he openly called for the Muslim ban, while shocked, that's the exact moment I knew 100% he had the nomination locked up.
New Survey coming this weekend!Well, obviously, the Republican Party's double-think collapsed in on itself. A party that has a "beware the sand nigger/Hispanic nigger/actual nigger" social worldview and claims to be "not racist" is inevitably going to have a spectacular meltdown eventually. When you go out of your way to soak up as much of the racist vote as you can, do you really deserve to be surprised when you nominate like-minded filth?
edited 31st May '16 10:10:28 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."@Captain Caspase
In a word, "no". It's not my job—or anyone's job—to teach entitled children that life ain't fair and they don't always get what they want. That's what life itself is for. If these guys want to threaten to vote for Trump, then it is neither my job, nor the DNC's job to cave into them. It is our job to find a way to win without them if we can, or demonstrate to them just how bad the other option is if we cannot.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Yes, people were surprised, including a number of professionals at covering political material. They wrote him off early specifically because it was an air horn, because they genuinely thought he was doing everything "wrong," without realizing that was exactly what was wanted.
And the people who did realize that have been worried ever since.
edited 31st May '16 10:19:10 PM by Eschaton
![]()
Either massively throwing money at the more moderate candidate, or completely neuter them if they do get elected, and then immediately start preparing their primary opponent in the next election. Use any means necessary.
A Far-Left Tea Party equivalent is just as, if not more dangerous.
New Survey coming this weekend!![]()
Trump would not be the first candidate to come into a GOP primary saying outrageous things, poll very well early on, than totally collapse. It's happens just about every cycle in the 2000's. You saw a fair amount of that on the democratic side as well to be honest. Trump is the first such candidate not to collapse.
In fact, statistical analysis shows that in general, the outcome of a primary is determined by the preferences of the party brass rather than by the alignment of the voters' positions with the candidate's platform; "the party picks", as Nate Silver terms the model, and while it held true for the democratic primary outside of an upset or two, with Trump it was completely turned on its head.
People who insist that Trump's rise was easy to see coming frankly don't know what they're talking about; pretty much every empirical model of the primary process predicted he was a bubble waiting the burst; regardless of your gut feeling about the GOP, they've had numerous candidates like Trump who flamed out spectacularly.
It's very easy to say it was obvious in hindsight, but the fact of the matter is that that kind of gut feeling intuition has been wrong in every similar case up until now.
That's the fast track to the democrats being no different than the GOP; the persecution and suppression of leftists in the post-war era set the stage for the countries later transition to the far right. Moreover, without a Stalinist superpower putting the fear of the proletariat into the political class, the political will to carry out the same sort of anti-leftist purges simply isn't there.
edited 31st May '16 10:42:07 PM by CaptainCapsase
Except that we don't have a far left Tea Party. For all that Sanders is dragging things left, it's not seemed to inspire a whole lot of imitators to follow in stoking up the populist rage to get elected to begin with. There's no coming wave of upstart candidates seeking to get into the senate and house and ignoring the concept of seniority. And, as I stated earlier, a lot of the crazier stuff seems to be espoused by people who aren't actually seeking elected office.
You're making something bigger than it is, is what I'm saying.
@Tactical Fox, I think you are way overestimating the strength of the DNC, never mind their ability to not land in trouble. You also seem to be assuming that that the far left candidates and their supporters will put up with it - Sanders supporters in Nevada started a tussle over mostly nothing, do you have an idea of what would happen if it had actually been rigged?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman...And? The DNC was being extremely patient and fair with Sanders and his supporters, yet they still cried foul over the dumbest of bullshit.
So....try to be diplomatic and give some concessions (which was literally unprecedented)...and they bitch and constantly complain.
Or..."rig" everything in favor of the "establishment" (a word I fucking despise), they bitch and complain.
Fuck em. Tell em to create their own party if they're so dissatisfied with the Dems.
If you act like a caricature, you should be treated as such.
Is it Democratic or even "Fair"? Possibly not. But I'm a ruthless pragmatic, and if you have to kill something forcefully that's a cancer and a long-term threat to the stability and the ability for the party to make progress and move the country forward, screw it.
Realpolitik>>>>Idealistic demagogues who live in fantasy land.
EDIT: Again, this is under the assumption that we actually are under threat for a rise of a leftist Tea Party. As much as I dislike Sanders I haven't seen evidence of that...yet.
BUT, should there be any credible evidence of a movement rising, I fully support any effort to remove them from gaining traction by any means necessary. Period.
edited 31st May '16 11:18:26 PM by Jasaiga
The strangest law in every state
Because we're talking about way too much serious business right now and the thread's overheating.
That the post Reagan "Neo Liberal" branch of the party, which HRC and DWS are a part of, has been constantly pursuing the Presidency over the Congress and Statehouses. Which is in and of itself a kind of cancer, or disease, as by focusing on so few candidates and not helping make sure new blood flourishes in an aggressive manner, the "pool" of Democrats is extremely diluted and weak.
Which is incidentally something Vox keeps noting:
- The reason Warren keeps coming up as a VP choice
is the party has been so ready for Hillary, that it hasn't focused on cultivating new blood, and any of the major names outside of Warren have no meaningful political experience.
- And that the current cycle, there's a definite downballot crisis
, as Republicans run most of the country
, despite major dissatisfaction with their running the country.
The party is basically overwatering Hillary and surefire hits and not working to build any next generation names, which is basically long term party death.
Meanwhile the GOP has an entire line of big name Republicans they can keep falling back on because they have a ton of actual electoral history and governance.
edited 1st Jun '16 12:27:51 AM by PotatoesRock
The fact that Warren, Booker and Sherrod Brown keep being suggested as VP candidates also speaks of the negligent approach to Congress.
Seeing as all would be replaced in the Senate by interim senators picked by Republican governors.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanTechnically, the states did choose to vote in Republican governors. More Republican voters ultimately were able to vote than Democrats, and thus Republican governors got in.
Democrats haven't been able to offer meaningful or worthwhile candidates, nor have managed to get out the vote in the last few gubernatorial cycles.
And before we blame lazy voters, let's remember how many Democratic officials ran away from President Obama and Obamacare for 2014. Which might of driven voters to sit at home and go "Fuck you". So the DNC kind of have themselves to blame.
@Jaaiga: I'd say people like you are a much bigger threat than actual leftists in our day and age; the people who would, facing a breakdown of the current (5th or 6th) party system, rather seize the Republic than allow democracy to take its course, at least if you're correctly gaguing the implications of the term "by any means necessary."
I maintain that is by far he most dangerous position someone can take in our society. Worse than Trump in fact; for all the comparisons to fascist dictators, he hasn't called into question the underlying premise of democracy.
As undemocratic and as unfair as our system is, it's still an improvement over places like China and Russia, precisely because "political revolutions" are possible, however unlikely. Under an autocracy or a true oligarchy, there's no recourse other than violent revolution.
edited 1st Jun '16 2:42:26 AM by CaptainCapsase
I'm not a fan of Trump, but this is just sad.
A month from now, Bill Kristol will be trying to convince his plumber to run against Trump.
edited 1st Jun '16 2:28:41 AM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.Well I missed a lot.
On the 538 article about demographics, that's from December, yes a 3% swing to Trump across all 5 groups would lead to him winning, except that's not going to happen, a 3% swing to Trump amongst, blacks, Hispanics, Asian/other and college-educated whites? Please, he's getting a positive swing with non-college-educated whites and a negative swing with the rest.
They is a varying group. a dozen people got pissed about the weirdness in Nevada, a lot mroe are going to get pissed if you start subverting democracy.
Cute, but as has been explained to me recently that's not possible, in some states you can't get on the ballot unless you belong to one of the two goverment funded political parties. You guys want people to go make their own parties? Then make it so that there's not an entrenched legal disadvantage that they have upon doing so.
It's also currently a fiction, the Tea Party only even got off the ground because of Koch money and a ton of astroturf, even if the far-left did have enough nuts to man such a movement what big money support are they going to get to launch them?
@Why nobody saw Trump coming.
We didn't realise how selfish the Republicans were, everyone was expecting a mirror of the Dem race, where the race was at two people by February, but all the Republican glory hounds held on until it was far to late. That and it was less the Trump factor that we missed so much as the Cruz factor, we expected a Trump vs Establishment battle, instead we got Trump vs Cruz vs Establishment. In a two way battle 30% support gets you nowhere, in a three way battle? It gets you the dam win.
That's what we failed to predict, we all thought that the Republican establishment has enough control and sense to fall in behind an anti-Trump candidate pretty quick, but that didn't happen, the race never got to a two person fight, if it had then Trump might have been stopped.
@538's thing about Sanders voters.
Yeah they matter, and that 30% that are undecided/would stay home is a scary number, Sanders should bring them in with him once he drops out, unless Sanders shows the competence of the Republican establishment those folks are going to vote Clinton come November.
As for what Clinton can offer Sanders that he can't get via stonwalling, simple, a way to get that shit without stonewalling and looking like an asshat. Sanders campaign people might be idiots but he seems to have some sense, simply having the goodwill of the Democratic party is one thing, getting approval over a VP candidate (that's not him) would be another, his place on the budget committee (can the Dems force him to caucus solo?), prominent party positions, the chance to really smart a movement within the party, DWS posing her position, there's plenty to offer and a fight will just reduce Sanders options and put at risk a Dem win in November, something Sanders doesn't want to put at risk even if some of his supporters do.
They'll keep digging, if they find someone then it's a done deal for the Dems, even just a no name showing shit from the sidlines will hurt Trump.
edited 1st Jun '16 3:22:26 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
The biggest concern is that African American voter turnout will return back to pre-Obama levels of engagement, and that youth will sit out the election more than they usually do because of Sanders; Trump doesn't need to swing voters to his side, he needs to demoralize them to the point where they don't bother voting, opting to go do something "more productive" with their time rather than wait in unreasonably long lines. Voting in the United States is a massive pain in the ass.
edited 1st Jun '16 3:47:44 AM by CaptainCapsase
IIRC Sanders is either in line for the Budget Committee or the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.
So basically unless the Democratic Caucus in the Senate are total dicknozzles, basically he'd have control over one of two major committees that either way mean a ton to him, in all likelihood.
Thing is pre-Obama levels are also Bush-era levels, it's not just the Democrat candidate that matters it's also the Republican one. Bush didn't have the race record that Trump has, you can expect all hell to be made out of Trump's unwillingness to denounce the KKK. Yes there will be a drop due to Obama not being the candidate, but Obama himself is still goign to be around and working to keep black turnout up, combine that with Trump's massive race problem and the drop isn't going to be that big.
As for the youth sitting the election out, again you're assuming that Sanders decides to fuck the party. If Sanders just grumpily goes and sits in the corner then yes youth turnout may well drop, but even that's not a sure thing, Sanders has boosted youth participation, his absence may bring it back down to normal levels but it causing a significant drop seems unlikely. Now if Sanders does what he's likely to do and campaign for Clinton then we're not going to see a drop, the hardcore nuts will refuse to do like Sanders and fall in line, but the majority of people he's inspired will follow his lead, we'd likely see an increase in the youth vote, not a decrease.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Trumps "likability" and rabid base was never in doubt though. What was underestimated was how willing the establishment was to stop him.
Oh really when?