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

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#124251: May 31st 2016 at 9:40:05 PM

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?
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#124252: May 31st 2016 at 9:45:18 PM

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!
Jasaiga Since: Jan, 2015
#124253: May 31st 2016 at 9:47:36 PM

Most of the GOP's base have demonstrated repeatedly that they're racist, have racial anxiety, and or support de-facto racist policies, and people were surprised when a guy decides to stop blowing a dog whistle and use an air horn, that'd he'd eventually become the nominee?

You serious, brah?

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#124254: May 31st 2016 at 10:06:31 PM

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."
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#124255: May 31st 2016 at 10:12:53 PM

@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.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#124256: May 31st 2016 at 10:15:52 PM

Say, Tactical fox, you never did answer the question of how you expected the Democrat establishment to stop these supposed Tea Party equivalents.

Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#124257: May 31st 2016 at 10:16:48 PM

[up][up][up][up] 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

TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#124258: May 31st 2016 at 10:30:52 PM

[up][up]

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!
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#124259: May 31st 2016 at 10:33:05 PM

[up][up]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.

[up] 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

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#124260: May 31st 2016 at 10:40:14 PM

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.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#124261: May 31st 2016 at 10:46:23 PM

@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
Jasaiga Since: Jan, 2015
#124262: May 31st 2016 at 11:16:10 PM

...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

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#124263: May 31st 2016 at 11:29:28 PM

The strangest law in every state

Because we're talking about way too much serious business right now and the thread's overheating.

3of4 Just a harmless giant from a foreign land. from Five Seconds in the Future. Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
#124264: May 31st 2016 at 11:34:19 PM

North Dakota

Beer and pretzels cannot be served at the same time.

What kind of heresy is that?!?!

"You can reply to this Message!"
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#124265: Jun 1st 2016 at 12:23:47 AM

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.
You realize that's the argument by people to the left of the HRC camp, right?

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 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

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#124266: Jun 1st 2016 at 12:27:45 AM

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 Feynman
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#124267: Jun 1st 2016 at 12:36:04 AM

It's not like they chose to have GOP governors. It just how the cookie crumbled.

New Survey coming this weekend!
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#124268: Jun 1st 2016 at 12:50:58 AM

Technically, 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.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#124269: Jun 1st 2016 at 2:15:35 AM

@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

Demonic_Braeburn Yankee Doodle Dandy from Defective California Since: Jan, 2016
Yankee Doodle Dandy
#124270: Jun 1st 2016 at 2:27:37 AM

Bloomberg Politics reported that Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol and ‘Never Trump’ conservatives are eyeing David French, a constitutional lawyer and veteran, to run for president.

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.
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#124271: Jun 1st 2016 at 3:15:05 AM

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.

...And? The DNC was being extremely patient and fair with Sanders and his supporters, yet they still cried foul over the dumbest of bullshit.

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.

Fuck em. Tell em to create their own party if they're so dissatisfied with the Dems.

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.

A Far-Left Tea Party equivalent is just as, if not more dangerous.

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.

[up] 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
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#124272: Jun 1st 2016 at 3:36:21 AM

[up] 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

PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#124273: Jun 1st 2016 at 3:43:02 AM

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.

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#124274: Jun 1st 2016 at 3:56:51 AM

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;

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

Total posts: 417,856
Top