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 seem to recall that a few weeks or months ago Captain Caspase was getting really mad at the idea that Sanders voters would throw the election to the GOP. Claimed it was an unfair demonizing of them. Now he's insisting that if they don't get what they want they will throw the election to the GOP and that the Democratic establishment had better listen or else.
Look, the majority of Sanders' most rabid supporters? The "youth vote"? They don't normally vote anyway. So if Sanders holds them hostage and they stay home? Not a big deal. The only way they're actually a threat to Clinton and the Democratic Party is if they vote for Trump. And since every Sanders supporter in this thread has spent the last several months insisting there is no overlap between Trump and Sanders supporters, I've got to hope that's not something they'll do.
Not saying she shouldn't make a go at them. Just that letting Sanders hold the party hostage over them seems nonsensical.
Not sure if this
is sad, or refreshingly honest on Sanders part. I suppose there's no rule saying it can't be both.
edited 1st Jun '16 9:01:24 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
The folks at FiveThirtyEight
are a wee bit more sceptical about Hillary's chances at winning without the Sanders voters. The DNC also has a reputation for corruption and incompetence that long predates this primary, so if a compromise between establishment and Sanderites is the way to secure the latter's support, Clinton may well try to go for that.
Which would be my dream wish, since Clinton is a fairly good candidate (only because the endless fake scandal mongering will hurt her a bit) but the party itself needs some cleaning.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman@Ambar- I also have to note that I've seen some posts from Captain Capsase and other Sanders supporters which kind of give me the impression they are planning to vote for Trump or are at least resigned to a Trump presidency- Like posts about how his foreign policy and economic positions are not too bad as well as ones downplaying his bigotry.
At that point you have to wonder if it's less about loving Sanders and more about hating Hilary. Or pouting because your guy lost though.
In all seriousness, there are polls about percentage of Sanders supporters won't vote for Clinton but are there polls about what percentage would actually vote for Trump? I'd image it's much lower but still.
That's what 538 have, You Gov have 55% of Sanders voters saying they'd vote for Clinton, 15% saying they'd vote for Trump and the remaining 30% "who say they are undecided, would vote for a third-party candidate or would sit out the election.".
However that's things as they stand, that 30% number should start getting smaller rapidly once Clinton has the nomination guaranteed, it will continue to shrink and the first number grow as Sanders drops out and endorses Clinton, Clinton is officially made the nominee at the convention, Trump shows how horrible he is in the debates against Clinton and similar. If Sanders actively campaigns for Clinton then the undecided number will shrink even more.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranFor all the horror that a President Trump brings, his ideals are going to redefine the Republican party just by winning the Republican nomination. The Democratic Party cannot focus on just the Presidency anymore. There is another nightmare scenario which is completely and utterly likely so long as the Democratic Party focuses on the Presidency and not Congress.
Angered by the election of Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump and blaming the current Republican establishment for the loss, the Republican base begins pushing for state and federal representatives in the mold of Donald Trump to replace the current Republican establishment, namely brash nationalist demagogues who desire isolationism. Because of the Democratic Party's weakness outside of the Presidency, this movement leads to an entire Congress full of Trumps which will be able to declare nationalist and isolationist policies.
If this country is to get on the right track, the Democrats need to start winning down ballot and during the mid-terms, not just during the Presidential elections.
edited 1st Jun '16 10:41:44 AM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food Badly@Hodor: nice spin doctoring, you should look for a job at the corporate news network of your choice.
No I am not voting for Trump, no I did not defend his firing policy, and no I did defend his bigotry or downplay it. I live in a state so solidly blue that hell will freeze over before it goes GOP in a general (New York), in a district that is about as loyal to Hillay Clinton and the democratic orthodoxy as is humanly possible. In my current place of residence, my votes have absolutely no bearing on general elections, or even congressional elections during most years; if I had to pick between skipping local elections versus the general, I'd absolutely pick the latter even in an election that's hotly contested at the national level, because there's no way it would matter without a major demographic shift.
This being the case, I have no intention of voting for Clinton unless she makes a comittment to, at the minimum, the same rigorous campaign finance and electoral reforms which Sanders proposed, and a promise to put an end to Obama's air campaign in Syria. if that comes to pass, I'd be willing to give her a chance to live up to her platform.
edited 1st Jun '16 10:53:43 AM by CaptainCapsase
Lawrence O'Donnell had the guys from the Libertarian Party on last night
. Starts talking to them about 20 minutes in. I may disagree with a lot of their policies but they're a lot saner than the likes of Trump. I also think Johnson's request to be included in more polls in a perfectly reasonable one, honestly.
@Septimus
Caspase seems to belong to a branch of thought that thinks all intervention is bad.
edited 1st Jun '16 11:19:56 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Also, since I forgot it, parties will start sinking resources in supposedly safe polities if they win with narrower than expected margins - resources they'll then lack in more marginal polities. So yeah, votes there matter as well, and safe districts can and are lost frequently.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanAgreed. There is always value in voting, even if it's just to make the other party have to spend more money.
Of course where I live, the parties also get money from the federal government based on how many votes they get which adds yet another incentive. One that I think the Americans could do well to adopt. It's one of the reasons we have strong third parties.
It is; virtually all American "intervention" is nothing more than a rebranding of military Imperialism; and while both may have produced a positive outcome in a few specific cases, it has been overwhelming carried out the the detriment of our fellow humans. In concert with the economic Imperialism which has produced a unique and modern twist on slavery, America's actions have destroyed countless lives.
Lovely. Personally I'd like to see more American intervention in places that actually deserve it. I wish the US had gone into Rwanda and Burundi. I wish they'd gone into the former Yugoslavia before Kosovo. I'm glad they're bombing ISIS. Etc. And before you say that this is unrealistic and countries only act in their own self-interest, my desire for properly done intervention is no crazier than your desire for none ever.
edited 1st Jun '16 11:38:34 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
![]()
So you definitely wouldn't have supported the US entering World War II (or perhaps even Lend-Lease)? And under what circumstances would you support US intervention overseas?
edited 1st Jun '16 11:38:33 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On

At this point, I'm fairly sure the GOP establishment is hoping they can set up another Bush-Cheney arrangement; Trump certainly doesn't seem like he's actually interested in the presidency for anything other than the prestige; I imagine he'd be happy to delegate the actual decision making to his VP while he goes around basking in the limelight and generally making as ass of himself.
That George Bush 2.0 is the best case scenario for a GOP victory in the fall is not a particularly comforting notion.
edited 1st Jun '16 7:14:09 AM by CaptainCapsase