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
![]()
Then for [insert god here]'s sake, vote for Clinton, not that racist clown in a business suit.
I have this vision of your ideal government as a place where an official is removed from office for making any decision that causes harm to a single individual. You would have no government.
edited 6th Jun '16 9:55:33 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
In states which are capable of being disputed yes.
My vision of an ideal government is a system where all human minds are networked together into a single decision making apparatus aided by artificial super-intelligence capable of assessing the outcome of any given decision with perfect accuracy, and every decision, no matter how minor is made with the consent of the entire human species. That's not going to be feasible for a long time, so for now I'll settle for what's currently feasible.
edited 6th Jun '16 9:59:30 AM by CaptainCapsase
There's more races than Clinton vs. Trump. There's local races, there's referendums, there's senate and congressional elections...a reason why things have kind of stalled is the deadlock in Congress that happens to be largely the fault of one party that decided back in 2008 "Fuck productivity" quite blatantly.
And even the popular vote matters for rhetorical purposes. Clinton is running further to the left, in a Democratic Party that is the furthest left it has been since 1972. It's not enough for Trump to lose: he must be comprehensively crushed in every sense. And Trump is not some anomaly or aberration. He represents a line of thinking that is flourishing within the party, and until it is comprehensively smashed and the crazies have no further say in governing, well...
edited 6th Jun '16 9:59:01 AM by Lightysnake
In states which are capable of being disputed yes.
Eh? Please don't tell me you've fallen for the "safe constituencies, worthless constituencies" fallacy. Safe constituencies can be lost and even when they aren't, closer than expected results will lead to a party sinking resources into them they then lack in more marginal constituencies.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanYeah there's the mandate argument, the momentum argument but there's also the money argument.
I seriously doubt there's a single US state that doesn't have money spent on it by both parties during a presidential election, this isn't "we need to get a boost in Ohio, put some of our money there", this is "we need to maintain X in New York so put Y there, we need Z ad buy in Vermont to maintain G so put R money there, we want to try and swing Ohio by E points so Q money there, we want to try and keep at least U points in Texas so put K money there" the number of moving parts is staggering.
So even if you're in Vermont, New York or Texas your vote counts, because when you vote there you free up money by telling your party "don't worry I'm here", and they go "okay so we're stable at T points in C state, so let's move some money to P state".
Your vote in New York might not have an effect on 2016, but it's liable to have an effect on 2020 by effecting how 2020 is planned.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
![]()
Voting along party lines in districts such as mine accomplishes nothing other than informing policymakers of my district's approval of the status quo. A close result in what should have been a safe district encourages changes to political platforms in the hopes of accommodating the noncompliant voters. Obviously you should always vote, but except in contested states, I have yet to see a compelling argument why I should vote for Clinton rather than a third party which is more closely aligned with my own beliefs.
edited 6th Jun '16 10:18:26 AM by CaptainCapsase
edited 6th Jun '16 10:17:59 AM by sgamer82
Sure, and that means moving right in the hope of winning over Republican voters, it also means throwing money at the district instead of spending it winning over voters in competitive districts. Do you see how this might be a net negative for the left?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
It means moving right if people are voting for Trump or Gary Johnson; if instead the democrats are losing votes to, for example, the Green party, it means moving left. As far as spending money goes, while it does a great job at influencing politicians voting patterns, spending more money on a particular district runs into very severe diminishing returns, to the point where beyond the amount necessary to run an effective campaign, additional funding barely shifts election results.
edited 6th Jun '16 10:24:42 AM by CaptainCapsase
Because the ad money the DNC spends in 2020 trying to win you back could be better spent in Ohio trying to win over Republicans.
That depends on numbers, if they honestly see enough votes going to the left that they think they can get back they'll push left, but they may also go right if they think they'll find more votes there for less compromise on their position.
And yeah throwing money at the problem might not work, but it is done, I've been on the ground for shoe strong campaigns, it ain't easy. Regardless of how logic money throwing is, it happens.
edited 6th Jun '16 10:25:09 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
I'd argue there's a much more significant difference between a shoe string campaign and a campaign that has a comfortable but not exorbitant amount of money than there is between the latter campaign and a heavily over-funded campaign. Even swing states are rarely decided by margins small enough for funding to have a significant impact.
edited 6th Jun '16 10:28:59 AM by CaptainCapsase
And is the campaign in your district overly well funded? If you know that it is then yeah the money argument kinda falls apart, though if it is over funded funds might be about to be moved away from it, something that might not happen if the district suddenly starts loosing votes.
Edit to your edit: Funding can have a big impact in ways other then ad buys, bussing activists in costs money, food for campaigners door knocking costs money, ringing up voters asking if they've voted yet costs money, money spent can have a big impact on turnout.
edited 6th Jun '16 10:31:32 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
It's literally the district Hillary Clinton lives in, so I don't think there's any significant chance of her losing here, or even doing poorly. Either way, in the United States general elections, I don't think the results every really come down to money spent; each party has more than enough to reach saturation in the entire nation; the amount of money at the disposal of the major US parties is mind boggling.
edited 6th Jun '16 10:38:12 AM by CaptainCapsase
Donald Trump vs. Andrew Jackson: compare/contrast?
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.There may be a time when humanity transcends into a Hive Mind where individual wants and needs no longer exist, but that species would no longer be recognizable as humanity.
Also Jackson actually came from a humble background, as opposed to being born with a silver spoon up his ass. And let's be honest every American president during that era took part in committing genocide. The difference with Jackson was that he was more blatant about it, and he went after a tribe that was "being good." Which is why so many people, including Davy Crocket, were disgusted with the Indian removal act.
Edit: Oh and Andrew Jackson actually got into fights, as opposed to just having a big mouth.
edited 6th Jun '16 11:30:06 AM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.

That is, voting for Hillary in November? (For example)
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman