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
How could she have stopped him from reaching his numbers to an extent of "never getting more than 10%"? Red Scare?
Honestly, that article seems to be making a fuss about fairly little. Remember that Sanders's Plan A was always influencing the Democratic presidential nomination in a leftward direction, with actually becoming president being a pleasant but unlikely possibility. He's made this explicit multiple times. Everything he's doing makes sense when you remember that his primary goal is to keep the pressure on the Democratic establishment and threaten them into giving solid concessions at the convention rather than immediately taking a rightward leap as soon as primary season is over.
Now, you could argue that's dangerous, but that really depends on how much (and in what direction) you believe a leftward slant would affect Democrat voting numbers by. In some ways, trying this when the opposition are apocalyptically self-destructing is the safest, most responsible option if you want to advance your political agenda. It's not like the Republicans can go after the Democrsts for their lack of party unity this cycle.
edited 7th Jun '16 11:20:51 PM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?There's a difference between "influencing the Democrats" and "whoever oppose me is corrupt."
Non Indicative Username
That does, of course, depend on what you're trying to influence the party towards. If your starting point is 'the party has an unhealthily close relationship with big business at workers' expense, and I want to fix that', then... well.
Sanders's success was largely due to being a protest candidate perceived to be mostly outside the Washington machine. Protesters are generally angry about their chosen cause, otherwise they wouldn't be protesting.
What's precedent ever done for us?It helps to remember that Sanders represented people like most of us in this thread. For that reason alone, Clinton had to take him seriously - and I think she played it exactly right. Welcoming his challenge as a Worthy Opponent, debating him, and setting her own platform. Remember the "coronation" meme? I recall saying that I would vomit if it was another round of Clinton v. Bush - well, we're not seeing that, and Clinton has had to stake out an actually leftist position.
It's just that the Bernie campaign has stirred up some of the ugly side of the left - thankfully not the anti-vaxxers (I don't think...), but the guys who show that the left is just as capable of hate and rage as the right. Those are people that any leftist who wants to get anything done will have to find a way to work around (and they're a big reason for the left's fragmentation in Europe - see Life of Brian). That, and unfortunately, he exposed a lot of rot in the Democratic Party just in time for the election - Clinton was really prescient in realizing that she had to dissociate herself from DWS, because she's become a symbol of everything wrong, and there's a lot of state Democratic parties rioting over the superdelegates. (I was at Alaska's convention, and the chairman literally shut down the convention without a vote because people were trying to pass an anti-superdelegate platform.) Not something Clinton wants to have to carry to the polls.
The thing that bothers me about Sanders - and did long before New York - was that he's working off dubious mathematics and that I am generally inclined to agree with FF Shinra about the unsuitability of his foreign policy views.
In my mind, he was an useful tool to shift the party to the left but not really as a candidate per se.
Democrats Harris, Sanchez advance to California Senate election
. Thanks to California's blanket primary system, two Democrats have ended up on the top spots and will advance to the general election. Thus, the 2016 California Senate election will between two Democratic women, not between a Democrat and a Republican. Latina vs. African American, as it were, so there is some advance for diversity as well.
Kirk: 'I cannot and will not support my party's nominee'
. I agree, aside from all of Trump's "qualities" it'd be really difficult for him to win re-election in deep blue Illinois on a Trump backing.
I was always willing to give the dubious math a pass because funding everything was a quixotic quest to begin with - right now, short term, we should be funding everything via the printing press anyway. But actually telling the public that debt doesn't matter sounds more insane than Sanders' proposals were.
I realize that my willingness to countenance outright lies from Sanders if they land in the right place is a bit hypocritical though.
edited 8th Jun '16 2:42:48 AM by Ramidel
I don't think he's going to be conceding. He's a 75-year old man who has never been particularly liked in the rest of his political career, and this was his one chance to become President. He'll try to make the Democrats pay for ignoring him, then go back to his echo chamber where he's America's one true savior. At this point, he's too drunk on his own hype.
edited 8th Jun '16 5:51:18 AM 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."Well congrats to Clinton, it was a long campaign but she won it fair and square, she won it without sinking to red scare levels of absurdity and possible destroying her reputation with the left, congratulations.
Push come to shove the system worked, there was a race, two candidates entered and the votes decided which one they liked best, job well done all round, now for cake.
Oh and as we had enough debate about Iraq and Syria while I was gone, jut a point of fact, the US campaign against ISIS is not a purely air one, it's got a air power, special forces, local ground forces, sanctions on ISIS allies, economic spending on anti-ISIS allies, aid to anti-ISIS groups and diplomatic pressure on US allies who are supporting ISIS either deliberatly or via omission.
Yes a pure air campaign wouldn't work, that's why the US isn't doing a pure air campaign.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyranedited 8th Jun '16 6:13:53 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I can't say I'm not dissapointed that Clinton has been nominated, especially since that was what everyone was predicting since the begining. Plus some of her policies regarding the PATRIOT act, 1994 crime bill, and the Iraq War. But I'm still gonna vote for her, if only to make sure Trump doesn't win
(MSNBC) Donald Trump does not have a campaign
Basically Trump has no actual infrastructure:
- No media/communication team in his campaign
- He plans to use Rallies over GOTV tactics
- Trump doesn't believe in Data and Analytics and is stubbornly refusing to hire anyone for such a division (or if he does, he's slow to do so)
- No rapid response director to help spin his crazy comments
- He has no coherent message coming from his VERY limited surrogate pool.
- Trump is bafflingly being soft on Clinton
His own staff says if Trump refuses or fails to assemble a media/communications team by the Republican National Conentin, his campaign is toast for November.
Basically he's going to be like Palin. Even if he loses, he's still going to be the face of the GOP wise bearded sage Sunday Morning Talk Shows and the go-to guy for the media for his opinions on everything related to GOP politics. And he may well be the voice of the GOP's most right wing elements for the next decade or two.
edited 8th Jun '16 6:28:54 AM by PotatoesRock
Sanders made a voice heared, a voice that until now was only known as some mad ramblings of White High-Middle-Class Liberal Arts College Graduates Who May Or May Not be High Right Now and is basically 40% the dem voterbase.
Which is good cos it balances out all the Republicans who fled from Trump to become DIN Os.
Trump has a very good brain. He hires the best people, just the best. He knows how to make decisions, to make deals. He doesn't need data; he goes with his gut, which is a very good gut, with the best bacteria...
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
![]()
The man still majority won every below 35~40 ethnic group, that speaks to something about his political views resonating with young voters.
(Though again, a fair portion of that group that voted for him, I will concede, is the White Liberal batch that chases the Sanders/Howard Deans)
edited 8th Jun '16 6:37:41 AM by PotatoesRock

As I say. Another person's evil does not make you good. Suppose Sanders is the Attention Whore egotistical guy, Hillary still has to do it in a civil way.
Non Indicative Username