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
Bernie Sanders voted for the 1994 tough-on-crime law. But it's complicated.
A Vox article on Hillary and Sanders on the bill.
Tactical Fox, please can the baseless speculation.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI never get the anti-establishment thing. Aren't you voting those guys to become the establishment?
Non Indicative UsernameThen why are they running a presidential candidate?
Sure and that's why you have some kind of gateway, but my understand is that they're very high and in some states limit the ballot to only two candidate. here you have to pay a £500 deposit that you get back if you get a certain percentage of the vote.
Having restriction makes sense, restricting the election to only two political parties though? That's kidna shady. I get a minimum support requirement, I get a deposit, but I don't get a hard cap.
If the voting numbers were the same? yeah I suspect he would be just as stubborn, but the numbers wouldn't be the same as he'd have less support and that might well have taken him bellow his threshold for sticking around.
Despite what you think not every Sanders supporter is a sexist/racist who needs to be purged from the party. Now a female Sanders would have gotten less support due to sexism, but I'm not sure if it woudl have been enough to kill the campaign at the beginning.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI'd argue that Hillary being a woman may actually be in her favor, since it can make her opponent look misogynist, which is indeed what happened with Sanders.
edited 8th Jun '16 9:32:41 AM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34Well, not a knock on Sanders, but I think both he and Trump are quite good illustrations of how traits that would be viewed as extremely negative if exhibited by women, i.e. schlubbiness (Sanders) and abrasiveness (both, although obviously Trump to a much greater extent) are viewed positively in men, being taken as a sign of them being natural and without pretense. And similarly, with both of them as well as with the well-loved Joe Biden, there's this aspect of a politician being liked for a certain amount of "eccentricity" and I can't say I've really seen a female politician besides Leslie Knope benefiting from that.
Of course, because of broader issues that are a topic for another thread, it's unlikely that Sanders' female equivalent would be socialized to exhibit such traits in the first place.
I'd also say that I don't really see sexism in Sanders staying in- it's more that he and his more die hard followers see everyone opposed to him as being corrupt and just can't understand why they would have any appeal to the public.
edited 8th Jun '16 9:36:26 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Avast! Me laddies. We be plunderin' ze White House.
edited 8th Jun '16 9:48:40 AM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative Username
X7 My mistake, someone said something earlier about how the California Senate race would be between two Dems, which certainly implied that only two candidates are allowed on the ballot.
It seems that the requirement is normally a petition showing 1-5% (varies by state) of voters for the state/area (varies) support the proposed party/candidate (again varies), which I stand seem kinda high, for big races that's a lot of people.
California I can't entirely understand though. Wikipedia says that access is granted,
- If at the last preceding gubernatorial election there was polled for any one of the party's candidates for any office voted on throughout the state, at least 2 percent of the entire vote of the state;
- If on or before the 135th day before any primary election, it appears to the Secretary of State, as a result of examining and totaling the statement of voters and their political affiliations transmitted to him or her by the county elections officials, that voters equal in number to at least 1 percent of the entire vote of the state at the last preceding gubernatorial election have declared their intention to affiliate with that party.
That seems to almost require state level support to run for a non-state level office doest it? Or am I reading it wrong?
X2 I don't know, in a big enough state 1-5% of the population is a fair number of people.
edited 8th Jun '16 9:54:11 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.” ~ CyranCalifornia's Senate race is between two Democrats thanks to the runoff system - one election with all candidates which is the primary and then the actual election between the top two vote getters of that primary. It has nothing to do with ballot access.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanBut then why is the main (all candidate) California election held before all other elections? Shouldn't you hold the regular (all candidate) election at the same time as the others and the run off after? Not the regular election early and the run off when the regular elections are?
edited 8th Jun '16 9:54:51 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.” ~ CyranI think that where the sexism, unconscious or otherwise comes in, is in the degree to which people are prepared to buy that the system must be rigged for Clinton to have beaten Sanders.
I can't help but feel shades of Trump et al's accusations about how Obama must have cheated at university, with the subtext being "no black guy could do better at college than me." I get the same vibe here—"I'm the white, male candidate. How did I lose to a woman? System must be rigged."
Ahh I see it now, I was assuming that it worked like the French system, where in the unlikely event that one candidate got 51% on the first round you didn't hold a second one, but apparently you still do.
So it's not a two round election, it's an election where there are two winners, who then are allowed to contest another election.
What's the logic behind it? If you want to cull extra candidates why not do a two round system? Or AV or a similar one round but votes can be shifted system? Why require someone to win an election just to contest an election?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranBecause we have 2 major parties. Each party send a champion to win the White House. The primary is to choose the party champion (or not if the champion is already decided, see 2012). The general is where the two parties (plus a few small fries) butt heads.
Non Indicative UsernameIt should be noted that California's senate primary system (that allows two candidates identifying with the same party in the general) is very much the exception - it's listed in wikipedia as a nonpartisan blanket primary, or more succinctly a "jungle primary"
. The most notable usage is in Louisiana.
![]()
I'm not talking about the presidential race, a private individual can still run in the presidential race if they want and meet the requirements. However that's not true for all states.
I get that it's not the norm, I'm just curious as to the logic behind it.
He has pushed the party leftwards, I'd say. Hillary has made some policy concessions that were probably prompted by his run. And romour has it DWS has dropped her support for payday lenders, possibly because of that high profile primary challenge.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Clinton was First Lady. She had quite literally no say in what went into the bill. She couldn't attach caveats if she wanted to.
I get tired of seeing Sanders supporters attack Clinton (and Obama and pick your not-left enough Democrat) for stuff Sanders himself has done. I think my favourite remains attacking Obama for not closing Guantanamo when Sanders himself voted to make closing it impossible.
EDIT: I have to concur with this
. And I'll ask the thread—if Clinton was a man, do you really think Sanders would still be hanging in there?
edited 8th Jun '16 9:03:37 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar