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

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#125226: Jun 8th 2016 at 8:50:45 AM

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

TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#125227: Jun 8th 2016 at 9:07:37 AM

More to the point, if Sanders was a woman, he wouldn't have even gotten off the ground.

Unless someone thinks a 74 year old, white independent woman from Vermont who calls herself a socialist would've gotten mainstream democratic support by being anti-establishment

New Survey coming this weekend!
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#125228: Jun 8th 2016 at 9:10:25 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 Feynman
flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#125229: Jun 8th 2016 at 9:11:34 AM

I never get the anti-establishment thing. Aren't you voting those guys to become the establishment?

Non Indicative Username
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#125230: Jun 8th 2016 at 9:13:05 AM

"Establishment" is frequently used as a slur against politicians which are perceived to be too "regular" or some other arbitrary inclusion criteria.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
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
#125231: Jun 8th 2016 at 9:19:32 AM

They do.

Then why are they running a presidential candidate?

It's not like ballot restrictions are uncommon or undemocratic. They're simply required to be practical. Otherwise you get hundreds of random people running just for the heck of it.

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 Clinton was a man, do you really think Sanders would still be hanging in there?

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.

More to the point, if Sanders was a woman, he wouldn't have even gotten off the ground.

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.” ~ Cyran
megarockman from The Sixth Borough (Experienced Trainee)
#125232: Jun 8th 2016 at 9:30:21 AM

The two-party thing is not a hard-coded cap - it's effectively two party because the bar is set pretty damn high.

edited 8th Jun '16 9:30:31 AM by megarockman

The damned queen and the relentless knight.
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#125233: Jun 8th 2016 at 9:32:32 AM

I'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 19:34
Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#125234: Jun 8th 2016 at 9:33:24 AM

Well, 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.

flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#125235: Jun 8th 2016 at 9:34:50 AM

Yeah it's more of a delusion of grandeur than misogyny.

Non Indicative Username
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#125236: Jun 8th 2016 at 9:36:02 AM

[I]t'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.
This, mainly. "Ze seestem, she be broke! Anyone who eez part of ze seestem ees corrupted! Vee arr zee true saviors!"

edited 8th Jun '16 9:36:26 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#125237: Jun 8th 2016 at 9:48:06 AM

People definitely game the ballot system, but the effect is usually so marginal as to not matter, in general the only people restricted are very niche or crackpots (or both).

flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#125238: Jun 8th 2016 at 9:48:07 AM

Avast! Me laddies. We be plunderin' ze White House.

edited 8th Jun '16 9:48:40 AM by flameboy21th

Non Indicative Username
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
#125239: Jun 8th 2016 at 9:50:51 AM

[up]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;
or
  • 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?

[up]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.” ~ Cyran
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#125240: Jun 8th 2016 at 9:52:22 AM

California'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 Feynman
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
#125241: Jun 8th 2016 at 9:53:56 AM

But 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.” ~ Cyran
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#125242: Jun 8th 2016 at 9:58:18 AM

I 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."

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#125243: Jun 8th 2016 at 9:59:56 AM

Because it is not the "main" election, it is a primary. The main election is in November.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
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
#125244: Jun 8th 2016 at 10:18:19 AM

[up] 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.” ~ Cyran
flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#125245: Jun 8th 2016 at 10:25:19 AM

Because 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 Username
megarockman from The Sixth Borough (Experienced Trainee)
#125246: Jun 8th 2016 at 10:31:26 AM

It 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.

The damned queen and the relentless knight.
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
#125247: Jun 8th 2016 at 10:52:15 AM

[up][up] 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.

[up] I get that it's not the norm, I'm just curious as to the logic behind it.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#125248: Jun 8th 2016 at 10:55:18 AM

So, opinions of Sanders as a person aside, do you think he accomplished anything with his run? Like, it does say something that he was able to get this far. Think things might have been made a little more left with his run or is it too early to tell?

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#125249: Jun 8th 2016 at 11:01:03 AM

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
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#125250: Jun 8th 2016 at 11:02:40 AM

I'm not sure pushing the party "leftward" is a inherently a good thing. Just because a policy is generally "liberal" or "Progressive" doesn't necessarily mean it can work in reality.

New Survey coming this weekend!

Total posts: 417,856
Top