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
Philosophically, I like the idea of a Warren VP pick. I'm just not sure that she'd do more valuable work there than where she currently is.
edited 16th Jun '16 11:56:36 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Obviously. Probably electing a monkey, or a traffic light, would also be better than electing Trump. That doesn't mean anything. People are simply tired of hearing the 'vote for the lesser evil' argument.
About Elizabeth Warren: didn't she refuse to run because she thought that she could do better work in the Senate? If so, ending up in a less meaningful position makes no sense. If Clinton wants to reach out to Sanders voters, maybe she should think about the man himself (of course, I don't know if he wants that)? Apparently that's what a majority of Democrats prefer, I've read (I think 2/3).
edited 16th Jun '16 2:08:33 PM by Perian
Unless I'm mistaken (and it's very possible I am since I researched this post as I wrote it), under this hypothetical Warren wouldn't have to resign her Senate seat until after the general election. And while Massachusetts does currently have a Republican governor, Massachusetts law dictates that a special election is held 145-160 days after the vacancy is created. So Warren leaving the senate doesn't necessarily grant the Republicans an extra senate seat for the long term since anyone he appoints would be overruled in the special election.
Kaine is the safest VP pick, but it's "boring" (though I don't know why people need to be constantly inspired, but, hey, whatever)
Perez is a good pick that doesn't involve taking out a Senate seat.
Booker would be fantastic if A)if Christie wasn't a Republican and an Asshole and B)He has some ties to Wall Street which normally wouldn't be an issue, but considering the far left's reaction to Goldman Sachs, why create a problem when you don't need to?
Warren is an awful pick. She's a good attack dog, but this country isn't ready for a two woman ticket yet, and MA has a GOP governor. Nope.
Castro? LOOOOOL. He can't even speak Spanish and he's ridiculously inexperienced, and doesn't come off as having the intellectual competence or curiosity like Obama to make up for it.
New Survey coming this weekend!Not mistaken. But that still means 145-160 days of Republican senator. Who may just run for the election and may end up having the incumbency advantage. Also, who do you want to run in that special election?
edited 16th Jun '16 12:13:22 PM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThere's always a movement behind picking the runner-up as VP. I have to imagine that the subject came up at the closed-door meeting they had on Tuesday. We still don't know what the subject or outcome of that was, but Sanders is supposed to be making a major webcast announcement tonight, so we may find out.
If I were Clinton, personally, I'd be concerned about Sanders as VP going behind my back. I would view him as something of a rabble-rouser — a person I send out to say the things to people that I can't because I have to remain above the fray.
Because here's the thing... a lot of people don't trust Clinton, but I don't trust Sanders. Not because I think he's intentionally dishonest, but because he's too ideological. There's a saying out there: that the difference between "establishment" and reform politicians is that the former will remain loyal to the people who back them, while the latter will sell out anyone if they think their cause demands it.
Sanders has proven that he's willing to engage in salesmanship tactics for his agenda that downplay the costs and even outright ignore the economic analysis. I'd expect that from a Republican, but not a Democrat. He's demanding reforms that have dubious evidence behind them, such as dissolving big banks, reinstating Glass-Steagall, and rescinding trade agreements. All is not roses over in that camp.
edited 16th Jun '16 12:15:20 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I really don't like not voting for X means voting for Y narrative.
My last elections had a horribly incompetent president which was responsible for creating a huge economic mess to reelect and a politician who had many corruption schemes under his name and no one could really vouch for his reliability. So in the end I voted for none of them.
It doesn't really help anyone's case that not voting for X you're indirectly supporting things like racism, sexism, bigotry and making life more miserable for the poor, because candidate X claims to be fighting against those things and yet doesn't have much to show for.
Not voting Hillary or not voting Toupee means just that one or another have policies that you don't agree with but it also doesn't necessarily means you agree with the other, thus neither of them is vote worthy.
Inter arma enim silent legesThe perfect is the enemy of the good?
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Not voting for one candidate mathematically not equivalent to not voting for someone else per say, no. For example:
If I vote for Candidate A, Candidate B loses my vote and Candidate A Gains it. That means:
A: 1
B: 0
If I don't vote for either candidate:
A: 0
B: 0
If I vote for B:
A: 0
B: 1
As you can see, mathematically speaking, not voting for A is not the same as voting for B.
Leviticus 19:34
x5 I can't even pretend to be familiar enough with Massachusetts politics to know who would be a good replacement.
Heck, this whole time I've been copy/pasting "Massachusetts" into my posts because I can't even spell the state's name properly on the fly.
All I know for sure is that it's being reported that Clinton is looking at Warren, and I feel that Warren would be a decent pick if all we are talking about is balancing the ticket since her opposition to Wall Street is well known and Hillary's connections to Wall Street is a major point of contention within the Democratic party itself.
edited 16th Jun '16 12:25:32 PM by Falrinn
I think that was Robert A. Heinlein.
Keep Rolling OnThose who don't vote are volunteering to be the bad guy no matter how the election goes.
Because, see, if you don't vote for Clinton and Trump wins, then you're part of the problem. Your vote could have helped keep Trump out of office.
And if you don't vote for Trump and Clinton wins, then you're part of the problem. Your vote could have helped keep Clinton out of office.
No matter which side wins, everybody hates you.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Now some sanity from John Mc Cain- Obama is "directly responsible" for the Orlando attack
.
edited 16th Jun '16 12:29:28 PM by Hodor2
@sgamer: I was never intending to vote conservative, and never would in any reasonable situation; I'm probably the furthest left person on this thread, you must be thinking of Protagonist.
I was briefly worried that Clinton might not be able to beat Trump, but the fact that's he's not even trying to pivot to a general election seems to indicate it's going to be the curbstomp we initially assumed it would be.
@Fighteer I think it would be great if Sanders became a major nuisance to her as VP after the election. If attacking her whenever she tries to betray the Democrat party's ideals means that finally some long-needed substantial change can be made, I'd be all for it.
I think Clinton abuses the term 'pragmatic' a lot. Being beholden to special interests is not pragmatic. Being called the 'Amendment King' and working together with the Republicans to get a record of veterans bills passed, this I would call pragmatic.
That's being hyperbolic. I could say the same thing about Clinton claiming that her husband's going to fix the economy again.
EDIT: ![]()
Huh, I thought Mc Cain was one of the reasonable ones?
edited 16th Jun '16 12:36:54 PM by Perian
@Protagonist506 Doesn't that just follow my earlier point that voting for neither changes nothing?
Taken in sequence, your example better follows the one way I do agree with the X means Y logic, you originally planned to view for A, changed your mind, then ultimately voted B. And, really, I think from what I've been seeing we're getting more of that from the other side if the aisle as Republicans who can't support Trump vote Clinton or not at all.
@CaptainCapsase
Ah, my mistake. I thought I'd seen you post leaning conservative then decide you couldn't because of Trump. My apologies for that.
edited 16th Jun '16 12:42:57 PM by sgamer82
@Perian: VP is a largely symbolic position. A cabinet position would be much better, and since the governor of Vermont is a democrat, it wouldn't carry the problems with making Warren VP or giving her a cabinet position.
I wasn't going to vote for Clinton anyway. I'm registered as a democrat largely to cast protest ballots in the primaries. Like it or not, there are indeed some states that are really and truly safe under a given set of demographics, and while I will vote to demonstrate my displeasure with the democrats, voting for Clinton (or any normal democrat) in such districts is he best way to ensure no policy change happens.
edited 16th Jun '16 12:46:02 PM by CaptainCapsase
I also wanted to comment on something- I think that the whole idea of not viewing Clinton as sufficiently progressive/as nothing more than the lesser of two evils has to with priorities/buying into Sanders' own priorities and presentation of himself as the one just and ideologically pure person.
Like if the measure of a progressive is all about lack of big doners, wanting to break up banks and having an isolationist economic and foreign policy (which it pretty much is for Sanders) than yeah, by that measure he's your guy.
But like on abortion rights, pretty much any civil rights issue, and of course gun control, Clinton is as good or better than Sanders (speaking of which, he seems to have been pretty quiet these last few days).
And in terms of the economic side of progressiveism, Clinton is definitely pro-union and has long been against Citizens United. Granted, it's kind of a Right for the Wrong Reasons thing as it has a lot to do with how that decision empowered the kind of right wing attacks on her which she hates.
IIRC, she also has the same or better environmental policy as Sanders.
Tl; dr, Sanders is only "better" than Clinton on a few members and I don't think every Progressive/Democrat is obligated to share Sanders' own preferences on what the most important issues are.
Edit- Didn't see this when I posted-
"@Fighteer I think it would be great if Sanders became a major nuisance to her as VP after the election. If attacking her whenever she tries to betray the Democrat party's ideals means that finally some long-needed substantial change can be made, I'd be all for it."
But yeah, that pretty much proves my point. In no way do Clinton's positions "betray the Democratic party's ideals" unless you are defining those ideals as "having the same policy preferences as Bernie Sanders".
edited 16th Jun '16 12:43:23 PM by Hodor2
@Greenmantle: Yes, that's correct. Nice to have a fellow fan pick up my allusions. Now, Heinlein veered Libertarian, but he was also remarkably canny about how politics works.
Anyway, the logic on "not voting helps the candidate you like least" goes sort of as follows:
When you choose not to vote, you reduce the total vote count in the election. This gives other people's votes more relative weight. Essentially, you're ceding your vote to the people around you. If the people around you support the guy you least want to win, then you have increased the probability bias towards that person.
I'm running for city council against Candidate Jackass. Some people don't like me, either, but think of me as the lesser of two evils. Others aren't so willing to give me the benefit of the doubt. The race is very close.
If 100 people vote, and the count goes 52-48 for me, I win. Each person who voted counted for 1/100 of the total.
If 5 of the people who might have voted for me stay home out of pique, that same count is now 47-48. My opponent wins, despite getting the same number of votes as in the other scenario. Moreover, the people who voted had more proportional say, each counting as 1/95 of the total.
If those same 5 people vote for a protest candidate, it has the same net effect. The vote is 47-48-5, which my opponent still wins, unless the rules of the system force a runoff if there is no clear majority candidate. note Note that, when you consider that the third candidate could not win no matter what, each person who voted for one of the major candidates still contributed, effectively, 1/95 of the total.
That's how FPTP works, and why protest votes are not just pointless, but actually harmful.
edited 16th Jun '16 12:44:13 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Both sides can take their dislike of neutral voters and shove it up that place then.
Politics is more than this binary thinking that being against something makes one automatically in favor of the opposition. I didn't vote for Dilma because I don't like social progress, I didn't vote for her because she proved to be an incompetent president who'd make any sort of maneuver to get votes even if it means dragging the treasury to ruin.
Same thing when people who otherwise don't like Trump don't vote for Hilary, there is enough to consider that makes people unwilling to vote for her over thinking she isn't keeping any promises and is just preaching to the choir so when she comes to turn her back against them or screw up, there will be people who will at least not "share the guilt" because they didn't support her.
Personally I'd easily vote for Hillary, she is the most realistic and mature candidate the Dems can offer, but shaming other people into voting for her even though they aren't voting for Trump either, is just low.
No one is obligated to vote for someone they don't like and "but the other guy is worse" isn't a good defense either. South American politics ran based on that and look at the sinkhole we got ourselves into. Unless a candidate earned the voter's confidence, the voter is in no way obliged to vote for someone they don't like or trust.
edited 16th Jun '16 12:44:16 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges

Apparently there are some reports floating around that Elizabeth Warren is being seriously considered for Clinton's VP pick.
Strictly from a "balancing the ticket" perspective, Elizabeth Warren makes a lot of sense. She is well known for her opposition to Wall Street, while Hillary's connections to Wall Street is a point of contention in the Democratic base, specifically among people who prefer Bernie Sanders.
I've definitely herd the argument that Elizabeth Warren could do more good in the Senate, but I don't think that should be seen as a dealbreaker, though it is something to account for. If nothing else, they will need to find someone to carry on her work in the Senate.
....And on a more petty note, the schadenfreude potential from a double female ticket is epic. There's going to be gold-medal-worthy mental gymnastics going on by some of the more (let's not be dishonest here) misogynistic individuals as they try to rationalize hating on the mere existence of a double female ticket as being anything other than pure misogyny.