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
Only two of those happened in the last century. Based on that I'd say the electoral college is a pretty good metric to pick a president by even if popular vote is the ideal.
So I'm looking at 538's election predictions and they have Clinton at an 87.5% chance of winning. This is the largest lead she's had since they started recording things. For reference she was effectively tied with Trump less than a week and a half ago. Hopefully she can keep this momentum going.
edit: The idea of the polls being skewed was brought up a little while back. A similar thing happened in 2012. Here's an article
on that subject and why it's wrong now just like it was back then.
edited 9th Aug '16 9:32:37 AM by Kostya
![]()
The Now-Cast gives the largest lead for Clinton, but even polls-plus and polls only give Clinton a significant lead.
edited 9th Aug '16 10:12:05 AM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyI Googled it to find out what everyone is talking about, and now I feel physically ill. Why is that a thing. Why.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.There are the reports of him being pro-Taliban to consider. Not sure of the veracity but if true, it becomes Your Approval Fills Me with Shame. And that doesn't get into the general pettiness a lot of Americans have toward relatives of anyone who has done harm.
Doubt this will be a big deal beyond today though. Hil isn't Trump, so she won't allow it to become a thing.
The possibility of a Trump presidency worries the majority of Canadians.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/grenier-uselection-canadians-concerned-1.3713214
Seriously, you guys are starting to scare the shit out of your closest ally and neighbor. Can't imagine how Mexico feels.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Yet another group who read The Prince and skipped over the "avoid hatred" part that comes after "better to be feared than loved".
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.I think language drift has made the essence of that phrase lost — it's about respect. It basically says, "Okay, being loved is great, and if you can manage it, congratulations. But if that's not possible, at least make sure they respect your authority and follow your laws. Just make sure you're not hated, because while people who claim to love you will disrespect your authority if they don't also fear the consequences, people who hate you won't care, and rebel whenever they can."
edited 9th Aug '16 11:52:33 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."edited 9th Aug '16 12:09:53 PM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."Trump said that he's not going to tone it down and act more traditionally presidential, stating that acting the way he has is what got him this far.
Well, enjoy the loss. You earned it.
edited 9th Aug '16 1:12:20 PM by speedyboris
I just received a phone call from a pollster for the NRA. (I have a lifetime membership, but I don't actively participate. These days, it's mostly for the magazine subscription.)
He launched into his spiel about how Hillary wants to ban all guns, etc. I replied that I don't think she actually would, because it would be political suicide. What the anti-gunners say they would like to do, and what they're actually capable of achieving, are often worlds apart.
He repeated the same paranoid propaganda that they print in the magazine every month. I said, "Then what's the alternative? Voting for Trump? Absolutely not!" and hung up on him.
![]()
![]()
Personally, I'm sick and tired of the whole thing. If they want to revoke my membership, they're welcome to do so.

Nate Silver agreed
- the only plausible method for getting enough states to join is by courting solidly Republican states like Utah (all sign-ons have thus far been solid Democrat in presidential elections).
It has happened more times than that: 1824 (though this one was kind of a mess in general with four candidates), 1876, 1888, and 2000.
The damned queen and the relentless knight.