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
Of course you might indeed trust that metaphorical brother—I'm sure many would. But would everyone?
Those are the people I'm talking about.
I know the truth—darkness beats light. Visit my DA: I'll share my secrets stories with you.My counter to that is 'if not to Clinton's successor, where would those votes go?' He would have to remarkably bad for the answer to be 'to Trump', and the threshold that would force them to vote for a third party isn't much higher. I feel like the only reasonable scenario where this leads to Trump winning is if Clinton's supporters just don't vote at all, but I wouldn't call possibility that happening overwhelming. Certainly not a 'no doubt' situation like you were selling it as.
To take your metaphor: If you trust me, and I die, who would you rather trust: My sister, who I vouched for and asks you do to something because it's what I would've wanted, or a guy I hated whose currently dancing on my grave?
edited 11th Sep '16 10:15:31 PM by Gilphon
Like I said before, those that are voting "against" instead of "for" someone wouldn't have changed their mind either way—almost nothing would.
The election is already decided in those terms for those voters.
edited 11th Sep '16 10:21:08 PM by Nightlikeday
I know the truth—darkness beats light. Visit my DA: I'll share my secrets stories with you.That's not actually relevant to what I was saying. To reiterate and simplify: If Clinton ceased to be an option, why would her supporters choose to vote for Trump instead, given that he probably wouldn't be able prevent himself from coming across as celebrating her death?
edited 11th Sep '16 10:30:43 PM by Gilphon
False dilema: Voting for a third candidate, or not voting at all are also choices.Whatever vote that doesn't go to Trump's real opponent benefits him.
Are you saying that a 100% of people that would've voted for Hillary would vote for her, hypothetical, successor? I don't think so.
Slightly off topic: I'm quite fascinated to how much disagreement and discussion a simple comment of mine got.
edited 11th Sep '16 10:38:31 PM by Nightlikeday
I know the truth—darkness beats light. Visit my DA: I'll share my secrets stories with you.~50% of Hillary supporters are guaranteed to vote for a hypothetical successor because their reason for voting for her is "She is not Trump."
The remaining ~50% would have to weigh the successor against Trump. However, roughly ~50% of Trump's supporters are only voting for him because "He is not Hillary Clinton". Which means those people would also be weighing the successor against Trump.
I think the hypothetical successor would stand to gain more than they lose from this reshuffling of demographics. A surprise late entry wouldn't have the campaign momentum Hillary does, but they also wouldn't have the twenty years of smear campaigning she has against her either. I could easily see Tim Kaine or Bernie Sanders breaking even, if not better.
edited 11th Sep '16 10:45:31 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.It is a false dilemma, because that was simplified version. But as I now have apparently have to reiterate, the third party candidates aren't that much more attractive than Trump, so it's doubtful that would be a significant drain. And while the non-voters might be, that being big enough to hand Trump the win doesn't strike me as a certainty.
![]()
I concede that perhaps it wouldn't be as cut and dry as I initially thought. I still think the difference would be important and even decisive.
We got a point of disagreement, and I see no point in continuing. As a closing statement: I do believe such a difference could potentially sway the election.
edited 11th Sep '16 10:54:09 PM by Nightlikeday
I know the truth—darkness beats light. Visit my DA: I'll share my secrets stories with you.An attempt to persuade the christian voters, no doubt.
I know the truth—darkness beats light. Visit my DA: I'll share my secrets stories with you.Seeing as you have done nothing but panicking, I reckon moving on is better for all of us.
Alabama Pastor to High School Football Crowd: Stand for Anthem or Be Shot
.
edited 11th Sep '16 10:55:34 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotI am not scared. Why are you implying such thing? A healthy debate doesn't equal "panic."
I know the truth—darkness beats light. Visit my DA: I'll share my secrets stories with you.I can agree with that closing statement, but emphasize the 'could potentially' part. Clinton dying would certainly be a painful blow to the democrat's chances- I was just contesting the idea that it would a necessarily fatal one. But since you've already conceded that...
I mean, I'm tempted to say 'let's agree to disagree', but I'm not totally certain we even still disagree, so that might not be the right turn of phrase. Whatever. Argument's over for me, in any case.
edited 11th Sep '16 11:01:25 PM by Gilphon
George Washington got pneumonia while in office and everyone in the government spent weeks terrified that he would die and the country would collapse without him. He lived. If Washington could make a full recovery way back then, I'm pretty sure Clinton will be fine by the time the debates roll around.
That's statistically unlikely. She probably won't die, but recovery times for pneumonia for older adults are generally around 6-8 weeks. The first debate is in 2 weeks, and recovery times for younger adults are oftentimes upwards of 3 weeks; this would be a concern even with a younger candidate.
edited 12th Sep '16 4:31:54 AM by CaptainCapsase
Actually the purpose of a running mate is to make sure that, in the event of a plan B, the people get the party they voted for, since the original structure was to have Vice President as first runner-up. The 12th amendment was to fix the chaos of the 1800 election, basically, though it came a decade or so afterwards.
Aaaaaand Trump is actually responding to this like an ordinary politician.
I'm really not sure whether he's smarter than most people think or just lucky.
edited 12th Sep '16 6:15:31 AM by CaptainCapsase

If I say, "this is my brother, I vouch for him"? I should hope so. Same if I said "this is my roommate's neighbor, I vouch for him." If I trust someone, I generally trust the people they say are trustworthy as well. There are exceptions, sure, like someone who's honest but easy to fool, but in Clinton's case part of what she's trusted to be is good at her job. Which includes being able to identify whether Tim Kaine would be good at her job.