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

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
#139301: Sep 20th 2016 at 12:59:34 PM

538 put out out their Senate predictions, they give the Dems a 58% chance of taking control of the Senate.[1]

[up] 538 actually have Clinton behind basically across the board, though they still have her winning. Things may however change one more recent polls filter though. [2]

edited 20th Sep '16 1:09:10 PM 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
AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#139302: Sep 20th 2016 at 1:01:53 PM

Did he really use the phrase "Israeli science"? Holy shit my sides.

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#139303: Sep 20th 2016 at 1:02:36 PM

she actually could have won political points by going, "Hey everyone, totally being upfront here, I have pneumonia and that incident at the 9/11 rally happened 'cause I consider it more important to serve the American people than to get the bed-rest my doctor advised."
I don't actually buy that. The story would have been "Clinton admits illness; how much worse is it really than she's saying?", because Trump and the media have successfully branded Clinton as secretive and untrustworthy, so you have to mine everything she says to get the "real message" from it.

Basically, nothing Clinton ever does can be allowed to be considered a smart move on her part. She's dishonest and shady, so you have to find the way to make her every action reflect that, or else you don't make headlines.

Her best bet in the debates is going to be highlighting this double standard as much as possible. She's released her tax returns, Trump has not. She's released her medical records, Trump has not. The Clinton Foundation is highly rated by independent charity watchdogs, the Trump Foundation is not. If you look at apples to apples with the two candidates, there's no comparison — but the standard set for Trump is much, much lower.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#139304: Sep 20th 2016 at 1:02:45 PM

[up][up][up]Excellent news.

Turns out of that the guy who took the Skittles picture that Trump Jr used to demonize refugees is a refugee himself (specifically, he's a Greek-Cypriot, now a British citizen). He's a little bit pissed.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37421886

edited 20th Sep '16 1:03:07 PM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
SpookyMask Since: Jan, 2011
#139305: Sep 20th 2016 at 1:05:14 PM

I have to note, I'm pretty scared about your election situation :'D Hopefully it ends up somehow magically good in long run if worst happens.

LordofLore Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Consider his love an honor
#139306: Sep 20th 2016 at 1:11:10 PM

Don't know what thread this should go in. Tl;dr Two major comic companies are putting out a comic to honor and benefit the Orlando victims.

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#139307: Sep 20th 2016 at 1:13:53 PM

Colbert really checked the kid gloves at the desk, huh? Usually he tries to be polite and subtle, but this time he just stopped giving a shit.

Israeli science [lol][lol]

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#139308: Sep 20th 2016 at 1:40:36 PM

58%? Oi. Far too little. Especially given the 2018 map.

"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
#139309: Sep 20th 2016 at 2:01:07 PM

That includes the change of a 50-50 split with a Democrat VP.

Still Clinton is currently doing badly in the polls according to 538, so assuming she sees a bounce and returns to a strong lead than the Senate Dems should also see a bounce.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#139310: Sep 20th 2016 at 2:12:12 PM

[up] That's a fairly big assumption. The current electoral map is very similar to the one put forward by 538's "polls plus" model, which tries to take into account fundamentals (the economy in particular)

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
#139311: Sep 20th 2016 at 2:14:59 PM

They also have a percentage change where there's a 50-50 split and a Republican VP, that's included in the Republican 42% change of controlling the Senate.

So there's no assumptions being made.

edited 20th Sep '16 2:15:14 PM 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
Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#139312: Sep 20th 2016 at 2:15:34 PM

we need 5 to overturn the senate, and we have those 5 more or less on lock: New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana after an ex-Senator (Dem) made a surprise move to try and return to his seat (being an ex-senator coming in with all the incumbent gravitas).

Possible pickups include Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina. Unlikely but plausible pickups include Arizona, Missouri, and Iowa. A grand-slam home-run would be an 11-seat gain for the Democrats which would put it 57-43 in their favor and give them at least a chance of surviving 2018, where they'll lose a bit of that.

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
#139313: Sep 20th 2016 at 2:27:34 PM

Thing is the current Polls-Only method has the Dems loosing Nevada and failing to pick up New Hampshire, now the Now-Cast and Poll-Plus methods have the Dems doing as you say, but it's a thin margin that is being ridden.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Perian Since: Jun, 2016
#139314: Sep 20th 2016 at 3:19:52 PM

So even if we elect a complete madman, they won't be able to instantly turn the entire country to shit, because of checks and balances in the government. It behooves the parties to make sure that they don't nominate a madman in the first place, though. Primaries, by their very nature, are easier to game than general elections are. Because they're a smaller voting pool to begin with, and turnout tends to be lower even among those eligible to participate, the vocal minority becomes louder. Superdelegates act as a buffer against this effect.

So if I understand you correctly, you're arguing that the superdelegates should exist as some sort of 'final measure' in case the Democratic electorate nominates a madman such as Trump, right? So if Sanders had won the pledged delegates, with, say, a 51% to 49% margin (or even 50.01% to 49.99%), but the superdelegates had given the nomination to Clinton, you would be opposed to this decision?

This is not how the superdelegate system currently works though - otherwise there would have been no point in asking the superdelegates before the primaries had started who they were going to support. And there's no way to prevent the superdelegate system from being abused to prevent a candidate such as Sanders from getting the nomination (15% of all delegates is still a lot) - unless you assume that the Democratic Party always knows what's best for the American people.

Anyway, even if the Democrats would ever nominate a Trump-like candidate, what is exactly the problem? It is not as if a party's nominee is in a position of power, they first have to win the general election, and the Democrats could always send an independent candidate if they want. If the majority of the Democratic electorate preferred a Trump-like candidate, the party would have a bigger problem that cannot just easily be solved by nominating a different person through superdelegates anyway. (Also, opening the primaries to more voters, such as independents, would solve the 'vocal minority' problem in a more democratic way).

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#139315: Sep 20th 2016 at 3:22:43 PM

[up]I mean, that was the situation in 2008, and it apparently wasn't nearly as big a deal. But Clinton was the one who lost out there, so that probably has something to do with it.

edited 20th Sep '16 3:30:13 PM by LSBK

pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#139316: Sep 20th 2016 at 3:27:55 PM

Evidently, the NRA did not take my letter of resignation seriously, since I just received the latest issue of American Rifleman. One of this month's features is an interview with Donald Trump, and his (current) stance in regard to the Second Amendment.

Unsurprisingly, the interview reads like it was heavily scripted, and doesn't ask any hard questions — like why Trump supported the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, and why he's apparently flip-flopped on that issue now. The interviewer merely suggests that Trump's position has "evolved," and Trump gushingly agrees.

Seriously, why should I believe anything that's printed in this rag anymore? Especially the usual "Hillary and dem Liberulz wanna take away yer gunz" propaganda.

edited 20th Sep '16 3:44:49 PM by pwiegle

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
Perian Since: Jun, 2016
#139317: Sep 20th 2016 at 3:36:09 PM

[up][up] Obama clearly won pledged delegates, and probably also had more voters (since caucus states are not included in the released voter numbers).

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#139318: Sep 20th 2016 at 3:43:25 PM

[up]Source for that because it doesn't sound right.

But on a different note, if the person got more votes, why is the other person winning because they got more pledged delegates somehow better than if the won with super delegates? If your real concern is "will of the people" I'm not sure why the distinction should matter that much.

edited 20th Sep '16 3:44:00 PM by LSBK

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
#139319: Sep 20th 2016 at 3:57:22 PM

To quote wikipedia "Although Obama led Clinton in delegates won through state contests, Clinton led in the popular vote as she had more actual votes from the state contests.[2] However, this calculation could not include many states that had held caucuses, which Obama had dominated, and it did include Florida, which neither Clinton nor Obama contested, and Michigan, where Obama withdraw from the ballot yet Clinton did not, due to the Democratic National Committee's penalizing of those two states for violating party rules."

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Perian Since: Jun, 2016
#139320: Sep 20th 2016 at 4:03:56 PM

[up][up] Apparently, not all caucus states (only Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington, all four of which Obama won though). Anyway, look here for the issues with the statement that Clinton had won the popular vote; And the difference is of course that pledged delegates are allocated democratically while superdelegates are allocated oligarchically.

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
#139321: Sep 20th 2016 at 4:10:31 PM

Hell simply taking away the extra votes Clinton got from Michigan (where Obama got 0 votes due to withdrawing like Clinton was meant to also do) is enough to give Obama the popular vote.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#139322: Sep 20th 2016 at 4:12:54 PM

Former President Bush has apparently confirmed that he will vote for Clinton.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/20/politics/george-hw-bush-hillary-clinton/index.html

Hoo boy...

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#139324: Sep 20th 2016 at 4:26:10 PM

So if I understand you correctly, you're arguing that the superdelegates should exist as some sort of 'final measure' in case the Democratic electorate nominates a madman such as Trump, right?
I'm saying that it acts as a brake against the problem of direct democracy (tyranny of the majority, mob rule, etc) and that this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I see people talking about getting rid of superdelegates (or the electoral college, in the general election) in favor of something "more democratic", as if this is axiomatically a positive development. I'm pointing out that systems exist between voters and the expression of power for good reason. It's a balancing act — too little voter involvement and your system becomes authoritarian, too much voter involvement and you run into the problem of placing the nuclear launch codes in the hands of the masses.

So if Sanders had won the pledged delegates, with, say, a 51% to 49% margin (or even 50.01% to 49.99%), but the superdelegates had given the nomination to Clinton, you would be opposed to this decision?
If there's a disconnect between the popular vote and the election results, then that's a sign of a problem somewhere in the system — but doesn't necessarily mean that the election results are wrong or illegitimate. The question then becomes "why are the superdelegates voting against the rank and file party members?". There could be very legitimate reasons for that answer — the superdelegates think that Clinton would make a better president because her goals are more achievable, while the voters went for Sanders because he made promises they like better, for instance. Of course, it's also possible for there to be bullshit reasons for that disconnect as well — Clinton promised superdelegates that vote for her cushy posts in her administration, for instance.

Personally, I think that the party establishment deserves some say in who the party nominates, since the party establishment is who are going to have to rally behind the nominee. I don't think that their preference should completely overrule voter preference, but I don't think it should be completely irrelevant, either. Superdelegates being 15% of the result (with pledged delegates being the remaining 85%) seems like a fair ratio to me.

Or in other words, no, I wouldn't be opposed to a situation where the superdelegates ultimately determined the outcome of a primary with a very close popular vote.

This is not how the superdelegate system currently works though - otherwise there would have been no point in asking the superdelegates before the primaries had started who they were going to support. And there's no way to prevent the superdelegate system from being abused to prevent a candidate such as Sanders from getting the nomination (15% of all delegates is still a lot) - unless you assume that the Democratic Party always knows what's best for the American people.
You're conflating several different issues here, so I'm going to take a minute to unpack them and address them separately.

Does the Democratic Party "always know what's best for the American people"? No, of course not. But 1) with the primary, they're not choosing for "the American people", they're choosing for the Democratic party (ie, who the Democrats will send to the general election) and as I mentioned above, I think the party apparatus deserves some say in the candidate that that apparatus will be supporting. 2) Because it's a relatively small portion of the delegate count, it's not really "choosing for the Democratic party" as it is "playing tiebreaker when the voters can't make up their mind". If voters overwhelmingly pick one candidate, the superdelegates won't be able to overturn that.

On the subject of the superdelegate system being subject to "abuse" to prevent a candidate like Sanders from getting the nomination — I'm honestly not sure what you mean by that. Sanders lost by literally every way you can look at the race; superdelegates had nothing to do with it. He lost by nationwide popular vote, he lost by number of pledged delegates, he lost by number of states won — he just lost. What do superdelegates even have to do with it, except inasmuch as he could have theoretically won by convincing most of the superdelegates to vote for him instead of Clinton (which appears to be the exact thing you have a problem with)?

Regarding the point of asking superdelegates who they support, what's wrong with that? If you're suggesting that it causes problems because it makes it seem like one candidate has a lead over another early on in the process, then the whole staggered primary schedule is a much bigger problem to worry about. Superdelegates are a drop in the bucket compared to the late primaries being rendered pointless by the early primaries as far as that goes. Besides, superdelegates — unlike pledged delegates — can change their mind. If halfway through the primary race, it turns out that one candidate is a terrible person who hates freedom and enjoys making babies cry for fun, then the superdelegates can say "well, that doesn't sound like a very good candidate, I'm going to vote for the other guy", while everyone who voted for them in all the states that already held their primary is SOL.

Anyway, even if the Democrats would ever nominate a Trump-like candidate, what is exactly the problem? It is not as if a party's nominee is in a position of power, they first have to win the general election, and the Democrats could always send an independent candidate if they want. If the majority of the Democratic electorate preferred a Trump-like candidate, the party would have a bigger problem that cannot just easily be solved by nominating a different person through superdelegates anyway. (Also, opening the primaries to more voters, such as independents, would solve the 'vocal minority' problem in a more democratic way).
Hey look, there's the "more democratic" thing!

Anyway, the problem is that someone like Trump becoming the presidential nominee from a major political party is not only bad for that party, it's bad for the entire country. The GOP establishment bent over backwards to try and keep Trump out because they knew it would be a disaster for everyone involved. They couldn't do it, because their primary system didn't allow for it.

Had the Republicans been operating on a primary system with superdelegates, who knows? Maybe a less-disastrous candidate would have gotten the nomination. Or maybe Trump really had that much popular support and would have won despite superdelegates. But it seems like insanity to me that the Democrats would see what happened to the Republicans and say "yeah, superdelegates are definitely a bad idea, we should get rid of them".

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Mio Since: Jan, 2001
#139325: Sep 20th 2016 at 4:54:07 PM

[up]The real problem with the Republican primary was the crowded field. Superdelegates would not have fixed that, and using them to supplant Trump would give the Democrats free ammo to use against the hypothetical Republican candidate chosen by the party and Trump a free shoot to run a Republican ruining third party ticket. It really would not have been worth it.


Total posts: 417,856
Top