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

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#153301: Nov 10th 2016 at 10:39:37 AM

[up][up] Problem is, they have a lot more practice under their belts. Fighting fire with fire probably isn't gonna work.

[up] It is extremely sad that the best hope we've got is that he accomplishes as little as possible.

edited 10th Nov '16 10:40:29 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#153302: Nov 10th 2016 at 10:40:15 AM

A paper Kriger posted a little while back posited that Trump's policies will be made a bit more mild by the GOP in practice but the consequences will still be horrendous.

carbon-mantis Collector Of Fine Oddities from Trumpland Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Married to my murderer
Collector Of Fine Oddities
#153303: Nov 10th 2016 at 10:40:31 AM

Honestly given how poisonous the "socialist" label still is here I think Sanders would have been in for a rough time.

edited 10th Nov '16 10:40:37 AM by carbon-mantis

nightwyrm_zero Since: Apr, 2010
#153304: Nov 10th 2016 at 10:40:40 AM

It's easy to say that they may gain X voting bloc if they ran Sandars instead. It's much harder to predict which voting bloc Y they might've lost if they hadn't ran Clinton.

TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#153305: Nov 10th 2016 at 10:40:52 AM

I just hope the Democrats don't succumb to voter apathy again in the midterms. Voter turnout for the Dems was at an all time low this election.

Voter apathy among Democrats may not matter in 2018. Obviously all of the House will be up for election, but many of the senators up for reelection will be Democrats in red/purple states. (9 such senators, if I'm remembering it right and the news story had their facts straight.)

That's a big chance for Republicans to expand their power base. Especially with Supreme Court appointments.

The American Left shot itself in the foot in ways that it will be feeling for a generation, or longer. Jackson era appointees from the 1820s meant to ok Jackson's treatment of the Cherokee later helped decide the infamous Dred Scott case in the 1850s. How long do you think we'll feel the effects of Trump/Pence appointees?

But hey, it's all ok because Trump will accelerate the fall, right? Yeah, accelerationists have no idea how long they've delayed the arrival of the country they want the US to be. At 36, it's entirely likely that I will never see the country I've been arguing and fighting for over the course of the last 17 years or so. If I do, I'll be an old man when it comes.

So fuck them, and fuck the 46.9% of eligible voters who didn't vote on Tuesday. You done fucked up, and most of them will probably never even accept your responsibility for the damage that will be done in the years to come.

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
Stormtroper from Little Venice Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: I-It's not like I like you, or anything!
#153306: Nov 10th 2016 at 10:40:54 AM

Post-fact politics is about as old as politics, this is only one more case where it's noticeable.

And that's how I ended up in the wardrobe. It Just Bugs Me!
EpicBleye drunk bunny from her bed being very eepy Since: Sep, 2014 Relationship Status: In Lesbians with you
drunk bunny
#153307: Nov 10th 2016 at 10:41:29 AM

I've seen a couple posts that more-or-less Bernie rated better among all the demographics that Hillary needed to win- and that Bernie was the one person that wouldn't have fallen into the pitfalls that Trump had set up for any professional candidate (ie attacking the base whenever he attacked the person)

However, the DNC ripped Bernie to shreds and Hillary was too proud to concede any of her ideas to let Bernie be VP, which ultimately led to a Trump victory (as the only thing that would've have beaten an anti-fundamentalist was another anti-fundamentalist).

"There's not a girl alive who wouldn't be happy being called cute." ~Tamamo-no-Mae
AngelusNox Warder of the damned from The guard of the gates of oblivion Since: Dec, 2014 Relationship Status: Married to the job
Warder of the damned
#153308: Nov 10th 2016 at 10:41:43 AM

The problem with people being worried with economic security being a concern is how it is easily hijacked by phony rhetoric, like I promise more jobs! I promise so much growth everyone gonna be rich! I promise so many tax cuts everyone will be wealthier! I promise to pay the debt!

He has a plan, it is a great plan everyone who heard it thinks it is a great plan. What is the plan? He is not telling because it is too great, it will make things great again believe me, OK?

When objectively you can deconstruct those policies and show how they aren't going to work.

It wasn't lack of information, there wasn't a lack of economists saying that Trump's tax cuts would put the government in the red and how the tax cut trickle down economy isn't going to make the money flow downwards in the form of new business and jobs, neither will make the companies outsourcing jobs make them move them back to the US. Neither how was playing all the debt either something desirable for the US economy, achievable along the tax cuts and how the debt wasn't a big problem at all.

But the public didn't want to hear that, they heard jobs and lower taxes and though that was enough for economic policy.

edited 10th Nov '16 10:42:31 AM by AngelusNox

Inter arma enim silent leges
xanderiskander Since: Mar, 2012
#153309: Nov 10th 2016 at 10:41:59 AM

What do you guys think of the claims that if Sanders had gotten the nomination he would've crushed Trump? Sounds like a heap of wishful thinking from brogressives to me, but I'm not as informed on US ploitics as I could be.
The washington post thinks he would have.

Clinton's problem was voter turn out. Sanders would have had the enthusiasm behind him to get the voter turn out. It would have actually been a better successor to Obama, because they're campaign strategies were very similar. And he definitely would have gotten a lot of states that Clinton lost in the general.

The only reason he lost California is the local news there announced Hillary Clinton had basically already won a day before the primary, despite the fact that he was consistently expected to win there, everywhere else. Then people gave up early, and didn't bother voting. Which is pretty stupid of them sure, but it was pretty dirty to do that before an election.

We'll never know for sure, because he didn't get that chance, but I'm pretty confident he would have had the momentum to do it.

edited 10th Nov '16 10:44:30 AM by xanderiskander

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#153310: Nov 10th 2016 at 10:43:54 AM

What, he wasn't expected to win Cali. All the pollsters had Clinton with a significant edge.

The deplorables are already at work:

https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#153311: Nov 10th 2016 at 10:47:44 AM

[up][up]I don't think it was the only reason he lost California (and I still voted for him), but it does tie into the issue that the Democrat party brass was against him. If he won the primary anyways, I think he would have had what it would take to win the general.

However, that raises entirely new issues. Especially considering one of the most important aspects of an election: money. A lot of corporate interests lined up behind Clinton because she was a better investment. Republicans are usually the go-to, but with a risky candidate, someone playing it safe would be a logical choice.

If the Democratic candidate was a socialist, the direction of campaign funding could have ended up looking very different.

edited 10th Nov '16 10:49:22 AM by Eschaton

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#153312: Nov 10th 2016 at 10:52:14 AM

Sanders would not have won. What he would have gained in the rust belt he would have lost among minorities who felt he was more than a little apathetic to race issues. And again, there still exists a significant taboo on socialism outside of the democratic party. Independents would have broken for Trump.

Ultimately, this is what happens when you don't have a deep bench of viable people to contest the election with at the primary phase. It was Clinton, Sanders, and then the three stooges. Democrats need to start taking down ballots more seriously so they can have a wider field to choose from, among the aforementioned advantages of paying attention to those races.

Pseudopartition Screaming Into The Void from The Cretaeceous Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
Screaming Into The Void
#153313: Nov 10th 2016 at 10:58:25 AM

If Trump actually does what he's said he will, the economic consequences will be so disastrous that there will be little chance of him winning reelection.
Okay, but if he blames the Obama administration for all of that, won't people just believe him? This election has already established that people are willing to ignore a whole range of facts.

xanderiskander Since: Mar, 2012
#153314: Nov 10th 2016 at 10:58:31 AM

[up][up]I don't know where you got that from. Minorities, and the LGBT were a huge focus point at his rallies. People offered to speak in ads for him to show support BECAUSE he supported those issues, and did. One of the ads I remember most is a black woman who spoke in support of him, because of police brutality. I'm not really sure how much more support he could have shown. And anyway that particular issue didn't draw the turnout needed to save Clinton.

edited 10th Nov '16 11:03:20 AM by xanderiskander

Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#153315: Nov 10th 2016 at 11:01:31 AM

Okay, but if he blames the Obama administration for all of that, won't people just believe him? This election has already established that people are willing to ignore a whole range of facts.

I'm sure some people have bought into Trump's Kool-Aid no matter what. The deplorables don't really give a shit about anything else but sticking it to minorities.

But people broadly speaking have a habit of blaming whoever's in charge at the time no matter what. I can say "it's someone else's fault", but people are more liable to blame me for not being able to fix it if I'm the one in charge, especially if I said I would. Even if he says that it's the other administration's fault it still makes the current government look ineffective if they couldn't keep their promises.

I would not be surprised to see Trump re-elected. The fact that he even got this far says some profoundly unsettling things about the american people at large. But that's why we need someone with every advantage possible in 2020. The incumbent usually has a bigger advantage in most situations as I understand it.

edited 10th Nov '16 11:04:00 AM by Draghinazzo

AngelusNox Warder of the damned from The guard of the gates of oblivion Since: Dec, 2014 Relationship Status: Married to the job
Warder of the damned
#153316: Nov 10th 2016 at 11:01:55 AM

[up][up][up]He has a Republican House of Representatives and a Republican Senate, he got no excuse.

Look at the face of a man thinking: what did I get myself into?

edited 10th Nov '16 11:02:07 AM by AngelusNox

Inter arma enim silent leges
YamiVizziniX Since: Jan, 2015 Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
#153317: Nov 10th 2016 at 11:04:52 AM

I took after others' example and bugged out of the thread to let myself calm down, but then I came across this and thought it might be good for a laugh. It's good to know some minds still remain active.

There is no beginning. There is no end. There is only... Hooty.
Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#153318: Nov 10th 2016 at 11:05:21 AM

Also while it's important to examine Sanders' popularity in the midwest and the causes for that I would rather have it be in the context of how we can channel that popularity in the future. Being too stuck on what-ifs is not productive.

megarockman from The Sixth Borough (Experienced Trainee)
#153319: Nov 10th 2016 at 11:05:38 AM

The GOP might still be able to claim "obstructionist Democrats" if Senate Dems filibuster a civil-right-odius bill that also has something related to economic growth (however dubious the benefits would be).

edited 10th Nov '16 11:06:36 AM by megarockman

The damned queen and the relentless knight.
Izeinsummer Since: Jun, 2013
#153320: Nov 10th 2016 at 11:06:18 AM

[up][up] [up][up][up]No. People never buy that. They always blame the current incumbent for what happens in that term no matter if it is true or not. Honestly, I figure the main reason Clinton lost is ultimately that Obama treated wallstreet way too gently. And the 20 year smear campaign.

edited 10th Nov '16 11:06:53 AM by Izeinsummer

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#153321: Nov 10th 2016 at 11:07:17 AM

Sanders would not have won. What he would have gained in the rust belt he would have lost among minorities who felt he was more than a little apathetic to race issues. And again, there still exists a significant taboo on socialism outside of the democratic party. Independents would have broken for Trump. Ultimately, this is what happens when you don't have a deep bench of viable people to contest the election with at the primary phase. It was Clinton, Sanders, and then the three stooges. Democrats need to start taking down ballots more seriously so they can have a wider field to choose from, among the aforementioned advantages of paying attention to those races.

Not really. Bernie was pretty popular with millenial minorties and it's very unlikely that the same people who voted for Hillary would vote for Trump instead of Bernie. And Bernie was extremely popular with independents but those same independents couldn't vote in a lot of states for him because it was a democratic primary.

And Bernie's rural voters were always going to go to Trump if he didn't make it because Hillary wasn't courting them.

(Also people have become desensitized to socialism scares. They've been calling Obama a socialist for years.)

Like I've said before. Bernie had a movement going for him that could've equalled Trump's and surpassed it. Hillary didn't. Way too many people who voted for Hillary because they didn't want Trump and felt that she was the lesser "evil".

edited 10th Nov '16 11:09:09 AM by MadSkillz

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#153322: Nov 10th 2016 at 11:09:56 AM

I believe it was the author of Art of the Deal who had to get to know Trump to write it, who said that Trump didn't truly want to win, that his real dream scenario would be to lose by one electoral vote or .1% of the popular vote, so that he could claim that it was rigged and he's the rightful winner and President forever, without having to actually be President.

lmao

Krieger22 Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018 from Malaysia Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: I'm in love with my car
Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018
#153323: Nov 10th 2016 at 11:11:21 AM

Yet Another Clinton Run: Two words: Clinton Cash. If the fucking conspiracy theories are evidently thick enough that the sort of garbage I'd expect to find in the Malay Literature section of my local bookstore (which actually stocks The International Jew) manages to gain traction in deep state apparatuses, "find someone else" is kind of a good idea. That came out partway through Hillary's campaigning. Letting a redux come out the very second another Clinton run is announced will effectively guarantee a stillborn Dem run.

Sanders: It is too late to wash your hands of a candidate after they lose.

Republican response to nothing working as intended: Given the amount of projection the GOP runs on? They'll just find some random blue haired girl to blame if not "embedded Democrat saboteurs".

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
xanderiskander Since: Mar, 2012
#153324: Nov 10th 2016 at 11:12:34 AM

That and Bernie's crowds were huge. Sometimes up to 100,000 people. Hillary barely got a few hundred at most events.

But I agree, that we can't focus so much on what-ifs. TBH I'd rather have a younger candidate that emulates a lot of Sander's ideas plus the anti-monopoly ideas that we lost with the "Water Gate babies". We need some new blood. Probably someone from the Our Revolution and the brand new congress movements. But we also need someone who speaks with passion, and will use anecdotes to illustrate his points instead of a fact quoting robot.

edited 10th Nov '16 11:15:53 AM by xanderiskander

Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#153325: Nov 10th 2016 at 11:16:37 AM

That's what I'm saying. Whoever the Dems get lined up will need to be an excellent orator who will be able to motivate many people.

I'm so paranoid that I would honestly think more long term and consider who might run in 2024 as well because I've lost so much faith that I can buy Trump winning again. We can't take anything for granted.


Total posts: 417,856
Top