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
I guess it depends on whether the Democratic Party wants to go further left and embrace economic populism (a risky path) or refine their centrist position (worked in the past but hasn't had a good track record recently). America overall is still a pretty conservative country after all.
Still, as long as they go back to something like Dean's Fifty State Strategy, they should be able to do better in the upcoming elections.
edited 22nd Nov '16 6:51:14 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedI believe that the smart move would be only minor changes to the status quo. Trump's base in likely to be less enthusiastic about him two years from now, and given how close the election was, that should be all they need. As far as message goes, anyway. There's a certain amount of 'tactical' stuff they'll have think through carefully, like how to handle the terrible 2018 senate map and what exactly the plan for getting Congress back should be.
Clinton is being urged to request a recount of the vote totals in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Supposedly the White House is resistant to the idea because they want to ensure a smooth transition of power, and the deadline for such an action is approaching within just a few days.
My greatest concern is that the Democratic Party learns the wrong lessons from all of this. Like, say, forsaking minorities to court white people.
I think HRC should request that recount, if only to placate the public urging her to do so. Though I don't blame her for not wanting to seem like Al Gore 2.0 (never mind that the whole mess with Bush-Gore was pretty complicated and Gore was mostly blameless).
edited 22nd Nov '16 6:59:52 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedI doubt they'll go that far, especially if Trump pisses off minorities enough that they smarten up and bother to turn out. They're still an essential bloc.
They might try and revert to a more quiet type of support (like Obama took with the LGBT community, he didn't campaign heavily on their issues but he did bring in positive policies and such).
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.If the Dems don't get their centerist-populist divide at least somewhat patched soon, they're going to be in trouble. I expected this to start happening a few election cycles from now but Clinton's loss accelerated it.
I suspect there's going to have to be some aquisence on both sides or they risk the populist wing spawning their own Tea Party style uprising. (Some of that is my own biases; I don't want to see them swing too far left economically.)
Well IIRC, Ellison basically wants to follow a more "on the ground" system with directly engaging in voters/constituents on the local level (which Schumer does which is likely why he was backed by him.)
Also, based on some preliminary observation, Warren and Sanders unfortunately might have a good point on backing down on 'identity politics':
The sliver of White votes that can swing elections in the US (besides voter suppression), apparently spontaneously generate MAGA/GOP caps when they feel minorities are given too many balances. Either because racism or they view the system as Race Blind and it's unfairly overbalancing to minorities.
So.
[Twirls finger in the air]
![]()
![]()
,
I guess the trick is saying "We care about minorities" without accidentally implying at the same time "We care more about minorities than about you".
As for the Rust Belt, the Dems really need to figure out a way to convince them to accept the reality of their industries' fading relevance and grim future.
edited 22nd Nov '16 7:04:55 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedBingo, but you have to hope that minorities accept (and of course they'd have every right not to accept this message) a party that says "Yes we support you, but we have to keep quiet about it so we can get in and actually do it."
The Dems might need an injection of cold pragmatism. Winning really is all that matters, when you are up against the greatest geopolitical threat to mankind since the Axis. Ideals and platitudes are only valuable when they advance the cause.
edited 22nd Nov '16 7:04:58 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.I want to Hillary to push for those recounts, because even if the recount doesn't happen, or it does and doesn't change the result, it creates a wonderful new twist to the narrative- weakening Trump's legitimacy and claim to any kind of 'electoral mandate' even further, making it politically easier to oppose him.
On the other hand, 'voting machines are hackable' isn't a narrative I want to see become stronger. But on the third hand, that might be a price worth paying for a chance to not have President Trump.
![]()
The Dems should be loud and proud about their support. Ideally, they should also be just as loud when it comes to presenting Rust Belt workers a future beyond coal and steel.
Hey, if that incumbent asshole governor from NC is doing it...
edited 22nd Nov '16 7:08:56 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedThen enjoy waiting 10 to 20 years to take back the Presidency if at all.
As it stands, there's enough White people who will vote Democrat.
But only if it doesn't sound like the Democrats are giving 'perks' to minorities because The System Isn't Broken in their minds.
edited 22nd Nov '16 7:10:58 PM by PotatoesRock
Maybe Michigan but according to Nate Silver and Nate Cohn, it's basically a nothing burger that wouldn't actually achieve different results or much of a different tally. I forget the specifics why from what I was reading.
edited 22nd Nov '16 7:17:49 PM by PotatoesRock
![]()
![]()
In the unlikely (try practically impossible) event that all three went to HRC instead, she wins the election.
And even if that happened, would people accept it?
She'd still lose if only Michigan flipped.
Still, if it turns out one of the those states went to her after all, it would further weaken Trump's mandate. Which is still a win in my book.
edited 22nd Nov '16 7:19:04 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised

Nah it's the Republican leaders who have wives that have to watch out for Trump.
But then I wouldn't doubt seeing them give their wives to him so he'd pass their pet agendas.