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
We actully have no evidence that more Sanders supporters stayed home in 2016 than Clinton supporters in 2008, the number was negligible. Now sure due to the closeness of 2016 negligible numbers might have been enough, but let’s not hype it up to be bigger than it was.
Sanders isn’t a genuine spoiler effect, he’s neither the will to do it nor the political reach, there are plenty of good reasons to dislike Sanders, pretending he played spoiler to Hillary is not one of them.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
![]()
Theresa May, talk actual policy? The world has gone very strange when she manages to be the more sensible and decisive leader in a conversation, but this is hilarious so I don't mind. I do wish that she'd stand with the French, Germans and Canadians on the trade thing since it's a good way to show the world we haven't decided to go and sulk in a corner after Brexit, but I guess more than one decision per month is a bit beyond her.
I think people are overestimating how effective he would have been if he stayed a Democrat. A good chunk of the party, and in particular the leadership would have actively resisted moving to the left (or at least as much as Sanders wanted) and Sanders would not have just accepted that. You would have the same stuff going on as now, accept it would look worse, and may have actually been worse.
As for the election itself, I’d still blame Comey more for any spoiler effect on Clinton then Sanders. It was the October surprise that sadly came right after Donald’s October surprise. There was really nothing that could be done at that point.
I am a Bernie Sanders enthusiast and was deeply immersed in his campaign. Bernie definitely endorsed Hillary, did it loudly, and sometimes even got booed for it by his own supporters. I do think the number of Bernie to Trump supporters was negligible, though. Because we're not idiots. HOWEVER, the general reaction to Hillary was Better than a Bare Bulb rather than any sort of enthusiasm.
Generally, the Democratic Party wore its welcome out a lot with just about anyone who wanted a far more Left Leaning European American economic system as well as general support to the public. It's far far far too Right for our comfort.
Hillary didn't generate nearly as much far left enthusiasm as Obama.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.![]()
![]()
You know, I'll take my wild guess and say Clinton might try again. Doubt she'd win the primary, but since she's started that "Onward Together" thing and most of the DNC is still Clinton people I wouldn't be surprised.
X5
A lot of the things she was running on were "Bernie's policies, but less so because Moderate Bipartisanship", plus an extra dose of gun control and a bit more hawkishness. She was going to get called a big government communist and opposed by a completely intractable Republican Party anyway, why not go a bit further? Unless there's some Congress rule I don't know about where spending 1.5 trillion on tax cuts is less hard to pass than 1.5 trillion on healthcare and infrastructure.
Yeah, Clinton's loss to Trump is the electoral equivalent of Mr. Sandman getting one-hit KO'd by Glass Joe. If she runs for anything it'll taint her campaign and chances as much as anything else, real or imagined.
I think Clinton's chances were never as big as people thought they were. She had a very enthusiastic and very dedicated base but there was also a very large number of people who had never warmed to her on the Left.
Plus all the misogynist assholes, the Right in general (significant overlap I know), and that tiny number of people who voted against Clinton despite being Left.
She still came very close to winning but the real question is, "What small group of people could she have won over which would have changed things in the Electoral College's 5 swing states?"
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.![]()
Agreed - that loss is likely a case of Never Live It Down, and running against Trump in 2020 would be akin to McCain taking a second run against Obama, or Al Gore doing so against Bush. It simply wouldn't make sense, even if the political landscape had changed in the meantime.
I really hope he elaborates and states outright that it would last only for Trump's tenure, at least until shown otherwise (both for readmittance and keeping the US out, depending on who we get after Trump).
edited 9th Jun '18 8:04:00 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"“Maybe the American president doesn’t care about being isolated today, but we don’t mind being six, if needs be,” Mr Macron said.
edited 9th Jun '18 7:50:23 AM by SciFiSlasher
"Somehow the hated have to walk a tightrope, while those who hate do not."@Silasw: 10% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump when the time came in November. This while 25% of Clinton supporters voted for John Mc Cain. So yeah, you can generate sufficient enthusiasm, like Obama did, to overwhelmingly overcome the so-called "spoiler effect".
@ironballs: European leaders are getting tired of this repeated cycle of getting talks done with a diplomatic president, only to later deal with an incompetent president who insults them and tries to back down from established alliances.
edited 9th Jun '18 8:49:51 AM by Grafite
Life is unfair...I feel like this statement misses the most likely cause for this statistic, which is that the Republican primaries were significantly less competitive in 2008 than in 2016; a lot of that 25% of Clinton primary supporters in 2008 were Republicans crossing over to vote in the Democratic primaries.
(You can see this in the vote totals: in 2008 roughly 21.5 million voted in the Republican primaries, and 37 million voted in the Democratic primaries, while in 2016 roughly 31.2 million voted in the Republican primaries while only 30.6 million voted in the Democratic primaries.)

The problem with this narrative and fantasy is that it swings both ways. When they voted for Trump, right-wing assholes 100% thought they were voting for one heroic and dedicated individual to defeat the bastard-coated bastards ruining their lives with their secret e-mails, evil healthcare, evil brown people stealing their jobs, and chemicals that make frogs gay.
The problem with the fantasy of one lone hero who single-handedly upends the corrupt government and saves the world is that it works great as a fictional story, but almost always fucking sucks in reality.