Author Topic: The Politics Thread v3  (Read 14228 times)

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #40 on: April 28, 2016, 09:01:38 AM »
Mostly venting, but yes a prediction involved.  However, let me address a couple of your points.  On the Hillary being unpopular: that is not up for debate.  She is.  Her net favorability rating is something like -25.  Trumps is the only one worse at around -40.
Vent away.  In my opinion politics is a rough, frustrating business. 

In my defense, I feel like I've said absolutely nothing about Hillary's popularity.  So, beat me up on the stupid crap I say (of which there is no doubt plenty).  Not the stupid crap I don't say.

The only one with a positive is Sanders at something like +10.  And people have been voting for the "socialist".  Independents and progressive Democrats have been.  In contests where anyone can vote, Bernie has been winning by a lot. 
In the Democratic primary.  Primaries are a narrow subset of the electorate.  It is hard to overstate how big a deal this is.  On top of that, the Democratic Primary involves lopping off the rightward-leaning side of the spectrum.  Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure all/most states with open primaries (i.e., you can vote regardless of party affiliation) still only allow you to vote once.  Right-leaning people mostly vote in the GOP election, it's (a) much closer and less decided, and (b) the one that matters to them. 

So, when you say "Independents" you mean "Independents on the left side of the spectrum."  Further, you mean "among primary voters."  That's a really big difference.

We have one of the worst turnouts in the developed world.  And Sanders has been getting first time voters out where he can (re: open state primaries).  In states where turnout is large, he wins.  I repeat for effect:  in states where turnout is large, he wins.  This is decidedly not just young people.  It's also people who haven't voted because they've had no candidate.  So yes.  There is a rather significant portion of progressives out there that is untapped.
I feel like you can just do find/replace for Sanders for Obama here.  I'm not saying these facts are untrue (although I feel like turnout has been pretty good in recent presidential elections?).  But, I fail to have noticed a massive progressive groundswell in the past 8 years.  Kind of the opposite, actually.

This posits that there are literally millions of people who think "y'know, that Obama guy just isn't doing it for me, and so rather than hold my nose and vote for him, or my local progressive candidate, I'm going to let [insert extremely conservative candidate here] run the country and/or stonewall everything."  I've seen no evidence that there are millions of people this stubborn.  It also neglects that there are thousands of people who tirelessly work to reach them.


Until you look at actual preferences of policies.  Most progressive policies are well received by a majority of Americans, and most conservative ones aren't.
I think there's a lot of truth in this.  Fiorina's "Culture War?", which presumably has been updated, makes this point.  And, while I question some of his methods, Mo's a smart guy. 

This kind of points to my own personal assessment of things.  I don't think that there are tons of very left-leaning people out there who are just chomping at the bit to vote for a Sanders or someone similar.  I do think that there is a lot of room for persuasion in the electorate, though, especially once you get out of the passionate, ideologically-driven primary voters.  These are subtle distinctions, but it does really affect what you'd think is the right strategy and also the rhetoric used.  I'll admit that I find the idea that there's a sleeping giant of progressives/conservatives (delete as needed) has always struck me as kind of echo-chambery. 

As for the labels?  Obama is left of center.  Hillary is at best dead center.  And that's for American spectrum of politics.  She's way too hawkish to be considered a liberal.  She's espoused support for a LOT of conservative view points over the years, so I am very skeptical of this new, more progressive Hillary**. 
I feel like I addressed this in earlier posts, so I won't retread it.  All I'll reiterate is that there is no dead center in US politics.  It simply doesn't exist.  Clinton could be the most conservative Democrat currently around, and she'd still be substantially more liberal than the median of the Republican party, which the current GOP candidates are far to the right of anyway.  Except for Donald Trump b/c only god knows what his ideology is. 

As to the labels of "true progressive" or not, I can't speak to that.  I feel like once we start going there (a) I don't have really anything to add other than my own opinion, and (b) we're a short hop away from convening a holy synod.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #41 on: April 28, 2016, 11:04:51 AM »
Quote
In my defense, I feel like I've said absolutely nothing about Hillary's popularity.  So, beat me up on the stupid crap I say (of which there is no doubt plenty).  Not the stupid crap I don't say.

Did you not say that?  You talked about her being supposedly toxic and monstrous (in a this is obviously not true sort of way).  I was expanding on that.  I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I apologize if that's not what you meant there.

But to the rest of this.

Quote
In the Democratic primary.  Primaries are a narrow subset of the electorate.  It is hard to overstate how big a deal this is.  On top of that, the Democratic Primary involves lopping off the rightward-leaning side of the spectrum.  Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure all/most states with open primaries (i.e., you can vote regardless of party affiliation) still only allow you to vote once.  Right-leaning people mostly vote in the GOP election, it's (a) much closer and less decided, and (b) the one that matters to them. 

So, when you say "Independents" you mean "Independents on the left side of the spectrum."  Further, you mean "among primary voters."  That's a really big difference.

You are right.  It does mean it's the more liberal parts of those electorates.  But...it's more complicated than that.  I'll expand a little further on.  (also I would note that up until Tuesday the RNC primary was much much less contested than the DNC primary, with Trump ahead by more that double Hillary's lead over Sanders.  And he's had to deal with more people taking votes and delegates away from him although it's very much up for debate how many of those would have actually gone to him)

Quote
I feel like you can just do find/replace for Sanders for Obama here.  I'm not saying these facts are untrue (although I feel like turnout has been pretty good in recent presidential elections?).  But, I fail to have noticed a massive progressive groundswell in the past 8 years.  Kind of the opposite, actually.

This posits that there are literally millions of people who think "y'know, that Obama guy just isn't doing it for me, and so rather than hold my nose and vote for him, or my local progressive candidate, I'm going to let [insert extremely conservative candidate here] run the country and/or stonewall everything."  I've seen no evidence that there are millions of people this stubborn.  It also neglects that there are thousands of people who tirelessly work to reach them.

Again, you are right.  You can mostly swap Sanders for Obama here.  That's pretty much it.  That's what this whole thing makes no sense for me.  Sanders is the Obama of this cycle.  But turnout is lower in the closed primaries.  Sanders has been breaking records in the same places Obama has been.  Sanders has been winning states where Obama did.  Here's the thing.  Obama was the progressive candidate in that election! But there's been "voting irregularities" in certain primaries.  Chicago's got some people even going to jail for these things.  Turnout has been low in these places, like Arizona where they're under investigation for voting rights abuses, especially in Arpaio country.

However, I know here where I live, we haven't had a progressive candidate.  There hasn't been one.  It's been right wing or right wing nut job.  So people aren't voting for progressive candidates?  There haven't BEEN any progressive candidates.  The first time we had a progressive candidate available for superintendent we elected her in a landslide.  The reason we'll elect a conservative in November for senate?  There is no other option.

Quote
I feel like I addressed this in earlier posts, so I won't retread it.  All I'll reiterate is that there is no dead center in US politics.  It simply doesn't exist.  Clinton could be the most conservative Democrat currently around, and she'd still be substantially more liberal than the median of the Republican party, which the current GOP candidates are far to the right of anyway.  Except for Donald Trump b/c only god knows what his ideology is. 

As to the labels of "true progressive" or not, I can't speak to that.  I feel like once we start going there (a) I don't have really anything to add other than my own opinion, and (b) we're a short hop away from convening a holy synod.

And thus we get to the crux of the issue.  See, the difference in what I'm pulling out as left/right positioning and what you are, is that I'm taking a time average and you're taking a time snapshot.  You're looking at today.  I'm looking at the past 20+ years.  This country has elected more conservative politicians over time.  And there's a LOT of discussion as to why this is so.  Hillary today is center right 20 years ago.  On some issues.  On some she says she has, she's far left.  Whether or not you believe those positions is up to you.  Some issues she says she has today she's right of most conservatives.  Same disclaimer on the believing.  The point is, "left of conservatives in government now" doesn't say much.  The center has shifted right over the past 40 years, at least as far as people in power, with a significant acceleration of that over the past 15 years.  So yes she's left of them.  No she's not left of center.  Not historically.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7324
  • (un-) Amazingly Unproductive
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #42 on: April 28, 2016, 05:41:46 PM »
I only found out last week that you have elected judges.

I am completely lost on why anyone decided to politicise what was intended to be the branch of government that is independent of (direct, at least) politics.

It's not just judges ... I googled "Auditor General Pennsylvania"
and hit #10 was 4 sentences in a news article from New Years.
http://www.ydr.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/16/auditor-general-among-overlooked-2016-pa-races/78907578/
OK quick now :  Vote!
 :tongue
And I'm the one guy actually looking for it, sheepish I didn't know about it.
avatar#3 , gravitational lensing edition ... I'm way on the other side of the universe but look like pretty rings

Offline linklord231

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3326
  • The dice are trying to kill me
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #43 on: April 28, 2016, 06:43:06 PM »
I kind of like the way we do it in Colorado.  Judges are nominated by a non-partisan committee of both lawyers and laypeople, then those nominations are put forth to the Governor and he appoints from them.  Every few years (exact length is determined by their position), the people vote whether to "retain" or "not retain" each individual judge. 

This way, judges aren't "elected" as such, but the people can still vote to remove them if they're doing a bad job.  To be fair though, I can't think of a single time where we've voted to not retain a particular judge.
I'm not arguing, I'm explaining why I'm right.

Offline SolEiji

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3012
  • I am 120% Eiji.
    • View Profile
    • D&D Wiki.org, not .com
Mudada.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #45 on: May 01, 2016, 12:35:23 AM »
btw, when I said I have no choice for Senate earlier?  This is the better of the two (R) options I have.

The other one somehow combines most of the worst aspects of Trump AND Cruz into one candidate.  Our (D) candidate isn't a good campaigner, and IN typically votes (R) blindly in down ticket votes.  Oh, and no legitimate third party candidate of course.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline bhu

  • Uncle Kittie
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 14338
  • Fnord bitches
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #46 on: May 01, 2016, 04:13:24 PM »
Anyone heard anything about a move to unseat Rince Priebus?  I keep seeing it out there, but not on any site I'd trust.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #47 on: May 01, 2016, 04:15:35 PM »
Nothing legitimate. Just ravings from anti-establishment types.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #48 on: May 01, 2016, 05:07:58 PM »
btw, when I said I have no choice for Senate earlier?  This is the better of the two (R) options I have.

The other one somehow combines most of the worst aspects of Trump AND Cruz into one candidate.  Our (D) candidate isn't a good campaigner, and IN typically votes (R) blindly in down ticket votes.  Oh, and no legitimate third party candidate of course.
You have my sympathy and empathy.  Just a couple of years ago I was living in Texas ...

Offline Keldar

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 918
  • What's this button do?
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #49 on: May 01, 2016, 10:28:35 PM »
Taking a look at the likely Senate candidates here, they're both acceptable.  The Republican is Pro-Choice, Pro-gay marriage, the Democrat has a Purple Heart.  I'm shockingly fine with either outcome.   :twitch  I think that's a first.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #50 on: May 01, 2016, 10:56:52 PM »
That's good for a change.  I'd love to see more actual choice in all the elections....Or at least no more FPTP and no more political gerrymandering.  Like, let's start using math!  Math doesn't take sides...
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline Keldar

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 918
  • What's this button do?
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #52 on: May 02, 2016, 09:01:48 PM »
Man, its almost like she learned politics in Chicago.  Oh, wait!  She did.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #53 on: May 02, 2016, 09:12:57 PM »
They....they admit to doing something illegal!  They say they're "holding on to money to give later on".  That....that's not their money!  It was donated to state parties!  They admit to running illegal ads for fundraising!  "It's not supporting/anti-supporting a candidate" is not a valid defense when the ads say "stop this person!"
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #54 on: May 03, 2016, 10:20:14 AM »
Currently getting ready to vote in the IN primary.  I'll be leaving in about 15 minutes.  Thankfully it's finals week and I don't have any today!

There's two races that actually matter/I care about that I could theoretically vote in, but they're on separate tickets.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #55 on: May 03, 2016, 10:22:37 AM »
Best of luck on finals!

This stuff happens every single campaign cycle.  Part of it is probably due to the complexity of our campaign finance laws.  Part the built-in paralysis of the FEC.  If you build a watchdog that's deliberately toothless, people aren't stupid enough to treat it as effective.

I'm not saying that it's a good thing, it's just not shocking.  Being an election law attorney is a full-time job. 

"It's not supporting/anti-supporting a candidate" is not a valid defense when the ads say "stop this person!"
To be fair, the Supreme Court has adopted this position for about a decade ... see FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL II)

The relevant bit is that ads that mention candidates can still be considered "issue ads" and so not covered by various campaign finance rules (the fact that they were meant they were unconstitutional and struck down), and the standard CJ Roberts articulated was extremely favorable to the ad. 
Quote from: Majority Opinion
In light of these considerations, a court should find that an ad is the functional  equivalent of express advocacy only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate. Under this test, WRTLís three ads are plainly not the functional equivalent of express advocacy. First, their content is consistent with that of a genuine issue ad:  The ads focus on a legislative issue, take a position on the issue, exhort the public to adopt that position, and urge the public to contact public officials with respect to the matter. Second, their content lacks indicia of express advocacy: The ads do not mention an election, candidacy, political party, or challenger; and they do not take a position on a candidateís character, qualifications, or fitness for office.
Although this Supreme Court has been almost monomaniacally committed to destroying the asinine system of campaign finance laws we (used to) have.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #56 on: May 03, 2016, 11:40:08 AM »
And voted.  As usual, my precinct was fairly empty.  Not a lot of people live in it, also I was early so yeah.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #57 on: May 03, 2016, 09:59:27 PM »
Donald Trump is the Republican nominee for president.

Cruz dropped out.  No candidate can unseat Trump now.  He will get to 1237 before the convention.  He's at 1100 now, and he'll get at least 100 in California.  There's what, 10 left?  He can't fail to get that.  Like, unless he gets less than 20% of the vote in each one remaining.  A new Rasmussen poll shows him leading in the general election against Hillary by 2 points.

Sanders wins Indiana though!
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline SolEiji

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3012
  • I am 120% Eiji.
    • View Profile
    • D&D Wiki.org, not .com
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #58 on: May 03, 2016, 10:19:44 PM »
Donald Trump is the Republican nominee for president.

Cruz dropped out.  No candidate can unseat Trump now.  He will get to 1237 before the convention.  He's at 1100 now, and he'll get at least 100 in California.  There's what, 10 left?  He can't fail to get that.  Like, unless he gets less than 20% of the vote in each one remaining.  A new Rasmussen poll shows him leading in the general election against Hillary by 2 points.

Sanders wins Indiana though!

There's more good news in this.  With Trump now confirmed as the winner of his side, their race is all but over.  No longer will we have the 24/7 coverage of "look how close the GOP race is" when the far closer Dem race goes ignored.  The actual close race will actually need to be addressed!  All the Anti-Trump votes on the GOP side no longer can stop Trump, and may cross to help stop Trump in the general by voting in Sanders. 

I've suspected Anti-Trump GOP votes have been acting as spoilers for Sanders.  Perhaps now those independents-leaning-right and Republicans will come to us.

We can do this!  Guam is next!  5/7, Guam, are you ready!?
Mudada.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #59 on: May 03, 2016, 10:29:27 PM »
Also, the crazy evangelical handily won the senate primary here.  Todd Young.  He's going to probably be the next Indiana senator.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20