Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Michael Hopcroft]

I'm surprised to find that 125,000 Brooklynites (almost 5% of the borough's 2010 population -- a figure which includes children) losing their voter registration for no readily apparent reason hasn't gotten more attention. The winning strategy in this election doesn't seem to be convincing people to vote for you, but rather gaming the system so those who might vote against you don't get to cast ballots.

 

This is likely to be an even worse problem in the general election, to the point that there are going to be several states where the result is essentiually determined in advance.

[Simon]

Please pay particularly close attention to Rule 2 -- you're one post away from moderation (at best).

[Clonus]

I'm surprised to find that 125,000 Brooklynites (almost 5% of the borough's 2010 population -- a figure which includes children) losing their voter registration for no readily apparent reason hasn't gotten more attention. The winning strategy in this election doesn't seem to be convincing people to vote for you, but rather gaming the system so those who might vote against you don't get to cast ballots.

 

This is likely to be an even worse problem in the general election, to the point that there are going to be several states where the result is essentiually determined in advance.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/19/politics/new-york-primary-voter-problem-polls-sanders-de-blasio/

 

Of the 126,000 Democratic voters taken off from the rolls in Brooklyn, Ryan said 12,000 had moved out of borough, while 44,000 more had been placed in an inactive file after mailings to their homes bounced back. An additional 70,000 were already inactive and, having failed to vote in two successive federal elections or respond to cancel notices, were removed.

[Ranxerox]

I'm surprised to find that 125,000 Brooklynites (almost 5% of the borough's 2010 population -- a figure which includes children) losing their voter registration for no readily apparent reason hasn't gotten more attention. The winning strategy in this election doesn't seem to be convincing people to vote for you, but rather gaming the system so those who might vote against you don't get to cast ballots.

 

This is likely to be an even worse problem in the general election, to the point that there are going to be several states where the result is essentiually determined in advance.

 

This story might have gotten more attention if primary results were not in general agreement with the polls leading up to the primary.  Trump did a bit better than polls indicated that he would, but that may simply be the result of Trump best voter demographic being a group that is not inclined to participate in phone polls.

 

Democrat Poll and Primary Results

 

Republican Poll and Primary Results

[megaplayboy]

Voted today. Sanders, Donna Edwards for Senate. It's Maryland, I'm not optimistic about Bernie's prospects, and if Edwards wins against Van Hollen, it will be just barely.

[Lord Liaden]

But it's good that you voted for the candidates you wanted. Giving in before the ballots are counted is the way prophecies become self-fulfilling.

[gewing]

This election cycle has me questioning my faith in my countrymen.  

 

I thought Romney was such a lousy candidate that for the second time in my life, I voted for a Non Republican for President.  The first time got me Clinton.    Despite the rantings of the Right wing, Obama has not been all that bad, at least he has not managed to get a new gun ban passed...

 

Every election I think "They have to come up with better candidates next time!"  But at least on the Republican side, they seem to get worse...   

 

I personally distrust Hillary.   I do not trust her as far as I could throw her.   But I do not trust Trump as far as I could throw the Entire Republican field from the early part of this campaign.  

 

I weep for the future.   

[Badger]

Well, I don't plan on voting for President.  Cant vote Trump, cant vote Clinton.  Nothing to do but hunker down and hope I survive till 2020.

[Old Man]

I personally distrust Hillary.   I do not trust her as far as I could throw her.   But I do not trust Trump as far as I could throw the Entire Republican field from the early part of this campaign.

Hillary will make a pretty good president. I have policy disagreements with her, but she isn't going to build a wall or repeal Obamacare or disband the EPA and IRS, which her opponents have plainly stated they intend to do.  And she won't do anything about gun control either, despite the hysterical rantings of the gun lobby.* 

 

Oh, and she won't appoint a lunatic to the Supreme Court of the United States.  There's already one seat that's at stake, plus almost certainly RBG's in the next few years.  One party is going to get a 5-4 or 6-3 majority in the SCOTMFUS.  If that's not enough to get people to hold their nose and vote, I don't know what is.

 

 

* Obama's administration has been a record-setting sales windfall for the gun industry.  The local gun stores love Obama.  I have no doubt that the gun lobby will crank up the same marketing campaign if Hillary wins, despite the fact that the GOP has an unbreakable stranglehold on the House until at least 2020.

[Hermit]

Cruz has selected his running mate for VP

 

Of course, he still has to topple Trump

[Lawnmower Boy]

Look, America, I know you were in a hurry this morning.  An early appointment, slept in, forgot to buy milk for breakfast. There's lots of good excuses for missing your meds this morning. I get it. I'm not judging. All I'm saying is, you have to go home, sit down, and take them now.

[Hermit]

Look, America, I know you were in a hurry this morning.  An early appointment, slept in, forgot to buy milk for breakfast. There's lots of good excuses for missing your meds this morning. I get it. I'm not judging. All I'm saying is, you have to go home, sit down, and take them now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJq2PAI-Fxc

[gewing]

Hillary will make a pretty good president. I have policy disagreements with her, but she isn't going to build a wall or repeal Obamacare or disband the EPA and IRS, which her opponents have plainly stated they intend to do.  And she won't do anything about gun control either, despite the hysterical rantings of the gun lobby.* 

 

Oh, and she won't appoint a lunatic to the Supreme Court of the United States.  There's already one seat that's at stake, plus almost certainly RBG's in the next few years.  One party is going to get a 5-4 or 6-3 majority in the SCOTMFUS.  If that's not enough to get people to hold their nose and vote, I don't know what is.

 

 

* Obama's administration has been a record-setting sales windfall for the gun industry.  The local gun stores love Obama.  I have no doubt that the gun lobby will crank up the same marketing campaign if Hillary wins, despite the fact that the GOP has an unbreakable stranglehold on the House until at least 2020.

Republicans in the Senate make it pretty certain he could not get a Gun ban passed.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

Nuff said

 

[gewing]

Nuff said

 

YES, Yes they do....

[Badger]

Nuff said

 

 

 

Wait, I've been saying this for 6 months, no one bats an eye.  Then some random guy makes a poster plagiarizing me, ad he's a prophet?  If we're all screwed, I want it written I was the first to say it. 

 

[Hermit]

Badger was the first to say it!

 

There, preserved for all eternity

[CaptnStrawberry]

I'm pretty sure 300 million people will be increasingly thinking it between now and November.

[womble]

Observing from this side of The Pond, I'm sanguine that Trump is entirely unelectable as President. Clinton II won't "doom" the country any more than it is already; the trajectory of dominance has its own inertia anyway, and I'm not sure that a Sanders Presidency (attractive as it might seem) could alter that either. But HRC will preside over "business as usual", and nothing will change, if only because Congress will be deadlocked.

 

Maybe Sanders' legacy will be that he galvanises enough Democrats to vote to change how Congress behaves.

[megaplayboy]

Is it a violation of the thread rules simply to point out that the NGD may not be broadly representative of the electorate as a whole, demographically speaking? We're predominantly white and male here, and(I suspect) largely middle aged. Women and people of color also vote and may see things quite differently than the average white guy does. Women in particular may even think that it actually doesn't suck that a woman is finally being nominated by a major party for the office of president. Just a thought.

[Ranxerox]

Wait, I've been saying this for 6 months, no one bats an eye.  Then some random guy makes a poster plagiarizing me, ad he's a prophet?  If we're all screwed, I want it written I was the first to say it. 

 

 

Trouble is you jumped the gun.  Six months ago, Sanders seemed like he might be heading to the White House, and his many supporters at this board didn't think that he sucked.

 

Now that Sanders campaign is for all intents and purposes history, more board posters* might be inclined to adopt "Everybody Sucks 2016" as their motto.  As in most things, timing is critical when making political pronouncements.

 

 

 

 

 

* - Not me, of course.  Hillary has been my first choice all along, and consequently, I'm generally pleased with how the election is shaping up.

[Badger]

I'm the Prophet of Doom, yay.....wait. 

 

Yeah, I know a lot here were hoping for Sanders.  I actually find him the most likeable (although that in itself could be an almost de facto scenario).  Unfortunately, him and me aren't really compatible on a lot of the issues. 

 

Really, I know people will complain and belittle me when they find out I don't plan to vote.  (not here per se, mind you)  I've made a decision to do what I feel I can best live with.  ANd barring some change  (I'll still keep up with the candidates, assuming my temper allows it.  I don't plan on wasting another election year summer simmering in anger), I don't see anybody I can vote for in good conscience.   It is what it is, and if it is an awful mistake, so be it.

[Pattern Ghost]

Then don't tell people that you didn't vote. It's nobody's business who you do or don't vote for or whether you abstain from voting. IMO, it still counts that you paid enough attention to the process to come to an informed decision, regardless of what it is. (And if you didn't, it's still nobody's business.)

[Badger]

Indeed, I probably wont except for here, to be honest.  As I really don't get into politics all that much in real life (except to needle on my dad, who watches a lot of news, despite it inevitably turning his blood into a flash cooking fire.)

 

Note: I did get a little flak back in 1998 and 2000 at college with people asking if I voted, and me unwittingly answering honestly "No".  ANd then getting the voting cliché responses (shouldn't be too hard to guess what those are).  Back then, I didn't because I really didn't care.  Also, too add, nowadays having morphed into cranky old codger (hey, I turned 40 this past Tues)  I don't care about what other people think quite as much.    

 

Guess, I probably wouldn't have mentioned here so much, if not for that need/desire to engage in the current conversation.  (it's a failing of mine)

 

Note:   Though, I do sometimes wish to go back to my college age, not caring much about politics.  THough, I know I cant.

[womble]

I like Australia's compulsory voting. You have to attend the polling station (on pain of a fine, I believe), and all the ballot papers have to have a "none of the above" box. I don't know what the consequences of there being a majority "none of the above" vote are, if any...