Welcome to American Politics

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Quincy

  • Rank
  • Birthday 02/03/1987

Recent Profile Visitors

69 profile views
  1. Unconfirmed, 10 dead, 24 injured.
  2. Early reports of a shooting with casualties near Dayton, OH within the last hour: https://twitter.com/billfoxla/status/1157896360508571648?s=21
  4. Her social media presence/following is a major factor. If it weren’t for Twitter and Instagram, she’d be largely irrelevant. Unfortunately, the far left has a megaphone when it comes to social media and it launches someone like AOC to over-the-top relevance. But yes, the media in general plays right into that.
  5. There are third parties, but they rarely gain much traction. Perot was a notable exception in 1992, and to a lesser extent, 1996. I suppose Nader had some traction in 2000, but it was nowhere near the Perot level. Gary Johnson made some noise in 2012 and 2016, but in the latter, he started to emerge as a bumbling candidate whose time in politics was probably up. Jill Stein was, in some ways, more wacky than Johnson, but still managed to pull at least some noteworthy portion of the vote in 2016. The Libertarian party will probably never become mainstream, since most of their candidates are, for the lack of a better word, wacky, or hold some stances that diverge sharply from the status quo. The Green party has arguably become more wacky in recent years. It would have been interesting if Sanders ran as an independent in 2016, but he would undeniably pulled many votes from Clinton. It may seem like a minority position, but if you poll Americans on their actually beliefs, a lot are closer to the center. If there was any sort of legitimate third party/independent/near center candidate, they could do well. Politics has become so polarized that we're tending to see the right go more right, while the left is torn between going more left, or pivoting toward the center. If the left continues to fight within itself, even with Trump's horrible approval numbers, he could have a shot at winning re-election. My fear is that the two sides are so polarized that no matter what happens, there's going to be extreme division for the foreseeable future. By that, I mean that we'll probably see gridlock with little actually getting done. Plus, don't be surprised if the "opposite of Trump" candidate on the left were to win, but still struggled to crack 50% approval numbers. Maybe I'm wrong, but we'll see. The system is kind of rigged against a third party candidate, unless such a person is articulate, has money (or significant grass-root support) and isn't a complete nutjob. In order to even be placed on the national debate stage, a third party candidate would need 15% support in five of the most recent polls leading up to a debate. Even Perot didn't make the 1996 debates, as he was the last third party candidate on the national debate stage in 1992. The other issue is that a lot of polls will not even include third party candidates.
  6. It seems like most VPs have been very boring and “safe” picks over the years. Aside from Palin, how many wacky VP nominees have there been in recent election cycles? I do think if the top of the ticket is a man, it wouldn’t hurt if the VP is a woman, assuming it’s not an off-the-wall choice. Just stating fact, as it could motivate a percentage (even if small) of women who were otherwise apathetic to potentially go out and vote. If it’s two boring old white dudes at the top, that’s not a very thrilling ticket. Sure, I know many people will vote for nearly anyone who goes up against Trump, but still...
  7. My concern is that the dems might beat up each other and just have a long, drawn-out debate process where you have three or four candidates spreading out the vote over time, all fighting for the top tier. We may not really have a clear idea of who the front-runner is until Super Tuesday. Biden might be safe for moderates and much of the rust belt, but I think he’s going to continue to struggle in the debates, unless he starts coming out more on the offensive, big time. Harris saw a huge jump in the polls, but will her flip-flopping hurt her? Will the far left try to take her down? Sanders may fall off a bit more, but he’ll probably stick around in or near the top tier. Many of his supporters aren’t going anywhere anytime soon, unless... Warren could be the next to surge. She’s already seen a bump. I’m just not sure that she can make a big move. We’ll see. Most of the others are probably out of range, but Buttigieg could gain some momentum. He seems like a younger, more intelligent and well-spoken candidate who could have a strong showing in places like, Iowa and the Midwest, for example, if Biden continues to struggle.
  8. I’m 32 and I’m never getting married. No roommates either, because I can’t stand people. Except people in this thread. Y’all are the best people in the world.
  9. I doubt Obama will come out for any candidate until the primaries are underway. He is politically savvy enough to not make that mistake, especially if/when the primary race is still undecided.
  10. America couldn't elect a woman, because the only female candidate was one of the most unfavorable, elitist candidates of all-time. By the way, that female candidate easily won the popular vote.
  11. What percentage of credit hours are general education though? I learned a lot from the vast majority of the electives/gen education courses I took in college. At least you're given an option to select from several options, in most cases. Gen eds made up a relatively small portion of my college experience. It was also a nice balance when I was taking courses like Calc 3, Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics to have a less intensive class here and there. I haven't fully thought this out, but if there were less gen ed classes, wouldn't it be harder to fill up courses, meaning you might have a situation where more courses are simply not offered because there are not enough students taking them? Again, I don't know, because I haven't given this much thought. I wonder if you had less students taking courses if that might actually inadvertently increase costs?
  12. If only there was a way incentivise or at least make it more appealing to go to community colleges and other less expensive schools. (Yes, I realize that the cost for tuition is rising exponentially across the board) One of the problems is that many people who are not even all that serious about college choose to go to expensive schools and end up with $100,000s worth of debt. They may go in with no plan and just assume that they'll get a good paying job if they go to an expensive school. It doesn't just work out that way. It can, but a lot of times, it doesn't. Sure, I wish I could have gone to a big name meteorology program, but I didn't have the money or means. Even going to a local, state school with a much less solid program put me into a spot where I had to work two jobs through most of college and still didn't pay off loans until almost a decade after I graduated. I can't imagine how my life would have turned out, financially, if I dished out the money to go to a school like OU or Penn State. It simply wasn't an option for me. It's a complex problem and making all college free is just not a realistic or responsible option. I'm all about making college more affordable, but we should also encourage students to stay within their means and that means making some sacrifices.
  13. Gotcha. I haven't been around this place in a while, so I definitely have some catching up to do.
  14. Yang? I said I don't even support or agree with him, but if you listen to him talk, he's right on what a lot of the problems are. His "solutions" just border on nonsense though.
  15. Yang couldn't even defend his own plan. It's not like he had a realistic shot, but if he had a better opening performance, he could have been taken more seriously. He seemed to do better in longer form interviews recently than just 30-60 second debate questions. I can't believe he didn't even mention that people who are already on welfare programs would not be getting the dividend on top of their current benefits. He did a poor job explaining how he would pay for it. I'm not saying I even support or agree with him, but I thought he at least had the potential to gain a bit more traction. I'd rather see more younger "out of the box" candidates than a large portion of the field who are older white men who have been in politics for decades. I have nothing against white men, but trotting someone out there like Biden is asking for a 2016 repeat.