Ship of Fools: Midterm musings

Thread: Midterm musings Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027792

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I'm a bit surprised that there hasn't been a topic about the upcoming midterm elections in the US. I hope you won't mind if this Dutchy tries to open one [Smile]

Normally, Republicans will keep control of the House. The fight for the Senate seems to be much closer, but I think the GOP will also barely win there. There's no doubt that this will make President Obama's job harder in his final two years than it already was. I admit that I'm not entirely up-to-date about all the Governor's races etc.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Well, there are always gems like this:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/02/gop-wedding-dress-campaign-ads

Perhaps they really do want to lose?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Brenda Clough: Well, there are always gems like this:

Hah, I hadn't seen this one. TBH, I've seen dafter ads than this. I don't think they'll have a negative effect on the GOP's standing though.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Since both parties have a lock on a certain percentage of the voters, i.e. those for whom party affiliation is an article of more-or-less religious faith, they only need to concentrate on a) shoring up the "base" (who tend towards baseness in all things political) and b) trying to get a few more swing votes.

The linked ad won't move a lot of college-age votes, but it may help to keep the '50s-wannabe women on the right side.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

There are too many of these ham-handed blunders to conveniently list, but here is another amusing one: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/10/01/busted-republicans-are-people-too-ad-used-stock-photos-instead-of-real-gop-people/

If you enrage enough voters, it's going to be hard to win. And the categories the GOP have contrived to infuriate is quite large. All colored persons, all Latinos, all women...

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Brenda Clough: There are too many of these ham-handed blunders to conveniently list, but here is another amusing one:

Yes, I'd heard about this one.

quote:
Brenda Clough: And the categories the GOP have contrived to infuriate is quite large. All colored persons, all Latinos, all women...

That's true, and these groups will definitely have a big influence again in the future. But I'm afraid not in these elections. The key in midterm elections is turnout, and unfortunately coloured people, Latinos ... don't have a great record on that one.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

If you enrage enough voters, it's going to be hard to win. And the categories the GOP have contrived to infuriate is quite large. All colored persons, all Latinos, all women...

Just a quick interjection here: aren't Latinos generally included in 'colored persons'? If by 'colored persons' you mean 'black people' alone, it's generally preferable just to say so. If you're in the USA, I believe 'African Americans' is also more widely accepted than 'colored persons'.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I don't think of Latinos as colored or black, but what do I know? I have spent years describing myself as an exotic Oriental beauty, and only recently have learned this is not PC.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

(I'm sorry to have used the word 'coloured' also. I realize that this can be seen as offensive.)

Back to the midterms, these are Nate Silver's forecast for the Senate. Most likely outcome: 52R, 48D (including some I's)? I think it's pretty much in line with what other pundits say. Or will there be a surprise?

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

Watching US elections over the years makes me glad I live in a parlimentrary nation. At least we can have a government fall on a Non cofidence motion, or a failed money bill
and we en up with an election.
The American system seems confusing at least , at most it seems immensly impratical.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

If you enrage enough voters, it's going to be hard to win. And the categories the GOP have contrived to infuriate is quite large. All colored persons, all Latinos, all women...
Just a quick interjection here: aren't Latinos generally included in 'colored persons'? If by 'colored persons' you mean 'black people' alone, it's generally preferable just to say so. If you're in the USA, I believe 'African Americans' is also more widely accepted than 'colored persons'.

AIUI, sociologists etc. like to consider Latinos as coloured, but Latinos themselves have different opinions - some consider themselves to be coloured, others white - which makes compiling stats on them rather difficult. (I have searched but do not have the Google-fu to find the article from The Economist that discussed this.)

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Why is it necessary to assign negative identifiers to large groups of people? Many "latinos" are married to people from outside their presumed identity-group, just (now) many "blacks/coloureds" have significant relationships with people of all sorts of ethnic origin or skin colour.

The desperate demand to apply identifiers leads to blaming Sikhs in the US legally for the actions of some Muslims in other countries, or the rather confused statements about "How can you be American? You look Chinese". And you can hardly say that Bobby Jindal is in the same crowd as Barack Obama, but they get lumped together by many sources as...(fill in derogatory comment)...

What is it about the Land of the Free that people can't be free of stigmatisation?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

(For this thread I was more interested in knowing more about the US midterm elections than in a discussion about the names we give to groups of people.)

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Sorry. As you were

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

It seems more likely than not that the Democrats will lose control of the Senate in the Mid term elections. However the money from both sides is just starting to pour in on both sides and things are close enough that it's possible that either side may shoot itself in the foot. Certainly Obama has failed so far to mobilize the Democrats to support their congressional candidates.

There are a lot of problems in the US system. One is the over-representation of people in emptier states because of the predefine nature of states. However it does put a lot of pressure to force a two way division of power. I'm not seeing that parliamentary systems do much better when there's three or more parties vying for control.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
... However it does put a lot of pressure to force a two way division of power. ...

I can see no reason, either theoretical or practical, why that should be a good thing.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I've read a political commentary in a Dutch newspaper that a Republican victory in both the House and the Senate could actually be a good thing for Democrats in 2016. If Republican policies are really out of touch with public opinion, this could be a good way to expose them. I'm not sure if this isn't wishful thinking though.

Meanwhile, the needle seems to make a slight movement back towards the Democrats. Their chances of losing the Senate have diminished from above 60% to 56%.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I don't think of Latinos as colored or black, but what do I know? I have spent years describing myself as an exotic Oriental beauty, and only recently have learned this is not PC.

I am massively shocked to see the word 'colored' used so casually, to be honest. It is hugely offensive.

Latino people are classed as people of colo(u)r, the usual term now.

And uh no, using 'oriental' to describe people is massively offensive. I still can't believe that UK supermarkets use the term to describe mostly Anglo-Chinese food...

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

I've recently learned that "oriental", is a term of racial abuse. I'm curious how the word acquired this taint.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

If anyone wants to say something about the use of certain terms to describe a group, can you please call the other person to Hell (including me if you want to), open another thread, or whatever?

I'm genuinely interested in the politics of the USA. This thread hasn't generated much response yet, but I still hope.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If anyone wants to say something about the use of certain terms to describe a group, can you please call the other person to Hell (including me if you want to), open another thread, or whatever?

Yes. Please do. This is way off topic.

However, LeRoc, it would be easier to host if you would let us do that ourselves.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

[ 08. October 2014, 16:25: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Gwai: Yes. Please do. This is way off topic.

However, LeRoc, it would be easier to host if you would let us do that ourselves.

Thank you, and I apologize.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0