Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 February 1

= February 1 =

US politics questions
1. Which Super Bowl had the most federal politics in its slate of ads?

2. Has the primary season ever started before January 3, before the leap year, or  over 308 days from Election Day?


 * I've found that the January 3rd of the last two caucuses was in fact the earliest but CA once proposed one so early it'd have been 12/13/83. I haven't found if it's started before T-minus 308 days but Election Day 2012 was 2 days before the latest possible so it couldn't possibly be over 310. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

3. Which presidential debate had the most invitees or participants of all time?


 * It was in fact 10 (tied)

4. Which election cycle had the most presidential debates? (of any one party or in total)


 * I've found it's 38 primary debates for both parties and 20 for any one party so 23 including the general debates

5. When was the earliest presidential debate? (earliest date in the pre-leap year or most number of days before the general Election Day) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I found the answer: April 26, 2007 Democratic = T-minus 557 days. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You might want to limit this Q to only presidential debates, if that's what you really meant. And do you mean to include both primary debates and general election debates ? StuRat (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * My mistake. And yes both, so 4a. is number of debates one of the nominees would do if he didn't skip any (sometimes they don't attend every debate like Romney) Irrelevant now that we know it's 23. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Iowa Caucus question
This question is coming from a British guy that has never been to the United States. Why did Hilary Clinton lose to Obama on 2008, and what do folks on the ground really think of Hilary Clinton this time round? What is the consensus? Thank you! --Commonîo (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "what do folks on the ground really think of Hilary Clinton"? - you'll get as many opinions as there are points on the political spectrum. That would be true of any political aspirant, not just her.  You can't sort of add these up and divide by the number of opinions to come up with a kind of average or consensus opinion.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The closest we can come, prior to today, are the opinion polls. But after today, we'll have something more like an answer. As to 2008, presumably the article(s) on the election would get into it. And Google will have endless commentaries on it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If Wikipedia's done its job properly, Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 should explain what went wrong. Fun Fact: In Iowa, like every state, there's a rule about candidates having to eat what they kill. Whatever that means, peeking behind the campaign curtain like that memo let voters do reminds them that politicians aren't actually their friends, just doing a job. Ruins the suspension of disbelief, like when kids see a headless mouse smoke. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I just tried Googling for what "eat what you kill" means, and found "a creepy sense of Disney stability". Weird timing. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I just heard an NPR story on what people think of Hillary. The good news (for her) is that the polls they conducted show people think she is competent, due to her years of experience in politics.  Normally that wouldn't be much of a claim to fame, as you'd expect any candidate for US President to be competent.  But this time around we seem to have several "anti-establishment" candidates who have demonstrated their total incompetence when asked, say, foreign policy questions, so this is more important than usual.  The bad news (for Hillary) is that many people don't seem to trust or like her much.  She has been associated with many scandals over the years, from Whitewater to Benghazi to the (admittedly overblown) email scandal.  So, the Q is whether her proven competence is more important to the voters than those issues.


 * As for why she lost the primary to Obama, they said it was due to him having a stronger "ground game", meaning staff and volunteers to call potential voters, knock on doors, place signs, etc., to try to gain crucial last minute votes. StuRat (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * According to a guy from fifteen minutes ago, Clinton is the only capable candidate, but untrustworthy. To be fair, even Mickey Mouse was significantly worse at appealing to humans in his first tries. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Apparently, Clinton finds young people especially tricky, so Demi Lovato went to the University of Iowa instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Some ideas from the top of my head - I can't try to set priorities. Note all these are opinions, and while I think they are representative of several people, I cannot portray them as BLP-worthy fact:  In 2008, Obama was inexperienced, but he seemed eager to end "business as usual", by which I mean, bombing the Middle East, torturing prisoners, and chipping away at civil liberties.  Clinton was seen as an appendage of her husband, who had done things like sign the Communications Decency Act that really put proper liberals right off our feed.  Both candidates were potential "firsts", breaking what seemed like they might be insurmountable barriers of prejudice in the White House -- however, Obama was viewed as a black man who had won the fight for national attention, whereas voting for Hillary meant (and means) that the first woman in the White House will have arrived there "on her back".  This repulsion against inheriting office also accounts for the sinking Jeb Bush numbers according to some commentators -- there was a sense with George W. Bush that the U.S. had made a nepotistic hire of someone fundamentally incompetent for office, and so both Clinton and Bush have had to deal with this.  While her time in the Obama administration has weakened this perception, still, considering that she's running against someone who actually calls himself a socialist, she is also doing remarkably poorly this time around. Wnt (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * to all the candidates of U.S.A, and of this world. -- Apostle (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Explain, please. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Disallowed to diminish certain things consisting bad/evil, even with words...this is amongst one. Sorry. -- Apostle (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The explanation is even more incomprehensible than that which remains in needs of explication. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He's bored with modern democracy. But he doesn't want to elaborate on it, because once he pops, he can't stop. Could put something on the permanent record that comes back to haunt him on Judgment Day. At least that's what I gather. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Awww, Hulky...
 * Listen, "Position of Power", the one who is in charge, knows who God is. They won't need to be a government of a country/world/universe publicly. They can change the world with and or without money - under God's commandments/demandments/wish/will though.
 * Wherever there is good, there will always be bad/evil. You can’t perish evil totally, end of. You are not God; even God doesn’t want that either. You can try, but you won’t win against God’s will. However, your good deeds might out way bad deeds for your trying(s) - this doesn’t mean that you’ll be forgiven for your conscious/sub-conscious (second time round) sin(s) you’ve engraved in your writing pad(s)…
 * Now, Being a government requires the agility to manage and maintain “good” plus “bad” and or “evil” – however, some do become greedy/take advantage with their status, money and power…
 * People are not good either. A government has to keep “people” (who are Apex predators) under control; metaphorically speaking, 99% of the people are bastard and bitches. It’s the same people who you’ll never be able to satisfy, who’ll always point their fingers at you no matter what you do (i.e. good or bad).
 * Some are good at some things, others are not. Some have a track record, others don’t. Some love to go to Wars, others would hate to. - Who is good at anything and everything? Who is good at leveling the scales? Who know that less is less, more is more, enough is enough?...
 * Apostle (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * For further information, check this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)