I'm in California which holds a Democratic primary on Super Tuesday, which is next week, sooner than I thought (I don't vote in it so wasn't paying close attention). My teevee is full of Bloomberg ads saying "Mike will get it done", but not saying WHAT he intends to get done (suspicious ;)). No one else seems to be advertising at all. Any idea what is going on? I'm used to not seeing much general election campaigning since CA is not a swing state, but I seem to remember the last primary season here was pretty noisy. Has everyone conceded the state to Bloomberg? I see South Carolina is voting on Saturday and maybe that's getting all the attention? Hmm. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Sanders is far ahead of Bloomberg in the California polls[1].--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 00:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Bloomberg was way ahead, why would he be advertising? HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg has apparently spent around $500M on the primaries that are just getting started. By comparison, Trump spent less than that on the 2016 general election. I'm just surprised to have seen zero non-Bloomberg ads. Meanwhile, Bloomberg also apparently donated millions to the Dem party to get into the TV debates: is that even legal? I thought there was a limit of around $5K per candidate for candidate donations and $25K for party donations, or therabouts. Millions seems way out of range. Well, I guess we'll see what happens. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When did legality become relevant in US Presidential elections? That's like suggesting that principles and ethics play a role. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FEC rules have much higher contribution limits if the donation is funding certain committee activities outside of campaigning/advertising. Bloomberg's contributions are split into separate checks for this reason, as each donation is nominally for a different purpose. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someguy1221, thanks, wow, I think that table shows what happened. Bloomberg becomes a candidate and funds his own campaign committee, and then the campaign committee (per the table) can make unlimited transfers to the national party. What a loophole. HiLo48, good point. It will get really zany if Sanders is the nominee and runs against Trump, what with those Russian interfering interferers of interference supposedly helping both of them. I can't wait ;). 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might have gotten some news stories mixed up. The party removed the requirement for amount/number of donations, basically to let Bloomberg in, because his campaign isn't accepting donations. Bloomberg has donated to the party over the years. See campaign finance in the United States for more on donation limits. Possible reasons why other campaigns might not be advertising much in CA: Sanders is far ahead in polling, while no one other than Bloomberg is close to the 15% threshold for getting delegates, so they're conserving their resources. (See above link to polls.) I'm also in CA, so anecdotally I've gotten a few Bloomberg mailers. Don't watch TV. Incidentally, there are things on the ballot other than Presidential nominations; I encourage you to vote if you're eligible even if you don't care about the Presidential primary. CA has same-day registration now so that's not a problem. Here's the CA elections site. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I thought next week's election was just a primary and that the main election is in November. I better check what else is going on. Regarding donations, yeah, it was obvious that Bloomberg paid off the Democrats to let him into the debate, but what I was wondering was how paying that much ($1M+) was legal. The answer seems to be in the table further up: campaign committees can make unlimited transfers to party committees. So Bloomberg($$$$$) -> Bloomberg campaign committee (candidates can make unlimited donations to their own campaigns) -> DNC via unlimited committee to committee transfer. Thanks for the other info too. 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a primary election, but there are (important!) offices other than President: Congress, state legislatures, local races. Also propositions: there's a statewide one this election and there may be local ones. (Where I live there's a community college bond measure.) --47.146.63.87 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ok, my district's congresscritter is an entrenched incumbent, but maybe there is something to the other stuff. I'll check. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to get too "political", how is it that Biden can be frontrunner in SC? I can understand if you want a billionaire president, Bloomberg and Trump are there for you; if you want a socialist, Sanders; female moderate = Warren or Klobuchar, etc. They each have their own appeal to some sector or another. But Biden afaict has nothing going for him and doesn't even know what office he's running for.[2] Where is his support coming from? African Americans with good memories of Obama somehow transferring that to Biden? Is there an explanation of this anywhere? I'm truly puzzled. 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's largely strength with black voters. He had a huge lead in SC when polling started, but it's narrowed. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sure, I understand why those voters liked Obama but don't see how Biden inherits that loyalty, given Biden's involvement in stuff like the 1994 crime bill which I think is unpopular among black voters. Is there a de facto endorsement of Biden by Obama that I don't sense here in California? Here, Bloomberg's ads make it look like Obama is supporting Bloomberg--i.e., they attach Obama to Bloomberg so much that they seem to have Obama's at least tacit approval. Or do endorsements from people like Jim Clymer make a lot of difference? I half-remember something similar with John Lewis endorsing Hillary Clinton in 2016. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, my impression is it's complicated. Yes the bill is unpopular and supporters get flack over it. But it is quite old by now, and it was also supported by both Clinton's who maintained a good deal of support by black voters. And my impression is both of them at least, managed to convince many that they do feel parts of it were a mistake. I don't know if this applies to Biden, but I wouldn't be surprised if it does. By comparison, I'm unconvinced that Bloomberg has convinced anywhere near as many that he truly thinks that stop and frisk or even "Because we put all the cops in the minority neighbourhoods. Yes, that's true. Why do we do it? Because that's where all the crime is" [3] were mistakes or truly understand why etc. Time is likely also a factor, both are more recent. With Biden's campaign collapsing, and Bloomberg's money this may change [4], but I stand by my comment below that I don't think Biden's popularity was just or even primarily because of a connection to Obama. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I don't follow US politics, but of the candidates who look like they have a chance of success, whatever the flaws in Biden's campaign and personality, I don't see why he doesn't also have his own sector mostly unconnected with Obama. First, Warren may be more moderate than Sanders, but is often seem more of a progressive candidate whether or not that's reflected in her policies. It's true she's having trouble winning over the progressives, but then again the moderates too so..... So who is the moderate candidate option than? Pete Buttigieg gets significant fears (whether or not others think these are valid) from those who think his lack of experience with Washington is not a positive since the US presidency is not a dictatorship and needs to somehow convince Congress etc. I mean there were significant fears about this for Obama as well, but he'd at least been a Senator for nearly 4 years by the start of his presidency.(Arguably to get there he also needed to have some handle on the politics of Washington.) Buttigieg being gay is obviously a turn off for some e.g. that infamous Iowa caucus goer. (Although it's all over the main stream media, decided not to link to it for BLP reasons.) And while Biden's race relations record may not be perfect, I think it's clear Bloomberg's record tends to be seen far more poorly especially given his stop and frisk stuff. Amy Klobuchar is an option, but not if you're sexist and her lack of name recognition and other factors means she's been seen as an also-ran compared to Biden until fairly recently. Okay a big part of this name recognition and other factors is probably him being VP means he was seen as a front runner, but I don't think Obama is necessarily that big a big factor in that. (And again, whether people it's a good idea to vote for someone just because you think other people are likely to vote for them is mostly besides the point.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Buttegieg is a little bit hard to explain or understand, though it at least seems to me that there is an explanation for him even if I don't know what it is. Biden already ran for president twice (1988 and 2008), winning no states and I think no delegates, so I don't know what anyone sees in him this time. And Sanders seemingly does pretty well with black voters[5] except in South Carolina, so I'm wondering what is different about South Carolina. Buttegieg meanwhile does a lot better than the others at getting his campaign emails past Gmail's spam filter,[6] which I thought was interesting. There is also a joke(?) that he is the only candidate who is not a Russian agent.[7] So that might help him too. 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also [8]. It's just one person's opinion, and some of the views there may be controversial. But 'electability' has been a key talking point, even in the debates. So for those for who it matters, the idea that Biden was either the most electable moderate or the most electable Democractic candidate would seem to give him an obvious support base. [9] Note that whether editors here (including me) think it's a good way to vote is besides the point if people are doing it.

Likewise, while some especially Sanders supporters would say he is electable and point to polls between him and Trump including in 2016, the idea that he is too radical and that once the election campaign rolls around he will fail seems to have held great support until recently. He seems to be shaking this off [10], and getting back to my earlier point, some may feel that it's a silly way to vote e.g. because you can't actually predict how it will pan out [11] [12] but again this doesn't mean there wasn't a natural support base there.

If anything, Trump being so divisive and disliked by many Democrats may mean that for them, it's important to choose someone who they feel can beat Trump. (This is one area where simplistic polling may not tell the whole story. E.g. Trump's support among black voters may not be that much worse than George W. Bush but there could still be a different level of 'no more'.) It's not like electability and strategic voting doesn't come up in the actual election either. I mean in California the nature of the winner-takes-all awarding of electors means that maybe it's less of a concern (although 2016 does show the risk of such views), but in general it often arises in deciding whether to vote for third party candidate X who's views someone may prefer, or main party candidate Y who they may prefer over main party candidate Z.

Also I forgot to mention this before, but while this doesn't apply to California, for South Carolina, in so much as people may now think Bloomberg is a viable choice who can beat Trump or whatever, it's a moot point since they can't vote for him. More generally, Bloomberg's late entry means it maybe took a while for him to be seen as a viable choice.

And we also shouldn't assume voters have spent a great deal of thought or analysis, their vague gut feeling that candidate X is better for reasons A, B, C, maybe including that the person is the most likely to beat Trump, may be what they're going by. In other words, any arguments over why it's silly to vote for candidate X for whatever reasons are irrelevant. Again that infamous bigoted Iowa caucus voter who didn't know something that was extremely widely known and I suspect mentioned in every debate and nearly every in depth profile, would seem to be an obvious example.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One final comment especially in light of the South Carolina win. I mentioned that sexist voters may not support a woman, and likewise homophobes may not support a gay man. I stand by my judgment of people who dislike female or gay leaders simple because of them being female or gay. But I also mentioned that voters may support someone who isn't their primary preference simply because they think, accurately or not, that person is more likely to win. It follows that some people may vote against such a person not because of any personal bigotry, in fact perhaps they even think it would be a great thing for there to be a female or gay president, but simply because they think there are enough bigots that it'll be more difficult for a woman or gay candidate to win. While editors are welcome to their views of the wisdom and morality of such a strategy, it doesn't change it being another possible factor on why someone may prefer to vote for Biden compared to some of the other candidates. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been any other cases of "Country A" losing territory to "Country B" only to subsequently have a huge number of people from "Country A" move into this territory (which now belongs to "Country B")? I am specifically thinking of Mexico losing its northern territories (Texas, New Mexico, and Alta California) to the US only to subsequently have a lot of Mexicans move to these territories (which are now a part of the US) over the next 150+ years. However, have there ever actually been any other examples of such a trend/development--and, if so, where and when? Futurist110 (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Futurist110: Lots of immigrants from England to the United States. RudolfRed (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very true! Ditto for British immigrants to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, no? Futurist110 (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on this Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations. 2A00:23C5:CDA5:6700:1E2:C6BC:7868:B8B1 (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the opposite direction the OP is thinking of. In that case, Turks moved to the new Turkish territory, and Greeks moved to the new Greek territory. The OP is more looking for if, after say Greece took over land from Turkey, Turks then moved into Greece. --Jayron32 13:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; correct! To be more specific, what I am thinking of something similar to Greece taking over land from Turkey and then Turks moving into this land (which is now a part of Greece) in huge numbers (similar to how Mexicans have moved into the Southwestern US--formerly a part of Mexico--in huge numbers in the 170+ years after 1848). Futurist110 (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The West Bank was given to Palestinian control under the Oslo Accords. However, there has been nonstop problems with Israeli Jewish settlers moving in and taking over the area. This may be rather a different example because the Israelis that move into the West Bank do not accept the Oslo Accords and the PLO has repeatedly exagerrated the number of Israelis that have migrated into the West Bank. So, it is more of a political token like Kashmir. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, though, no or almost no Israelis have actually moved into Areas A and B of the West Bank. Rather, to my knowledge, all or almost all of the Israeli settlement in the West Bank occurs in Area C--which remains under Israeli control up to the present-day. To my knowledge, the Palestinians (specifically the Palestinian Authority) only control Areas A and B of the West Bank. Futurist110 (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your statement "was given to Palestinian control" is so oversimplified as to be effectively worthless for any non-polemical purpose. The more complex reality is that there was Area A, Area B, and Area C, with different status and rules for each (while east Jerusalem wasn't part of A, B, or C). Furthermore, the Israelis would claim that the Palestinian Authority didn't keep to its side of the deal with its tacit endorsement and support for terrorism in 2001-2002, so the Israelis were thereby released from their obligations... AnonMoos (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comment right above, I completely agree with everything that you wrote here. AFAIK, the Oslo Accords never actually pave the Palestinians control of Area C--though they might have envisioned eventual Palestinian rule there as a part of a final peace treaty that unfortunately hasn't actually happened so far. Also, in regards to the Second Intifada, technical point, but this Intifada actually ended in or around early 2005. I know because I visited Israel with my family back in 2004 (when I was turning 12) for our Green Card interview (we were getting a Green Card back then and had to have an interview at the US consulate in East Jerusalem) and I very clearly remember that there was still a very serious problem with Palestinian terrorism in Israel back then. In fact, this was severe enough of a problem that I and my family constantly used taxis instead of public buses in Israel during this time because we perceived the usage of public buses as simply being too dangerous due to the risk of Palestinian suicide bombers blowing up these buses and thus killing some people on these buses. Seriously; it was some scary stuff in Israel back in 2004! Futurist110 (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are about twice as many Mongols living in China than there are in Mongolia, but I don't know if that is due to migration when China was under Mongol rule, or when Mongolia was under Chinese rule. Iapetus (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the difference myself. The question wasn't framed in the way it is being discussed now. Mexicans moving to what was Mexico but is now the U S is analogous to Turks moving to what was Turkey but is now Greece. The object of a population exchange is to prevent this happening. 2A02:C7F:A42:AD00:7915:848E:9FE9:9566 (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey saw a lot of Turkish-speaking non-Muslim families who considered themselves Turks moving (or, rather, being forcibly moved) from Turkey to Greece.  --Lambiam 08:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]