US 2024 Presidential Election

[meiam]

Nationally Kamala still leads by +1.1%, but Trump has the edge on a few key swing states.

Irregardless the margin of error for every prediction is larger than his lead, or Kamala's.

It's a tossup at this point.

Meh poll always underestimate republican/Trump, he's better now than he did in either 16/20. Plus now he has terrorist doing his bidding and stacked the entire system with yes man that will push that he won no matter what. 50/50 is an easy win for Trump.

 

[tippy2k2]

I'd like to see a study of third-party voters doing trolley problems, I'd very much like to know how one can fail at both utilitarian and deontological ethics.

I am only one third party voter so hardly a study but we went over this pages ago...





Democrats are the ones actively choosing to sacrifice an entire countries worth of people. This isn't some malevolent force or natural disaster that we can't do anything about. Democrats are tying people to the track to run them down when they can choose to just...not do that.

Once The Democrats know you'll let them get away with fucking Genocide and still vote for them, they'll know you'll let them get away with anything as long as they are 99% Hitler going up against 100% Hitler. Just don't be shocked next go around when they decide a cause dear to you is a worthy sacrifice for the trolly...

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Whatever. Everyone else seems just fine letting our country go to shit, why should I bother resisting?

Edit: To be clear, I definitely support one candidate over another, and it's not that I actually don't care who wins. It's just that it feels like the only thing I get for getting involved is being told I'm evil for supporting one candidate, and with the electoral college, my vote doesn't actually matter at all, so it feels like pissing in the wind to do or say anything at best.

It's a sad state of things. There's an effort to divide the left, not just here but going forward, by those who more enthusiastically support Kamala. They go out of their way to insult and demean in order to get insulted back and make the returns look broader than they are. And it's going to poison things going further.

 

[Seanchaidh]

 

[tippy2k2]

If We VoTe FoR hArRiS, iT'lL bE eAsIeR tO oRgAnIzE aNd PrOtEsT!!!!!

 

[Seanchaidh]

I'd like to see a study of third-party voters doing trolley problems, I'd very much like to know how one can fail at both utilitarian and deontological ethics.

Third party voters take the foundational liberal value concerning the 'consent of the governed' more seriously than liberals; for liberals it has been reduced to pablum. Oh, you're 'harm reducing'? In a 'free and fair election'? Right.

 

[Agema]

When they say politics is about compromising, it's always compromising with The Republicans instead of compromising with The Left. They'd rather lose with The Right than win with The Left because they both serve the same master.

The Democrats already have the left. The Democrats are already pretty much everyone left of the Republican Party. And everyone to the left of the Republicans means some pretty right wing people. Like, consider Joe Manchin. The territory for "swing voters" is just to the right of Joe fucking Manchin.

I'm not sure you actually have a bargaining chip here. If the Democrats cater too much to the left, they probably lose the "Joe Manchin" centre and lose overall. Or they can try to take the centre and the left can not vote for them and they can lose overall. I really do not think the left is that big. Polls suggest the self-identification of US voters is ~40% moderate, ~35% conservative and ~25% liberal. The Democratic Party is ~45% moderate, ~15% conservative, ~40% liberal. The left is just a subset of the liberals.

I'm open to you suggesting where else there is mass of left-leaning voters that Democrats can tap to make a decisive difference.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

The Democrats already have the left. The Democrats are already pretty much everyone left of the Republican Party. And everyone to the left of the Republicans means some pretty right wing people. Like, consider Joe Manchin. The territory for "swing voters" is just to the right of Joe fucking Manchin.

I'm not sure you actually have a bargaining chip here. If the Democrats cater too much to the left, they probably lose the "Joe Manchin" centre and lose overall. Or they can try to take the centre and the left can not vote for them and they can lose overall. I really do not think the left is that big. Polls suggest the self-identification of US voters is ~40% moderate, ~35% conservative and ~25% liberal. The Democratic Party is ~45% moderate, ~15% conservative, ~40% liberal. The left is just a subset of the liberals.

I'm open to you suggesting where else there is mass of left-leaning voters that Democrats can tap to make a decisive difference.

Obama in 2008 ran an unabashedly left wing campaign and won more votes than any president before by a wide margin, betrayed his left wing promises and moved right to immediately lose the house and 5 million votes off his reelection, Hillary ran to the right of that and lost to Trump, Biden ran on left wing compromise that won him more votes than any candidate before. Switching to Kamala and picking Walz (in contrast to Shapiro) was winning in the polls, until she started campaigning with the Cheneys and is now looking to lose.

 

[tippy2k2]

The Democrats already have the left. The Democrats are already pretty much everyone left of the Republican Party. And everyone to the left of the Republicans means some pretty right wing people. Like, consider Joe Manchin. The territory for "swing voters" is just to the right of Joe fucking Manchin.

I'm not sure you actually have a bargaining chip here. If the Democrats cater too much to the left, they probably lose the "Joe Manchin" centre and lose overall. Or they can try to take the centre and the left can not vote for them and they can lose overall. I really do not think the left is that big. Polls suggest the self-identification of US voters is ~40% moderate, ~35% conservative and ~25% liberal. The Democratic Party is ~45% moderate, ~15% conservative, ~40% liberal. The left is just a subset of the liberals.

I'm open to you suggesting where else there is mass of left-leaning voters that Democrats can tap to make a decisive difference.

Democrats have been blowing off the actual left for as long as I've been allowed to vote (before the election, we're a small subset of losers who "can't compromise" so no one should try to give in to any of our demands but then after the elections when they lose, it's all third parties fault because we didn't shut the fuck up and get in line like they did). They've continued to move right ever since then.

Maybe they're right that we're not a big enough group to cater to but I 100% feel like there are a lot of voters like me but they just don't bother to vote because they see no point in it. A LOT of my positions are pretty fucking popular even across the aisle like M4A and not funding a genocide but Democrats would rather go after Republicans instead of at least trying to do some of the shit us dirty lefties want from our politicians. I'll be sad for America if this proves to kill Harris but I sure as fuck won't' be sad that The Democrats still haven't learned their 2016 lessons of "Not being Trump" isn't enough this go around to get people to throw away their principles.

 

[Silvanus]

I've only used the methods you've used to come to your evidence-free conclusions and then suppositions about voter intentions that make more sense than anything you've said so far

I'm not really interested in your bizarre suppositions about the thought processes of others. Its clear you don't have much of a grasp of what your opponents actually believe-- and you made that a point of pride. So why should we credit them?

And if these bizarre contradictions only crop up when we accept your silly suppositions, then they don't really reflect on anyone else.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Meh poll always underestimate republican/Trump, he's better now than he did in either 16/20. Plus now he has terrorist doing his bidding and stacked the entire system with yes man that will push that he won no matter what. 50/50 is an easy win for Trump.

I agree 50/50 is advantageous to Trump.

The 2016 polls were a joke, don't know how they compared to the 2020 polls in accuracy.

 

[tstorm823]

The source here is far from unbiased, and the content is unsurprising in most ways, but I figure people here are unlikely to stumble across this on their own, so for your reading pleasure:

The Harris Campaign Manipulates Reddit To Control The Platform

The Kamala Harris campaign has launched an effort to flood Reddit with pro-Harris political content to try to sway the election.

thefederalist.com

Something like 10% of the top of Reddit is allegedly manipulated by the Harris campaign. Anyone who has read comments on top posts and seen the copy-paste answers repeated all over the place is unsurprised that it's fake, and only surprised that they use actual humans for this rather than just ad-bots.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I'm not really interested in your bizarre suppositions about the thought processes of others. Its clear you don't have much of a grasp of what your opponents actually believe-- and you made that a point of pride. So why should we credit them?

And if these bizarre contradictions only crop up when we accept your silly suppositions, then they don't really reflect on anyone else.

What 'bizarre' contradictions are you even talking about? There is just an inconsistency between a very plausible thought process that is leading people who care about Palestine to want the defeat of the Democrats (because they are guilty of genocide and in power) and on the other hand your entirely unjustified (aside from mere exposure effect) assumptions. Maybe your unjustified assumptions are simply wrong. The fact that ideas which you don't even bother to defend on their merits but rather on the grounds that relevant others supposedly believe them (that you present as inarguable on the flimsiest of pretense) are not consistent with the actual data from the article you presented nor my reasoning about why the data from that article makes sense is not bizarre at all. It is expected.

 

[Bedinsis]

Read an article the other day.

That “Little Secret” Between Trump and Johnson? Here’s What It Could Mean.

The “secret” almost certainly involves a plan to install Trump in the White House if he loses the election—but this plan could be even worse than you think.

www.thenation.com

Most educated guesses assume that Trump and Johnson are “secretly” talking about installing Trump as president through a “contingent election,” whereby the House of Representatives, not the Electoral College, determines the president. I think the plot goes deeper than that, but let’s start with the contingent election idea.

To understand how this could work, you have to understand the 12th Amendment of the Constitution. Here’s the key language: “The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote[.]”

[---]

Let’s say Vice President Kamala Harris wins the bare majority of Electoral College votes necessary, 270, but the Republican legislature in Wisconsin refuses to submit the state’s 10 electors by the deadline. In this scenario, the new total number of electors becomes 528, not 538—and Trump needs only 264 electoral votes to “win.” If you take Wisconsin and Nevada’s six electors out of the mix, Trump needs only 262 electoral votes to “win.” He’ll likely achieve those numbers without having to win one of the “blue wall” states.

It’s possible to play with the numbers until you find a “tie” scenario at which point the contingent election goes to the House of Representatives, but the far more likely situation is that Trump decreases the overall number of electoral votes available until he can claim a majority of the ones remaining.

And this is where Speaker Johnson becomes critical to the whole “secret” plan. In 2020, Nancy Pelosi was speaker of the House. If states had tried to get cute and not submit their electors by the December 11 deadline, Pelosi would just have extended the deadline. But Speaker Johnson surely won’t. If electors are not submitted by December 11, he’ll likely declare the process “over” and say that the electors appointed by that date are the only ones allowed to vote for president.

Some of the language in the article makes me think it was written by a Democrat wearing a tinfoil hat, but following Scotus justice Scalia's death the Republicans stalled for over half a year without any good justification so I cannot dismiss it.

 

[Trunkage]

I've seen who starts voteshaming every time, and it's not third party voters. It's that ugliness that drives people away from mainstream parties.

I wouldn't say third or mainstream. It's centrists. It includes the horseshoe theory of left and right so they can blame someone else other than themselves. These fit into all parties

But then, that's not what this is about. Let's say it was a mainstream party person who started Tippy off. Great. That's not who started ME off. That was a third party person

And, again, let's say that a mainstream party started Tippy off. That, in no shape or form, allows Tippy to voteshaming.

I wouldn't let Tstorm, Agema, Phoenixmgs or BrawlMan say that they are against something and then immediately do that very thing to someone else. Most of my arguments on this forum is about one person who tells everyone else how they should live and then not met that same standard

If you care about not voteshaming, then don't voteshame someone

I don't hold this against Tippy. I personally don't care if they voteshames. I DO care that they are trying to absolve themselves from sin and not caring about how gets hurt in the process

 

[Trunkage]

Someday, you will realize that there is dignity in admitting you were wrong, but apparently today isn't that day.

Trump was definitely partially responsible. But he was also in a bind from successive poor choices of previous presidents. Hence the partial.

Trump dumbest move was telling the Taliban he was leaving because the Taliban just waited him out. It assured the Taliban would gain control.

 

[Trunkage]

Just because you've given up doesn't mean I have to

If you can't hold Democrats accountable for genocide, you're never gonna be willing to hold them accountable for anything. "The Other Side will do it too!!!" doesn't magically absolve Democrats of doing it.

You're going to have to point to where you think I said the Dems were absolved. I've stated that you aren't absolve if you vote for them AND if you don't. This includes me who doesn't even vote in the US. That's not the same thing

This problem has been going on since at least the 90s. People were getting fired from jobs in the early 2000s for being Pro-Palestian. Just ask Bari Wiess, she did that personally. This fight has been going on a long time....

You've had thirty years. How's the 'holding the Dems to account' thing going? Me personally, it seems to be going the opposite direction. I, personally, think the Dems are proud of their record.

If you aren't going to vote for Dems, why would they care what you think?

And this isn't the only issue we have with the Dems.... So why wouldn't they just listen to someone who agrees with them?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I wouldn't say third or mainstream. It's centrists. It includes the horseshoe theory of left and right so they can blame someone else other than themselves. These fit into all parties

But then, that's not what this is about. Let's say it was a mainstream party person who started Tippy off. Great. That's not who started ME off. That was a third party person

And, again, let's say that a mainstream party started Tippy off. That, in no shape or form, allows Tippy to voteshaming.

I wouldn't let Tstorm, Agema, Phoenixmgs or BrawlMan say that they are against something and then immediately do that very thing to someone else. Most of my arguments on this forum is about one person who tells everyone else how they should live and then not met that same standard

If you care about not voteshaming, then don't voteshame someone

I don't hold this against Tippy. I personally don't care if they voteshames. I DO care that they are trying to absolve themselves from sin and not caring about how gets hurt in the process

It is a natural if ugly response to go after someone in kind. That's why I'm on the "no voteshaming" wagon, but it's easier to excuse the reaction than the cause. And it's very easy to see Tippy stopping if people stop coming at him with voteshaming.

 

[Satinavian]

Democrats have been blowing off the actual left for as long as I've been allowed to vote (before the election, we're a small subset of losers who "can't compromise" so no one should try to give in to any of our demands but then after the elections when they lose, it's all third parties fault because we didn't shut the fuck up and get in line like they did). They've continued to move right ever since then.

If they lose, that means that the Republican positions were more appealing to Americans and they need to move further ride. They will only start moving left when they win by a huge margin.

Maybe they're right that we're not a big enough group to cater to but I 100% feel like there are a lot of voters like me but they just don't bother to vote because they see no point in it.

Sure. But those people are seen as apathic or unpolitic, not as left or winnable with leftist policies.


If you American manage to elect Trump again, after what he did the last time, after the convictions, after his conduct in the elections, you have to take responsibility for that, if you couild have helped prevent it and didn't.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

To be clear, i hate it that there seems to be no feasable way for the election going that stops the Gaza genozide.

But i still think that throwing a tantrum about that, getting Trump elected, handing the Ukraine to Putin, starting trade wars all over the globe, reversing climate policies and sabotaging all global related initiatives for four years, rigging the courts with right wing judges staying in power for decades, cutting social programs even more for more tax brake is a terrible action.
Particularly when it doesn't even help the Palestinians at all and all it does is that you can congratulate yourself about not having being responsible for Gaza.


It is already quite bad that the US is powerful enough that its elections influence the whole world, while we we just have to live wih whatever you decide. But we sure blame you for those decisions.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

If they lose, that means that the Republican positions were more appealing to Americans and they need to move further ride. They will only start moving left when they win by a huge margin.

That is literally the exact opposite of what's happened the last 4 presidential election cycles. Every time dems win, they move right. They only even pretend the left exists when they lose.