news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[shelven]

6 minutes ago, Armani? said:

Idk if you guys have noticed but the Siena poll has both the Black & Hispanic vote electorate at only 10% which would be less than 2020.

 

Idk what their methodology is to explain decreasing both by a point or 2, but that shifts the vote to Trump

 

Yeah I noticed this too, but I also noticed the totals don't add up to 100%. Not sure what's going on there because their 2020 exit poll does add up to 100% on that question, and only 4% of respondents in this poll either refused to disclose their race or answered "more than one", yet the weighing on this question adds up to 90%. Not sure if it's a typo in the weighing section or if I'm just missing something in the methodology

 

Doesn't really change much overall though. It would maybe just move the poll back to a tie instead of a Trump +1, but people would still be melting down over that  

[Sannie]

22 minutes ago, Armani? said:

Idk if you guys have noticed but the Siena poll has both the Black & Hispanic vote electorate at only 10% which would be less than 2020.

 

Idk what their methodology is to explain decreasing both by a point or 2, but that shifts the vote to Trump

 

Their methodology is "we have a vested interest in portraying this race as a tossup so more people view our websites". They're giving Nate Silver with this BS.

 

----

 

 

YES. YES. YES. A POLICY PAGE, AND A GOOD ONE AT THAT. The biggest thing Trump could've brought up at the debate, now donzo.

[shelven]

1 minute ago, Communion said:

Except this is not what the comment in question said:

 

Again, one can only be mad at her liking the comment in question if they think the Green Party owes it to be supportive of Democrats or argue in Democrats' favor over Republicans. 

 

Taking in praise from right-wing independents (specifically in response to Democrats kicking parties off of ballots) that Democrats suck and that the commentator in question is either voting for Republicans or Greens =/= endorsing the idea that Republicans are a viable option.

 

So again... what solidarity does the Green Party owe to work in coalition and collaboration with the Democratic Party that does not want them to exist? Why would they not utilize disaffected independents who think both Democrats and Republicans suck and that the Green Party is the only viable progressive choice? 

 

The post with the multiple anti-Dem comments she liked are - again - on the news that Dems kicked them off the ballot in Nevada.

You're again responding to a version of the comment that is simply not what the comment actually says. 

 

The comment very clearly states that the Dems need to be stopped and the reader should do one of two things, with option #1 being "vote for Trump" and option #2 being "vote Green." The objective logic of that comment is that the commenter thinks that either option is preferable to voting for Harris. 

 

Again, I'm not particularly interested in debating whether Stein liked the comment with full knowledge of that message or if she read it quickly and liked it despite that message. But... that is the message. Factually. It's the objective logic of how the comment is written. So either Stein didn't read the comment properly, just quickly saw Green Party support in it and liked it as a result (in which case she was careless and should fix that habit if she wants to be considered a serious third-party leader), or she properly understood the objective logic of the full comment and liked it anyways (in which case I would argue she is actively harmful and malicious). Either way, defending her liking the comment is an odd stance that I frankly can't understand someone who has always claimed to not want to see Trump elected taking. Once again, nobody (in this thread at least) is expecting the Green Party to show the Dems solidarity or to work with them, but we all should expect them to not go around endorsing people who say that either voting Green or voting Republican is an appropriate action to "stop the Dems."

[Communion]

55 minutes ago, Mr. Mendes said:

No, I do not. My statement is not about the Jill Stein liking a comment, my statement was about the "the two parties are the same" rhetoric that got introduced in your response. 

Why would someone who just spent weeks gathering 29,000 signatures not easily stumble into this mindset after experiencing Democrats kicking their party off the ballot?

 

This is - again - evidence that left-punching doesn't actually do what Democratic partisans hope it does.

 

Harris is showing to be much weaker in Nevada than Biden. Clinton only won the state by 27,200 votes.

What motivation do the now 29,000 supporters of Jill Stein have to support Democrats now that the party came out against their right to vote for the party of their choice? 

 

Of course Democratic partisans are going to have intensely negative, polarized reactions to a Green Party explicitly saying they feel no responsibility in helping Democrats beat Republicans.

 

It comes down to people who fundamentally believe in the Democratic Party not grasping the idea that people to their left can and do fully hate their party as much as Republicans and the misguided idea that somehow not constantly defending Democrats as a better choice than Republicans =/= an endorsement of Republicans. 

 

*I* wince and get an inherent knee-jerk sense to argue *some* Democrats are still better than Republicans when in a space where Republicans are being praised but because I am an idiot and still have a sense of belief in Democrats as a partisan voter for them for now years despite seeing no return on investment from them and actively having my views and support be framed as unhelpful and unwanted by the party. 

 

This just has no room to be a serious conversation because people who feel a sense of duty to see Democrats win are never going to be able to reconcile with the reality that.. some people simply do not feel the same duty! And it'd be much easier to have sympathies for those with hesitation to that view (that it's whatever if Dems lose) if we were also not discussing Democrats deciding democracy isn't actually important.

Edited September 9 by Communion

[Sannie]

Kamala: 19 policies on her Issues page.

Trump: 15 policies on his Issues page.

 

MSM Headlines: Harris Confuses the Public With Her Extensive Policy Page. 

[Communion]

9 minutes ago, shelven said:

The comment very clearly states that the Dems need to be stopped and the reader should do one of two things, with option #1 being "vote for Trump" and option #2 being "vote Green." The objective logic of that comment is that the commenter thinks that either option is preferable to voting for Harris. 

Yes, and it's not the Green Party's responsibility to shore away right-wing independents from this mindset in favor of Dems instead of just thanking them for the support.

 

 

[clee95]

How is this election this close? America is truly stupid....I cant.

[byzantium]

33 minutes ago, Armani? said:

Idk if you guys have noticed but the Siena poll has both the Black & Hispanic vote electorate at only 10% which would be less than 2020.

 

Idk what their methodology is to explain decreasing both by a point or 2, but that shifts the vote to Trump

 

Either way I feel like engaging in polling denialism is not really productive.  Especially for national polls which do not matter because we don't have national elections.  Based on 2016, and 2020, we need to assume trump will get 46-47% of the national vote and 46-49% in any particular swing state and that is exactly what the siena poll states.  

[Sannie]

1 minute ago, byzantium said:

Either way I feel like engaging in polling denialism is not really productive.  Especially for national polls which do not matter because we don't have national elections.  Based on 2016, and 2020, we need to assume trump will get 46-47% of the national vote and 46-49% in any particular swing state and that is exactly what the siena poll states.  

Sure, it's counterproductive, but it's also important to point out weird inconsistencies like this. Polling is the only way to know what's going on so if there are polls trying to push a narrative, it's good to point it out.

[shelven]

Just now, Communion said:

Yes, and it's not the Green Party's responsibility to shore away right-wing independents from this mindset in favor of Dems instead of just thanking them for the support.

Then... stay silent? Don't like the comment? I feel like we're at an impasse here because you keep repeating that the Green Party doesn't have an obligation to discourage that mindset, but what Stein did was actively endorse it. That's... not the same thing! Nobody (in here) is expecting Stein to look for every comment like this and reply to each one saying "hey now, don't tell people to vote for Trump! Dems are bad but Trump's not the solution." But people understandably take issue with her going beyond doing nothing to dissuade right-wing independents from voting Trump and endorsing them voting for him. That's all I'm trying to get across here. If we can't at least agree on the fact that the Green Party shouldn't be actively endorsing voting for Trump as a preferred option to Harris winning, then frankly I've misunderstood your position this entire time on what outcome you want to see in November, because this really then starts to sound like you're rooting for a Trump win so that the Dems "learn their lesson", which I certainly hope isn't the case.

[Sannie]

1 minute ago, shelven said:

Then... stay silent? Don't like the comment? I feel like we're at an impasse here because you keep repeating that the Green Party doesn't have an obligation to discourage that mindset, but what Stein did was actively endorse it. That's... not the same thing! Nobody (in here) is expecting Stein to look for every comment like this and reply to each one saying "hey now, don't tell people to vote for Trump! Dems are bad but Trump's not the solution." But people understandably take issue with her going beyond doing nothing to dissuade right-wing independents from voting Trump and endorsing them voting for him. That's all I'm trying to get across here. If we can't at least agree on the fact that the Green Party shouldn't be actively endorsing voting for Trump as a preferred option to Harris winning, then frankly I've misunderstood your position this entire time on what outcome you want to see in November, because this really then starts to sound like you're rooting for a Trump win so that the Dems "learn their lesson", which I certainly hope isn't the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

[ks_dollar]

11 minutes ago, clee95 said:

How is this election this close? America is truly stupid....I cant.

!!!! shockingly dumb

[byzantium]

1 minute ago, Sannie said:

Sure, it's counterproductive, but it's also important to point out weird inconsistencies like this. Polling is the only way to know what's going on so if there are polls trying to push a narrative, it's good to point it out.

I mean every poll has a margin of error of 3-6%.  The polling error that user pointed out would make for a less than 1% shift which is in the window you should already be accounting for.  

Polling is useful because it shows you where most of the states are going.  Like it would not be productive for either candidate to spend money in New York or Tennassee.  But its not really useful for gaining certainty on razor thin margins in the key swing states.  (By definition they are swing states because they are within the margin of error where polling cannot predict with certainty how they will sing). Its just not really productive to accuse X or Y poll of spinning an agenda when their results are precisely what you would expect a well designed poll to reach.  

[Communion]

2 minutes ago, shelven said:

endorsing them voting for him.

Again, the issue is these complaints are not based on anything material. This person is not endorsing people voting for Trump:

 

This isn't to say that I think the anger expressed - that much-so already existed - is coming from a malicious place.

 

I'm sure people who are emotionally invested in and feel a duty to ensure Democrats win are genuinely upset or depressed at the sight of and reality that there are people who have been so negatively polarized by Democrats' antics that they now don't feel at all a responsibility that Dems win. 

 

But then that means this entire conversation is 1) more-so emotional catharsis for Dem partisans over the weight of this election than anything Jill Stein is or isn't doing and 2) for me, more-so than about this being a result of Democrats anti-democratic actions and behaviors first and foremost. 

 

I mean, it's ultimately ***-for-tat as this rhetoric for me is jarring:

12 minutes ago, shelven said:

like you're rooting for a Trump win

because it aims frustrations with Greens at someone *8 years* consistently holding the same position that political parties are not entitled to or owed votes, that no individual voters bare the responsibility for any candidates losing, and that it is the job of the candidate to simply win votes through persuasion. 

 

The conversation is dangerously close to creeping into the argument that having any kind of policy red line or demand that means you'll withhold from Democrats - and thus won't help them in winning because you don't feel a sense of duty to - is somehow "rooting for a Trump win". 

 

If Kamala Harris loses, it won't be because of Green Party voters, but because her campaigning was simply not persuasive enough to voters that mattered.

If Jill Stein fails to hit 5% at the end of the election, it won't* be because Democratic voters withheld votes from her she was owed, but because the threat of Trump was simply far more persuasive of an argument than anything she could offer.

 

*- Democratic-aligned election officials and state judges using the state apparatus to arbitrarily kick off non-corporate parties muddies these waters.

[Communion]

1 hour ago, Mr. Mendes said:

But unfortunately, there are times when that commitment to those beliefs leads to a conversation where no alternate view is acceptable

I appreciate why you may feel emotional, but truthfully, statements like this show the actual basis of this conversation.

 

That none of this is about anyone actually feeling Jill "Defeat the Dem-Rep Uniparty" Stein is endorsing Trump, but emotional catharsis for Dem partisans for 8 years of having to navigate a political party that makes choices not around material reality but around contradicting whims of donors that make winning elections an uphill battle.

 

You're sitting here saying: "I'm being made to feel that I'm not allowed to have my view and that alternative view points aren't acceptable."

 

...in response, ironically, to Democrats literally using the legal powers of the state apparatus to censure and deny a 3rd party ballot access?

 

Your views are not being de-platformed. Your views are not being repressed via powers of the state. Your support for corporate Democrats is institutionally supported!

 

People who simply disagree with your support of Dems are themselves often faced with the full brutality of the police state the party in question supports:

 

 

[shelven]

13 minutes ago, Communion said:

Again, the issue is these complaints are not based on anything material. This person is not endorsing people voting for Trump:

Okay, so then we're at scenario 1 in my earlier post, which is that she carelessly liked a comment that objectively was endorsing people voting for Trump. If you're right that she doesn't think that Trump winning is actively preferable to Harris winning, then you should share my desire for her to stop being so careless in the future. Because people are rightfully going to assume that her liking "vote for Trump if you want as long as we stop Harris" comments means she views the order of preferred outcomes as: Green Party winning > Trump winning > Harris winning. 

 

13 minutes ago, Communion said:

The conversation is dangerously close to creeping into the argument that having any kind of policy red line or demand that means you'll withhold from Democrats - and thus won't help them in winning because you don't feel a sense of duty to - is somehow "rooting for a Trump win". 

If someone likes comments saying "vote Trump", then yes, I will assume they are rooting for a Trump win because... they have just told me through their likes that they are rooting for a Trump win So again, let's give her the benefit of the doubt that she was just being careless and didn't mean to endorse the full content of that comment! But that's the only plausible alternative to conceding that Stein would prefer a Trump presidency over a Harris presidency. Trying to convince anyone that Stein still wouldn't be rooting for a Trump win even if she had intended to co-sign someone literally telling people to vote Trump as a preferable option to voting for Harris is silly. 

[GhostBox]

Jill Stein has been and always will be a grifter nothing more. She doesn't care about the issues she pretends to. That's why she doesn't care if Trump wins. 
 

3rd party candidates and their chances would be so much better if Jill stein never existed. 

[Communion]

29 minutes ago, shelven said:

If you're right that she doesn't think that Trump winning is actively preferable to Harris winning, then you should share my desire for her to stop being so careless in the future.

This is just going to go in circles because I think some of you don't really give thought to the idea that you're operating at a base level of some level of hypocrisy by endorsing Dems at all during their giant shift towards to the right. It's hard to believe anyone vocally championing Kamala Harris is concerned with the normalizing of Republicans.

 

You're suggesting I don't share your desire, while I could simply point out that I do hold that desire - I've already pointed out that *I* feel a knee-jerk responsibility to shoot down conservatives when they begin to dominate a conversation about the failures of Democrat - yet also understand that liking an instagram or TikTok comment has almost no material impact on the direction of the electorate.

 

And that, more so, those concerned about the carelessness of endorsing the right would be more dedicated in their time to the harmful impact in shifting the Overton window to the right when major liberal candidates honor Dick Cheney, for example:

 

Like the elephant in the room is that there's no real way to believably feel outraged and believe in this idea of some crypto far left-far right alliance while... defending for and voting for an actual center-right and right-wing political alliance taking formation.

 

By all means, vote for Kamala and defeat Trump. I'm not going to hold her failures and right-wing views over anyone's head rightfully fearful of Trump and make them feel bad and try to personally victimize anyone, but surely I'm not insane in recognizing that there's an awkwardness when those voting the same way as Dick Cheney are paranoid of some horseshoe occurring. You're the horseshoe! I just hope you're right it's needed for now! 

Edited September 9 by Communion

[shelven]

8 minutes ago, Communion said:

This is just going to go in circles because I think some of you don't really give thought to the idea that you're operating at a base level of some level of hypocrisy by endorsing Dems at all during their giant shift towards to the right. It's hard to believe anyone vocally championing Kamala Harris is concerned with the normalizing of Republicans.

 

I think you're failing to make a distinction between the people who are truly championing Harris as an objectively great option vs. people who are endorsing voting for the Dems this cycle out of what they feel is an important need for harm reduction. For the former group, I can definitely see the hypocrisy. But I fail to see it for the latter group. If someone is openly dissatisfied and frustrated by Harris's move to the right but nonetheless considers it necessary to bite their tongue and vote for her anyways because the only practical alternative will be worse on every issue they care about and so they want to mitigate the amount of damage being done, it's not a hypocrisy for them to call out people who are actively endorsing voting for Trump despite claiming that they view Trump at minimum to be equally as bad as Harris (and let's be honest, if pressed, Stein would probably admit that Harris's policies are at least closer to the Green Party's policies than Trump's). 

 

For what it's worth, on an individual level, I personally don't believe in Horseshoe Theory and I think the people online who are encouraging others to vote for Trump as a preferable alternative to stopping Harris are a small minority that shouldn't be used to paint broad strokes about all Green supporters or the leftist movement as a whole. But seeing Stein co-sign that small minority - even if it actually was out of carelessness - is frustrating and it makes me doubt her seriousness as a good faith political leader, which I was already starting to feel some doubts about after other behaviour I've seen from her that ranges from counterproductive to simply petty.

[ClashAndBurn]

If the shoe were on the other foot, liberals would absolutely view Republicans as a lesser evil than Greens, and practically no one would be batting an eye at the idea of Harris liking a post advocating for people to vote for Trump over Stein. Yet here we are expecting Stein to implicitly endorse the party that is suing multiple states' election administrators to get her kicked off of ballots. Something that, instead of viewing it as a threat to democracy, people here cheer when it happens because they assume it means they'll have an easier path to win instead of just leading to Green voters staying home.

[shelven]

7 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Yet here we are expecting Stein to implicitly endorse the party

For like the 5th time tonight, nobody in here is expecting that. We are simply expecting her to not explicitly endorse voting for Trump. The bar is... very low. This is really starting to feel like an intentional strawman now

 

Also the first sentence of your post is a baseless what-if that certainly doesn't apply to me and I very highly doubt would apply to literally any regular poster in this thread (maybe Kassi or that Argentinian user who got threadbanned, but nobody currently in here). I've been trying to have a rational discussion about this, but I'm not going to bother to continue with that if we're now at the point of inventing opinions that simply do not exist in this thread, so I guess this is where I call it a night

[ClashAndBurn]

11 minutes ago, shelven said:

For like the 5th time tonight, nobody in here is expecting that. We are simply expecting her to not explicitly endorse voting for Trump. The bar is... very low. This is really starting to feel like an intentional strawman now

 

Also the first sentence of your post is a baseless what-if that certainly doesn't apply to me and I very highly doubt would apply to literally any regular poster in this thread (maybe Kassi or that Argentinian user who got threadbanned, but nobody currently in here). I've been trying to have a rational discussion about this, but I'm not going to bother to continue with that if we're now at the point of inventing opinions that simply do not exist in this thread, so I guess this is where I call it a night

Was more referring to GhostBox (and yes, Kassi would certainly apply too) with that and not you. I'd consider you more of a "pragmatic progressive" than a liberal anyway. Whereas liberals absolutely are forming alliances with neocons to shut out the left. Look at France, where Macron just did exactly that after he lost the snap election he just called, naming a right-wing PM as a direct backstab to Mélenchon's party after they won a clear plurality over Marine Le Pen. It seems foolish to think that isn't going to happen here with Harris literally courting endorsements from the Cheneys and very publicly and directly snubbing leftists and the Uncommitted movement. She even said she'd be open to putting Republicans in her cabinet, so I mean...  

Edited September 9 by ClashAndBurn

[shelven]

2 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Was more referring to GhostBox (and yes, Kassi would certainly apply too) with that and not you. I'd consider you more of a "pragmatic progressive" than a liberal anyway. Whereas liberals absolutely are forming alliances with neocons to shut out the left. Look at France, where Macron just did exactly that after he lost the snap election he just called, naming a right-wing PM as a direct backstab to Mélenchon's party after they won a clear plurality over Marine Le Pen. It seems foolish to think that isn't going to happen with Harris literally courting endorsements from the Cheneys and very publicly and directly snubbing leftists and the Uncommitted movement.

Thanks for clarifying (and sorry for my somewhat aggressive tone - I was just getting a bit worn down after I assumed I was being misconstrued again after explaining myself a few times tonight). You raise a valid point with the France example and I can see where the fear of a liberal/neocon alliance comes from. I'm just skeptical that your specific Trump example would apply, mainly because so much of center-left liberalism in the US right now is dominated by a visceral fear of and/or hatred towards Trump. I think most Harris supporters would support literally anybody over Trump (which is both a good and a bad thing ), regardless of where that alternative falls on the political spectrum. But yes, when looking at the longer term future of the Dem party, I understand (and share) your concern about where everything is going to sit once Trump is finally out the picture, whenever that may be.

[Communion]

34 minutes ago, shelven said:

I think you're failing to make a distinction between the people who are truly championing Harris as an objectively great option vs. people who are endorsing voting for the Dems this cycle out of what they feel is an important need for harm reduction. For the former group, I can definitely see the hypocrisy. But I fail to see it for the latter group. If someone is openly dissatisfied and frustrated by Harris's move to the right but nonetheless considers it necessary to bite their tongue and vote for her anyways because the only practical alternative will be worse on every issue they care about and so they want to mitigate the amount of damage being done, it's not a hypocrisy for them to call out people who are actively endorsing voting for Trump despite claiming that they view Trump at minimum to be equally as bad as Harris (and let's be honest, if pressed, Stein would probably admit that Harris's policies are at least closer to the Green Party's policies than Trump's). 

 

For what it's worth, on an individual level, I personally don't believe in Horseshoe Theory and I think the people online who are encouraging others to vote for Trump as a preferable alternative to stopping Harris are a small minority that shouldn't be used to paint broad strokes about all Green supporters or the leftist movement as a whole. But seeing Stein co-sign that small minority - even if it actually was out of carelessness - is frustrating and it makes me doubt her seriousness as a good faith political leader, which I was already starting to feel some doubts about after other behaviour I've seen from her that ranges from counterproductive to simply petty.

I don't want this to take over the thread, so I'll just say that I think it's ultimately driven by a difference in interpreting what Harris' right-wing transformation means.

 

Personally, voting for Harris with clear support and voting for Harris with hesitation or doubts still just results in a vote for Harris and the agenda she wants. Harris isn't going to reflect on the people who half-heartedly voted for her and expressed doubts and promises to come after her once elected as meaningful or noteworthy. She... won!

 

So thus it just feels like paranoia and projection for anyone voting for her to feel comfortable enough to have the free time to look outward and away from Harris, now at others with suspicious eyes. Of course I'm not saying anyone does or doesn't have a right to form opinions on the Green Party if they're voting for Harris, but that's just why some of the analysis is going to be met with an eye roll by some leftists when this is basically where myself and many others are at:

Basically I just think some liberals are not fully aware of how blackpilling and polarizing this is all is getting to be for some leftists and progressives and there's a growing disparity between how liberals and progressives understand how to navigate this election and the sentiments around the major themes of it.

 

This has nothing to do with you nor really directed at you, but just trying to articulate that the other result of Harris moving the Democratic Party to the right means a meaningful amount of those on the left.... end up, simply, kicked out of it, and that's in effect the difference in sentiment. I just think those who are still welcomed within the party are not going to get the current reactions to those that have been orphaned from it.

Edited September 9 by Communion

[Communion]

Anyway let's go back to collectively hating Josh Shapiro!

3 hours ago, Relampago. said:

Okay, I know I was in here saying that Shapiro might have been a smarter pick just a few days ago since he might have helped with PA but Kamala picking Walz is possibly the ONLY thing she's done thus far to not "tack to the center"  And ultimately, I think the dynamic Walz and Harris have is pretty remarkable. The awkward power struggle and inevitable intraparty division that Shapiro would have caused would have been a terrible way to start the campaign. No one reasonable was upset at a Walz pick, but there would have been a million reasons to be upset at a Shapiro pick. All we would have gotten from that is some help in PA, which would still admittedly be very nice, but possibly at the cost of decreased enthusiasm in certain demographics and states like MI.

 

He's so out of touch lately. Everything he says and puts out reads as bitter and pressed commentary that he was wrong or biased about something, not actual meaningful commentary.

 

If Harris loses, it will not be because she wasn't appealing to the center, goodness.  

 

!