news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[i spit on haters]

1 hour ago, tiejc said:

 

Good on her for dominating his handshake.

 

 

[Save-Me-Oprah]

why do people gag over national polls?

 

like, they mean nothing, who cares, the national popular vote has zero bearing on who will win the election

 

[dabunique]

 

[Tropic]

12 minutes ago, Save-Me-Oprah said:

why do people gag over national polls?

 

like, they mean nothing, who cares, the national popular vote has zero bearing on who will win the election

 

This is dumb, they do matter because the electoral college margin is directly correlated with the popular vote. If Harris is leading 3-4% in the national polls she's extremely favoured. If they're even Trump is extremely favoured. National polls often have a much bigger sample size than swing state polls and are better for tracking changing voter sentiment – they're also often more accurate (i.e national polls accurately predicted declining Clinton's margins towards the end of the 2016 election even though state polling was very off). 

Edited Saturday at 01:21 AM by Tropic

[Save-Me-Oprah]

2 minutes ago, Tropic said:

they're also often more accurate (i.e national polls accurately predicted Clinton's margins towards the end of the 2016 election even though state polling was very off). 

Exactly, and she won by 3 million votes but still lost the election 

[Tropic]

5 minutes ago, Save-Me-Oprah said:

Exactly, and she won by 3 million votes but still lost the election 

Again, it's not about whether or not the democrat is winning in the national polls, it's about how much they're winning by. If the national polls were to suggest Kamala was only going to win the popular vote by 3 million like Hillary (2% difference), obviously that would be a sign she is losing the election not a sign she's winning it. Have you not heard of extrapolation. 

Edited Saturday at 01:28 AM by Tropic

[i spit on haters]

2 hours ago, Blade said:

Somebody needs to teach Kamala to just answer the question especially when related to the economy. Nobody gives a **** how you grew up. 

It's beginning to appear like she too has concepts of a plan.

[Lil Mistee]

2 hours ago, DR0GO said:

Kamala and Oprah will be having a UNITE FOR AMERICA livestream on September 19th.

save me oprah!

[Vermillion]

 

[Vermillion]

 

[ClashAndBurn]

19 minutes ago, i spit on haters said:

It's beginning to appear like she too has concepts of a plan.

Honestly policy shouldn't even be a consideration in this election, considering divided government is pretty much a guarantee at this point. Policy will only be a factor if Republicans get a trifecta, which they somewhat have a path to achieving. Which is... unlike the Dems, whose path is so narrow that they might as well be considered to have none at all. 

 

The only policy consideration that will matter is bipartisan **** like "How many drilling permits and oil pipelines can we approve?" and "How much more can we spend on supporting Israel's genocidal ambitions?" Other than that, with a Kamala Harris Administration, we can look forward to 4-8 more years of stagnation and continuous threats of government shutdowns weaponized by Republicans throwing tantrums as they move the goalposts even more over their maximalist immigration demands.

 

The next time there may ever be an actual policy debate is in 2032 or 2036. And even then, whomever the progressive candidate may be will get blown out in the primary by the moderate due to South Carolina voters having such a strong devotion to the establishment, so  

[i spit on haters]

 

You all should subscribe. She's one of my fav. commentary content creators and she's ******* brilliant.

[Vermillion]

 

[teresaguidice]

1 hour ago, Save-Me-Oprah said:

why do people gag over national polls?

 

like, they mean nothing, who cares, the national popular vote has zero bearing on who will win the election

 

because national polls have been a lot more accurate than state polls the last few elections

[tiejc]

 

[Vermillion]

 

[Vermillion]

 

[Armani?]

31 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Honestly policy shouldn't even be a consideration in this election, considering divided government is pretty much a guarantee at this point. Policy will only be a factor if Republicans get a trifecta, which they somewhat have a path to achieving. Which is... unlike the Dems, whose path is so narrow that they might as well be considered to have none at all. 

 

The only policy consideration that will matter is bipartisan **** like "How many drilling permits and oil pipelines can we approve?" and "How much more can we spend on supporting Israel's genocidal ambitions?" Other than that, with a Kamala Harris Administration, we can look forward to 4-8 more years of stagnation and continuous threats of government shutdowns weaponized by Republicans throwing tantrums as they move the goalposts even more over their maximalist immigration demands.

 

The next time there may ever be an actual policy debate is in 2032 or 2036. And even then, whomever the progressive candidate may be will get blown out in the primary by the moderate due to South Carolina voters having such a strong devotion to the establishment, so  

[Blade]

10 minutes ago, Vermillion said:

 

Is it just me or is the ~43k vote margin that is constantly referenced only including AZ/WI/GA margins (10.4k/20.6k/11.7k) which actually don't give Trump 270 but rather lead to a 269-269 tie? I know he may still have ended up President in a tie but doesn't he technically need another states margin to get the 270? The next closest EV would be NE-02 which means the margin was actually ~65k.

Edited Saturday at 02:38 AM by Blade

[Vermillion]

 

[ClashAndBurn]

6 minutes ago, Blade said:

Is it just me or is the ~43k vote margin that is constantly referenced only including AZ/WI/GA margins (10.4k/20.6k/11.7k) which actually don't give Trump 270 but rather lead to a 269-269 tie? I know he may still have ended up President in a tie but doesn't he technically need another states margin to get the 270? The next closest EV would be NE-02 which means the margin was actually ~65k.

(Maybe you know this already but for the benefit of others who don't) In the event of a tie, the state delegations in the House pick the president and the Senators pick the VP. So Trump would have been president and at the time, Pence would have likely been certified VP as well since Republicans didn't lose their majority until January 20th.

 

He never would have needed that 1 vote to get to 270. The institutional advantage would have been in his favor.

[Blade]

8 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

(Maybe you know this already but for the benefit of others who don't) In the event of a tie, the state delegations in the House pick the president and the Senators pick the VP. So Trump would have been president and at the time, Pence would have likely been certified VP as well since Republicans didn't lose their majority until January 20th.

 

He never would have needed that 1 vote to get to 270. The institutional advantage would have been in his favor.

Oh yes, I knew but I just find it funny that the 45k-ish number is referenced so often (even though it is correct) without people saying "would have resulted in a tie and ultimate Trump win"

[Sannie]

53 minutes ago, tiejc said:

 

Black women: "Fine, we'll ******* save the country AGAIN!"

 

51 minutes ago, Vermillion said:

 

I've been listening to his and Katty Kay's podcast and he's pretty in-tune with what's happening. Still can't stand the people who worked for Trump and then went on to try and rehab their image.

[GhostBox]

 

[19SLAYty9]

I think the rumors of him retiring in 2026 might be true .

 

Finally outwardly criticizing Trump. that would me Roy cooper as the dem nominee for senate vs either lara Trump or mark robinson