Idk, when you look at the entire picture, does Trump not have the far easier path to 270 this year? He only has to win 2 states (PA & GA) and that’s it, he wins. Kamala has to win at the minimum 3, and if she loses PA, it becomes even harder for her. Trump could just spend all of his money campaigning in those 2 states and get back in the White House. Yet these odds seem to disagree with me.
Am I trippin?
37% of Americans can’t afford to pay a $400 bill without taking on further debt, and that means 37% of Americans can’t afford to miss a day of work to vote.
It really could go either way.
It’s such a strange concept that it isn’t a national holiday to enable everyone to vote.
It’s not strange; they don’t want the poorest and lower class people to be able to vote.
Only 14 of the 50 states do not have voting leave statues. 10 are northern states …
Statutes, not statues.
But then Black people might vote. America still hasn’t forgiven Black people for existing.
If the goal was to have everyone vote, it wouldn’t be Tuesday and everyone would automatically be registered with mail-in being an option.
Or at least a legal requirement for employers to allow time off during employees shifts to vote.
Federal law doesn’t require employers to give employees any time off to vote, much less paid time off. Instead, the laws vary from state to state: Just 29 states and the District of Columbia currently require employers to give employees time off to vote in general elections.
Federal law doesn’t require employers to give employees any time off to vote
I know it doesn’t.
I’m saying it should.
That would be something you’d have to take up with the government. Maybe start local because every state can set different laws.
In France it’s always on a Sunday, because guess what: most people don’t work on Sunday
Also if you do work on Sunday your boss is legally bound to allow you to go vote because of course we do, it’s a democracy ffs
The US is more like the EU than any specific country as each state has its own laws but are also bound by federal ones. In Colorado, where I live, we all vote by mail in ballot, which can be mailed in or dropped off in voting drop boxes anytime. No need to drive to a polling station or wait in line.
Sadly, it’s not strange at all. We’re a capitalist country. This is what our votes support every two years.
Or at least on a weekend.
deleted by creator
It’s interesting to see this reply from someone calling themselves ‘Anticorp’.
What did I reply? I don’t remember. Whatever it was, I obviously rethought it since I deleted it right away. Somehow you still saw it.
You said something like: “The founding fathers only intended for educated landowners to vote, and the more you see from the Internet, the more you think they were right.”
(Something like that.)
Ah yeah, I said “I’m not sure they were wrong to not trust the uneducated masses”. But then I thought about it more and didn’t like that message, so I deleted it.
Good call.
I think Kamala has much better odds than Biden did this time around. The assassination attempt on Trump was crazy and solidified his supporters.
I think it’s a closer race than either side thinks
deleted by creator
To “win?” No - not really.
But I don’t think that matters much.
Honestly, I think that Trump and the overt fascists and plutocrats who are backing him fully intend to get him into office or destroy the country trying - that if he doesn’t win legitimately, he’ll “win” through fraud, or through the machinations of the brazenly corrupt and compromised supreme court, or through violent revolution.
His backers - the Heritage Foundation and the rest of the fascists and Musk and Thiel and the rest of the plutocrats and so on - don’t just want to try to get him into office - they want to destroy American liberty and democracy. It’s not even so much about him specifically - he’s just the right combination of charismatic and shallow that they see him as their opportunity to impose the autocracy they want. And I don’t think they’re going to let anything stand in their way. So whether or not he actually wins the election isn’t even really relevant, other than to the degree that that will determine what other strategies they might have to, and will, implement.
He wasn’t even able to do that when he had the full power of the presidency at his disposal. The reality is that he has a lot of grandiose plans that far exceed his competence.
While he had fake electors last time, they weren’t as widespread as they’ve become over the last 4 years. He also didn’t have the coordination of the Heritage Foundation either like he does now. He also didn’t have a House of Representatives willing to steal the election last time.
He has a lot going for his machinations this time.
He doesn’t need to do it this time - he has a veritable army of fascists, a brazenly corrupt and compromised supreme court and a squad of billionaire plutocrats to do it all on his behalf, and not coincidentally they have a detailed blueprint in Project 2025 that tells them exactly what to do, step by step, to transform the US into a christofascist/plutocratic autocracy.
All Trump has to do this time around is just carry on being Trump, while all those other people do all the dirty work.
He had most of those things last time too, plus the power of office.
You trippin
But how?
Normally by smoking something jazzy or by ingesting rave-grade candy
I think Kamala has energized the younger voters and female voters. Trump doesn’t have much to offer either.
Looking from half-way around the world, Trump wining seemed very likely until Kamala became the candidate. And now no result seems more likely than the other.
Same, it feels like there’s no way trump wins again now.
Anyone else feel like it’s weird how many are using the last name for Trump but the first name for Harris? What’s the deal with that?
They always do that with women for some reason. It made sense for Hillary, since her husband was already President Clinton. It doesn’t make any sense for Harris
There doesn’t seem to be a pattern for whatever name politicians become known by colloquially, except last name is most common. Hillary makes sense to distinguish her from Bill, but I remember people generally using her first and last. Kamala is usually Kamala, but you see Harris too. Trump is Trump, but you’ll see people use his first name at times (like r/TheDonald). Biden is still referred to as Joe occasionally. Bernie was much more common than Sanders. For supreme court justices, it’s usually last name or first and last. I’ve never seen anyone refer to AOC as just Alexandria. Obama is Obama, but I’ve seen Barack in really informal contexts. Nancy Pelosi is first and last. Elizabeth Warren is either first and last or just last.
I think Sanders chose Bernie to make him seem more friendly and approachable, because he’s a pretty intense guy who looks angry otherwise.
Who was getting confused which Clinton was running in 2016.
If someone was switching between both in the same context, then it would either be Mr. Clinton and Mrs. Clinton, or Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.
I didn’t say they were getting confused. It was for clarity and distinction, not because people were confused. Although, had she won, a distinction would be imperative to prevent confusion, just like we do with the Roosevelts. Anyways, Hillary is the one who used Hillary, the rest of us just went along with it. Hillary was the name she chose for her campaign.
Kamala is a cooler name
Kamala just rolls off the keyboard better
Please explain.
Probably because Kamala is easier than Donald and Trump is easier than Harris.
Yes. Same as when Hilary Clinton ran. It was Hilary, not Clinton.
Just social disrespect for women.
H. Clinton actually used “Hillary!” in her campaign materials, plus sometimes she had to be distinguished from Bill. So she was a special case. I agree with you about Harris and I noticed that myself and wondered about it. I don’t remember it happening with Warren, Gabbard, Haley, Palin, or other female Presidential or VP contenders that I can think of offhand.
I hear female supporters refer to her as Kamala. I think it might have more to do with the uniqueness of the name. I don’t know of anyone who referred to Sarah Palin as Sarah.
There have been 0 presidents named Harris. Who else is running with the name Harris? What is more unique about Kamala than Harris?
Saying
KalamaKamala is unique is just saying, “Wow, look, a Black person. How exotic!”Harris is a common name for Americans. Sarah is too. Her name isn’t Kalama. The error shows how exotic it is to you and your autocorrect.
I hear her mom calls her Kamala. Doesn’t mean most people should, unless she specifically says for people to call her Kamala instead of Harris.
For Hillary it made sense since her husband was already widely known as Clinton.
We didn’t refer to the 43rd president as George since his father with the same last name was already the 41st president.
People did not get confused which Clinton was running in 2016.
No, we called him George W., Junior, or Dub’ya. You can’t call him George because his dad was also George.
Edit: I mean, you can call him George, or Bush. You can call him whatever you want. But people in general called him the names I gave, to avoid confusion.
We call people what they put on their signs.
Bernie.
How did you refer to Hillary Clinton before you saw a campaign slogan?
Full name, since public perception at the time associated the name “Clinton” with Bill.
That assumes that the rest of the states shake out as expected. NC and Ohio have been polling a lot closer than expected. Winning one of those would offset a loss in PA or GA.
There’s a reason why we still hold the actual election, and don’t base the winner just on polls.
Polymarket currently has Harris ahead at 52-45 plus minor candidates. Yeah I think that favors her too much. Trump has been off the rails (I mean more than usual) lately but he could get it together. Also, Harris is a blank slate upon whom many place unfounded hopes.
The TV debates will probably be more significant than usual this year. IDK who they will favor. We shall see.
I think the odds at the moment still favor Trump but Harris has run a solid campaign so far. We’re still in “it’s anyone’s game” territory but Trump is constantly losing ground.
A poll recently showed that more Americans trust Harris with the economy and that’s a really bad sign for Trump.
A majority of oddsmakers are favoring Harris rn
I want Harris if for nothing else than to see Trump absolutely implode. :)
I want him to lose and live long enough to run next time too.
That would be the absolute death blow to the GOP.
I just want him to go away, and never come back.
I’m a big fan of what he’s doing to the GOP right now.
Ofc
I don’t trust this. Just go and tell everyone around you to vote.
*than
You make it sound like T winning PA would be easy
I could just as easily say H winning Texas would put it in the bag for her
PA is a toss up, Texas isnt
Yet.
What might an SRO Harris/Walz rally at AT&T Stadium accomplish?
You may well be right and that’s why it’s vital not to be complacent. Donate, volunteer, vote. Get out there and make a Harris win happen!
Harris has to win 3 states, PA, MI, and WI. Losing any one of those three throws it to Trump.
It is going to be a nail biter!
Losing any one of those three throws it to Trump.
Unless she win NC or OH. She’s doing really well in both.
I think this is going to be a giant blowout win for Kamala. But, please, no one get cocky! Everyone has to actually vote!
I don’t see NC, OH, AZ, NV, or GA going to Harris. It’s wishful thinking, but I wouldn’t count on any of them.
That’s what I’m saying, I think MI will go to Harris, but if she loses PA, Trump just needs NV & AZ and he’s going back to the White House.
While if Harris loses PA, she HAS to win GA, there’s no path to victory for her without GA in this scenario.
MI will be complicated because of the Muslim vote and Gaza.
MI will be complicated because of the Muslim vote and Gaza.
Which is just bizarre, because Trump has shown he is much more willing to suck up to whatever Netanyahu wants than Biden or Harris.
It doesn’t matter to trump voters what he shows, they only believe what he says, not what he does.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
I don’t think that’ll matter, Trump BARELY won MI in 2016 by less than 10k votes, and that was with Russian Psyop Jill Stein stealing votes from Hillary there.
In 2020, Michigan had the highest youth turnout in the country and Biden won it by 150k votes.
I don’t see how Trump can flip that state back, those are insane margins.
Clinton in Michigan was just stupid, she thought it was in the bag and failed to campaign there. That hurt her more than Stein did.
But the youth vote is fickle, they turned against Biden there this year, he was never going to win MI which is one of the reasons he dropped out.
Regardless of turnout, I just don’t see a 150k margin being overcome in just 4 years. Harris would have to lose an insane amount of voters and Trump would have to gain a lot of voters all within 4 years. I just don’t see him winning that state.
All it takes is for the Muslim vote to stay home.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/04/politics/muslim-americans-biden-michigan/index.html
“Michigan has more than 200,000 Muslim American voters — 146,000 of whom turned out to vote in 2020 –— according to an analysis by Emgage, an organization that seeks to build the political power of Muslim Americans. Biden won Michigan — a state that narrowly went to Donald Trump in 2016 — by 155,000 votes.”
But how many of them actually voted for Biden?
Nate Silver still has the EVs for Trump. Like he did in 2016. I’m making no illusions of the future. All my plans assume a Trump victory.
Unfortunately his models are paywalled so I cannot completely confirm this.
Register to vote at vote.org
