American Politics Discussion Thread

[Mjmd]

The historic reason was an alliance between slave states and smaller free states. So saying the historic reason has only gotten more true isn't quite right. But a rural / urband divide yes. However, to me that safety counterweight is the senate. In the senate Wyoming has the same votes as California. We have two Dakotas (and that isn't an accident). Between voter suppression, gerrymandering, and the electoral college we have a system where the minority can win every branch of government. Does that seem ok to you? T-Hawk is right the policies would change if they had to care, but they don't and that is part of the problem. I think at least 2/3 of those issues need to be fixed and I wouldn't weep for 3/3. I wonder if just giving whomever won the popular vote the amount of electoral votes of the state population closest to the margin of victory would be enough. Like if you didn't just want to rip it up. Getting rid of winner take all would be a good step, but depending what system you replaced it with getting rid of gerrymandering would be required along with.

But ya my vote counts much more than most US citizens and that doesn't sit right with me. Also, yes the insane number of political ads here highly contributes to my desire for my vote to be weaker.

[Charr Babies]

First Year Anniversary Of Gaza Genocide 
And only cost 23 billions so far (money well spent as some of you guys put it)

[T-hawk]

Also I'm not sure the premise is true - the polling seems to have Harris ahead in enough swing states. The real question is how many are supporting Trump but won't say so to polls. No idea if the polls have figured out how (or are even trying) to account for that.

So Fivethirtyeight actually has some fairly detailed information about that. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/202...-forecast/

Scroll to the "latest updates" section. The polls show Harris ahead by about 1% in the swing states... but the page acknowledges that the polls underestimated Trump by 4.5% in 2020. If that happens again, Trump swings a bunch of swing states and he wins. The rest of the page is breaking down the scenarios in the swing states (or actually all the states) based on the possibility of the polls underestimating to various degrees.

The editorial text is trying to take a neutral tone - assuming the polls could be underestimating either candidate by the same amount, and that comes to a 56% chance overall for Harris. But I think any amount of observational attention would tell you that there's no way the underestimation is in favor of Harris - anyone on that side is blaring it loudly, while some Trumpers still hide it.

[darrelljs]

But I think any amount of observational attention would tell you that there's no way the underestimation is in favor of Harris

Hmm..."no way" is a very strong statement

What if the reason the polls were off was due to people lying out of embarrassment, but now that stigma is gone?

What if the pollsters claims of "adjustments" to fix prior bias against Trump go too far?

Darrell

[greenline]

What if the pollsters claims of "adjustments" to fix prior bias against Trump go too far?

Darrell

Then Trump loses. I don't recommend betting on elections...

[T-hawk]

Hmm..."no way" is a very strong statement

What if the reason the polls were off was due to people lying out of embarrassment, but now that stigma is gone?

What if the pollsters claims of "adjustments" to fix prior bias against Trump go too far?

These are both possible, yes. The Trump stigma may be lessened but I think isn't gone. All you need is 1% to flip the swing states like PA and NV. And some of it isn't lying but rather just refusing to talk to pollsters, which one would think also correlates with Republicans.

Fivethirtyeight didn't say (on that page, maybe they do elsewhere) what kind of adjustments went into that figure of Harris up 1%. If they are adjusting, yes they could be either under-adjusting or going too far.

To clarify, the "no way" is that if 538's figure is unadjusted, that any underestimating won't swing towards Harris. If they're already accounting for adjustments then yes I can't say how accurate that is.

[Mjmd]

I hardly think refusing to talk to polsters is just a Republican thing. I think its a most of American thing. Its probably one of our truly unifying political stances! I have 6 I just deleted in my spam text folder. I doubt young people do more polling than older people do (certainly not calls). I doubt people who aren't that much into politics will do them. And those are the people that will matter. Just like most elections its probably going to come down to voter turn out both among the younger vote, but also just the general population.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Mail-in ballots look bad for team blue. Not enough for me to put it into tilt R because Trump's war on mail-in ballots inflated his election day vote last time (so DEMs can get away with winning mail-in by less). But it is enough for me to reduce WI+PA to tilt D and the overall election to tilt d. That poll of Minnesota's only competitive congressional district (the district I live in) is also bad and makes me sure of moving it to tilt d.

I'm very sure that only WI and PA matter because Trump should sweep the sun states if he wins one of them because abortion hurts him so much more there. NV matters but only barely as a backup plan if Trump loses NC+WI but wins PA.

[darrelljs]

Momentum clearly in Trump's favor though. Harris has fallen into the typical Democrat trap of saying what you think will get people to vote for you rather than being yourself. There have been moments of authenticity but not enough. She's got time to fix it but I'm pessimistic.

Darrell

[greenline]

Saying anything to win isn't her being authentic?