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.
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.
Sadly, it’s not strange at all. We’re a capitalist country. This is what our votes support every two years.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
I think/hope the red states become more purple this go around. Might even flip a few small ones by the time November comes 🤞
I saw the rumor that Trump’s internal polling showed him below 50% in Ohio, if true, that would be huge for Harris
My corner of TN is very red. I noticed the other day, whereas in 2020 the trump signs were all over, none are out now. Don’t see the shirts. And I’ve found a lot of blue friends here in the last year.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There have been 0 presidents named Harris. Who else is running with the name Harris? What is more unique about Kamala than Harris?
Saying Kalama 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.
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.
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.
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
One can hope enough people are sick of the crazies there too.
I’d hope so, a Texas flip would be hilarious!
Yet.
What might an SRO Harris/Walz rally at AT&T Stadium accomplish?
If you totally unplugged from informational media, and went to live out your days engaging only in the things which bring you joy, would you be able to tell who the current sitting president was solely by indirect observation? People like to blame presidents for “the price at the pump” and other miniscule day-to-day things. But is there any substance to that?
My neighbor has had a giant sign made out of Christmas lights in his front yard saying “fuck Joe Biden” for the past 4 years. I’m pretty sure I would know.
deleted by creator
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!
