2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Also have a escape route via Wisconsin.
They better be dumping some funds into the Nebraska 2nd.We are in the timeline/reality where this is possible.
Won't that also hapen with harris? She will have to pick a side eventually and those consequences will still apply.
I'm watching a documentary about Trump's first year as president.
He actually was far more coherent and put together back then (even if the actual stuff he was saying was similar to what it is today). I can't say I had noticed such a cognitive decline in him, but by going back and watching this it has hit me that there undoubtedly has been a notable decline.
He actually was far more coherent and put together back then (even if the actual stuff he was saying was similar to what it is today). I can't say I had noticed such a cognitive decline in him, but by going back and watching this it has hit me that there undoubtedly has been a notable decline.
Diaper Don isn't used enough. It's not like it's a demographic Harris would win anyway.
What happens in this eventual 269-269 scenario? Do we get the civil war then?
If i remember correctly the States will then decide with each state having a singular vote.
I'm not sure that's even possible
Well that's ridiculous. The rural vote is already counts more than the urban vote due to the electoral college. They should let the popular vote be the tie breaker.
The President is decided by the House of Representatives. However, each state has one vote (presumably the party with more representatives from that state get the vote). Which means President Trump.
Vice president gets elected by the Senate, Presidency goes to the House of Representatives (the one that gets elected in November, not the one currently in session). In the house each state gets just one vote so instead of acting individually representatives act as a state delegation. Whichever party holds the most representatives in a given state will then command that state's vote. I think this tends to benefit Republicans.
Edit. So there could be the ludicrous scenario where a candidate wins the popular vote, their party wins a majority in the House of Representatives and yet still loses the presidency.
Last edited:
Most of these things seem to benefit the Republicans. But the Democrats don't seem too concerned with changing any of it any time they do have power.
It probably takes a 2/3 majority to make the change with they will never have.
Dozy Donald. That was an open goal!
Until the assassination attempt I always thought Donald Ducks (avoids) was underused.
Just the dumbest country.
It is not as easy as just wanting to change them. Any constitutional change needs 2/3 of both the Senate and House, followed by 3/4th of states ratifying it. This is by design, any change must have wide bipartisan support. Which means that currently changing the constitution is impossible.
There could be a hypothetical scenario in the UK or France when a party wins more votes than any other party, and yet ends with no MPs.
Sure, but that seems vanishingly unlikely, whereas we only have to go back to the last time Dems held a house majority to discover that Republicans would still have a majority in terms of state delegations. Like, even in 2018 when Dems dominated the house 235-199 Republicans still controlled a majority (26) of state delegations.
Some interesting numbers on who Americans wouldn't vote for based on religious affiliation.
It is also very unlikely for the president to be chosen by the House. It has happened only once, in 1824.
Just a couple of weeks ago, the party with most votes in France ended third with MPs. Reform in the Uk ended with 0.8% of MPs despite winning 14.3% of the popular vote. So many European countries have far ‘less-proportional’ systems than the US.
This poll shows you how dishonest many republican voters are since Trump is surely either agnostic or atheist.
His love and admiration for "Two Corinthians" suggests otherwise.
He’s 7 years older than he was in 2017. That makes a difference. Biden walked to the White House after the inauguration in January 2021; now he barely walks to the podium at the White House.
I’m much younger than both, but even I have changed since 2017.
Interesting, thank you.
The only potential problem with Shapiro is Michigan, right? Considering that there is a large Muslim population there.
I do not believe for a single minute this mentioned that 'the US is not ready for a Jewish VP'. The US has had many Jewish foreign secretaries which is a more important person than the VP. Heck, right now the US has a foreign secretary and a senate majority leader who are Jewish, both essentially being more powerful positions than the VP, and no one has a problem with that.
Not in relation to Shapiro because "The poll question assumed that, candidates’ faith aside, the respondents agreed with their positions on issues. Obviously, voters may still oppose Shapiro because of his position on issues, regardless of his faith".
how many foreign secretaries were elected?
I don't think Shapiro would be a problem because he's Jewish per say. Indeed, Harris' own husband is Jewish. If there is a problem with Shapiro, it would be regarding specific things he's said about the war protesters that may ruffle a few feathers. But then again, when you're running against Trump in a general election, the VP issue isn't likely to be a prominent one in contrast to what both actual Presidential candidates believe.
Fair point.
Shapiro is not my first choice. He won’t be very attractive for Muslim/Arab voters in Michigan and Virginia, and generally young voters in swing states.
The war has fractured the Democratic coalition, and he is not the best choice to help with uniting it at such a critical juncture.
Did Shapiro say something that does not have pretty much bipartisan support? I do not think so. Except the squad, the US politicians in both parties are heavily aligned with regards to Israel.
It is very hard to see any shift with regards to Israel regardless of the president, let alone VP who usually does not have much to do with foreign policy.
It might be a tiny problem with Michigan though, but I expect that to be either way considering that Harris was Biden’s VP. On the other hand, it might help with the Jewish vote who feel that Biden didn’t help much Israel.
With respect to marketing campaigns, its usually best to focus on just 1-2 key angle and hammer it down, one at a time. With Biden, that angle was age/cognitive decline which worked effectively.
By focusing on too many angles, none of them will get internalized by target audience. And that's where the republicans are now stuck.
Dems need to stick to their top 3 attacks on Trump - Threat to democracy (Project 2025), Women's rights, Criminal President and simply hammer those angles down one at the time to mobilize independents.
He's getting hit by a faction on the left about comments he made comparing Palestinian protesters to the KKK. Not sure if that will stick or not, but his overall views don't seem to deviate from mainstream Dem positions.
Does it go to penalties if this happens?We are in the timeline/reality where this is possible.
It won't be the same when they try to repeat this with Taylor Swift in 2026