2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

Yes, but we don't know if that will happen or not because we have no idea who will actually turn up to vote next week. Past elections can't be used as points of reference with demographics shifting so fluidly, especially given the fact that Harris has only been a candidate for 2-3 months. The house will therefore be critical and we have no idea who will win it.
If Republicans win the House again Harris will not win either the popular vote or electoral college.

If you disagree with that then there's a lot of money to be made in the betting market. Polarisation has killed split ticket voting, Republicans who vote for a President Harris but downballot Rs to counterbalance her are practically white Rhinos at this point, not completely extinct yet, but so rare you can count them using your fingers.

Those blue tick account are just farming engagement with those sensationalist takes, that guy didn't even know that if states didn't send electors then the total dropped and you don't need 270.
 


What is this, Tester making a late comeback? Though, a lot of undecideds this late, Emerson only had him down by 3-4 points too.

I'll believe it when i see it, but Tester might not be out yet.
 
I'm not trying to sound stupid.

Can anyone explain to me in real simple terms, how the Electoral College works? I know 270 seats win race. To get to the 270, does each candidate have to rely on their party members getting elected in local areas or do US citizens literally vote ''Trump'' or ''Harris''?
 
Looking at the polls I think Trump will win and it will be a more comfortable victory than 2016. I've made peace with it.

I still have hope that the Dems will take the house though.
 
I'm not trying to sound stupid.

Can anyone explain to me in real simple terms, how the Electoral College works? I know 270 seats win race. To get to the 270, does each candidate have to rely on their party members getting elected in local areas or do US citizens literally vote ''Trump'' or ''Harris''?
Each state is worth a certain number of electoral college votes/points. Larger states count for more votes/points than smaller states. For all but 2 states, the electoral college votes/points are winner take all by popular vote within the state. The goal is to win the popular vote in enough states to get to 270.
 
If Republicans win the House again Harris will not win either the popular vote or electoral college.

If you disagree with that then there's a lot of money to be made in the betting market. Polarisation has killed split ticket voting, Republicans who vote for a President Harris but downballot Rs to counterbalance her are practically white Rhinos at this point, not completely extinct yet, but so rare you can count them using your fingers.

Those blue tick account are just farming engagement with those sensationalist takes, that guy didn't even know that if states didn't send electors then the total dropped and you don't need 270.

I think its completely plausible the GOP win the house given that they already control it, and that Harris loses the EC. We just don't know how it will pan out and anyone claiming they do probably don't know what they're talking about, or else are simply being disingenuous.
 
Polls have been off since Trump ran. Harris will win comfortably in my opinion

They've been off for 8 years, which has favored Trump. Biden went into Nov 2020 with an 8.4% polling average lead and barely scraped by in a few swing states.

Harry Enten thinks that may not be the case this time.



Unfortunately, he's citing 2022 when Trump wasn't running, when we know his elections get very good turnout for Rs.
 
Disagree. It would look opportunistic to all of a sudden show up in PR just because a comedian made a joke.

I mean, what would she do there? Go to a restaurant? She can do that in PA.

Even though, had a comedian made the same joke at the DNC (which they wouldn't) we know Trump would be there milking it.
Well, we agree to disagree then.
 
I think its completely plausible the GOP win the house given that they already control it, and that Harris loses the EC. We just don't know how it will pan out and anyone claiming they do probably don't know what they're talking about, or else are simply being disingenuous.
If she loses the EC then neither of the scenario in the tweet you posted happen, it's as simple as that. So no shenanigans needed.

Yes, there will be lawsuits, yes, there will be plenty of conspiracies around alternate electors, voting machine etc, but when it comes to actually certifying the election, if Harris wins then there's next to no chance of Mike Johnson presiding on Jan 6th, so all those war game scenario from random bluetick accounts on Twitter are meaningless.

Trump was president in 2020 and they didn't manage to steal it, whatever plot they cook up in their feverish dreams is unlikely to be carried out with any degree of competence.
 
ÒSo between you and @dumbo this is the only "fecking disgusting" statement you could find from Harris on Gaza?

I do agree that she shouldn't have said "most tragic" as that leaves people the room to say that she feels that Oct 7 was more tragic that what has happened previously. I really don't think she is somehow ranking which atrocity was more tragic.

And she was right to say that Oct 7 happen first, as she contexted that with "this phase" of the conflict, as she is not pretending that the hostilities started on Oct 7, like many other Republicans would like the country to believe.

Yet you want to highlight this as your example of her "fecking disgusting" statements on Gaza?

Negating the fact she also said in that very same clip.....

Its "Undeniable what is happening in Gaza"
There are "So many tragic stories coming from Gaza"
and "What is critically important is acknowledging what has happened in Gaza in terms of the extraordinary number of innocent Palestinians that have been killed and talking seriously and speaking truth about that."

I challenge you to find any remotely sympathetic comments towards Palestinians, or Ukrainians for that matter, from the other candidate?
It's very strange, the mounting conditions you apply to any negative opinions people have that don't align with your panglossian view of the Kamala campaign.

You seem quite obsessed with policing other people's responses when they reflect negativity towards Kamala or the campaign or the party, requesting examples and details and explanations of events and statements that might have led someone to their view. Examples that have been widely reported on.

And when any example is given, you demand for different examples, or deny that the clear example of the thing is an example of the thing. You demand any explanation to be explained in a different way. When any evidence is presented you dismiss it for only being one example of the thing that you requested to be illustrated with an example.

You deny, then obfuscate, attempt to excessively mitigate, then try to shift the goal posts before finishing with some Trump whataboutery.

You are allowed to be undisturbed by the ongoing horrors, not disgusted by statements and actions by Kamala, Biden, their administration over the last year. You can love and agree with Kamala or Trump. And the opposite is also allowed. You can express delight or disgust.

It's just that applying exponential stipulations through this interrogating lens, to opinions that don't align with your own, or conform to the overwhelmingly pro Harris sentiment, in a thread created and titled, presumably with a degree of passive neutrality, feels like too much energy.
 
Looking at the polls I think Trump will win and it will be a more comfortable victory than 2016. I've made peace with it.

I still have hope that the Dems will take the house though.

I think she is looking good in the rustbelt states, and competitive in at least Georgia and NC, so i disagree, i think she wins.
 


Are there people whose vote is influenced by a celebrity endorsing a certain candidate?

That's mind boggling if true.

I cannot imagine wondering who to vote for and then Rooney or Matt Smith saying "vote for this person" actually having any influence on that
 
Are there people whose vote is influenced by a celebrity endorsing a certain candidate?

That's mind boggling if true.

I cannot imagine wondering who to vote for and then Rooney or Matt Smith saying "vote for this person" actually having any influence on that
The way America thinks and does is so vastly different in some things that it's hard to really explain without living here. I know Europe is quite a bit different in that. Yes, celebrities def have an impact when they are perceived to have a certain cultural or generational icon status.
 
Are there people whose vote is influenced by a celebrity endorsing a certain candidate?

That's mind boggling if true.

I cannot imagine wondering who to vote for and then Rooney or Matt Smith saying "vote for this person" actually having any influence on that
I think it only matters when someone with a cult-like audience like Taylor Swift does it.
 
The way America thinks and does is so vastly different in some things that it's hard to really explain without living here. I know Europe is quite a bit different in that. Yes, celebrities def have an impact when they are perceived to have a certain cultural or generational icon status.

:lol:

I guess it's just one of those things that you really can only understand if you are part of the culture. Kamala with Beyonce etc., Trump with fecking Kane and the Undertaker :lol:
 
Are there people whose vote is influenced by a celebrity endorsing a certain candidate?

That's mind boggling if true.

I cannot imagine wondering who to vote for and then Rooney or Matt Smith saying "vote for this person" actually having any influence on that
It seems to be far more important than silly things like policy and credibility anyway.
 
It's very strange, the mounting conditions you apply to any negative opinions people have that don't align with your panglossian view of the Kamala campaign.

You seem quite obsessed with policing other people's responses when they reflect negativity towards Kamala or the campaign or the party, requesting examples and details and explanations of events and statements that might have led someone to their view. Examples that have been widely reported on.

And when any example is given, you demand for different examples, or deny that the clear example of the thing is an example of the thing. You demand any explanation to be explained in a different way. When any evidence is presented you dismiss it for only being one example of the thing that you requested to be illustrated with an example.

You deny, then obfuscate, attempt to excessively mitigate, then try to shift the goal posts before finishing with some Trump whataboutery.

You are allowed to be undisturbed by the ongoing horrors, not disgusted by statements and actions by Kamala, Biden, their administration over the last year. You can love and agree with Kamala or Trump. And the opposite is also allowed. You can express delight or disgust.

It's just that applying exponential stipulations through this interrogating lens, to opinions that don't align with your own, or conform to the overwhelmingly pro Harris sentiment, in a thread created and titled, presumably with a degree of passive neutrality, feels like too much energy.

What it very strange is you saying that she had made "fecking disgusting" statements, yet rather than finding any of these "fecking disgusting" statement, you give me a six sentence diatribe about me shifting goalposts?

Just tell me these "fecking disgusting" statements that you speak of? As the one that @Iker Quesadillas posted does not nearly reach that threshold, especially when she spent the majority of that video sympathising with the plight of the Palestinians. Nor was that example her in any way ranking one monstority above another.

Find the quotes. It's not difficult, is it?
 
Trump is literally a celebrity. He had no governing experience at all. So yes, people listen to celebrities. It doesnt always translate obviously that endorsement is going to translate to votes. But, at least it is basically advertising via that celebrity's media influence .
 
I've yet to see any disgusting quotes by Harris, I want to see them too.

Calling fascists, yes, fascists, is apparently disgusting according to a lot of people, so i guess there is that.

Different standards, as always.
 
Calling fascists, yes, fascists, is apparently disgusting according to a lot of people, so i guess there is that.

Different standards, as always.

This must be one of the most creative spin attempts yet! A very nonsensical one as well, but that comes with the territory.
 
I'm not trying to sound stupid.

Can anyone explain to me in real simple terms, how the Electoral College works? I know 270 seats win race. To get to the 270, does each candidate have to rely on their party members getting elected in local areas or do US citizens literally vote ''Trump'' or ''Harris''?
@Garnacho Libre

the system
States vote for president, not people. Each state has a set number of "votes" based on senators (always 2) and population size. This means that California and Texas, who have a huge population also has more "votes". You might notice on maps that most of the US is red, but blue still has more "votes". That is because the blue areas have more people. Texas has 40 votes, California has 54, Pensylvania has 19, and a small state like Montana has 4.

When you take every vote each state has and count them all, you get 538 "votes".

how it works
On election day people vote for the candidate they want by name - either Trump or Harris (or someone else on the ballot, but they are essentially irrelevant unless they are Theodore Roosevelt). After an election, states look at who the people in their state voted for, and cast their "votes" for that candidate. Because that system is really old, those votes are cast by people who travel to the state capital and represent the people. These people are called electors. Once there they cast their votes for who should be president, which the state writes down and sends to Washington to be counted by Congress on Janaury 6th.

Currently the majority of states have decided that the candidate the majority of people within the state vote for is who all their electors will vote for too. There are exceptions, such as Maine and Nebraska who have different rules. Those rules mean that those votes can sometimes be split between candidates (which is why you will see Nebraska 2nd district mentioned here as seperate from Nebraska).

Sometimes an elector decides to vote for someone else than they are supposed to, we call these "faithless electors". This is fairly rare, and these days parties go to great lengths to ensure that doesn't happen, but they are mostly allowed to do this. No one really knows what would happen if faithless electors changed the outcome of an election.

In total 538 registered votes should arrive in Washington. To win the presidency you need a simple majority. Which is half of the total votes + 1. Half of 538 is 269, so to win a majority you need 270 votes - or electors.

This is the process Trump tried to coup January 6th 2020.

but election results are clear before Jan 6th?
Because we live in a digital age we know well before January 6th who has won 270 "votes". When we know what people in all states voted, we also know who has "won" enough "votes" in the electoral college.

you are all obsessed with polls, why?
You might notice a lot of talk about swing states. Most states in the US have a population that are pretty heavily slanted towards either Republican or Democrat. For these we assume that the population will vote overwhelmingly for one candidate. These states are considered safe and included as guaranteed votes in the electoral college.

There are a number of states that aren’t guaranteed too. States that have populations that sometimes votes Republican and other times democrat. These "votes" could go to either candidate. These are battleground states and swing states. This is where the most money is spent on campaigning and essentially where the election winner is determined.

Right now these are Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pensylvania and North Carolina.

but why are you all so fascinated by polls?
Polls are surveys that try to determine (usually fairly accurately) what the people of a state is going to vote. We know that each state has a set number of electoral votes, and we know what electoral votes are safe, which we confirm with polling (+5 is usually pretty safe).

Based on polls we can make simple calculations to see which states a candidate needs to "win" 270 total "votes". This is called "the path to 270". Various combinations of states lead to different number of electoral college votes.

you can lose the popular vote and still win?
Yes. Because the US population is concentrated within a few large states, people within large states make up a smaller % per citizen of the total electoral college votes than the smallest states.

This disproportionately is in every part of the US political system. Every state has 2 senators regardless of population, giving small states considerable power in US politics compared to population size.

Because of that 270 votes doesn't necessarily represent 50%+ of the population.


I hope that helps.
 
Last edited:

One, or maybe two depending on how you read it, stated that Harris has made disgusting statements about Gaza. Someone asked for examples, you said what you said.

The fascist point: is Dumbo one of the supposed people who find it disgusting to call fascists fascists? Is Iker? No, of course not.

As for different standards, do you think dumbo would say that Trump hasn't made disgusting statements about Gaza? Would Iker? No, obviously not.

Your reply had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, it was some sort of generalized defense of Harris from other people from other things. Completely bizarre.
 
One, or maybe two depending on how you read it, stated that Harris has made disgusting statements about Gaza. Someone asked for examples, you said what you said.

The fascist point: is Dumbo one of the supposed people who find it disgusting to call fascists fascists? Is Iker? No, of course not.

As for different standards, do you think dumbo would say that Trump hasn't made disgusting statements about Gaza? Would Iker? No, obviously not.

Your reply had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, it was some sort of generalized defense of Harris from other people from other things. Completely bizarre.

A lot of people, not neccessarily here, were outraged when Harris said it, that's all, even if it's just an accurate statement in my mind.