For that to happen MAGA needs to disappear, and if Dems force thru or attempt any meaningful gun control measures then the chances of taking Texas reduces
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Or Florida, and the Democrats were close to winning there as recently as 2016. With the right candidate it is feasible.
Eh, i wouldn't count on Florida, its drifting in exactly the opposite direction, and about the only state GOP went all in on culture-wars successfully in 2022.
Reckon Texas will be closer to voting for democrats than Florida this time, for the first time, well, since basically forever.
I believe it would force Republicans to change their platforms and all, probably for the better of the country as a whole and for their own clueless voting base that continuously vote against their own interests. And it would force all politicians to actually govern, maybe.
Last edited:
Not fast enough. Hurry up Poseidon.
Looney Tunes had a quicker solution.
On the side, Trump is pressuring the GOP house to shut down the government, if they don't get him what he wants in the process.
To really boost Harris' chances even further, we need a rate cut and a Walz debate win over Vance. And of course, a ceasefire. Plenty of chances of another Harris bump or two even without another debate.
I don’t see how they can do it if they want any chance of maintaining even a sliver of a chance of retaining the house. Hell, it might even blow up some of the close Senate races.
Chance of a ceasefire is slim to none, Netenyahu wants a Trump victory and isn’t going to hand Biden/Harris any such victory.
Senate is inherently rigged for republicans, so unless dems flips Texas, or hope for a Nebraska miracle, senate is gone.
Those scenarios might be equally as likely as Tester holding on in Montana at this rate.
I don’t think any of those three would help Harris. She should stick to campaigning on message by spending all her time in swing states.
Not a wise statement given that the winner wouldn’t be the incentivized to expose themselves to needless risk in a 2nd debate if they won the first and were leading in the polls.
Speaking of ratings, Siena shows numbers that are more in line with Rasmussen than other fellow top rated pollsters these days, btw.
I'm thinking its not going to work out for them so well this cycle, we will find out in less than two months.
Don’t agree with this at all. It’s not a game of tag. Trump has got nothing and both she and he know it. Another debate where she can once again make him (and let him make himself) look like an idiot is a fantastic opportunity and not one she will turn down any time soon.
If anything, he’s likely to feel the pressure to turn things around which is in turn is going to make him more erratic, more angry and more of an idiot.
There’s no evidence to suggest Harris doing another debate would help her. Hillary “beat” Trump three times, went into November with a bigger lead than Harris has, and still lost. Also, there’s no telling how Trump may switch his strategy in another debate (he invited Bill Clinton’s accusers to one of his Hillary debates).
Harris should take the win and go back to actually campaigning in swing states where her presence will energize turnout.
Why debate at all if that’s the theory?
Clinton would likely have beaten Trump if it wasn’t for James Comey’s bullshit intervention in the 11th hour which had absolutely zero to do with debates.
More than one debate was always aspirational given the condensed schedule of when Harris entered the race. Also, people in some swing states are already starting mail in voting next week, so Harris and Walz need to be on the ground making their case in swing states instead of going dark because they have to do debate prep.
You can look at this both ways, the loser wants a debate to make up ground, or the winner wants another, to solidify, after all, post-debate bump don't last that long, certainly not for 1,5 months.
WTF Biden wearing a MAGA cap, I know someone posted it earlier but there was no replies. America is batshit insane and Biden said don’t eat the cats and dogs lmfao
That's being a pretty good sport to be fair 
Don't eat cats and dogs!
Don't eat cats and dogs!That's being a pretty good sport to be fair
Yeah actually very funny, Biden doesn’t give a feck now
That’s called having a sense of humor. Him & the other guy were ribbing each other.
Parts of America are beyond help. Biden and the Dems are doing the right thing just making fun of these people, they'd never change their minds and vote Dem anyway.
In some ways Massachusetts surprises me more.
"Third party" column is throwing me off too, unless thats not what that means. Seems concerning, albeit likely more so for Rs than Dems this time around if I had to take a guess.
Also Biden taking the piss in the video above is funny. People on either side taking it as some deeper meaning. Joe may have lost some steps but it's very clear he s handling that interaction very well, even after the other guy started off with an insult.
Last edited:
Probably purging voter rolls
The challenge is always that a system that produces decisive results (and relative stability) always has to sacrifice a degree of valuing each vote the same.
Looking at the US system from outside the most bizarre thing is that the federal government has power hugely concentrated in one person.
No it doesn’t. It’s not like we came up with the EC to address an issue of instability in a popular vote system. Quite the opposite in fact as both of us mentioned above.
Maybe it’s an American thing, but I find it wild to read statements like the bolded (and others in different posts) from our European (and Australian) posters. A system that sacrifices equality in the present because results are favorable, but ignores the injustices of the past and the potential for abuse in the future is not a system that can be accepted as adequate.
As for relative stability, I would argue that the very nature of the EC is what gave us Jim Crow and the end of reconstruction in the late 1870’s. Look up the New Orleans massacre (1866) and you can see a cascade of events that culminated in the 1876 election where the EC (and alternative slates of electors….sound familiar) resulted in Hayes trading the withdrawal of troops from the South for the White House.
I mean in the sense that the UK first past the post system makes votes in firmly Tory or Labor seats less valuable in seats that swing far more often. And you have to make a compromise if you aren't prepared to deal with the inherent instability of a fully proportional representation system. I'm not saying that this truism means the Electoral Collège/Vote system is a good way of avoiding this instability. TBH it seems almost as batshit crazy as the power that is vested in the US President.
Then again our various transferable vote systems are a bit batshit crazy - some good stuff and some bad/dubious. I also suspect that few people truly understand the senate voting system (I don't in detail).
Last edited:
The Australian news has been playing the main Trump insanity on loop. Seemingly mainly for the lols.
I remember seeing an opinion poll that show Australians having the lowest opinion for the US out of traditional Western allies (split like 54-46 in favour of positive). They are a bit of a joke Down Under for sure (and weirdly enough I think Aussie culture is much closer to the US than UK, except the drinking one)
Last edited:
I'd say on average the culture is much closer to the UK than the US but also with quite a few similarities to the US. And Aussies like to laugh at everyone, themselves included.