this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
300 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19089 readers
5388 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

With just five days to go until Election Day, Democrats appear to have a significant advantage over Republicans when it comes to voter enthusiasm.

According to new polling from Gallup, 77% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters say they're more enthusiastic about voting than usual, versus 67% of Republicans and GOP-leaning voters who say the same.

That's a slightly higher level of enthusiasmfor Democrats than they had just before the 2008 election, when that same poll found that 76% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters were more enthusiastic than usual about voting. Barack Obama would go on to win that year in an Electoral College landslide.

all 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 91 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Doesn't matter. Don't let them make you complacent. Go vote!

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 47 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Even if you think he'll lose, the House (unless the Dems take it) will very likely try to block certification, force a per-state count instead of a per-delegate count, and punt it it to Supreme Court.

So give as little leeway as possible. The more he loses by the harder his next little coup attempt will be

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

When the votes are counted, the presiding officer will be VP Kamala Harris, not the House Speaker.

And the only way to block a state's certification is if both the House and Senate agree. Otherwise they have to accept the results certified by the governor.

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

One body can reject forever, nothing forces them to accept.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

That's not how it works.

When the EV's for a state are counted, the House and Senate have one opportunity to object.

If there is an objection, a vote is called. A majority in both houses is necessary to reject those EVs.

If there is not a majority in both houses then the motion fails, the EV's are accepted, and the VP moves on to the next state.

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No each body must vote to sustain an objection, if one doesn't then the process is deadlocked.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That isn't what your link says at all, infact it talks at length about the uncertainty of the whole process, which favors it being attacked.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I literally quoted the linked article

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The house and the president will almost certainly swing the same way. This is nothing to worry about.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Midterms tend to favor the opposing party

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The point is that if Harris wins, then Hakeem Jeffries will likely be House Speaker on January 6

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Hey, I won’t say no to that

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 58 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If only enthusiasm countered the unjustness of voter suppression and the electoral college.

[–] Hylactor@sopuli.xyz 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Exactly. I have no doubt Harris will win the popular vote. Unfortunately that's not necessarily good enough to win. And even if she wins, Trump supporters are absolutely not interested in a civilized society.

[–] BalooWasWahoo@links.hackliberty.org 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's becoming more of a worry in my mind that within my remaining lifetime I will see an uncivilized society in America. So far the majority of people seem to at least scoff at the Jan. 6 actions, and no true movement of insurrection (meaning they are willing to wage war and not back down when confronted with armed resistance, not that Jan. 6 wasn't treason) has seized the country.

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It’s becoming more of a worry in my mind that within my remaining lifetime I will see an uncivilized society in America.

bro. they mowed down a bunch of 7-year olds at school back in 2012 or whenever the fuck it was (forgive me, these shootings are so common it's hard to remember when sandy hook happened).

I remember Sandy Hook. I was working in a primary school at the time and helped harden in the pointless ways we actually could. And, like, I get that, but it isn't the whole society. We haven't gotten to the point where rule of law actually disintegrates. As bad as that is, I fear for true war from one side against the other(s), where we will see everyone pull out weapons and hold them to the heads of the other side in order to get their way, blast away at those they see as other... not just use laws to slowly strangle the ideas of self-autonomy and democracy.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 50 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The Democrats have to win by enough of a margin that it can’t be taken away from them by a rush of spurious lawsuits aided by partisan judges. If they’ve won a state but invalidating a few batches of votes would undo that, they haven’t actually won it.

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Republicans dont even need to win states they lost just to have their results rejected by Congress and the election having no one get to 270. In that case the house votes by state which Republicans win easily.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

The new Congress votes tho...we don't know the makeup of it yet.

[–] 2ugly2live@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I just looked at the current polls and it is close. Like, I cannot believe that this many people have watched all of this shit and are still voting for him.

Please go out and vote.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This was the line for early voting in a conversation county. Fuck polls they only call landlines and only fucking boomers have those.

Bet the polls would not be close if they spoke to younger people. No matter vote like it could potentially be your last. Because if Trump wins or cheats and steals this election it will be.

Please believe them when he says he will be a fucking dictator.

Even if they called younger people doubt itd do too much. My friends and myself dont answer unknown numbers.

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago

Vote, bitches 🤘

[–] DickFiasco@lemm.ee 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The most enthusiastic voter still only gets one vote.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 28 points 1 week ago

Less enthusiastic voters don't cast votes.

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

if harris wins this, i want to see her put her fucking heel on the throats of all the fascist traitor swine.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago

I'm fine with a stern look, a firm handshake, and a full body kick off a 10th story balcony.

[–] gatorgato@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

LETS FUCKING GOOOOOO!!! Shit yes.

[–] DoctorWhookah@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

In my household we have already cast 3 votes for sanity. We can only hope that others are quietly doing the same.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I literally just ignored a poll called (phone even IDd them as Survey) so ... Let's try not to read too much into polls. Instead, vote.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The polling/ exit results is so confused in this past week.

[–] negativenull@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

None of the polls are based on reality anymore. They are all being gamed.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No I don't believe that. Its counter-productive to engage in conspiratorial thinking.

[–] negativenull@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Polls haven't been accurate in a long time now. Election betting sites have said they are being manipulated. DJT stock price is being used as a way of showing "market acceptance of trump". It's all being gamed. It's not conspiratorial at all.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/you-are-lying-nate-silver-accuses-pollsters-of-putting-their-fcking-finger-on-the-scale/
https://fortune.com/crypto/2024/10/30/polymarket-trump-election-crypto-wash-trading-researchers/

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

It’s not conspiratorial at all.

No, what you are engaging in is anti-scientific, conspiratorial thinking. Gallup isn't being gamed. Emerson isn't being gamed. Times-Sienna isn't being gamed.

And there is some funny business out there, but polling is still polling. There are real criticisms you can make here around methodology, or how when a metric becomes a target it ceases to be a metric, and maybe you could dig into issues like that. But to just be dismissive like this is, well, its anti-intellectual and anti-factual.