politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
So, he refuses to factor anything in if it doesn't fit his system... Literally refusing to acknowledge any health concerns
His system is this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Lichtman
And it doesn't account for specific candidate...
So by his own argument that his system can't acknowledge a candidates fitness would come into play, logically I don't understand why he is speaking on who the specific candidate should be.
His hypothesis is that elections are mostly not about individuals. People vote for Team Blue or Team Red. And given the embrace by evangelicals of a criminal who has never read the bible, I think he may have a point.
The only individual characteristic that matters is incumbency, which is why Democrats shouldn't throw that advantage away.
The incumbent lost in 2020. There may be other factors.
The only individual characteristic that matters is incumbency.
Most other factors mostly do not depend on the individual who is running. For example, recession, military victories/losses, results of midterm elections, significant third party challenger, etc. The party can run anyone and it would not affect those points.
However, I overlooked another individual characteristic: there is an extra point if the incumbent is a victorious military leader or has significant appeal to members of the opposing party. The only person to get that point in this century was Obama, and only in 2008.
The only one to win the Democratic primaries, at least.
This system is only meant to predict the general election. It ignores any primary candidates who were not nominated.
Seems to me that the model has some blind spots.
It does what it means to do.
Until it doesn't.
Democrats used to trust polls, too. Now they only trust them if they confirm existing biases.
The other factor is that the incumbent lost in 2020, to the 2024 incumbent.
Like wtf. People saying he can't do it. He already did it once.
Since then, his signature legislation has failed to pass as intended, he's broken a strike, he's supported a genocide, he's moved to the right on immigration, and he's claimed to have defeated Medicare. He's alienated his base and demonstrated that people who were fretting about his age might have been on to something after all.
He beat Trump in a nail-biting squeaker of a contest in 2020, and centrists have been pretending he's invincible ever since.
There's also the 100% tariff on EVs that he supports.
Oh boohoo, my team didn't win everything it wanted so I'm going to take my ball and go home.
Still by far the most progressive president in my lifetime.
Your team didn't? Did Biden not move far enough to the right for you?
I see. He really isn't far enough to the right for you. Well you should vote for him anyway. No matter who and all that.
Some might want to play ball with West, Stein, or JFK Jr.
I've never met a single person who thinks any of them could actually get the popular or electoral vote, at this point replacing Biden with another Democrat would be far more likely.
How likely is Biden, or his possible replacement, to be elected?
About 25 to 50 percent, depending on which Polling Aggregate source you're using for Biden currently. Which would presumably improve with another candidate.
25% From the economist
40% From The Hill
50% From 538
Meanwhile, RFK Jr., the highest polling of the third party candidates, has less than 1% chance of winning enough electoral votes.
However, my original point wasn't that a Biden replacement would do better than RFK or a third party in the general (though they certainly would), but that if you dislike Biden, him being replaced is more likely than a third party candidate ever winning.
Before the debate, I wasn't sure who'd win: Biden or Trump.
Even Allen Lichtman was unsure.
After the debate, I figure Biden will lose.
I'm not saying it's an absolute certainty—we have 4 months and many things could happen. If someone offered to bet me their $500 that Trump will win to my $100 on Biden winning, I'd take it.
If Biden is replaced, I think he'd be more likely to lose.
If he was elected, Biden needn't serve all 4 years: he could resign a few months later, make Harris President, and AOC, Sanders, Newsom, whatever, as VP.
As I think Biden will lose, one might want to vote their hearts.
Keep in mind, it might be dependent on states.
wp:2020 United States presidential election#Results by state
If 2.5 million Californians who voted for Biden instead voted for RJK Jr, Stein, and West in 2024, Biden (or his replacement) would still probably win all 55 Electoral College votes of that state.
If the 5 million Texans who voted for Biden, also, instead voted RJK Jr, Stein, and West in 2024, Biden would lose no more Electoral College votes.
And the popular vote means fuck all for the election anyway, so who cares about this system if it didn’t factor in the electoral college?
The system is currently meant to predict the electoral college winner, not the popular vote winner.
I don't think it means fuck-all. IIUC to win the necessary Electoral College votes, one has to win at least 37% of the popular vote in a 2-way (or mostly 2-way) race.