J.C.MacSwell

I'm not sure after every vote is counted she will have lost the popular vote but it hardly matters. She ran a decent campaign, Trump ran his worst and least honest so far, and this is the result. Not sure what to think never mind say.

We're living in the twilight zone.

It's pure something...

Thanks. I tried it but they want my email... Assuming the non battleground States go as expected that leaves the Harris with 226, 44 short of 270 And Trump 219, 51 short So there are 3 possible results leaving a tie at 269 with Harris getting 43 and Trump 50: Harris: Arizona (11) Georgia (16) and North Carolina (16) leaving Trump: Michigan (15) Nevada (6) Pennsylvania (19) Wisconsin (10) or Harris: Arizona (11) Georgia (16) Nevada (6) and Wisconsin (10) leaving Trump: Michigan (15) North Carolina (16) and Pennsylvania (19) Or Harris: Arizona (11) North Carolina (16) Nevada (6) and Wisconsin (10) leaving Trump: Michigan (15) Georgia (16) and Pennsylvania (19) What happens in the case of a tie? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/electoral-college-tie-2024-election-what-happens-rcna175477

Am I putting that together correctly...Every poll "including this one" that now has Harris leading? So probably leading by significantly more? I get a sense the Democrat pollsters want to be, ironically, conservative while the GOP pollsters are trying to be optimistic...partly to motivate the base and partly to set the narrative to try to steal the election (something they are already accusing the Dems of) Maybe just wishful thinking but I would like to think this time the Dems win convincingly enough that Trump, or at least his potential henchmen, realize the games over.

"They voted for Kamala after eating the pets that would have voted for me!" -Donald Trump on illegal aliens circa mid November 2024 Yeah I'm losing it...

I tend to check 538 and find the Democrats holding or very slightly declining, despite hearing more descriptions of Democrats building early leads...probably the way I'm sampling or what I'm clicking but if in fact it's due to GOP putting their finger on the polls should 538 not be adjusting for that? I predicted Harris would win, almost comfortably, if she ran in a certain way and not only has she done that...but Trump seems to be getting in his own way. I would expect Harris would have a lead nationally of about 4% (and probably need at least 2) but 538 has her lead dwindled to 1.1 after building to over 3 a couple months back. I hope you Americans on this site have already voted but show up tomorrow with a least 3 decent minded friends that might not have voted otherwise...(I do realize I'm preaching to the choir)

Sure. Speak for the West...it's certainly Putin's business in Russia (and eventually other recovered territories): https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-battling-birth-rate-dip-is-working-child-free-ideology-ban-says-putin-2024-09-24/

Why do I need to do that? Maybe if a clearly better candidate had been available prior to Biden announcing DEI criteria...he wouldn't have announced DEI criteria...

My context was for a single position.

We (not sure if you were included) definitely discussed this here. Just over four years ago but I am absolutely sure. I said at the time Biden should have simply made his choice as the best available pick. Being black, and being female, could have factored in to that, politics being what it is. But he didn't do that. He virtue signalled in not a good way IMO. That's on him, not Harris. I'm sure she was happy she was chosen but would have preferred to be chosen as the best available candidate, not the best available black female. Correct me if I'm wrong but choosing a DEI candidate doesn't mean you won't get the best candidate, it just means you've excluded other candidates that might have been a better choice. For my part, I didn't like the pick at the time, nothing to do with the fact she was black or female, but like it now...also nothing to do with the fact she's black or female.

Unfortunately that's on Biden. He literally announced that he intended to choose a black female as running mate. She's more than qualified to run your country as POTUS, certainly far more than Biden or Trump, but she was in fact a DEI choice for VP as a running mate. Not that Burchett should get a pass for firing the gun Biden loaded, but that's politics today. Of course many in the GOP say far worse and have absolutely no excuse.

What I meant by a pure democracy, unlimited by a constitution (or equivalent), would describe a situation where a majority could run roughshod, even enslave, a minority simply by voting to do so. I don't think that would be a better system.

With infinite monkeys a subset infinite number of them would type them out directly with no mistakes. Plenty of time for that...

You don't want a pure democracy, you need a constitutional democracy that will protect certain rights of the minority as well. In Canada we often have majority governments with 40% of the popular vote and could mathematically have a majority government with less than half of that. Just win seats with the minimum needed and don't get any votes in seats you lose. There's no perfect system, though some countries run re-votes until someone gets over 50%.

Like Harris, she would also have handed Trump his ass in a debate, but he refused just as he did for any second debate against Harris. Instead he just holds blowhard rallies, complete with sexist and racist content...brags incessantly, and somehow gets a pass. I keep looking at the polls and thinking "are you kidding me?" Hopefully they are, due to overcompensating for past mistakes,

This seems of concern IMO that spouses can share the same voting booth in North Carolina. https://ncnewsline.com/2024/10/25/alamance-county-married-couples-polling-booths/

Well...I would say that some people are racist and sexist, some more than Trump, and these people seem to gravitate more toward the GOP than the Democrats...in part, but not all...because Trump

I've heard they often factor up the younger age groups to account for their low tendency to answer polls...increasing the margin of error in the poll itself. I think they also expect these groups to vote less than they might in this one. It may turn out that younger females voting for the first time make the difference. So hopefully we are pleasantly surprised come Wednesday morning but right now it just seems like a coin flip.

The sides I was referring to were the politicians and pundits of the Democrat and Republican parties, and no I don't expect any reasonable debate any time soon.

Let the fireworks begin!

+1. We have at least a semblance of a reasonable system. Hopefully the US can get back to at least that.

The point is that everyone has more than just a sense that there is a substantial difference between a fetus in the third trimester, that often live even born prematurely, and one in the first, yet polls like that often totally ignore it. That in itself is leading if the implication is a more average pregnancy. Given that, I don't think describing Canadians as a majority being completely pro-choice is accurate as the question wasn't put in that manner.

Enough to know they would seek political advantage to the detriment of reasonable compromise, Hard to blame given the current political climate...but blame they will