iNow

Wrong conclusion. Trump still would’ve won over Biden, but it wouldn’t have been anywhere near as close as it was against Harris. More likely, Biden should’ve dropped out sooner, or (better yet IMO) not run at all and let the primaries happen. This is a huge part of it, but it’s less about inflation (which has largely been contained especially relative to high GDP peers and advanced nations globally) and is more about prices on headline items at the grocery store plus housing and vehicle costs etc (I.e. things the Fed intentionally made more expensive to help curb the aforementioned inflation).

For instance?

They did. Your premise is trivially false

I’d rather you start by providing arguments why you or the government on your behalf should be empowered to make this decision on behalf of others, their families, and their doctors, especially since you are not being harmed in any way by their choices.

Opposition to immigration ≠ saying blood is being poisoned, dark skinned people are eating dogs, come from shitholes, or only arrive to rape and murder. Your inability / unwillingness to engage others here in good faith is absurdly consistent.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusation_in_a_mirror Accusation in a mirror (AiM) (also called mirror politics,[1] mirror propaganda, mirror image propaganda, or a mirror argument) is a technique often used in the context of hate speech incitement, where one falsely attributes one's own motives and/or intentions to one's adversaries.[2][3][4] It has been cited, along with dehumanization, as one of the indirect or cloaked forms of incitement to genocide, which has contributed to the commission of genocide, for example in the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and the Armenian genocide. By invoking collective self-defense, accusation in a mirror is used to justify genocide, similar to self-defense as a defense for individual homicide.[4][5][6] The Office of the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide (OSAPG) defines mirror politics as a "common strategy to create divisions by fabricating events whereby a person accuses others of what he or she does or wants to do", and includes it as a factor in their Analysis Framework on Genocide, when analyzing whether a given situation poses a risk of genocide

It’s amazing what happens when the world’s richest man owns X/Twitter and instructs their engineers to change the algorithm to prioritize all Trump related posts and content, then has that amplified by vast troll armies from authoritarian nation states and useful idiots across the US.

I don’t disagree with you, but both things can be true at once. It’s not either/or. It’s both/and.

As you’re suggesting, it’s likely to be less about criminal activities solely among illegal undocumented residents and probably more likely to display as the execution of mass raids and civil rights abuses against “undesirables” by a police state directed and unconstrained by the desires and whims of a small handful of folks with power. Enemies lists getting crossed off etc.

Instead of being ostracized for bad behavior and losing access to protection from the tribe, people are finding acceptance for their bad behavior and specifically being rewarded for it within online tribes who help amplify it.

Lies, about the economy, inflation, and other things like xenophobia and border issues.

Still don’t follow. Perhaps you’re asking why they are slower to announce their projections?

Right now it looks like she’s gonna lose IMO I don’t understand your question

I wiped my ass after a giant dump today and the stain looked like DJTs face so there’s a counterpoint that might be a bad omen for Trump. We’ll know when we know.

Shall I chase it like some wild goose, or perhaps instead you could elaborate as a show of courtesy?

And to you that is a reflection of pure democracy?

<groan> lol

You're not wrong that other polls have different narratives around Trumps position in Iowa and I'm certainly not hanging my hat on this one. In fact, I fully expect Trump to carry Iowa despite my and my friends best efforts, but what this poll DOES show is that the nearly 20 point lead Trump had in Iowa circa July has not only shrunk significantly, but effectively been eliminated and become a virtual tie. This aligns with trends coming from the Cook Political report where Iowa went from Likely Republican to Lean Republican to now Toss-Up. The bigger story here IMO is how this Iowa poll suggests likely weakness in other rural counties in places like Wisconsin and Michigan, potentially even Pennsylvania (though I'm doubtful on this last one). Given Trumps consistently low ceiling, weakness in any of these places amplifies the risk to his chances. This particular poll, while being an outlier and different from other good ones, does have the benefit of coming from Anne Seltzer who is fairly universally seen as one of (if not THE) best pollster in the US. Not decisive, but a big part of the reason it's getting so much traction.

Whether or not we move toward the popular vote when choosing the president, moving away from the electoral college seems like a rather obvious improvement. Doing so in parallel with implementing ranked choice voting could go a very long way toward reducing many of the self-inflicted wounds we keep experiencing election after election after election today.

I think you should consider a nice herbal or at least decaf. Lol

Source: Trust me, bruh

When it was explicitly stated above that’s what’s under discussion here?

Lots of atheists believe lots of silly unfounded things. They just dismiss the concept of a magical bearded cloud surfer who cares whether you masturbate or eat certain meats on Fridays etc.

Not really, no. Early voting trends only give insights into what early voters are doing and tells little to nothing about the election or potential outcome overall. Don’t get caught up trying to read tea leaves and chicken entrails. We’ll know when we know.

The hint is right there in the word “pure.” Once a constitution puts limits or guardrails or constraints on the vote in any way it’s no longer a “pure” or direct democracy.