Win or lose, the Electoral College system is idiotic and needs to be changed (it never will).
1 Like
âMcConnell, the Senate Republican leader, warned that without the filibuster a Democratic majority could grant statehood to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which, McConnell said, would ensure âfour new Democratic senators in perpetuity, which significantly disables our side, my side.â
Stuck with the EC but this could help.
Mr. Reagan conservative was this close to voting for the liberal black lady until she started being such a bitch. Now he has no choice but to vote for the fascist :(
7 Likes
The problem with all the âmethods of voting have changed and also traditional polling methods donât work so âshrugââ hopium is that polls were mostly accurate in 18 and 22. The only constant since 2016 is that when Trump is on the ballot he gets underestimated. Maybe they really are correcting or this election is fundamentally different but I tend to go off history until proven otherwise.
Do Democrats have at least a 5% chance of winning Texas?
- LOL no
- Yes, but only Allred
- Yes, but only Kamala
- Yes for both Kamala and Allred
0
voters
Seems like the biggest factor in polling variance is how do you account for enthusiasm levels that rise and fall with each election? Trumpâs rallies seem pretty lackluster right now. Could that translate to lower enthusiasm? I sure hope so.
how did they correct the error?
Trump yard signs have been super lackluster
Fwiw. Climate change is the biggest impact of a trump victory. And not even close.
If the world hits 1.5 degrees of warming, we see 3 metres of sea level rise in the next 1000 years.
At 2. Itâs about 6.
A trump victory may lock in about 9 to 12 metres of sea level rise. The literal shape of entire nations for millennia depends on a few thousand idiots in 7 states.
5 Likes
or, he has no idea who wins, but knows damn well if the washington post endorses kamala and she loses, trump is breaking up amazon. and since he owns the washington post, why risk it?
2 Likes
Republicans buy shoes too. And books, and household goods, and everything else under the sun sold on Amazon.
1 Like
100 years?
bc people in 3024 probably wonât have physical bodies to need to swim.
yup.
Calling people scared about Trump having somewhere between a 40 and 65% chance of winning doomers is some insane shit.
Either could win. No one knows. Things donât look especially good.
If Trump wins things get much worse for everyone besides wealthy white men.
they didnât. they called those who say Trump is surely winning doomers. Although as a sport fan of losing teams, my inclination is to assume the worst always so I relate to the doomers sentiment.
5 Likes
The next 100 years is harder to read.
The terrifying fact is that even if we somehow stop warming at 1.5. which is pretty unlikely. The sea levels keep rising and keep rising.
It was one of my âoh fuckâ moments.
2 Likes
Iâd def buy a lot of 5c.
2 Likes
Personally I smashed âlol noâ before seeing it included the senate race, guessing im not alone
2 Likes
I donât think this is true for a number of reasons. 1) Trump will only be around for 4 years, 2) What happens in China and India over the next 20 years will have a more significant effect on climate change than what happens in the US, 3) much of US climate policy is on the state level (such as CA), where there is more aggressive action on climate, regardless of what Trump does; 4) While one shouldnât count on it, itâs possible that a non-trivial amount of climate change could be remedied by technology; 5) arguably the filibuster is worse for climate policy than a bad president.
Trump would be bad for climate policy, but I donât expect four more years of Trump to have a worse effect on climate than many other things where he will cause damage, such as judges (though Trump judges, especially the Supreme Court have been terrible on climate by attacking the regulatory power of agencies).
