As of last month, public support for the idea of a third major U.S. political party was at 58%. A year prior, it was at 63%. Given the recent state of things with the current political parties.

• Is there evidence that periods like now, after a major party has suffered a resounding defeat, are conducive to the rise of third parties?
• Historically, when have third parties been successful in the US?
• Does the failure of the No Labels group to put forward a candidate indicate there's not enough support right now for a new party, or is it unrelated?
• How many, if any, disaffected Republicans and centrist Democrats have expressed support for a moderate third party? Enough to make it a viable option?
• Is there anything specific about the results of the recent election that should lead us to believe this is a good or bad time to launch a moderate third party?

Sorry for my potential naivete, but I've heard the word thrown around so much over the years and figured I'd finally look up what it actually meant.

So from a two minute Google search and a quick scan of Wikipedia, the term comes from the liberals who left the left due to their pacifism and counterculture in the 60s. (Sources I read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism?wprov=sfla1

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neoconservative)

If this is the case, why aren't they called neoliberals and what happened to their liberal views outside of how it pertained to the counterculture movement?

How did they go from being liberals to being the Cheney's and the Bush's of the world? You can be a hawk and still be a liberal imo.

I know next to nothing about political science, please be nice :(

We’ve been noticing a serious shift in the Western world’s view of democracy and governance. It feels like something foundational is changing in how people engage with their governments. Now, I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but I do believe that long-term plans and global strategies play a role here. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/06/13/european-elections-the-far-right-gained-ground-in-eu-founding-countries_6674740_4.html

What concerns me most is the rise of far-right ideologies and a growing acceptance of authoritarian / fascism thinking across the West. Is democracy itself eroding from within, with parts of the population becoming increasingly skeptical or even hostile toward it?

Could superpowers like Russia and China be benefiting from this? We know Russia has been highly effective in disinformation campaigns, influencing divisions and amplifying social rifts in democratic societies. ( https://publications.armywarcollege.edu/News/Display/Article/3789933/understanding-russian-disinformation-and-how-the-joint-force-can-address-it/ ) But there also seems to be a deeper, internal shift going on that might go beyond any foreign influence, or maybe not?

So, where is this paradigm shift really coming from? Are these long-standing societal issues that are only now coming to the surface? Or is this part of a larger strategy by external powers to destabilize the West?

I’m really interested in hearing different perspectives, especially from those who follow global geopolitics / history closely. Thanks for any insights you can share!

Democrats have had ongoing struggles with men leaving the party since 2016 (see chart in the link "Young Men Are Leaving the Democratic Party"). Donald Trump has taken advantage of this and focused considerable efforts to attract men, specifically young men, to turn out and vote for him on election day (see Time magazine "Why Trump Thinks He Needs Young Men to Win"). What evidence and factors exists to explain this shift of men towards Donald Trump?

In the last year Elon Musk has become an increasingly vocal figure in political and social debates, with notable influence due to his large platform (X) and considerable resources. With his recent statements and actions, there’s been substantial public discussion about his role and potential impact on U.S. politics. https://www.dw.com/en/elon-musks-grip-on-tech-and-politics-is-getting-stronger/a-70597699 https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2024/08/can-elon-musk-influence-the-us-general-election

What does current evidence suggest about the actual impact of Musk's political engagement on the 2024 U.S. election? Are there any indications that his influence aligns with or diverges from other corporate leaders or public figures in the tech sector?

What are trumps and Kamala's opinions and plans for Section 8 housing and state university grants? Per the link provided, I saw Trump say he wants to disband the dept of Education.

How could each candidate plan affect these funded sources? Could this mean students who rely on this to go to college be affected and could this affect people who use section 8 and how?

Link: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/20/politics/department-of-education-shut-down-trump/index.html

Predictive models, popularized by 538, aggregate polling data to try to predict election outcomes.

The roots of these predictive models seem to be sports models, where statistics such as team performance and individual performance are used to predict the likely winners.

The big difference between sports and elections however, is that sports is a skill based game which has elements of luck, whereas elections are simply activities done by voters to determine a political leader.

Famously, 538 predicted a 70+% chance that Hillary would win the 2008 election, and she ended up losing. Most predictive models are largely predicting a "50/50" result for the upcoming 2024 election, including basically 50/50 chances in most battleground states [1] [2] [3].

My questions and appeal for conversation/discussion:

• If predictive models are simply summing up and weighing error-prone polls, how does such a summation result in a more accurately framed "probability" for election outcomes?
• How are elections "probabilistic outcomes"? The election will be determined by voters - there is no skill, chance, or luck involved, and certainly not to the degree of something like a professional sports match.
• If a predictive model can't really tell who wins the election at 70%+ probability, then what value does it provide and what insight does it provide and what value does it add to the conversation? I understand a 30% chance of something happening is a far cry from "impossible" but what value does it add when we can simply look at polls to understand who is likely to be ahead?
• Would we be better served and informed by looking at individual polls to make a guess at who is ahead?
• What do the "predictive models" add to the conversation?

I can see models adding some value to the discussion by calling out inaccurate polls or polls with flawed methodology (Nate Silver's post calling out "herding" is a great example). I'm not sure how the "predictive models" themselves add anything to the conversation.

After the 2000 election, in which there were controversies over absentee ballots being counted in Florida, the New York Times completed a landmark investigation into the process around counting ballots and uncovered several irregularities which allowed Bush to be declared the winner in the state over Gore.

EXAMINING THE VOTE; How Bush Took Florida: Mining the Overseas Absentee Vote

The article calls out several process failures which would not necessarily fall under the commonly considered "voter fraud" umbrella (whereas voter fraud is commonly referring to things like double voting, voting with a stolen identity, voting on behalf of a deceased person, etc).

In an analysis of the 2,490 ballots from Americans living abroad that were counted as legal votes after Election Day, The Times found 680 questionable votes. Although it is not known for whom the flawed ballots were cast, four out of five were accepted in counties carried by Mr. Bush, The Times found. Mr. Bush's final margin in the official total was 537 votes.

The flawed votes included ballots without postmarks, ballots postmarked after the election, ballots without witness signatures, ballots mailed from towns and cities within the United States and even ballots from voters who voted twice. All would have been disqualified had the state's election laws been strictly enforced.

There is information about high level, abstract "ballot rejection" statistics, such as this MIT paper:

A Deep Dive into Absentee Ballot Rejection in the 2020 General Election

And this article applying regression models to voting intentions:

No evidence for systematic voter fraud: A guide to statistical claims about the 2020 election

But similar models were also applied to the 2000 election in Florida and did not uncover statistically significant conclusions based purely on the data:

Statistical Issues in the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election in Florida

The conclusions of the statistical analysis stands in stark contrast to the process irregularities uncovered by the New York Times report from 2001.

What I am looking for is a deep dive into the actual specifics and potential inconsistencies in actually applying different standards across ballots to influence a winner (process irregularities, process fraud). Has there been any journalism with a similar level of detail to the 2000/2001 New York Times investigation regarding the 2020 election, potentially as a result of either legal discovery owing to the various lawsuits or research uncovered via investigative journalism, one way or the other?

Both parties have been promising policies that will increase take home pay and better reward workers. Both parties have promised no tax on overtime pay, which would be awesome and probably change the way many people are paid. Also, both sides have strong backgrounds with increasing workforce CNN Trump Harris Workforce.

Trump's 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs act increased wages and decreased unemployment and decreased taxes on lower/middle class significantly TCJA Benefit Study. On the Harris/Walz side, Walz in MN has done a fantastic job with workforce, arguably the best the US if you factor in cost of living % Workers Making <17$/hr by State . MN even spawned the getfulfil company that helps people into blue collar jobs and growing fields that don't require college GetFulfil Career Helper . MN is also great for business CBS News MN Business.

What are the pros and cons of each candidate's proposed policy and previous execution?

I hope this isn’t a silly question, but I’m genuinely curious.

Each election cycle, I see individuals and groups whose mission is completely neutral—they don’t endorse any candidates or issues. Their only goal seems to be making sure people are registered and go out to vote.

I understand why people or organizations backing a specific candidate would encourage voting, but I don’t quite understand the motivation behind groups that just want people to vote, regardless of political preference.

Could someone explain the purpose behind this? Why would it matter to them if people vote, without caring about who they vote for?

Example: Rock The Vote - About Us

This coming Tuesday, November 5th, is the last day of voting in the U.S. general election.

If you're a potential voter and haven't cast your ballot yet, you may want to check out our voter information post.

Many people (especially those living outside the U.S.) are looking forward to this election season being over. Unfortunately, Tuesday is not likely to be the end of it, so this post is designed to let people know what to expect moving forward.

• Votes take time to be counted. Many states do not even begin counting their absentee/mail-in ballots until the polls close on Election Day, meaning they will take an especially long time to report and certify a full count. In 2020, fifteen states didn't certify until at least four weeks after the election, and in 2016, some were even later.
• As the results are coming in, changes to the count are normal. The fact that someone is leading at one point and then behind at another is entirely a function of which ballots from which districts are being counted. It doesn't indicate that anything unusual has happened. Moreover, areas with higher population density logically take longer to process their ballots and they tend to lean left, so late shifts leftwards are quite common.
• Based on the polling, this could be one of the closest races in the last 60 years. Don't let anyone tell you it should be a landslide just because they're immersed in communities, social circles, or media silos that unflappably support one side. It's a big country. Just because someone only knows people who support one of the candidates does not mean that candidate will win.
• Polling is an inexact art and discrepancies between polling and voting are normal. Donald Trump has outperformed his polling in both his previous campaigns. Democrats have outperformed their polling since the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade. We do not know who will win.
• Similarly, betting odds and prediction markets are not reliable indicators of outcome. Their lines shift based on the incoming bets, not probabilities. (We discussed this in depth a few weeks ago.)
• There will be legal challenges, likely from both campaigns. It's common for campaigns to challenge issues they feel were not handled properly. Some challenges have already been filed and there will assuredly be others up until and after the polls have closed. This is not unusual, though given the political climate, the volume may be higher this year. More claims does not indicate malfeasance or unreliability in the system.
• Legal challenges are not the same as "election denialism," which can be defined as a willingness "to deny the lawfully determined outcome of an election." If a candidate is unwilling to accept the results after the challenges have been filed and adjudicated, that is denialism.
• There may be recounts and runoff elections in some races. Recounts are triggered by small margins of victory and/or successful recount requests, depending on the jurisdiction. There's no such thing as a runoff election in the presidential race, but in some states, there may be runoffs for other offices, depending on the margin of victory.
• The voting age population of the country has been rising every year for over a century, which means that if turnout rates are consistent, more people vote in each successive election. Based on national polling, each major party candidate is projected to garner around 80 million votes this year. And if turnout is high, even the losing candidate could set a new record for most votes received.
• The electoral college system decides who wins, not the popular vote.
• Some election laws have changed since 2020. The Electoral Count Act was revised to clarify the role of the Vice President in the process. Quite a few state laws have changed as well, some more restrictive and some more expansive of the franchise.
• Beware disinformation. Social media, assisted by generative A.I., is being used, mostly by foreign adversaries, to undermine confidence in our elections and to stoke discord, so as to pit Americans against each other. Past incidents have been investigated and proven. Expect even more in the future.
• Among the public, confidence in election administration is slightly higher than in the last couple cycles, but still considerably below historical norms. Among some election experts, however, confidence is high. Here's an interview with some of them.

The point of all this is that we should expect some degree of controversy and we may not know the final results for a while. Strap in, monitor reliable sources like AP News, and be patient.

This is an informational post for our users.

Israel has the 27th largest GDP, sitting between Ireland and the UAE, and above nations like Austria and Singapore.

They have a strong tech sector, on par with Silicon Valley.

Yet, the US provides billions in aid to Israel to assist with the conflict its currently fighting.

Why does a modern wealthy nation need aid in a war?

Why cant it instead purchase any military needs from the people who make it?

Hello, I’m wondering, does anyone have a preferred news brief service. I’d like something that covers national and major international news in an objective way. I like reading the papers but I’d also like a good newsletter to get into for quicker updates. I think there are many companies that do this like the NYT WSJ BBC etc. Do you have a favorite?  

I would like to understand the war involving Israel, Lebanon, and Iran. I already understand the conflict between Israel and Palestine/Hamas, but I didn't realize until a few days ago that Israel was also fighting these other countries.

Why are they fighting? Have they formally declared war, or is this a stand-off with occasional violence? What are likely outcomes of this conflict?

news stories that mention the conflict:

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-iran-strikes-lebanon-gaza-war-10-27-24/index.html

LA Times: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/opinion-israel-answers-iran-these-three-questions-about-war-in-the-mideast-remain/ar-AA1sYXEe

NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/10/28/world/israel-gaza-iran-lebanon

I would like to understand which forces are in play after a coup in an african country (I started wondering about it while thinking about the 2023-2024 events in Niger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerien_crisis_(2023%E2%80%932024)).

I understand that there is the new military government, more aligned with Russia and Sahel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Sahel_States), and the old government that would be aligned with western countries and ECOWAS (https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/military-interventions-by-west-african-ecowas-bloc-2023-08-04/).

My main question is: Why is the new government in power? What does it depend on? (Some context with https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/what-are-west-africas-options-reverse-nigers-coup-2023-08-04/)

As a first point, instinctively I would say that it depends on what amount of support the current government receives from Russia (https://apnews.com/article/wagner-russia-coup-niger-military-force-e0e1108b58a9e955af465a3efe6605c0) (and possibly China, or other relevant countries?), and at the same time, on which amount of effort western countries would put into restoring the previous government.

While the help from Russia may only depend on the mood of Putin, and on the results of the war in Ukraine, what determines the efforts (or lack of) of western powers?

As a second point, I am wondering about the intervention of Burkina Faso and Mali (https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/mali-niger-burkina-faso-sign-sahel-security-pact-2023-09-16/). Do they act more indipendently or accordingly to influences from third parties? And what about the ECOWAS?

Finally, and most importantly, I am wondering about the relationships between Niger and western countries and western companies (I am thinking about uranium mining in particular, since https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/uranium-mines-niger-worlds-7th-biggest-producer-2023-07-28/).

On one side, I could think that Niger's new government should want to have bad relationships with western countries, France in particular. The government has been hostile with some western companies (https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/canadas-goviex-uraniums-stripped-niger-mining-rights-2024-07-05/, https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/niger-junta-temporarily-stops-granting-new-mining-licences-2024-01-25/), while pretty collaborative with others (https://www.globalatomiccorp.com/investors/news/news-details/2024/GLOBAL-ATOMIC-ANNOUNCES-NIGER-GOVERNMENT-SUPPORT-FOR-THE-DASA-PROJECT/default.aspx). Why is this happening, and what are the real intentions of the government?

I asked my questions on Niger, but i would be happy to read any interesting consideration about similar situations in other african countries.

Background

The U.S. general election is 10 days away. Voting is not compulsory in the U.S., but it is widely regarded as a civic or moral duty.

I've seen some posts lately questioning if voting is worthwhile or if it can make an appreciable difference in one's life. Participants in this subreddit presumably have a pro-voting bias, but for the sake of neutrality, let's try to set that aside when discussing this issue.

Pros

There are many lists of reasons why one should vote. I found this one, directed mostly at younger voters, to be appealing, because of it's arguments that one's vote is effective and gives people a seat at the table.

Also, the next president will determine some policies that will affect our long-term future, such as Supreme Court appointments and climate change. Even for people who don't vote in the swing states that will likely determine the presidential race, there are down-ballot contests that will decide important questions of law and representation.

Cons

Jason Brennan is a well-known opponent of the idea that one's vote matters, and in fact, of democracy overall as a governing mechanism. Some of his reasons are that the odds of affecting a race are vanishingly small, most citizens are uninformed, and the particular party that gets voted into power doesn't have much of an effect on policy outcomes.

As a student of policy, and especially its cumulative effect, I don't find the first and last of those particularly convincing, though I'm open to other perspectives. I have some sympathy for the second point, though. Not everyone is interested enough in politics to research the issues, or informed enough to understand the nuances. Perhaps there's an advantage to the population not being subject to governance determined by the choices of such people.

Questions

• What's the evidence supporting why someone should or shouldn't vote?
• What are the historical consequences of high or low voter turnout?
• How do democracies deal with the issue of under-informed voters and is their prevalence a reasonable argument against encouraging widespread voting?

Ive been wondering for awhile about if and how organized crime groups may influence politics in the USA. I assume where there is money there is a drive to protect it through political action. Here is a link to an article about organized crime changing the world https://globalinitiative.net/analysis/op-ed-organised-crime-has-affected-politics-but-not-in-the-way-we-have-come-to-expect-now-is-the-time-to-build-a-new-agenda/.
Here is one about types of corruption affecting the world, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/organised-crime-and-corrupting-political-system

But what about in the USA? I see items on influencing labor unions and city politics but has anyone looked at more direct action in national politics like running their own candidate? Or involvement in lobbies? Discussion of the idea would be appreciated. Thank you.

Here in the UK, it has been in the news that Trump has filed a Federal Election Commission complaint against the Labour Party, relating to the Labour Party sending a delegation of volunteers to the USA to help the Harris campaign.

I understand that it’s illegal for US political parties to accept financial donations from foreign interests. I understand that Labour are saying there is no financial donations here - the volunteers pay for their own flights, and accommodation is provided for free by Democrats.

But what I’m really interested in, is whether this kind of thing happens every election cycle, or whether it’s unusual. Do Labour always send volunteers? Do the Tories ever send volunteers to campaign for the Republicans? Have the Tories ever sent volunteers specifically to campaign for Trump, either in this election cycle or the two previous ones?

A year ago, the Biden administration announced they waived 26 federal laws in South Texas to allow border wall construction. What is the status of that construction now? How much wall has been built, or is still being built, under the Biden administration?

https://apnews.com/article/border-wall-biden-immigration-texas-rio-grande-147d7ab497e6991e9ea929242f21ceb2

In August of 2024, Utah filed a public lands lawsuit asking the U.S. Supreme Court to address whether the federal government can continue hold unappropriated lands within a State indefinitely. What are the legitimate issues of this suit, and why did Utah think it was necessary?

Earlier this year, a bipartisan group of Senators, with support from the White House, put forward a bill to address long-standing problems with the U.S. immigration system.

At the time, some Senate Republicans said they wouldn't get a better deal, no matter who won the upcoming presidential election, while the House Speaker called it, "dead on arrival." Progressive Democrats criticized Biden for supporting the bill, which they saw as too restrictive. Donald Trump said he would take the blame if it failed, which it did, upsetting some members of his own party.

"THE IMMIGRATION PROVISIONS" section of this article summarizes the bill's proposals. This fact check also spells out the provisions and attempts to address misinformation about the bill.

My question is about how well the proposals in the bill matched up with the actual problems facing the U.S. immigration system. There's no way to predict whether it would have worked, but I'd at least like to understand if it was appropriately targeted.

Thanks.

This is a retrospective question about the last two administrations, not a request for speculation about the future.

There's considerable debate over how much control a president has over the economy, yet recently, both Trump and Biden have touted the economic successes of their administrations.

So, to whatever degree a president is responsible for the economic performance of the country, what objective measurements can we use to compare these two administrations and how do they compare to each other?

The results of this year's U.S. General Election will determine the President, Vice President, all 435 seats in the House of Representatives, 34 of the 100 seats in the Senate, 13 State and territorial Governorships, as well as numerous other State and local offices and ballot measures.

If you are a U.S. citizen who will be at least 18 years old on November 5th, you're probably eligible to vote. Visit this vote.org page to check the rules in your State, register to vote, confirm an existing registration, request an absentee ballot, find your polling location, sign up to be a poll worker, and more.

Early and absentee voting has already begun in many states.

The U.S. elects the president through an electoral college system that assigns electors based on the jurisdiction of the voters. The winner is whichever candidate garners at least 270 votes in the electoral college. If no candidate reaches that threshold, the election is thrown to the House of Representatives, which casts one vote per delegation. Presently, the Republican Party controls the majority of House delegations.

This year, there are four Presidential candidates on the ballot in enough states to reach 270 electoral college votes. They are:

Kamala Harris
Party: Democratic
Policy page: https://kamalaharris.com/issues/

Donald Trump
Party: Republican
Policy page: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform

Chase Oliver
Party: Libertarian
Policy page: https://votechaseoliver.com/platform/

Jill Stein
Party: Green
Policy page: https://www.jillstein2024.com/platform

A number of other candidates have partial ballot access, meaning not enough to win a majority in the electoral college.

Voting FAQ:

Q: Am I eligible to vote?
A: If you are a U.S. citizen who will be at least 18 years old on the day of the election, you are likely eligible to vote.

Q: Is it too late to register to vote?
A: It depends. A few states' deadlines have passed, others are approaching, and a few allow registration up until the same day as the election. Look up your state's information here.

Q: Where do I vote on Election Day?
A: Voters are assigned a polling place based on the address where they're registered. Find your polling place here or here.

Q: What are the hours of my polling place?
A: Find the opening and closing times for your polling place here.

Q: Do I need to show identification to vote?
A: Most states require some form of identification when you register and/or when you vote. The rules vary state by state. This interactive map will help you determine the requirements for your state.

Q: Can anyone find out how I voted?
A: No. Your vote is confidential. You enter the booth alone and make your choices in private. If your polling place gives some kind of receipt, it will only indicate that you voted, not how you voted.

Q: What if I go to the polls and they tell me I am not registered to vote?
A: Per this site: First, make sure you are at the right polling place. If you are at the wrong polling place they will not have your name on the list of voters. If you are at the correct location and are not on the list, you can still cast a ballot. Ask the poll worker for a provisional ballot. After the polls close on Election Day the state will check on the status of your voter registration and if there was a mistake made. The state must notify you as to whether your ballot was counted.

Q: On Election Day, if I think my rights have been violated, what should I do?
A: Call or text the Election Protection Hotline at 866-687-8683. There will be lawyers on hand to answer Election Day questions and concerns about voting procedures.

Q: Can I vote if I'm out of the country?
A: Yes. U.S. citizens who will be over 18 on election day may vote even if they're traveling, serving, or residing outside the country. The specific rules for overseas voters vary based on a number of factors. More information can be found through the Federal Voting Assistance Program.

Q: Do I have to wait until election day to vote?
A: Probably not. Early voting has begun, or will soon begin, in all states that have it. Check the rules and deadlines for your particular state here, noting that early voting ends before election day in some states.

Q: Do I have to be registered with the party of the candidate I want to vote for?
A: No. In general elections, you can vote for any candidate of any party, no matter your personal affiliation. Depending on the state where you're registered, primary elections may be different, but those have all passed for this cycle.

Q: Do I need to vote on every candidate and issue in order for my ballot to be valid?
A: No. Your ballot is valid even if you decline to vote on specific races or questions. Your vote will still be counted in the contests where you voted.

Q: May I bring notes and/or a sample ballot into the voting booth?
A: Yes, you're allowed to bring notes with you, but some polling places restrict the use of cell phones, so notes should be on paper.

Q: Where can I learn more about the candidates and issues on my ballot?
A: For ballot initiatives, your Secretary of State's office will usually send a voter information booklet and sample ballot, which may also be available on their website. Check BallotReady to find yours.

For comparisons of the candidates, these sites are useful:

• ISideWith, "the world’s most popular voting guide for citizens to find information about elections, political parties, candidates, voting districts and popular political issues in their country."
• Ballotpedia, "the digital encyclopedia of American politics, and the nation’s premier resource for unbiased information on elections, politics, and policy."
• VOTE 411, "Personalized Ballot and Candidate Information."
• We Vote, "a digital voter guide."
• ProCon.org Side-by-Side Comparison Chart.
• Open Secrets, "the nation's premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy."
• Reuters comparison of Harris & Trump on key issues.

This is an informational post for our users.

I am a gambler. I have a lot of experience with sports betting and betting lines. So I know when it comes to people creating lines, they don’t do it because of personal biases, cause such a thing could cost them millions of dollars.

In fact in the past 30 elections, the betting favourite is 26-4, or almost 87%.

https://www.oddstrader.com/betting/analysis/betting-odds-or-polls/

So if that’s the case, how can all the pollsters say Harris has a lead when all the betting sites has Trump winning?

https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/

Where is the discrepancy? What do betting sites know that pollsters don’t, or vice versa.

I lean conservative and believe in common sense and sound judgment, but I'm looking to understand the 'opposing' perspective.

What specific resources—books, articles, videos, or podcasts—would you recommend to help me grasp the roots and arguments behind liberal viewpoints? I am particularly interested in modern content, but I am also open to classic recommendations that still resonate today.

Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful suggestions!

I heard that a few days ago, a foreign aid bill was passed providing 157 Million dollars to Lebanon.

With the Helene crisis unfolding, I became curious about the American infrastructure budget verses the foreign aid budget. I don't know if there would be any data linking any positive or negative correlations between the two, so instead I ask this: Why does America send the most foreign aid compared to any other country, does America profit off of this aid (or is it purely humanitarian), and is there data showing that our foreign aid budget has correlations to any negetive effects. If anyone has any information linking, or showing a lack of link between foreign aid spending and American aid spending that would be greatly appreciated as well.

Hurricane Helene has become one of the deadliest and costliest hurricanes in modern American history. As it happened so close to the presidential election, the federal government's response to Helene has become a big political issue, with Republicans criticizing the Biden administration's response to the hurricane. This has come with some misinformation, e.g. the false claim that hurricane victims are only receiving $750 from FEMA (there are other FEMA programs that help victims in addition to the $750 program). Democrats have largely deflected criticism towards Republicans, making the point that many Republicans voted against increasing FEMA funding right before Helene made landfall. In the midst of this partisan discussion, something that I think has been overlooked is the actual state of the federal government's response to Helene.

At the same time, there may be legitimate concerns about the response to Helene that are being overlooked in partisan discussions. For example, in the aftermath of Helene, FEMA faces the risk of running out of money before the end of the hurricane season, which was also an issue last year and at other points in the past. Earlier this year, FEMA changed its rules to better respond to hurricanes, but those changes came with an estimated $671 million annual cost which FEMA may not be able to afford without more funding. These rules were in effect for Helene, but not for past hurricanes.

These are my questions: What is the actual state of the federal government's response to Hurricane Helene? What have been the biggest shortfalls of the federal government's response to Helene (especially compared to past hurricanes like Idalia, Ian, and Ida)?

A common argument against Donald Trump is that he's a "threat to democracy:"

As president, he attempted to block the peaceful transfer of power by manipulating vote counts and instigating a riot on Capitol Hill. He has also outlined plans for undermining the independence of federal law enforcement while vowing to enact “retribution” on his movement’s enemies.

...putting an insurrectionist back into the Oval Office — after he’s had four years to assemble a cadre of loyalists to staff the executive branch — would pose an intolerably high threat to US democracy...

However, the same article also characterizes the threat as "remote," saying:

It is highly unlikely that a second Trump administration would lead to the death of American democracy, as our nation’s federated system of government makes establishing an authoritarian regime exceptionally difficult.

That view is further supported by historian Niall Ferguson, who argues that Trump's first term diminshes, rather than heightens the threat.

So, what is the evidence for Donald Trump being, or not being, a "threat to democracy"?

Thanks to /u/DonkeyFlan for the idea for this post.

Trump and JD Vance, along with most of the rest of the Republican party, continue to repeat the lie that the 2020 election was "stolen", which Trump first began to tell a few weeks before the 2020 election. As conservative legal experts, Stanford researchers, and many other analysts have shown, these are lies. Not only lies, but transparent lies. From the Stanford report:

At no point did Trump or his allies present even remotely plausible evidence of consequential fraud or illegality.

None of these cases showed any significant vote or election fraud, and most were found to be without any merit. While there's nothing illegal or even necessarily wrong with challenging election results in court, the basis of these challenges were lies, which Trump and the GOP continue to endorse. In part fueled by those lies, the Republican party attempted to overthrow the 2020 election and appoint Trump for a second term. Those events culminated most dramatically on January 6th, when, according to the January 6th committee:

Based on false allegations that the election was stolen, Donald Trump summoned tens of thousands of supporters to Washington for January 6th. Although these supporters were angry and some were armed, Donald Trump instructed them to march to the Capitol on January 6th to “take back” their country.

However, the attempts to overturn the 2020 election were not limited to the riot on January 6th. The new filing by Jack Smith's team in the case charging Trump with attempting to overthrow the election adds new details, in addition to confirming the findings of the January 6th Committee's report. The plot also was much larger than the riots of January 6th. The indictment and other reporting has detailed the "fake electors" scheme, in addition to attempts to overturn the votes of individual states. Some of these attempts have resulted in criminal convictions. The plot (or plots) to overturn the election were not supported by all Republicans, with key Republican elected officials and judges refusing to comply. Many, however, did, including 147 congress members. Since then, many Republicans who opposed Trump have been replaced with election deniers, and many Republicans who originally condemned January 6th have since recanted.

Multiple plots by Republicans to overturn the 2024 election are already known to be underway. Trump is both the Republican presidential nominee and de-facto leader of the RNC, so these plots aren't just fringe groups, they are backed by the Republican Party and financed by wealthy conservative groups and individuals. While many Republicans have endorsed Harris, in part because of these attempts to overturn the election, nearly all of them are "former" elected officials, or those who are not seeking re-election. 70% of Republican voters claim Biden lost the 2020 election.

Election integrity experts have identified many points of vulnarability in the US election system, presenting a large attack surface rather than a single point of failure. This also allows individual actors to attack races at the destrict, state, and national levels without needing to coordinate directly. In fact, this process is already underway.

...in 2020, “at least 17 county election officials across six swing states attempted to prevent certification of county vote totals.” In 2022, it grew to “at least 22 county election officials” who voted to delay certification in swing states. This year, there have been “at least eight county officials” that have already voted against certifying election results for primary or special elections.

In the event that Republicans try to disrupt and overturn the results of the 2024 Presidential election, what actions are being taken to thwart that effort and preserve democratic norms?

What, if anything, can ordinary citizens do about this?

The cost of housing has increased since 2012, and prices have skyrocketed to record highs since 2020. This has affected the entire housing market, and the majority of housing on the market is now too expensive for middle-income buyers to afford. Affordable housing is a national issue this election cycle.

This article provides a detailed overview of what the Trump and Harris campaigns are each proposing to address the housing crisis. I'd highly recommend reading it before responding to my post. I'll summarize their proposals:

Trump's proposals:

• Undergo mass deportations of illegal immigrants to reduce competition for housing. It's unclear how many housing units this would free up to the market.
• Get rid of regulations that increase the cost of housing construction.
• Free up some federal land for new housing. Here is a map of federally managed land for reference.
• Lower mortgage rates, which are currently much higher than they were before the pandemic.

Harris' proposals:

• Build 3 million new homes in the next 4 years. Currently, more than 1.4 million homes have been built per year since 2019.
• Tax incentives for new starter homes that are sold to first-time homebuyers, and tax incentives for businesses that build affordable low-income rentals.
• Create a $40 billion "innovative housing construction" fund meant to help municipalities get past affordable housing construction roadblocks.
• Allow housing construction on some federal land (both campaigns agree on this broad idea).
• Get rid of regulations that increase the cost of housing construction (both campaigns agree on this broad idea).

My questions: What is the precedent for their proposals around the world? Have their proposals been effective when implemented in other places (e.g. individual states, other countries)?