About three months ago, I asked this subreddit this same question. Link here: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/s/rK73BoZ3z4

I then asked this subreddit again about a month and a half later. Link here: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/s/Vf769xhNZE

As expected, many of the comments in the first two posts focused on the seven swing states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina) as states to watch for, with North Carolina in particular being the only realistic state Harris/Walz could flip (but that Trump/Vance could potentially flip any combination of the other six states that Biden/Harris won in 2020). However, some comments also mentioned possibly watching for Florida, Ohio, and/or Texas, but that’s NC remained the only realistic flip from red to blue.

And now, two days before the election, I’m going to ask this subreddit one more time, with slightly different wording now that campaigning is nearly done.

Which state(s), if any, do you believe Harris/Walz will win that Biden/Harris did not win in 2020 (flip from red to blue)? I encourage you to also include your reasoning or multiple reasons why you believe so (including but not limited to: polling or a specific poll(s), fundraising numbers, crowd sizes, early voting demographics, states each candidate/campaign visits, the economy, Roe v Wade, general vibes).

A lot has happened in the past month and a half or so since I last asked this question, so any specific events too could be valid reasons for predictions.

Bonus question: Which state(s), if any, do you believe Trump/Vance will win that Trump/Pence did not win in 2020 (flip from blue to red)?

Trump has made it known who he likes and would consider. But I have yet to hear anything from Kamala Harris. (Unless I missed it). I am curious since it seems she’d deviate a bit from who is in President Joe Biden’s cabinet.

News came out today that both Florida Governor Desantis and Texas Governor Abbott have informed the Department of Justice that any Federal poll watcher is forbidden from entering poll locations in their states.

Do you believe this will make any impact on the election? Is this just political posturing by some of the more conservative governors in the country? Will the DOJ push the issue, and if so how much will the states push back?

Sources:
https://www.newsweek.com/texas-barrs-federal-poll-watchers-1979067

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2024/11/01/justice-department-dispatches-election-monitors-to-florida-but-state-leaders-say-they-cant-enter-polling-sites/

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/07/trump-elon-musk-government-position-00177845

Former President Donald Trump’s plan to have Elon Musk lead a government efficiency commission would vault the world’s richest man to an unprecedented role: American oligarch.

The details of the commission and Musk’s involvement are still vague, but any formal role in government would give greater influence to the billionaire owner of Tesla, Space X, satellite company Starlink and the social media platform X — signature ventures that have benefited from federal contracts, tax credits and government incentives.

“This is like red lights blaring, all kinds of conflicts of interest,” said Danielle Brian, president of the Project on Government Oversight.

Beyond the possible competing interests, Musk’s potential foray into government would represent a striking development for the tech titan, who would essentially have a role at the highest levels of business, manufacturing, media and Washington.

At the same time, handing Musk a position in his potential administration would fit neatly into Trump’s approach to government. The former president tapped billionaires Wilbur Ross and Steven Mnuchin to serve in his Cabinet, though they had far lower public personas as Musk — and less to gain directly from their involvement.

Musk firmly planting himself into politics is not surprising to those who have watched him move from electric car innovator to space entrepreneur to owner of X (and online troll of liberals). But tech experts say Washington may be tricky terrain for a Silicon Valley businessperson unaccustomed to the complexities of federal bureaucracy.

Musk has described himself in the past as a moderate but shifted his allegiance to Trump, formally endorsing him after the attempted assassination in July.

The date of January 13, 2020 (when President Trump partnered with Moderna for vaccine development) is specified in tweets from two different direct sources here and here, and is also substantiated by a SEC.gov webpage.

Brief timeline of events and statements in early 2020:

On January 20, the first U.S. case of the virus was confirmed.

On January 22, President Trump says the virus is “totally under control” and there are no worries of a pandemic (nine days after he partnered with Moderna to create an experimental mRNA vaccine for the virus).

In early February, many countries including the US imposed China travel restrictions, but the WHO inexplicably claimed such restrictions were “not needed” to beat the virus.

On February 24, President Trump tweets “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA.”

On March 9, Dr. Fauci says "if you want to go on a cruise ship, go on a cruise ship" if you're healthy and young.

On March 10, President Trump says “Just stay calm. It will go away.”

On March 13, (exactly two months after he partnered with Moderna for vaccine development), President Trump declares a national emergency for the coronavirus.

Less than a month later, in April 2020, the US reaches the highest death toll in the world. By January 2021, the reported US death toll was over 400,000 which represented one of the worst rates among comparable countries. It would be completely wrong to place the blame solely on President Trump, since others such as Dr. Fauci and the WHO clearly made very detrimental statements at critical times as well, which are often overlooked. And in fact, contrary to common beliefs, President Biden didn't do any better with the death toll in a given length of time than President Trump did, and that same trend of similar or even higher deaths in 2021 and/or 2022 compared to 2020 can be seen in mortality data around the world, which undeniably is related to the highly questionable effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines at saving lives overall, although that’s a different and highly controversial topic.

But going back to the beginning, President Trump’s decisions to take (or not take) certain actions in those critical two months from January 2020 to March 2020 played an indisputable role in sealing the nation’s fate of excess deaths and despair for the next 2+ years. So a burning question is: what exactly did President Trump know by early January 2020 which prompted him to give the green light for Moderna+NIH to develop an experimental mRNA vaccine intended for the US public to eventually take, while at the same time acting like nothing of importance to the US public was really going on for two more months until mid-March 2020, at which point a large number of deaths became essentially inevitable?

Trump recently said at a rally that he had a little secret with Mike Johnson and hinted that it would really changes things. From an article I read in The Nation (article link below) there could be a plan where battle ground states that flip for Harris that also have republican lead legislatures, would try to refuse to certify their own states electoral votes.

The plan would be that then Mike Johnson would say those electoral votes don’t count because they have not been certified and the total electoral count then is no longer 270 out of 538 but some lower number that presumably Trump would be able to achieve.

This is how they would get around losing power to affect the election when/if the house flips on Jan 3rd.

Has anyone else read about this and if so what are the odds they try it? Currently it seems like that think that have it in the bag despite it being a toss up.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/little-secret-trump-johnson-election/

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/02/iowa-poll-kamala-harris-leads-donald-trump-2024-presidential-race/75354033007/

Harris leads in Ann Selzer's final Iowa poll by 3 points. Selzer is one of the most accurate pollsters in the country. Selzer's previous poll in September showed Turmp up by 4 points, meaning a flip of 7 points. In 2020 Selzer was the outlier saying that Trump was up 7% when other pollsters were saying it was tied or even showed Biden leading. Trump won Iowa in 2020 by 8.2%.

Political junkies were keeping their eyes peeled for this poll, saying that if Trump was up anywhere from 1-4% it would be a Harris over-performance.

Results of the poll:

Harris 47%

Trump 44%

Kennedy 3%

Not sure 3%

Don't want to say 2%

Someone else 1%

Most shockingly with this poll, Harris leads senior voters. Senior men prefer Harris by 47% to 45%, while senior women prefer Harris by a whopping 2-1 margin of 63% to 28%. Independent women choose Harris by a 28 point margin while Trump has a smaller majority with Independent men with a 10 point margin.

Harris has 97% of the Democratic vote share, 0% for Trump. While Trump has only 89% of the Republican vote share while Harris has 5% of Republicans defecting to her.

Another shocking aspect of this poll is Harris doing better with voters 55 and up (51%-39% in favor of Harris) when compared to voters 18-34 (46%-44% in favor of Harris) and voters 35-55 (50%-42% in favor of Trump).

Harris leads with women voters 56% to 36%. Trump still holds onto Men (52% to 38%), Evangelicals (73% to 20%), and rural voters (55% to 35%), and those living in towns (49% to 40%). Harris carries those living in cities (61% to 33%) and the suburbs (59% to 36%). 

Trump leads voters without college degrees by 51% to 39% while Harris leads amongst college degree-holders 61% to 31%.

Even if all the "Other", "someone else", and "didn't want to say" move 100% to Trump, it would still be an under-performance of his 2016 and 2020 numbers. Even adding the Kennedy voters to that number would still be an under-performance for Trump.

Do you think this holds? If so, do you think this has implications for the rest of the swing states or even "solid" states?

Link to his words on it:

• https://x.com/harris_wins/status/1848005868320702568

And here's a link to the bill being killed earlier this year:

• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-republicans-block-border-security-bill-campaign-border-chaos-rcna153607

McConnell had given the green light for James Lankford, a conservative Republican, to negotiate a comprehensive border security package with Democrats led by Kyrsten Sinema, a moderate border state Senator from Arizona. The final package was agreed to by all parties and signed off on by McConnell as well as Democratic leaders before Trump publicly came out against it and urged his allies in the House and Senate GOP to kill it. The reason, according to widespread reporting including the above, was that he wanted to run his campaign on there being chaos at the border and him being the solution to fix it, and he worried that the proposed bill would resolve the problem and deprive him of something to run on.

Since then, Trump has made immigration and the idea of a border crises the central point of his campaign. He's gone to every border state to rant about it and lambast Democrats for not fixing it. He's brought it up in every appearance, at every interview, at the presidential debate. He's tied the border to false stories about migrants coming over to eat people's pets. He brings it up at every rally. Yet it was he himself who worked to ensure that it wasn't fixed, and now his own party's Senate leader acknowledges it.

What sort of impact do you think this will have on the election? Will it move voters? Will people see the truth behind the dynamic? Or will his strategy work?

Hello everyone! First time posing a question, so I hope I'm doing this right. If this is too speculative, i apologize. Anyway, I'm someone on the cusp of the millenial/Gen Z divide, and it seems like my entire adult life (and even years before) the increased cost of living, especially where housing is concerned, and wages that have (mostly) not kept pace with those costs has loomed over my generation's head. Even people I know who make good money with engineering degrees can't technically qualify for an apartment on their own because they don't make 3x the rent in some areas.

Obviously the affordable housing crisis is a complex issue that's affected by global and local factors, and there is no one solution to addressing it, but it seems like in most places in America there is little to no real appetite politically to address it at all. I was wondering how fast that might change if (and I realise this is a big if, but entertain me on this hypothetical please) a federal law was passed that required compensation to be tied to the average cost of a rental unit in a given area.

Let's assume this law would affect companies who have 75+ employees, and let's assume the law specifies the lowest paid full-time employee must receive 3x the average cost of rent in the surrounding area. The surrounding area is defined as someplace within an hour's commute of the workplace.

What economic effects would you predict from something like this, particularly in more populated and expensive areas? Would it result more in businesses implementing evasive tactics (this could range from actually encouraging work from home to making more positions part-time to get out of the requirement and save money)? Would the burden be too much and encourage businesses to leave to potentially cheaper areas, hurting the former area but creating new economic opportunities for others?

My biggest question is, if businesses were made to more directly feel the consequences of high residential housing costs in expensive areas, would there suddenly be more of an appetite to rein in greedy corporate rental practices and inflationary housing assessment? Would the construction of affordable housing units become a bigger priority?

And an even bigger question: do you think something like this would cause more harm than good?

Pre-1960s it was common for Democrats to be socially conservative and pro-segregation, while Republican politics were favored by big city intellectuals, such as Nelson Rockefeller. Since then, we have seen the South and working class embrace the Republican party and anti-intellectualism and the Republican party adopting a socially conservative stance, while Dems are favored by academia and people who live in major cities.

If the Republican Party were more progressive on lgbt issues and immigration, and the Democratic party were to favor Evangelical social views, would this change the party you support?

Despite his best efforts in the courts, RFK the younger is still on the ballot in over half of the states. Some of these states, such as Wisconsin and Michigan, are must wins for Trump and Harris. Will his presence on those ballots as a high profile 3rd party candidate have any real impact on the voter needle across the country one way or the other?

American in Australia here. Trying to explain America to a mate. He asked me this question: "If Trump is an existential threat, as is often said, would the current president send him to some off the books site or something to make sure he doesn't harm the country as his oath says he must?"

I said that America doesn't do that. They have elections and if people aren't happy with the outcome they vote differently in the next election. Just like in Australia.

So his next question is: What if somehow Bin Laden met all the qualifications. He was secretly birthed there, faked his death, and has been living in America for 15 years. He's changed his name, no beard, one wife, no kids that he claims - whatever it takes to make it plausible. He runs for president on a populist platform and becomes popular enough to get 50% in polls. But finally it comes out that he is provably the real Bin Laden. His support doesn't drop. He wins the election. Does the current president need to prevent him from taking office?

Now, his point in all this was basically the charge of existential threat is just hyperbole. If he was a real threat, action would be required. Which leads to my question:

How big does an "existential threat" need to be before the Oath of Office kicks in?

It seems like the most likely outcome for Tuesday will be a narrow win for either candidate- but what might happen with a very narrow Harris win?

Based on the 2020 election and much of Trump’s comments already criticizing election integrity, it seems likely that Trump would refuse to accept a Harris win in the electoral college.

I know that there are scenarios where states could refuse to certify their electors and, in those cases, the House would be required to vote for the president.

If the GOP maintains their House majority, how realistic is this outcome? Would this end up in SCOTUS? What might it look like for the American public if this were to take place?

Taking things like timezones and whatnot in to consider. Best case meaning Harris somehow flips Ohio or Trump grabs Michigan. How soon could either side start celebrating? I would assume that many, most? Americans would just be over and done with the election one way or another.

I am a young registered voter and somewhat mentally ill, having severe ocd related to moral scrupulosity. This lead me to the natural question: when is it ethical to vote? Uninformed voters can have disastrous effects on a democracy, and with many saying this is the highest stakes election in our lifetime, how much information do you think is necessary to make a decision in good faith?

Personally, I think this question is not asked enough, as governing is extremely complex, and even slight differences in policy can lead to huge changes in outcomes overtime.

It has often been said that 2016 was "the first election decided on social media." I was browsing a marketing subreddit (r/SocialMediaMarketing) I'm in, and noticed this article was shared, measuring the sentiment and presence of each candidate/campaign on social media.

It seems like Harris' team has really leaned into utilizing social media in a way that is meant to appeal to a certain demographic, while Trump enjoys a lot of organic presence on social media, according to the article.

Depending on who wins next week, do you think social media will play as large a role (or perhaps, larger?) in the outcome as some think it does, and how will the losing side adapt their social media strategy in future elections?

The idea that they should be involved in some way isn't too disputed. But there is much more to the general concept of a system as involving its citizens.

Obama had a petition system on the White House website where a petition could get signed and would cause the president, or more likely, his staff wrote a response which the president signed off on, to write a response, once it reached a quorum of 100,000 signatories. Britain has a petitions system on their website with 10,000 signatories causing a response from the executive cabinet, 100,000 would trigger a debate in Parliament (House of Commons). I imagine a threshold could be engineered where a committee of parliament would be required to write a report and hold a hearing pertaining to it. Legislation can even be initiated in some countries via a petition, forcing a vote in the legislature on whether or not to agree with it and putting a public record of that, and the possibility of enactment being on the table.

Petitions of a certain size can in many places trigger a vote in some way, in Italy, 500,000 signatories in a country with roughly 50 million voters, or about 1%, can demand that a ballot question be put to the electorate related to legislation which was recently passed, and if a majority of voters turn out and the majority of valid votes are against the legislation, the legislation is defeated and repealed. In Bavaria, if one million people sign a petition, in a country of about ten million people able to vote, to call for a snap election of the Parliament of Bavaria, then such a referendum on whether to do so is held, a majority vote being necessary for such a snap election.

I’m from NY moved to NC 5 years ago- what we have noticed since COVID is the number of not only remote jobs but the opportunity to relocate. Many people have moved from their home states to other places with changes in family and social dynamics post-Covid and with the rise of remote work.

My belief is we will see a state or two we assume will vote blue or red flip due to increased migration in our country as many voters are now in new places. What do y’all think!

Newspaper readership has been steadily declining over time, as people move to social media and content creators for their news. Thus the importance of their political endorsements has been decreasing over time. Furthermore, newspapers somewhat pretend to be nonpartisan institutions. They somewhat pretend to cover all sides equally, to give everyone a voice, and to avoid taking positions, outside editorial boards. Opinion sections are clearly labelled as such. Few people will disagree: no one cares about endorsements. Endorsements don't sway anyone. Thus, in a media and social environment where endorsements are increasingly irrelevant actions taken by newspapers that are themselves increasingly irrelevant, why bother? Can a case be made that endorsements actively harm newspapers' reputation as supposedly nonpartisan institutions? Why endorse anyone anymore? Because it's the right thing to do? If taking a position is the right thing to do, why not shed the pretense of nonpartisanship? Why don't liberal-leaning newspapers just become full-fledged media arms of the Democratic Party, and conservative-leaning newspapers full-fledged media arms of the Republican Party? Why have nonpartisan media anymore if taking a side is the right thing to do? Why have neutral media anymore if neutrality is wrong? Is neutrality wrong? What do you think?

People under 60 are less likely to answer calls from unknown numbers. If we establish a nationally recognized phone number range, would more people answer the calls. Giving us a more representative sample?

There's plenty of converstation around the accuracy of the Presidential polls, and if they are under or over representing either group. There's been more news coverage around methodologies and skewing (either biased or with attempts to be better predictive).

But consider this: The Democrat Senate candidates in MI, PA, WI, AZ, NV are all consistently polling higher than their opponents (as best I can tell).

Why such a clear difference between presidential and senate? I have a hard time believing there will a significant number of split-ticket voters.

For example, there is two U.S. Senators for Wyoming, but only one Representative. So which one would be more important? Considering Senators prestige but the less amount of At Large representatives It’s kind of a bit weird to think about? And more commonly At-large representatives become Dean of their states congressional delegation unlike the Senators.

Thought of this this after learning about the work of the Pink Pistols in promoting pro-gun activism as means for LGBTQ folks to defend themselves from violence derived from bigotry and hate speech.

Considering the increasing social tensions provoked by the current status of the political landscape, could more guns and training be a part of what should be done to prevent attacks against minorities ?

Barring a profoundly strange set of circumstances, either Trump or Harris will be elected POTUS in just a few days. There are various third-party candidates running, though, and common complaint I see from their supporters is that the the two primary parties haven't been able to accomplish real change even when they have the White House and at least one chamber of Congress. That's how the US government works, though. No President is a king and no party gets a Do Whatever We Want button simply by virtue of having the majority.

Given those circumstances, what do third-party voters expect from their own candidates? If Stein or Oliver were elected, they would face the exact same roadblocks that any other President has faced and they would do so without the benefit of a majority in either chamber. Neither, as far as I know, has access to a magic wand that will fix the world's problems and neither will have the necessary authority to unilaterally do what they want.

So, what's the plan? What's the thought process? Is it as simple as XYZ hasn't worked, so let's try literally anything else even though it has absolutely no chance of success? Is it really just a protest vote for the sake of protest? Help me understand.

Something I was thinking this morning - Assuming all things still happen as they did (I am not talking rhetoric - just events like Biden dropping out and Kamala being the nominee). The only change is that Haley was the nominee and not Trump.

How close do you think her chances would be? A Nikki Electoral College Landslide possibility, A Kamala landslide, or do you think it would be as close as it is?

With small business policy playing a big role in economic discussions, I wonder how Kamala Harris’s platform might impact small business owners. Are there any specific economic policies of hers that you think would benefit or challenge small businesses? Interested in hearing thoughts on what voters in the business community might think.

For the past several years, manufacturing labor unions, particularly from the auto industry, received widespread attention from media, politicians, and interest groups. These unions sought better pay, working conditions, leave policies, and much more. They threatened, and at times did, respond with crippling strikes to some of the US' largest companies. And for good reason--this country prides on its blue collar workers and with so many electoral votes up for grabs in rust belt states, it makes sense that national politicians play a key role in mediating these discussions. Historically, these jobs paid good wages and provided great benefits as a result of these unions which is a token of immense pride. Lately, successes in these unions have spurred numerous other strikes to spread to other industries like aviation, shipping, and even at Netflix. Collective agreements have been formed in companies that never thought to respond to them as well like at Starbucks.

However, why haven't farmers, farm laborers, and their respective unions been afforded the same attention? Every state surely has thousands of farm workers and agriculture is arguably a critical industry for the country.

Everyone can agree that it has continued to worsen since 2008, but I'm curious as to what you all think will happen in the next 10 to 20 years. Will it get worse before politics begin to cool down? Or will it lead to a mass societal unrest like Italy's Years of Lead? Thank you!

Often we hear about vague fears of things like the 2025 project or Trump's "Fascism/Nazism".

But I'm curious about more concrete concerns.

Which 2025 proposals exactly do you fear?

What specific outcomes of Trump's Fascism/Nazism etc do you fear becoming a reality in America?

I'm sure you know about all the details of Project 2025. Could blue states such as California, New York, and Massachusetts put in some sort of safeguards to resist the regime? Stuff like women's rights, LGBT rights, add the first amendment to the state constitution, so on and so forth. Or would resisting the federal government be a fruitless endeavor? I'd like to know everyone's thoughts. Please keep things civil and on-topic.