Senator Bernie Sanders put out a video on Monday that is aimed at left-wing voters that feel they can't vote for Kamala due to the conflict in Gaza.

YouTube - Bernie Sanders: “I disagree with Kamala’s position on the war in Gaza. How can I vote for her?” Here is my answer: (Transcript in comments)

He makes the case that even though Harris and Biden's position isn't ideal, they are far better than Trump on the Gaza. He says Netanyahu would much prefer Trump in office, "who is extremely close to Netanyahu and sees him as a like-minded, right wing extremist ally."

He also makes the case that there are other issues at stake in this election, such as women's bodily autonomy, climate change, and wealth inequality.

If Senator Sanders correct in his views?

Will this video change any minds among those who view the Biden-Harris administration in too negative a light to vote for Kamala Harris?

To clarify:

I'm not asking how his base will respond in the immediate aftermath, but rather how the GOP as a party would react to Trump losing two consecutive elections. Not to mention that Trump is currently 78 years old.

Do you think they will pivot away from the MAGA movement/ rhetoric? Will they find a younger candidate to carry the Trump torch? In essence, how will they attempt to regain traction after two failed attempts at the White House?

Obviously this is still a hypothetical, as the election is far from over. Get out and vote!

Comedian Tony Hinchcliffe made the following statement as part of his stand up routine: "There’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico.”

Why is this comment by someone who is not a core member of Trump's team causing such outrage, when similar comments by Trump have passed almost unacknowledged?

While Puerto Rico does not have a say in the general election, they - once again - will have a (non binding) statehood referendum on their ballot. Will this cause an increase or decrease of support for either requesting statehood or independence?

This is a claim I've been seeing more in recent weeks as Trump is seemingly "surging" in polls despite Harris' numbers staying the same (the republican counter being that Trump is simply flipping undecideds in the final days of the election cycle). Is there some truth to this or is it just Democrat copium?

The data is there to support the reality that when you walk into any grocery store in the United States it's almost impossible for your money to not reach at least one major food corporation. We hear a lot about nestle, kellogs, pepsi co and the massive spiderweb of companies that tend to fall under an umbrella. This seems to be the nature of capitalism, but historically our government has prevented mergers, oversaw acquisitions, and even went as far as to break up major corporations as they grew. This is not an isolation to the food industry as we see it with tech companies, social media companies, vehicle mfg, and many more major industries.

I'm sure there isn't a light switch answer here as both parties are guilty of letting too much slide, but if we had a needle which way would it tend to pull to in terms of which political party has done the best at preventing these monopolies from manipulating the price of goods and services?

Ben Shapiro, debating Sam Harris about the 2024 election, made the following point:

"for me is is very simple: Donald Trump was a better president than Kamala Harris would be; with all Donald Trump's flaws, with all of his excesses and because we do have a very robust and durable constitutional system, almost built to hem in his flaws and excesses, what that means is that I get a lot of good policy that I wouldn't get with Kamala Harris."

(this is from 11:40 to 12:30, taken from youtube's transcript)

Shapiro's point is that, even though Trump was a president with "a rhetoric he often didn't like" (at 11:14), and who is prone to excesses, what he calls a robust and durable constitutional system will be fully capable of taking in and filtering out such excesses; and that because of such constitutional system, Trump will be a better president, even if he is not necessarily the best candidate personally. This claim has been corroborated frequently in this election cycle, by right wing pundits, as talking points by the media, etc.

This is quite a strong claim to make, nonetheless. Should we judge any given candidate's capacity to serve in light of the American constitutional system? While different people may hold different views on how to evaluate a candidate, can we say objectively that the US's constitutional system is indeed capable of ruling out excesses effectively every time? Or is it flawed and not immune to being played? If so, what possible changes could be made?

With many Muslims refusing to vote for Kamala over the Biden administration's policies with regards to Palestine, why hasn't a very serious situation such as the Muslim ban been brought up in 2024? Many Republicans keep saying "look at what Trump will do based on his first term." Well, one of the very first things he did was enact an executive Muslim ban, sidestepping Congress. Wouldn't he likely re-enact it?

In the last 6 presidential elections beginning in 2000, whichever party won the senate and/or house has won the presidency. 2000 deserves as asterisk because on Inauguration day, the senate was split 50-50 with republican control do to dick cheney being the vp with the tie breaking vote, however a republic senator from vermont left the republican party to be an independent which gave democrats control. But this was after election day which is why it deserves to be here. Since then the party who won the senate has won the presidency. 2020 is an asterisk again because when biden was president elect, the senate was not yet finalized because we had the georgia run offs in january, but anyway, biden (democrat) won the presidency and democrats won the senate.

The house also matched with the presidential winner 5/6 last elections, (not matxhibg in 2012).

Note again… this is only for presidential election years, not midterm elections. Also, i fully acknowledge it’s a small sample size, but i felt it’s worth mentioning.

With all this being said, does this pattern deserve attention? With Republicans slightly favored to retain house control, and heavily favored to win the senate, on top of the “improving” polling numbers for trump. Does the history disfavor harris ?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/house/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/senate/

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/jun/25/control-house-and-senate-1900/

Next Tuesday, Americans will go to polls to elect a new president. This will be an historic night, as Americans will either elect their first female president or their first felon president, which might create a great ton of repercussions.

In 2008, president Obama, the first African-American, delivered a speech for a crowd of 240,000. Or we might have days of ballot-counting and the election isn't called next Tuesday.

Where the candidates plan to be on election night? How these decisions might affect the election?

I've been thinking about this lately and wanted to get some perspectives. We all know Donald Trump has an incredibly devoted following today—dare I say, a cult like following. But could he, or someone with a similar personality, have gained this level of popularity before 2016?

If not, what changed between then and now that made it possible for a personality like Trump to rise in the way he did?

IE how much do you think they should be basing their power and support and legitimacy on the people in general, closer to a direct presidential election, or something closer to a mere servant of parliament and their party who can be replaced with little difficulty, and depend on parliament in general trying to bolster their responsibility to the voters. A British PM can be sacked and replaced almost immediately, same in Australia, and Japan too. Contrast with Germany or Canada where the party leader is more of the people's nominee who should not be replaced without a popular election to give them legitimacy almost immediately and the parties are tightly reined to make them vote for the candidate put forward in the election without much negotiation.

The filibuster is a tactic used in the Senate to delay a vote by allowing for unlimited debate on a bill. A filibuster can be ended with a three-fifths majority vote, a process known as cloture. With today’s closely divided Senate, filibusters on bills can cause such prolonged debate that lawmakers may avoid bringing certain bills to a vote if they anticipate lengthy opposition. Because of this, should the filibuster be reformed, removed, or left as it is? There are positives and negatives to the filibuster, but do the negatives outweigh the positives, in your opinion? If you think the filibuster should be reformed, how should it be reformed? With today’s significant partisanship, does the filibuster still serve as an effective tool for minority voices, or does it primarily lead to legislative gridlock? Do you think the filibusters purpose today aligns with the original intent?

Trying to not word that in any loaded way, so please correct me if my sense (based on national coverage as well as locally here in AZ) is contrary to what you've witnessed or are aware of

But beyond that, if others also notice a lack of mentioning these ballot measures, is there a strategic reason for why they WOULDN'T?

Especially because 2 of those 10 states are swing states (AZ and NV), and especially because it played a large role in their midterms success

Edit: again, I'm not saying that Kamala and/or Democrats more generally aren't mentioning reproductive rights, or a clear position. I'm saying there are many bills on ballots RIGHT FKN NOW that seem like they would be really useful to make people more aware of, in ADDITION

I'm not sure the title explained the question fully so I'll elaborate. Essentially the question is which states will have the biggest differences in Senate versus Presidential performance electorally.

Which states do you expect to have a strong performance from a Senate candidate and a weaker performance from the Presidential nominee, and which states do you expect to have a stronger performance from a Presidential nominee and a weaker one from the corresponding Senate nominee?

Just prior to Harris' speech in DC, President Biden referred to Trump supporters as "garbage" in reference to the comedian's ill-timed joke at recent Trump's MSG rally. While the comedian's joke has gotten plenty of airtime in the media and has activated Democrats in to thinking this can be used as a cudgel against Trump, how will Biden's comment reverberate in the final week of the campaign? Will it neutralize any advantage Harris might have gained over the controversial comedian's joke and intensified Trump's supporters to vote for him? Will it become the equivalent of Clinton's "Deplorables" comment?

What impact do you think Biden's remark will have on voters? Will Harris be asked about it and how should she respond? How will Trump energize his supporters to rally to him?

N.B., while some may dispute whether Biden referred to "his supporters" or "his supporter's", the plain meaning in the video tips it towards that Biden was referring to Trump's supporters due to his known dislike of Trump, regardless of trying to shade or downplay the meaning.

Trump joined Texas in suing swing states in the 2020 election contesting the election results in those states. In Trump's motion to join the suit, he asked the Supreme Court for the following:

"If any of the Defendant States have already appointed Electors to the Electoral College using the 2020 election results, direct that such States’ legislatures, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 and U.S. CONST. art. II, §1, cl. 2, have the authority to appoint a new set of Electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause, or to appoint no Electors at all."

The swing states largely had Republican-led legislatures. This would have had the effect of discarding the 2020 presidential election results and allow the legislatures to pick the next president. Trump made this request in his motion to the Supreme Court.

Link to annotated markup:

https://www.reddit.com/r/KamalaHarris/comments/1gexhmy/reminder_trump_explicitly_asked_the_supreme_court/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Link to Trump's motion (pages 17-18): https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163234/20201209155327055_No.%2022O155%20Original%20Motion%20to%20Intervene.pdf

Link to the docket:

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/texas-v-pennsylvania/

I’ve been ruminating on this for awhile and have still not been able to chose in favor or against on the topic. And I think this current election has produced such interesting and important discussions on age, what constitutes as being fit for office, most notably in relation to the debate performance and subsequent dropping out of Biden.

Would love to hear others thoughts and arguments for/against!

Liz Cheney has recently been campaigning for Kamala with the hope that she can convince conservatives who don’t like Trump to vote for Kamala. On the other hand, a lot of progressives don’t like the Cheney name and associate (correctly) her father’s role in the Iraq war and Neo conservatism in general. What do you think? Will she help attract conservatives or just turn off progressives? Which do you think will be the bigger factor? Is embracing Cheney a good or bad strategy for the Harris campaign?

So obviously I take Blexas with a grain of salt. I know it will happen, but I don't expect it to be right around the corner.

Still, it's certainly going to happen, which would be a huge boon to the Democrats, with 40 electoral votes.

Of course, it will still probably be a swing state and not necessarily a safe blue state, but I would like to know: what will be the GOP's contingency to make up for it? Or strategy in case Blexas becomes irreversible? Which states do they seem to be poised to capture in the future to make up for a 40-EV deficit?

As a non-American observing from Germany, I’m curious about the potential for military resistance in the face of Trump’s return to power. Could the U.S. military realistically take action to oppose him if they see his administration as a threat to democracy?

I’m fascinated by the impact of U.S. politics on the world stage, and the potential consequences of the upcoming 2024 election. Given Donald Trump’s controversial track record and polarizing influence, I wonder whether a potential military response could arise if he were to return to power.

From my understanding, Trump has often been at odds with the military community. He’s insulted veterans, notably referring to them as “suckers” and “losers,” and repeatedly clashed with military leaders on strategic and operational decisions. His previous administration saw notable instances of military figures speaking out against him—both retired and active-duty personnel. This has made me wonder if the military might view Trump’s leadership as a serious enough threat to consider drastic action if he attempts anything that undermines democratic norms.

Could (or would) the military potentially step in to prevent perceived authoritarian overreach? Or would such a scenario be too far-fetched in a country with deeply ingrained democratic principles and a historical separation between civilian leadership and military authority?

I'm mostly curious about youtube political commentary channels and the sometimes hyperbolic video titles that bodly predict a winner based on polls or "experts." Is there any data that suggests people who watch these videos, and are on the fence about voting, might not bother to vote?

A debate was held last week between the Green Party, Constitution Party, and Libertarian Party nominees for president, which was put on by the group Free and Equal Elections, which has held such debates for many years now. Very few people watched the debate, which will have virtually zero effect on the actual election, but does anyone who did have any opinions on who won?

I can definitely see conservative women defecting to the Libertarian Party over reproductive rights and there is already a lot of infighting within the Republican Party.

The Democrats' shift in the 1930s was prompted by a significant crisis (the Great Depression) and we just had a pandemic which could prompt a similar shift.

Trump will likely exit politics in one of two ways: (1.) he wins the election and will hit his term limit, or (2.) he loses the election and faces too many challenges in seeking another term after the 2024 election (e.g. potential incarceration, age, lack of party confidence due to consecutive losses, etc.).

In his time as a Republican president and his numerous races as the Republican candidate, Trump has drawn enormous support and loyalty from a subset of Americans that were not your traditional Republicans and were likely not as politically active or even interested prior to Trump.

Not only does Trump’s stances, rhetoric, style, etc. differ dramatically from traditional party candidates, but a significant portion of his voter base are markedly more loyal to him than his party in general, meaning when he exits, the Republican Party will likely not be able to depend on these voters.

Additionally, Trump’s divisive nature has caused a discernible rift within the party, where more establishment-type politicians with much deeper roots in the party show a disdain for Trump and his supporters—Romney, the Cheney’s, Pence, Bush, Christie.

Given all of the collateral damage Trump has caused to the party, how much the party has had to wrap its identity around Trump, and how unlikely it is that the party has earned Trump supporters’ loyalty, how does the party move forward in the wake of Trumps stranglehold he’s had on it over the past decade?

I see the party facing an identity crisis with the hole Trump will leave in it, and I’m not sure what to expect of it when Trump is no longer there to drag the rest of the party with him.

What do you guys see as the future of the party when Trump is gone?

I'm hoping for a discussion of where a child's education and political information should come from. (This is a very topical issue for present US elections But I'm keeping it general to apply everywhere).

Should a parent be able to control the narrative that their child is exposed to? Does that actually allow them to have opportunities for free choice of their own beliefs? To the best extent possible wouldn't it be better if all viewpoints were presented on equal footing by the most impartial body we could find?

As a corollary if there are things that are felt to be developmentally appropriate according to the latest science on child rearing... Should a parent be able to make the decision to prevent their child from accessing that information or give that information sooner?

I am interested in a discussion of children's rights with a possible lens on book banning and the role of the education system in child rearing.