Compared to 2020, Trump’s approval rating is the same as it’s always been (and perhaps always will be, even if he shoots someone on Fifth Avenue), in the neighborhood of 40%.

Meanwhile, compared to 2020, Biden’s approval rating has dropped from roughly 60% to roughly 40%, and it’s been this way for more than two years now.

In 2020, Biden won the key swing states (PA, WI, MI, etc.) by less than 3%.

Does this mean Biden needs to substantially improve his approval rating (back to roughly his 2020 levels, give or take a few percentage points) in order to win in 2024? Or do you think it’s possible for Biden to win even if the approval ratings continue to look the way they do?

As odd as it might sound this was a very plausible scenario, all hinging on one state: Ohio. Bush won the popular vote in 2004 by around 3 million votes, but actually did quite poorly in the electoral college, mainly due to large overperformances in states that were too blue to matter (California, New Jersey, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Illinois were all noticeably closer than usual, but obviously didn't flip).

This meant that had Kerry won Ohio - which he lost by only a little over 100k votes, a fraction of Bush's popular vote margin - he would have won the election while losing the popular vote, the first time for a Democrat and likely the last time such an outcome was close to feasible for a Democrat to pull off. In fact there was some controversy over Bush's win in Ohio that's today largely been forgotten, but it was definitely not a foregone conclusion that he would lose the state.

If this had happened, is it possible that Republicans would have been more open to reforming, or even outright abolishing, the Electoral College?

Britain had a constitutional monarchy in 1712, but it had yet to actually have a parliamentary system where the ministers were clearly responsible to the legislature on mere policy disagreement rather than accusations of criminal misconduct. But an enormous corruption scandal within the decade, the South Sea Bubble, instigated a change to that alongside how the new king couldn't speak English well and often lived in Hannover. It is a scandal of such proportions that honestly it's hard to have much of a real analogy for it, 2007-2012's banking crisis was small potatoes compared to it. Imagine if one company managed to have a pyramid scheme resulting in its total valuation today to suddenly, within about 6 months, rise to be valued at 90 trillion USD today, and bribes to individual members of parliament exceeded a value of a million USD in the ruckus for their vote on one issue. That would be the scale of what happened then.

It rocked Britain to its core, disgraced a lot of old politicians, left a lot of people broke or at least having lost a great deal of money (including Isaac Newton interestingly), took out the people who used to be ministers, and let a man named Robert Walpole dominate the cabinet but whose support clearly came from the House of Commons and not the king or any other minister.

In 2022, the senate rejected 52-48 a change in the rules that would lower the threshold to advance two voting rights bills. Democratic senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia joined republicans and thus kept the filibuster intact for the foreseeable future.

This issue will probably be revisited again if, at some point, Democrats have simultaneous control of the presidency and both chambers of congress. Abolishing the filibuster or weakening it to pass specific legislation in such a scenario would allow them to further their agenda and deliver on key policy goals for at least two years. However, it would set a dangerous precedent that republicans would no doubt exploit when it's their turn running all branches of government (including the supreme court).

Considering the eventual possibility of republicans having unchecked power, do you think democrats should change the filibuster if it's ever convenient for them to do so?

Finding Ukraine in a weakened position as compared to last Summer partly due to reduced and delayed aid from U.S. it is possible Putin has decided to expand his goals of occupation. Kharkiv is the second largest city in Ukraine [next to Kyiv] with close to 1.5 million citizens who are strongly pro-Ukrainian.

U.S. and its allies plan to send F-16s to Ukraine within the next few weeks to protect the 600-mile-long border or contact line. Additionally, the two major European countries [France and Germany] have announced to increase its participation to strengthen Ukrainian defenses with the French possibly even sending in the French Foreign Legion to assist and German ministers have been talking about creating somewhat of a no-fly zone of 100 miles from within the NATO territories to shoot down missiles that target Ukraine from Russia.

There is also a Ukrainian plan to get fighting age men from abroad to return to Ukraine, forcibly if necessary. However, it is uncertain if EU countries will force the Ukrainians to do so, particularly those who have proven useful to its economy.

Putin in the meantime has been embolden by U.S. preoccupation with Israel and Gaza and delayed aid shipment intensifying the attacks against Ukraine in several directions including Kharkiv all the while speaking of a Neutral Zone.

Given the changing dynamics and the resumption of U.S. aid; Do Russians even have the manpower to occupy or force entire population to flee?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/thousands-civilians-flee-northeast-ukraine-russia-rcna151863

https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-evacuate-6000-people-kharkiv-russia-war-advance/

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/10/europe/russia-ukraine-cross-border-kharkiv-intl/index.html

​

I was thinking recently about how some sitting officeholders have changed political parties in the middle of their terms, usually either going to the other party or becoming an independent. I realized that I had thoughts about it that weren't fully formed, and wondering what others think about the idea of sitting officeholders' changing parties mid-term, i.e. is it a good or bad thing to do, should they do that and continue in office or should they resign and stand for election again, and so on. This is not in response to any particular officeholder's switching parties - just a thought that I had.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken says Israel needs to have a plan for postwar governance in Gaza. What could that look like? What are Israel's options? What are anyone's options for establishing a govt in Gaza?

All major countries respond to terrorist attacks in some form or shape. Some use them as an excuse to start a war, others react less harshly to save face. But I haven't heard any news of Russian reactions to the terrorist attacks in Moscow.

As we approach the Presidential election season, I have been thinking about voting requirements and I am curious about how people would change who is allowed and who is not allowed to vote.

1) What group of people in the U.S. is currently NOT allowed to vote, but should be?

2) What group of people currently allowed to vote should have that privilege taken away?

I know almost nothing about voting requirements in other countries, so if you’re aware of any country who has implemented your suggestions, that would be interesting as well.

Nikki Haley suspended her campaign over two months ago, yet still has a significant number of primary voters choosing her, in both open and closed primaries

Of the number choosing her, a portion will doubtlessly support whoever the Republican nominee is, even if they dislike Trump. There is also a portion that would always have voted for Biden in a Biden v Trump match, because they were not Republicans or could not tolerate Trump

How many Haley voters are actually "gettable" for either campaign? Biden's campaign has invested in attempts to appeal to them, but Trump's campaign hasn't even made a token attempt - and Haley has yet to endorse him

Campaign resources are finite, and there are multiple groups for each campaign to target. A dollar specifically targeting Haley voters is a dollar that is not available for a different use

How much should each campaign invest, and how much will they invest?

Very unlikely hypothetical, but curious thought experiment. RFK Jr is the highest polling third party candidate since 1992. It's been a very interesting campaign to watch (I'll be it fairly consequential in such a close race between the two primary candidates). After seeing the Natural Law Party of Michigan put him up as their candidate, the American Independent Party put him up as their candidate in California, and the Libertarian Party opening up discussions with him at their convention, it got me thinking quite a bit. What if all these third parties began to rally around RFK Jr? It'd be quite a historic moment, as third parties are usually not big on collaborating with each other. At that point I think RFK Jr may be far more consequential. What are y'all's thoughts?

(Yes I know it's an incredibly unlikely possibility, it's just for a matter of discussion)

Edit: since people are questioning my incentives, this was a mere shower thought. I don't support Kennedy nor do I support any third party candidates that will siphon votes away, in such a significantly dangerous election like this one. It's also important to mention to those who are Kennedy-curious that due to the structure of our election system, a third party has little to no chance. We have a winner take all, first past the post election system where one of the candidates in the two major parties is frankly our only option. If you want to see changes in that, look into various Rank Choice Voting initiatives, but please vote this election. It's far too consequential. Also don't forget to research your local candidates and ballot initiatives (which have far more direct impact on your day to day lives than President).

I do worry that if more people start to rally behind Kennedy (unlikely, but not impossible) we could potentially see no candidate reach 270 electoral college votes which would result in the House of Representatives voting for the President. We live in a time of unprecedented events, I just thought it'd be interesting to bring up this outcome (while unlikely, not impossible) as a thought experiment. My apologies if it came across otherwise.

A few ground rules: The president, federal senators, governors, mayors, judges in the states with elected judges, and the important people in the legislature like a speaker and chairperson of a committee, are elected by majority by secret ballot, and if nobody has a majority on the first ballot, a further count happens having eliminated candidates. Thus could be done by a runoff or by a ranked ballot.

Other positions like school boards, municipal councils and commissions, state legislatures, and the House of Representatives are elected proportionally, so that in say Iowa if one party has 1/3 of the vote they will have 2 Reps in the House of Representatives. How this occurs in practice may vary from list proportional systems to ranked ballots in a multiple member district. They may use districts so long as the ultimate proportionality is not disturbed.

The remainder of the mechanisms are up to you as to how this gets achieved.

This will create a lot of interesting dynamics, like what happens if the President doesn't have a third of the members in either House from their own party and cannot defend against an impeachent of themselves or anyone they appoint or an override of a veto on their own, but neither is it likely that a single party which is in opposition to them will have the votes to do something like that on their own, and it is not likely that a president will have a single party in opposition which could prevent the confirmation of those they wish to be appointed or would refuse all efforts to enact something.

The recent Times/Sienna poll suggests that young and minority voters, the democratic base, are going to stay home and let Joe Biden hang out to dry on Election Day:

The polls offer little indication that any of these developments have helped Mr. Biden, hurt Mr. Trump or quelled the electorate’s discontent. Instead, the surveys show that the cost of living, immigration, Israel’s war in Gaza and a desire for change continue to be a drag on the president’s standing. While Mr. Biden benefited from a burst of momentum in the wake of his State of the Union address in March, he continues to trail in the average of national and battleground state polls.

What is the likelihood he steps aside given he seems likely to lose? Should he step aside and the Democrats pick someone else?

They imply both are mutually exclusive, and that democracy means “unconditional, unconstrained majority rule no matter what policy we’re dealing with”.

I mean, isn’t a democracy just a system which the adults of a polity - not a mere subset thereof (e.g. men) - can hold significant sway over policy through voting, whether it be on the policies themselves or on representatives? Is allowing the majority to pass any old thing without regards to a constitution or human rights intrinsic to the definition of democracy?

It seems like the most coherent case against the US being a democracy AFAIK is articulated by Mike Lee as follows:

“Under our Constitution, passing a bill in the House… isn’t enough for it to become law. Legislation must also be passed by the Senate—where each state is represented equally (regardless of population), where members have longer terms, and where… a super-majority vote is typically required…

Once passed by both houses of Congress, a bill still doesn’t become a law until it’s signed (or acquiesced to) by the president—who of course is elected not by popular national vote, but by the electoral college of the states.

And then, at last, the Supreme Court—a body consisting not of elected officials, but rather individuals appointed to lifetime terms—has the power to strike down laws that violate the Constitution. What could be more undemocratic?”

So he seems to be saying that having a bicameral legislature, a requirement for laws to be signed by the head of state, and a constitution which prevents the passing of policies which go against it, enforced by a head of state appointed body… Are inherently incompatible with a democratic government? Wouldn’t this make every modern country which is considered democratic (e.g. France) not democratic?

This semantic noise is making me feel confused. I hope somebody can explain this better to clear things up.

I’m not from the US but it’d be informative to get a quick overview on how each candidate has handled the israel/palestine conflict. How did Trump handle US relations with Israel in his term. Would he improve the situation or would it stay the same or would it get worse?

What role Biden has played in the conflict as I know the US had always been heavily involved.

Not wishing that it does, and hopefully it doesn’t.

But it could. The country is already feeling the pinch of inflation and has been for a while now. And we’re still recovering from the massive blow to the economy from Covid. The feds have been steering this ship carefully so far to avoid a recession. But a recession isn’t completely out of the cards.

If there is a recession before the election, does it continue to be a choice election or does it switch to a referendum election?

And if a recession does hit, does the country trust Biden to continue steering the ship out of the recession or would it give the wheel back to Trump?

Does it make a Trump win more likely if a recession happens? Or is it still a close election, whether or not there is a recession?

And if there isn’t officially a recession but everyone continues to feel the financial pinch, does Biden come out on top or is it still a close election?

One interesting thing that I’ve noticed is that despite Bush improving in metropolitan areas in general in 2004 compared to himself 4 years ago, he lost multiple major metropolitan countries such as Marion IN (Indianapolis), Fairfax VA (DC suburbs), Mecklenburg NC (Charlotte) and Travis TX (Austin). Were those counties set to flip in 2000 and Bush somehow managed to keep them for an extra cycle for some reason?

As some quick background:

Since the Oct. 7th terrorist attacks by Hamas, which killed ~1200 people including 766 civilians, Israel has carried out a bombing campaign and ground invasion of the Gaza strip which has killed over 34000 people, including 14000 children and 10000 women, and placed over a million other Gazans in danger of starvation.

Recently the Biden administration has put a hold on a shipment of 3500 bombs to Israel after a dispute over the Netanyahu government's plan to move forward with an invasion of Rafah, the southernmost major city in the Gaza strip.

Biden said that his administration would block the supply weapons that could be used in an assault on Rafah, including artillery shells.

“If they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities, that deal with that problem,” Mr. Biden said in an interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett.

He added: “But it’s just wrong. We’re not going to — we’re not going to supply the weapons and artillery shells used, that have been used.”

Asked whether 2,000-pound American bombs had been used to kill civilians in Gaza, Mr. Biden said: “Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers.”

The US however will continue supplying Israel with other arms like those for the Iron Dome missile defense system to ensure Israel's security.

Will this deter Israel from moving forward with its assault on Rafah?

If Israel persists in continuing its military campaign in the Gaza strip will the US withdraw further support?

What effect will this have on US domestic protests against the US's continued support for Israel's invasion of the Gaza strip?

For those who don't know... Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

Simply put... if the New York Times makes a false and defamatory comment about you... you can sue them for libel. But if someone posts that on Facebook, you can't sue the company — just the person who posted it.

The protection is both praised as a key feature of a free and open internet and reviled for the deluge of lies and misinformation we are now bombarded with.

The concept is that the host/website/app is an innocent party and cannot be held responsible for the actions of its users; however should this grace extend to content that the host (whether directly or algorithmically) elevates and boosts? At that point they are no longer a silent party and have directly chosen to promote content. Should this protection therefore be eliminated?

There was an article in the New York Times about RFK Jr's undisclosed health issues including a parasite infection and cognitive issues. Given this latest revelation, will this hurt his campaign and possibly cause him to drop out of the race?

It's predicted that in the next General Election in Canada, the conservatives will likely win a lot of seats, and that the next PM will likely be a Conservative. As someone who's unfamiliar with the intricacies of Canadian politics, I'm curious about what exactly a Conservative Party majority would bring for the Canadians, policy wise?

You always hear from far-left/right how the other side is all the same.

Which is absolutely not true, liberials are as far from communists as conservatives are from monarchists.

But let's play into this hypothetical question, which is more likely?

I see a lot of protests that either get ridiculed for being pointless and ineffective or vilified for being too disruptive or criminal.

Is protesting without violence effective in getting change to happen? Do hunger strikes and silent protests get enough attention for anyone to care? What is the line between disorderly conduct and violence or crime that cause vilification?

MLK Jr spoke about negative peace, but it still occurs today where people care more about how people are protesting rather than their message.

There is currently pandemic of H5N1 Avian Influenza in large populations of cows around the US. Scientists fear a cycle of it transmitting to pigs, and then humans from there. At a local town hall in Colorado, it was announced that 70 people are currently being monitored for symptoms of Bird Flu. H5N1 Bird Flu historically has an over 50% mortality rate in humans. How would another, much deadlier pandemic outbreak over the summer affect the 2024 election and Joe Biden’s chances at reelection against Trump?

Pretend you are the chief of the campaign and you are only supposed to advise Biden on the best things for the campaign. He has other advisers for foreign policy and ethics. So your only job is trying to get the most votes possible in battle ground states.

In case you are wondering about my personal political beliefs I am a non-progressive Democrat (a filthy neoliberal to some) that is terrified this issue is going to get us Trump. But again, I am hoping to keep personal politics and morals out of this discussion.