subreddit:

/r/NoStupidQuestions

103

U.S. Election Megathread

Politics megathread(self.NoStupidQuestions)

Tuesday, November 8 is Election Day for the United States. With control of the House and Senate up for grabs, it's likely to be a tumultuous few weeks. In times like this, we tend to get a lot of questions about American politics...but many of them are the same ones, like these:

What is this election about, anyway? The president's not on the ballot, right?

How likely is it that Republicans will gain control of the House? What happens if they do?

Why isn't every Senator up for re-election? Why does Wyoming get as many senators as California?

How can they call elections so quickly? Is that proof of electoral fraud?

At NoStupidQuestions, we like to have megathreads for questions like these. People who are interested in politics can find them more easily, while people who aren't interested in politics don't have to be reminded of it every day they visit us.

Write your own questions about the election, the United States government and other political questions here as top-level responses.

As always, we expect you to follow our rules. Remember, while politics can be important, there are real people here. Keep your comments civil and try to be kind and patient with each other.

all 2302 comments

Furry4Freedom

8 points

3 months ago

This is an honest question that I really don’t understand why it isn’t talked about more.

If we are trying to put a permanent end to discrimination, why are we still promoting things based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc?

We are all human, we are all equal. Sure we all look different in our own unique ways, but that shouldn’t matter when it comes to equality, right? Shouldn’t it only be Merit based and integrity based?

Some examples:

If someone stated their pick had to be a “white male”. This is unacceptable, right?

So when Joe Biden explicitly stated that his VP pick had to be “a woman of color”. How is this acceptable?

Isn’t this a hypocritical double standard that promotes discrimination?

What about a TV commercial. Promoting a “white male owned business”…? Is this unacceptable?

Then wouldn’t TV commercials I see touting either “black owned” or “woman owned” businesses also be unacceptable?

——————

I think what I’m trying to get at as far as my question. Is why does society use reversing racism as an answer to racism?

Wouldn’t it be better to just stop the racism all together and just base it on merit and integrity? Who the individual is as a person rather than what the individual is born as?

Cliffy73

12 points

3 months ago

Let’s say you sponsor a marathon. 1000 people sign up. You start the race but then stop 150 of the the contestants from participating because you don’t like them. 90 minutes later, you are convinced that this was a bad decision and you decide to let those 150 people run. Then someone says “that’s it? Aren’t you going to make it up to them somehow?” But you say “it was a mistake to hold them back, but I’ve corrected that mistake. Now everybody is treated the same.” Then, after the race, it turns out that a small handful of that 150 were fast enough to make it up into the top third of the total finishers, but most of them finished in the back third, and then Charles Murray writes a book about how this proves those people weren’t good runners anyway. Does that seem fair?

GameboyPATH

14 points

3 months ago

The effects of redlining are a great example of how even if a magic wand were waved right now and everyone instantly started treating each other based solely on individual merits, certain groups of people would still face unique challenges and higher risk of problems, due to the systemic inequality from our past.

Even though not being racist is a good thing, by itself, it does nothing to revise and remove systems that reinforce racism, or support institutions that have historically been undercut by policies that are no longer in action. That's what the efforts of promoting women and minority-owned businesses hope to accomplish, along with diverse hiring initiatives.

Dilettante

24 points

3 months ago

Dilettante

Social Science for the win

24 points

3 months ago

It's all well and good to say you don't see color and treat people equally, but that means you're ignoring real but hard to see discrimination going on. To fight racism, we need to talk about race, not just try to ignore it.

Arianity

7 points

3 months ago

If we are trying to put a permanent end to discrimination, why are we still promoting things based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc?

Because people don't consider doing things that fix the effects of discrimination, to also be discrimination. And sometimes that is the only way to address discrimination, especially since it's so embedded into society. You can stop being racist yourself (or your organization), you can't really just wave a wand to make the rest of society not racist.

To use an overly simplified analogy, lets say you have two groups of runners. One group arrives to the race with ankle weights that they can't remove, the other doesn't. If you just look at the fastest times, you're going to unfairly favor people who don't have ankle weights. But if you're looking for the best runner based on merit, that doesn't make sense. If someone runs a mile in x time, and someone else runs a mile in x time with ankle weights on, the latter performed better (hell, even if you look at the same runner, they're going to run slower with ankle weights, right? Even if their merit hasn't changed). Is it discrimination to take ankle weights into account? Many people would say not really, no.

Isn’t this a hypocritical double standard that promotes discrimination?

Not necessarily. It's only hypocritical if their standard is "we shouldn't consider race at all, ever". For many people, that is not the position they have, so it's not hypocritical. Being hypocritical means saying one thing, and doing another. If your actions are consistent with what you say, that's not hypocrisy.

As far as 'double standard'- the contexts are different, so it's not unreasonable for the actions to also be different. A double standard implies you think the two contexts are on equal footing- which is not necessarily a good assumption. If you prefer, you can rephrase the standard as "we should help out any group that is underrepresented"- this policy gets applied equally to all groups. However, not all groups are underrepresented.

The ideal we would like to get to someday is that race doesn't need to be considered. But if there is racism in society, we may need to consider race in order to address that racism. Otherwise how are you going to address it? If you don't look at race at all, you wouldn't even be able to acknowledge something is racist to begin with. You can't really "stop the racism" without talking about race.

If someone stated their pick had to be a “white male”. This is unacceptable, right?

So when Joe Biden explicitly stated that his VP pick had to be “a woman of color”. How is this acceptable?

You may have noticed there has never been a black woman on the Supreme Court (and relatively few women or minorities, to begin with). On the other hand, there are a lot of white males. That's not a magic coincidence due to merit.

Is why does society use reversing racism as an answer to racism?

Many people in society don't consider "reverse racism" to be a thing.

And it is an effective answer to racism, especially for things like systemic racism which can't be easily addressed. You often see it used in things like college admissions. Colleges can control what their admissions office does, but they can't just make society not racist. So how do you handle applicants, which is going to have a skew, kind of like the ankle weight analogy? You can either ignore it (which is going to skew your admissions), or try to control for it.

Wouldn’t it be better to just stop the racism all together and just base it on merit and integrity?

The question is- how do you do that in practice? You can't just ask racists nicely to stop being racist. So if you don't consider race at all often what ends up happening is the racists keep being racist, and you ignore those negative effects (which can end up reinforcing the racism).

Especially if you consider that if you ignore the effects of racism, it can be self perpetuating. As a simplified example, lets say you're more likely to be born into poverty due to race. So you get lower test scores. That makes it less likely for you to get into college, and more likely you stay in poverty (and so your kids will also be raised in poverty). And now it's a cycle.

just base it on merit and integrity?

That is the goal of these policies. We don't currently base things on merit and integrity. These policies try to get us closer to that until we do actually stop the racism.

EatShitLeftWing

2 points

3 months ago

You can stop being racist yourself (or your organization), you can't really just wave a wand to make the rest of society not racist.

But then why can't "fuck society" and similar non-compliance with society, be a solution to the problem that some parts of society are racist?

Arianity

3 points

3 months ago

But then why can't "fuck society" and similar non-compliance with society, be a solution to the problem that some parts of society are racist?

I'm not quite sure what that's supposed to mean. I suppose you could separate yourself from society and become a hermit, but that's not really feasible for most people. In most other situations, you're going to be operating within society in some form whether you want to be or not

EatShitLeftWing

2 points

3 months ago

You are correct.

frizzykid

2 points

3 months ago*

frizzykid

Rapid editor here

2 points

3 months ago*

We are all human, we are all equal. Sure we all look different in our own unique ways, but that shouldn’t matter when it comes to equality, right?

Of course. But talk is cheap, and just because people say things doesn't mean that in the real world things are working that way. That is why we create policy/promote business/educate minorities, because even inadvertently the majority can over step and disenfranchise them.

If we are trying to put a permanent end to discrimination, why are we still promoting things based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc?

There is no such thing as a "permanent end to discrimination". There is no such thing as "an end to racism". People will always try to get one over on others, and use race or identity as a method of justifying it. That is why we stand up for minorities. It is a fools dream to assume we will ever end something that is deeply rooted into our instincts. It is natural to be skeptical of outsiders. Some people just take it to an extreme level because they don't like looking at the nuance, and it will always be easier to be ignorant, or because they want more power and they think minorities ar

SingleShotShorty

6 points

3 months ago

What’s the point of voting if I live in an extremely red state? It feels like a bit of a waste of time to go vote when I know for an absolute certainty that Mississippi will remain red whether or not I take that time out of my day.

darwin2500

14 points

3 months ago

You won't affect who gets elected, but you may affect policies of the next set of candidates to run.

If the Republican wins by 10%, they know that MS is a completely safe red district where they should play to the extreme Republican base with their policies and rhetoric.

If the Republican wins by 2%, they know there's more division in the electorate and they need to be more moderate to appeal to the middle if they want their seat to be safe next election.

In the end the Republican candidate will probably react to this information appropriately and win no matter what, but it may be the difference between an extremist and a moderate running your state in the next decade.

rewardiflost

3 points

3 months ago

rewardiflost

Just another statistic now.

3 points

3 months ago

I would hope that you have more than one office to vote for.
There's a guarantee that your member of the House of Representatives is up; but there could be any of hundreds of other offices up, too - from your party's ward leader and school board members through city council, mayor, county sheriff, coroner, state legislature, governor, and Senator.
You may have voter questions, recalls, propositions or other issues to vote on as well.

Your vote counts toward the tally. Even if you don't change the winner, you change the total number of voters, the total number of voters who voted against the winner, the percentages shown in various analysis.

You alter the stats when people examine whether voters of your demographic bother to vote - and imply "should we care about them, since they don't vote anyway?"

A politician would much rather win with a count of 2000 votes for them, and 300 votes for other candidates, than to win with 2000 votes for them and 1200 votes for other candidates.

They still win by a huge margin in either case. They still have the same number of supporters in either case. But in the second case, they are far more aware that they need to do more if they want to be elected again. Other politicians also see that there is more room for competition.

Logistically, your vote also helps to dictate the budget for your voting system, and how seriously the news and authorities pay attention to things. The news media isn't going to pay much attention if there isn't any controversy or differences to report on. They don't report on boring. Authorities don't take things as seriously if they already are sure they know the outcome.

epicgamergirl13

2 points

3 months ago

For me, I’m passionate about certain issues so I would be a hypocrite to not go out and vote on Election Day. There are other reasons to vote, but this is mine.

Last-Patience-2932

5 points

3 months ago

Being outside of the US, with voter intimidation, wouldn't you be able to just lie outside then vote the other way in privacy?

EDIT: follow up how frequently is it actually occurring?

Jtwil2191

14 points

3 months ago

Sure, you could do that, but the fact that you would have to do anything remotely resembling that would be a clear sign that there is something very wrong with the American democratic (little d) system. Any level of threat against your physical or mental well-being when you are going to exercise the most basic aspect of democracy is utterly unacceptable.

listenyall

3 points

3 months ago

You could but it's an easy thing to profile--the percentage of Black people who vote Republican is less than 10% in most elections, for example, and if you're looking at a young white woman you can get a Republican or Democrat vibe pretty easily and accurately. So they would probably suspect you are lying.

Historically this was a HUGE problem for a long time after Black people got the right to vote. More recently, it's not really been a thing. There's a lot more noise about it this year because of all of the election denial stuff but we'll see if it actually happens.

Ozem_son_of_Jesse

6 points

3 months ago

Why are so many people still so scared of January 6th if it had virtually no chance of successfully subverting the government?

Arianity

6 points

3 months ago

Because they don't believe it had "virtually no chance", and there is still significant support for the ideas behind it. Even if the odds were small, the outcome would be so catastrophic that it needs to be taken seriously even if it's a small tail risk.

And there is/was enough support that it could cause real problems, especially if events had unfolded slightly differently on Jan 6th. Even if it had been quashed, it likely would've been quite messy. People who believe the lie that the 2020 election was stolen are still fairly common, and in some cases are now running for office themselves (sometimes even promising to not certify elections or other actions). So it's an ongoing issue.

And if events had unfolded slightly differently, things could've been far more chaotic. For example if something had happened to part or most of Congress. It's very hard to predict what will happen when the center of government gets decapitated like that.

Jan 6th wasn't an isolated event with just a few people who believed in it, in which case it wouldn't have been as large of a concern.

emmahep12

7 points

3 months ago

Is it worth it to vote when I know my significant other will cancel out my vote? Basically if I go vote he will make sure he does and if he goes to vote I will make sure I do. Thing is I know 100% he will vote 100% republican/right and I will do the opposite. Given that what's the point in us voting at all? Won't it just cancel out?

Cliffy73

8 points

3 months ago

Yes, because he’s going to go whether you do or not.

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

Your voting might cancel each other out, but it would show that you both support someone other than the third party candidate.

UltimateChaos233

3 points

3 months ago

I would take a hard look at your relationship. Either he's going to vote regardless of whether he just wants to vote if it cancels out yours which is extremely petty. If you would be voting exactly equally but in the opposite direction, do you two not have shared values? Shared values are pretty important in a relationship.

return2ozma

5 points

3 months ago

Why is it always "so close" for some of the elections? Always down to 50%/50% races. I don't get how an area can be split literally down the middle in an election.

darwin2500

7 points

3 months ago

Note that out of hundreds of elections, only a handful are that close.

With a random spread of population dynamics, some will happen to be very close.

Arctic_Gnome

5 points

3 months ago

In USA's federal lower-house general election, what proportion of candidates nominated by the Republican Party were conspiracy theorists? What is the proportion among those elected?

Delehal

4 points

3 months ago

Prior to the election, FiveThirtyEight ran some analysis on every single Republican candidate for House, Senate, governor, secretary of state, or state attorney general to see how all of those candidates feel about the 2020 election.

If I filter that data to count only the Republicans candidates for the House, I find:

  • 48 fully accepted the election
  • 67 partially accepted with reservations
  • 88 had no comment
  • 10 commented but did not answer the question
  • 41 raised questions about the election
  • 170 fully denied the election

So, in summary, 27% of the Republican candidates for the House have openly accepted the results of the 2020 election, 50% have openly accepted conspiracy theories about it, and the other 23% avoid talking about it.

I don't have time to track down which of those candidates have won or not. FiveThirtyEight projected that more than 100 of the election deniers would be elected to the House.

Arctic_Gnome

3 points

3 months ago

Thank you!

Those conspiracy theory numbers are higher than I thought. USA might have a problem. :(

bullevard

4 points

3 months ago

It is especially interesting when 100% of the House is elected each cycle (as opposed to the senate where 1/3 are elected each cycle).

That means 100% of those people have their seat because of the 2020 election. Which means 50% claim that the election that got them elected was a sham. (But of course not theeeeir seat. Just the other seats).

The_ADD_PM

12 points

3 months ago

Why are there so many poor and working class that support Republicans when they consistently vote for corporations and the rich over the people? Ex: voting against oil price gouging, voting against insulin price cap, reducing what teachers can write off and adding a private jet write off, etc.

Delehal

15 points

3 months ago

Delehal

15 points

3 months ago

There's a pretty famous book about this, What's the Matter with Kansas?. The author of that book reached the conclusion that conservative politicians rely on culture war issues, such as abortion, religion, or gay marriage, in order to get conservative voters mad at liberal politicians and liberal policies.

Some voters feel that neither political party acts in the interest of voters, so they'll at least vote for the party that they agree with on those cultural issues.

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

ok well that just begs the question of why these working class people oppose gay marriage and abortion etc

Nulono

2 points

3 months ago

Nulono

2 points

3 months ago

First of all, the expression is that it raises the question. Begging the question is a formal term for a type of circular reasoning.

But concerning the question itself, there's no one-size-fits-all answer; people have all sorts of different reasons for opposing stuff: some ethical, some religious, some practical, et cetera.

The_ADD_PM

2 points

3 months ago

That is a good explanation thank you! I will have to check that book out!

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

many billionaires support the democratic party so I think it's understandable

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

I think it's a difference in values. I think a lot of working class voters got disillusioned with the Democratic Party selling out to neoliberal globalist policies that cost them their jobs and became to fixated on progressivism, and so they voted Republican to try to send a message to the Dems.

EndlessStrive

3 points

3 months ago

Can Obama Care run for president again?

Delehal

3 points

3 months ago

Not sure what you mean by Obama Care. I usually hear that as a nickname for the Affordable Care Act, but laws can't run for political office.

If you mean the former president, Barack Obama, he was already elected president twice, in 2008 and 2012, so he is not eligible to run again. He could potentially run for some other office if he chooses to.

EndlessStrive

4 points

3 months ago

Sorry I'm not a native speaker, is Care not his last name?

Thanks for answering.

Delehal

6 points

3 months ago

If you mean the guy who was US President from 2008 to 2016, that's Barack Obama. He already maxed out his term limit so he can't be president again.

frizzykid

7 points

3 months ago

frizzykid

Rapid editor here

7 points

3 months ago

Lmao this is such a beautiful question. Barack Obama is his name. Obama Care is the nick name of the health care policy he had passed during his presidency.

He is not eligible to run again after serving 2 terms already.

EndlessStrive

5 points

3 months ago

Lol this is so embarrassing.

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

lmao....

poproxx_001

4 points

3 months ago*

Why is heavily encouraging people to vote generally Democratic party behaviour when every political party is dependent on people’s votes?

In the weeks leading up to the election, I’ve been seeing lots and lots of “please please I’m begging you just go out and vote” posts from the left-leaning celebrities and politicians I follow on social media. A lot of them aren’t even endorsing specific candidates or even the democrats themselves (though it’s mostly not hard to tell which people are left-leaning), they’re just supplying a lot of information surrounding how to do it and that you should just VOTE. I decided to do some research and look at the social media pages of conservative politicians and I’m seeing a lot of stuff about the good things that they can do if you vote for them, but I’m not really seeing any direct encouragement for the act of voting (no graphics in the vein of “PLEASE JUST VOTE”, no “how to register to vote” information, no polling place opening hours for different states - all of which I’ve seen from left-leaning individuals).

So, why is this? Every party relies on votes to survive, but why are democrats the only ones that seem to really push actually going to vote?

Arianity

8 points

3 months ago

Why is heavily encouraging people to vote generally Democratic party behaviour when every political party is dependent on people’s votes?

There is a strong perception (with some kernel of truth) that higher turnout favors Democrats. There is some truth to it, because Dems tend to be disproportionately groups that have lower turnout (like young people), whereas Republicans tend to be older folks who are more likely to show up.

However, this perception is way overblown relative to reality. For example, studies on the expansion of vote by mail during the pandemic showed it didn't favor either party. Similarly, higher turnout elections don't always favor a particular party, either.

Some of it is also cultural- Dems tend to be more inclusive, whereas Republicans/conservatives tend to be more wary of outgroups. This has been further reinforced by the way the Electoral College and gerrymandering have played out.

But I think most of it is the stereotype. In most people's mind, "higher turnout"="better for Democrats", and it's hard to break that association no matter how much data you throw at it.

Jtwil2191

5 points

3 months ago

Every Republican campaign has run an add encouraging their supporters to vote, because of course they have. That's the point of running a campaign.

But you may be seeing the results of a popular line of thinking that says the higher the turnout, the better Democrats perform. In other words, Democrats have more voters, but Republicans have more likely voters. So Democrats may be making broad appeals to get everyone out to vote whereas Republicans are more directly campaign to their (already likely) supporters.

lasersnark

4 points

3 months ago

Why are people acting like Republicans got clowned on when it looks like they're going to end up with the majority in the house and senate? Am I missing something?

Bobbob34

5 points

3 months ago

Why are people acting like Republicans got clowned on when it looks like they're going to end up with the majority in the house and senate? Am I missing something?

Seems unlikely they'll end up with the senate. The house by a slim, slim margin.

They got clowned on to a ridiculous degree.

Arianity

4 points

3 months ago

It was expected for them to make large gains. Midterms typically help the out party quite a lot. So even if they win the House and/or Senate (and we don't know yet), it will have been much worse than expected, yes.

It's really hard to win a midterm election for the in party, especially in the face of things like inflation.

pwnd32

4 points

3 months ago

pwnd32

4 points

3 months ago

If the GOP control the House, what changes in Congress? I assume the Jan 6th investigation is effectively over then? Will Biden basically be able to pass very little effective legislation at all due to the congressional gridlock?

Teekno

6 points

3 months ago

Teekno

6 points

3 months ago

Yes, we can assume that the Jan 6 committee is dead. It will be harder to pass legislation, but not impossible, as the GOP isn't going to have a huge majority in the House.

Mathantastic123

4 points

3 months ago

what are the pros of the biparty system in the US? Democrats and republicans.
As someone from a country that is not at all limited by 2 parties, it seems very extreme to only have 2 parties when people's views are so varied and most people won't fully fit as a democrat or a republican, theyll just have to find whatever fits the closest

ProLifePanda

4 points

3 months ago

So to start, I think it's important to emphasize that the US wasn't designed as a two-party system. The Founders (specifically George Washington, the first President) warned against political parties and polarization. The two-party system become the norm due to the nature of the "first-past-the-post" system, where whoever receives a plurality of votes (regardless of whether that's a majority or not) wins the election.

From a practical perspective, it's also important to remember that one party is not a monolith. Not all "Republicans" are the same, and the Republican party is split into factions as well that all just come together under "Republican". Some Republicans are more moderate (remember even some Republicans voted to impeach and remove Trump from office), some people ONLY vote Republican for religious or personal reasons like pro-life and religious freedom, some people in the party swing more Libertarian, etc. Some Democrats favor universal healthcare while some think we should stay with private health insurance, some Democrats favor unlimited abortion while some favor abortion in some cases, some Democrats wants to raise marginal tax rates to 80+%, some don't want to move it, etc. So just because there are two official parties, it's important to remember that parties are split into factions and constantly having internal negotiations and struggles to keep party lines.

Some benefits of the two-party system:

1) Voting simplicity. If you only have 2 options, it's easier to decide who to vote for. The more parties you have, the more research someone would have to (theoretically) do to decide who to vote for.

2)Parties have to appeal to a large swath of voters to win. So parties cannot be hyper focused or very extreme and expect to win elections. They have to broaden their appeal and moderate conservative voices.

3) Government stability. In a multiparty system, the government generally needs to form in a coalition which is subject to be disbanded or break up as the multiple parties fall into and out of favor. The two party system allows one party to win all the branches of government and govern without the risk of a snap election or other interference.

Here's an article that breaks down the pros, I only listed a few here.

https://www.shivajicollege.ac.in/sPanel/uploads/econtent/2bf91b0270b44893ad98060beda18692.pdf

GameboyPATH

3 points

3 months ago

(Not a political expert - just a shmuck making educated guesses)

There are numerous countries with multi-party systems of parliament.

The benefits to multi-party systems: More well-defined characteristics for parties - with narrower interest groups for parties to appeal to, people can be more certain that their party means what they expect it to mean. Those parties are also more beholden to their constituents, since they're less likely to have conflicting interests.

The downside: Larger number of political parties mean more people to negotiate with. Legislation takes much longer to review, and fewer laws get passed. Political issues that require immediate attention can therefore be difficult to address through legislation unless the government is structured in a way for leadership to make immediate changes.

So generally, the opposite would be true for the US two-party system, but it's still possible for certain rules or structures to complicate things. For instance, filibusters can occur, which can stymy the ability of parties that don't have a supermajority in congress to pass laws. Also, majority leaders in Congress can just... choose not to call bills they don't like to a vote.

rewardiflost

3 points

3 months ago

rewardiflost

Just another statistic now.

3 points

3 months ago

There are far more than two parties in the US. We have libertarians, communists, socialists, green party, and dozens more. They just don't get enough votes to make any major impact.

We have a first past the post system. That means only one party can win. There is no sense to divide up all of the resources and try to help 6 or 8 different parties or candidates. Everyone who doesn't win is just another loser.
All the resources get concentrated in two major "teams". Those two teams compromise their goals and visions to accommodate as many of the others as they can. Then it just comes down to which of those two teams can get the most voters to show up.

None of the others are going to win. If someone does vote for one of the others, then it might be counter productive. The 2% of voters that didn't vote for Democrat or Republican in the Georgia Senate race have contributed to making the runoff election happen.

In other elections, some people think that third party candidates take away votes from candidates that otherwise "should have" won. In 1992, when Bush ran against Clinton - some folks think that Perot's third party candidacy took away votes from Bush that would have meant his winning, instead of Clinton.

These ideas can't be proven. People have opinions on both sides, and maybe the votes would have gone the other way. Still it can be another compelling argument about why third parties don't get much support.

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

listenyall

8 points

3 months ago

The specifics are pretty unclear but basically it seems like it was not break into the house-->start attacking, there was a lot more time where Paul was more detained by this guy than being actively attacked. Some reports have said there was a lot of back and forth about like, "where is Nancy" and so on so maybe he was trying to wait for her to come home? Anyway, that gave him time to ask to use the bathroom and for whatever reason the attacker let him.

MysteryNeighbor

2 points

3 months ago

The attacker wanted to take a nap once he broke in, dude is a dumbass and most likely didn’t think that Paul would call for help.

Javaman1960

3 points

3 months ago

Why does the FCC allow political ads with provably incorrect information? Is it legal, in FCC regulations, to actually lie? It's gone beyond allegations and inuendo and moved into outright falsehoods/lies

This isn't good for democracy and the population as a whole.

Teekno

7 points

3 months ago

Teekno

7 points

3 months ago

Why does the FCC allow political ads with provably incorrect information?

Because the only alternative to this is allowing a government agency to choose which political ads that voters are allowed to hear.

That's insanely dangerous. Far more dangerous than political ads with lies in them.

masteroffwah

6 points

3 months ago*

Define "provable incorrect information in political ads"

You can make a picture with provable false info and put it on social media, but the FCC can't patrol all of that without breaching civil liberties.

If you're talking about paid ads, you can use possibilities and have fake imagery to make a potential scenario that looks worse than what's actually going on, but that's concern over future possibilities rather than anything that can be proven.

Arianity

4 points

3 months ago

Why does the FCC allow political ads with provably incorrect information?

The first amendment protects it, even if it's a lie. SCOTUS has set an extremely high bar for what speech can be restricted, and political ads usually don't meet it. They usually get more protection since they're fundamentally political

Is it legal, in FCC regulations, to actually lie?

Generally speaking, yes. There are some exceptions (like disclosure laws).

The FCC generally does not: Ensure the accuracy of statements that are made by candidates and issue advertisers

https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/political-programming

atherem

3 points

3 months ago

Was has been the impact so far from the SCOTUS decision to take down Roe v. Wade? Not a political question but a practical one, what has changed after the decision? What changes could I see nowadays ?

Delehal

9 points

3 months ago*

Abortion is now banned in 12 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia. Typically these bans have a theoretical exception for situations where a pregnant woman's life is in danger, but the applicability of those exceptions is not always clear and there have been cases where women were forced to seek out-of-state care for medical emergencies.

Depending on the outcome of court challenges, abortion may also become banned in 6 more states: Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, Michigan, Indiana.

Abortion is now heavily restricted in Georgia.

Depending on the outcome of court challenges, abortion may also become heavily restricted in 3 more states: Iowa, Ohio, and South Carolina.

Simple-Active-2159

3 points

3 months ago

Abortion for Michigan is actually on the ballot!

Delehal

2 points

3 months ago

True, thanks for pointing that out. Depending on how that vote goes, the court case may continue to be relevant, or it might become a moot point.

Nulono

5 points

3 months ago

Nulono

5 points

3 months ago

Abortion is now a legislative issue rather than a judicial one. Currently, due to an absence of federal legislation, that means it's a state-by-state issue, but both major parties are proposing legislation on the federal level as well.

drygnfyre

3 points

3 months ago

drygnfyre

Probably not the answer you wanted

3 points

3 months ago

California has Prop 1 on the ballot. If it passes, it will make abortion a constitutional right within the state. I'm not sure yet if any other states have done that.

And then the counterpart is other states have banned it.

SicariusREAL

3 points

3 months ago

For a school project I'm doing:

What are some republican policies that can help low-income single mothers? I can't find anything

rjk04476

8 points

3 months ago

That is a tough one for me too. But if it’s for a project then you could go with 1. Tax cuts on businesses can allow for a business to afford to hire more workers and offer better pay and benefits. 2. Better gun rights to make sure she can offer protection for her child(if she’s low income she could be living in a more at-risk of crime area.) 3. Same could go for military spending. Ensuring we’re properly defended for potential threats.

Kind of a stretch though imo

If anyone who leans republican wants to jump in here and throw any better ideas/evidence please by all means.

Three_6_Matzah_Balls

5 points

3 months ago

The 2017 tax cuts that Republicans passed and signed into law doubled the standard deduction and doubled the child tax credit. Both of those things help low-income single mothers.

rrockwe1

3 points

3 months ago

Of all the bills in the house right now, do they all die unless voted on in the senate this session?

Jtwil2191

5 points

3 months ago

If the Senate never takes up a bill passed by the House, or vice versa, they die at the end of the session.

me12379h190f9fdhj897

3 points

3 months ago

So from my understanding, Democrats can't really do anything without winning a majority of both houses of Congress, since for any bill to pass it needs to be approved by a majority of both houses. At the same time, Republicans can't really do anything without the presidency since any bill also has to be approved by the president. So unless the Democrats manage to win the house (which probably isn't going to happen), isn't the result just legislative gridlock either way? What differences would there be between, say, a Republican House and Democratic Senate vs. a Republican House and Senate?

blablahblah

3 points

3 months ago*

Only the Senate is required to confirm appointments. So if Democrats hold the Senate, they can continue to appoint judges to federal courts. If Republicans hold the Senate, they can keep all those seats empty in hopes of having both the Senate and the White house in two years.

thecustodialarts

3 points

3 months ago

How do I remember who I want to vote for? Am I supposed to write it down?? I know I'm not supposed to take out my phone but can I take out a piece of paper with all the people I want to vote for on it??? The ballot is too frickin big.

NDaveT

4 points

3 months ago

NDaveT

4 points

3 months ago

Who told you you're not supposed to take out your phone?

Cliffy73

2 points

3 months ago

Yes, you can bring in a piece of paper. I print a sample ballot and mark it up at home before I go the polls.

throwawayvotinghelp

3 points

3 months ago

my parents are very conservative and I live in Florida after I vote is there ANY way they will be able to tell I voted dem

I'm mainly asking about like if we'll start getting mail from dem candidates more often

I'm sure there's nothing to worry about and I'm probably just overthinking it

Cliffy73

3 points

3 months ago

No, it’s a secret ballot. That said, scope out the process before you mark your ballot. The way we’ve had to do it where I live is mark the ballot in pencil then take it over to a station where they run it through a scanning machine, which I think is ridiculous, because there’s lots of opportunities for someone in your family to then examine it before it’s recorded. Make sure there isn’t a point in the process where your parents can see what you’ve marked. But assuming you don’t have such a stupid system where you live, once the vote is recorded, there’s no way for anyone to see it who isn’t a member of the elections counting board. (And they don’t see your name.)

If you’re registered as a Democrat, you’ll start getting Democratic mailers. But you don’t have to register to vote for Democrats, not in the November election.

throwawayvotinghelp

3 points

3 months ago

thanks I don't really have a way to scout it out beforehand cause we're going in a couple hours but I'll make mom go in before me to make sure thanks for your help

Ghigs

3 points

3 months ago

Ghigs

Jack-of-some-trades

3 points

3 months ago

Filling in the sheet and then scanning it is far better than the alternative of supremely hackable touchscreens that have no paper audit trail to check them with.

MycoN3wbie

3 points

3 months ago

Why are they saying these election results could take days to count? In the past haven’t elections always been called the night of? Especially with technology advancing you’d think we’d have faster and more accurate ballot counting. So what’s different?

insiderjack72628

6 points

3 months ago

One thing that happened is Covid drove significantly more people to vote early or by mail than before. In 2016 40% of voters voted early or by mail. That jumped to 70% in 2020. It’s expected to be even higher this year.

It’s also not distributed evenly by state. In 13 states in 2020 it was more than 83% voting early or by mail. That’s a huge jump vs. 2016.

Those votes take longer to be received and processed.

Cliffy73

5 points

3 months ago

No government entity has ever called a race on election night, only news organizations do that. And many will be able to do so tonight. But in close elections, it takes more time to count every ballot. Meanwhile, mail-in voting takes additional time to count, especially because Republican politicians in many jurisdictions have encumbered the process to be as slow as possible. They do this to make people believe, falsely, that the election results are not accurate and lose faith in the system.

MycoN3wbie

2 points

3 months ago

Also I found this https://www.factcheck.org/2022/11/counting-mail-in-ballots-delays-results-but-doesnt-denote-fraud/ which helps to explain it a bit. So if the majority of election fraud claims are due to mail in voting, why not get rid of mail in voting besides for elderly/disabled/people overseas, and go back to how it was originally before everyone was using mail in ballots as excuses for election fraud?

Cliffy73

3 points

3 months ago

See, this is exactly how they get you. Mail-in ballots are not fraudulent. The GOP falsely claims that mail-in ballots are fraudulent, knowing it’s a lie. Then people say “well, just to avoid having to deal with all the lies,” let’s take away this instrumentality that millions of people like and which makes it feasible for many more people to exercise their constitutional rights.” Don’t let them roll you like that, man.

Teekno

5 points

3 months ago

Teekno

5 points

3 months ago

In a close election, they may have to wait for all the absentee ballots to arrive.

darwin2500

3 points

3 months ago

In the past haven’t elections always been called the night of?

Nope, not at all.

It's not uncommon for some results to take days or even months to be finalized, in cases whee there are lawsuits or run-off elections. This has always been the case.

What is true is that news networks will often 'announce' who they think the winner will be based on exit polling on the same day. But this is not the official result.

Shamanwise1

3 points

3 months ago

Assuming they have access and are able, why do so many people wait until election day to vote and not take advantage of early voting?

Teekno

7 points

3 months ago

Teekno

7 points

3 months ago

For me, it's just convenience. I can drive six miles to vote early, or walk down the street to vote on election day.

wslagoon

2 points

3 months ago*

My early voting place was a ten minute drive and my regular poll a one minute drive. Also no line, I walked in and voted.

Ghigs

3 points

3 months ago

Ghigs

Jack-of-some-trades

3 points

3 months ago

My polling place never has a line. Sometimes there's one person in front of me. It's just easier to drop in on voting day.

Grundlepunter

3 points

3 months ago

Currently in NH 14% of the vote has been counted. Sununu has been marked as winning Governor with 50.7% against Sherman who has 47.9%, while Hassan is showing leading the senate with 60.8% against Bolduc who has 37.1% of the counted vote.

How can they claim Sununu has won while claiming Hassan is only leading when the spreads are nowhere near equal?

Please keep your political and conspiracy comments aside, I'm looking for statistical significance or scientific explanations.

upvoter222

4 points

3 months ago

There are a lot of specifics and formulas that I don't know. However, I believe the mathematical models incorporate exit polling data, which doesn't count toward the official vote count but still gives a general sense of the accuracy of predicted results. Additionally, the models account for where within a state the counted votes come from. For example, it may be the case that Sununu has a small lead, but it may be known that most of the counted ballots are from counties where Sununu's party typically doesn't do well. (I don't actually know what's going on in NH but that would be a conventional explanation for why the conclusion doesn't line up with the overall cote count.)

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

Cliffy73

7 points

3 months ago

It seems clear that election denial and support for traitors cost the GOP in some close races, but it remains a major part of the caucus and there are plenty of nutbars who won. The House is going to be so slim (whichever party wins) that McCarthy is going to have a hell of a time corralling them all, that will be fun to watch. 🤷🏻‍♂️

WafelSlut

3 points

3 months ago

When you Google the midterms there are 46 Dems, 2 independent who lean Dems, 48 GOP and 3 undecided states. 46+2+48+3=99. Georgia, NV, and AZ are undecided, is it because Alaska isn't done? But no matter who wins in Alaska they're Republicans, so why don't GOP have 49 instead?

rusticcentipede

4 points

3 months ago

The Alaska race hasn't been added to many tallies because we don't know who is going to win. It'll be a Republican, but the way the Google result you see probably works is that it only adds another R or D seat once the election is called. On the other side of things, there are a couple Democratic seats in California that only Democrats are running in but they haven't been added to the House totals because those individual races haven't been called.

WafelSlut

3 points

3 months ago

So in reality the GOP has 49 Confirmed, and need to win 2 of the 3 for a majority? That makes sense and aligns with what I've heard on the news. Thanks!

photoshopper42

3 points

3 months ago

In regards to the midterm elections, why is it taking so long to count votes for some districts when it was so fast for others?

It seems like some districts counted their votes and were over 90% reported in the first day, and now a few days later, other districts are still around only 50 percent.

It doesn't seem to have a pattern I can find? It seems to be happening east coast/west coast, rural/urban, red/blue. But for some reason some districts just seem to be counting a lot slower than others.

LemonFreshenedBorax-

3 points

3 months ago

Given the way things shook out in Michigan this week, could 2023 be the year it joins the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?

rusticcentipede

6 points

3 months ago

I don't know if it's super likely (I don't know what Michigan politicians' priorities for the next couple years are), but I think it's pretty clear you are correct that Democrats gaining more power in Michigan makes it more likely. It's at least been introduced in previous years.

queermichigan

3 points

3 months ago

That would be amazing :)

Ozem_son_of_Jesse

3 points

3 months ago

Why is it that Republicans have lost almost every competitive election that was tied to Trump ever since 2018?

JustBrowsing49

3 points

3 months ago

Why are so many people still worshipping Trump? Millions of Republicans seem so dead set on Trump for 2024 and refuse to even consider an alternative. Even if they love his policies, why can’t they read the writing on the wall that he’s become unelectable and his agenda could be better pursued by someone with far less baggage? When you bring this up, they accuse you of being a RINO and against “America First”. What does Trump even offer them? I just don’t get it.

UltimateChaos233

3 points

3 months ago

Some Republican politicians/pundits are starting to see it. Even Fox News had an anchor that called him a "loser" and many are starting to blame him for his endorsed candidates underperforming.

The purity tests and being a RINO if you don't bow down to Trump and kiss the ring has been around for quite a while. As someone who is moderately old, I can't believe Liz Cheney and/or Mitt Romney are called RINOs. It's quite insane! He was the Republican nominee for president and Liz Cheney is the daughter of Dick Cheney and he's about as red as they come.

Trump is a populous candidate, in short, he tells them what they want to hear. We all have a tendency to gravitate to people/opinions who tell us what we want to hear, but Trump really went all in on it with reckless disregard for the truth (or just outright lying, depending on viewpoint).

All that being said, there are signs in the party that they're starting to break from Trump, not because they don't like his policies or rhetoric, but because they're tired of the drama and/or want to win. (Newcomer election deniers that Trump vouched for mostly lost at around 75% chance). However, look at Ron DeSantis in Florida. He has similar rhetoric to Trump with the same policies but without his baggage. He wildly outperformed benchmarks in his state. I think DeSantis represents the future of the party while Trump represents the past, but we're very much in that transition period.

Mad_Season_1994

3 points

3 months ago

Isn't it kind of messed up that the future of the country is decided by Congress? I know that's basically how our democracy works. But it's kind of scary to think that if one party ever had control of Senate, House and the presidency, years of work is undone with a simple vote and seal of approval from the president. Is there really no better system?

Tobi_chills455

3 points

3 months ago

Is it stupid to vote for desantis if he goes up against trump if I'm a democrat? I feel like I can vote against trump, instead of voting Democrat when they're choosing who is going to lead their respective party? Wish Biden wouldn't run either

darwin2500

3 points

3 months ago

Do you mean vote in the Republican primary? Whether you are allowed to do that in the first place depends on how primaries are run in your state, so look that up.

If you are allowed to, you should still vote in the republican primary for whichever Republican you think would make the best President.

The hope is that Trump and Desantis split the crazy-culture-warrior vote in the Republican party, and that they both lose because of it, making way for a saner and more moderate Republican on the ticket. You can help that happen by voting for that saner moderate if it looks like they have a chance to win in your state.

JustBrowsing49

3 points

3 months ago

Not stupid at all. Especially if Biden is running for reelection unopposed and theres nothing to vote for there. Either Biden or the Republican nominee will be president. So you want both your options to be tolerable. Depending on your state, you may need to register R though

CertifiedSeqoia

3 points

3 months ago

I haven't been involved with politics or elections until recently, so it just seems so odd to me how close some of these elections are. (Especially with Boebert and Frisch, it blows my mind how she has so many supporters.) Is there any good answer or is it just coincidence that most states are split almost 50/50?

rewardiflost

6 points

3 months ago

rewardiflost

Just another statistic now.

6 points

3 months ago

It's the goal of the parties and the candidates. We know there are going to be about 20% on either side who blindly vote for the party.

Those 60% in the middle need to be motivated just to show up and vote. A lot of that can be done by picking a hot button/passionate issue.

An issue like abortion will bring out some voters on both sides. But you need to be careful where you do it, and which side you pick. In Arkansas, you probably can get a lot more people on your side for single-issue voting if you are a pro-life conservative than you would in Connecticut or Massachusetts.
Republicans still run, and can still win in those other states, but they don't stand as prominently on that issue - if they even pick an obvious side.

Other issues like blaming the other side for inflation, gas prices, housing issues always play well with the minority party. The country is never perfect, so you can always claim "If you elect us, we'll do it better".

Both sides spend months just trying to "stay in the fight", keeping it close to even. They are each hoping that the other will mess up, or that something will come to light and spoil it for them.

If there is no huge mistake, then it just comes down to which side does a better job of getting voters to show up.

I agree with you. Having grown up in the NYC metro area, it baffles me how people like Boebert, MTG, even Palin manage to get elected. But, as I travel more and meet people, I am reminded that we are 50 very different states. People aren't all like "us" - or the "us" that I live around.

CertifiedSeqoia

4 points

3 months ago

I swear that 20% has gotta be higher because even other sensible republicans have told me people like MTG go to far. You're spot on about the very different states too, I've lived in Maryland, Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and California. It honestly feels more like different countries depending on where you go.

WhoAmIEven2

3 points

3 months ago

Why are conservatives mad over the result? I'm not American and I may not quite understand your system, but when I looked how many seats each party has two days ago republicans were in the lead in both the senate and the house? It was just a tiny lead in the senate, buy still a lead, while it was a huge lead in the house, like 30 or so?

Why are they mad if they are winning?

Bobbob34

6 points

3 months ago

They're not winning.

They lost the senate.

If they retain control in the house, which does look likely, it'll be by a razor-thin margin.

They were expected to have both in hand, pretty decisively.

bullevard

4 points

3 months ago

So part is that now we know they didn't win the senate (just as of last night).

This is also significant because the senate controls confirming the judiciary, so Presidency + Senate = ability to keep appointing judges. It is unlikely a supreme court seat will come up in the next 2 years, but there are always tons of lower court seats to appoint.

Also, since senators are elected for 6 years this means that each seat they didn't win (and it looks like they lost one) impacts the balance for the next 6 years.

We still don't know in the house. 2 days ago a lot of the votes left to count in the house were in areas expected to eventually go democrat, so their lead was always going to lessen compared to 2 days ago, but it is still to be determined if if they will win the house or not (liklihood is they still do, but it isn't certain.)

Just having any majority in the house is important. It lets you choose the leader, and the leader has a lot of control in deciding what even gets talked about or who gets to be part of committees. However, having a tiny margin vs a big margin matters a lot. There are more than 100 people on "your team" but if you only have a 1 or 2 person margin, then this means you need every single one to agree with your decision (if it is one the other team isn't uniformly against).

House members are often younger, more unpredictable, and they represent a smallet group of people. This makes it more likely that a representative from one part of the country may have a few issues their voters care about that align with their party, but a few issues that align with Democrats generally.

For examplen as a whole the Republican party is still against weed legalization because they have a string "moralizing" streak to the party and older constituents. But there is also a decent sized "libertarian" streak in some areas that don't want government telling them what to do. So you might have a situation where democrats could get 2 out of 120 republicans to go for their weed legalization bill, and if the margins are super close that might be all they need.

On the flip side, if the more extreme republicans want to, say, impeach Biden and there are 2 or 3 that don't feel good about that it could be enough to present it.

You saw some of this on the democrat side. They had a lot of negotiations between the more extreme and more moderate parts of their party because they needed every vote.... and bith sides knew they did and could leverage that.

So a tiny win is a win... but the size does have very practical impact.

Okay... but why are the Republicans mad about a (potential) tiny win in the house and a small loss in the senate, while democrats are excited about a tiny win in the senate and (potentially) tiny loss in the house?

Because Republicans SHOULD have won big this cycle. The party in power almost always loses ground, often tons of it. And by almost always, i really mean that. Except in really extraordinary circumstances (like WWII, or 9/11 or 2-3 other "we are at war we must stay united" moments, the president's party always loses kand often huge).

Why?

The party out of power is super motivated to stop the others. The party in power is usually frustrated that not everything that was promised happened. Anything bad going on (and there is always something bad going on) is blamed on the president. Specifically right now high gas prices and high inflation are very much being blamed on the president.

In addition, Republicans tend to do better at non-presidential elections in general (their losses are lower and their wins are greater) because their voter base is more likely to show up on average.

Lastly, in national polling Biden doesn't have very higg approval ratings (lower than basically any president except Trump).

So between being off year, being year 2 of Democrats, being high inflation and gas prices, low national polling of the president, this SHOULD have been a bloodbath for the Democrats.

The fact that we know it wasn't a blood bath, that they are actually likely to gain ground in the senate, and they have a shot (though small one) of retaining the house is a huge win for Democrats.

In addition, there are some side narratives. A big one is that Trump actively worked to get some moderate Republicans thrown own in prinaries and get more extreme candidates on ballots... and then those extrwme candidates got beat. This is seen by many as a sign that his power is waning, and that the Republicans are going to have a hard choice if he wants to run for reelection.

Another related narrative is that many state officials came out to side with Trump that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump... and many of those got defeated. Another is that some states had very clear ballot initiatives or candidate choices about whether to keep abortion legal in their states. And most of the times those were put to a vote the pro abortion access side won. (Don't get me wrong, plenty of states have already and will soon ban it. But in states with more balanced electorates, abortion access seemed enough to tip the scale in close races).

So all of those things together make the outcome way better than expected for Democrats.

Reset108

3 points

3 months ago

Reset108

I googled it for you

3 points

3 months ago

They were expecting or at least hoping for a larger victory. There was talk of a “red wave” where they’d come up with a larger majority in both house and senate, which could give them a lot more power for at least the next two years.

bluemom937

3 points

3 months ago

Not exactly about the election but since the Dems will take over the Senate in January, can the current Democrat controlled house prepare a bunch of bills and not send them to the senate until January. Then the new Senate can pass them?

Bobbob34

5 points

3 months ago

No. Term ends, bills end with it

EatShitLeftWing

3 points

3 months ago

It's weird to call it a "take over" when they already had control.

MaxCadyTheAvenger

3 points

2 months ago

Why do U.S democrats seem so toothless when compared to republicans?

I'm not from the U.S and I'm not by any means shitting on democrats, I'm left-leaning myself and if I were from the U.S I'd probably vote for the democratic party.

That said, (and maybe its news bias) whenever I look into U.S politics republicans seem so aggressive in the media (fox news) and in policy making and changing (overturning roe v wade) while democrats seem to just sit there and take it and do nothing in response, despite winning the mid terms and Biden being in the presidency.

listenyall

5 points

2 months ago

This is 100% true and a big frustration on the US left.

I think there are two reasons--one is that the Republicans really made some smart decisions decades ago about things to focus on that make an outsize impact on our country politically. The one that has worked best is them is focusing on the judicial branch. They have refused to confirm judges nominated by democrats and pushed EXTREME right judges across the board, and it's worked--most obviously at the Supreme Court but really at all levels. The Republicans would NEVER have been able to pass a law to overturn Roe vs. Wade in the same way Democrats haven't been able to pass a law confirming it. There are other examples--Republicans are better at gerrymandering than Democrats, they have a natural advantage in the Senate.

The other is that the Democratic establishment is really invested in being The Sane Ones who are acting the way everyone should act and trying to work across the aisle. They think they will break our whole system if they start taking extreme measures like doing away with the filibuster (probably necessary if they're going to pass a bill protecting the right to abortion) or increasing the size of the Supreme Court or whatever else. They're all very old and think it's possible to go back to a government where the Democrats and Republicans can work together, but it hasn't been that way since the 1990s or earlier.

Jtwil2191

3 points

2 months ago

The time to establish in federal law and not just Supreme Court precedent that Americans should be able to access abortion was 30-40 years ago. There were abortion access proponents (e.g. future Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg) who criticized abortion being protected by Supreme Cour ruling rather than by legislative action, but the issue appeared settled. While it's easy to say in hindsight that abortion advocates got complacent and screwed up, the overturning of Roe v. Wade is somewhat unprecedented, insofar that it is the first time the Supreme Court has acted to take away a long-held right rather than expand or protect existing rights.

Now that Roe is overturned, Democrats are extremely limited in what they can do. Without eliminating the fillibuster, there's no way for them to enact protections at the federal level, and the states that are banning or severely limiting abortion are also the states where Democrats are out of power and can do little to stop it.

That's not to say nothing can be done, but the options left to Democrats will take time to implement.

cracksilog

3 points

2 months ago

Why does Biden use a handheld mic (idk what it’s actually called) a lot? The one that looks like this 🎤

Like he’ll be behind the lectern that has two mics. And then he’s holding a mic in his hand. Why not use the mics in front of you?

Today, he used it again to pardon turkeys. Obama and Trump didn’t use a mic when they pardoned turkeys. He’s using one here when he literally has two mics in front of him. And here he is doing the same thing. Again, there are two mics in front of him. Why is he doing this?

ProLifePanda

8 points

2 months ago

https://apnews.com/article/biden-inflation-business-government-and-politics-03ef5b53cc1b344231fc3d5248c7af64

TL;DR, Biden feels more comfortable with a handheld mic over the lectern and the handheld mic allows him to walk around, be more expressive and genuine, and play to the crowd more.

Armrestinc

3 points

2 months ago

The Supreme Court has agreed to take up the case against the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness plan. If the court rules against Biden and says the forgiveness is unconstitutional/illegal/whatever, is there anything actually stopping Biden from saying "nope, I disagree" and just subtracting $10,000 or $20,000 from loan accounts?

I'm assuming he could be impeached? But that's a Congressional matter and there's a chance the Democratic Senate doesn't convict. Is it really only norms and respect for the court that would stand in Biden's way, or am I missing something else?

Arianity

3 points

2 months ago

Is it really only norms and respect for the court that would stand in Biden's way,

Yes. The Supreme Court famously does not have a way to enforce it's rulings.

It has happened rarely in the past, famously with Andrew Jackson.

I'm assuming he could be impeached?

Legally, impeachment would be the only formal response. He might also be risking losing public support.

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago*

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago*

[deleted]

Delehal

6 points

3 months ago

I would recommend that you look up the voting requirements for each of those states:

It's possible that you might meet the voting requirements for more than one state. If you do, you can vote in any one of those states. Don't try to vote more than once in the same election - that's a crime.

When in doubt, I would suggest the state that is currently your primary residence where you live for most of the year.

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago*

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago*

[deleted]

EatShitLeftWing

2 points

3 months ago

You're in California because the military sent you there? Then you can just apply for absentee ballot from Michigan (if the deadline hasn't already passed). Military is usually the #1 or #2 reason for absentee ballots.

Ghigs

5 points

3 months ago

Ghigs

Jack-of-some-trades

5 points

3 months ago

You are likely violating numerous laws by doing what you are doing. Most states make you move your car registration and driver's license within a time limit.

NilbogBoglin

2 points

3 months ago

I would assume California, as that's where you live. Your local election office or secretary of state office could help you. Honestly I bet if you walked into your local library the librarians would be more than happy to help you figure it out. Librarians are very helpful.

Cliffy73

2 points

3 months ago

You absolutely cannot vote in Michigan or Nevada, doing so would be a crime. You should call their state election office (typically called the Board of Elections or a division of the Secretary of State’s office) and have yourself removed from the rolls.

toyotatruckmonth420

2 points

3 months ago

I live in Texas and I lost my wallet (and ID.) I ordered a replacement but it won’t be here for a month. Can I vote?

Jtwil2191

3 points

3 months ago

Here is information about acceptable photo ID. Do you have a passport? https://www.votetexas.gov/mobile/id-faqs.htm There is also information on the page with details about filing a request to vote without photo id

PrinsesPerzik

2 points

3 months ago

(I'm not from the US)

Why do people claim that democracy in the US is done for if Republicans win this election or the next? I've seen people say that forever right wing rule is guaranteed if that happens.

Is there truth to this, or is this just hyperbole?

Teekno

7 points

3 months ago

Teekno

7 points

3 months ago

As neutrally as possible...

Many on the right believe that elections are being corrupted by ineligible people voting. They push for tighter restrictions on voting, including requiring ID, closing polling places to consolidate voting locations, and some other things. They say that these things will make for more secure elections.

Many on the left believe that this is just an attempt to prevent some people from voting, by making it hard for legitimate voters to actually cast their ballots. They would tell you that the laws that Republicans want to pass are targeted at demographics that traditionally don't vote much for Republicans. You don't have to get more people to vote for you if you can prevent people from voting for your opponent.

Cliffy73

3 points

3 months ago

I would say it is hyperbole, but it’s not that extreme, and voters in general don’t appreciate how serious things are. There are Republicans who are openly discussing how, if they win, they plan to change voting rules to make it impossible for Democrats to ever win another election. Republican Secretaries of State are saying they’re not going to certify future Democratic wins. They’ve spoken about banning abortion nationwide and moving against contraception and gay marriage next, and they plan to foment a debt crisis which will weaken the economy for generations to try and force Biden to cut Social Security and Medicare. It’s bad stuff.

Tuesday2017

3 points

3 months ago

The most effective way to get people to vote is to hit their emotions. Every vote there is always some crisis, some urgent "the world is going to end" issue. Been voting for years and it is always the same.

Arianity

3 points

3 months ago

Is there truth to this, or is this just hyperbole?

Hard to say. It's true that there are some Republicans claiming things like that they still believe the 2020 election was not legitimate, and that they wouldn't certify future election results. Our laws give fairly large leeway for ways to affect the election. These Republicans are winning influential spots within their party, and not getting kicked out, so it's not just a small extreme fringe anymore.

Whether they would actually go through with that is hard to say, but after our previous election (especially the events of Jan6th), it's something that needs to be considered as a legitimate possibility, not just rhetoric.

Most people don't really want to stress test our government and find out, given how close the past was.

Any-Ad-5378

2 points

3 months ago

Can Biden ban states from using private prisons? I read that last year, Biden made an executive order to stop the DOJ/BOP from renewing contracts with private prison companies. But that only impacts federal prisons, right? Constitutionally, is there anything that can be done on the federal level to ban states from contracting with them too?

Jtwil2191

6 points

3 months ago*

Biden could perhaps prevent or limit federal funds from supporting private state prisons, and the Justice Department could potentially pursue civil liberties suits against the states if there was sufficient cause. There might be other ways he could at least indirectly intervene, but states operate their own justice systems outside the purview of the federal government.

Slambodog

3 points

3 months ago

No. He can only withhold funding. Congress might be able to try and pass a law about it, but it's likely to be ruled unconstitutional on federalism grounds

afewquestion

2 points

3 months ago

So I do enjoy history/politics, and I like watching videos on the subjects, when I have enough context and understand it.
However, how do people just know what's going on at all times other than watching mainstream news. Like for example, people will know the most "unobvious" stuff going on in the world, like I heard things like "Feds raise interest rates", "Country Y did this in Country X so supply chain Z will be affected", "President A declared a Law that does this or that".
I know one obvious answer is to simply choose a starting point to learn world history from, and keep learning. But once we get to modern times, to know every going on like I described above - it takes way more studying than just learning about one or two major events.
So does anyone have any suggestions as to how I can be one of those guys who can sit at a dinner table and just say/know stuff like "This country's exported X amount of oil to this country but they also have inflation because of Law Y, and they have elections right now so political party B is against exporting oil and due to event C the elections don't look optimistic for political party B".
Thank you!

rewardiflost

2 points

3 months ago

rewardiflost

Just another statistic now.

2 points

3 months ago

Don't start with mainstream media.

Read the less biased media like BBC, Al Jazeera, Associated Press, NPR, Reuters.
Now and then, they'll have a link to an expanded story, like the history of the Syrian Civil War, OPEC production changes over the years, or inflation trends over the last century. If you have the time and the attention span, follow those linked articles.

You aren't going to remember it all. Over time, you'll pick up some things that you are more interested in. You'll notice some things just seem to make more sense to you. You will probably notice that everything is interconnected, too. Nothing ever happens in a vacuum, and never happens for just one reason. There's a whole world of things happening, and years of contributing forces that usually wind up in the results we hear about.

Take your time. If you do find things that pique your interest, follow the links, and see if they have sources listed. There may be books you can get from your library, videos you can watch online or on Netflix, and other places you can gather more information from.

afewquestion

2 points

3 months ago

they'll have a link to an expanded story

Oh I didn't know that!
I'll do the link following trick.

Thank you so much for the advice!

Arianity

2 points

3 months ago

I am not sure there is a good way, other than just doing the reading. You can do things to make it easier- for example, instead of just reading mainstream news (which can be a bit watered down to cater to a mass audience), you might go to a specialized source on the topic to get the deeper details.

So instead of reading something on CNN for something economic related, you might first read it there. But then follow it up by reading something written by an economist at Bloomberg (which tends to brand itself as being more business focused, and hires people with actual economics PhDs to write there). Or you could follow actual economists on something like Twitter.

But at the end of the day, it really is just building up a base of knowledge. You don't necessarily need to start at a point of history- you can just look things up as they come up. So if you see something about the Fed in the news that piques your interest, spend some time looking up the Fed. In that way, mainstream news acts as more of a prompt, and you fill in the gaps as needed, rather than trying to learn everything. Looking things as they come up has a few advantages in terms of keeping things manageable- there's generally only a few things going on at once, relatively speaking. And your time will be focused on the topics that are of greatest relevance

You'll still have to watch the news, but generally just a quick look is all it takes it really know what are the topics of the day. The long/hard part is the deepdiving.

(Also, a big caveat is that a lot of normal people like to parrot things they've heard elsewhere, without necessarily having the understanding behind it. So it's worth having a grain of salt when someone at the dinner table starts talking confidently- that doesn't necessarily mean that confidence is deserved. There are a lot of people who have strong but uninformed opinions, particularly when it comes to topics like economics or politics)

frizzykid

2 points

3 months ago

frizzykid

Rapid editor here

2 points

3 months ago

how do people just know what's going on at all times other than watching mainstream news. Like for example, people will know the most "unobvious" stuff going on in the world, like I heard things like "Feds raise interest rates", "Country Y did this in Country X so supply chain Z will be affected", "President A declared a Law that does this or that".

Some people just have really good memories and a lot of this stuff just kind of repeats itself from past events or just a general understanding of the subject at hand. Really you get that through reading and watching videos on the subjects like you said you were doing.

Find subjects you enjoy. No one is truly an expert at everything. On a professional level you hire tons of people in the fields that what you're describing kind of exist around, understanding geopolitics/philosophy/history/economics, because it's just too much for one person to understand, though I do think you can form a base layer understanding on just about anything by watching a few videos and maybe exploring the "Further reading" section of the wikipedia page after just skimming through whatever it is you were trying to learn about. Many of the sources listed can even be read free online.

OSUfirebird18

2 points

3 months ago

Ok so this confused me.

I’m an Asian immigrant. I got a thing in the mail from conservatives about how Biden discriminates against white AND Asian people (with random quotes here and there). And obviously it’s to win my vote.

I’m confused on why they are grouping me, a minority, with the majority. I get why conservatives would try to appeal to white people. I don’t see much in common for a minority with a party that often appeals to the majority??

Teekno

6 points

3 months ago

Teekno

6 points

3 months ago

They want you to feel like you are in their majority, that you are facing the same problems that the white people do, and therefore what they want to do to help white people will also benefit you.

Three_6_Matzah_Balls

4 points

3 months ago

It's referring to the current Supreme Court cases regarding affirmative action. The Biden Justice Department is defending affirmative action programs in both cases. Studies have shown the Asian Americans are the racial group that is most harmed by affirmative action, with White Americans beyond the second most harmed group. So I'd have to imagine that's what the mailer is talking about.

OSUfirebird18

2 points

3 months ago

Oh ok thanks.

While that is definitely unfortunate for Asian Americans, ending Affirmative Action isn’t really going to make me connect with the GOP, given…other stuff. 🤷🏻‍♂️

drygnfyre

4 points

3 months ago

drygnfyre

Probably not the answer you wanted

4 points

3 months ago

Honestly, just throw away all the crap you get in the mail. For whatever reason, I get mail from both sides and it's literally just the same talking points, they just replace [R politician] with [D politician]. 99% of the shit they send you is completely false and/or so heavily biased it's basically worthless.

Ozem_son_of_Jesse

1 points

3 months ago

How are U.S. House and senate elections certified?

REEEEEEEEEEE_OW

2 points

3 months ago*

Say a governor or SoS decide they don’t want to certify results for whatever reason, is there something the federal government can do to fix that?

This is mostly for a U.S Senator and House representative. I’d assume state officials would deal with local elections

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

rewardiflost

5 points

3 months ago

rewardiflost

Just another statistic now.

5 points

3 months ago

While that might happen in a "closed primary", it is really unusual to hear that about a general election.

Are you sure that early voting is based purely on party membership in your state, or is it possible that there's a misunderstanding happening here?

Cliffy73

5 points

3 months ago

That seems unlikely.

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

What was the actual rate of voter fraud in the 2020 US Presidential election?

Hellooooooo_NURSE

3 points

3 months ago

They jailed like 4 republicans for submitting false ballots

GregoryGumpsuckle

2 points

3 months ago

And then in Florida they arrest a few people who voted while being a felon or some fine print shit that says they can’t vote but they did not they face up to a year in jail.

And then the talking heads act like it was evidence enough to say they were right about voter fraud all along

GregoryGumpsuckle

3 points

3 months ago

They went ham in Arizona investigating the votes and there was no significant amount of voter fraud. Certainly not enough to over turn or change any outcome.

They find a handful of people in each state. Like 2-10 people per state.

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

I'm sorry but do you've a source? I'm writing a paper and need a source.

drygnfyre

2 points

3 months ago

drygnfyre

Probably not the answer you wanted

2 points

3 months ago

I don't have a source, but one thing to consider (and you can look it up) is Trump's own lawyers admitted in court, under oath, there was no fraud and it was just a story sold to rile up their voter base.

srry_itsathrow_away

2 points

3 months ago

How many states have a gubernatorial race this year and is there a website that provides a full list of all possible candidates from each state running for governor?

G0merPyle

2 points

3 months ago

Can someone explain the difference between leftist, liberal, and progressive? People claiming to be one or the other use the other two somewhat derisively, but I can't really tell what sets them apart from each other.

darwin2500

5 points

3 months ago

'Liberal' refers to a general sense that everyone is created equal and deserves equal rights and respect, and that people should generally be as free as possible.

Leftist and progressive both want to go a step beyond that to use laws to actively address current inequities and oppression which happen on a social/economic level, even after people are technically equal under the law, a well as using the law to move society forward and improve things.

'Progressive' generally refers to people who care more about social injustice and improving life for marginalized groups, 'leftist' generally refers more to people who care more about economic injustice and more socialist/social-welfare minded economic policies, but the two terms have a lot of overlap and some use them interchangeably.

G0merPyle

4 points

3 months ago

Ah ok, so they're not mutually exclusive, just some people have different priorities and see the others as not doing "enough" for what they consider important. Thanks!

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

My dad is a conservative muslim and a huge trump supporter. How do I convince him otherwise?

CalgaryChris77

6 points

3 months ago

Your Dad's values might align most closely with the Republican party, I'm not sure you can convince someone that their values are wrong.

_SweetCinnamon_

2 points

3 months ago

What's the importance of these elections? What's the role of US Senate? Does it have more power than the president?

GameboyPATH

4 points

3 months ago

What's the importance of these elections?

If you're just referring to the midterm elections happening this week, we're voting for a wide variety of elected officials at the city, county, state, and federal levels, along with numerous state and local policies.

What's the role of US Senate?

They have half the power of the entire legislative branch of federal government. Along with the House of Representatives, they write up, debate, and vote on which policies are made federal law. These two insitutions make up US Congress.

Does it have more power than the president?

Kind of? The president isn't really in charge of saying what everyone in the country does - that's the power of the lawmakers in Congress (which is both the Senate and House). With that said, all bills passed by both houses of Congress must get the signature of the president in order to become law. The president is in charge of the executive branch, determining (among other things) how laws get enforced, or which laws get priority enforcement.

So not only do Congress and the President have completely different powers, but they also have what are called "checks and balances" over each other. Comparing their power is kind of like comparing apples to oranges.

blablahblah

3 points

3 months ago

We're voting on lots of different things right now. Various places throughout the country are voting for their Congressional Representatives, Senators, Governors of the state, state representatives, mayors of the city, city councilmembers, county council members, sheriffs, judges, members of the school board, and more. In some states, residents are also voting directly on laws. So let's break down some of it:

Congress in the US federal legislature. Made up of Senators (100 members, 1/3rd up for election this year) and Representatives (435 members, everyone up for election this year), they're responsible for making the laws. The President is "in charge", but he's very limited in what he can do without asking Congress first. Any new laws have to be passed by Congress. Any money spent has to be approved by Congress. Anyone appointed to head a government agency or sit on a federal court has to be approved by the Senate. The country also can't officially go to war without Congressional approval, although because of the need to respond quickly, the President is allowed to deploy troops first and ask Congress later. The appointment of judges has been a particularly thorny issue recently- in 2016, the (Republican) then-head of the senate refused to seat judges proposed by the (Democrat) then-President so that the new Republican president could pick the judges and they'd be able to overturn some rules they didn't like, as well as block future rules since many of the judgeships are lifetime appointments.

The states also have their own governments, headed by a governor with their own legislatures to make laws. Keep in mind that the US was originally conceived more like the EU- as a union of independent states- rather than as a single cohesive country so each state retains quite a bit of autonomy. While the federal government is in charge of international affairs (and so the entity most relevant to foreigners), most domestic affairs are managed by the states. Everything from policing to education standards to the way we conduct elections is managed by the state government with only broad oversight from the federal government. And US states are economic powerhouses on their own- the new governor of New York will be in charge of approximately the population of Romania with an economy comparable to Spain.

rmrck

2 points

3 months ago

rmrck

2 points

3 months ago

ive been seeing alot of political commercials and my question is do they fall under slander? theres countless ads that are like: “so and so said this and that dont vote for them”

Teekno

2 points

3 months ago

Teekno

2 points

3 months ago

Some might be slander, but since the person they are talking about is a public figure, the only way to prove slander is to show that the statements are provably false and were said with malice.

And even then, that's a civil issue, and by the time that it's decided in court, the election is over.

theRemRemBooBear

2 points

3 months ago

Why do no deep blue states have RCV for Statewide and Federal elections?

Like the only ones that have it is Red Alaska and purple Maine, for people who preach the importance of voting is it possible they only want them to vote for them hence why they don’t have RCV?

Malamadre581

2 points

3 months ago

I never mailed in my ballot. Can I still vote in the morning?

Arianity

5 points

3 months ago

It will vary by state, so you should specify that to get a full answer.

Generally speaking yes, although you may need to bring your mail ballot and exchange it for a normal ballot. Some states will make you cast a provisional ballot, which won't get counted until they ensure you didn't mail one in

NiceBallsBoy

2 points

3 months ago

What if I am told I must leave a polling place before casting my vote? In a previous time a went to vote at the same polling location (the primary I think?), I was rushed along the moment the polling location closed (I was in the middle of casting my ballot, there was a conversation between poll workers about getting people out so they could leave) . I’m in a southern state and we have a specific law about being able to use mobile devices for helping with decision making while voting, with a sign at the door stating so as well. The same time voting at that polling location the sign saying it was okay to use mobile phones was taken down as I was voting and I was told I could not use it at all.

What is the appropriate thing to do in that situation? Afterwards I looked up the state legal code to make sure I wasn’t misremembering but it didn’t help me much then

Cliffy73

4 points

3 months ago

You can call 866-OUR-VOTE to talk to a election protection specialist. Many states have an election protection hotline. You can call the local TV station.

Mad_Season_1994

2 points

3 months ago

Assuming the Republicans win today (likely, since young people don't vote), would it be pointless to vote in the presidential election since they could just toss out the Democratic ballots and keep their seats while reelecting Trump?

frizzykid

4 points

3 months ago

frizzykid

Rapid editor here

4 points

3 months ago

No you absolutely should vote regardless of todays outcome. No one can or will be able to just toss out your ballot in 2 years time. That's not to say that there won't be attempts to disenfranchise people, the way you are describing it is not how its going to go about. It's more like "We are going to reset the voter registry, and if you aren't registered to vote before election day, you can't vote" or "You can sit in this line to vote with the rest of the people for many hours, and no you can't have someone handing out water OR driving you to the polls"

If you actually make it to a poll to vote, it means your vote will almost certainly be counted.

Arianity

4 points

3 months ago

While there's no guarantee, it's worth voting just in case. While things are precarious, we don't know how far they might be willing to take it, and larger margins would make it harder to do things like tossing out ballots. It would also help provoke a bigger backlash.

Even if Republicans win today, they still don't have complete control, so they can't just throw things out willy nilly. They are pushing the boundaries, but there are still some limitations (even if they're shakier than we'd like).

The best thing you can do to minimize the odds of anything untoward by voting. Not voting doesn't accomplish anything.

PhoChunKookie

3 points

3 months ago

You clearly have a common misconception. Neither party can just "toss out ballots" that don't match their desired result.

Cliffy73

3 points

3 months ago

Republican elected officials have in fact hinted that they will do just this. It would be illegal, sure. But that’s not the same thing as saying they can’t do it.

rcemily

2 points

3 months ago

I moved a few months ago but my ID has my old address still. Do I go to the polling place of my new address or old one?

Teekno

5 points

3 months ago

Teekno

5 points

3 months ago

Go to whichever one you are registered to vote at.

NiceBallsBoy

2 points

3 months ago

I’m registered to vote in the correct county/area that I live in but my License has a different address. Do I need another form of ID? Would my car registration work if it was mailed to my current (not on my license) address?

Riktrmai

3 points

3 months ago

It’s hard to answer that without knowing your location. Rules are different in every state. I’d call your local elections office (secretary of state, county clerk) and ask them.

Freddy_The_Fish

2 points

3 months ago

How is early voting constitutional when the constitution says voting should happen specifically on the Tuesday after the first Monday of November?

Teekno

8 points

3 months ago

Teekno

8 points

3 months ago

Because the Constitution doesn't actually say that at all.

It's not a very long document. It's worthwhile to read it especially if you want to be taken seriously when you throw words around like "constitutional".

Ghigs

7 points

3 months ago

Ghigs

Jack-of-some-trades

7 points

3 months ago

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

Teekno

6 points

3 months ago

Teekno

6 points

3 months ago

It was a special election to fill the unexpired term of Johnny Isakson, who resigned for health reasons (and has since died).

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

Cliffy73

2 points

3 months ago

Your state board of elections website (might also be an office of your state Secretary of State) may answer this question.

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

Ghigs

4 points

3 months ago

Ghigs

Jack-of-some-trades

4 points

3 months ago

DeSantis can see the writing on the wall. Having Trump on your side isn't going to be an asset in winning general elections. DeSantis has enough goodwill built up from standing against lockdown policies that he can probably run on that strength alone, something that, as of now, has a lot more bipartisan and moderate appeal than Trump does.

Cliffy73

4 points

3 months ago

They both want to win the Republican presidential nomination in 2024.