They accepted him only because Republican voters vastly preferred him over the establishment candidate, Jeb!

The same is not true of Bernie. He has a loyal base, but it’s not the majority of Democratic voters.

Same thing that happened every time Bernie tried to run nationwide. Did he take his own advice?

If Kamala were only running in Vermont, she would have won too.

There were more Harris voters in Vermont than Sanders voters. So maybe Bernie should be listening to Kamala.

Don’t flatter yourself. If everyone who voted for a third party had voted for Harris instead, she still would have lost.

Leftists are too small a constituency to put Democrats over the top.

Turnout was at record highs. So the problem wasn’t “activating low propensity voters”.

The problem was that those voters were already activated, and they preferred Trump.

I replied to someone who just said leftists are right and liberals are wrong.

Ask them whether liberals are leftists.

Maybe liberals would take leftists more seriously if leftists could actually win an election.

They can’t even elect one of their own as governor, much less president.

That sounds cruel!

If he’s having a bad day, then personally I hope every day is the best day of the rest of his life.

Smells like… victory

deleted by creator

how dumb America is.

Not to mention how dumb the UK, France, Italy, Austria, the Netherlands, Hungary, Finland, Croatia, and the Czech Republic are…

By the way, what country do you live in?

can they do that? I thought federal officials superseded state ones?

Federal law supercedes state law. That doesn’t mean federal officials can go where they want.

IIRC, the issue is that the Voting Rights Act gave DoJ the power to observe elections, but the SCOTUS partially nuked the VRA. So now it’s not clear whether the DoJ still has that power, and the usual suspects are taking advantage of this ambiguity. Possibly hoping to give the SCOTUS a chance to nuke more of the VRA.

It’s not necessarily legal.

The judge hasn’t ruled yet on whether Musk broke the law. He simply declined to issue a preliminary injunction.

A preliminary injunction tells someone to stop what they are doing while the court case plays out. In order to get a preliminary injunction, you have to convince a judge that there will be irreparable harm by letting someone continue.

In other words, a judge might rule against an injunction but nevertheless end up ruling against the defendant. Especially if the judge thinks the harm has already been done.

The point is that if Harris wins, then Hakeem Jeffries will likely be House Speaker on January 6

I literally quoted the linked article

No, you didn’t see this poll predicting Hillary crushing Iowa.

The Selzer poll is one of the best, it only looks at Iowa, and in 2016 it was one of the few that said Trump was doing much better than everyone expected.

In 2020 it said Biden was doing better than Clinton, but Trump was nevertheless doing better than expected.

In both cases, it was spot on. And this year, it says Trump is doing far worse than everyone thinks.

That said… Go vote!

That’s just not true.

Both houses must vote separately to agree to the objection. Otherwise, the objection fails and the vote or votes are counted.

Right, LV polls often don’t ask where you voted.

But this article is not about a poll. They are looking publicly available PA voting records. They look like this:

• Doe, John: voted in 2024, 2020
• Doe, Jane: voted in 2024

PA isn’t going to cross-reference their database with other states. So there is no good way to tell if Jane Doe is a first time voter or just a recent move. Either way, she is a new voter.

That’s huge because new voters aren’t counted by pollsters as “likely voters”.

Actually, they might be. In this article, a “new voter” is someone who did not vote in 2020 in Pennsylvania.

If they voted elsewhere in 2020 (ie recently moved to PA) then they could be counted as likely voters in polls even though they are “new voters”.