politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It's not quite that bad (remember, "lead" means the difference between voting intention for each candidate, not the total voting intention for one candidate). Of those intending to vote, 8 percent intend to vote for Trump (still way too damn high; fucking turkeys voting for Christmas), 77 percent are voting for Harris and the rest are voting third party. That third party vote is also too high, but it's down to a combination of Harris being smeared (unjustly) as anti trans rights, and people who just refuse to vote for a party that supports genocide, no matter how bad the alternative is.
I was very intentional in my wording.
I'm confused. Did I miss understand your wording?
100 - 77 = 23; 23% < 33%
77 - 10 = 67 point lead
Admittedly the way we talk about a "point lead" is confusing and it's always useful to look at what the real numbers are and what they actually mean.
Yes; I wasn’t talking about how many plan to vote for Harris or Trump, but about the fact that in the current election format, not voting for Harris makes Trump more likely to win, as all other votes are protest votes that won’t actually elect a candidate.
Once FPTP is eliminated and states use a ranked voting system, your argument comes into play. But surely people in the LGBTQ community understand that not voting for Harris in this election means not caring that Trump gets elected?
Sure, but 23% of LGBTQ voters aren't voting for Harris, which is significantly less than a third (33%). Still higher than it should be, granted, but I am pretty sure that is what the original reply comment was pointing out.