this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
-44 points (13.3% liked)

politics

19098 readers
4344 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I suppose I can't rule it out, but there are a couple of points to consider:

One may decide to vote for a candidate for reasons other than being well spoken (or lacking such skills) and being intelligent (or lack thereof). So it might not be that half disagree with the first sentence I wrote - they might very well agree, even if they're voting the other candidate.

Also, the nature of US presidential elections, in particular regarding the electoral college, gives a voter in a small midwest state (say North Dakota) more voting power than a person in a larger, more populated state (say California, or Texas). So even if the other candidate wins, he could theoretically do so with less than half of the country behind him.

Finally, this is between those two specific candidates. While we have others in the race, such as Jill Stein or Cornel West. I can easily believe that voters of these candidates, if forced to pick between Harris and the GOP candidate, would agree that Harris comes off as the more intelligent and well-spoken one.

BTW - I think some of the downvotes might be because folks are misinterpreting here. The nature of your comment is such that folks might simply assume you are including yourself in that half that disagrees. I.e. that you're a supporter of the GOP candidate - when from your POV you might have just meant to point out a flaw in the present logic or a warning against complacency.

Now, no one should be pressured into reveal who they'd vote for if they aren't willing to share that, but assuming you're comfortable sharing it might be worth noting who would have your support in a hypothetical 2024 presidential election where voting was mandatory and Stein, West, De la Cruz, the Libertarian candidate, and so on dropped out.