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.
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
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 I thought federal officials superseded state ones?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.
I think most people would pay less. But opponents of universal health care would frame the payment as a tax (especially if it depends on income), and this could definitely erode support.
This is not a trivial problem, and I think it's why Democrats are hesitating to jump on board a supposedly "uncontroversial" policy.
The point is that if Harris wins, then Hakeem Jeffries will likely be House Speaker on January 6
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.