this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
214 points (97.3% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4624 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
214
Republicans worry Trump blowing their chances for Senate majority (thehill.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by negativenull@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 75 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

A bad presidential candidate effects down ballot races.

Which is why Hillary probably still would have handed Republicans the House and Senate if she didn't take all the states parties funds for her victory tour.

trumps daughter in law controls the RNC's purse strings tho, they're probably doing a similar grift already.

Which is why it's important to keep pressure on Harris from the left. If she gets both houses and doesn't do anything because she only hears from the right. It's just handing Republicans one or both houses back for the midterms.

Now more than ever, we have to be ready to get shit done on day one. None of this shit Biden pulls where he assumed office and "looked into" shit until we couldn't pass the party platform.

There's zero excuse to repeat that

[–] qprimed@lemmy.ml 39 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

which is why the walz VP pick is interesting. he seems to spend political capital quickly and effectively

its going to be clear early on how much influence progressives really have in a potential harris administration.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 32 points 3 weeks ago

Walz is exactly what a democratic "moderate" should be

He might be further to the right than some want, but when they say that. Dude sits down and listens to them and is willing to change his mind.

I don't think he'll specifically pull Kamala to the left. But I think if the base disagrees with Kamala, he'll push for her to listen to what they have to say and to keep an open mind.

It's kind of depressing that's such a unique thing, but it's good it's happening and I hope it signals a change for the moderate wing.

I don't think we'd have gotten someone like that if people weren't vocal about their issues with Biden and his responses. Which is why I think it's important we keep it up. If the only people pushing for "moderates" to change direction are from the right, we can't act surprised when they always move right.

We dont have billionaires lobbying for us, we got to make the noise ourselves.

[–] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 20 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

F me I wish Republican majorities weren't a threat and that they were actually worried about a Democrat super-majority in both Houses. Impeach 2 of the SC and replace with Judges that aren't corrupt, get those territories (and DC) full Statehood, expressly codify trans, worker, and healthcare rights into the Constitution, and give all the newly blue (in this fantasy of mine) States the opportunity to undo their BS gerrymandering.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Honestly, I just wish the scales weren’t so blatantly unbalanced. The power of your vote depending directly on the state in which you reside is absolutely insane in the modern age.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The true single-issue vote needs to revolve around support for a constitutional amendment to fix our election system. It is the biggest most important problem in America. Everyone needs to start saying this.

[–] Kethal@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

It is a common misconception that disproportionate power of states is what has resulted in the winner of the popular vote losing the electoral college. That isn't what has caused it in the past, despite the possibility. What has caused it is the fact that nearly all states allocate 100% of their electors to the simple majority winner. If three candidates get 49%, 48% and 3% of the vote, the top candidate gets 100% of the delegates. That swings the electoral count out of alignment, and if that happens in enough big states, then the popular vote winner can get fewer delegates.

That historically has been what happened. If you were to imagine elections where all the states had equal power but still allocated their delegates that way, as far as I know, not a single election result would change.

If however you were to imagine states allocating delegates in proportion to the votes they received, that would have changed election results. There are different ways to do that, but the details are not that important. It's the solution. Is unequal power among states fair? Not really. But it hasn't had any impact in the past, so let's focus on something we know has unfairly altered multiple outcomes.

States should be doing this. Currently only two do: Maine and Nebraska I think. It wouldn't take a lot of states for this to fundamentally change elections. Five key states are all that's necessary. There's no reason to allocate all delgates to the simple majority, and no one likes it. It's unfair to the minority in locked down states, and it's stressful in battleground states. It results in candidate pandering to battleground states and ignoring everyone else. This is something people should be aware of and talk about more.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Or we could simply get rid of the electoral college and say a vote is a vote.

Like as a compromise measure before getting rid of the electoral college delegates based on % is an improvement but how to split based on % would be very contentious. In a 10 delegate state does 52% 48% mean 5 and 5 or 6 and 4? What about a 3 delegate states. Maine and Nebraska do assign some to the state popular vote and one to each congressional district. But states like Wyoming and Vermont only have 1 congressional district that covers the whole state while having 3 delegates. Their state popular vote and congressional district popular vote literally can't be different.

[–] Kethal@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

As above, those things don't matter. You say "simply get rid of the electoral college" as if that is the easier solution, but having a handful of states change laws fully under their control is far, far simpler than having numerous states agree to a change to the constitution, but the two things have the same effect. Do you want to stop having an unpopular president elected in the next 20 years, or the next 80 years?

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

As I said a compromise measure. I'm good with compromise but there are more considerations to that which I haven't seen addressed in these discussions.

A major one of getting it done state by state instead of all at once is if a large Blue state like California does the split but a large red state like Texas doesn't do the split then the electoral college will only get further skewed instead of fixed.

[–] Kethal@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

What happens in California and Texas isn't the problem so obviously one wouldn't start there. They'd start with swing states.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

The thing is, it really wouldn't take much to get there.

People's standards are a lot lower than January 2016. Obviously even with both houses, we're not gonna get everything.

But if they still hold votes, and Harris uses the bully pulpit to name and shame everyone voting against party platform, the party won't lose the voters.

We'll lose the politicians acting against their voters wishes, and replace them with more liberal options in fair and open primaries. Some might stay in office, but we just keep doing it till we get the numbers.

Less then a decade and we'll have solid supermajorities and actually able to fix shit for good.

It's literally right there in our reach, we just need Harris to stick her arm out and grab it. She has the potential to be the biggest name in US history books 50 years from now.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 6 points 3 weeks ago

a person can dream!

[–] ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

While I wish Biden did more, he did get a ton of fantastic policy through.

Anything that helped the people too much was stymied by Manchin and Sinema (arguably the list would continue with centrists peeling off from Democrats) and the supreme court.

Hopefully a landslide win happens and meaningful legislation is quickly passed. Bringing gov't programs up to speed for helping the middle class would probably cement democratic leadership for at least a decade

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It’s a pretty uphill battle right? Aren’t Dems defending senate seats in Montana, West Virginia, Georgia and Arizona? I think the House is pretty much guaranteed if Harris wins, but the Senate is a long shot.

[–] draneceusrex@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Dems would have to win every competitive race to keep the senate, and that would just be 50-50 so we need Walz as VP too.

[–] chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world 50 points 3 weeks ago

Y'all hitched your wagon to this shit show. Now you get to live with the consequences, ya Republican gits.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 38 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Let's turn that into reality

Find how to register to vote for where you are

Find opportunities to volunteer around you

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 3 weeks ago

Find how to register to vote for where you are

Be sure to do this a few times between now and the election. Repubs are pulling all kinds of fuckery trying to get people kicked off the voter rolls in multiple states. These assholes fight dirty as hell.

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 35 points 3 weeks ago

Republican senate majority = More extreme Supreme Court.

McTurtlefuck already stole 1/3 Supreme Court seats, what gonna stop him or his ilk from stealing remaining seats? All of corruption scandals at scotus is a direct result of senate republican majority in past 20 years or so.

[–] negativenull@lemmy.world 21 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

“There’s no question Trump is going through self-immolation. He’s killing himself. All swing states are won by independent votes, and he’s alienated the independent vote almost every day with some foolish statement that marginalizes him, and as a result the party — and the majority of independents are educated women, and they’re just turned off by the guy and what he says,” said former Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), a onetime adviser to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s (Ky.) leadership team.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 33 points 3 weeks ago

Huh. It's almost as if Trump intends on claiming the Presidency by means other than actually getting the most votes (and I don't just mean losing the popular vote but legitimately winning the Electoral College).

[–] HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Thank God for ~~Mississippi~~ Trump.

[–] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 3 points 3 weeks ago

my cognitive dissonance is real for that comment

[–] Kethal@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

They have chosen as thier candidate the least popular president in recorded history. He had a decent shot when he was running against the second-least popular president. But now ...

They should have gone with Haley. She'd be a powerhouse at this point.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 9 points 3 weeks ago

that bitch is playin conservative-neutral because she knows she will still be here when all these old conservative shitbags are dead.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Also they wouldn't be worrying about losing entire states because 5% of her voters defect or stay home.

[–] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

If Trump hadn't run and instead had endorsed Haley (or basically any other "viable" candidate) that would probably be the case.

But if Trump lost the primary, I would be surprised if we didn't see some of his more die hard cultists stay home or vote for some third party candidate out of spite. Especially since Trump would never take the loss gracefully and endorse the winning candidate.

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

lol fuckem.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

don't worry too much, we wouldn't want you to roll over and die after your useless hearts explode at the possibility of losing some power.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -4 points 3 weeks ago

The Hill - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Hill:

MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4835774-senate-republicans-concerned-trump/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support