From the Inbox:

> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
> August 2, 2024
>
> **Team Harris Raises $310 Million in July, Announces $377 Million War Chest**
>
> *Best Grassroots Fundraising Month in Presidential History*
>
>
> *Surpasses $1 Billion Since Launch, Fastest in Presidential History*
>
>
> *More than $200 Million Raised in First Week of Vice President Harris’ Candidacy; Single Greatest Week in Fundraising History*
>
>
> *Two-Thirds of Haul Come From First-Time Donors*
>
>
> Today, Team Harris announced that it raised $310 million in July, the biggest haul of the 2024 cycle. July’s haul, powered by the **best grassroots fundraising month in presidential history**, is **more than double what the Trump campaign and RNC raised in July**, and includes more than $200 million in the week following President Biden's endorsement of Vice President Harris’ candidacy.
>
>
> With today’s announcement, Team Harris has already raised over $1 billion this cycle, the fastest a presidential campaign has crossed the $1 billion threshold in presidential history.
>
>
> Team Harris is also reporting $377 million in cash on hand – **the largest ever war chest at this point in the cycle and $50 million more than the Trump team’s post-July cash on hand**. This July, Team Harris grew its historic war chest while also significantly expanding its footprint and operations both at HQ and across the key states – building the capabilities needed to win a close election.
>
>
> July’s $310 million haul was also the strongest grassroots month in presidential campaign history and powered by a surge in new support. **Two-thirds of the record-shattering haul came from first-time donors**, further proof of the tremendous support for Vice President Harris that powers our historic fundraising operation. Additionally, the vast majority of July’s raise came from grassroots donors, and eight of the campaign’s ten best grassroots fundraising days came in July.
>
>
> **Team Harris’ grassroots machine makes clear the coalition is energized:**
>
> * **July was the best grassroots fundraising month in presidential history.**
>
> * **Team Harris raised more across grassroots channels in the four days** following President Biden’s endorsement of Vice President Harris than Trump’s big donor reliant operation raised in the entire month.
>
> * **More than 3 million donors made over 4.2 million contributions – with more than 2 million donors making their first donation this cycle**. Team Harris also grew its sustaining donor base – grassroots supporters that are committed to donating regularly to the campaign – by more than 50 percent, growing to nearly half a million donors.
>
> * This month, **94% of all our donations were under $200**, and teachers and nurses continue to be among the most common donor occupations.
>
> * **Since launch, Vice President Harris has also galvanized new demographic groups to donate:**
>
> * Compared to June, we saw more than **10x the number of Gen Z donors, and more than 8x the number of Millennial donors**.
>
> >* **60% of all donors in July were women.**
>
> >* Coalition groups that organized calls since launch – like Black Women for Harris, Latinas for Harris, and yes, White Dudes for Harris – **raised more than $20 million for Team Harris.**
>
>
> “This is a history-making haul for a candidate who will make history this November. The tremendous outpouring of support we’ve seen in just a short time makes clear the Harris coalition is mobilized, growing, and ready to put in the work to defeat Trump this November,” **said Harris for President Campaign Manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez**. “Our money is going to the work that wins close elections – whether it be an organizer knocking doors in DeKalb County, a rural office opening in Pennsylvania, or a college student tabling at a club fair. It is the product of a campaign and coalition that knows the hard work and fighting spirit needed to win in November – and when we fight, we win.”
>
>
> "From historic grassroots fundraising to hundreds of thousands of new volunteers, one thing is clear as Vice President Harris continues to prosecute the case against convicted felon Donald Trump – voters are fired up and ready to beat Trump again this November,” **said Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison**. “The majority of this grassroots fundraising came from first-time donors who have been inspired to chip in to support Vice President Harris' historic candidacy. Their grassroots dollars will translate to more offices across the country, more staff engaging directly with voters, and more opportunities for us to take our message directly to voters about what is at stake in this election. We can't and won't go back, and this past month made it clear that the American people agree."
>
> **Team Harris’ War Chest is Being Used to Reach the Voters Who Will Decide This Election:**
>
> The historic outpouring of support for Vice President Harris – raised across Harris for President, the Democratic National Committee, and joint fundraising committees – will be critical to bringing the stakes of this election to the voters who will decide what we anticipate will be a very close election.
>
> * **More than 260 coordinated campaign offices and more than 1,400 coordinated staff across the battleground states**, including new investments in training and reaching supporters across the country with new organizing tactics.
>
> * **A $50 million paid media campaign between late July and the August Democratic National Convention** targeting the audiences critical to winning this November, including running during high-audience events.
>
> * Last weekend, Team Harris welcomed more than **170,000 new volunteers** to the campaign and **held 2,300 events mobilizing thousands of supporters across battleground states.**
>
> **Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s campaign is working for the ultra-wealthy and corporations – not the American people**:
>
> While Team Harris is seeing a historic outpouring of grassroots support, Donald Trump has spent the month doing little more than shilling for himself and wealthy donors. He’s made [promises to billionaire oil and gas executives](https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/donald-trump-energy-policy-oil-gas-donors-1cbc98f6) that he would roll back climate policy while asking for [max-out campaign donations](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/15/trump-fundraising-picks-up-with-help-from-big-donors-00152418). And three months away from Election Day, his campaign still lags far behind in campaign infrastructure in key battleground states.
>
> This historic 2024 fundraising operation – built between the candidacies of President Biden and Vice President Harris – hit $1 billion raised earlier than any Democratic presidential campaign in history, doing so in one of the most challenging months historically for campaign fundraising.
>
> \###
>

From the Inbox:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 2, 2024

Team Harris Raises $310 Million in July, Announces $377 Million War Chest

Best Grassroots Fundraising Month in Presidential History

Surpasses $1 Billion Since Launch, Fastest in Presidential History

More than $200 Million Raised in First Week of Vice President Harris’ Candidacy; Single Greatest Week in Fundraising History

Two-Thirds of Haul Come From First-Time Donors

Today, Team Harris announced that it raised $310 million in July, the biggest haul of the 2024 cycle. July’s haul, powered by the best grassroots fundraising month in presidential history, is more than double what the Trump campaign and RNC raised in July, and includes more than $200 million in the week following President Biden&#39;s endorsement of Vice President Harris’ candidacy.

With today’s announcement, Team Harris has already raised over $1 billion this cycle, the fastest a presidential campaign has crossed the $1 billion threshold in presidential history.

Team Harris is also reporting $377 million in cash on hand – the largest ever war chest at this point in the cycle and $50 million more than the Trump team’s post-July cash on hand. This July, Team Harris grew its historic war chest while also significantly expanding its footprint and operations both at HQ and across the key states – building the capabilities needed to win a close election.

July’s $310 million haul was also the strongest grassroots month in presidential campaign history and powered by a surge in new support. Two-thirds of the record-shattering haul came from first-time donors, further proof of the tremendous support for Vice President Harris that powers our historic fundraising operation. Additionally, the vast majority of July’s raise came from grassroots donors, and eight of the campaign’s ten best grassroots fundraising days came in July.

Team Harris’ grassroots machine makes clear the coalition is energized:

July was the best grassroots fundraising month in presidential history.

Team Harris raised more across grassroots channels in the four days following President Biden’s endorsement of Vice President Harris than Trump’s big donor reliant operation raised in the entire month.

More than 3 million donors made over 4.2 million contributions – with more than 2 million donors making their first donation this cycle. Team Harris also grew its sustaining donor base – grassroots supporters that are committed to donating regularly to the campaign – by more than 50 percent, growing to nearly half a million donors.

This month, 94% of all our donations were under $200, and teachers and nurses continue to be among the most common donor occupations.

Since launch, Vice President Harris has also galvanized new demographic groups to donate:

Compared to June, we saw more than 10x the number of Gen Z donors, and more than 8x the number of Millennial donors.

60% of all donors in July were women.

Coalition groups that organized calls since launch – like Black Women for Harris, Latinas for Harris, and yes, White Dudes for Harris – raised more than $20 million for Team Harris.

“This is a history-making haul for a candidate who will make history this November. The tremendous outpouring of support we’ve seen in just a short time makes clear the Harris coalition is mobilized, growing, and ready to put in the work to defeat Trump this November,” said Harris for President Campaign Manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez. “Our money is going to the work that wins close elections – whether it be an organizer knocking doors in DeKalb County, a rural office opening in Pennsylvania, or a college student tabling at a club fair. It is the product of a campaign and coalition that knows the hard work and fighting spirit needed to win in November – and when we fight, we win.”

&quot;From historic grassroots fundraising to hundreds of thousands of new volunteers, one thing is clear as Vice President Harris continues to prosecute the case against convicted felon Donald Trump – voters are fired up and ready to beat Trump again this November,” said Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison. “The majority of this grassroots fundraising came from first-time donors who have been inspired to chip in to support Vice President Harris&#39; historic candidacy. Their grassroots dollars will translate to more offices across the country, more staff engaging directly with voters, and more opportunities for us to take our message directly to voters about what is at stake in this election. We can&#39;t and won&#39;t go back, and this past month made it clear that the American people agree.&quot;

Team Harris’ War Chest is Being Used to Reach the Voters Who Will Decide This Election:

The historic outpouring of support for Vice President Harris – raised across Harris for President, the Democratic National Committee, and joint fundraising committees – will be critical to bringing the stakes of this election to the voters who will decide what we anticipate will be a very close election.

More than 260 coordinated campaign offices and more than 1,400 coordinated staff across the battleground states, including new investments in training and reaching supporters across the country with new organizing tactics.

A $50 million paid media campaign between late July and the August Democratic National Convention targeting the audiences critical to winning this November, including running during high-audience events.

Last weekend, Team Harris welcomed more than 170,000 new volunteers to the campaign and held 2,300 events mobilizing thousands of supporters across battleground states.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s campaign is working for the ultra-wealthy and corporations – not the American people:

While Team Harris is seeing a historic outpouring of grassroots support, Donald Trump has spent the month doing little more than shilling for himself and wealthy donors. He’s made promises to billionaire oil and gas executives that he would roll back climate policy while asking for max-out campaign donations. And three months away from Election Day, his campaign still lags far behind in campaign infrastructure in key battleground states.

This historic 2024 fundraising operation – built between the candidacies of President Biden and Vice President Harris – hit $1 billion raised earlier than any Democratic presidential campaign in history, doing so in one of the most challenging months historically for campaign fundraising.

###


What is the best Documentary on Project 2025?


I won’t lie- i look back just last week or so when Biden was still running and i was petrified. I had dread within me with poll after poll showing dismal results, the headlines that promised a Trump win, and i was just doing my best to prepare for such a thing.

But now? In the last week all the headlines are suddenly showing good news for Democrats. Better polls, the donations, etc. Nothings set in stone but the hope that’s re-entered me is…. terrifying. I was PREPARING for trumps name to be called as the winner come november so that i wouldn’t be let down- it wouldn’t be a surprise and it wouldn’t hit me as hard. But now that i have hope again? After one week of better headlines for democrats? And trump still managers to win? It’s going to be such an even bigger letdown now if that’s the case, and it’s so hard to have hope in such day and ages. I was doing “so well” to mentally prepare for the worst, but now that i have genuine hope again, i don’t know how to handle it..

This last week has given me back hope.. and that terrifies me


Despite Defying His Own Lawful Subpoena, Rep. Jim Jordan Has Issued At Least 91 Subpoenas to Others


From what I understand laughing at fascist is one of the best methods.  I recall a k-k-k march where a guy showed up with a tuba to play funny music.  The fascists ended up basically running away because they were so demoralized at being laughed at.

Has anyone ever organized a laughing counter protest?


Elections Trump and his allies had a plan for how to hit Harris. Then he opened his mouth.


Why Texas refused $450 million to help feed 3.8 million hungry kids this summer


VP Kamala Harris responds to Donald Trump’s NABJ attack: “It was the same old show”


Margaret Thatcher worked on speaking in a deeper voice. Hillary Clinton, like all the female candidates I can think of, projects a serious and formal persona that is really  asexual. Kamala usually speaks in this gentle, higher pitched voice, that projects a kind of sweetness that shows her feminity. She is being herself! Does anyone agree? If so, do you think this will help her or hurt her in a nationwide general election?

I've often wondered what good women leaders are if they are always trying to convince us that they are the same as a man.

Has anybody noticed that Kamala Harris talks like a woman?

Margaret Thatcher worked on speaking in a deeper voice. Hillary Clinton, like all the female candidates I can think of, projects a serious and formal persona that is really  asexual. Kamala usually speaks in this gentle, higher pitched voice, that projects a kind of sweetness that shows her feminity. She is being herself! Does anyone agree? If so, do you think this will help her or hurt her in a nationwide general election?

I&#39;ve often wondered what good women leaders are if they are always trying to convince us that they are the same as a man.


Literally just the same bullshit different year

I love how republicans are using the same of bullshit playbook they used with Obama and are using it against Kamala Harris


Mark Kelly hits back at Donald Trump for comments on Kamala Harris; "I think those are the comments of a desperate, scared old man, who, over the last week especially, has been having his butt kicked by an experienced prosecutor, and I think he’s worried"


Vote Climate U.S. PAC


Sen. Mark Kelly rips Trump over role in killing bipartisan border bill


Sorry, not sure if this is against the rules of the Subreddit (really sorry if it is), but I thought it would be fun to make a pros and cons list for each of the three candidates who appear to be in the VP shortlist: Andy Beshear, Pete Buttigieg, Mark Kelly, Josh Shapiro and Tim Walz.

 I'm not going to give my own opinion, and this list is not necessarily representative about my own opinion.

Likewise, if I list a position a candidate has taken as a con, that is not a criticism of that position, just a reflection over how I believe it could play in November.

Andy Beshear

Pros:
-Young
-Proven track record of winning in a red state, on issues important to the Democratic base such as abortion and protecting trans youth
-Seen as highly competent, dealt natural disasters/emergencies well
-Can attack Vance
-Appeals to blue-collar voters
-Strong with labor unions but not seen as too progressive to turn off swing voters
-Record of bipartisanship
-Very popular in Kentucky
-Connects well with voters
-Is a governor, could bring a different type of experience to the ticket

Cons:
-Republicans will bash him as having been born with a "silver spoon" in his mouth, could open ticket to "Democratic elite" attacks
-Kentucky isn't in play
-Concerns among some groups over record on abortion

Pete Buttigieg

Pros:
-Young
-Talented attack dog
-Strong communicator
-Could have good chemistry with Harris-their husbands are friends.
-Strong fundraiser
-Would invigorate the base
-From Midwest, his husband is from Michigan
-Inspiring story
-Connects well with voters
-Served in Afghanistan
-Helped implement much of the Build Back Better Plan

Cons:
-Will be criticised over response to East Palestine train derailment
-Could turn off swing voters
-Served with Harris in Biden administration, an administration that is, unfortunately (and I would argue unjustly) unpopular
-Will be blamed for air travel delays.
-Has not served in statewide or federal elected office

Mark Kelly

Pros:
-From a swing state
-Proven track record of winning in a swing state (including in a year where the environment was hostile to Democrats)
-Inspiring personal story
-Was an astronaut/Navy Captain
-Blunts attacks on Harris over immigration
-Gun control advocacy could invigorate the base
-Is seen as knowledgeable and is well-regarded by colleagues
-Considered a pragmatist, won't turn off centrists
-Attuned to local issues in Arizona, such as water conservation

Cons:
-Not from the Midwest
-Arizona borders California, so he doesn't really add much geographic diversity to the ticket
-Didn't cosponsor PRO Act-could hurt campaign's standing with unions and progressives
-Concerns about his strength as a speaker and ability to connect with voters
-Democrats could struggle to hold his Senate seat in a special election

Josh Shapiro

Pros:
-From Pennsylvania, the biggest swing state
-Has a track record of running ahead of other Democratic candidates in Pennsylvania
-Investigated child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church
-Is seen as a competent governor
-Received praise from across the political spectrum for his response to the Interstate 95 Collapse
-As a governor, could bring a different type of experience to the ticket
-Is a brilliant speaker
-Strong fundraiser

Cons:
-Support for school-choice could hurt campaign with unions and progressives
-Staunch support for Israel could turn off progressives and Arabs, and could jeopardise the campaign in Michigan, which has a sizable Arab population

Tim Walz

Pros:
-Is from the Midwest
-Can connect with rural voters
-Repeatedly won in a conservative congressional district
-Used to be a Sergeant
-Was a high school geography teacher and football coach, and served as faculty advisor to the school's GSA
-Popular with progressives, would invigorate the base
-Has a record of achievement in Minnesota having passed laws protecting the right to choose and enacting free school meals for students
-Unexpectedly an attack dog-came up with the "weird" attack line
-Folksy, says it like it is, can connect with voters
-Popular with unions
-Is a governor, so could bring a different type of experience to the ticket
-Out of all contenders, has the most political experience

Cons:
-Is seen as the most progressive candidate under consideration, could turn off swing voters
-Possibly the least known of all contenders on the shortlist
-Is seen by some as a bit gruff
-In the nicest way possible, doesn't exactly radiate youth (although he's actually only six months older than Harris)
-Out of all contenders, has been in politics the longest time

Harris VP Shortlist-Pros and Cons

Sorry, not sure if this is against the rules of the Subreddit (really sorry if it is), but I thought it would be fun to make a pros and cons list for each of the three candidates who appear to be in the VP shortlist: Andy Beshear, Pete Buttigieg, Mark Kelly, Josh Shapiro and Tim Walz.

I&#39;m not going to give my own opinion, and this list is not necessarily representative about my own opinion.

Likewise, if I list a position a candidate has taken as a con, that is not a criticism of that position, just a reflection over how I believe it could play in November.

Andy Beshear

Pros:
-Young
-Proven track record of winning in a red state, on issues important to the Democratic base such as abortion and protecting trans youth
-Seen as highly competent, dealt natural disasters/emergencies well
-Can attack Vance
-Appeals to blue-collar voters
-Strong with labor unions but not seen as too progressive to turn off swing voters
-Record of bipartisanship
-Very popular in Kentucky
-Connects well with voters
-Is a governor, could bring a different type of experience to the ticket

Cons:
-Republicans will bash him as having been born with a &quot;silver spoon&quot; in his mouth, could open ticket to &quot;Democratic elite&quot; attacks
-Kentucky isn&#39;t in play
-Concerns among some groups over record on abortion

Pete Buttigieg

Pros:
-Young
-Talented attack dog
-Strong communicator
-Could have good chemistry with Harris-their husbands are friends.
-Strong fundraiser
-Would invigorate the base
-From Midwest, his husband is from Michigan
-Inspiring story
-Connects well with voters
-Served in Afghanistan
-Helped implement much of the Build Back Better Plan

Cons:
-Will be criticised over response to East Palestine train derailment
-Could turn off swing voters
-Served with Harris in Biden administration, an administration that is, unfortunately (and I would argue unjustly) unpopular
-Will be blamed for air travel delays.
-Has not served in statewide or federal elected office

Mark Kelly

Pros:
-From a swing state
-Proven track record of winning in a swing state (including in a year where the environment was hostile to Democrats)
-Inspiring personal story
-Was an astronaut/Navy Captain
-Blunts attacks on Harris over immigration
-Gun control advocacy could invigorate the base
-Is seen as knowledgeable and is well-regarded by colleagues
-Considered a pragmatist, won&#39;t turn off centrists
-Attuned to local issues in Arizona, such as water conservation

Cons:
-Not from the Midwest
-Arizona borders California, so he doesn&#39;t really add much geographic diversity to the ticket
-Didn&#39;t cosponsor PRO Act-could hurt campaign&#39;s standing with unions and progressives
-Concerns about his strength as a speaker and ability to connect with voters
-Democrats could struggle to hold his Senate seat in a special election

Josh Shapiro

Pros:
-From Pennsylvania, the biggest swing state
-Has a track record of running ahead of other Democratic candidates in Pennsylvania
-Investigated child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church
-Is seen as a competent governor
-Received praise from across the political spectrum for his response to the Interstate 95 Collapse
-As a governor, could bring a different type of experience to the ticket
-Is a brilliant speaker
-Strong fundraiser

Cons:
-Support for school-choice could hurt campaign with unions and progressives
-Staunch support for Israel could turn off progressives and Arabs, and could jeopardise the campaign in Michigan, which has a sizable Arab population

Tim Walz

Pros:
-Is from the Midwest
-Can connect with rural voters
-Repeatedly won in a conservative congressional district
-Used to be a Sergeant
-Was a high school geography teacher and football coach, and served as faculty advisor to the school&#39;s GSA
-Popular with progressives, would invigorate the base
-Has a record of achievement in Minnesota having passed laws protecting the right to choose and enacting free school meals for students
-Unexpectedly an attack dog-came up with the &quot;weird&quot; attack line
-Folksy, says it like it is, can connect with voters
-Popular with unions
-Is a governor, so could bring a different type of experience to the ticket
-Out of all contenders, has the most political experience

Cons:
-Is seen as the most progressive candidate under consideration, could turn off swing voters
-Possibly the least known of all contenders on the shortlist
-Is seen by some as a bit gruff
-In the nicest way possible, doesn&#39;t exactly radiate youth (although he&#39;s actually only six months older than Harris)
-Out of all contenders, has been in politics the longest time


Imagine this, at her next rally the Vice President standing next to an empty podium and she introduces her opponent, President Trump.

What do you guys think?

V.P. Kamala and an empty podium:


Is it better to do early or wait till the hype slows down.

Does it matter when you donate?


Former FBI official Peter Strzok reaches $1.2 million settlement with Justice Dept over Trump-related texts


"He says this all the time now": Maddow sounds the alarm on Trump's "strange" voting remarks


Harris Trolls Trump: I’ll Go to Debate Even If You Don’t


Biden rolls out plan to overhaul the Supreme Court


Many Trump voters are upset that prices at the grocery store and housing prices have risen under Biden. They believe that somehow Trump is going to fix this. Many will choose Trump solely on this issue. Kamala needs to press the point that Trump is not going to fix this, he is going to make it worse. Not to mention losing healthcare, child meal assistance, etc. He needs to be corrected every time he says that China will pay for tariffs. He needs to be schooled like a little child and his supporters need to understand that THEY pay for tariffs and tariffs will raise costs.

"It's the economy stupid"


Heard this on the mideas touch network yt channel. Its an old clip from 2004 yet i dont remember hearing it in 2015 or 2019, and just now hearing it for the first time? Seem pretty damming to me, and would have been a great further evidence during acceas holleywood video release in 2015. Does dump trump get a pass because it was on the howard stern?

https://youtu.be/HdVq27tVnus?si=m7gHaBu5oDneqjs6

Why have I never heard this Trump clip before?


I keep seeing Trump supporters insisting there is no grassroots support. They suggest that crowd funding Zooms are a bunch of bots sending dark money and the crowds are camera angles and AI
 I have never been to a political rally in over 20 years as a voter.

Suddenly I am looking on Amazon for cat ears and choosing a t-shirts and Converse sneakers  so I am ready to attend when she comes t my state.  Are other people feeling with way or am I gonna be the lone crazy in a town hall meeting of 20 people?

“Fake” momentum


'Ridiculous and obnoxious and wrong': Mark Kelly blasts JD Vance over 'cat ladies' insult


I'm getting really excited about Kamala Harris campaign! I've seen a couple of her ads and her speeches have been on point it's kind of amazing she's rallied and organized so quickly...however… Do any other of you have this feeling that this is too good to be true that America would actually elect a black female president? I want this so bad not only because the sweetness of a woman beating Donald Trump would be more than I could imagine but I do really think she would do a good job and be good for us Americans… and be such a great role model and example for young women all over this country…

But is it too good to be true? Can this really happen? I just can't help but have that nagging feeling that it won't…

Too good to be true?

I&#39;m getting really excited about Kamala Harris campaign! I&#39;ve seen a couple of her ads and her speeches have been on point it&#39;s kind of amazing she&#39;s rallied and organized so quickly...however… Do any other of you have this feeling that this is too good to be true that America would actually elect a black female president? I want this so bad not only because the sweetness of a woman beating Donald Trump would be more than I could imagine but I do really think she would do a good job and be good for us Americans… and be such a great role model and example for young women all over this country…

But is it too good to be true? Can this really happen? I just can&#39;t help but have that nagging feeling that it won&#39;t…


We need to do everything we can to keep Republicans in the minority in both chambers.  If we don't, we will not stand a chance of overhauling the crooked Supreme Court, abolishing the electorate (which is just stealing elections from the majority), or implementing other necessary fundamental changes.  I, for one, want to avoid having to go through another election where a convicted felon conman can be elected, and we can change that, but it is going to take both houses and the president to accomplish.

We need to remember that electing Kamala is not enough.  We need to give her the House and the Senate if we want real change instead of gridlock and Chaos!

We need to do everything we can to keep Republicans in the minority in both chambers.  If we don&#39;t, we will not stand a chance of overhauling the crooked Supreme Court, abolishing the electorate (which is just stealing elections from the majority), or implementing other necessary fundamental changes.  I, for one, want to avoid having to go through another election where a convicted felon conman can be elected, and we can change that, but it is going to take both houses and the president to accomplish.


I'm guessing there's a list somewhere. Can someone please point me towards it?

Is there a list of all cases of Republicans challenging 2020 election results and the court's rulings?

I&#39;m guessing there&#39;s a list somewhere. Can someone please point me towards it?


Calling a running presidential candidate a DEI hire that’s served as a local prosecutor , state attorney general and senator while you elected a reality game show TV host with no history of public service that’s bankrupted multiple companies under his name and a VP thats only been in politics 2 years ??? It amazes me these people still receive support , let alone votes

The past few weeks really has shown that irony is dead in American politics


Barack Obama officially endorses Kamala Harris


Donald Trump's gains with Black voters have been wiped out


Why do news outlets like CNN continue to make polite and understated commentary like *"False Statements"* rather than sply calling it out like it is. LIES.

"FACT CHECK: Trump told at least 10 *LIES* about Kamala Harris in a single rally speech."

That's what the article should be titled as because that's the truth. A lie is a lie and no a *false statement*.

Why does the media continue to accommodate Donald Trump?

Why do news outlets like CNN continue to make polite and understated commentary like &quot;False Statements&quot; rather than sply calling it out like it is. LIES.

&quot;FACT CHECK: Trump told at least 10 LIES about Kamala Harris in a single rally speech.&quot;

That&#39;s what the article should be titled as because that&#39;s the truth. A lie is a lie and no a false statement.


James Bowman:
I wrote a book, but no one calls me a writer.

I went to Yale, but no one calls me a Yalie.

I went to the military as a PR guy, but no one calls me a hero.

But I fuck ONE couch…

(James Bowman is JD Vance)

Just ONE couch


Why would they only go with the demagogue? There are many other Republicans who are much more competent and qualified.

Why do they support this former *Pizza Hut stuffed-crust pizza spokesman? There are many other Republicans with real experience.

Why are they fucking worshiping the feet of a serial liar, cheat, and exploiter? He's the furthest from the representation of Christian beliefs than anyone they would associate with. My Methodist pastor father-in-law points out everything about him which is in absolute contradiction to the Christian faith.

They have so many other choices.

Why would they only go with the demagogue? There are many other Republicans who are much more competent and qualified.

Why do they support this former *Pizza Hut stuffed-crust pizza spokesman? There are many other Republicans with real experience.

Why are they fucking worshiping the feet of a serial liar, cheat, and exploiter? He&#39;s the furthest from the representation of Christian beliefs than anyone they would associate with. My Methodist pastor father-in-law points out everything about him which is in absolute contradiction to the Christian faith.


Why do you think they gave up on mispronouncing her name?

Y'all notice how conservative media/politicians magically all learned how to pronounce Kamala's name?


Even if it was true her family once owned slaves , which I'm pretty sure they didn't. Then what would that have to do with now? Aren't conservatives always saying you can't hold them accountable for what their family did in the 1700s?

Are they seriously trying to win over black voters or something? They know she's black right?

The dumbest is them saying being a prosecutor makes her a slave owner.

You can say prisoners are modern slaves, but Republicans are the ones who won't even entertain the thought of changing that loophole.

So the only proof is https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2024/07/23/kamala-harris-is-a-descendant-of-an-irish-slave-owner-in-jamaica/

It doesn't say how she's related or if it was consensual. Most likely not.

Edit: here come the racist trolls

Her WHITE IRISH ancestor raped/forcefully married her black Jamaican ancestor who were yes, slaves.
Her family were not "black slave owners". They were slaves.How is this so hard for people to grasp?

Wtf is up with the Kamala is a slave owner meme the right is pushing?

Even if it was true her family once owned slaves , which I&#39;m pretty sure they didn&#39;t. Then what would that have to do with now? Aren&#39;t conservatives always saying you can&#39;t hold them accountable for what their family did in the 1700s?

Are they seriously trying to win over black voters or something? They know she&#39;s black right?

The dumbest is them saying being a prosecutor makes her a slave owner.

You can say prisoners are modern slaves, but Republicans are the ones who won&#39;t even entertain the thought of changing that loophole.

So the only proof is https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2024/07/23/kamala-harris-is-a-descendant-of-an-irish-slave-owner-in-jamaica/

It doesn&#39;t say how she&#39;s related or if it was consensual. Most likely not.

Edit: here come the racist trolls

Her WHITE IRISH ancestor raped/forcefully married her black Jamaican ancestor who were yes, slaves.
Her family were not &quot;black slave owners&quot;. They were slaves.How is this so hard for people to grasp?


Kamala Harris’s Harsh New Trump Takedown Cleverly Flips Script on GOP


I just ordered a ten pack of Kamala Harris for president bumper stickers and plan to give 9 of them away to friends and family and you should too!

The narrative right now is one of positivity and momentum and we need to keep that going. An explosion of Harris gear over the next week will help subtly reinforce the message that the people are excited about Vice President Harris.

Build on the momentum!


This article from the Economist popped up in my morning read. The authors bemoans Harris socialist agenda writing

“ that includes trying to secure more funding for kindergarten, higher wages for homecare workers and paid family leave for all. So it was no coincidence that the first two unions to endorse Ms Harris, within hours of Mr Biden’s exit from the presidential race, were the American Federation of Teachers and the Service Employees International Union, which represents nurses, among others “.

As a ER nurses who got COVID 3 times and came back to work during the pandemic 😷 I am not at all surprised at the editors condescending voice towards America middle class, BUT OPPOSING KINDERGARTEN help for working families is just plainly vile and quite detestable IMHO

Conservatives are steadfast opponents of investing in middle class


Has this administration set precedence for a repeated cycle of termination and rehiring? Other than lawsuits what would prevent the next administration from just rehiring folks and giving them retro pay by executive order?

What will prevent the next administration from rehiring all the terminated workers by executive order?


The Vice-President has just said of the courts: "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power." Quoted in the same *Le Monde* article is a section of Francis Fukuyama's take on the current situation:

*"Trump has empowered Elon Musk to withhold money for any activity that he, Elon Musk, thinks is illegitimate, and this is a usurpation of the congressionally established power of Congress to make this kind of decision. (...) This is a full-scale...very radical attack on the American constitutional system as we've understood it."* https://archive.is/cVZZR#selection-2149.264-2149.599

From a European point of view, it appears as though the American centre/left is scrambling to adapt and still suffering from 'normality bias', as though normal methods of recourse will be sufficient against a democratic aberration - a little like waiting to 'pass' a tumour as though it's a kidney stone.

Given the clear comparisons to previous authoritarian takeovers and the power that the USA wields, will there be an acceptable raising of political stakes from Trump's opponents, and what are the risks and benefits of doing so?

If Trump/Musk are indeed subverting American democratic norms, what is a proportional response?

The Vice-President has just said of the courts: &quot;Judges aren&#39;t allowed to control the executive&#39;s legitimate power.&quot; Quoted in the same Le Monde article is a section of Francis Fukuyama&#39;s take on the current situation:

&quot;Trump has empowered Elon Musk to withhold money for any activity that he, Elon Musk, thinks is illegitimate, and this is a usurpation of the congressionally established power of Congress to make this kind of decision. (...) This is a full-scale...very radical attack on the American constitutional system as we&#39;ve understood it.&quot; https://archive.is/cVZZR#selection-2149.264-2149.599

From a European point of view, it appears as though the American centre/left is scrambling to adapt and still suffering from &#39;normality bias&#39;, as though normal methods of recourse will be sufficient against a democratic aberration - a little like waiting to &#39;pass&#39; a tumour as though it&#39;s a kidney stone.

Given the clear comparisons to previous authoritarian takeovers and the power that the USA wields, will there be an acceptable raising of political stakes from Trump&#39;s opponents, and what are the risks and benefits of doing so?


I've been noticing that Trump has been making almost all of his public appearances and statements exclusively from the Oval Office since taking office. From what I remember, past presidents used a variety of locations—press briefings, the Rose Garden, town halls, or even off-site events—to communicate with the public.

Is this a normal shift in strategy, or do you think there’s a specific reason behind it? Does it seem unusual?

Is it normal for a president to only address the public from the Oval Office?

I&#39;ve been noticing that Trump has been making almost all of his public appearances and statements exclusively from the Oval Office since taking office. From what I remember, past presidents used a variety of locations—press briefings, the Rose Garden, town halls, or even off-site events—to communicate with the public.

Is this a normal shift in strategy, or do you think there’s a specific reason behind it? Does it seem unusual?


Trump’s proposed budget bill, currently under consideration in Congress, includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts over ten years, while Musk’s federal spending reduction goal would cut roughly $2 trillion per year. However, Trump’s budget aims to reduce spending by $2 trillion over ten years. Trump has previously argued that federal spending contributes to inflation, yet his tax plan is projected to increase the deficit by trillions of dollars due to lost revenue. Given that the economy is in a growth phase, could this policy contribute to inflationary pressures? Historically, tax cuts and deficit spending are more common and economically sound during recessions to stimulate demand. What is the strategic rationale for implementing this policy now?

The Trump budget bill includes $4.5T in tax cuts, while Musk’s DoGE objective is to only reduce taxes by $2T. How will this affect the economy?


In your opinion, who has been the best president/prime minister/king/queen/dictator of your country and why?

Please also specify if you lived that period during the subject was in charge.

Please explain the reasons in your answer

Who has been the best president of your country?


Even before trump, people were pretty dissatisfied with the state of US politics. If we get rid of Trump, there's still a huge movement of people who support him and the trajectory we're on.

So, what do democrats need to do to change the tide in the country? Is there anything we can do (speaking long-term)?

And, keep in mind that there are problems in the government beyond the current administration that we want to deal with like lobbying, insider trading, bureaucratic inefficiency, media misinformation, government overspending, the prison system, policing, institutional racism, the Medicare system, social security, etc.

Do you think US democrats would benefit from having a comprehensive plan (like project 2025, but different) and a charasmatic leader? Or what do you think democrats need in order to enact substantive change?

Even before trump, people were pretty dissatisfied with the state of US politics. If we get rid of Trump, there&#39;s still a huge movement of people who support him and the trajectory we&#39;re on.

So, what do democrats need to do to change the tide in the country? Is there anything we can do (speaking long-term)?

And, keep in mind that there are problems in the government beyond the current administration that we want to deal with like lobbying, insider trading, bureaucratic inefficiency, media misinformation, government overspending, the prison system, policing, institutional racism, the Medicare system, social security, etc.


It seems like Donald Trump is threatening to place steep tariffs on both the USA's allies and rivals and everything in between. During his first presidency, he didn't seem to be so trigger-happy with tariffs?

Where did Trump get the idea of making so many tariffs? Is he basing this off the advice of economic or diplomatic experts? Would he, or his backers, personally benefit if the USA placed tariffs on most (if not all) other countries?

Where did Donald Trump get the idea of being so trigger-happy with tariffs?

It seems like Donald Trump is threatening to place steep tariffs on both the USA&#39;s allies and rivals and everything in between. During his first presidency, he didn&#39;t seem to be so trigger-happy with tariffs?

Where did Trump get the idea of making so many tariffs? Is he basing this off the advice of economic or diplomatic experts? Would he, or his backers, personally benefit if the USA placed tariffs on most (if not all) other countries?


From purging FBI senior executives, DOJ prosecutors, IGs without giving Congress notice and reason as law they passed in 2022 demanded, getting even the most controversial nominees confirmed,  to everything else, the power Trump has over party  is undeniable:

[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/04/trump-jack-smith-special-counsel-prosecutors-firings](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/04/trump-jack-smith-special-counsel-prosecutors-firings)

[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-says-hell-fire-some-fbi-agents-very-surgically](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-says-hell-fire-some-fbi-agents-very-surgically)

And his alience with Musk who threatens to fund primary opponents of Republicans if they oppose Trump has made him more powerful than ever in the party. Even companies like Meta are trying to appease him and pivot right. Nixon would wish if he could have gotten away with fraction stuff Trump can lmo.    Trump has either thrown out or pacified the neocon establishment that ruled the party before.  Do you think in near future  there will be political figure with that kind of sway over either party? Do you think JD Vance can retain that kind of power over the party?

Do you think any politician will in near future have as much personal loyalty and control over the party as Donald Trump does?

From purging FBI senior executives, DOJ prosecutors, IGs without giving Congress notice and reason as law they passed in 2022 demanded, getting even the most controversial nominees confirmed,  to everything else, the power Trump has over party  is undeniable:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/04/trump-jack-smith-special-counsel-prosecutors-firings

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-says-hell-fire-some-fbi-agents-very-surgically

And his alience with Musk who threatens to fund primary opponents of Republicans if they oppose Trump has made him more powerful than ever in the party. Even companies like Meta are trying to appease him and pivot right. Nixon would wish if he could have gotten away with fraction stuff Trump can lmo.    Trump has either thrown out or pacified the neocon establishment that ruled the party before.  Do you think in near future  there will be political figure with that kind of sway over either party? Do you think JD Vance can retain that kind of power over the party?


In my workplace (and it seems the country), there are huge differences in political views. I boil it down to what exactly the person thinks the role of Federal government should be.

So what do YOU think the role of the Federal government should be, why, and what is your political leanings?

Thank you!

What do you believe the role of the Federal government is?


I know states are responsible for elections, so ordinarily the answer would probably be "not much". But, under the following assumptions:

* The president and his allies say there is widescale election fraud occurring in blue or swing states, to the favor of Democrats.
* They aim to address the purported imbalance in some manner which, naturally, greatly reduces the number of votes for Democrats that are counted.
* The legislative branch is cooperative.
* The Supreme Court is either cooperative, or the courts are being disregarded entirely.
* The states do not wish to cooperate.

What levers of power could the president and his allies pull? How effective could they be?

What could the executive branch do to address purported election fraud in blue states?

I know states are responsible for elections, so ordinarily the answer would probably be &quot;not much&quot;. But, under the following assumptions:

The president and his allies say there is widescale election fraud occurring in blue or swing states, to the favor of Democrats.

They aim to address the purported imbalance in some manner which, naturally, greatly reduces the number of votes for Democrats that are counted.

The legislative branch is cooperative.

The Supreme Court is either cooperative, or the courts are being disregarded entirely.

The states do not wish to cooperate.

What levers of power could the president and his allies pull? How effective could they be?


Musk claimed during his [shared press conference](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-trump-makes-appearance-with-musk-signs-executive-order-downsizing-federal-workforce) with the president that Trump made federal government reform a priority, such as ending USAID and ending the Consumer Financial Protections Bureau and shrinking the federal government through buyouts.

However, Trump's official 2024 website makes no explicit mention of improving federal government efficiency or reforming USAID or the CFPB or eliminating federal jobs.

[https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform/](https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform/)

Was it your impression during Trump's 2024 campaign that Trump wanted to see the actions being taken by DOGE, or is Musk in fact going "rogue" and executing his own agenda?

Musk recently claimed that Trump voters voted for major government reform, such as ending USAID, and that he and Trump must follow through with this reform.  Was this your impression of Trump's platform, or is Musk "going rogue"?

Musk claimed during his shared press conference with the president that Trump made federal government reform a priority, such as ending USAID and ending the Consumer Financial Protections Bureau and shrinking the federal government through buyouts.

However, Trump&#39;s official 2024 website makes no explicit mention of improving federal government efficiency or reforming USAID or the CFPB or eliminating federal jobs.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform/

Was it your impression during Trump&#39;s 2024 campaign that Trump wanted to see the actions being taken by DOGE, or is Musk in fact going &quot;rogue&quot; and executing his own agenda?


The FBI director is supposed to be appointed by senate consent for a ten year term, but this isn't especially effective. Hoover became infamous for turning it into somewhat of a secret police, after which it was curtailed.

Most sheriffs in America are elected directly, usually with four year renewable terms, and may be subject to recall, and oddly with partisan elections. Turnout tends to be low, if there even is competition for the job, though changing the timing of such votes to happen on coherent days would help with that problem. A few places have an elected commission overseeing the police. What approaches are you most in favour of?

Edit: This post is about the main directors, leaders, chief of police, not most of the officers themselves.

What are the best ways to keep those who direct law enforcement both accountable but also independent of being used for personal or corrupt reasons?

The FBI director is supposed to be appointed by senate consent for a ten year term, but this isn&#39;t especially effective. Hoover became infamous for turning it into somewhat of a secret police, after which it was curtailed.

Most sheriffs in America are elected directly, usually with four year renewable terms, and may be subject to recall, and oddly with partisan elections. Turnout tends to be low, if there even is competition for the job, though changing the timing of such votes to happen on coherent days would help with that problem. A few places have an elected commission overseeing the police. What approaches are you most in favour of?

Edit: This post is about the main directors, leaders, chief of police, not most of the officers themselves.


You definitely already know this, but Donald Trump is the first Republican since George W. Bush in 2004 to win the popular vote.

I'm not sure what to think of it. One side tells me that this is just another strange quirk of Trump that won't translate to other GOP candidates and the other tells me that this is honestly a popular shift towards Conservatism.

What do you think?

Do you think that Trump's PV win in 2024 is a fluke, or do you think that it represents a larger shift towards Conservatism?

You definitely already know this, but Donald Trump is the first Republican since George W. Bush in 2004 to win the popular vote.

I&#39;m not sure what to think of it. One side tells me that this is just another strange quirk of Trump that won&#39;t translate to other GOP candidates and the other tells me that this is honestly a popular shift towards Conservatism.

What do you think?


Hegseth's recent comments at the Contact Group about how to end the Ukraine war is causing significant concerns in Ukraine as well as to EU NATO Members. In his first trip abroad, the new U.S. defense secretary told allies, including NATO officials, that a durable peace could only come ‘with a realistic assessment of the battlefield.’ He went on to add that any resolution cannot include a path to Ukrainian NATO Membership.

Hours later, Mr. Trump wrote on social media that he had a long phone call with Putin and that they had agreed to “start negotiations immediately” to end the war.

To some, it sounded more like what Kremlin would propose.  Is it looking likely that the U.S. is going to abandon Ukraine, or this is just a part of forcing the war to come to an end?

[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine-regaining-pre-2014-borders-unrealistic-objective-hegseth-says-first-nato-visit](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine-regaining-pre-2014-borders-unrealistic-objective-hegseth-says-first-nato-visit)

[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy0pz3er37jo](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy0pz3er37jo)

Hegseth&#39;s recent comments at the Contact Group about how to end the Ukraine war is causing significant concerns in Ukraine as well as to EU NATO Members. In his first trip abroad, the new U.S. defense secretary told allies, including NATO officials, that a durable peace could only come ‘with a realistic assessment of the battlefield.’ He went on to add that any resolution cannot include a path to Ukrainian NATO Membership.

Hours later, Mr. Trump wrote on social media that he had a long phone call with Putin and that they had agreed to “start negotiations immediately” to end the war.

To some, it sounded more like what Kremlin would propose.  Is it looking likely that the U.S. is going to abandon Ukraine, or this is just a part of forcing the war to come to an end?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine-regaining-pre-2014-borders-unrealistic-objective-hegseth-says-first-nato-visit

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy0pz3er37jo


Ah, globalization! That grand economic experiment where we were told that free markets would lift all boats, make us all richer, and turn the world into one big happy trading family. At first, it worked. Trade flourished, economies grew, and capitalists popped champagne. But here’s where things get tricky.

What tends to happen next is less of a fairy tale and more of a thriller. Once firms grow large enough to wield the magic wand of global supply chains, they begin an efficiency quest. Labour, once a stable and locally anchored force, becomes a game of arbitrage—moving from high-wage economies to lower-cost regions. At first, this boosts corporate profits and consumer purchasing power (who doesn’t love cheap gadgets?). But soon enough, it triggers a paradox: the same workers who benefited from cheaper goods suddenly find themselves out of a job because their own wages are now “too expensive” compared to, say, a factory in Vietnam or a call center in the Philippines.

This isn’t a novel observation. Dani Rodrik, in *The Globalization Paradox*, argues that nations must choose two out of three: **democracy, national sovereignty, and hyper-globalization**—but never all three at once. When companies chase cheap labour worldwide, it weakens the social contract at home, destabilizing domestic politics. Karl Polanyi, way back in *The Great Transformation*, predicted that unregulated markets would eventually provoke a political backlash. Sound familiar?

As globalization speeds up, firms consolidate. Economies of scale mean that once an industry starts outsourcing, the biggest players outgrow competition at an alarming rate. What we’re left with isn’t the efficient free market of Adam Smith’s dreams, but rather a handful of corporate behemoths who shape industries, dictate wages, and set the rules. It’s not capitalism eating itself—it’s capitalism evolving into oligopoly.

And here’s where things get dark. Economic distress fuels political instability. Laid-off workers, unable to transition fast enough to new jobs, don’t stay quietly unemployed. They get angry. They vote. And not for centrists promising nuanced economic policy—no, they turn to populists, strongmen, and “disruptors” who promise to break the system that failed them. Protectionism rises, economic nationalism takes over, and before you know it, the world is no longer discussing trade deals but trade wars. Worse still, history suggests economic dislocation is one of the key ingredients for actual wars (see: the 1930s).

So here’s my question to you, fellow Redditors and armchair economists: **Is there a way for economics to self-correct before it spirals into geopolitical disaster? Can we design policies that maintain competitive markets while preventing the economic distortions that lead to instability and war?**

Would love to hear your thoughts—before the next financial crisis or world conflict proves the theory right.

Did Globalization Just Make the Free Market Too Efficient for Its Own Good?

Ah, globalization! That grand economic experiment where we were told that free markets would lift all boats, make us all richer, and turn the world into one big happy trading family. At first, it worked. Trade flourished, economies grew, and capitalists popped champagne. But here’s where things get tricky.

What tends to happen next is less of a fairy tale and more of a thriller. Once firms grow large enough to wield the magic wand of global supply chains, they begin an efficiency quest. Labour, once a stable and locally anchored force, becomes a game of arbitrage—moving from high-wage economies to lower-cost regions. At first, this boosts corporate profits and consumer purchasing power (who doesn’t love cheap gadgets?). But soon enough, it triggers a paradox: the same workers who benefited from cheaper goods suddenly find themselves out of a job because their own wages are now “too expensive” compared to, say, a factory in Vietnam or a call center in the Philippines.

This isn’t a novel observation. Dani Rodrik, in The Globalization Paradox, argues that nations must choose two out of three: democracy, national sovereignty, and hyper-globalization—but never all three at once. When companies chase cheap labour worldwide, it weakens the social contract at home, destabilizing domestic politics. Karl Polanyi, way back in The Great Transformation, predicted that unregulated markets would eventually provoke a political backlash. Sound familiar?

As globalization speeds up, firms consolidate. Economies of scale mean that once an industry starts outsourcing, the biggest players outgrow competition at an alarming rate. What we’re left with isn’t the efficient free market of Adam Smith’s dreams, but rather a handful of corporate behemoths who shape industries, dictate wages, and set the rules. It’s not capitalism eating itself—it’s capitalism evolving into oligopoly.

And here’s where things get dark. Economic distress fuels political instability. Laid-off workers, unable to transition fast enough to new jobs, don’t stay quietly unemployed. They get angry. They vote. And not for centrists promising nuanced economic policy—no, they turn to populists, strongmen, and “disruptors” who promise to break the system that failed them. Protectionism rises, economic nationalism takes over, and before you know it, the world is no longer discussing trade deals but trade wars. Worse still, history suggests economic dislocation is one of the key ingredients for actual wars (see: the 1930s).

So here’s my question to you, fellow Redditors and armchair economists: Is there a way for economics to self-correct before it spirals into geopolitical disaster? Can we design policies that maintain competitive markets while preventing the economic distortions that lead to instability and war?

Would love to hear your thoughts—before the next financial crisis or world conflict proves the theory right.


Hello everyone,
During the elections in Germany, I tried to find out about the current situation in Ukraine. My problem is that I have not yet found a trustworthy source that analyzes whether Ukraine is even capable of winning the war with the troops it has available. If this is the case, I have not yet been able to find any information about how many billions of $/€ in military aid would be necessary to achieve this goal.

Important: (Winning is defined here as: completely recapturing the territory conquered by Russia)

So here are my questions:

1. Can Ukraine win the war with the current number of soldiers?

2. How much military aid in $/€ must be invested to achieve this type of victory?

3. How many soldiers would likely lose their lives as a result?

I am aware that the war could easily be ended through intervention in the form of NATO operations (even if this also raises the question of costs and human lives and hardly any NATO country is currently in favor of this). Since this is not the question asked here, I would ask you to ignore this possibility.

Furthermore, if figures and facts are mentioned, I would ask you to verify them with links to sources.

Thanks

Can Ukraine win?

Hello everyone,

During the elections in Germany, I tried to find out about the current situation in Ukraine. My problem is that I have not yet found a trustworthy source that analyzes whether Ukraine is even capable of winning the war with the troops it has available. If this is the case, I have not yet been able to find any information about how many billions of $/€ in military aid would be necessary to achieve this goal.

Important: (Winning is defined here as: completely recapturing the territory conquered by Russia)

So here are my questions:

Can Ukraine win the war with the current number of soldiers?

How much military aid in $/€ must be invested to achieve this type of victory?

How many soldiers would likely lose their lives as a result?

I am aware that the war could easily be ended through intervention in the form of NATO operations (even if this also raises the question of costs and human lives and hardly any NATO country is currently in favor of this). Since this is not the question asked here, I would ask you to ignore this possibility.

Furthermore, if figures and facts are mentioned, I would ask you to verify them with links to sources.

Thanks


I’ve seen this argument framed in a few different ways, but a number of conservatives have said that what Trump is doing is perfectly within bound of an executive branch which has been empowered for decades and that democrats are just mad that this is now being used against them.

Is this a valid argument or do you believe Trump is going beyond his scope of authority?

Is what Trump is doing the inevitable consequences of expanding the power of the executive branch over time?


If you had the ultimate power of deciding, who would you pick, and for what reason? Furthermore, who do you think will win? Whether you hope for that candidate to win or not, who is most likely to win the primaries?

Edit: some of y'all have said that there won't be an election in 2028, which is a valid complaint to have, but The House, and The Senate usually have the final say, which is why Trump may end up attempting to run for a third term, but he will most likely be stopped.

Who would you pick as the Democratic Primary in 2028?

If you had the ultimate power of deciding, who would you pick, and for what reason? Furthermore, who do you think will win? Whether you hope for that candidate to win or not, who is most likely to win the primaries?

Edit: some of y&#39;all have said that there won&#39;t be an election in 2028, which is a valid complaint to have, but The House, and The Senate usually have the final say, which is why Trump may end up attempting to run for a third term, but he will most likely be stopped.


Is congress the enforcement arm of the federal courts for the president? During the Nixon administration and the watergate scandal, Nixon was considering refusing to listen to the Supreme Court which then led to congress threatening to impeach him, and after this he abided. With Trump now being over the US Marshals, is congress technically the only enforcement arm available to the federal courts in the case that Trump won’t oblige?


People have talked about what happens after trump, he's nearly 80 and at some point will no longer be able to be the standard bearer for the Republican party.

My question, could you see Republicans return to a Paul Ryan style of "normal" conservative candidate after the last 8+ years of the pro wrestling heel act that has been Donald trump?

Will the Republican party ever go back to normal candidates again?

People have talked about what happens after trump, he&#39;s nearly 80 and at some point will no longer be able to be the standard bearer for the Republican party.

My question, could you see Republicans return to a Paul Ryan style of &quot;normal&quot; conservative candidate after the last 8+ years of the pro wrestling heel act that has been Donald trump?


[Trump declines to endorse Vance as 2028 successor](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-declines-endorse-jd-vance-2028-successor-2029106), which lead me to think how he would run for a third term and he has spoke about it before.

The [Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) states that:

>Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

>Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

Then the [Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) states:

>But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

It seems rather clear that a President cannot *run* for POTUS after two terms and they are not eligible for being vice president.  I think this sets three scenarios for Trump becoming President a third time.

**Option 1:** He still runs as President a third time and this may be considered an "official act."  Yes, it's technically against the US Constitution, Amendment 22, but who would be able to stop him if he's legally protected?

**Option 2:** Trump runs for Speaker of the House in 2028, supporting the two others for President and Vice President on the Republican ticket.  They resign after being sworn in and Trump becomes President again.

**Option 3:**  The SCOTUS could look into the ratification since you need 75% of states to agree to the amendment.  We could see that some states "pull" their submissions, enough to put it under the threshold or challenge the legality of the original submission.  The SCOTUS takes the case and makes it legal for them to pull their requests, the amendment gets dissolved.

Which option do you think Trump would take?  Are there any more possibilities that Trump could try for a third term?

Do you believe that Trump will try for a third term?

Trump declines to endorse Vance as 2028 successor, which lead me to think how he would run for a third term and he has spoke about it before.

The Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution states that:

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

Then the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

It seems rather clear that a President cannot run for POTUS after two terms and they are not eligible for being vice president.  I think this sets three scenarios for Trump becoming President a third time.

Option 1: He still runs as President a third time and this may be considered an &quot;official act.&quot;  Yes, it&#39;s technically against the US Constitution, Amendment 22, but who would be able to stop him if he&#39;s legally protected?

Option 2: Trump runs for Speaker of the House in 2028, supporting the two others for President and Vice President on the Republican ticket.  They resign after being sworn in and Trump becomes President again.

Option 3:  The SCOTUS could look into the ratification since you need 75% of states to agree to the amendment.  We could see that some states &quot;pull&quot; their submissions, enough to put it under the threshold or challenge the legality of the original submission.  The SCOTUS takes the case and makes it legal for them to pull their requests, the amendment gets dissolved.

Which option do you think Trump would take?  Are there any more possibilities that Trump could try for a third term?


Basically, imagine that a new bill has been made into law. Some people are furious and so they get enough signatories to demand a referendum be held on the bill. If the voters approve of the bill, it remains a law, if they don't, it is repealed. Different places have different rules on whether or not the law is provisionally valid pending the vote or not, and how many signatories it takes and how long they have to collect them, in the 23 American states with them it varies from 1.5% in Massachusetts to 15% of the ballots in the last election, and usually 90 days to collect signatures from the end of the session. Switzerland is a prolific user of this mechanism, and in Switzerland, there is no such thing as a court finding a law unconstitutional, the people alone decide whether or not to uphold a law or not.

It could also be incorporated into the way it combines with an executive veto. Iceland's president's veto over bills takes the form of referring the bill to the population to vote on whether or not to sustain the bill. This has been used a couple of times, notably in the Icelandic debt crisis where voters were referred a bill on a restructuring plan and was massively defeated with 98% of the voters opposing the bill with 62% turnout. In Argentina, if the president vetoes a bill, and the congress can't get 2/3 support in both houses to override but can get majority support, the bill goes to a referendum for judgement. You think this is a good idea?

Veto referendums are a way to have electors decide on the fate of laws. Are they a good idea in your mind?

Basically, imagine that a new bill has been made into law. Some people are furious and so they get enough signatories to demand a referendum be held on the bill. If the voters approve of the bill, it remains a law, if they don&#39;t, it is repealed. Different places have different rules on whether or not the law is provisionally valid pending the vote or not, and how many signatories it takes and how long they have to collect them, in the 23 American states with them it varies from 1.5% in Massachusetts to 15% of the ballots in the last election, and usually 90 days to collect signatures from the end of the session. Switzerland is a prolific user of this mechanism, and in Switzerland, there is no such thing as a court finding a law unconstitutional, the people alone decide whether or not to uphold a law or not.

It could also be incorporated into the way it combines with an executive veto. Iceland&#39;s president&#39;s veto over bills takes the form of referring the bill to the population to vote on whether or not to sustain the bill. This has been used a couple of times, notably in the Icelandic debt crisis where voters were referred a bill on a restructuring plan and was massively defeated with 98% of the voters opposing the bill with 62% turnout. In Argentina, if the president vetoes a bill, and the congress can&#39;t get 2/3 support in both houses to override but can get majority support, the bill goes to a referendum for judgement. You think this is a good idea?


We are three weeks into the Trump administration and there are already claims of potential constitutional crises on the horizon.  The first has been the Trump administration essentially impounding congressional approved funds.  While the executive branch gets some amount of discretion, the legislative branch is primarily the one who picks and chooses who and what money is spent on.  The second has been the Trump administration  dissolving and threatening to elimination various agencies.  These include USAID, DoEd, and CFPB, among others.  These agencies are codified by law by Congress.  The third, and the actual constitutional crisis, is the trump administrations defiance of the courts.  Discussion of disregarding court orders originally started with Bannon.  This idea has recently been vocalized by both Vance and Musk.  Today a judge has reasserted his court order for Trump to release funds, which this administration currently has not been following.

The first question, does any of this matter? Sure, this will clearly not poll well but is it actual salient or important to voters?  Average voters have shown to have both a large tolerance of trumps breaking of laws and norms and a very poor view of our current system.  Voters voted for Trump despite the explicit claims that Trump will put the constitution of this country at risk.  They either don’t believe trump is actually a threat or believe that the guardrails will always hold.  But Americans love America and a constitutional crisis hits at the core of our politics.  Will voters only care if it affects them personally?  Will Trump be rewarded for breaking barriers to achieve the goals that he says voters sent him to the White House to achieve?  What can democrats do to gain support besides either falling back on “Trump is killing democracy” or defending very unpopular institutions?

Is the current potential constitutional crisis important to average voters?


There was a supreme court decision in Norway years ago over wind turbines and a group of Sami people had sued over this. And yes, Norway has indigenous people. https://www.jurist.org/news/2024/03/norway-ends-dispute-with-sami-people-over-construction-of-wind-farm-on-indigenous-land/. The Sami actually have a pan-Norwegian parliament of their own with a vote for every Sami.

And if they should have a veto, how far should it extend? Who has the ability to invoke it (EG using eminent domain is normally a power available to the public, but could the veto be issued by only an entire nation of indigenous people or could it be held by individuals too?). Canada got in a big fight for a long time with a pipeline project in British Columbia between elected chiefs and hereditary ones (hereditary isn't technically de jure, they do have to be acclaimed), a group called the Wetsuwetan.

I am assuming for this purpose that this is a project bigger than a single indigenous group. Not an instance of something like a nation deciding to build a road between a couple of villages on their reserve, I'm thinking something like someone building a hydroelectric dam on the Snake River or the Yukon.

How much of a veto do you think indigenous groups should be able to have over public projects?

There was a supreme court decision in Norway years ago over wind turbines and a group of Sami people had sued over this. And yes, Norway has indigenous people. https://www.jurist.org/news/2024/03/norway-ends-dispute-with-sami-people-over-construction-of-wind-farm-on-indigenous-land/. The Sami actually have a pan-Norwegian parliament of their own with a vote for every Sami.

And if they should have a veto, how far should it extend? Who has the ability to invoke it (EG using eminent domain is normally a power available to the public, but could the veto be issued by only an entire nation of indigenous people or could it be held by individuals too?). Canada got in a big fight for a long time with a pipeline project in British Columbia between elected chiefs and hereditary ones (hereditary isn&#39;t technically de jure, they do have to be acclaimed), a group called the Wetsuwetan.

I am assuming for this purpose that this is a project bigger than a single indigenous group. Not an instance of something like a nation deciding to build a road between a couple of villages on their reserve, I&#39;m thinking something like someone building a hydroelectric dam on the Snake River or the Yukon.


So the trump administration seems to think it has the power to just decide things they don't like are waste fraud or abuse and stop funding them..

Close down entire agencies without any legislation...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/thousands-begin-forced-leave-at-usaid-under-trumps-plan-to-gut-the-agency

trump has created a sovereign wealth fund to spend the funds however he sees fit.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/wealth/trump-signs-executive-order-create-sovereign-wealth-fund-2025-02-03/

What would be the point of Congress in this new world? I mean they vote to fund a program, but then the executive branch just says "no' well use that money on something else.

Would this represent a huge shift in the form of government in the US?

What are the consequences if trump is allowed to pick and choose what is funded?

So the trump administration seems to think it has the power to just decide things they don&#39;t like are waste fraud or abuse and stop funding them..

Close down entire agencies without any legislation...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/thousands-begin-forced-leave-at-usaid-under-trumps-plan-to-gut-the-agency

trump has created a sovereign wealth fund to spend the funds however he sees fit.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/wealth/trump-signs-executive-order-create-sovereign-wealth-fund-2025-02-03/

What would be the point of Congress in this new world? I mean they vote to fund a program, but then the executive branch just says &quot;no&#39; well use that money on something else.

Would this represent a huge shift in the form of government in the US?


Canada and the EU are close trade partners and seem to be natural allies on the world stage (https://www.eeas.europa.eu/canada/european-union-and-canada_en?s=220). Given that the Trump administration has made both economic and territorial threats against both Canada and Greenland, I am wondering what sort of political obstacles might need to be overcome to facilitate entry of a non-European country into the EU.

What political obstacles would need to be overcome for Canada to consider joining the EU?


In the 2024 election, many Muslims and Arab Americans abandoned the Democrats, or at least Kamala Harris, mostly due to the US government sending aid to Israel. This actually wasn't the first time they did this-the two abandoned the Republicans, who they up until then backed by a decent amount, following Bush's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (though who knows if they don't come back to the Dems as long as they didn't to the GOP). At least a few openly acknowledged Trump was worse in regards to Gaza or didn't care and still stayed home, backed Stein, or switched to him-most cited just the Gaza response, but at least a couple had their opinion set in stone due to Liz Cheney campaigning with Harris, either way deciding Trump was now the least bad choice or that both candidates didn't deserve their vote.

So, is there anything you think is in the realm of possibility that would cause you to not back your party or outright switch to the main opposing one? Or do you think there's nothing a single candidate in either one can slightly plausibly do to change your mind?

What, if anything would make you not vote for a candidate belonging to the party you typically back at the moment?

In the 2024 election, many Muslims and Arab Americans abandoned the Democrats, or at least Kamala Harris, mostly due to the US government sending aid to Israel. This actually wasn&#39;t the first time they did this-the two abandoned the Republicans, who they up until then backed by a decent amount, following Bush&#39;s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (though who knows if they don&#39;t come back to the Dems as long as they didn&#39;t to the GOP). At least a few openly acknowledged Trump was worse in regards to Gaza or didn&#39;t care and still stayed home, backed Stein, or switched to him-most cited just the Gaza response, but at least a couple had their opinion set in stone due to Liz Cheney campaigning with Harris, either way deciding Trump was now the least bad choice or that both candidates didn&#39;t deserve their vote.

So, is there anything you think is in the realm of possibility that would cause you to not back your party or outright switch to the main opposing one? Or do you think there&#39;s nothing a single candidate in either one can slightly plausibly do to change your mind?


From 1936 to 2000, West Virginia voted democrat reliably. Even until 2016, they voted for a Democratic governor almost every year. They voted for democratic senators  and had at least 1 democratic senator in until 2024. The first time they voted in a republican representative since 1981 was in 2001, and before then, only in 1957. So why are they seen as a very “Trumpy” state?

Why is West Virginia so Trump-Supporting?


This means that the main parties which feature would tend be part of the government, by which I mean executive branch's main heads (a cabinet usually), with a significant fraction of the departments and agents (usually >25%), they often give the post of deputy head of government to another party, and they generally pass legislation together. The two parties in question would normally be rivals and they would normally not be part of the government at the same time. The CDU and SPD in Germany is a good example, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael in Ireland, the OeVP and the SPOe in Austria, the Democratic Party and the African National Congress in South Africa, and more. How much should they feature?

In Germany, it looks like the most likely outcome of the election right now is an SPD, Gruene, and CDU/CSU coalition. A unity government features most of the parties in the legislature, although a few parties may dissent and refuse to be part of it.

Opposition parties do often still exist in the legislature outside of the coalition, and they may be needed to support certain things needing supermajorities like amending the constitution, although sometimes there aren't any members of the legislature to do this.

And no RFJ Jr, this isn't anything related to the idea of a uniparty.

How much should unity governments and grand coalitions feature in the government?

This means that the main parties which feature would tend be part of the government, by which I mean executive branch&#39;s main heads (a cabinet usually), with a significant fraction of the departments and agents (usually &gt;25%), they often give the post of deputy head of government to another party, and they generally pass legislation together. The two parties in question would normally be rivals and they would normally not be part of the government at the same time. The CDU and SPD in Germany is a good example, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael in Ireland, the OeVP and the SPOe in Austria, the Democratic Party and the African National Congress in South Africa, and more. How much should they feature?

In Germany, it looks like the most likely outcome of the election right now is an SPD, Gruene, and CDU/CSU coalition. A unity government features most of the parties in the legislature, although a few parties may dissent and refuse to be part of it.

Opposition parties do often still exist in the legislature outside of the coalition, and they may be needed to support certain things needing supermajorities like amending the constitution, although sometimes there aren&#39;t any members of the legislature to do this.

And no RFJ Jr, this isn&#39;t anything related to the idea of a uniparty.


**Progressives need real change, fast.**
For that to happen, they need leaders who are both bold in vision and broadly electable. The goal isn’t just to make noise; it’s to win and actually govern effectively.

**Conservatives came to the table ready to rock in 2025.**
That level of organization and preparedness is something progressives must learn from. Having the right ideas isn’t enough, they need leaders who can execute, communicate, and work together. **They need a Project 2027.**

----

So, who are the candidates, local, state, and federal, that strike the right balance? Young, energetic, forward-thinking, and capable of working in unison rather than being fragmented.

----

Aside from the candidates themselves, how do they actually make this happen? What’s the best strategy for:

- Identifying and supporting the right candidates early?
- Building a coalition that can work in unison instead of being divided?
- Creating a messaging strategy that resonates with the majority, not just the base?
- Ensuring grassroots efforts translate into real electoral success?
- Learning from past mistakes and building an infrastructure that lasts?

----

Who are the rising stars that actually get it? Who has the vision, the fire, and the ability to win and govern effectively, without falling into the same divisions of the past?

**Drop names, key races, and reasons progressives should get behind them!**

----

**Prompts**: (because I'm not going to lie, I had chatgtp help me put this together due to being dumb)

- new reddit post, political discussion. the prompt / title something like which candidates should progressives be pushing to the front page, lifting up or just overall supporting for 2026 and the future that are likely to advance progressive (like truly star trek progressive) policies in unison and quickly

- we may need to rethink our post. we want drastic change, young and eager candidates, but we also want candidates that are appealing to the majority

- add a neutral mention that the current party has been, if nothing else, extremely efficient or prepared to implement their policy

- These candidates must also be able to work in unison, not as divided as they have been in the past. softer on 'progressive'

- we need to change the policies into more of a discussion topic, something else to plan

- scrap the policies, replace with a discussion on how to actually implement our plan

Who Are the Young, Bold, and Electable Candidates Progressives Should Rally Behind for 2026 and Beyond?

Progressives need real change, fast.

For that to happen, they need leaders who are both bold in vision and broadly electable. The goal isn’t just to make noise; it’s to win and actually govern effectively.

Conservatives came to the table ready to rock in 2025.

That level of organization and preparedness is something progressives must learn from. Having the right ideas isn’t enough, they need leaders who can execute, communicate, and work together. They need a Project 2027.

So, who are the candidates, local, state, and federal, that strike the right balance? Young, energetic, forward-thinking, and capable of working in unison rather than being fragmented.

Aside from the candidates themselves, how do they actually make this happen? What’s the best strategy for:

Identifying and supporting the right candidates early?

Building a coalition that can work in unison instead of being divided?

Creating a messaging strategy that resonates with the majority, not just the base?

Ensuring grassroots efforts translate into real electoral success?

Learning from past mistakes and building an infrastructure that lasts?

Who are the rising stars that actually get it? Who has the vision, the fire, and the ability to win and govern effectively, without falling into the same divisions of the past?

Drop names, key races, and reasons progressives should get behind them!

Prompts: (because I&#39;m not going to lie, I had chatgtp help me put this together due to being dumb)

new reddit post, political discussion. the prompt / title something like which candidates should progressives be pushing to the front page, lifting up or just overall supporting for 2026 and the future that are likely to advance progressive (like truly star trek progressive) policies in unison and quickly

we may need to rethink our post. we want drastic change, young and eager candidates, but we also want candidates that are appealing to the majority

add a neutral mention that the current party has been, if nothing else, extremely efficient or prepared to implement their policy

These candidates must also be able to work in unison, not as divided as they have been in the past. softer on &#39;progressive&#39;

we need to change the policies into more of a discussion topic, something else to plan

scrap the policies, replace with a discussion on how to actually implement our plan


Trump's voter base in 2024 was more diverse than many people expected, with many key groups like Black Americans, Latinos, Asians, and Jews shifting to the right politically. College educated people and young men have also shifted to the right. They didn’t all go for Trump overall but they still shifted to the right compared to previous years.

Cities and their suburbs, traditionally Democratic strongholds, have begun voting more Republican too. This could be important as rural America is shrinking quickly and more people are flocking to urban and suburban areas. By 2050, 89% of the American population is projected to live in urban/suburban areas, up from 83% right now. I think these are things that could shape what the Republican Party becomes in the future and what their priorities are.

The archetype of a Republican voter has traditionally been an older white person from a rural area. But as time goes on, this could change.

We don’t know if these changes are only for 2024 or if it’s a broader trend that will be more permanent. Since these groups may become a bigger part of the Republican electorate, how do you think this will affect the future of conservative politics in the United States if it kept going this direction? Would this curb the influence of far right extremist groups like White nationalists?

Also, despite the increased racial diversity, two groups that shifted further away from Republicans were women and the LGBTQ community, so it will be interesting to see how that develops. I wonder if the divide will shift from race to more about sexuality

I'd like to hear views from both sides if possible

And the sources are here:

[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/06/us/elections/trump-america-red-shift-victory.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/06/us/elections/trump-america-red-shift-victory.html)

[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/06/us/politics/presidential-election-2024-red-shift.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/06/us/politics/presidential-election-2024-red-shift.html)

How will the increasing diversity in the Republican voter base impact its future?

Trump&#39;s voter base in 2024 was more diverse than many people expected, with many key groups like Black Americans, Latinos, Asians, and Jews shifting to the right politically. College educated people and young men have also shifted to the right. They didn’t all go for Trump overall but they still shifted to the right compared to previous years.

Cities and their suburbs, traditionally Democratic strongholds, have begun voting more Republican too. This could be important as rural America is shrinking quickly and more people are flocking to urban and suburban areas. By 2050, 89% of the American population is projected to live in urban/suburban areas, up from 83% right now. I think these are things that could shape what the Republican Party becomes in the future and what their priorities are.

The archetype of a Republican voter has traditionally been an older white person from a rural area. But as time goes on, this could change.

We don’t know if these changes are only for 2024 or if it’s a broader trend that will be more permanent. Since these groups may become a bigger part of the Republican electorate, how do you think this will affect the future of conservative politics in the United States if it kept going this direction? Would this curb the influence of far right extremist groups like White nationalists?

Also, despite the increased racial diversity, two groups that shifted further away from Republicans were women and the LGBTQ community, so it will be interesting to see how that develops. I wonder if the divide will shift from race to more about sexuality

I&#39;d like to hear views from both sides if possible

And the sources are here:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/06/us/elections/trump-america-red-shift-victory.html

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/06/us/politics/presidential-election-2024-red-shift.html