Is there any chance that a second Trump administration wouldn’t be markedly worse for organized labor? This is a textbook example of not voting for your own interests.

You see, it’s just a coincidence that he is running against someone who is black and Indian and he just happened to pick the two most racist and stereotypical dishes associated with each.

We’re Number 1! We’re Number 1! USA! USA! USA!

While I guess areas may be different, the high school I went to, and also the area I now live in, have varsity and JV teams. You had to be good enough to make varsity, but no one got cut from JV. Just belonging on a team is enough for some kids to make it all bearable. Everyone mentions scholarships, but how often is this honestly actually an issue?

What do you need to know? It’s a high school team, not the Olympics. Why wouldn’t the default always be inclusion? High school is a tough time for a lot of kids, and I’d imagine it’s more difficult for most trans kids. If participating in sports makes it 5% easier, then so be it.

Buried lead:

It’s LEDE, not lead.

It took me 40+ years to learn this, just passing it along.

Don’t worry, at least there are two pizzas for 50 people!

The protests should be louder, more numerous, and more in their face.

What’s the goal of the protests? For fewer people to vote for Harris or for Harris to change her position? Coming out against Israel, even if it’s the proper position, is going to turn off a lot of voters. It seems these protests will, if they have any effect at all, cause fewer people to vote for Harris. A Trump reelection is a fundamental threat to every issue I care about. These protests are flawed at every level. Perfect should not be the enemy of good, and Harris is, unequivocally, a positive for Palestinians.

Where’s Joe Biden now?

I’m going to guess the White House, but I’m not sure, it wasn’t my turn to watch him.

I assume you’re alluding to Harris replacing Biden, which doesn’t address my point. Dem and Rep running, one of them will be president.

The United States has a FPTP system, you’re never going to get a third party candidate to win the presidency. You would need to reform the system.

Do NOT say fundamental change can’t be made or started in the middle of a general election. Protest works and that scares some of you

You legally cannot change the election process two months before an election.

Protest is fine, but you should ask what your goal is. Trump is worse than Harris on Gaza, Palestine, and Israel. Frankly, it’s not even close. So if your protest would cause people to not vote for Harris, then you’re helping to elect Trump. Actions have consequences, just be sure you understand what they are.

For the record I’m for a Palestinian state and against genocide, but there are actions that further those causes and actions that don’t.

or choose neither and take a goddamn stand for once and show these puppets of the elites it is all or nothing

There is no “neither” option. One of them WILL be president. Let me save you time and there’s never going to be a candidate but you agree with on every issue.

If you want to make a fundamental change in the electoral process, the middle of a general election isn’t the time. You literally cannot change the process at this point.

The name of the game this November is turnout. There are undoubtedly more people who support Harris than Trump, but will they vote? Touching the Israel issue is guaranteed to turn off a large block of voters, no matter which side you support. There’s no winning this issue politically.

Either Harris or Trump will be president in 2025, choose which one more closely aligns to your values and policy goals. If you care about Gaza and Palestinians, I don’t know how that choice isn’t Harris.

The main question seems to be why is the birth rate declining. Presumably people not wanting kids have existed during all times. But even if we assume that there are more people per capita who don’t want kids, the question persists, why is that the case, and how much of the decline is attributable to it.

This actually isn’t true. When you vote in the primary you aren’t actually voting for a candidate, you are voting for a slate of electors. Biden won the primaries and his slate of electors would have been seated at the convention. The electors remain the same, they have just decided, with Biden’s endorsement, to vote for Harris. Nothing has changed about how democratic the process is or would have otherwise been.

Anyone who thinks EVs aren’t the future is wrong. But anyone who thinks there’s not a rightful lull in the EV market is also wrong.

All the early adopters are already onboard. Next are the people who are inclined towards EVs but need to be convinced they’re ready. There aren’t chargers everywhere, they’re slow to charge compared to pumping gas, there isn’t yet a universal plug, and battery technology needs to improve. Until these issues are addressed adoption is going to be incremental.

That would be tough, at this point in the calendar the only incumbent presidential candidates with a lower net job approval than Joe Biden were George HW Bush and Jimmy Carter. Both of whom lost the election. Trump was a few points better in 2020, he also lost.

So you didn’t mean Reagan, you meant Nixon. But Nixon was the incumbent and at this point in the calendar had 58% job approval (Biden: 38.5%) and a net job approval of 26.9% (Biden: -17.7%). At this point in the calendar, Nixon was 44.6% higher in net job approval. Do you really think that’s analogous?

In 1980, Reagan beat an unpopular incumbent, Carter, by a huge margin. In 1984, Reagan was the incumbent and crushed Walter Mondale. I’m not sure which one is the, “last time we did this” though.

If anything, Reagan shows us that unpopular incumbents do not have a high likelihood of reelection.

Sorry for having other things going on, it won’t happen again.

Can you show an election where that strategy has worked this late in the game?

To my knowledge the President and vice President haven’t stepped down from a political campaign. However, I can point to a situation in which a vice president took over for an unpopular president and lost. That would be Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

Additionally, just based on logic alone, it is ridiculous to insinuate that it wouldn’t be better to have an unknown candidate than a disliked candidate.

How could it be better to have a candidate that voters do not like, over a candidate that they haven’t come to an opinion on yet?

They both need to step aside, it’s better to have an unknown than a known candidate that people don’t like.