Nate said today that a coin actually has a 50.5% chance of heads, so this is technically closer than a coin flip!

I can’t really see how this is different from anything except that it is an online movement. There have always been slogans, campaigns, and movements to get people motivated to vote. This particular movement is helpful to motivate people who might feel that their vote isn’t significant, as it helps them to think of it in concrete terms as a chess move against their MAGA loved one. I don’t see why that is so stupid. It seems like hating it is more of a knee-jerk reaction against people who use TikTok. While I dislike TikTok myself, this seems like one of the weakest examples of why it’s bad.

Yes, they want weeks of no official result being declared, during which they say Trump definitely won, so that when the final result comes in, if it’s Harris, they can say Democrats are trying to overturn the election

Yeah, I’m not as addicted to Lemmy as I was with Reddit, because there aren’t as many comments and niche communities and an algorithm messing with me, but like I check Lemmy throughout each day and if I’m honest there’s not much purpose aside from getting that hit.

https://youtu.be/-wCR65V6wxE?si=rRTJvER1ENQqoC83

Not voting in enough Democrats into Congress to do anything and saying the Democrats didn’t actually want to do anything

You just fundamentally do not understand statistics and it’s tiresome

And here I thought it was not having the needed amount of votes that caused her to lose.

I’m sick of people blaming Hillary‘s campaign for all the horrible shit that ensued afterwards. Candidates campaign because it is in their best interest to do so, but at the end of the day, this is our government. It’s our job as citizens to educate ourselves on the candidates, the voting system, and the stakes of the election. We should be figuring out who best to vote for, whether they are good at campaigning or not.

So, while Hillary might have won with a better campaign, the blame for Trump getting into power firmly rests with the voting public. We knew what kind of person Trump was before he was elected, and we knew there was a vacant Supreme Court seat.

Don’t blame it on the fact that people weren’t manipulated well enough by a giant ad campaign.

It would also probably be a constant battle to keep it in effect anyway, because every state that has entered the compact can always leave. As long as you can shut off the compact by removing one or two states from it, it will be an unstable mess.

I don’t know what country you are from or how your voting system works. But I will guess that your country has many parties and after the election, a governing coalition is formed.

In the US voting system, similar parties get punished by stealing votes from each other. So, in effect, we have to form our coalitions before the election and choose the single candidate that will stand for all of us. So, you can think of the Democratic Party as the Democratic Coalition, made up of some truly left-wing factions, as well as some not very left-wing or even centrist factions, and so our candidate will be much more watered down than what you’d see in a different system.

Yikes!

A problem with this question is that the US is such a big and diverse place, that you could have this same question posed to Americans only, asking about their experience visiting other parts of the US.

You think an American wouldn’t also regard that interaction as weird?

Do I just live in a weird bubble? I live in the US and I am rarely at someone’s house who doesn’t remove their shoes nowadays. I certainly grew up wearing shoes at home, but that’s changed significantly over the past 20 years or so.

Yeah, I always wonder how often there’s a need to refer to inhabitants of two continents together as a single entity. Like, if you say someone is South American or North American, that is never confused with being someone specifically from the US. When would those terms be insufficient?

Don’t you mean “from AND into”?

When they announced the ads it was just the incentive I needed to quit Prime totally. I don’t miss it. I already was wary of buying from Amazon due to the sketchy sellers and fake products, so I’m glad buying my stuff elsewhere except when I can’t find something somewhere else, which has been rare.

Even subject pronouns are certainly used in everyday speech, even if less often compared to English.

The thing is that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is nothing until it’s all the way there. Having 95% of the necessary electoral votes has the same effect as 0. So there’s no reason for opponents to even care about it until it is within striking distance of the threshold. It seems to me that if we ever reach a point where it comes down to just a state or two, that legislation will be fought tooth and nail, not just in those last states, but there will be fights and legal challenges in states that have already entered the compact to reverse it too. And even if we manage to win the fight and it gets activated, we will still have to keep fighting in perpetuity because almost any state pulling out would undo the whole thing.

I’m not saying people shouldn’t even try, maybe some good comes of it regardless. It just doesn’t seem like a solution as much as a statement.

It makes logical sense for a person to draw this conclusion, but MTG is famously an idiot, so that’s what’s baffling. What convinced her to change her tune?