|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 23 2026 22:40 Billyboy wrote:
A random thought I had last night is, I wonder how much past gerrymandering is going to hurt the Republicans this cycle. Each time they made one district less republican to try to win another could with Donald’s recording breaking bad approval (yes it’s an all time record!) cause them to lose 2 districts instead of one.
If the republican party implodes THAT hard, it pretty much wouldn't matter anymore anyway? They would pretty much get swept?
|
"As of June, Republicans had increased their advantage in 16 redrawn districts. Today, nine of those Republican-leaning districts are either expected to go to Democrats or are too close to call, according to a Reuters analysis of ratings from leading election forecasters. A 10th Republican district was thrown out by courts." https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2026-10-21/how-the-republican-redistricting-gambit-faltered-under-trump-slump
But bear in mind it's a D+10 national environment right now, it's almost certain the gerrymandering wars started by Texas will result in a net Republican gain in future elections.
|
On October 23 2026 21:28 Geiko wrote:
I've already said this but it needs to be said again apparently. In Switzerland, you don't have to do anything to vote. I just receive papers in the mail and I can vote by mail or at the local booth without any ID or anything. I don't know what's so unrealistic about what Darkplasmaball is proposing ?
The government knows where you live because you pay taxes and have an official address.
That's a fair question, and it exposes the bad faith of the Republicans' demand for voter ID. The fact that it could actually be rolled out without much problem is an issue for them, because they want to impose additional roadblocks to disenfranchise certain groups of voters. They don't want voter IDs to be free, easy, or automatic for everyone eligible, as oBlade has practically admitted by now. If all black people or all people living in a city automatically received a free voter ID, for example, then the true Republican goal of lowering black voter turnout or urban voter turnout wouldn't be accomplished. So they'll try to add extra constraints and conditions to make it harder for Democrat-leaning groups to successfully vote, under the guise of extra election security.
All of this, of course, is on top of their original axiom, which is a lie: that we need voter IDs because of widespread voter fraud. It's just plain partisan cheating built on top of a false premise.
|
On October 23 2026 22:43 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2026 22:40 Billyboy wrote:
A random thought I had last night is, I wonder how much past gerrymandering is going to hurt the Republicans this cycle. Each time they made one district less republican to try to win another could with Donald’s recording breaking bad approval (yes it’s an all time record!) cause them to lose 2 districts instead of one. If the republican party implodes THAT hard, it pretty much wouldn't matter anymore anyway? They would pretty much get swept?
I think it matters a fair bit, well it’s true that Trump is record breakingly bad. There are still deep red areas that are going to vote red no matter what because of the nebulous “Dems would be worse”. And spreading those people into more districts instead of one can cause a few super stable districts to possibly flip blue. When if Trump just had his normally bad approval rating, moving them would cause the Republicans to pick up more.
|
I haven't run the numbers yet but am I correct in guessing that any fuel price drops expected from Russia's diesel delivery to the USA was wiped out by the spike caused by Trump implying he's going to renew attacks on Iran soon?
|
On October 23 2026 23:33 LightSpectra wrote:
I haven't run the numbers yet but am I correct in guessing that any fuel price drops expected from Russia's diesel delivery to the USA was wiped out by the spike caused by Trump implying he's going to renew attacks on Iran soon? I think the dip never happened because the proposed delivery was for 2.25 million barrels of diesel and a further 3.6 million barrels in November, while the US uses roughly 4 million barrels a day.
So even if the entire November delivery happens it would not satisfy a single day of diesel use.
|
On October 23 2026 23:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2026 21:28 Geiko wrote:
I've already said this but it needs to be said again apparently. In Switzerland, you don't have to do anything to vote. I just receive papers in the mail and I can vote by mail or at the local booth without any ID or anything. I don't know what's so unrealistic about what Darkplasmaball is proposing ?
The government knows where you live because you pay taxes and have an official address. That's a fair question, and it exposes the bad faith of the Republicans' demand for voter ID. The fact that it could actually be rolled out without much problem is an issue for them, because they want to impose additional roadblocks to disenfranchise certain groups of voters. They don't want voter IDs to be free, easy, or automatic for everyone eligible, as oBlade has practically admitted by now. If all black people or all people living in a city automatically received a free voter ID, for example, then the true Republican goal of lowering black voter turnout or urban voter turnout wouldn't be accomplished. So they'll try to add extra constraints and conditions to make it harder for Democrat-leaning groups to successfully vote, under the guise of extra election security. All of this, of course, is on top of their original axiom, which is a lie: that we need voter IDs because of widespread voter fraud. It's just plain partisan cheating built on top of a false premise.
We've gone over this so.many times it's more like it's just tiring. For example, you have been told that every state that requires ID will offer a free ID if you don't have another one that qualifies. Yet, you still say Republicans don't want it to be free. Maybe that has changed, but you are completely uninterested in if what you are saying is actually true.
|
Well, if the Republicans are so worried about the integrity of the elections, they should stop trying to rig them. They are the only party doing that.
|
On October 23 2026 21:28 Geiko wrote:
I've already said this but it needs to be said again apparently. In Switzerland, you don't have to do anything to vote. I just receive papers in the mail and I can vote by mail or at the local booth without any ID or anything. I don't know what's so unrealistic about what Darkplasmaball is proposing ?
The government knows where you live because you pay taxes and have an official address. On October 23 2026 21:37 Velr wrote:
Yeah but we register at our communes when we move in/out. The US doesn't do that and thats somehow an argument for not having voter ID's and having to register separately because "they don't know where you live" - it's just a lazy excuse to keep actually voting as annoying as possible. Removing the process from states to the federal government (the "we register at our communes when we move in/out") would require a constitutional amendment. That's tough. You have to look at what the constitution allows to see if you're easy/uniform are actually possible.
We don't even have uniform rules across 50 states on who is eligible to vote, if you look at the rules surrounding felony convictions and mental incapacity.
On October 23 2026 22:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
In 2020, Trump and his allies sued dozens of times to try and overturn election results, without a shred of evidence. This is exhausting your legal options, and people like Marc Elias do it for Dems every election where its a close race. You obviously know who you want to win, so you try to disqualify enough ballots in areas that went against you, and restore enough disqualified ballots from areas that you're winning.
|
In addition to Democrats in California not maintaining their voter rolls in a secure way, such that noncitizen residents registered and voted so easily that one even claims as a defense that he never knew he wasn't allowed to vote, which is probably a scam to be fair as he later said on a citizenship application that he had never voted, in addition to that they may have actually elected someone to Congress who fraudulently obtained citizenship and has been voting in the House of Representatives illegally the whole time. Where there's smoke, there's fire, and in the capital of fraud, Minnesota, one of the people Omar married withdrew a green card application and went to the UK as soon as the government asked for more evidence regarding their marriage.
|
On October 24 2026 00:15 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2026 23:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2026 21:28 Geiko wrote:
I've already said this but it needs to be said again apparently. In Switzerland, you don't have to do anything to vote. I just receive papers in the mail and I can vote by mail or at the local booth without any ID or anything. I don't know what's so unrealistic about what Darkplasmaball is proposing ?
The government knows where you live because you pay taxes and have an official address. That's a fair question, and it exposes the bad faith of the Republicans' demand for voter ID. The fact that it could actually be rolled out without much problem is an issue for them, because they want to impose additional roadblocks to disenfranchise certain groups of voters. They don't want voter IDs to be free, easy, or automatic for everyone eligible, as oBlade has practically admitted by now. If all black people or all people living in a city automatically received a free voter ID, for example, then the true Republican goal of lowering black voter turnout or urban voter turnout wouldn't be accomplished. So they'll try to add extra constraints and conditions to make it harder for Democrat-leaning groups to successfully vote, under the guise of extra election security. All of this, of course, is on top of their original axiom, which is a lie: that we need voter IDs because of widespread voter fraud. It's just plain partisan cheating built on top of a false premise. We've gone over this so.many times it's more like it's just tiring. For example, you have been told that every state that requires ID will offer a free ID if you don't have another one that qualifies. Yet, you still say Republicans don't want it to be free. Maybe that has changed, but you are completely uninterested in if what you are saying is actually true.
I'm glad that you're willing to say that you're okay with voter IDs being available for free - oBlade repeatedly refused to agree with you and me on this point.
There have also been many arguments in this thread about how poll taxes are unconstitutional, and not for no reason. This was especially relevant during the conversations about the SAVE Act, where the new, hypothetical voter ID was originally being advertised as being "free" by Republicans... as long as you have other supplementary ID that already costs money to obtain. That's a significant (and illegal) caveat.
For example, you may need to show your passport or driver's license - both of which cost money, and neither of which are universally held by all eligible voters - before obtaining your "free" voter ID, which means there is still a poll tax at play. If you didn't already have the things that cost money, then you'd need to first obtain the things by paying money, before obtaining your definitely-no-longer-free voter ID. (That's why I made it a point to say that eligible voters should automatically receive their free voter ID, not that they need to first jump through additional hoops, or show other documents that cost money, or do anything else that could risk disenfranchisement.)
|
On October 24 2026 00:47 oBlade wrote:In addition to Democrats in California not maintaining their voter rolls in a secure way, such that noncitizen residents registered and voted so easily that one even claims as a defense that he never knew he wasn't allowed to vote, which is probably a scam to be fair as he later said on a citizenship application that he had never voted, in addition to that they may have actually elected someone to Congress who fraudulently obtained citizenship and has been voting in the House of Representatives illegally the whole time. Where there's smoke, there's fire, and in the capital of fraud, Minnesota, one of the people Omar married withdrew a green card application and went to the UK as soon as the government asked for more evidence regarding their marriage.
A good reason for people to be skeptical about claims like this is, to give one example, the Trump administration recently put forth a list of "noncitizen voters" in Nevada that had a humble error rate of 100%. DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin referenced 15,903 noncitizens on the state’s voter rolls, the state checked and found the actual number was zero.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/24/us/politics/nevada-voters-homeland-security-trump.html
Republicans have had the past ten years numerous opportunities to establish committees of nonpartisan experts to find voting fraud. They've found virtually none, so now they're just blatantly, unrepentedly lying.
|
|
|
On October 24 2026 00:40 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2026 21:28 Geiko wrote:
I've already said this but it needs to be said again apparently. In Switzerland, you don't have to do anything to vote. I just receive papers in the mail and I can vote by mail or at the local booth without any ID or anything. I don't know what's so unrealistic about what Darkplasmaball is proposing ?
The government knows where you live because you pay taxes and have an official address. Show nested quote +On October 23 2026 21:37 Velr wrote:
Yeah but we register at our communes when we move in/out. The US doesn't do that and thats somehow an argument for not having voter ID's and having to register separately because "they don't know where you live" - it's just a lazy excuse to keep actually voting as annoying as possible. Removing the process from states to the federal government (the "we register at our communes when we move in/out") would require a constitutional amendment. That's tough. You have to look at what the constitution allows to see if you're easy/uniform are actually possible. We don't even have uniform rules across 50 states on who is eligible to vote, if you look at the rules surrounding felony convictions and mental incapacity. Show nested quote +On October 23 2026 22:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
In 2020, Trump and his allies sued dozens of times to try and overturn election results, without a shred of evidence. This is exhausting your legal options, and people like Marc Elias do it for Dems every election where its a close race. You obviously know who you want to win, so you try to disqualify enough ballots in areas that went against you, and restore enough disqualified ballots from areas that you're winning. I promise you, the state you live in knows you live there. And they know if your eligible to vote.
And no its not just 'exhausting your legal options'. multiple Trump lawyers got sanctioned for filing frivolous election lawsuits. Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, Emily Newman, Gregory Rohl, Scott Hagerstrom, Stefanie Lynn Junttila, Julia Z. Haller, Brandon Johnson, Howard Kleinhendler, and probably more.
|
That's right oBlade's problem was with the free part, NOT the automatically mailing unsecured bullshit to random addresses. I might have real ID and passport already but I would love for the federal government to leave an easily hijacked piece of my identity tied to my constitutional rights in the mailbox supposing the USPS ever manages to get it there at all. I'm drowning in your good faith. The second part is all sensible but the first part, free, that's just beyond the pale.
People don't know this but the Crawford decision explicitly says eminently reasonable requirements and reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions are not a poll tax. Graduates of HuffPost University may be under the impression that literally any cost whatsoever to do something related to voting is constitutionally considered a "poll tax," that's not how current law treats it. Including in states with voter ID now. You can't charge directly to get the ballot, or get the ID. You can require someone to prove they are eligible to vote and who they say they are, even though technically they have to do more work than if they didn't have to prove that. Because for some reason states have decided proving that you're eligible to vote and you are who you say you are is important for elections.
There are states now where you have to present SOMETHING to get your voter ID. From among the somethings, you might choose to present your birth certificate, if you don't have a driver's license or passport. That birth certificate might cost money just like the passport or driver's license would. You might have to go somewhere to get it! That might cost a car ride or an Uber or bus fare. You might have to pay to have a copy issued! That is not a poll tax. Especially when there's multiple accommodations like there's always provisional ballots and affidavits. That is called "life" and it is part of the responsibility you have as citizens, which we join together to do in order to disenfranchise noncitizens.
|
United States10581 Posts
Recent polls coming out of Texas show the race is still very much a dead heat within the margin of polling error that we expect. Talarico maybe has a 1.5 point lead. Maine, Michigan, Alaska all in the same boat. I would still be clenching hard if I'm a Dem going into next week for the next round of polls the week before election day.
I rate close races or where the "underdog" still has a good shot if the leading candidate can't seem to break through that 49 point barrier, and if the underdog candidate is holding steady at 47+ points. Most of Paxton's recent polls have him firm at 47-49 points, meaning he's very competitive.
Jackson vs Collins is an interesting one, because on one hand basically every polls has Jackson as a 2 point favorite, and basically all those polls are 49-47. But one month ago, Collins was polling even worse at 46 points. So either Republicans are finally going from undecided to picking Collins, or the independent swing towards Dems is not as strong as we may think.
Alaska is a tricky one. A lot of polls have Sullivan Jr stealing about 5 points from this race, but who knows if that's actually going to manifest itself on election day. We see this a lot with 3rd party candidates in tight elections, where they are projected 5 points but end up being like 2-3 points instead. Third party effect will definitely be the most relevant of all races in the Senate though, and it actually buffers Peltola's slim 2 point lead.
I will say the Emerson poll for South Dakota (not a competitive race) is interesting. It gives Rounds only an 8 point lead while Quantus (don't trust them very much) gave Rounds a 20 point lead from polls released on the same day. That would be meaningful signs in favor of a blue wave where normally solid red seats are suddenly becoming interesting (Mississippi, Nebraska, Kansas, South Carolina being the other notable ones).
|
On October 24 2026 01:15 oBlade wrote:
That's right oBlade's problem was with the free part
I know you're being sarcastic here, but I was simply calling you out for refusing to acknowledge that you were even okay with the "free" part of the voter ID. I asked you multiple times, and not once did you say you were fine with the "free" part (hence why I asked you over and over and over again).
If Introvert saying that they're okay with the "free" part has encouraged you to finally come out in favor of the "free" part too, then that's great! Welcome to the side that's okay with saying that mandatory voter ID should be free!
|
This just in, apparently the greatest nation on Earth can now no longer be relied upon to send mail.
|
On October 24 2026 00:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2026 00:15 Introvert wrote:On October 23 2026 23:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 23 2026 21:28 Geiko wrote:
I've already said this but it needs to be said again apparently. In Switzerland, you don't have to do anything to vote. I just receive papers in the mail and I can vote by mail or at the local booth without any ID or anything. I don't know what's so unrealistic about what Darkplasmaball is proposing ?
The government knows where you live because you pay taxes and have an official address. That's a fair question, and it exposes the bad faith of the Republicans' demand for voter ID. The fact that it could actually be rolled out without much problem is an issue for them, because they want to impose additional roadblocks to disenfranchise certain groups of voters. They don't want voter IDs to be free, easy, or automatic for everyone eligible, as oBlade has practically admitted by now. If all black people or all people living in a city automatically received a free voter ID, for example, then the true Republican goal of lowering black voter turnout or urban voter turnout wouldn't be accomplished. So they'll try to add extra constraints and conditions to make it harder for Democrat-leaning groups to successfully vote, under the guise of extra election security. All of this, of course, is on top of their original axiom, which is a lie: that we need voter IDs because of widespread voter fraud. It's just plain partisan cheating built on top of a false premise. We've gone over this so.many times it's more like it's just tiring. For example, you have been told that every state that requires ID will offer a free ID if you don't have another one that qualifies. Yet, you still say Republicans don't want it to be free. Maybe that has changed, but you are completely uninterested in if what you are saying is actually true. I'm glad that you're willing to say that you're okay with voter IDs being available for free - oBlade repeatedly refused to agree with you and me on this point. There have also been many arguments in this thread about how poll taxes are unconstitutional, and not for no reason. This was especially relevant during the conversations about the SAVE Act, where the new, hypothetical voter ID was originally being advertised as being "free" by Republicans... as long as you have other supplementary ID that already costs money to obtain. That's a significant (and illegal) caveat. For example, you may need to show your passport or driver's license - both of which cost money, and neither of which are universally held by all eligible voters - before obtaining your "free" voter ID, which means there is still a poll tax at play. If you didn't already have the things that cost money, then you'd need to first obtain the things by paying money, before obtaining your definitely-no-longer-free voter ID. (That's why I made it a point to say that eligible voters should automatically receive their free voter ID, not that they need to first jump through additional hoops, or show other documents that cost money, or do anything else that could risk disenfranchisement.)
You would be better served by just admitting you don't want photo ID. And again we pivot to the save act instead of talking about ID requirements as they actually exist. As I said at the time, I would be more interested in discussing its particular provisions if it had a chance of passing. But you obviously have to prove your identity, that is the entire point and that has never been held to be a poll tax.
Every state that requires photo id offers it for free. It would be great if, after the 15th time discussing something, we could at all acknowledge what has been said before. This is unfortunately a habit.
|
On October 24 2026 01:25 Gorsameth wrote:
This just in, apparently the greatest nation on Earth can now no longer be relied upon to send mail.
It's totally fine... oBlade just temporarily forgot that U.S. passports can also be delivered by mail.
As can driver's licenses.
And birth certificates.
And social security cards.
But those aren't nearly as important as hypothetical voter IDs that are required to combat a non-existent problem!
On October 24 2026 01:15 oBlade wrote:
That's right oBlade's problem was with the free part, NOT the automatically mailing unsecured bullshit to random addresses. I might have real ID and passport already but I would love for the federal government to leave an easily hijacked piece of my identity tied to my constitutional rights in the mailbox supposing the USPS ever manages to get it there at all. I'm drowning in your good faith.
Did you want to edit/update this? Now that you remember that most of our IDs and other serious documents are already safely and securely delivered via mail? And now that you remember that the government doesn't just send your mail to a "random address"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
