this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
556 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19135 readers
2442 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Donald Trump and his team are attacking media outlets like Politico and The New York Times for reporting that his 2024 election victory over Kamala Harris was narrow, not a “landslide.”

Trump won by 1.6 points and failed to secure a majority of the popular vote, a smaller margin than Hillary Clinton’s over him in 2016.

Despite these facts, Trump and his allies continue to tout his win as “historic” and “dominant,” aiming to bolster his political mandate amid criticisms that his victory was less decisive than claimed.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ThatOneKrazyKaptain@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago

I mean, no, a Landslide is historically defined as 400 EVs and that hasn't happened in a while, not even Obama quite got there.

But it is the biggest victory a Republican has had since 1988. I don't get all the hemming and hawing about mandates and plurality of PV vs majority of PV and stuff. This was a bigger win for the Republicans then 2000, 2004, and 2016. 2004 is the only one that's even debatable. Harris lost harder than any democrat since Micheal Dukakis. And while a lot of that is people who only show up for Trump and thus it's possible 2028 is a democrat wave, there's also a lot of people specifically turned off by Trump who might not mind the far younger Vance(who had the biggest glowup this year of the 4 people on the tickets, he went from bottom in popularity to comparable to Walz, meanwhile Trump and Walz stagnated and Harris surged and then un-surged)

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 33 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Every election in America, no matter how shitty Republicans get, is 49%-51%.

This produces a rather odd dumbass effect where if it's 48%-52%, people start shouting about landslides.

(About that basically always tied thing...)

[–] ThatOneKrazyKaptain@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

Except for McCain, Bob Dole, Bush Senior the second time around, and Barry Goldwater

[–] joyjoy@lemm.ee 177 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] stupidcasey@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago

Wow, that makes more sense in politics than it does in quantum mechanics

Maybe we can model the quantum world on Politics.

every time a politician has to make a statement he both agrees and disagrees until he knows who the audience.

[–] xenomor@lemmy.world 86 points 2 days ago

Remember that his first official act as president in his first term was to send Sean Spicer out, literally on day one, to scold the press corp for seeing the paltry crowd at his inauguration. This guy is always, always just small dick energy in an ill-fitting suit.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 46 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Piss on him til he fucking drowns

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Especially if it's Russian piss...

[–] youstolemyname@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

So be it, long as he's dead and gone

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I kinda knew the popular vote thing would correct itself, I think the reason it’s this close at all is because most people don’t pay attention to politics as much as they should

[–] SuperSaiyanSwag@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

He won popular (more votes than other candidates), he did not win majority (>50% of total votes)

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

lmao, third parties actually threw the election

[–] ThatOneKrazyKaptain@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I mean there wasn't enough of them to flip the swing states. Also somehow I doubt that all the RFK Jr and Chase Oliver and Randell Terry and Peter Sonski voters would have gone for Harriss

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Bro let me cope...

[–] freeze@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Not necessarily, he won a majority in Pennsylvania and in states like Wisconsin where he only got a plurality third party voters wouldn't likely have broken strongly enough against him for him to lose.

I'm going to go with the Big Lie 2 here. Trump lost the popular vote just like he did with Hilary and Biden.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 34 points 2 days ago

I mean if you take into account how stupid and incompetent he was in his last term and that he now he seems to be losing his faculties it was quite a landslide. Getting 10% should have been a miracle.

[–] Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works 33 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (14 children)

There's even rumors that votes in the swing states were fraudulent as well. A disproportionate number of "bullet ballots" in swing states alone may indicate foul going-ons. The only way to tell would be a recount, however.

Edit: Seems the info is dubious, at best. Partially straight up wrong. Oh well. A few hours of hope was nice.

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 86 points 2 days ago (2 children)

This has been shut down pretty well at this point.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (4 children)

How? If there's new info I want to hear it but AFAIK it's been speculated and nobody has done any digging on it.

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

here is the linked transcript in case you're like me and can't stand getting information from a video

[–] clif@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Thank you, I feel a little validated and less alone lol. There could be dozens of us!

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 47 points 2 days ago (2 children)

According to snopes, the claims made by the Spoonamore guy are kinda iffy, I'm afraid. :(

https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/11/21/stephen-spoonamore-letter-harris/

[–] Trev625@lemm.ee 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I read that earlier and I'm confused why it seems to matter if the vote is above the threshold for the state to flip or not to do a recount.

Take Nevada: " As for Nevada, Spoonamore contended in his letter, "NV - 43K+ 5.5%+ of Trump's total vote. Enough to exceed recount threshold." The Nevada government website (archived) reported that — out of 1,487,887 total ballots cast — 1,484,840 ballots contained votes for presidential candidates and 1,464,728 contained votes for U.S. Senate candidates. The mximum number of "bullet votes" is 23,159. Trump received 46,008 more votes in Nevada than Harris. "

Snopes seems to be saying that it doesn't matter if Trump cheated and sneaked in 23k bullet votes because Kamala would have lost anyway without them. In my view, if ANY cheating occured then that's like really bad right? Even if it didn't flip the election?

23k is a little more than half of 43k so the percentage would drop from 5.5% down to 2.8% which is still wayyy over the usual 0.05% bullet ballots which seems very odd and makes it recount worthy. (Note: The 0.05% bullet ballots figure comes from the original article which I haven't fact checked since idk how so if that's wrong please correct it "In comparison, bullet ballots for Trump in Oregon, Utah and Idaho—the three states which border Arizona and Nevada, with equally fervent Trump voters—count for less than 0.05% in each state.")

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Even ignoring the math, the assertion that a statistically unlikely amount of bullet ballots means there has been fraud is kinda out there. Historically, bullet ballots are fairly common with populist candidates.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nexusband@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago

I think that's all BS. However, what is not BS is that ballots have just "vanished", due to being challenged by the Vigilante stuff. According to Greg Pallast, investigative journalist with the BBC, there have been over 800k provisional ballots that have not been counted because they have been thrown out. He even has the exact names of people, who's ballots have been thrown out.

If it wasn't so dire, I'd find it extremely fascinating...

https://youtu.be/X3hXeEiFcJM

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Trump runs on ego. Anything that quells the ego must be wrong.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This is the only effective way to slow him down imo. Make fun of him for having small crowds at his rallies then sue him for libel when he says his were bigger. It doesn't matter if it goes anywhere in court, you just need to force the conversation to keep his attention.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 days ago

Unfortunately, he will soon have the power of the federal government at his fingertips. He will begin exacting retribution on anyone who is effective in slowing him down.

[–] AshMan85@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Yeah, he is afraid that it will be exposed that he rigged this election.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 21 points 2 days ago

Facts don’t care about his feelings.

The gaslighting of his campaign knows no bounds.

Once he's president he'll probably say these types of stories are subversion of the state.

load more comments
view more: next ›