I suppose it's comforting to take a "no new things under the sun" view of the world, but I'm not sure it's true.

Israel and Iran haven't fought a direct war before and they really might now. Israel has nukes. If the US got involved it would be like Iraq times 10 in terms of the military resistance and the impact on the global economy.

[quote=brainbomb post_id=434524 time=1727970401 user_id=62]
Right well im not sure I would describe the Middle East collapsing into all out war with Iran “normal”, but we shall see.
[/quote]

Really? Collapsing into war has been a pretty good description of the Middle East for as long as I can remember

Right well im not sure I would describe the Middle East collapsing into all out war with Iran “normal”, but we shall see.

There's a lot here to unpack.

This would be an extraordinary election cycle if we had not become inured to a certain type of political craziness in the past decade. I'm struggling to think of a historical precedent for something like the Dems gaslighting the public about Biden's obvious senility or Trump's comments about how "they're eating the pets" (let alone the preemptive election denialism). Someone awaking from a 30 year comma would probably be appalled by, at a minimum, the lack of decorum in US politics.

On deep fakes, there are a few issues at play. The technology to make indistinguishable false video really isn't there yet and seems to only be useful for memes and parody at this point. AI generated text, however, has made various types of propaganda both cheaper and higher quality.

The deeper problem here is that information seems to barely matter to the US voting public. Very few voters are swayable. The internet provides everyone with universe of genuine facts from which they can justify their opinions and preferences, reducing the need for credible falsehoods. And politics is so polarized that when actual "fake news" (i.e., legitimately fabricated stories) gains credence, many people who would otherwise care about the truth are willing to let it slide because they see it as a helpful counterpoint to the other side's fake news and/or because, even if it isn't actually true, it's serves as a story about what they think other side [i]really [/i]wants (e.g., they're not actually killing live babies, but an R voter might indulge the falsehood because they think that's where some D voters really want to go with it).

Is anyone a little disappointed by how normal most of the election has been?

Yes, granted, the assassination attempts and Biden's fall from his party's favour has added some spice, but these, whilst rare, are not exactly new plots on the political stage.

In previous elections we have been promised that we're on the verge of an exciting technological revolution that would see cunning deep fake videos bamboozle the electorate, that we were in for a show of dirty tricks on a scale we've never seen before... but thus far there's been very little sign of it. I feel cheated

If anyone is voting based on physical attractiveness, that should be very bad news for Trump.

He is a very ugly old man. His head is orange, and enormous.

Haha, not me, but yes, enough Americans base their votes on things like height, physical attractiveness, etc., that it often decides the outcome of elections.

You're voting for presidents based on height now?

My impressions of the debate, having had a couple of days to digest it: Harris did pretty well. She was well prepared. She was calm and composed. She held her own against a pretty tough opponent. She even managed to rattle him a couple of times. She mostly looked like a credible candidate who could do the job of President. It could have gone a lot worse.

But she also could have spent more time letting Americans know who she is and what she stands for. That's probably a part of what undecided voters needed to hear, and they didn't hear much of it. If it's her strategy to simply run as not-Trump, that doesn't seem like a great strategy.

P.S. - Harris did come across as the more attractive candidate, but not by a huge margin. She definitely looked good, but Trump is tall. And his hair and makeup team did a nice job.

Taylor Swift favouring Harris is about as shocking as Mick Lynch saying he preferred Labour. It will make zero difference.

Her performance will give Kamala the confidence to engage in future debates, which may well benefit Trump depending on what's dominating the news at the time they happen. As much as Trump was on the losing side of this engagement it wasn't a Biden level disaster by any stretch of the imagination. Still, if I was a betting man I'd say the odds are currently 60-40 in favour of Harris.

Not a good 24 hours for Trumpstain.

He looked very rattled during the debate and pretty clearly came out the loser.

Now Taylor Swift has endorsed Kamala Harris.

I can confirm after driving downtown today that every yard in the city has a sign with a blue dot on it. Omaha is basically massively going for Kamala at this point.

Except for Wisconsin, where Harris seems to have pulled ahead, these polls are basically a statistical dead heat and we don't know who would win if the election were held today. A 1-2 percentage point advantage in a poll is less than the poll's statistical margin of error.

Harris's 270-electoral vote strategy involves winning not only the key swing states of MI, WI, and PA, but also the "Omaha dot." While almost all U.S. states give all their electoral votes to the statewide winner, Nebraska divides its electoral votes among its districts. The rest of the state is solidly red, but Omaha is a "swing district." (Trump is currently polling +2.) Turns out, if Harris wins MI, WI, and PA, and Trump wins NV, GA, and NC, the 500,000 or so good people of Omaha will decide the election. Blue dot signs have now sprung up all over Omaha ... stranger than fiction ...

Polling this far out with 1% leads is not really anything to even think much about. At this time this far out biden led in all the states he won by about 4 points or more. I think Hilary had about 5-6 point leads at this stage in many states she ended up losing also. In the case of Hilary a cloud hung over her candidacy with concerns an investigation would happen which ultimately never did. That probably derailed her momentum worse then her debates.

Trump isnt going to have something positive happen and could even be sentenced pre election which could mean a brief prison stint. All of that could impact kamalas numbers to skew late

[quote=brainbomb post_id=427981 time=1725390572 user_id=62]
Kamala seems to be polling at a slight advantage in key battleground states of PA, GA, NV, WI, MI which by my math is enough to win if those numbers carry on through the next two months.
[/quote]

from what I heard from a friend a few days ago, kamala was leading in the rustbelt states, which would be enough for her to win (not sure abt the size of the lead and ofc people can lie about thier voting intentions but still)

These numbers may not mean much with debates still to go and much more campaigning to slog through. I would say it seems more promising for Trump than it does for Kamala since if you expect Trump to be so disliked and the only factor helping him was how old Biden was than surely a fresh candidate would have shown a much more sizable margin on some of these states (PA especially).

Kamala seems to be polling at a slight advantage in key battleground states of PA, GA, NV, WI, MI which by my math is enough to win if those numbers carry on through the next two months.

That said Ohio and Florida continue to slide further out of even being swing states and much more decisive republican holdings now. Hell Ohio was a 10 point lead for Trump and I cant imagine thats just because of JD Vance.

Cheers, Jamie. Great answer

[quote=Octavious post_id=425083 time=1723626811 user_id=71]
She might be good enough. How she handles herself in the debate(s) relative to Trump will likely be crucial.

Oh a question for those of you more knowledgeable about the US constitution and it's various tweaks and rewritings. If Kamala had taken over from Biden as president and ended his current term early (or indeed if she is forced to do so in the coming months), would that count as her first term and limit her to only standing once, or is the two term limit a limit on the number of times you can be elected rather than the number of times you can be president?
[/quote]

Oddly despite being a Brit, I know the answer to this, because some of my American friends were discussing it last week.

The answer is in the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution:

[i]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, [u]for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President[/u] shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.[/i]

The underlined text is the answer to your question, Oct. To summarise the answer, if a Vice-President steps into the Presidency without being elected, it depends how long they serve before the next applicable election takes place.

To give real examples from the past:

Gerald Ford took over from Richard Nixon [u]before[/u] the mid-point of Nixon's second presidency, and served for 895 days. This meant that Ford's term as president from 1974 to 1976 did count as a "first term" for the purposes of the 22nd Amendment. Therefore, if Ford had won re-election in 1976, he would have been [u]ineligible[/u] to stand again in 1980.

On the other side, Lyndon B Johnson took over from John F Kennedy, after the latter's assassination, in November 1963; the next presidential election, which Johnson won, took place in 1964, so his initial period as president [u]did not[/u] count as a first term under the 22nd Amendment. Therefore, Johnson [u]was[/u] eligible to run for re-election in 1968.

Therefore, to the original question, if Kamala Harris took over now, or if she had done so a few weeks ago, she would not be serving a first full term for the purposes of US constitutional law, and if she won the coming election, she would be eligible to run again four years down the line.

She might be good enough. How she handles herself in the debate(s) relative to Trump will likely be crucial.

Oh a question for those of you more knowledgeable about the US constitution and it's various tweaks and rewritings. If Kamala had taken over from Biden as president and ended his current term early (or indeed if she is forced to do so in the coming months), would that count as her first term and limit her to only standing once, or is the two term limit a limit on the number of times you can be elected rather than the number of times you can be president?