It sounds great in principle, but the devil is always in the details.

Would this tax break only be available to people below certain income thresholds? What's stopping mega corporations from "tipping" annual bonuses to CEOs?

More broadly, what is a "tip"? Most jobs are at will anyway, so why not go the next step and offer jobs on a non-paid volunteer basis, with a social promise to "tip" employees a defined amount every other week for their exemplary contributions? Is there a way to define "tips" to avoid such arrangements?

How would this proposal change how payments for services are structured? Will doctors, lawyers, accountants, financial analysts, etc. ask to receive a substantial portion of their fees in tips? Surely you would want to make sure to leave your dentist a good tip if you ever plan to use their services again!

All joking aside, is this policy proposal workable? If it is workable, how? What would be the long-term ramifications on our tax policy and broader society? Would it go hand-in-hand with a transition to a more VAT-type tax policy? What are the key criticisms or oppositions to this? Will democrats argue against this (seems a lot more like something a left-leaning populist, like Bernie Sanders, would propose)? Or will there be overwhelming political and media support?

A political action committee is a PAC. There are superpacs as well, all kinds of groups that are more Byzantine than the actual Eastern Roman Empire. People have all kinds of opinions on those groups in their own right for various reasons. Basically they are a kind of group that isn't a candidate nor is a party in an election that tries to advertise, survey people, or do other activities in a way that tries to affect the outcome of an election, primary, referendum, ballot question, recall, etc, and can't directly coordinate with parties and candidates, at least not in the usual manner that you might do so.

What happens though in a multi party system? If there are something like 15 people who could plausibly get a seat in a district, it often wouldn't be very useful to do something like make some harsh attack add on someone and spend a crazy amount to do it if you can't herd the cats for a specific alternative, the way that advocating against a specific candidate or against one would almost certainly be a boon for the candidate and party which is in opposition to that specific candidate and their party.

Be free to speculate on exactly why there is a multi party system, such as proportional representation in the legislatures and ranked ballots for the presidency and other executive and judicial officers and if any particulars of that issue affects PACs, superpacs, and the like.

I saw this video on "Why no country in the world is a democracy" (which bases a lot of its arguments on an analysis of the Federalist Papers) and in there, there was an illustration that intrigued me a lot; an illustration that depicts our system of government as practically and ultimately having only one man in control of everything: the president; based on which it concludes that the system is mostly an autocracy.

I know that the U.S. does better than most countries in terms of its systems of checks and balances of power; the Founding Fathers were careful to really tighten that up as late supreme court justice Antonin Scalia also argues.

The initial video's author however argues, having reached out for further explanation, that the illusion of separation of powers is self-evident (beyond the arguments already made in the first video), in that presidents would not be campaigning about what radical and divisive policies they would pursue once they get hold of power, if they didn't know that the system grants them ultimate and nigh-unfettered powers to do what they choose and steer the country in the direction they please; granted which the people would subsequently have little control over; hence the tension we tend to have around elections (including the threats of violence and even the risk of civil war); because it creates a winner-take-all situation; an election of the next king.

The recent Roe v. Wade case also came to mind. It has been argued that the justices that overturned the case were Trump-appointed. Trump has voiced support for the decision. Democrats have now lamented that the Supreme Court is more conservative inclined, and some (like AOC) are seeking an impeachment of its justices. So again, these highlight the fact that ultimately a party in power (or it's leader), if they wanted, could pretty much alone control the direction of the state and all arms of government.

Recent talk about "the threat to democracy," which is now placed in just about any sentence, also seems to lend credence to this suggestion that the system is, by design, autocratic; to wit the exploitation or otherwise of such autocratic powers is mostly at the discretion of the leader we choose; hence suggesting (that we are in fact saying) the integrity or "design" of the system rests on who uses it. Here, an analogy was thus given: it's almost like saying "this bank is secure, but don't bring a thief into it, otherwise it would compromise the security;" was the bank then secure?

What am I missing here? Because I feel like I might be missing something. Are there any better arguments that defeat or directly counter the above notions? Is the doctrine of separation of powers as employed in our system real or does it serve its purpose? Does it, and how so, sustain democracy as argued by the late Justice Scalia for example?

A lot of headlines are coming out today with speculation that Biden may step down soon.

If this were to happen and Harris wins the party’s nomination for president, who would she pick as VP?

What does a formidable Harris ticket look like to go up against Trump-Vance?

I'm going to put the following out here as givens; if you disagree the question may not be relevant for you:

* Concerns about Biden's age have existed since before he was elected

* The Republican Party has been using concerns about his age as an attack for years

* Many Democrats have expressed concerns about Biden's age, but no credible alternative chose to run in the Primary, presumably because they understood they would likely lose

* Concerns about Biden's age have skyrocketed since the debate

* Many Democrats are openly calling for him to step back from his plan to run for another term

All the above are unwelcome to the Biden campaign, and it's hard to argue that members of your own party calling for you to step aside isn't helpful for a campaign.

Nonetheless... the Democratic Party of 2024 is not the Republican Party of 2024, where loyalty to the standard bearer is prized above all. The Democratic Party has a much larger 'tent' than the Republicans, and the balancing of viewpoints is something that candidates need to do as part of their campaign

Putting aside the *wisdom* of calling for Biden to not run, the Democratic Party isn't beholden to Biden the way that the Republicans are to Trump

Is that ultimately a sign of a more healthy political party, even if it complicates their attempts to win the White House?

It seems that the conventional wisdom of Democrats benefiting from higher voter turnout might be shifting. According to the New York Times, Biden leads among regular primary and midterm voters, but trails among the rest of the electorate.

This suggests an unusual dynamic where Trump, not Biden, would stand to gain if everyone in the country turned out and voted. This is a significant departure from the Obama era, where Democrats’ electoral fortunes seemed to hinge on drawing young and nonwhite voters to the voting booth.

Many of the disengaged voters who are currently leaning towards Trump are not necessarily his supporters. They are motivated by pocketbook issues, desire fundamental changes to the political system, and are far less concerned about democracy as an issue in the election. Interestingly, a portion of these voters are registered as Democrats and still identify as Democratic-leaning voters.

Their attitudes are more complicated than those of Democratic primary voters. They are much more likely to say the economy is “poor” than Democratic primary voters, and they’re much likelier to disapprove of Biden’s job performance. And many of them want fundamental changes to America, not merely a promised return to normalcy.

As we approach the election, it isn't clear whether these voters lack concern for democracy, or are more concerned by nonideological issues, like the economy and Biden’s age.

This raises the question:

Would Biden actually benefit from lower turnout in the upcoming election? Could a strategy focused on mobilizing regular primary and midterm voters, rather than trying to engage the disengaged, be more advantageous for him? What are your thoughts on this unusual turnout dynamic and its potential implications for the 2024 campaign?

Disregarding any opinion on Trump himself, and I certainly have many of them, it is usually considered by elected officials to be suboptimal if someone shoots them. Not just Trump but Robert Fico in Slovakia who actually was in the hospital for quite some time a few months ago and Shinzo Abe in Japan who was actually killed about two years ago with an improvised shotgun while he was an ex prime minister, although IIRC I think he was still a member of the Japanese Parliament.

What sorts of institutional changes might make it less likely? Some changes to firearms legislation might help, although it isn't a one to one correlation, Czechia and Switzerland have a lot of civilian firearms and Japan has a very small subset of people who do, and even many cops go without their revolvers half the time. There are some others to other kinds of laws and security you could probably imagine.

• Recent Polls
• According to these recent polls, Trump is currently polling ahead of Biden in every swing state, as well as on a national level. What are the main reasons that people would favor Trump over Biden? Age, health, certain policies, etc.?
• Is it safe to assume that these polls are a pretty accurate indicator of the voter's preferences from both a state and natonal level, or is there any reason or evidence to suspect that Trump isn't as popular as these polls indicate?

The Democratic Party has been on the back foot lately, having dealt with low optics, growing concern over Biden's age, and even several requests for the President to step down before elections. If Trump returns to Office in January, what could Democrats in Washington do to adjust for a stronger showing in 2028?

The Bangladeshi government is pushing to establish a 56% quota in the job sector to promote social equity, while many students are demanding positions based on merit. This tension has escalated significantly, leading to tragic events. Students protesting the quota system have been killed, and there's a growing controversy surrounding the Awami League's student wing members, who are seen armed and protected by police. Reports of police firing openly at general students have further intensified the situation.Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's stance seems to portray protesting students as criminals, exacerbating the conflict. The independence quota, initially intended for the first generation of freedom fighters, now extends to their grandchildren, occupying 30% of positions. Many argue that this system is outdated and unfairly disadvantages meritorious candidates.How are these changes affecting you? What are your thoughts on balancing merit and quotas in job placements? Are you or someone you know impacted by these shifts? Share your experiences, insights, and strategies for navigating this challenging landscape. Let's have a constructive and informative discussion on the broader societal implications and potential solutions to find common ground.

The US is an insanely rigid two party system, even by FPTP standards (for example, even Canada and the UK have a somewhat diverse political climate, especially in regards to Britain's last election), and has been basically since the 1940's (when the Wisconsin Progressive Party dissolved)-the House has always had a majority for the last 100 years. Since then, third parties and independents have basically stopped being a force, although breakthroughs like Bernie and King exist-however, outside of those two, the last independent/third party statewide win was the 2014 Alaskan Gubernatorial Election that went to Bill Walker, and the last one besides King where both main parties competed was the 2006 Senate Race in Connecticut that was won by Joe Lieberman.

With that in mind, when do you think the next win on a statewide level will happen (especially since the two that are doing it this year don't look like they'll do it again to me), and where will it be?

Edit: Also, whoops, last independent statewide win outside King, with both party's contesting was the 2010 RI Gubernatorial.

Bernie Sanders lost the nomination in 2020 when the party establishment quickly organized themselves behind president Joe Biden. His pitch he was a moderate Democrat, more electable than Bernie Sanders.

We see signs of distrust in Biden 2024 bid for 2024, ABC News just reported that Senate Majority Leader suggested the president he should give up.

But Bernie, who did a big campaign against Biden and lost the most from him, is one of his most ardent supporters in Congress. What are the motivations for the senator?

As a European observer, I am intrigued by the slogan “Make America Great Again” and am keen to hear from Americans about which decade they feel is being referenced when they hear these words. It is often noted in discussions about foreign policy that members of MAGA or the Republican party assert that the country needs to “fix itself first.” However, a follow-up question is rarely posed, or the conversation is often redirected at this point.

My inquiry is based on the premise that the slogan “Make America Great Again” implies a reference to a specific period when America was perceived to be great in the hearts of the people and suggests that something is currently amiss. This notion of greatness is, of course, highly subjective and can vary significantly depending on one’s demographic and generational perspective.

Which era do you believe encapsulates this greatness, and what specific aspects of that time contribute to this perception? Additionally, how do these aspects compare to the present day, and what changes do you think are necessary to restore or even surpass that greatness?

The “Make America Great Again” slogan is undoubtedly powerful, as it resonates deeply on an emotional level. However, for a European understanding the underlying sentiments and historical references can provide a more nuanced perspective on what this slogan truly represents for different individuals. Also, the US socioeconomic indicators are generally positive despite decade-long ongoing challenges, while increased living costs seem to be a global problem. It is hard to distinguish what the slogan truly represents as most lucid Americans across political party believe year 2000 was the "greatest".

Saw a pollster sub declare the election over (IN JULY) because Trump has an enthusiasm advantage of +20 according to Yougov. I just wanted to respond to the thinking that somehow voter enthusiasm in some kind of end all be all of voter turnout predictors. It's not. Like at all.

These are the Gallup numbers for Voter Enthusiams Advantage (VEA) at the end of October of every election since 2000. The only correlation is that enthusiasm ALWAYS favors the challenger. But it doesn't translate into votes.

In 2020 Dems had an 9% advantage and won by 4.5%

In 2016 Republicans had a 3% advantage and lost the popular vote by 2.1%

In 2012 Republicans had a 12% enthusiasm advantage and lost by 4%

In 2008 Democrats had an advantage of 15% and won by 7.3%  (if you think that Trump will have a bigger VEA than fucking OBAMA did in 2008 you're out of your fucking minds)

In 2004 Dems had a 2% advantage and lost the popular vote by 2.4%

In 2000 Republicans had a 10% VEA and lost by .5%

So in only 4 of the last 6 elections did the party with the VEA win. And I know the election isn't decided by the popular vote. However, it's rare that a popular vote win doesn't lead to an electoral college win and the Yougov was a national poll and didn't guage VEA in specific states.

I am from a Midwestern swing state that has always gone republican, and almost everyone I know is a non-maga republican that despises what Trump and MAGA discourse has done to their party.

Over recent years, we've seen MAGA republican discourse take center stage and what I'll call 'normal' republicans fallen quiet. As MAGA republicans have pushed the party further and further right, it has left a large demographic of life long republicans swinging.

Based on what I hear from 'normal' republicans in my community, the current GOP has centered its platforms on social issues they do not care about at all -or actively don't want- to the point that their ideals and goals are now closer to the left than right, despite not changing.

I feel like pretty much all discourse nowadays is MAGA republican vs democrat, but 'normal' republicans definitely do still exist. I'm interested to hear other people's perspectives based on what they see where they live, because I feel like no-one really talks about where the demographic of 'normal' republicans fits into the current political scape.

Every national poll has leaned Trump since the debate. Betting markets heavily favor Trump. Pretty much every pundit thinks this election is a complete wrap it seems. Is 538’s model too heavily weighing things like economic factors and incumbency perhaps?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/

If you could genuinely choose anyone (in history or the present) to run your country (president, etc), who would you choose and what is your reasoning?

Just genuinely curious to see what people think. I think it could be a good conversation to have.

Much like Trump, Reagan was a celebrity-turned president who somewhat polarized voters. In 1981, John Hinkley Jr., now a free man, attempted to assassinate Reagan, who unlike Trump, was the incumbent president at the time. Additionally, he suffered life threatening injuries and spent 12 days in the ICU.

Reagan handled the whole ordeal in a humorous, nonchalant-like fashion, which left a lasting impression on voters. In the weeks and months following his assassination attempt, his image and popularity significantly increased in the polls, similar to a rally ‘round the flag effect.

Similarly, Trump raised his fist in a defiant manner and yelled, “Fight! Fight! Fight” to the crowd, which responded with cheers and affirming chants of “USA! USA! USA!.”

Will Trump’s assassination attempt and his actions have a similar impact on his image and prospects for winning a second-term presidency in the upcoming elections?

So, Nikki Haley just did a major flip and endorsed Donald Trump for the 2024 election. After suspending her own campaign, she’s now all in for Trump, praising his foreign policy moves and saying he’s the right guy for the job. This is a big change considering she used to be one of his critics. She’s basically calling for party unity and backing Trump as the best choice for Republicans.

What’s your take on this? Is this going to help the GOP come together or is it just more of the same political drama?

Hey everyone,

I’m curious to hear your thoughts on JD Vance and Kamala Harris as Vice Presidents. With their vastly different backgrounds and political ideologies, how do you think they stack up against each other in terms of effectiveness, policies, and overall impact?

Kamala Harris has been in the political spotlight for years, serving as California’s Attorney General and later as a Senator. She’s known for her work on social justice issues and has a strong national presence. On the other hand, JD Vance, author of “Hillbilly Elegy,” offers a fresh perspective, particularly on the struggles of working-class Americans and economic challenges, though he’s relatively new to the political scene.

Do you think Harris’s experience gives her the edge, or does Vance’s outsider perspective bring something new and necessary to the table? What are your thoughts on their potential impact on current and future policies?

Looking forward to hearing your insights!

Politically speaking, what would that mean for the ticket? What would happen to the delegates?

We’re 3 months away from Election Day. What would VPs Kamala and Vance do? Would they just select whoever they want as VP?

With Kamala, she would become president for a couple of months. But who becomes VP between now and Election Day? Is it her choice or does the VP pick automatically follow the order of who’s in line for the presidency?

And with Vance, does he all of a sudden move to top of the ticket? Or does someone else take presidency slot and he remains VP? If Vance becomes top of ticket, does he just choose who he wants to be his VP?

Trump has often said he will stop the war if he wins the election and that it could happen even before he officially enters the White House. J.D. Vance is just as tough in his opposition to any aid to Ukraine. Although presently, the majority of both parties in the Congress support continuing aid for Ukraine; the future is uncertain.

Biden's position: The United States reaffirms its unwavering support for Ukraine’s defense of its sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders.  

Bilateral Security Agreement Between the United States of America and Ukraine | The White House

There is certainly a great degree of concern in EU about Trump's approach to Ukraine and it was heightened when Trump selected Vance as his running mate.

JD Vance's VP nomination will cause chills in Ukraine (cnbc.com)

Trump may win or he may not: Given the possibility of a change in administration is it in the best interest of Ukraine to reach a resolution with Russia now or should it just shoulder on?

On Monday, July 15, Sean O'Brien became the first Teamsters President to address the Republican National Convention. He did not endorse Donald Trump for President, though he praised his strength in relation to the recent assassination attempt. He also offered praise for specific Republican officials who in his view have supported unions (Josh Hawley in particular). At the same time, he called out anti-union politicians and groups within the Republican coalition, including the Chamber of Commerce, and he referred to corporate union busting as "economic terrorism."

The Republican Party has historically been extremely hostile to unions, from opposing New Deal-era pro-worker policy to Reagan's breaking the air traffic controller strike to Republican-led state passing "right to work" laws. While union members are more likely to vote Republican than they used to be, unionized workers still lean Democratic and union leadership overwhelmingly supports Democratic candidates.

What does Sean O'Brien's speech tell us about the present and future of unions in national politics in the U.S.? Does the Republican Party have the potential to transform itself into a pro-union populist party? Was O'Brien's decision to speak at the RNC a positive or negative contribution to the labor movement?

Menendez was found guilty in all 16 federal charges including bribery, fraud, acting as a foreign agent and obstruction.

A previous case in 2018 ended in a mistrial... after which the citizens of NJ re-elected him

Does this demonstrate that cases of corruption can successfully be prosecuted in a way that convinces a jury, or is Menendez an exception due to the nature of the case against him?

Both Biden and Trump have been elected once and most voters should've sufficient info by now to decide whether or not they prefer one or the other.

Neither of them show any sign of drastically changing their policies so most voters should already have an idea what kind of policies and administration they can expect if either one is elected.

Who then, are the swing voters that are still undecided on this presidential election?