It’s less than 50%. The problem is there’s no stopping Trump supporters from voting in November.

Democrats historically only show up to vote in favor of a candidate, not in resistance to their opponent. It’s unbelievable how many people see voting as showing full support of a candidate’s policy, when it’s simply the most effective way for a citizen to strategically influence the nation.

“I can’t support anyone who supports genocide” is justification to stand aside and allow far more genocide of Ukrainians and Palestinians. The Palestinians’ options at the polls are currently bad or worse. Abstaining is allowing others to choose worse without your resistance.

Republicans are counting on the indifference of the left.

Inaction is action. Vote in November.

We'll get as many as possible to vote. It almost seems unfair that others in the world don't get a say in such an important election, since Biden winning could save the world from another world war. The stakes are once again, very high.

the maga people get it and want it I guess. Hopefully opposed people got it too and will vote

Because he wouldn't care about breaking the law, nor would his appointed prosecutors and judges

Branding. Democrats, for all their ills, do care about playing by the rules and optics of potential unfair conduct. Republicans generally know their base will believe anything they feed them but Democrats know people at home who make up their support are following along with the rule book. If they ditch their brand as the moral high ground between the two choices their goose is cooked.

Yes. Otherwise, a bad guy like Trump could push to have his political enemies convicted of random stuff just to put them in prison and keep them from running against him. Like Putin and Navalny, for example.

Our politics have always had a built-in distrust of authority, ever since we cosplayed as natives to protest taxes by throwing tea into Boston Harbor. We tell ourselves that power comes from the people, and have instituted all sorts of checks on political power, with different branches and levels of government monitoring each other, to ensure that no one is deproved of their voice unjustly. This is why we consider everyone innocent until proven guilty, and we say that even a guilty conviction shouldn't prevent someone from running for office, because power ultimately comes from the people, not what the courts say.

The problem comes when:

• The people are morons who think whatever their screens tell them to think
• Those screens get crap pushed to them by algorithms that value engagement over truth
• Politicians coordinate across branches and levels of government to evade accountability, rather than hold each other accountable

So now we still think power comes from the people, but the people are outsourcing their beliefs to their devices, which are being filled with crap by algorithms who are convincing us to trust the wrong people.

(And it's not just a Smartphone thing: this goes back to Rush Limbaugh on AM Radio, and ultimately back to Roger Ailes, who thought that Nixon's real problem was that he didn't have his own news network who could attack his opposition and tell people what to think

AFAIK the reason it is allowed is to keep a corrupt government from charging and convicting all of their political rivals, leaving only their allies as eligible candidates. The idea was to let the people choose their leaders even when under a corrupt federal government.

He pleaded not guilty and was convicted of falsifying business records.

The only law in the Constitution preventing the holding of office for being a criminal is tied to insurrection and rebellion, of which he is not charged with inciting or assisting.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

It makes no sense to us either, but yes, nothing stops a felon from becoming president

And if their judge was appointed Trump, such as Aileen Cannon?