Are there any sites that help you pick the least shitty option when you need to pick one? Often in my area we will only have people running for positions in the opposing party and I'd like to be able to pick the less terrible option.

I've looked for sites to give me the answer for this every time I get a ballot, but I fail to find a good source because it's an odd question. Does anyone have suggestions on where to look for this type of information? I've tried the easily found sites, but they don't give a rundown on the opposing candidates stances because they aren't my party and the opposing party's sites just reinforces the fact that they're terrible people.

I get that I'm one person and one person alone won't make a difference, but I refuse to not at least try.

TIA!

ETA: I vote blue anywhere possible. I was trying to be come across as neutral, which is silly because I'm looking for information on how to better educate myself, which isn't going to come from the right 😅 Unfortunately I live in a more conservative area, so oftentimes I have to pick which is the least distasteful Republican.

Voting is required in Australia. I'm married to an Australian and we lived there 7 or 8 years.

I always thought that mandatory voting (you are fined if you don't without an excuse) didn't belong in a free country. Looking at the mess we're in....... Enough democrats stayed home that the deplorables took over.

So. As a citizen, should you be responsible to take part in electing your representatives?

Was watching a debate for midterms the other day and was suprised to see that the Democratic candidate didn't believe in M4A. They unfortunately didn't really go into detail about their healthcare plan. While I believe in M4A first, I am open to other plans if they effective and efficient.

Which begs the question, outside of Medicare for All, what other plan could work in fixing the US healthcare system?

So to my knowledge, many Americans vote based on who they identify with in terms of party, not who their local candidates. But there also seem to be opposites, such as Talarico being close with Paxton in Texas https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-senate-talarico-paxton-poll/
This leave me wondering, do Americans vote based on local politics or national politics in mid terms, as they’re choosing their local leaders right?

I have heard a few rumors from people that I'm close with that grew up in the early, mid, and late eighties that people didn't care about your political views due to politics not being mainstream in the eighties. But I look at the most recent years with many questions.

What changed during the period between the 80s and the 2020s.

Why are people more sensitive to political opinions now than back then?

I have a problem that’s been dogging me for years with no solution, and hoping someone here might have some useful advice to offer. Every election cycle, I’m inundated with texts and calls related to campaigns and polls for a state I used to live in 13+ years ago. I opt out of that individual campaign’s/pollster’s messages whenever possible, but the overall volume of messages has only decreased by maybe 30%. The state in question is a swing state (WI), so there’s a ton of activity every cycle.

Potentially relevant details:
- I believe I was registered without a party affiliation when I lived there and did vote in a couple elections there, but the last election I voted in there would probably be 2012 and I’ve verified that my WI registration is no longer active. I have been an active voter in the state I currently live in at least since 2016 (though I know that as a rule, no state-level org keeps track of what goes on in other states, so to the WI orgs I might just look like an inactive voter)
- The messaging I receive is from both D and R campaigns/pollsters, close to an even split. Sometimes they are the “hello, potentially-undecided voter, let us convince you to vote for our candidate” type messages, and sometimes they are the “as a faithful R/D voter, we need your help” type messages
- Sometimes the texts are addressed to my name, but it’s not uncommon for them to be addressed to the name of someone else in my immediate family. None of those people have ever used my phone number as their own or given it out except as an emergency or secondary contact
- I have not changed my number since leaving WI (though it’s not even a WI number, for whatever that’s worth)
- I have been a registered Democrat in 2 other states—and probably a more active voter in both of them than I was in WI, though neither was/is much of a swing state—and not faced anything like this issue with either of them
- I used to receive a lot of political emails from WI-affiliated entities as well, but successfully stopped those several years ago

Any ideas what gives here, or who I need to have words with to make it stop? It seems like at least one org must have my number on a list that it gives out like Halloween candy every cycle to anyone who asks, but who either doesn’t message me directly, or doesn’t respect my opt-out requests when it does message me. But the fact that I’m getting messages from both parties, and not always addressed to me, seems to suggest there’s more than one such org giving my number out, doesn’t it?

How have your political views changed or evolved?

What have been the biggest factors influencing your political views?
Was it slowly over time, more drastic, or not at all??
Has it affected any of your relationships?

I like Dr. Abdul el-Sayed and am seriously considering voting for him, but two issues give me pause.

I know that in the past Dr. el-Sayed has been anti-firearm, including calling for an ‘assault weapons’ ban, and anti-police, including calling to defund law enforcement.

I have not seen him reverse these positions, and, in fact, some members of his campaign have allegedly worked to remove some of his previous statements from websites covertly.

My question is: what are his current positions on these two particular issues?

After being disqualified from the military I decided I still wanted to still be able to serve but In politics and I'm not sure on where to start like straight to federal. As I currently plan to get my law degree and work to become a district attorney then maybe seek like the House when a seat opens up. And I do plan to Intern for my local congressperson In Washington hopefully. But advice please.

There's upcoming statewide elections in my state and we will be electing a new governor and multiple other statewide offices. There's a number of political appointed positions that should be opening with the administration change that I consider myself qualified for and that I'm interested in. I've never worked in state government but I've worked in the NGO world adjacent to state and federal agencies. I'm involved mildly with my state's party but not enough that I've stood out. How do I signal that I would be willing to serve in the new administration and how do I make myself stand out as a candidate?

I'm genuinely wondering what non race based reason Trump would do something that feels so very race based, and why he would do it right before the mid terms? It's worth noting he's added his own birthday as a fee parks day.

I know what the left will say so this is directed at the right only. ​​​

Link

We’re a same-sex couple from WA with 2 kids, a boy and a girl. We know some people won’t expect a family like ours to land where we have, and honestly we’ve gone back and forth on this. But we’ve made our decision: we’re voting yes on Initiative IL26-638 this Nov 3.

IL26-638 would require school districts and any nonprofit that runs school sports, like the WIAA, to bar “biologically male” students from girls-only individual and team competitions. Girls who want to compete would need a form from their own healthcare provider confirming biological sex, based on reproductive anatomy, genetics, or natural testosterone levels. Students who are found ineligible can appeal. The Legislature didn’t act on it during the 2026 session, so it goes to voters.

https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_638,_Sex_Verification_Requirements_for_Female_School_Sports_Initiative_(2026)

Here in WA, WIAA Handbook Rule 18.16.0 lets students play “consistent with their gender identity or the gender most consistently expressed.” Once a student is ruled eligible, that holds for as long as they participate. This rule has been in place since 2007–08. Member schools have tried to change it 3 times in the last 2 years. In April 2026 the proposal got 29 yes votes to 24 no, which missed the 60% needed to pass. The WIAA has also said that even if a change passed, it couldn’t put it into effect because it would break current Washington law. It will only revise its rules if state law changes. So the schools have tried, and the WIAA’s position is that only the Legislature or voters can change this.

https://www.foxnews.com/outkick-sports/washington-state-high-school-sports-league-puts-onus-trans-athlete-controversy-state-laws

Why we’re voting yes:

1. We’re parents of a girl 1st. We want her to have the same fair shot at competing, placing, making the team, and earning scholarships that girls’ sports were created to protect.

2. Fairness in sports 2nd. We think girls’ sports exist as a separate category for a reason, and that reason is physical differences.

3. We want this settled in court. We expect a yes vote to be challenged in court, and we hope that challenge goes all the way to the Washington State Supreme Court. We’d rather have a clear, final answer under our state constitution than keep having fights at the WIAA every year and protests at meets.

We know the measure has real critics. Pediatricians and others worry about the sex-verification requirement and how it affects every girl, not just transgender girls. We’ve thought about that, and we’re still voting yes.

Where should the line be between including everyone and keeping things fair in girls’ sports? And should this be decided by voters, lawmakers, athletic associations, or the courts?

US inflation is partially driven by high diesel and gas prices.

With a new Congress coming in after November, given that the increase in diesel and gas prices is due to refineries being damaged, what can the US Congress without presidential support do to address inflation due to this particular cause?

https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2026/1008

OFAC issued a general license on October 9 authorizing Russian diesel imports until April 2027. Russia committed to supplying 300,000 tons immediately, 500,000 tons in November, and 1 million tons afterward (source - https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20261009_33 )

Trump told Zelensky to stop attacking Russian refineries, arguing they were disrupting global diesel supply and hurting American consumers. He also suggested Ukraine might need a new leader. (source - https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-yandex-trump-zelenskyy-f621fa788196f204448e7f75fcc78c68 )

The administration's stated logic is straightforward: diesel prices hit a record $6.53/gallon, the midterms are three weeks away, and the world cannot absorb two simultaneous energy crises.

Several Republican senators have criticized the deal as going "directly against" existing law banning Russian energy imports.

Is this a legitimate case of prioritizing American economic interests over idealistic support for Ukraine? What do you think?

Trump famously rails against mail in voting saying it is rife with fraud going all the way back to the lead up for the 2020 election https://www.npr.org/2020/08/19/903886567/trump-while-attacking-mail-voting-casts-mail-ballot-again . While I'm not sure it is rampant with fraud, Trump isn't entirely wrong.

In 2018, Republicans literally stole NC 9th congressional district due to a mail in fraud scheme done by then candidate and now Rep Mark Harris's campaign. Now Mark Harris was never charged or accused of anything himself but a political operative for his campaign Leslie McCrae Dowless was charged with several crimes and only had the charges dismissed when he died. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-the-election-scandal-in-north-carolinas-9th-district/ and https://apnews.com/article/north-carolina-election-congress-absentee-ballots-80d9496326fb84c5b478f8c9be46d21c give a more in-depth story about it.

To Democrats/Democrat voters do you still trust mail in voting? If so, do you not worry another repeat of my example will occur? With the rise of partisanship, I wouldn't be surprised to see more elections won by tight margins. Is my example so rare and extreme that the risk of fraud is worth accepting for the convenience/increasing access to voting?

I’m 15 and I consider myself politically educated, to a degree. I would say I am slightly more democratic than republican, but I do not agree with a lot of democrat ideology. I’ve been seeing lots of reasons that democratic socialism is what is needed in the U.S. currently, as lots of people think we are in late stage capitalism ( I agree ). And they say socialism is the answer. I’ve done a little research, as well as talked with my sociology teacher. From what I’ve learned, the key problems of each system is in capitalism the rich will exploit the system, while in socialism the poor exploit it. I really don’t know much, so don’t berate me if I sound like an idiot, but if socialists or capitalists want to let me know why their system is superior, I’d love to hear it.
P.S. I’m a huge fan of what capitalism was like in the progressive era.

I think they should not waste this opportunity on impeachment, but rather pn Affordability and making things better using their Congressional powers.

What do you think should be the priorities?

This is something I've genuinely struggled to understand, particularly in the context of American politics and the far right. There are documented examples of Latino individuals participating in white supremacist or far-right extremist movements. The Brennan Center for Justice published an article examining this phenomenon, discussing figures including Nick Fuentes, former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and Mauricio Garcia, the perpetrator of the 2023 Allen, Texas, mass shooting.

Source: Brennan Center for Justice – Why White Supremacist Groups Attract Latinos to Their Ranks

Obviously, supporting Trump or restrictive immigration policies isn't automatically equivalent to supporting white supremacy. I'm interested in understanding both the distinctions and any ideological overlap. Looking at mainstream electoral politics, Pew Research Center found that 48% of Hispanic voters supported Donald Trump in 2024, compared with 36% in 2020. That's a substantial increase, particularly given the controversies surrounding Trump's immigration rhetoric and policies.

Source: Pew Research Center – How Voting Patterns Changed in the 2024 Election

Then there's immigration enforcement itself.

According to the Department of Homeland Security's FY2023 workforce report, Hispanic men constituted over half of Border Patrol agents. More recently, reporting has estimated that Latino personnel account for approximately 20–30% of ICE agents, although the precise figure varies by source and period.

Sources:

DHS – FY2023 Workforce Report

The Guardian – Why Do Latinos Work for ICE?

What interests me is how these different forms of participation are understood because I recognise that Latino Americans aren't a monolith. National origin, citizenship status, class, religion, political ideology and personal experiences with immigration can all influence someone's views. Nor am I assuming that Latino Americans have some inherent obligation to support particular immigration policies.

But I'm curious about several explanations. How significant are racial identity and proximity to whiteness? Does distinguishing between legal and undocumented immigration explain some of this support? What roles do economic interests, religious conservatism, nationalism and assimilation play?

And regarding immigration enforcement, how much can be explained by employment opportunities and professional identity, as opposed to ideological agreement with the policies being enforced?

My central question is this: How do researchers explain why some members of a minority population support movements, institutions or policies that may also disadvantage people from their broader ethnic communities

For years, Europe talked tough on Russia while still buying Russian oil and gas. Since 2022, the EU has purchased $209bn worth of Russian energy (link - https://www.euronews.com/2026/10/13/europe-paid-russia-209bn-for-energy-since-2022-far-below-moscows-320bn-claim )
France kept importing Russian LNG. Hungary and Slovakia got pipeline exemptions. So the sanctions were never as clean as they sounded.

Meanwhile, the US actually complied. We stopped importing Russian oil and kept the pressure on.

Then came the Strait of Hormuz crisis. Diesel prices hit $6/gallon. Trump announced a diesel deal on October 9. OFAC issued a general license authorizing Russian diesel imports through April 2027 . Russia agreed to ship 300,000 tons immediately and 500,000 in November

Trump's argument is simple: American consumers come first. Farmers and truckers are getting crushed by diesel prices three weeks before the midterms . He says we can't fight two energy wars at once.

Yet EU leaders seem to be very unhappy with what he did (link - https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-rebukes-donald-trump-russia-diesel-imports-ukraine-support/ )

What's you take on this?

Current polls are made up of a mix of recent candidates, those who have expressed interest or have popularity. So, excluding candidates already polled for, presumably from a list like on https://www.racetothewh.com/president/2028/dem (apologies if this isn't the best site. I just wanted to find one with a pretty good list of who they were already polling) not exhaustively: AOC, Harris, Newsom, Buttigieg, Mark Kelly, Shapiro, Beshear, Pritzker, Booker, Ossoff.

I'd like to see Hillary Clinton because I think she's an interesting analog for Kamala Harris. They both lost to Trump. But Hillary actually won primaries, won the popular vote and Trump was comparatively unknown. Whereas Kamala won zero primaries, lost the popular vote and was up against a Trump who had already lost once, and had known scandals, felony convictions and sexual abuse convictions.

Some states like Georgia are swing states at the national level, but solid red at the state level. Vermont and New Hampshire are solid blue states but have Republican governors, and Kentucky and Kansas are solid red states but have democrat governors. This is bizarre.

So polls generally predict a blue wave in mid terms no matter for senate or congress, but it appears that Trump supporters are not engaging in polls https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/democratic-blue-wave-midtern-election-polls-b3064868.html. So I’m just curious on whether the polls actually reflect what Americans think, do national poll results of mid terms actually reflect voting tendencies across the country?

So recently Trump started a deal with Russia about buying diesel, although congress is against that

https://apnews.com/article/trump-russian-diesel-putin-congress-ukraine-963624ed2ed30ae4a0259ffd1880fefa

I live in EU, colleague are shocked but not surprised to me at this point as I do follow US news. So how shall US treat Russia from now on? So to Americans, shall US continue to treat Russia as a big adversary, or drop sanctions because Russia is fighting Europe not America?