" Trump has a second, viable stealthy road to victory."

[doodle]

worldburn-top.jpg (46.73 KiB) Viewed 3662 times

[glennds]

What has the US become, that this is being discussed? Was this discussed as an option in other close recent elections?

This is nuts. And would bring about the civil war tech comments about.

Speaking for myself, I'm just gaming out possibilities and learning a few things along the way. Seems to me that when the most unthinkable things have happened in countries in the past, either people didn't see it coming, or "it could never happen here". I've been watching Trump's refusal to concede and I wonder where it might all go. Maybe nowhere. But seeing Republicans standing with him, and his base's level of agitation, I just see the pressure rising. Not commenting on whether he is right or wrong, robbed or petulant. What I am saying is tradition and convention is not with us right now.

And if you're on this forum, you're probably a PP investor. And if you're a PP investor, odds are you're a fatalist, pessimist, or simply a person who would want to be prepared for what seems unthinkable to most people.

[vnatale]

Did I hear correctly that the election challenges before a judge are currently 0-11? If so, on what basis at all can
the title of this topic have any hopes of success?

Vinny

[Xan]

I'm not talking about faithless electors. It's just that there doesn't need to be a vote at all. The legislature may choose the electors by any means it wishes.

The only reason there are any popular votes for President is that the state legislatures have chosen to hold them.

I have not researched other states, but I can tell you in Arizona a statewide presidential election is presumed in the course of choosing electors, and statute requires that those electors cast their electoral college votes for the candidate for President and candidate for Vice-President who jointly receive the highest number of votes in the statewide canvass issued by the Secretary of State.
Once the election has been held, I do not believe the (Arizona) state legislature can choose electors by any means it wishes since it is now bound by its own law.

So at least for Arizona, and for the 2020 election, there does need to be a statewide vote and the legislature does not have the ability to choose the electors by any means it wishes. For future elections, I believe the law could be changed by legislative action.

Please correct me if I am wrong on this.

I think we're in violent agreement. This is how Arizona has decided to choose its Electors. And they could change it in the future. And, as I said is the Bush v Gore precedent, they can't change it retroactively for this election. But it may be that other states have language where they can.

[Tortoise]

4 years of the election was stolen (by Russia) and we must believe.... now the election cant be stolen there is no way, and we must believe....

i don't have a clue how it will all pan out, but the more i see, the more Banana republic i see...

+1

A high level of social trust seems to be the most crucial ingredient that allows advanced nations to function smoothly and prosper. And a conspicuous lack of social trust seems to be a hallmark of banana republics.

[flyingpylon]

Biden's new Chief of Staff had something interesting to say about the state of U.S. elections...



I'm sure it's nothing though.

[Cortopassi]

These guys ALL have things in their history they wish they didn't say. There is no one who doesn't.

If I were to counsel either of my daughters if they were interested in running for office in the future -- never make a twitter, FB, Instagram, or other social media account. It will bite you in the ass.

[sophie]

4 years of the election was stolen (by Russia) and we must believe.... now the election cant be stolen there is no way, and we must believe....

i don't have a clue how it will all pan out, but the more i see, the more Banana republic i see...

+1

A high level of social trust seems to be the most crucial ingredient that allows advanced nations to function smoothly and prosper. And a conspicuous lack of social trust seems to be a hallmark of banana republics.

Outright voter fraud is the least of the problems. It might turn out to be widespread but in the end I expect it would be hard to come up with significant handfuls of votes that are enough to change a state outcome.

The bigger issue, to me, is the extent to which voters themselves are being manipulated. The fake Russian dossier and subsequent use of it to investigate then impeach Trump, the relentless pro-Democrat mainstream media bias pretending to be "non-fake" news, and now selective, politically biased censoring by social media giants. The US has long had a history of this kind of public manipulation (look up the source of the term "yellow journalism" for example, or the history of how the Marijuana Tax Act came to be), but currently it's all going one way and that is distinctly unhealthy. The involvement of Democratic leaders is especially concerning. It makes Watergate look innocent in comparison, and that was considered to be a major scandal and even potentially a constitutional crisis at the time. Why isn't this one??

If major newspapers were about evenly split between Republican and Democrat biases, I wouldn't be so jacked about this. But it's literally only Fox and the NY Post on the Republican side, and every other media outlet on the Democrat side.

[Cortopassi]

But it's literally only Fox and the NY Post on the Republican side, and every other media outlet on the Democrat side.

None of this media, from any source, is being forced down people's throats?

If someone is paying for cable, they likely have Fox and CNN.

I'll post this again: https://www.radiodirect.com/radios-top- ... -for-2019/

Top radio shows are conservative.

But who watches TV, or listens to the radio, or reads a newspaper?

It's all web based now, for the most part. People pick and choose what they want to read, which is why we have such big divides and alternative facts.

Explain to me please, how the media has made me a social liberal but fiscal conservative, for example (and turned me from someone who voted for Trump in 2016 but dislikes him now)? Or why it hasn't been able to sway to liberal the majority of those on this board who are republican and/or conservative?

I understand your point, if it was 50 years ago and your only choices were ABC, NBC and CBS. Not seeing your point now?

[pmward]

Yeah I don't think it's fair to point the finger at one side of the national news spectrum and not at the other. Both are guilty of the same exact thing, wholesale rejecting all the other sides views as "fake news" yet getting upset when the other side calls them on their "fake news". Liberals and conservatives these days literally live in completely different worlds, with completely different facts, and a completely different reality. Both sides have some fake news, both sides have some legitimate news. It's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. Both sides play on the fear and anger of their target demographic to try to demonize the other. Both sides wholeheartedly believe they are the "good guys" and the other side is the "bad guys". The social media news is a much bigger problem than the national news divide though. At least the national news outlets don't tend to spread the most extreme, ungrounded, and unrealistic conspiracy theories out there like the social news sites do. Neither side is innocent though. Both sides are trying to control and influence the thoughts of the country to push their own agenda. It doesn't matter what side you consider yourself on, I hate to tell you but the reality is you're being played and it is working. If you're quick to point the finger at the faults of one side but not willing to look at the faults of your own side, then the brain washing has been thoroughly completed.

[vnatale]

These guys ALL have things in their history they wish they didn't say. There is no one who doesn't.

If I were to counsel either of my daughters if they were interested in running for office in the future -- never make a twitter, FB, Instagram, or other social media account. It will bite you in the ass.

Somewhat parallels something I've read a few times about emails. Never put anything in an email you would not want to appear on the front page of the Wall Street Journal because some day it might.

I am always astounded of what I have read that people do put into emails!

Vinny

[vnatale]

But it's literally only Fox and the NY Post on the Republican side, and every other media outlet on the Democrat side.

None of this media, from any source, is being forced down people's throats?

If someone is paying for cable, they likely have Fox and CNN.

I'll post this again: https://www.radiodirect.com/radios-top- ... -for-2019/

Top radio shows are conservative.

But who watches TV, or listens to the radio, or reads a newspaper?

It's all web based now, for the most part. People pick and choose what they want to read, which is why we have such big divides and alternative facts.

Explain to me please, how the media has made me a social liberal but fiscal conservative, for example (and turned me from someone who voted for Trump in 2016 but dislikes him now)? Or why it hasn't been able to sway to liberal the majority of those on this board who are republican and/or conservative?

I understand your point, if it was 50 years ago and your only choices were ABC, NBC and CBS. Not seeing your point now?

Well stated!

Vinny

[vnatale]

Yeah I don't think it's fair to point the finger at one side of the national news spectrum and not at the other. Both are guilty of the same exact thing, wholesale rejecting all the other sides views as "fake news" yet getting upset when the other side calls them on their "fake news". Liberals and conservatives these days literally live in completely different worlds, with completely different facts, and a completely different reality. Both sides have some fake news, both sides have some legitimate news. It's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. Both sides play on the fear and anger of their target demographic to try to demonize the other. Both sides wholeheartedly believe they are the "good guys" and the other side is the "bad guys". The social media news is a much bigger problem than the national news divide though. At least the national news outlets don't tend to spread the most extreme, ungrounded, and unrealistic conspiracy theories out there like the social news sites do. Neither side is innocent though. Both sides are trying to control and influence the thoughts of the country to push their own agenda. It doesn't matter what side you consider yourself on, I hate to tell you but the reality is you're being played and it is working. If you're quick to point the finger at the faults of one side but not willing to look at the faults of your own side, then the brain washing has been thoroughly completed.

I continue to contend that each side of the media is only catering to what their audience demands so as to create the largest overall revenues, generally through advertising. Therefore, it again comes down to just like the people get the government they deserve they get the media they deserve.

Vinny

[flyingpylon]

But it's literally only Fox and the NY Post on the Republican side, and every other media outlet on the Democrat side.

None of this media, from any source, is being forced down people's throats?

If someone is paying for cable, they likely have Fox and CNN.

I'll post this again: https://www.radiodirect.com/radios-top- ... -for-2019/

Top radio shows are conservative.

But who watches TV, or listens to the radio, or reads a newspaper?

It's all web based now, for the most part. People pick and choose what they want to read, which is why we have such big divides and alternative facts.

It's true that an increasing number of people pick and choose, but you might be underestimating how many people limit themselves to mainstream media simply because it is so much easier to consume. The mainstream networks are very powerful brands and habits are built up over decades. Even if you ditch cable and start streaming, most streaming packages have the major news networks and they remain the default for many people.

Same with radio. Plenty of people still listen to the radio. Start the car and it's there. Turn it on in the garage, etc. It takes more effort to listen to something else.

Explain to me please, how the media has made me a social liberal but fiscal conservative, for example (and turned me from someone who voted for Trump in 2016 but dislikes him now)?

You must have had a comorbidity.

It will be interesting to see what happens to FOX. Conservatives are NOT happy with them and claim to be leaving in droves. In time, the ratings will reveal whether that is true.

[pmward]

I continue to contend that each side of the media is only catering to what their audience demands so as to create the largest overall revenues, generally through advertising. Therefore, it again comes down to just like the people get the government they deserve they get the media they deserve.

Vinny

Yeah that is a good point that does play into it. For instance, crazy Qanon conspiracy theories tend to go viral on social media, and in turn create a ton of revenue, which reinforces more future viral Qanan conspiracy theory stories being invented. But at the same time, once this dynamic is entrenched in our society it is super easy for savvy politicians, journalists, companies, etc to use these existing channels as a platform to spread propaganda and to try to control the hive mind of society one way or the other. There is the financial greed aspect you mention, but there is also the greed for power aspect. There are some master manipulators out there that use this as an effective public mind control strategy. It can go both ways as well, they can influence both by spreading their own misinformation, as well as trying to discredit opposing information. Basically my "fake news" is real, but your news (whether fake or legitimate) is fake. If a person, media outlet, company, etc can gain the trust of the mass public so they will believe their fake news, and discredit the legitimate news of the other side, well that's a pretty dangerous cocktail. This dangerous cocktail is also our current social environment. Democracy winds up being the true victim in this environment. And if you can keep the people so focused on fighting each other that they unwillingly turn a blind eye to what is really going on...........

[ahhrunforthehills]

4 years of the election was stolen (by Russia) and we must believe.... now the election cant be stolen there is no way, and we must believe....

i don't have a clue how it will all pan out, but the more i see, the more Banana republic i see...

+1

A high level of social trust seems to be the most crucial ingredient that allows advanced nations to function smoothly and prosper. And a conspicuous lack of social trust seems to be a hallmark of banana republics.

Outright voter fraud is the least of the problems. It might turn out to be widespread but in the end I expect it would be hard to come up with significant handfuls of votes that are enough to change a state outcome.

Maybe it will be widespread if the RNC starts digging into the source code.

I have read previously (unrelated to Trump) that there is big money and power behind these machines. Here is a quote from Jill Stein the 2016 Green Party Candidate (who has been suing the vendors to see the source code):

"It’s outrageous that voting machine vendors that profit from government contracts have been able to use those profits to buy political influence and prevent scrutiny of their machines through legal machinations."

It took her 4 years and an entire fundraising campaign to be able to examine the source-code and squash a gag order for Wisconsin's machines. She just got it approved a couple weeks ago... too late for the 2020 election (https://www.rt.com/usa/505105-stein-wis ... nes-flaws/).

I think this is just for the VOTING MACHINES. I don't think this has anything to even do with the Election Management Systems (EMS) that these machines actually report to. Here is a fun read from 2019 from a group that has been pushing for transparent open-source voting technology:

Most voting systems in use are based around proprietary, black-box hardware and software built on 1990s technology—Windows 2000 or older. Some newer machines are running Windows 7—which is scheduled to lose maintenance and support in January 2020.

Miller says there are two crucial parts of the election process: the election administration systems and the voting systems.

• Election administration systems in the back office are responsible for elections setup, administration, and operation, especially casting and counting ballots; voter registration; ballot design, layout, and distribution; poll-book configuration; ballot-marking device configuration; and election results reporting and analytics.

• Voting systems are simply the ballot marking, casting, and counting components.

The most important element of the system is the bridge between the voting systems in polling places and the back-office administration systems. This behind-the-scenes process aggregates vote tallies into tabulations to determine the results.

The key device—and arguably the Achilles Heel of the entire ecosystem—is the election management system (EMS), which is the connection between election administration and the voting systems. The EMS machine is a back-office element but also a component of the voting system. Because the EMS software typically resides on a desktop machine used for a variety of government functions that serve citizens, it is the element most vulnerable to attacks.

Despite the vote-changing problem in the Mississippi primary, Miller warns, "the vulnerability of attack is not to the voting machinery in the polling place but to the tabulation component of the back-office EMS or other vital configuration tools, including the configuration of poll books (those stacks of papers, binders, or … apps that check a voter in to cast a ballot). As a result, attackers need only to find a highly contentious swing state precinct to be disruptive."

Source: https://opensource.com/article/19/9/vot ... e-solution

[pp4me]

I continue to contend that each side of the media is only catering to what their audience demands so as to create the largest overall revenues, generally through advertising. Therefore, it again comes down to just like the people get the government they deserve they get the media they deserve.

Vinny

I can't see that at all. If it was true then you would have to conclude that the country as a whole is overwhelmingly liberal which can't possibly be true.

If you go by election outcomes then the demand for liberal vs conservative news should result in about a 50-50% split between networks that tend liberal and those that tend conservative. Instead you have FoxNews vs everybody else.

[Xan]

It is an absolute disgrace that the voting system is not running open-source everything and completely subject to scrutiny at every level.

[Mountaineer]

It is an absolute disgrace that the voting system is not running open-source everything and completely subject to scrutiny at every level.

Plus 1000.

[pp4me]

I continue to contend that each side of the media is only catering to what their audience demands so as to create the largest overall revenues, generally through advertising. Therefore, it again comes down to just like the people get the government they deserve they get the media they deserve.

Vinny

I can't see that at all. If it was true then you would have to conclude that the country as a whole is overwhelmingly liberal which can't possibly be true.

If you go by election outcomes then the demand for liberal vs conservative news should result in about a 50-50% split between networks that tend liberal and those that tend conservative. Instead you have FoxNews vs everybody else.

strike fox news they just got beat by cnn after their new election coverage hit, the regular viewers are pissed and looking elsewhere for good news sources apparently..

It's definitely going to be interesting to see what happens to Fox News in the coming days. The hard news part of the organization is obviously moving in the direction of CNN/MSNBC, like we don't have enough of them, but they are increasingly in conflict with the opinion folks in prime-time from Tucker to Laura. I don't watch anything on FoxNews until Tucker comes on at 8:00 now.

[pmward]

I continue to contend that each side of the media is only catering to what their audience demands so as to create the largest overall revenues, generally through advertising. Therefore, it again comes down to just like the people get the government they deserve they get the media they deserve.

Vinny

I can't see that at all. If it was true then you would have to conclude that the country as a whole is overwhelmingly liberal which can't possibly be true.

If you go by election outcomes then the demand for liberal vs conservative news should result in about a 50-50% split between networks that tend liberal and those that tend conservative. Instead you have FoxNews vs everybody else.

Only what 60% of the people eligible to vote actually voted, and this was one of the biggest turn outs in decades. What we have is a situation where conservatives as a group vote in larger percentages, but there are more liberals by population by a LONG shot. There is a reason why the Democratic strategy this year was more to just get as many people to vote as possible vs trying to persuade them to vote Democrat. Those voters that otherwise wouldn't have voted would tend to skew more Democratic over the population. This strategy was super effective, especially in key states like GA, PA, and AZ. So the Democrats win if they can succeed in getting those lazy voters to vote. On the flip side, there's also a reason why Republicans were doing the opposite strategy in trying to add in roadblocks to make it more difficult to vote. Conservatives as a generalization are going to vote regardless of the roadblocks you place in front of them. Liberals are more easy to discourage from voting. Of that 40% of the eligible voters that didn't vote this year, probably 80-90% are more liberal minded. Which means I think conservatives are lucky to have 35-40% of the real population across the country. Not to mention the fact that the younger generation skews more liberal, so every day that goes by the population is slowly getting more and more liberal. Add in the fact that the younger generation uses social media and internet more than the older generation, and yeah I can easily see where it makes total sense that there is a disparity in both popularity and number of liberal leaning media outlets vs conservative leaning media outlets.

[doodle]

I continue to contend that each side of the media is only catering to what their audience demands so as to create the largest overall revenues, generally through advertising. Therefore, it again comes down to just like the people get the government they deserve they get the media they deserve.

Vinny

I can't see that at all. If it was true then you would have to conclude that the country as a whole is overwhelmingly liberal which can't possibly be true.

If you go by election outcomes then the demand for liberal vs conservative news should result in about a 50-50% split between networks that tend liberal and those that tend conservative. Instead you have FoxNews vs everybody else.

Only what 60% of the people eligible to vote actually voted, and this was one of the biggest turn outs in decades. What we have is a situation where conservatives as a group vote in larger percentages, but there are more liberals by population by a LONG shot. There is a reason why the Democratic strategy this year was more to just get as many people to vote as possible vs trying to persuade them to vote Democrat. Those voters that otherwise wouldn't have voted would tend to skew more Democratic over the population. This strategy was super effective, especially in states like GA and AZ. So the Democrats win if they can succeed in getting those lazy voters to vote. On the flip side, there's also a reason why Republicans were doing the opposite strategy in trying to add in roadblocks to make it more difficult to vote. Conservatives as a generalization are going to vote regardless of the roadblocks you place in front of them. Liberals are more easy to discourage from voting. Of that 40% of the eligible voters that didn't vote this year, probably 80-90% are more liberal minded. Which means I think conservatives are lucky to have 35-40% of the real population across the country. Not to mention the fact that the younger generation skews more liberal, so every day that goes by the population is slowly getting more and more liberal. Add in the fact that the younger generation uses social media and internet more than the older generation, and yeah I can easily see where it makes total sense that there is a disparity in both popularity and number of liberal leaning media outlets vs conservative leaning media outlets.

So if voting were made fast and easily accessible...say by some app on your phone then the Republicans would likely get crushed. From what you wrote it sounds like Republicans would want any future changes to the voting system to make voting as time consuming and frustrating as possible. If 18 year olds can do it by phone it would be game over.

[pmward]

I continue to contend that each side of the media is only catering to what their audience demands so as to create the largest overall revenues, generally through advertising. Therefore, it again comes down to just like the people get the government they deserve they get the media they deserve.

Vinny

I can't see that at all. If it was true then you would have to conclude that the country as a whole is overwhelmingly liberal which can't possibly be true.

If you go by election outcomes then the demand for liberal vs conservative news should result in about a 50-50% split between networks that tend liberal and those that tend conservative. Instead you have FoxNews vs everybody else.

Only what 60% of the people eligible to vote actually voted, and this was one of the biggest turn outs in decades. What we have is a situation where conservatives as a group vote in larger percentages, but there are more liberals by population by a LONG shot. There is a reason why the Democratic strategy this year was more to just get as many people to vote as possible vs trying to persuade them to vote Democrat. Those voters that otherwise wouldn't have voted would tend to skew more Democratic over the population. This strategy was super effective, especially in states like GA and AZ. So the Democrats win if they can succeed in getting those lazy voters to vote. On the flip side, there's also a reason why Republicans were doing the opposite strategy in trying to add in roadblocks to make it more difficult to vote. Conservatives as a generalization are going to vote regardless of the roadblocks you place in front of them. Liberals are more easy to discourage from voting. Of that 40% of the eligible voters that didn't vote this year, probably 80-90% are more liberal minded. Which means I think conservatives are lucky to have 35-40% of the real population across the country. Not to mention the fact that the younger generation skews more liberal, so every day that goes by the population is slowly getting more and more liberal. Add in the fact that the younger generation uses social media and internet more than the older generation, and yeah I can easily see where it makes total sense that there is a disparity in both popularity and number of liberal leaning media outlets vs conservative leaning media outlets.

So if voting were made fast and easily accessible...say by some app on your phone then the Republicans would likely get crushed. From what you wrote it sounds like Republicans would want any future changes to the voting system to make voting as time consuming and frustrating as possible. If 18 year olds can do it by phone it would be game over.

Pretty much yes. Blockchain could be the perfect electronic ledger, a much better system than what we currently have. But if they virtualized the whole thing, then Republicans would be done for, at least until they could find a way to appeal to the younger generation. So for now, until they can find a way to appeal to the younger generation, the strategy that is in their best interest is to keep things in person and done by hand... as difficult and painstaking of a process as is possible. The older conservatives will have no issues with this, and will turn out in just as large of numbers. The younger liberals though will have a substantial drop in participation. The things that Trump and the Republican Party are doing right now are very intentional. There is no accident here. He has been planning this whole thing out publicly since before the election even happened. Neither side really ever does anything out of desire for "fairness", it's all about whatever way they can skew the odds in their own favor. It just so happens that increasing voting participation benefits the Democrats and hurts the Republicans. This is the real reason why this whole narrative is playing out right now. Until the Republicans can appeal to the younger generation, this is their biggest hope, mainly just to buy themselves time until they can figure out the puzzle of the younger generation.

[Xan]

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with a "how much do you actually care" filter on voting.

[pmward]

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with a "how much do you actually care" filter on voting.

In a Slack discussion at work someone mentioned something like a 5 star score, rank each candidate by 1-5 stars. Mainly he said this as a way to help get more third party participation, if you have say 5 presidential candidates it would be difficult to pick only 1. The human mind doesn't handle non-binary choices very well. So by doing a rank all 5 you wind up with a system that psychologically is a bit easier on the human mind, and also allows you to vote in a way for each candidate you support based on how much you support them..