2024 Presidential Election Thread

[Uncle Ted]

Embedded Tweet

[Maximus]

Embedded Tweet

[PaloAltoCougar]

The problem is you really can't build a secure voting machine practically. It is possible to build a provably secure computer, with a provably secure operating system, so you then have a foundation for a probably secure voting tabulation application. However, it is really easy to add a simple way to audit a voting machine to determine if it was tampered with: simply add a printing device that prints how the voter voted. This way they can look at the printed ballet after entering it into the voting machine and verify their vote was enter correctly and then deposit the ballet into the locked box. If someone questions the tabulation of the election then there is a paper audit trail to check the mechanized tabulation. This is called a voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT). While many states and counties have adapted and added VVPAT devices there are a lot that have not. Without a way to audit the tabulation of an election how would anyone know if the machine was rigged to tabulate incorrectly? It could have very well has happened and we don't know.

Sorry for the late and verbose post, but I've been delightfully distracted. But I want to respond to your post which gets a from me. My initial reaction was, "Wait, a thoughtful post that responds directly to the question, provides substantive and interesting information, and is bereft of snark or stupid commentators like catturd, Prosobiec, OAN, etc.? Who is this guy and what has he done with Uncle Ted?" But I kind of regret typing that as it throws unnecessary shade on a good post. Thanks for that.

I would like to see the official report claiming that 2020 was the most secure presidential election in our history given all the issues with Covid-19. Most of the anecdotal examples you speak of are surrounding mail-in voting. There are lots of examples still coming in about the 2020 election of voter fraud. Given the quote above there may be a lot that we will never know about.

I don't know what would qualify as an "official report," but among the several nonpartisan analysts I referred to are The Center for Election Innovation and Research, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ("There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."), and The Brennan Center for Justice (although they say it was only "one of" the most secure elections in history). Moreover, no one has come forward with any credible evidence of fraud or errors sufficient to make any difference in the outcome. In a country with more than 100,000 voting precincts and many tens of millions of voters, there will ALWAYS be examples of individual fraud or error. Trump's own Justice Department has confirmed there were no errors sufficient to change the result.

Yes, most likely [Trump lost]... Without a way to audit the tabulation of the votes can you be absolutely sure? So why not just put the publics mind to ease by doing a few simple things?

- Add VVPAT to all voting machines.
- Require Voter ID
- Only use mail-in ballots for those that actually need it.
...

No matter how many safeguards one implements, in a country this vast we will never be absolutely sure. Even VVAPT, while a useful tool, has potential weaknesses. The question (and it's worthy of ongoing discussion) is what additional safeguards do we impose that are cost-effective and don't unnecessarily diminish voter participation?

My biggest issue is with people like Trump who either make up errors (busloads of out-of-state voters, rigged machines, suitcases of false ballots, etc.) or baselessly claim the elections are unfair, rigged, corrupt, etc. They aren't. And claiming they are reduces confidence in our institutions and paves the way for an authoritarian to step in with promises of saving us from what is really a nonexistent problem. Trump is a buffoonish demagogue who does vastly more damage to our institutions than the isolated examples of voting errors.

[Uncle Ted]

MSNBC focus group on Kamala Harris: ‘I Think She’s An Idiot’

Embedded Tweet

[Northwestcoug]

How about the universe...

this might be your physically longest post. Took me like 10 thumb swipes to get to the end.

[Pelado]

MSNBC focus group on Kamala Harris: ‘I Think She’s An Idiot’

Embedded Tweet

Shocking that a panel of "Wisconsin Trump Voters" don't like Kamala.

[myboynoah]

Embedded Tweet

It's okay, UT. This is all going to work out. The Dems are going to vote democratically to nominate a candidate according to their rules and will be overwhelmingly ecstatic about their choice. They will hold a convention in August where they will unify behind Kamala Harris and it will eclipse the Repub convention in energy and enthusiasm. Then in November America will vote and will elect the next President of the United States in a uniquely American "democratic" fashion via the electoral college, but not by popular vote. This is the way. It will all be okay.

[Copelius]

That’s kind of the problem for her that the GOP is ignoring. There are plenty of sound bites they could use against her on these positions but they are fixated on the democrats nomination process. It’s her responsibility to outline her platform, which his usually done during a primary, so now she has to do that in a very short amount of time. So until she clarifies or flip flops on these positions, they are her positions.

I think the alleged Barack Obama quote about never underestimating Joe Biden's ability to mess things up applies to every republican commentator who is complaining about the process of picking Kamala Harris, or calling her the DEI candidate, or accusing her of sleeping her way up the ladder. The general American public doesn't care about the soap opera of politics, but what effect a candidate has or will have on them. I enjoy a good mud fight as much as the next redneck, but the political ads that resonate most with me compare and contrast positions. I believe this election is still up for grabs and the first candidate who can effectively communicate their vision to America and contrast it with their opponent wins. For me I am of the opinion that it really doesn't matter who is in charge, because neither party is serious about effective and efficient governance, only retaining power.

[Moliere]

Embedded Tweet

There’s a valid argument to be made that Harris’ nomination is closer to the historical “super delegate” method than the more democratic process that the Democrats tried to follow after the Clinton debacle in 2016. I’m no fan of the process they underwent and I think they’ll pay for it. But I also acknowledge that she was rightfully nominated under the rules.

[Moliere]

I think the alleged Barack Obama quote about never underestimating Joe Biden's ability to mess things up applies to every republican commentator who is complaining about the process of picking Kamala Harris, or calling her the DEI candidate, or accusing her of sleeping her way up the ladder. The general American public doesn't care about the soap opera of politics, but what effect a candidate has or will have on them. I enjoy a good mud fight as much as the next redneck, but the political ads that resonate most with me compare and contrast positions. I believe this election is still up for grabs and the first candidate who can effectively communicate their vision to America and contrast it with their opponent wins. For me I am of the opinion that it really doesn't matter who is in charge, because neither party is serious about effective and efficient governance, only retaining power.

Harris was in a relationship with Willie Brown, her suoervisor, at the time that Brown promoted her. Brown was also 30 years older than her. None of this matters today because Donald Trump is the other nominee and his ethics are worse. If the nominee were Mitt then the fact that she was promoted under an unethical scenario would have more teeth. But it doesn’t, because of Trump.

[BlueK]

It's okay, UT. This is all going to work out. The Dems are going to vote democratically to nominate a candidate according to their rules and will be overwhelmingly ecstatic about their choice. They will hold a convention in August where they will unify behind Kamala Harris and it will eclipse the Repub convention in energy and enthusiasm. Then in November America will vote and will elect the next President of the United States in a uniquely American "democratic" fashion via the electoral college, but not by popular vote. This is the way. It will all be okay.

Of course Ted knows all this. He just can't help himself or his compulsion to forward along anything that comes across his MAGA wire. As with everything that the Trump camp pushes out, really the only intended audience is Trump's own base to keep them riled up. And they're the only ones that think this nonsense about the dem nomination process makes any sense.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's okay, UT. This is all going to work out. The Dems are going to vote democratically to nominate a candidate according to their rules and will be overwhelmingly ecstatic about their choice. They will hold a convention in August where they will unify behind Kamala Harris and it will eclipse the Repub convention in energy and enthusiasm. Then in November America will vote and will elect the next President of the United States in a uniquely American "democratic" fashion via the electoral college, but not by popular vote. This is the way. It will all be okay.

This MAGA "the poor democrats are not getting to vote on their candidate" angle is one of the dumbest things they have ever tried to pull off.

[BlueK]

This MAGA "the poor democrats are not getting to vote on their candidate" angle is one of the dumbest things they have ever tried to pull off.

I don't know why they're pushing it this hard other than to try to ward off any doubts about Trump being against democracy that could be eroding the enthusiasm of the base. The other thing his surrogates have been saying more often at his rallies is the we're a republic, not a democracy line.

[Goatnapper'96]

Harris was in a relationship with Willie Brown, her suoervisor, at the time that Brown promoted her. Brown was also 30 years older than her. None of this matters today because Donald Trump is the other nominee and his ethics are worse. If the nominee were Mitt then the fact that she was promoted under an unethical scenario would have more teeth. But it doesn’t, because of Trump.

Is it Trump or the fact that folks really don't care about that anymore? I view it as more of a bottom up change and not some revolutionary change of accepting filth and sleaze that spontaneously came about in 2016. Trump, and Mamala, are symptoms of our greater latitude and lack of collective concern about folks sexual miscreancy.

[Goatnapper'96]

I don't know why they're pushing it this hard other than to try to ward off any doubts about Trump being against democracy that could be eroding the enthusiasm of the base. The other thing his surrogates have been saying more often at his rallies is the we're a republic, not a democracy line.

They are saying it for 2 reasons:

1.) It is easy and fast to get out. This gives their strategists time to generate or finalize their efforts to define her from a policy perspective while making sure the vacuum is not filled by just Democrats telling us what a modern day American hero Joe Biden is.

2.) It goes straight against the arguments that Trump is a threat to democracy. Following the Bannon playbook if the Right can throw as much shit against the wall of threats to democracy it desensitizes folks. It is an effort to use Trump's weakness against Mamala.