Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

Who do you think will win in November?

  • Total voters
    101
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
"The Black Insurrectionist" social media account was linked back to a white guy.

Said white guy claims a black friend of his actually owns the account now and he's actually been working with "big people" on any recent conspiracy theories for the election.

apnews.com

The 'Black Insurrectionist' was actually white. The deception did not stop there

“Black Insurrectionist,” the anonymous social media persona behind some of the most widely circulated conspiracy theories about Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate Tim Walz, can be traced to a white man from upstate New York.
apnews.com apnews.com
 
warpus said:
I'm really curious what the difference is between how we do it in Canada. Obviously there's 10x people in the U.S., but it seems there'd be 10x more people counting as well. Here you vote during the day, the results start coming in in the evening, and by 1-3am EST the winner is usually clear. Sometimes you have to wait until the next morning. From what I remember, if any other Canadians are reading this and I'm misremembering, do correct me.
Click to expand...

That's indeed how we do it. Only time we don't know the winner (or pretty sure) is when it's really close.
(then they do recounts)

Oh, all our stuff is on paper, and yes, you must show ID to vote. Nobody has any problems with that.
(that's to vote in person. no clue on mail in ballots or how they work up here)
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1849919612911223014


Calvinball by fascist MAGA judges.

Mark Joseph Stern
@mjs_DC
NEW: A far-right panel of the 5th Circuit rules that it is *illegal* for states to count ballots that arrive shortly after Election Day but are postmarked by Election Day.

18 states + D.C. count these ballots. This decision would shred those laws. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2525

BUT: The 5th Circuit decision only applies to Mississippi, the one state within the circuit that counts ballots received after Election Day.

The 5th Circuit is trying to tee up a Supreme Court decision to strike down ballot laws in many other states, too. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25252882/rnc-ballots-case.pdf

The 5th Circuit declined to issue a preliminary injunction against Mississippi's law, but declared it illegal and ordered the district court to issue an appropriate remedy. Nobody knows what that will look like! Confusion will now reign. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2525

IF the district court tries to stop Mississippi from counting late-arriving ballots—which the 5th Circuit sort of suggests it should—I think the Supreme Court will block it because the election is too close. But who knows? SCOTUS is wildly inconsistent in this area.
 
Cutlass said:
SCOTUS is wildly inconsistent in this area.
Click to expand...

Alito, writing for the 6-3 majority one week from today: "It's totally legal to change laws right before the election, only in Republican states and only to make it harder to vote, because of this reason I pulled directly from my posterior"
 
The bazillionaire owners of the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post have decided to exercise their ownership rights and forbid their papers from endorsing any candidates i.e. Kamala Harris. Both have seen editors leave and subscriptions cancelled already.
 
So the countdown (10 days) has started. It may be looking rather grim for Kamala, unless the polls this time managed to not downplay votes for Trump.
I think that her main problem was temperament; reminded me a bit of Theresa May in that she too was very awkward in front of the cameras. AOC would have been a star.


Not sure if this helped or did harm. On just one of the points: did she really need to claim that she "raised" children? Apparently she came into their life when they were 20 and 15. She may indeed be a great parent to them, but "raising" likely isn't the correct word.
 
Last edited:
Sommerswerd said:
and this whole toxic environment was stoked and peaked because of Trump and his approach to politics.
Click to expand...

This is a totally wrong diagnosis. Which makes it easy to guess that future prospects for the US are dim. Without an ability to diganose its problems, they won't fix them.

The democrats' tribe says it was Trump (and the republicans) that divided the country, the other equally large tribe says as the DNC. And from there they will not move.

Take yourself as an example. You say it was Trump. But can't you remember recent history, who started calling deplorables to half the population, who attempted to steal the first election in this fight by attempting to turn hypothetical "unfaithful electors", who manufactured a "russiagate"? Was that not "divisive"? And petty?

Disions are entrenched and they are certainly not due to one person, or one tribe. Good luck handling that now.
 
warpus said:
Can the polls be trusted in any way?
Click to expand...
It'd have been better if they were typically underplaying the vote for both parties, but in 2016 and 2020 they underplayed the vote for Trump, which makes it at least likely that they are doing it now too. The difference being that in those past elections Trump was set to lose massively (won first, lost narrowly the second), while now the polls show a tie.
 
warpus said:
Can the polls be trusted in any way?
Click to expand...

Depends on the poll. There's a lot of bad ones that throw off 538.

I would look at more reliable ones from 2016 onwards.

Reliable ones put Harris narrowly ahead or neck and neck.

What they're saying is its close. Don't be to surprised if Trump wins. Reverse is also true.
Pennsylvania is the big one. Trump loses that he loses on the spot along with any upset in Florida or Texas (unlikely tbh).
 
Last edited:
innonimatu said:
who started calling deplorables to half the population
Click to expand...
One quarter. (Or more precisely one-tenth)

She said that "half of Trump's supporters she puts in a 'basket of deplorables.'"
 
innonimatu said:
This is a totally wrong diagnosis. Which makes it easy to guess that future prospects for the US are dim. Without an ability to diganose its problems, they won't fix them.

The democrats' tribe says it was Trump (and the republicans) that divided the country, the other equally large tribe says as the DNC. And from there they will not move.

Take yourself as an example. You say it was Trump. But can't you remember recent history, who started calling deplorables to half the population, who attempted to steal the first election in this fight by attempting to turn hypothetical "unfaithful electors", who manufactured a "russiagate"? Was that not "divisive"? And petty?

Disions are entrenched and they are certainly not due to one person, or one tribe. Good luck handling that now.
Click to expand...

Republicans were doing it decades before any of that.
 
Gori the Grey said:
One quarter. (Or more precisely one-tenth)

She said that "half of Trump's supporters she puts in a 'basket of deplorables.'"
Click to expand...
If I may, you don’t happen to have the transcript of her deplorable speech? Just to refresh my memory.
 
warpus said:
Can the polls be trusted in any way?
Click to expand...

There are polls and then there are polls. Why do you think the media billionaires put themselves in Trump's camp, most recently Bezos? They have their own polls. As does each party. And they get non-doctored results.

The democracts knew Biden was sure to lose and that was when they dumped their stuffed candidate. At the time they still claimed that the public polls put them ahead but their "donors" knew better, the party leaders knew better. Then they tried Harris. And got every friendly media to spin her as something new, with new polls putting her ahead being part of that narrative. It's manufactured. How can it be that after all this time, after so many things you can remember from the past, you don't even suspect? Polls are part of the political game, ever some neutral evaluation. They are not wrong, they are part of the effort at getting the desired result. That's their only purpose.

My point is, published polls months from the election are not innacurate djust ue to undecided voters. They are innacurate by design, they are biased on purpose.

Political campaigning is a media circus of pandering to this or that tribe. But it is also a play by bureaucrats and oligarchs at who can become closer to power for the next few years, who gets to use that proximity for personal benefit. They will have their favoured candidates. Candidates of they same tribe. Or candidates they can buy easiest. So long as the election is far away in time the media will favor the preferred candidade of the manegarial class from whom reporters are overwhelming draws now. In the US that is the Democrats. But they must also play the circus as a close fight, so much the better to get "engagement". Hence 3 elections on a row with "tight" polls having a democrat lead. The oligarchs, those will help along the politicians they "invested" the most in, but cultivate their own sources of information on hoe the race is actually going.
As the election approaches the oligarchs shift to attempting to curry favour or own the candidate they then see as the likely winner. And the media "corrects" the polls because they must be sold to the public as having predictive value. Else more people may "disengage" in the next election. That is happenning already: how is confidence on the media doing it the US over the last decade?

So my further point is: as the election day approaches, published polls are corrected, nearer to what is actually believed by the pollsters to be the expected result. They better not fail by too much or this particular portion of the election circus would lose its value. And the pollsters would be unemployed. You want to know what private polling is saying: look at what the oligachs are doing. They're now droping the anti-Trump retjhopric, or openly play-acting as supporters.
 
innonimatu said:
There are polls and then there are polls. Why do you think the media billionaires put themselves in Trump's camp, most recently Bezos? They have their own polls. As does each party. And they get non-doctored results.

The democracts knew Biden was sure to lose and that was when they dumped their stuffed candidate. At the time they still claimed that the public polls put them ahead but their "donors" knew better, the party leaders knew better. Then they tried Harris. And got every friendly media to spin her as something new, with new polls putting her ahead being part of that narrative. It's manufactured. How can it be that after all this time, after so many things you can remember from the past, you don't even suspect? Polls are part of the political game, ever some neutral evaluation. They are not wrong, they are part of the effort at getting the desired result. That's their only purpose.

My point is, published polls months from the election are not innacurate djust ue to undecided voters. They are innacurate by design, they are biased on purpose.

Political campaigning is a media circus of pandering to this or that tribe. But it is also a play by bureaucrats and oligarchs at who can become closer to power for the next few years, who gets to use that proximity for personal benefit. They will have their favoured candidates. Candidates of they same tribe. Or candidates they can buy easiest. So long as the election is far away in time the media will favor the preferred candidade of the manegarial class from whom reporters are overwhelming draws now. In the US that is the Democrats. But they must also play the circus as a close fight, so much the better to get "engagement". Hence 3 elections on a row with "tight" polls having a democrat lead. The oligarchs, those will help along the politicians they "invested" the most in, but cultivate their own sources of information on hoe the race is actually going.
As the election approaches the oligarchs shift to attempting to curry favour or own the candidate they then see as the likely winner. And the media "corrects" the polls because they must be sold to the public as having predictive value. Else more people may "disengage" in the next election. That is happenning already: how is confidence on the media doing it the US over the last decade?

So my further point is: as the election day approaches, published polls are corrected, nearer to what is actually believed by the pollsters to be the expected result. They better not fail by too much or this particular portion of the election circus would lose its value. And the pollsters would be unemployed. You want to know what private polling is saying: look at what the oligachs are doing. They're now droping the anti-Trump retjhopric, or openly play-acting as supporters.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no. Most of the oligarchs were either already Trump supporters or looking to keep in Trump's good graces (like WaPo being owned by Bezos who still owns a lot of Amazon who has a lot of government contracts).

And all of them are trying to force the issue with their considerable money power since it does seem so close .
 
It's just 3 paragraphs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kaitzilla
The 2nd Trump Assassination Attempt, mid-September 2024
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
6K
JollyRoger
JollyRoger
Samson
  • Poll Poll
Can a Marxist revolutionary get elected president and sort out the economy?
5 6 7
Replies
120
Views
8K
Samson
Samson
Birdjaguar
  • Locked
[RD] War in Gaza: News Thread
64 65 66
Replies
1K
Views
89K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Tekamthi
PSA: Recon alternatives (compatible with 4.21)
Replies
0
Views
588
Tekamthi
Tekamthi
bengalryan9
Civ Discussion - Antiquity Age Summary/Tier Lists
Replies
14
Views
1K
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
Back
Top Bottom