ThenElection
No bio...
User ID: 622
Printer manufacturers make it so that printers fingerprint themselves on anything that's printed (as requested by the feds), with a pattern of dots imperceptible to the human eye acting as the identifier. So you could see if there's a third party printer printing hundreds of ballots, and then track it to the purchaser.
You can acquire printers that don't do this, but if you found a bunch of ballots lacking the identifier, I'd consider it a strong sign of fraud.
Compare where we were in 2017 to where we were in 2021. Was the state more or less intrusive into our lives?
Now, you might say that's unfair, and there were new circumstances that gave the state more opportunities to seize control that Trump was unable to effectively push against. And yes: that's exactly my point. Even his greatest success during the pandemic (getting the vaccine developed ASAP) was seized from him by bureaucrats who delayed its release until after the election for the sake of "political neutrality."
Inevitably, there will be new circumstances that arise from now until 2028. The state will maneuver around him, and he'll just flail around at best. War with China? We need copious controls to make sure no one is misled by misinformation. New pandemic? Now we know better how to do a real shutdown for public health. Etc.
That trend is inevitable, regardless of who's in office. My belief is that Trump's flailing will likelier hurt the market and my 401k worse than Kamala's empty suit.
ThenElection
27d ago
Well, I know there's some sort of "law" some political commentator coined, that says that any organization that's not explicitly right wing eventually becomes left wing.
Conquest's Law(s): https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/conquests-laws-john-derbyshire/
ThenElection
27d ago
I agree that all of those things are bad, and I suspect some of them will be worse 4 years from now even in my "ideal" scenario.
What I don't see is Trump effectively pushing back against them. His election will cause a refocusing of the progressive movement, who will make effective state-level efforts and sabotage his leadership of the federal government. But they'll barely need to do anything to sabotage Trump, since he's pretty much self-sabotaging: he's lazy and erratic, and although he has all the right enemies, he has all the wrong enemies too.
ThenElection
27d ago
This is basically where I'm at. My vote doesn't matter, but it's going to Kamala (unless I get particularly annoyed at something in the next week). Regardless, it's a bad sign for our institutions that these are the choices we've been given.
My personal wish casting is Republicans take the legislative branch, to make all of her policy platform stillborn. And she wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote (appearing slightly more likely in recent polls). The wailing and gnashing of teeth from everyone would be amazing.
There are some rumblings on Twitter about a tape (A TAPE) coming out tomorrow that will be highly damaging to Trump. The speculations about what it is... him groping a donor's preteen daughter, something with Ghislaine Maxwell, maybe the Russian pee tape finally?
I guess, if you're going to release a video at the last minute to sway the election, might as well go all out and put all of it in it hoping something sticks.
ThenElection
28d ago
For what it's worth:
So many comments about the @latimes Editorial Board not providing a Presidential endorsement this year. Let me clarify how this decision came about.
The Editorial Board was provided the opportunity to draft a factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies by EACH candidate during their tenures at the White House, and how these policies affected the nation. In addition, the Board was asked to provide their understanding of the policies and plans enunciated by the candidates during this campaign and its potential effect on the nation in the next four years. In this way, with this clear and non-partisan information side-by-side, our readers could decide who would be worthy of being President for the next four years.
Instead of adopting this path as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision. Please #vote.
https://x.com/DrPatSoonShiong/status/1849217132183060705
His very online progressive daughter retweeted that as well, along with an excerpt about how he got arrested for participating in anti-apartheid activities.
ThenElection
30d ago
Rogan is a very deferential interviewer. Both Trump and Harris would do fine on it, assuming they don't find a way to hang themselves on their own.
Rogan's fans are diverse and not ideological, and any candidate going on has the opportunity both to sway their vote and to increase the likelihood of existing supporters to actually vote.
ThenElection
30d ago
Senators Warren, Wyden, and Casey are on it and made a press release today:
ThenElection
30d ago
Huh. Didn't know that. If I were vetting candidates to be VP, I would almost require that they submit their detailed earnings report and their tax returns, so it would surprise me if she didn't have it from 2019.
Have you worked in a big campaign? I think it would be fun and enlightening if you shared your experiences on the thread!
Democratic Senate campaign, prominent at the time but losing, and I was lowest level paid staffer. Also a mayoral campaign for a major city but minor candidate.
It is indeed very regarded, but my personal experiences were dominated by 1) having a giant crush on the press secretary I worked under, 2) pretending to be the candidate to call major donors' offices, and then transferring to him if his secretary said they were available, repeat. Also, going to a strip club where every stripper was 50+ after a major victory. At one point we had a freakout over baking soda being sent in the mail (accompanied by an abortion letter).
The only real insight I have is that any conspiracy theory requiring that Democratic candidates and staffers be hyper competent ideologues is wildly off-base.
ThenElection
1mo ago
I agree that the Harris campaign would have more motivation than anyone else. I just think this is assuming malice when incompetence is more than sufficient. Campaigns are extremely crazy internally (it's really hard to convey just how crazy they get unless you've been on one), with unclear lines of responsibility and a giant workload that you'll never get fully through. Even if they have Harris' lifetime tax records on hand (they should if they're available, but they might not be), there's no particular reason to think some intern or junior staffer would have an easy line to pass them on to Snopes. And even if they did, the expected benefit of convincing a Snopes reader that Harris worked at McDonald's might be outweighed by other considerations (giving away unrelated information that could provide avenues of attack, or just in setting a precedent).
ThenElection
1mo ago
To be fair, I would also ignore any media organ asking for comment from me on something long ago. In 2022 one reached out about an old college roommate who was running for office, and I sent the email straight to the trash.
I don't think McDonald's headquarters would respond about a private employment matter, and I'm not even sure it would have employment records from almost half a century ago.
ThenElection
1mo ago
It seems more likely that we wanted to destroy the Taliban because they harbored Osama Bin Laden after 9/11; cobbled together a messy coalition of liberals, tribal traditionalists, and the plain corrupt; and then looked the other way for the sake of maintaining coalition politics than it is we supported child rape at the behest of domestic LGBT politics.
ThenElection
1mo ago
Fits with the "power fantasy for women" hypothesis. It's not to convince men that if they vote for Harris they'll get lots of hot women, but to convince the average woman that she can be a top woman too with the pick of the litter if she votes for Harris.
There's an angle, definitely. But my visceral response is that people would be much less angry at Trump doing a CostCo photo op than a McDonald's photo op. And, by the same token, there's a reason his campaign decided to do a McDonald's photo op over a CostCo photo op. The role McDonald's plays in the American imagination is key. Or, rather, in the two decidedly different American imaginations: one where it's symbolic of all the worst of American culture, and one where it gives fast convenient yummy oily treats.
The status dynamics are interesting. Having worked at McDonald's sometime in the past clearly isn't something that Democrats feel there should be shame over--regardless of the veracity of Kamala's work history, it's still something she thinks gives a boost to her resume. But the response is nevertheless unhinged.
Is it some kind of stolen valor? I'm imagining Trump stocking shelves at CostCo in a photo-op, and I doubt he'd even get any media attention. Or even doing the same exact thing at Burger King: despite being identical slop, the response wouldn't be nearly so vituperative.
It has to do with what McDonald's represents. Kamala worked at McDonald's, but it was something horrific she was forced to do, serving the lowest of the low so she could better herself. If her life is ever dramatized by Netflix, her last day there will depict her departure as she gives a soliloquy about the depravities of mass consumerist slop, corporate wage slavery, car-centric culture, and factory farming. Trump, by contrast, is not only going there voluntarily, but going there as if there were nothing wrong or shameful about going there. Anyone with his privileges doing something so declasse is breaking a code.
ThenElection
1mo ago
I saw earlier today when I logged on that IBKR is advertising "Forecast Contracts" on the election. Seems to be a new thing, might toss some cash toward it.
ThenElection
1mo ago
Depends on your state--it's all very decentralized in the US. I received an absentee ballot, and the only real difficult part was getting through the annoyance at having to vote for over a dozen different offices and two dozen different propositions.
If the ad is actually targeted at men, maybe the "has a plan to vote" verbiage is to make it sound meaningful, agentic, and even heroic. You make a plan to found a business, or win a war, or build a home. If you just say "are you going to vote," it makes it sound like all you are doing is filling in a bubble on a sheet that has approximately zero chance of changing anything.
ThenElection
1mo ago
Approximately no one dates based on politics. Everyone of both sexes looks for someone attractive, and the smarter ones in addition look for someone who they can have a pleasant time with and build a life together with.
Someone who turns their dating profile into a political screed is going to have a harder time forming relationships, but that's because they're revealing themselves to be an unpleasant person, not because of mismatches in political philosophy. A man who raves about Kamala and rants about Trump all the time is going to turn off even the most hardcore Democratic woman, and that's true regardless of the sexes and political valences involved.
ThenElection
1mo ago
I don't think even the Trump campaign would be so crass to have a board of men rating a woman for her weight and cup size, liking her, and then dismissing her when she said she wasn't voting Trump. It's just a really gross image. Somehow, he manages to be classier than that very low bar (or at least knows how wildly counterproductive it would be).
ThenElection
1mo ago
I think the core issue with this ad (at least if intended to target men) is that men typically fall into one of two groups: those who don't struggle with dating (either from great success or being in a monogamous relationship) and those who do and are frustrated. Men in the former category have no real reason to want to shift their political activities for greater sexual access, and the latter might, but they really aren't gonna like a gaggle of women salivating over a tall, fit, (moderately) successful man and then rejecting him for the minor sin of not caring about politics. Going with a short, chubby cashier who suddenly starts getting all the attention would better target the category who cares, but it'd strain realism too much, I guess.
In the wake of her weakness incredible historic strength among young men, Kamala has a new ad out on IG and SC, "Don't Get Popped":
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1847720298335948932
For those who don't want to view it, I'll transcribe the ad and set the scene: a speed dating scenario where women rate the man.
Trey: Hello ladies, I'm Trey. It's good to be here.
Ladies: Hey, Trey. 😃😃😃
Trey: Hey hey!
Ladies: So what do you do and how much do you make? 😉😉😉
Trey: I work in finance, making six figures.
Ladies: Oooooh. 😍😍😍 How tall are you?
Trey: 6'5".
Ladies: 🥵🥵🥵 [Fat woman asks:] Do you work out?
Trey: I like to stay active, yeah.
Ladies: 💦💦💦 Do you have a plan to vote?
Trey: Uhhh, I didn't plan on it.
Ladies: 🤮🤮🤮 [pop balloons, indicating rejection]
DON'T GET POPPED. VOTE
On the face of it, this seems entirely tone-deaf. The theory seems to be "vote Democratic, or we'll Lysistrata you" but I can't imagine a single man who would react in the way the campaign would want them to. Most would just roll their eyes, and, if you're a young man frustrated with dating, it would probably provoke outright hostility. So you might write it off as a clueless campaign hiring a couple of rich white women and gay men trying to imagine a way to make young men vote Harris and failing, just another example of the empathetic gap between who the campaign gets ideological inspiration from and the voters she needs to win.
The surprising bit is that the Harris campaign isn't targeting men with this but women, as indicated by ad targeting spend. My theory here is that Kamala is not offering a threat here, but selling a power fantasy. If you're a woman, vote for Harris, and you'll have a parade of men approaching you, who you can reject at will.
For plan B, even without voter ID, you're limited by the number of people in on the fraud. A single person would be only able to vote a couple times in a day. Ten, maybe? I can imagine a conspiracy of one or two people doing this, but it becomes much more risky the more people you have doing it.
Plans similar to A seem much more manageable, but do any jurisdictions allow you to pick up unfilled ballots in bulk?
More options
Context Copy link