This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
For fucks sake, you can’t rely on 100% of people to enjoy a delicious free meal that they pick out themselves, or sex with an extremely attractive and willing partner.
Unless these voting districts consist of approximately 25 voting people, any district reporting 100% one way voting is like Soviet level bullshit.
I actually think this passes a basic sniff test.
A quick search reveals that Philadelphia has 1703 voting divisions, and that Obama and Romney combined had 5,670,708 votes in Pennsylvania as a whole in 2012 with the resulting map looking like this. Philadelphia is the bright blue part in the lower right part of the image, and it is obvious just looking at it that Obama's support in Pennsylvania is concentrated in a few highly populous municipalities, including Philadelphia. The claimed oddity is that 59 of the 1703 voting divisions in Philadelphia amounting to 19,605 votes all went 100% to Obama. But why is this strange?
Each voting division in Philadelphia seems to have about 332 voters, so all that needed to happen was around 332 voters in a single voting division all decided to cast a ballot for Obama 59 times in a city where around 560,000 total people were casting their vote, and 80-90% of the votes were going to Obama. With voter clustering, does this seem that unlikely of an outcome?
It still seems a bit odd. Blacks voted to Obama at a rate like 95% Let's generously assume that urban poor blacks are 99%. But aren't odds of every single vote being for Obama in a 332 person district something like 0.99^332 which works out to 3.5% ? Without that generous assumption, if black vote for Obama was only 98% vote share, they'd be really low (e-6) ..
What was the amount of invalid votes in those districts?
I'm not sure you're thinking about it correctly.
First, the math you're doing implicitly assumes who any two people vote for is an independent event. But there might be social, political and economic reasons why the people in a single small subsection of a city all vote a particular way. If the type of people who live in a single neighborhood isn't completely random, and the type of political messaging that appeal to a person aren't randomly distributed throughout a state, then you might completely be wrong to treat the voting events as independent.
In addition, even if you assume that the events are independent, then the real comparison you're making is all of the votes cast in the entire United States. You might be right to say that there's a generous 3.5% chance of a single voting division of poor black people going for Obama. But the question really is, how many of this kind of black voting division are there in the entire United States? How many degrees of freedom did the people looking for claimed irregularities have? If they hadn't found 59 majority black voting divisions in Philadelphia going to Obama, are there similarly striking "irregularities" that might occur entirely by chance that they might have looked for instead?
We were talking about just Philadelphia.
not going to Obama. They all went to Obama. These few went with 100%. I mean, does Lizardman constant not work in blacks ?
I allow that this isn't the most outrageous thing, which is your election procedures, and that maybe urban blacks really are such a hivemind that a 99.5% voting for the smooth black guy rate was random.
But US has a track record of known voting and election fraud, running back centuries. You don't have a robust ID system required for voting. You have weird ass mail-in voting procedures.
You don't have a rigorous way of ensuring poll and election workers are diverse politically.
I agree, but I think it is worth taking a step back and asking at the meta level why we were talking about just Philadelphia.
A newspaper report saying, "Some people think it's suspicious that 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia went 100% to Obama" doesn't just come from nowhere.
If I imagine Joe the Reporter, trying to craft a story of this kind (perhaps even for noble reasons!), I have to wonder about adjacently possible worlds. Imagine the counterfactual world where the 2012 presidential election as a whole was a sufficiently fair election on the whole, with whatever meaning you assign to that idea. However, even in a fair election, just by random chance, we would expect there to be voting patterns that were "suspicious" for one reason or another.
Assuming Joe the Reporter's methodology isn't far off from:
Then I just think that if we weren't talking about Philadelphia having 59 voting divisions going 100% to Obama, we'd be talking about some other state or city or whatever that had "odd" voting patterns of some kind, even if it could well be completely innocent, and we just happened to end up in the world where a very unlikely happened by chance, because something had to happen.
I think a very similar thing happened with 2020, and the people who claim it's strange that some states were counting ballots and Republicans were in the lead as they counted the in person votes, but at some point in the night they counted the mail in votes and suddenly Democrats jumped to a decisive lead when all the votes were tallied. I admit this could be suspicious, but you have to realize that nobody pre-registered the opinion that Democrats would stuff the ballot on the back end by faking a bunch of mail in votes in the specific counties where that was the reporting pattern. I just have the intuition that if things had gone slightly differently and the mail in votes in those counties had somehow been counted before the in person ballots, then people wanting to call the election fake would have found some equally hard to explain thing halfway across the country that might have any number of innocent explanations.
Wait till other counties have reported and then stuff the ballot box is the go-to method of election fraud. 100% this was predicted by someone who's been paying attention.
In his 1960 book on the Kennedy campaign, T.H.White did not include this:
But it was in his 1978 autobiography In Search of History.
So we need to reframe the plot to kill Kennedy as the Deep State taking action against the Kennedy machine rigging election.
Actually it was complex-
and probably a few more. Check out this podcast for some intersting info by a long-time CIA analyst who actually knew some of the guys involved as they were his bosses.
https://www.manifold1.com/episodes/ray-mcgovern-cia-jfk-deep-state-and-ukraine-crisis-54
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But this is exactly it. I think the difference between Trumpist election deniers and more impartial observers of American political history is that the latter acknowledge that
It’s entirely likely that both blue and red counties engage in low level vote count manipulation when results are close, to the tune of that 1-2% figure
None of this is (as your quote indicates) remotely unusual in American political history. This was no special or unique project to stop Trump but rather the same shenanigans that have gone on in every election since 1776. 2020 wasn’t even the most corrupt election in the last fifty years, let alone in American history.
Biden had a ‘plausible’ case for winning and Trump’s defeat wasn’t a case of an implausibly unpopular candidate beating a popular incumbent. The vote was close and could have gone either way, Trump really was historically unpopular for an incumbent at the time, Biden won the popular vote by some margin (this obviously doesn’t make for an EC victory but is illustrative of an at least not-extremely-unpopular-relative-to-their-opponent) and had broad appeal to the Dem base.
Based on the above, nothing that happened in 2020 was unusual in American politics and Trump was not the victim of an ‘unprecedented’ level of election interference to ensure his defeat.
As the 1960 quote reveals, even the most corrupt states can’t make a hugely unpopular candidate popular or vice versa. Thus Trump’s claims that he actually won bigly are false. He got played to a minor extent but he was probably not screwed more than the average presidential loser electorally.
Granting #1 as written is not justified.
Manipulating the vote count 1-2% at the county level takes a political machine to pull off and protect. Doing so consistently without detection is a tall order, and even if you think you have the local/county/state politics figured out, the Feds can get you.
Furthermore, the place where the incentives are strong (swing states) tend to (by definition) have a mix of partisan power, making it harder to coordinate and conceal such activity. Being in a blue county in a red state would make it a very risky proposition to piss off the majority party’s state prosecutor. And there’s no incentive to run up the vote where it is single-party rule so why risk it?
You can’t look at Tammany Hall and extrapolate to the present.
Plots to manipulate the vote at any scale are very hard and rare, but mistakes and small cases of fraud do happen. 2020, Covid, and mail in ballots were a particularly ripe situation for strange things and mistakes, and for people to be hyper-concerned about it.
More options
Context Copy link
What was Russiagate if not a special project to stop Trump ? What was the election fortification nonsense ?
The rhetoric around Trump was unprecedented. Why'd you expect election interference to be constant if hysteria is being whipped up and the talk is apocalyptic on mainstream media? I remember the elections before that - it was all far milder. Apocalyptic talk about Bush was pretty much a fringe left thing.
And why wouldn't stealing 1-2% of the vote matter? In a close state can handily ensure victory.
I'd say given the levels of fraud by blacks vs whites, it's far more likely electoral fraud happens in very corrupt places rather than suburban ones where someone who is not onboard with the existential fight might to object to it.
Just like with mail-in voting mobilization (going around bugging non-voters to vote and helping them fill out ballots)being easier to do in urban districts, so is fraud.
E.g.: see picture.
/images/17086436476571107.webp
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link