US Politics- Roger Stoned to Death

[DMC]

Just now, Kalibear said:

and then for a variety of reasons will not have their vote counted or will not be able to vote.

Yes, the first part is very much a concern with throwing out mail-in ballots.  The second part is voter suppression, which is a concern too, but harder to do with mail-in ballots other than throwing voters off the registration rolls.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Yes, the first part is very much a concern with throwing out mail-in ballots.  The second part is voter suppression, which is a concern too, but harder to do with mail-in ballots other than throwing voters off the registration rolls.

It is very easy to throw people off the registration rolls, either by doing things like very strict voter signature checking or by literally removing the items from the registration. These are servers that are publicly accessible via the internet and can be hacked - and were penetrated (but not modified) in the 2016 election. This is one of the major vulnerabilities of the mail in system that still has not been particularly well solved.

[argonak]

43 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

Keep in mind, @argonak, a whole lot of people are going to be unable to vote this election, at least successfully. It's not just that they don't want to vote - though I'm sure the usual suspects of young people and white people are going to be doing that - it's that they will be not permitted to vote in fairly record numbers this time. Or their votes will be effectively nullified by other rules. 

Yes, it is. Sampling likely voters only tells you people who are saying they're going to vote; it doesn't tell you about the people who normally don't vote who end up coming out, and it doesn't tell you about the people who end up not voting. 

Trump replicating his strategy is stupid but it's also his only real path forward. And while being an incumbent is a flaw, it's also a major benefit in that he holds a lot of actual power to decide things. 

Voter suppression is very bad, you'll get no argument from me on that.  But I have little sympathy for the people who wait until the last minute to register and then complain.  Its the one thing we do to participate in making decisions that affect us all, people should be willing to fight for it if they have to.  In the past though, people just couldn't be bothered.  Can't bother to register or verify you're registered ahead of time.  Can't bother to show up at the voting booth or can't bother to collect an absentee ballot.  I voted when I worked in Canada.  I voted when I worked in Japan.  I don't really even care who people vote for; I just want them to care enough to not be ignorant about the issues.

One of my young coworkers was a highlight of this for me.  All through 2016 he talked about the candidates, the election, he was very passionate.  He was almost depressed after Trump won.  And then he finally admitted to me a few days later that he hadn't even voted.   We're from Washington.  All you have to do is sign up ONLINE, and they mail a ballot and voter's pamphlet to your house.  This year the stamp is even FREE.  And he couldn't be bothered.  And he tried to explain to me how it didn't even matter because Trump didn't win Washington anyway.   But it DOES matter.

It makes me feel like I'm living in crazy land when so many people don't understand why.  Just because something doesn't change the outcome, doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

2 minutes ago, argonak said:

And he tried to explain to me how it didn't even matter because Trump didn't win Washington anyway.   But it DOES matter.

It makes me feel like I'm living in crazy land when so many people don't understand why.  Just because something doesn't change the outcome, doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

Can you tell me why and how you think it does matter?

I vote, because I kind of enjoy it. But my perspective is that it really doesn't matter, unless you live in one of a handful of swing states. Even for House, Senate, or local races the strong likelihood is that the outcome of any election is a foregone conclusion either due to gerrymandering or your municipality's/state's partisan lean. All the ways our system of government is stacked against democratic input are more worthy of your scorn than your non-voting coworker. 

[A True Kaniggit]

54 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Why on earth are you limiting your analysis to those who watch network affiliate evening news? Political ads don't run on just those programs. They run on all sorts of programs on commercial programs-- and of course these days run on any cable network with commercials, not just "network affiliates." I have seen lots of political ads on both Investigation Discovery and The Weather Channel recently; I have not watched network affiliate evening news for years. 

Yep. I’ve been seeing political ads on Cartoon Network. 

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

And it is a major blind spot in polling. Polling assumes certain amounts of demographics will vote in certain ways, and weights their poll responses based on those demographics. Some times this is laughable - there was one pollster who had precisely 3 AA polled people and 1 of them loved Trump, so their demos were very weird a lot of the time and their results were quite odd. But the end result is that polling is not the actual people coming out to vote. Polling assumes - usually wrongly by a few % points - that the electorate that is turning out this time is going to be roughly the same as it was the previous time.

Every election pollsters have to put together their estimate of what the electorate will look like, and that is the main difference pollster to pollster.  That estimate is informed by demographics from the previous election, along with survey results on voter interest and intensity.  You are basically arguing that Republican voter supression will result in an electorate more akin to the assumptions of Rasmussen and Trafalgar (which consistently come in R+8 or something), rather than the more mainstream pollsters.  That isn't impossible, but I'm not convinced that just because Republicans are going to try and disqualify a lot of voters necessarily means that they will succeed. 

I fully expect the total votes counted in 2020 to exceed that of 2016.  Voting in the primaries, even post pandemic, was extremely high - well above 2016 primaries.  Many states, including many swing states, have made it easier than ever before to vote. 

[DMC]

39 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

This is one of the major vulnerabilities of the mail in system that still has not been particularly well solved.

Throwing people off the rolls has nothing to do with the mail in system.  If they throw you off the registration roles, you can't vote in any way.

[argonak]

6 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Can you tell me why and how you think it does matter?

I vote, because I kind of enjoy it. But my perspective is that it really doesn't matter, unless you live in one of a handful of swing states. Even for House, Senate, or local races the strong likelihood is that the outcome of any election is a foregone conclusion either due to gerrymandering or your municipality's/state's partisan lean. All the ways our system of government is stacked against democratic input are more worthy of your scorn than your non-voting coworker. 

The biggest reason is that your actions define you, not the results of your actions.   By actively participating in the democratic process you define a portion of your contribution to your society.  If you don't. . . you don't. 

Or how about do you only do what's right when it affects things?  Or do you do the right thing even when it doesn't make a difference?

Or how about the fact that the presidential election isn't the only damn thing on the ballot.  What about Mayors, Judges, sheriffs, all the other things on the ballot that affect you even more locally?

There's a lot other reasons, but those are the big ones to me personally.

[DMC]

@larrytheimp, sorry for forgetting about this, but there's plenty of sources out there detailing the Perot myth.  538 made a video about it.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Throwing people off the rolls has nothing to do with the mail in system.  If they throw you off the registration roles, you can't vote in any way.

There are provisional votes that are allowed at many polling places that can later be checked. But it's not just the rolls - that was shorthand and I apologize. The specific registered voter rolls are (usually) decently guarded, though apparently not in Kentucky. 

For mail in voting to work, they have to check the rolls, then they have to go to other databases that have things like the voter signature, address, name and other bits of data on record. These are often handled by the DoL of that state and are VERY open. And these can be easily modified. They're somewhat designed to be easily modified, as any DoL office needs to be able to do so. But that leaves them open to vulnerability. And from there you can change all sorts of things - the valid signature, the contact information in case of a discrepancy, the actual record of a person being alive...it's all problematic. In that way, mail-in voting has a weakness that in-person does not. 

[DMC]

Just now, Kalibear said:

There are provisional votes that are allowed at many polling places that can later be checked.

True, but if you're thrown off the roles - even unjustly - the provisional ballot is still not going to count.

1 minute ago, Kalibear said:

They're somewhat designed to be easily modified, as any DoL office needs to be able to do so. But that leaves them open to vulnerability.

Gotcha.

[aceluby]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Because you're making the argument that Perot was a spoiler.  If he pulled votes from both parties equally, or failed to pull enough from one party to affect the outcome, how could he be a spoiler?  And as far as I know it's not clear that he was, or that Bush or Dole could have won even if he didn't run.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Who was the last real spoiler?  TR?  

No I'm not.  My argument is that getting over the 5% threshold in a presidential election is meaningless.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

I said I expect more of Democrats than I do of Republicans, and I am critical of Democrats who continue to do the same things and, overall, lose. 

What you want is to conveniently dismiss anything you don't see feasible as a Herculean task. I don't care if you don't see it as feasible. Next year, I will have exhausted the charity of the company that makes the medication for my rheumatoid arthritis (which has been a miracle drug for me), and I will no longer be able to get it because the monthly copay (with my insurance that already takes 22 percent of my meager income) is infinitely higher than anything I can pay. This means I can take an older medicine, that has shown to have a low efficacy rate in treating my condition (and brings with it a host of debilitating side effects), and likely, at the age of 42, I'll be going back to a state of pain so severe I can barely walk on sidewalks, let alone going up and down stairs or inclines. Very soon, this condition will likely put me in a wheelchair and physically disfigure my hands irreparably. So when you sit here and talk about dinner party's and "reasonable paths," I say you're no ally. You lack empathy, and you won't fight for other people. You will fight with them, though, to make some stupid point. 

I'm sorry to hear about your situation, but your solution seems counter-productive. Backing politicians who promise you the stars and the moon with no real plan to achieve them are doing you a greater disservice than the incrementalists. They aren't your allies either if you need something to actually happen. They're giving you a false sense of hope. 

As far as lacking empathy and a willingness to fight for others, spare me. You have no evidence to make such claims. Someone who lacks empathy isn't going to work with children with special needs and someone who won't fight for others isn't going to work +12 hours a day, everyday, to get good politicians in office and then work on legislation to improve people's lives.

Quote

I expect more of Democrats. I expect nothing of Republicans. But Democrats are no ally at this point either. I just have to vote for them because what else is there?

Stop being unnecessarily hostile to people who are mostly like minded to you, for starters. The actual differences between a Biden and Sanders Administration with regards to healthcare would most likely be minor, and Biden may actually have a better chance of expanding it further than Sanders could, especially if we still have a divided government.

[Maithanet]

Loving the Quinnipiac Senate polls that just came out. 

MAINE: Gideon 54%, Collins 42%

SOUTH CAROLINA: Graham 48%, Harrison 48%

KENTUCKY: McConnell 53%, McGrath 41%

 

Gideon way ahead is great news, as Dems need that seat very badly. 

Harrison competitive with Graham is awesome, for months I've wondered if Harrison could pull off the inside straight and take that one.  Polls like this help his fundraising and GOTV efforts. 

McConnell over McGrath is fine, because McGrath was never going to win that race in Kentucky, and the sooner Democrats focus on winnable senate races like SC, KS, MT, and IA, the better. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

MAINE: Gideon 54%, Collins 42%

SOUTH CAROLINA: Graham 48%, Harrison 48%

Hot damn!

[IheartIheartTesla]

I was just about to post that SC poll. Note that Trump is only running +6 in SC per Qpac, so it isn't that hard to see their polls showing a very competitive Senate race. At any rate, its good to see Graham squirm after he hitched his wagon to Trump (seriously, after being a McCain friend for so long, it makes no sense to me).

Other polls out of SC show slightly better news for Graham, but those were in August. Anyway, regarding Collins I think she's in real trouble.

[Larry of the Lawn]

26 minutes ago, aceluby said:

No I'm not.  My argument is that getting over the 5% threshold in a presidential election is meaningless.

Oh, my mistake, thanks for clarifying.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

McConnell over McGrath is fine, because McGrath was never going to win that race in Kentucky, and the sooner Democrats focus on winnable senate races like SC, KS, MT, and IA, the better. 

McConnell lives in the void where his constituents don't like him, but they hate Democrats even more.

The SC race is getting funny now with Graham demanding Harrison's taxes. 

[argonak]

1 hour ago, Kalibear said:

There are provisional votes that are allowed at many polling places that can later be checked. But it's not just the rolls - that was shorthand and I apologize. The specific registered voter rolls are (usually) decently guarded, though apparently not in Kentucky. 

For mail in voting to work, they have to check the rolls, then they have to go to other databases that have things like the voter signature, address, name and other bits of data on record. These are often handled by the DoL of that state and are VERY open. And these can be easily modified. They're somewhat designed to be easily modified, as any DoL office needs to be able to do so. But that leaves them open to vulnerability. And from there you can change all sorts of things - the valid signature, the contact information in case of a discrepancy, the actual record of a person being alive...it's all problematic. In that way, mail-in voting has a weakness that in-person does not. 

If I can submit my taxes via mail or online, I'm pretty sure we can figure a way to do ballots.  The fact that we don't just shows how little we care about the system.

[IheartIheartTesla]

There appears to be a fair bit of vote splitting going on, so its reasonable to ask whether there is a non-trivial probability that Trump wins the EC, but Dems hold the House and retake the Senate. That would definitely soften the blow of a second Trump presidency some. I think it is somewhat likely but not an overwhelming probability