I think I won't post the link here to one of the posts about this because I think it's an unproven conspiracy theory and it isn't true.
But there is a particular story going around online that one or more security experts is claiming that the latest presidential election was stolen. The "proof" is of this type:

• I'm a security expert
• There is some stuff in the election results that is statistically impossible, especially in swing states
• There is a specific type of ballot where the voter has only voted for one candidate or issue
• Here are the numbers compared to the normal numbers
• Voting machines were compromised, and here's how

For each of those bullet points (and a few others I didn't mention), I have to go and research that data in order to determine if it is accurate.

• I could google the expert and check their reputation
• I could research how common it is to have certain types of ballot completions
• I may be able to get detailed information about specific counties and their historic voting patterns
• I could do a lot of research on voting machine integrity

The research on each of those bullets could be compromised by other misinformation, astroturfing, bad AI summaries, etc.

Or I could just send the link to everyone I know and hope that someone else does this. Or just send it because I don't like the election result and I wish this story was true.

It's easy to see why CNN reported that 70% of Republicans thought the 2020 election was stolen, especially since conspiracy theories were repeated to them on all their main news sources and confirmed their biases.

I haven't seen anything about this topic online yet, but to be fair I have been avoiding the news a bit for my own sanity.

One of the disasters of the recent presidential election is the damage to the "soft power" of the United States. By this I mean, the ability of the country to affect the behavior of other countries through cooperation and attraction. You can't have soft power if you don't have reliability, trustworthiness, and honor. Soft power takes years and decades to build. During the first Trump presidency, he did tremendous damage by siding with dictators, criticizing his own advisors, complaining about NATO countries not paying their share.. Like all of his ideas, it is based on the claim that he understands everything, I'll just do this simple thing and it fixes everything. So let's cut the deficit by cutting spending everywhere. When Biden was elected, some of this damage was undone, but the trust needs more than four years to recover. Well, now Trump is back before the trust was really regained. There is no ally in the world that can fully trust the United States. If we all survive the next four years, and there is a fair election, and then the best president of all time is elected, it will hardly help. The whole world knows that we are a country that is stupid and selfish enough to elect another trump in the near future. There is no way to unring this horrible bell.

Yes, I know that the US has done terrible things with it's power in the past, including invasions of other countries. But there has never been a leader in charge that openly antagonizes allies and embraces adversaries, and is so obviously corrupt and easily manipulated through bribery and favors. That so clearly works to weaken the United States in every possible way, including sowing division internally, flaunting ethics, and all the other "unamerican" things we have seen him do.

About Trump's complaints in his first term that we have bases all over the world and we are paying for it: Yes, we are. And it pays back in dividends. Besides the projection of power that serves our interests, it also gives us a reason to build equipment (in the US) using labor in the US and technology studied and implemented in the US. Complaining to NATO that they aren't paying their fair share makes them think "oh shit, the US won't protect us anymore. We better make more nukes". Now we are drastically increasing nuclear and military proliferation problems that are way more likely to have conflicts.

About Trump simplistic solutions such as cutting spending on programs: Remember how trump cut the staff by two-thirds of a key US health agency operating in China? Right before the coronavirus outbreak. For all we know, the global pandemic could have been almost averted.

Most voters apparently don't understand this type of thing of course. This is a problem of education, especially in civic responsibility. But I am sure that there are people in the Republican party, and working for Fox News, and on talk radio, that understand the things I said, and to a much better extent than some random guy on the internet. But for some reason they don't seem to give a shit. Something is more important to them so they allowed Trump to continue and they constantly help spread lies to give him more power. I find this very curious and suspicious.

So Trump won. Next few years are gonna be rough, I know. What happened, and where can the Dems go from here?

James Carville said it best: It’s the economy, stupid (even if he predicted the wrong candidate). Inflation was a big concern among voters, mostly driven by gas, groceries, and housing. Rightly or wrongly, many voters tied this to Biden, and through him to Harris. They viewed Trump as being likelier to fix things, with a big bold plan (tariffs, deportations, tax cuts). I suspect some (many?) voters wanted to punish Dems for inflation. Others probably thought Harris would worsen it. While she had a long proposal, she didn’t seem to talk about it much, nor boil it down to soundbites. Many of the demos that swung were hit hard by the price increases.

We saw swings among Latinos, young voters, and rural voters toward Trump. Some of this was due to depressed D turnout (Harris got 15 million fewer votes than Biden), but in other cases it was due to genuine swings. Starr County, TX went Republican for the first time in decades. New Jersey only went for Harris by single digit percentages. Black voters had a small 2% decline of the share of the electorate.

I think non-immigration identity politics played a smaller role. I do think Harris/Walz could’ve talked more about men’s issues specifically (suicide, the academic gap, poor job prospects), although they are hard to soundbiteify and not sound forced. They likely could've approached it from a universalist angle. Trans issues might’ve driven some voters to Trump, but I believe it was more localized (e.g., reduced margins in Loudoun County). Latinos likely weren’t particularly turned off of Trump because they aren’t a cohesive bloc, and in many cases not even the same race (you’ve got whites, indigenous, blacks, mixed, even Asian Latinos). Between the countries the cultures can be very different, to the point of each country hating the other. They can be more socially conservative as well, especially those in their 40s and older.

Immigration was definitely a bigger issue, dovetailing with economic issues (housing costs, “why are migrants getting help but not me”, homelessness). The migrant bussing by Gov. Abbott will be viewed as one of the greatest political maneuvers of the 21st century. It brought the issue to voters outside of border states. The number of people coming to the border was frustrating/scary for some voters.

Abortion didn’t play as big of a role, I suspect because many women don’t think they’ll need one, or because they don’t view care that legally may qualify as one.

The state of democracy didn’t motivate enough people for the Dems, in fact, some people who thought it was important voted for Trump.

Foreign policy didn’t play much of a role, although Israel/Palestine probably was significant in Michigan. But that needle would’ve been hard to thread for any candidate, and probably would’ve been less of a problem if other points were addressed.

I think the fact that Harris is a biracial woman did reduce votes, but I don’t think it was necessarily decisive in her losing. The right woman can definitely win (Thatcher won the U.K. in 1979, so it should be possible in the U.S. in 2024). I would probably hold off in 2028, but I don’t see an issue with running women long-term.

So, what are the takeaways for Dems?

1. Suburban white-collar voters are not the end-all be-all. They are a good bloc to have (reliable voters in many swing states, including in off-years), but they are not enough to outweigh the others.

2. You cannot take minority demographics for granted. They will not stay with you forever. They are not monolithic.

3. Social policy can only go so far. Its salience can be quite limited compared to the economy. Negatives can be very negative, white positives may be “meh”.

4. Running against someone, rather than for yourself only works so many times.

5. You can only have so many issues stacked against you and be able to win. If it was just the economy, it might’ve been closer, but you had the economy, and immigration, and social policy, and Israel/Palestine.

6. The average voter does not account for lag in terms of policy. Trump got credit for a good economy even though Obama did a lot of the work.

7. Places that are or have been “safe” are not guaranteed to stay like that forever, especially when paired with point 2, without work.

8. NatCon populism is here to stay. The combination of left-ish economics and social conservativism, propelled by apathetics and the hard right is a winning one, and needs to be countered accordingly.

9. Many folks view Democrats as being the “mom” or “Karen from HR” party. That is not the kind of reputation that wins elections.

10. It’s the economy, stupid.

Based on that, what would my strategy be for Dems in 2026/2028?

1. Clean house. The folks in charge lost 2024 and only barely won 2020. Care needs to be taken to ensure replacements have sufficient political/management experience.

2. Don’t be the party of why/if. Be the party of do. The former implies insecurity, the latter confidence.

3. Bring back the 50-state strategy. Open offices in rural areas. States viewed as safely blue came awfully close to flipping for Trump this year. But the reverse can also be true, especially with a good candidate (cf. Indiana in 2008 ). And even if the presidential candidate loses, downballot candidates can still win, especially in off-years. I think the Dems had a good ground game, and while it cannot make up for everything else, it’s usually better to have it than not. Local elections matter a lot because they have stronger day-to-day impact, and they are the breeding ground for future politicians. North Carolina had several good Dem victories.

4. Focus on economics. Moderate suburbanites aren’t enough to win on, and many people like Trumponomics. Go for smart tariffs, universal policies (e.g., Child Tax Credit, universal Medicare, etc), targeted tax cuts and increases along with tax code simplification, and one other oddball policy (withdrawal from the WTO? Annual gas tax holiday?) likely to be popular with voters.

5. Social moderation/tolerance. The party is a big tent one, and there’s going to be friction over social issues. This doesn’t mean abandoning core constituencies, but being smarter about rhetoric and candidates (you won’t win the Georgia governorship with an Everytown candidate). Candidates should be allowed to have differing views on social policy (especially if it is personal and doesn’t extend to the political realm), and there should be a mechanism to allow dissent on an issue an individual is out of touch on. Related: get the loudest social progressives away from the party. They frequently clash with it but manage to tie the party to an unpopular viewpoint with something they said on Xitter/Tik Tok. I did like the initial message of freedom the Harris campaign was putting out, but it didn’t seem to be used much.

6. Turnout still matters. You need to be able to turn out more people for you than the other guy.

7. (My weird, hot take-ish view) Go on an offensive cyber campaign. You’ve got Russian operatives shilling for Trump and the GOP. Hack them. Make it so they can’t just continuously pump out disinfo. Even a few million should be enough to establish a unit dedicated to fucking up Russian troll farms.

8. (Courtesy of @EgoEimi) Go for the reality TV angle. Lots of rallies, some political stunts, and bring loads of energy.

One final thought: Trump is a sui generis candidate. He energizes people who aren’t into politics normally. Thus far, the GOP hasn’t been able to translate that into off-year elections or non-Trump POTUS candidates. Nobody wants diet Trump, they want the real deal. When he passes away, it remains to be seen whether someone (Vance?) can take over with the same level of success.

A place to collect articles about what happened in all the other contests.

Edit: please post what the election results were (with a link to the article) at top level and then we can discuss them underneath it.

Post any/all news and discussion related to the US Election here.

If there is something substantially newsworthy, feel free to post it as a separate topic.

This will be a noisy topic. Please use the ignore feature if you do not want to see it in your feed.

If you need something to occupy your mind so you stop refreshing this and other news sites, check out our Distractions Thread.

Election Dashboards:

• Associated Press
• Bloomberg
• The Economist
• The New York Times
• Politico
• Reuters

I think some of you will react very poorly to this post; I understand that. I’d ask you to assume noble intent - I am not blasé about the implications of the election for transgender folks. Please know that I don’t blame you if you need to vent… or even catastrophize a bit. Trust me, I get it.

I get it because I am writing this, in large part, for myself. I had a pretty hard time this morning, and I’m very nervous about the implications of a second round of a Trump presidency. But the more calculating, rational part of me is saying this: ultimately, it’s mostly going to be okay.

I have spent much of my adult life living in the poorest countries in the world. Two of those countries were actively engaged in civil war when I was in them. It is hard to really convey how horrible the most desperate parts of the world can be. But more than anything, what I have taken from those experiences is hope.

For almost everybody - even people in those horrible places, going through horrible times - life goes on. People plan expensive (it’s all relative) weddings, get married, go shopping, gossip. They laugh and they cry. Mostly, life is normal.

A lot of things are about to get worse in America, and a few things will probably get better - accidentally, if nothing else. But mostly, day-to-day life is going to be okay. And so are you.

I currently reside in Pennsylvania. The election season has been vitriolic, hateful and stressful. Even in church they are angry. They are going to fizzle out they are so mad. Even the ones who are kind are interminably irritable. I may sometimes be a partisan, utilitarian to the core, but I do not talk about politics in God's house. I will speak on justice and righteousness, but not in such terms as are popular. I would rather take that one moment in the week to see my neighbors for who they are and not the tribe they belong to. Somehow that is gone. Service on Sunday was not pleasant. You could feel the tension even as people sat listening. Even the children could feel it.

There is an election sign, or several, on every block. Every building zoned for electric screens has rotating ads (for both candidates) on it. It's all that is spoken about. One cannot escape it. It swallows you whole, spits you out again having transformed you for the worse. Have you voted? Did you hear what he said? Oh, keep quiet, that couple at the next table looks like they voted for the wrong one. Did you hear the vice president is coming to town? Horrible traffic, oh just so terrible. All the out-of-towners, coming in, you know who they support. Despicable. Do you have an election day plan? I voted early this year. That's nice. There was a sign in the next yard over. I just wanted to run it over with my car. Don't look at that man, sweetie, he is wearing boots only the wrong people would wear. The neighborhood watch got a report today. Vandalism, keys. Looking to do some election volunteering. Ballots are on fire. Did you hear? Have to go into that neighborhood, and make sure they don't vote for the wrong person. It would be so bad for them. Oh, they don't understand. Honey, bring your pepper spray, you're not safe there. You'll be shot, knifed. It's the crime, you know who they voted for. Do you know where your polling place is? I voted by mail this year. Did you hear what she said? Well, she didn't say it, but he said she said it. Let's get out of here, sweetheart, you know they voted for the wrong one, just look at the cars they drive, they don't care. Real Americans vote for the right one. All these people voting for the wrong one, so poor, so uneducated. I hate the rich. Let's get out of this bar. Go home. Back where it's safe. We can watch partisan election predictions and not be disturbed.

Nothing else has made me want to leave this state more than its unyielding power in the election. It is not democratic for six or seven states to effectively determine the winner of an election. And it is not a good experience as a resident to be given that much attention. It turns you against each other. It turns your civic and neighborly lifestyle into a caricature. It is worse that it is so all-or-nothing. The stakes are so high. Our 19 electoral votes are worth more than gold, because they only come in a package.

The Lord says

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

It is bad for many reasons. But it is only this bad because of the way our electoral system is set up pits us against each other. It does not have to be this way.

Here are my suggestions. If you are a Senator, please tell your colleagues that scroll_lock has issued a decree and make it happen. Perfection is the domain of nerds, I am simply concerned about minimizing the dominance of the two-party system and improving basic human decency.

• State Constitutional amendments mandating some variety of ranked-choice voting. I'm sure there is some mathematically optimal method. I don't care a whole lot which, as long as it is not first-past-the-post. I am less interested in the most "virtuous" system and rather the most useful one in effectively increasing the number of political parties present in an elected body.
• Federal Constitutional amendment forbidding the first-past-the-post method in elections for any federal or state office. (The states can decide how to implement the alternative. I'm not convinced there is any single best option.)
• Adoption of the National Interstate Popular Vote Compact.
  • When it is inevitably ruled unconstitutional: a national Constitutional amendment requiring the allocation of electoral votes in a given state proportionally to the votes of the electorate, rather than a "winner-take-all" system.
  • OR, maybe this is better done at the state level. Not important to me. The legal nerds can battle out the specifics.
• Federal Constitutional amendment not only forbidding faithless electors but invalidating the votes of any faithless elector. In other words, that "real" vote for the president in December should become a formality only.
  • May as well get rid of this silly meeting while we're at it.
• Federal Constitutional amendment separating the office of president into two equal offices within the executive branch, to be elected in a staggered configuration following the same system of presidential terms we currently have, just offset:
  • President 1: head of state
  • President 2: head of government
• Federal Constitutional amendment forbidding so-called "independent expenditure-only committees" from collecting annually more than an amount to be designated by Congress for political purposes, from any particular entity.
• Federal law forbidding the spending of campaign funds on public political advertising more than 3 months ahead of the election.
• Federal law forbidding the spending of PAC or equivalent funds on political advertising in support of a particular candidate more than 1 month ahead of the election.

And there we go. Not going to solve every problem, but that is the worst part done with.

Godforsaken land. I am buying extra food tomorrow. Let's hope it is over and done with by the end of the week.

Texts, documents hint at convicted witness bail bond business owner Scott Hall's wide ties to Coffee County breach, Trump allies ahead of trial

Hall played a part in various post-election events, and he's taken a plea deal. He will testify in the Georgia 2020 election trials.

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/special-reports/ga-trump-investigation/scott-halls-witness-trump-case-georgia/85-ad5ca637-6272-448b-8f52-c0c8aba74ef0

Hall's alleged involvement following the 2020 election reaches beyond the small south Georgia county. This includes personal relationships with those close to the former president.

Several media outlets, including CNN, have reported that Hall is related to David Bossie, chairman of the conservative group Citizens United who briefly led the former president's post-election legal challenges. Bossie's name appears in the Fulton indictment.

In late November 2020, David Shafer introduced Hall to a group of individuals including Robert Sinners, a current spokesperson for the Georgia Secretary of State's office who then worked for Trump's campaign. In the email, Shafer said Hall was "looking into the election" on behalf of the former president at Bossie's request.

This is described in Act 4 in the indictment, though Sinners is referred to as "unindicted co-conspirator Individual 4" by Fulton prosecutors. Sinners has since disavowed the post-2020 election activities that took place in Georgia.

Hall may also know about the letter former Justice Department official Jeffery Clark wanted to send that alleged the agency "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia."

Maybe this topic is silly, but I am up from insomnia, so here it goes.

I watched a piece on the news about how the election may come down to teeny tiny little town in Nebraska. I remember a similar situation coming to pass in the 2020 election.

There are many teleworkers now. Many of them are IT people who would be happy anywhere there is a good Internet connection.

I was thinking that a movement to get people to move to where their votes would count the most would be interesting. At least to talk about.

There could be a web site/app that would identify the potential most crucial areas, like that little Nebraska town.

Nomadic and patriotic teleworkers could then move to such places a year in advance of an election, vote, and move on if they aren't happy in those places.