this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
121 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19104 readers
3087 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 44 points 2 days ago (5 children)

I hate to say it, but this seems like copium. I’d love to be wrong about that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Same.

While i believe they would have the resources to do this technically, i think voter suppression from the right, the failures in the biden/harris whitehouse, and plane old racism/misogyny is a rather solid argument.

The lack of leaks from these absolute colanders is really hard to believe.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It would probably need a lot of internal cooperation, and he just doesn't go into that. But the excessive bullet ballots only being in swing states is pretty weird, honestly. I wonder how hard it would be to recount/reverify in maybe 2 states as a pilot.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I dont think itd be hard, just costs money

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

Well good thing they have massive reserves now

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

There's also the issue that Harris and the Democrats spent the last four years repudiating the idea that there was anything insecure about our elections systems, and being the big-tent party that favors process over outcome and desperately clings to democratic norms and the status quo, it seems to me that she'd likely be very loathe to call them into question now.

And even if she were so inclined, she already conceded (and pretty quickly, at that). Does she even have standing to demand a recount now? And even if she should still have standing, would SCOTUS agree?

FWIW, personally, these statistical anomalies seem compelling enough to me that I agree we should go ahead and double-check. I'm not holding out much hope that it will happen, though.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

I don't know. When Republicans tell you they are going to rig the system for years. When Republicans take action to rig the system for years. It seems like it's pretty plausible. Now whether or not it would ultimately change the outcome. That's a good question and no one should get their hopes up. But Democrats absolutely should be investigating this.