Sam (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
l33tminion) wrote2020-11-02 08:33 am
l33tminion) wrote2020-11-02 08:33 am
The Bush v. Gore Bluff
Election day is tomorrow, and I plan to get through that the way I've gotten through the rest of this year, one nightmare at a time. Possibly less of a nightmare, to be sure. The court rulings on election law challenges so far could be worse, but some leave the possibility of changing the rules after it's too late for voters to do anything about it. Or waiting to see if there's an opportunity to pull another Bush v. Gore (but not about recounts, just stopping the count this time). No need to try it until you've checked if it will work!
It's bad that Justice Kavanaugh says in his concurrence in DNC v. Wisconsin Legislature that states "have strong interests in avoiding suspicions of impropriety and announcing final results on or close to election night". This seems like a bit of slight-of-hand. While states do have an interest in getting the count done sooner and even in getting partial results out earlier, "on election night" is not at all accurate, and "close" as in a few days is not normal either. It's bad in particular because the President is falsely implying that it's normal for the count to end immediately after election day. He fears he will lose the election, but hopes to be at least temporarily ahead in the count in some key states, and that he can leverage a premature declaration of victory into actual victory somehow.
States "announcing final results on or close to election night" is not normal at all, unless you count at least a week, usually several, as "close" (e.g. see the election certification dates from 2016). States certify the result of an election after the count is complete. Certainly, things must be settled by December 14, but that date was chosen to leave plenty of time.
Media may project the result of election once it's clear from partial results. That's often on election night or soon afterwards, but not always. If it's sufficiently close, that may take a few weeks as well.
It is important to note that as always a lot of this is just bluster on Trump's part. Trump's given up on trying to project the image that he will win a plurality of voters. Or even a plurality of the vote in states with a majority of electors. He's going all out to make supporters believe that that through accusations and legal trickery he could do something somehow. What a show! But a straightforward look would say the writing's on the wall. For those now-supporters who were very aware of Trump's shortcomings during the 2016 primary, well, do you really need the humiliation of voting for this guy again, as he goes down in flames?
It's bad that Justice Kavanaugh says in his concurrence in DNC v. Wisconsin Legislature that states "have strong interests in avoiding suspicions of impropriety and announcing final results on or close to election night". This seems like a bit of slight-of-hand. While states do have an interest in getting the count done sooner and even in getting partial results out earlier, "on election night" is not at all accurate, and "close" as in a few days is not normal either. It's bad in particular because the President is falsely implying that it's normal for the count to end immediately after election day. He fears he will lose the election, but hopes to be at least temporarily ahead in the count in some key states, and that he can leverage a premature declaration of victory into actual victory somehow.
States "announcing final results on or close to election night" is not normal at all, unless you count at least a week, usually several, as "close" (e.g. see the election certification dates from 2016). States certify the result of an election after the count is complete. Certainly, things must be settled by December 14, but that date was chosen to leave plenty of time.
Media may project the result of election once it's clear from partial results. That's often on election night or soon afterwards, but not always. If it's sufficiently close, that may take a few weeks as well.
It is important to note that as always a lot of this is just bluster on Trump's part. Trump's given up on trying to project the image that he will win a plurality of voters. Or even a plurality of the vote in states with a majority of electors. He's going all out to make supporters believe that that through accusations and legal trickery he could do something somehow. What a show! But a straightforward look would say the writing's on the wall. For those now-supporters who were very aware of Trump's shortcomings during the 2016 primary, well, do you really need the humiliation of voting for this guy again, as he goes down in flames?
no subject
John Michael Greer made an appearance, and recapped briefly his Kek Wars observations. Bottom line, according to the doc, much of the online support for this guy came not from people who "liked" him and what he stood for, but because lulz and screw normies.
no subject
I think it's very significant that Trump is the first internet troll President. It's part of his phenomenal strength as an anti-candidate. It's incredibly hard for the mainstream not to have these flailing reactions in response to him. Because on the one hand, it's "just trolling" and shouldn't be taken seriously, but on the other hand, are you kidding me, of course it's significant, he's the freaking President of the United States! And on a meta level, it's incredibly significant that the President in his official capacity is trolling!
Basically, you can't just connect a jumper cable from 4chan to the Presidency without a few things shorting out.
no subject
I was just listening to On The Media today (episode title, "Emergency Mode"), where a guest suggested that the biggest tool the media pros have developed to vet and continue to question candidates include so-called "gotcha" questions and pointing out "gaffes". Both of these terms don't work with Trump at all; nothing gets him, everything he says is potentially a gaffe, and neither tools faze either him or his base. Which leaves reporters flummoxed and stymied… and ultimately ineffective against him. Meanwhile, of course, these tools work against his opponent.
The Independent Lens show had one significant element: they interviewed the person in charge of internet memes for the 2016 campaigns. That's right: Not Brad Parscale, who headed social media and online advertising, $100 million on F@c&Book alone; but another guy, who's job it was to troll (in the original sense of the term, as in to fish with lures, as opposed to lurk under bridges) for memes that might help Trump troll his opponents (in the second sense). PR Trolling Pro would make suggestions, and if he liked them, Trump would reinforce with retweeting.
That means that it was not just the NEET InCels playing meme-y chaos magick in Mom's basement that got him elected; it was said crowd being directed and corralled by PR professionals that got the job done. Oh, yeah, and let's not forget the (probably) billions directed to the most targeted ad campaign ever that helped thwart even detection of this coordinated effort by the pollster number crunchers. When X-Rays (traditional polls) can only detect mega pixel tumors, no one can see the massive effort of tiny surgeries (micro-targeted ads) at the pixel level.
Things got majorly shorted out, indeed.