Gazza M the LA times thing happened just a few days ago, not even years ago. the guy who owns the LAT is best friends with elon musk. bezos is panicked that if trump wins, he'll cut a bunch of amazon's federal contracts.

    @mdgoonah41 there is other early vote data in bellwether areas that is a bit more rosy for dems, but I get the panic. it's wild that it's going to be close. the other thing is that trumps campaign has run an average ground game - stunts like musk giving 1 million bucks away to pennsylvania voters for example. in a tight race the dem get out the vote machine can make a difference. Hillary didn't really do that in the rust belt and Biden couldn't due to covid.

      Gazza M the early data in nevada is really bad for dems. nevada isnt essential, but biden won nevada by 2.5 points, a trump win there would be a bad sign elsewhere, imo

        Isn't Musk basically paying money to people who vote for Trump? The whole thing is fucked.

        RocktheCasbah I don't think, as Jazz does, that whoever gets in it'll be the same shit - Trump has signalled as much. Personally, I find the thought of him taking power again incredibly worrying - but I acknowledge it's not really my business.

        I think we should revisit this in 4 years time,

          mdgoonah41 hard to compare to 2020. older republicans and rural areas have taken up early voting in force now, which was to be expected since the trump campaign realised that their 2020 strategy of telling people that 'any vote that's not in person is fraudulent' wasn't the smartest move. republicans might be eating into their 'day of' vote. too early to say definitively either way. if she does lose Nevada, Arizona is most likely toast as well.

          speaking of eating into, the absolute barrage of advertising and phone calls ive been subjected to the last few weeks is eating into my will to live. living in the epicenter of this election has been brutal.

          From Allentown to Erie, mailboxes are bursting with campaign literature like trash cans at the end of a music festival.
          Television, TikTok, and sports talk radio broadcast a barrage of blunt ads and Pennsylvanians’ commutes are increasingly snarled by candidates headed to a McDonald’s or a historical site, or a podium in another swingy part of this internationally known battleground state.
          The 2024 presidential election moved into Pennsylvania and never left, an Inquirer analysis of the last year of campaigning shows.
          Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, and their allies, have dumped more than $538 million in advertising dollars to reach Pennsylvania voters.

          That’s the most of any swing state and about $185 million more than the next closest battleground, Michigan, according to ad tracker AdImpact.

          this afternoon alone, ive gotten 4 calls on my cell phone (i dont have a landline, obviously) from unknown PA numbers which are obviously calling to either poll me or remind me to vote.

            mdgoonah41 I'm from PA, but don't live there. Most of my peeps vote Trump, though. I feel pretty guilty.

            skimmed through rogans trump interview. I love him asking the guy that tried blatantly stealing the last election about his ideas on election integrity. the online right has been trying to colonise the rogan podcast for years to sanewash their bullshit in front of as many people as possible, but up until 2022 he was adamant he wouldn't interview trump. COVID sent him over the edge, then moving to Texas and becoming chummy with musk kind of sealed the deal. now his show is just echo-boosting right wing drivel from the bowels of X-chan

            https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/10/trump-judges-election-day-voting-disaster.html

            the 5th circuit continues to dole out legal terrorism

            On Friday afternoon, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit handed down a shock decision declaring that states may not count ballots that are mailed by Election Day but received shortly thereafter. By its own terms, the ruling applies only to Mississippi, throwing the legality of its voting procedures into question just 11 days before the election. Nationwide, however, 18 states and Washington D.C. accept late-arriving ballots; the 5th Circuit’s reasoning would render all these laws illegitimate and void, nullifying hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of ballots. The court’s obvious goal, aside from destabilizing a close election, is to tee up a Supreme Court decision that could wipe out all these laws in one fell swoop.

            The Republican National Committee manufactured this dispute as a test case to end the widespread practice of accepting ballots that come in after Election Day, but are postmarked by Election Day. (Republicans believe that these ballots are disproportionately likely to support Democrats.) The RNC filed its lawsuit in Mississippi because that’s the one state within the 5th Circuit that counts late-arriving ballots, and conservative lawyers knew they could get a favorable ruling from the far-right court. RNC lawyers argued that federal law requires all votes to be received by Election Day, not just cast by Election Day. And they claimed that this federal rule overrides, or “preempts,” state laws to the contrary, including Mississippi’s.

            U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola Jr. sharply rejected this argument. He pointed out that, under the Constitution, “the times, places and manner” of federal elections “shall be prescribed” by the states, though Congress may “make or alter” the state’s laws. Congress has not prescribed specific rules for mail ballots, instead leaving those decisions up to the states. The fact that Congress created one “Election Day” does not mean that it intended to void ballots that are cast by that date but, for whatever reason, arrive shortly thereafter.

            Now the 5th Circuit has disagreed. The three-judge panel that decided this case is made up of extremely far-right, ultra-partisan appointees of Donald Trump: Andrew Oldham, Kyle Duncan, and James Ho. In his majority opinion joined by Duncan and Ho, Oldham latched onto federal law setting out “the day for the election.” He then declared that this is “the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials.” Oldham asserted that a ballot is not actually “cast” until “the state takes custody of it”—a contested question on which federal law is silent. By fabricating this atextual rule, he was able to insist that late-arriving ballots are actually “cast” after Election Day.

            The historical reasons why Friday’s decision is dead wrong are just as apparent. States have counted late-arriving absentee ballots for more than a century, and federal courts have never stopped them from doing so (until now). Oldham dismissed these historical examples as “outliers,” but he is wrong: The reality is that most states did not allow for broad mail voting until quite recently. Those states that did allow absentee voting frequently counted ballots cast by Election Day that came in shortly thereafter. Oldham simply sought to downplay this clear historical record to make a misleading, cherrypicked case against the practice.

            Finally, the practical: Because 18 states and D.C.—including large states like California—already accept late-arriving ballots, the RNC sought a revolution in election law. Most states don’t report exactly how many of these ballots are tabulated each year. But there are a lot: In the 2022 midterms, for example, Clark County, Nevada alone received and counted about 40,000 valid mail ballots after Election Day. Around the country, the number may well reach the millions, especially since California counts ballots received up to a week after Election Day. If the Supreme Court embraced the 5th Circuit’s reasoning, it would nullify all these ballots.

            And that, to be clear, is the game plan. In contrast with recent practice, the 5th Circuit did not issue a preliminary nationwide injunction, but directed the district court to “fashion appropriate relief.” It is surely too close to the election to change the rules of the game under the Supreme Court’s Purcell principle. If these lower courts try to do so, it seems likely that SCOTUS will stop them. But the 5th Circuit has now created a vehicle for the justices to visit this issue after the election and potentially strike down nearly 20 states’ laws, making voting exponentially harder in the future.

            It’s worth pausing to consider how cynical and political Friday’s decision was. The 5th Circuit could, and should, have held this case until after the election, in recognition that a sweeping decision would cast a pall of confusion and uncertainty over the imminent election. Now Mississippians do not know if their ballots will count should they happen to be slightly delayed by the postal service. Voters in many other states are on notice that the 5th Circuit has announced that, as a matter of federal law, their ballots should be tossed out if they come back slightly late. And people who reject the outcome of the election will seize upon the ruling to claim that the results are illegitimate. The 5th Circuit has given the RNC exactly what it wanted: an excuse to undermine voting rights and reject the legitimacy of the election. It is an appallingly partisan and anti-democratic stunt with potentially catastrophic consequences.

              Harris is not incompetent, but I don't think voters are as drawn to competence as they are to potential disruption of the status quo.

              RocktheCasbah It goes on a bit, but Peter Oborne lays out the case for how Johnson and Trump systematically dismantled the norms of politics and converted the truth into something that means whatever they want it to.

              This idea isn't so new though: it has been a mainstay of "normie" political philosophy at least since the relatively conservative moral philosopher Harry Frankfurt published ON BULLSHIT in the Dubya era.

              I think the emphasis on truth is badly misplaced as we've seen no amount of truth shifts the viciousness of elite power for decades. Climate change politics around the world is an extremely salient example: there's been consensus on the truth for decades (despite a tiny minority of cynical and well-funded denialist propagandists) but it's not a decisive issue for the geographically mobile elite, so any movement to mitigate climate change has tended to be agonisingly slow.

              (I was walking over Aletsch Glacier the other day and it'll probably barely exist by the end of this century.)

              In this situation, what's going to mobilise the public is the sense of a way to restore their own power and possibly sovereignty—and repellent as he is and as allied to billionaires and dictators as he may be, Trump is still more at odds with the establishment than Harris.

              (Should be noted this doesn't mean Trump commands all the support there is, the polls are evenly split. But I reckon this remains a significant factor in mass perceptions that works in his favour.)

              Anyway I've been saying this on here for literal years whether it's been about Clinton, Biden, Harris, Miliband, Starmer etc. Starmer's been in power for about three months and already has over 50% disapproval ... and ... I did fuckin' tell you so. And no, this is not about me having the slightest skerrick of affection or respect for any right wing populist scumbag.

                Burnwinter agree on the last point. we're at a point in history where literally anything anti-establishment or anti-mainstream is automatically conferred moral virtuousness by large swathes of the population, without much further inquiry - no matter how obviously scammy or dangerous it is. there's been an unresolved thirst for change thats really ramped up since the bush administration. people voted in droves for Obama, but many were left feeling frustrated that nothing fundamentally shifted. that energy moved to candidates like sanders and trump, but it still remains unresolved in 2024 and is reaching critical mass. trump has sold himself as the only 'anti-mainstream' choice despite his favour being even more nakedly for sale to donors and billionaires. it feels like we're at an inexorable part of the cycle

                  mdgoonah41 surely that would be tossed or shifted to the next election cycle if upheld. there's no way a rule like that can be enforced less than 2 weeks from an election and disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters

                  Gazza M It feels inexorable because mainstream political discussion is all about the discourse, media influence and control, persuasion, populism, the vote and voter behaviour and psychology ... and there's occasional commentary about elite capture and oligarchy, but the mainstream is still not seriously admitting what's necessary: a restoration of mass political power followed by a vast expropriation of goods from a tiny elite of billionaires who the masses and the world at large have absolutely no need for.

                    JazzG have you read "I Alone Can Fix It"?

                    It's a horror story. And its subject is Trump's final year in office. You might feel differently once you've read it.

                    Burns - Oborne isn't saying Trump and Johnson invented this battery of the truth - he actually holds Tony Bliar mostly responsible for it. But he is saying the way in which Johnson in particular just lied and lied and lied to suit his own ends (and damage others) was pretty unprecedented - see lying to the Queen to prorogue Parliament.

                    As for Starmer and his approval ratings - he's had 3 months in office. I don't think anyone over here expects him to magically sort everything out in that time. I wish the BBC, in particular, had been a bit more attentive to our previous governments and their failures.

                    Perhaps that's expecting too much when you have Robbie Gibb, Theresa May's former director of Comms heading up BBC News output - and then sitting on the BBC board with oversight on their impartiality!

                      The problem is truth has never been sexy. What’s sexier is stories of hordes of Latin gang members and Congolese, Haitians frying up poodles, and your son leaving in the morning for school and returning a girl in the evening. That’s much more gripping, and captures that basic, tribal spirit that forces us into our laagers. Painting these pictures has always worked - you see it now in South Africa with the anti-immigrant movement, with the French right, Modi (a truly special character).

                      • goon replied to this.

                        That, And she’s a woman. Many American men will not vote for her based on this.

                        Yeah the Starmer/labour point is the general public right now don't really like any politicians so people don't get much grace let alone a labour government when so much of the media it's controlled by right leaning bodies. So I'm not as surprised more disappointed but I want to see what they deliver. The budget is probably the first chance on that side

                        On the truth stuff my point was mainly this is why politics have become so terrible because we in the public don't value it so it encourages liars and people who have no interest in helping wider society step into politics because they never pay a price for it in votes.

                        I understand the anti establishment feeling that drives lots of these movements but as you mentioned in your post Burnwinter this has happened before and most of the time they make the ordinary people's lives much worse. I get the pull off Trump saying he's anti establishment or Farage I'm the voice of the people but they are lies they are the most establishment kind of people with their wealth. If the public allows themselves to be taken in by these obvious liars then I'm not really sure how you can improve democracy because people willing to tell you lies will always make it sound like they have a better idea.