this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
355 points (92.8% liked)

politics

19103 readers
3548 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
 

Summary

Trump’s popular vote share has fallen below 50% to 49.94%, with Kamala Harris at 48.26%, narrowing his margin of victory.

Trump’s share of the popular vote is lower than Biden’s in 2020 (51.3%), Obama’s in 2012 (51.1%) and 2008 (52.9%), George W. Bush’s in 2004 (50.7%), George H.W. Bush’s in 1988 (53.2%), Reagan’s in 1984 (58.8%) and 1980 (50.7%), and Carter’s in 1976 (50.1%).

The 2024 election results highlight Trump’s narrow victory and the need for Democrats to address their mistakes and build a diverse working-class coalition.

The numbers also give Democrats a reason to push back on Trump’s mandate claims, noting most Americans did not vote for him.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 11 hours ago (10 children)

now take into account the massive GOP voter fraud

[–] [email protected] -5 points 11 hours ago (5 children)

I thought we spent four years exhaustively proving that the election cannot be stolen? How did they find loopholes after the Democrats exhaustively proved they didn't exist?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 hour ago

I thought we spent four years exhaustively proving that the election cannot be stolen

Um, hate to tell you bro, trump did cheat and steal the 2016 election (proven in court, 34 counts convicted)

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

"Cannot"? How does one prove a negative?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 hours ago

I thought we spent four years exhaustively proving that the election cannot be stolen?

Wrong.

Trump's team claimed for 4 years that the election was stolen without evidence. We've spent 4 years showing that the 2020 election was not stolen, which does not mean that election fraud doesn't exist and never will exist.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 hours ago

It wasn't that it can't be stolen. We proved the dems didn't steal it.

This year we had lots of evidence of fraud and manipulation by Rs and like do you really think Trump and Musk would actually just play fair?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

The biggest problem with the letters that went around is that it would require every swing state Secretary of State to stay quiet about it happening. And some of those SoS's are die hard democracy and election people. It would also require the IT people not to leak any concerns and they aren't known for staying quiet about systems being penetrated.

All in all it seems like a weird thing happened but the silence is verging on Secret Government Agency with millions of domestic spies that never write a tell all book conspiracy territory.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

What about the starling machines

[–] [email protected] 1 points 50 minutes ago* (last edited 49 minutes ago)

I couldn't find anything about voting machines named Starling. There is a StarLink theory. The problem is that seems to be based on a TikTok video that was incoherent by most reports, and is no longer up.

I get that moneyed interests could get evidence removed from a centralized social media service. But nothing in the transcript I've found describes a specific link from StarLink to voting machines. In fact it sounds like the person just described the basics of TCP/IP in a roundabout way to make it sound sinister. The problem is election systems are air gapped with the exception of a few highly controlled access points. Situations where that's been compromised, (such as allowing remote work from home for election office workers) have made the news for precisely the reason that it's rare. And the most credible criticism of election security is that the election office's computers could be compromised and used to spread malware to machines. But that's an inherent weakness. If the office can't access the results, they can't report them.

Furthermore, there's nothing special about StarLink that would make them a better access route. They aren't close enough to intercept the unofficial results as a false cellphone tower, (and that wouldn't change the official results later anyways), and any traffic going through them to attack election systems would also have to travel through modems on the ground, controlled by election officials. So destroying the satellite does nothing for covering your tracks. If you believe they can erase all traces of their traffic, then there's no need to destroy a satellite as surely that would be even easier on a satellite controlled by a close ally.

At the end of the day, with what we know right now, the fuck up was with the Democrat's messaging. Not anything to do with election security.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

so... are we hearing any of that now?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 hours ago

I haven't seen anything. I know Arizona for sure would be all over it. Their last three SoS elections were about keeping Maga out of the elections. The current governor is governor largely for standing up to Trump in 2020. If they thought they got hacked they would be using bullhorns to let us know.

load more comments (4 replies)