this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
559 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19239 readers
2575 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Donald Trump and his team are attacking media outlets like Politico and The New York Times for reporting that his 2024 election victory over Kamala Harris was narrow, not a “landslide.”

Trump won by 1.6 points and failed to secure a majority of the popular vote, a smaller margin than Hillary Clinton’s over him in 2016.

Despite these facts, Trump and his allies continue to tout his win as “historic” and “dominant,” aiming to bolster his political mandate amid criticisms that his victory was less decisive than claimed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

There's even rumors that votes in the swing states were fraudulent as well. A disproportionate number of "bullet ballots" in swing states alone may indicate foul going-ons. The only way to tell would be a recount, however.

Edit: Seems the info is dubious, at best. Partially straight up wrong. Oh well. A few hours of hope was nice.

[–] [email protected] 86 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This has been shut down pretty well at this point.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (3 children)

How? If there's new info I want to hear it but AFAIK it's been speculated and nobody has done any digging on it.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago (1 children)

here is the linked transcript in case you're like me and can't stand getting information from a video

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 weeks ago

Thank you, I feel a little validated and less alone lol. There could be dozens of us!

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If there was anything to it, the Democrats would be talking about it. They have plenty of lawyers that can demand recounts in places where they suspect they could gain something. I know they're generally incompetent, but not that incompetent.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago

They sure hide their competence well. Letting the biggest threat to our democracy slip through every crack in the system sure looks like a boneheaded move.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 month ago (2 children)

According to snopes, the claims made by the Spoonamore guy are kinda iffy, I'm afraid. :(

https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/11/21/stephen-spoonamore-letter-harris/

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I read that earlier and I'm confused why it seems to matter if the vote is above the threshold for the state to flip or not to do a recount.

Take Nevada: " As for Nevada, Spoonamore contended in his letter, "NV - 43K+ 5.5%+ of Trump's total vote. Enough to exceed recount threshold." The Nevada government website (archived) reported that — out of 1,487,887 total ballots cast — 1,484,840 ballots contained votes for presidential candidates and 1,464,728 contained votes for U.S. Senate candidates. The mximum number of "bullet votes" is 23,159. Trump received 46,008 more votes in Nevada than Harris. "

Snopes seems to be saying that it doesn't matter if Trump cheated and sneaked in 23k bullet votes because Kamala would have lost anyway without them. In my view, if ANY cheating occured then that's like really bad right? Even if it didn't flip the election?

23k is a little more than half of 43k so the percentage would drop from 5.5% down to 2.8% which is still wayyy over the usual 0.05% bullet ballots which seems very odd and makes it recount worthy. (Note: The 0.05% bullet ballots figure comes from the original article which I haven't fact checked since idk how so if that's wrong please correct it "In comparison, bullet ballots for Trump in Oregon, Utah and Idaho—the three states which border Arizona and Nevada, with equally fervent Trump voters—count for less than 0.05% in each state.")

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Even ignoring the math, the assertion that a statistically unlikely amount of bullet ballots means there has been fraud is kinda out there. Historically, bullet ballots are fairly common with populist candidates.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

It does seem to me like a valid reason for a recount though and I believe this shit is being rugswept cuz we don't wanna look like conspiracy theorists

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think since the total amount of bullet votes isn't as massive as previously thought, it may only be somewhat outside of the norm, making the possible fraud less likely.

I can see where it may be best to be tactical with a demand for recount if it won't change the outcome, as then it could make it harder to have a recount in the next election to the point where it does change the outcome. That's just my 2 cents tho.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

Oh, thanks for that link. They did go really deep into the numbers with this one. I knew the whole Starlink part of the letter made no sense given how the internet works, but I still had questions about the number of bullet ballots, which Snopes addresses as well state by state.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago

I think that's all BS. However, what is not BS is that ballots have just "vanished", due to being challenged by the Vigilante stuff. According to Greg Pallast, investigative journalist with the BBC, there have been over 800k provisional ballots that have not been counted because they have been thrown out. He even has the exact names of people, who's ballots have been thrown out.

If it wasn't so dire, I'd find it extremely fascinating...

https://youtu.be/X3hXeEiFcJM

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Problematic for a couple of reasons:

  1. You can't just insert fake ballots, that would cause the vote count to be incorrect when compared to registered voters.

  2. A bullet ballot would support Trump, but have no impact on other races... races which we know Republicans won.

Looking at Pennsylvania as an example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election_in_Pennsylvania

Trump - 3,542,505
Harris - 3,421,088
Stein - 34,508
Oliver - 33,299
Total - 7,031,400
Trump won by 121,417

Now compare that to the Senate election:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_Senate_election_in_Pennsylvania

McCormick - 3,395,785
Casey - 3,378,356
Libertarian - 89,475
Green - 66,185
Constitution - 23,586
Total - 6,953,384

So 78,016 more people voted in the Presidential race than the Senate race, which is not enough to have given Trump the win if they were all bullet ballots.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You don't have to fake ballots. You can just throw absentee ballots out, after them being challenged...which happens since 2000 (it's apparently one of the reasons Bush won), this time however there have been over 800k ballots that have been thrown out...in swing states alone.

Considering the margins are so slim, a few 100k challenged voters here and there...and you have "We don't need your votes, we have enough" https://youtu.be/X3hXeEiFcJM

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

That isn't the claim though. The claim is enough "bullet ballots" (Trump only ballots) had been inserted to flip the election.

Elections don't work that way. I was telling people the same thing in 2016 and 2020.

When people cast a vote, it's tied to a registration. If you insert a bunch of votes, you end up with more ballots than voters.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

counting machines could be compromised and doing an office space thing in targeted areas, flipping one democrat vote for every 10 counted. no one would question it. only a hand count would verify, and those aren't usually done anymore.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

THIS.

They had direct access to our voting machines during their bullshit "inquiries".

The voting machines that ARE KNOWN to have direct access vulnerabilities.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Could the Russians and Elon access the voting machines?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago

Ask the "cyber ninjas" and all the other seditionists with their hands illegally on our voting machines during the whole twitlers big lie charade.

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

Oh, absolutely agreed, but again, that's not the accusation when it comes to bullet ballots.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

So, not to say I necessarily believe in this, but the case laid out has a lot to do with Elon's PAC, which was collecting only names and addresses with the promise that voters would be paid x amount after taking some sort of pledge. The argument then follows, that if electronic tabulation systems were hacked and continuously connected to the Internet, the people who signed up to his list could have their vote automatically cast as a bullet ballot for Donald Trump. Supposedly, there's a way they could do this digital ballot stuffing specifically for voters whose ballot had not shown up as cast within the voter registry past a certain point in time, so all the fraudulent ballots look like legitimate ones tied to actual people.

It's pretty far-fetched, but just plausible enough that it's appealing to a lot of people who were blindsided by election day's results

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Tabulation systems aren't connected to the internet. Any manipulation has to be done on a machine by machine basis, which can still be done with physical access and USB keys, but doing that at election scale would not go un-noticed.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Write your senators and representative and ask them to enforce section 3 of the 14th amendment and prevent an insurrectionist from holding office.