We have a mix of touchscreen and hand ballots. I much prefer the touchscreen because we vote yes/no to retain like 50 judges. Much easier electronically.

One thing I noticed on the touchscreen is that it prints out a receipt of sorts along the side. I'm not sure if this is for piece of mind of the voter to see that their vote is being correctly tabulated, or as a backup in case something goes wrong.


He really loves that weird conspiracy about the wildfires. Also mighty quiet from the stand for the anthem crowd when it comes to him missing the ceremony.

For what it's worth having worked in computer security, I still think hacking the machines that count the ballots is not only a terrible strategy, but much more difficult than people think. It's easy to spot anomalies and uncover them.

The best way has and likely will be for the near future, fucking with the turnout. Not providing enough resources in areas you want to suppress the vote (like when you see 4 hour lines to vote on election day). Cutting early voting hours. Eliminating registered voters in unfriendly districts (like what Georgia did). Adding registered voters in friendly districts (like what Florida did).

Creating a bunch of phony ballots is not only dangerous but easy to spot. It's so much easier to just have the head of a precinct shut down a few of their machines and not hire enough people to work. If 5-10% of the voters see it's an hour wait and drive away, you gain much more than making some fake ballots.

Like Russia didn't need to hack any elections (which would practically be a declaration of war). They simply built a propaganda arm that targeted the dumbest, most gullible citizens of this country. Their accessing state elections data likely has more to do with data mining than actual election interference.

I’m fairly sure it isn’t driven by fraud. However it leaves the system open to accusation of such

No print out here.

It was show ID and fill out form, go to another line to get a "card", insert card into electronic ballot system, make my selection, card popped out that I gave back as I exit the booth.

I'm not sure if the card is the "backup/audit" trail but I would be more comfortable with paper printout that I can validate.

The criticism for missing the cemetery is valid.

I'll skip the "equivalence" assumption and debate.

If the machines can be hacked then why not the printouts?

I'm sure someone can come up with a better way but tossing it out there ...

How about print out 2 copies. Voter has to check printouts against electronic votes and then gives one printout to officials and retains one.

Electronic results are released as preliminary. Election officials do hash counts & sample compares between electronic #s and printouts. Assuming errors are within reason, then results are official?

I don't think there's any alternative that would satisfy everyone. For example, in California you can vote by mail and the only requirement is that it be postmarked by Election Day. That means there isn't even a chance to start counting some votes until days afterwards(I think 3ish). You could make people mail them earlier but that would lead to calls of voter suppression, disenfranchisement, and the like.

Jim Acosta is going to Europe to cover Trump there. Oh I cannot wait.

I didn’t realise that you could post on the day - postal votes have to arrive by the time polling stations close here.

Troll the troll.

What's the over/under on Trump getting a restraining order against Acosta?

Don't know what this really means yet for the recount. Not good but I guess better than the hanging chads from 2000.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/11/polit...nty/index.html

Colorado has vote by mail but the ballot has to be received by election day. And there are drop boxes that can be used instead up until the close of voting on election day. Seems a good way to do it.

Apparently Tucker Carlson way over-exaggerated the protest incident at his home. The police report shows no arrests were made and doesn't mention a broken door. The issue for the police was that someone spray painted an anarchy sign on Carlson's driveway.

Both sides.

Mississippi Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith makes joke about "public hanging" - CBS News

My initial reaction was ugh but I may root for this. Her election will be a repudiation of everything Trump (not all bad I have to add, but cons outweigh the pros) and I get to proclaim this to all my die-hard Trump supporter friends for 4 years.

Ex-Clinton aide: Hillary will run again in 2020 | TheHill

Mark Penn also thought California was winner take all in the Dem primary.

Gawd no! she needs to enjoy a nice retirement from politics, don't even endorse anyone.

Seriously.

BTW, the caravan vanguard has made it to the border.

Oh NOES...have they taken El Paso?

They ended up further north to Tijuana (must have caught a ride?) where presumably their odds in CA will be better.

Just locked my wife and daughter in the closet. How long do you think they will be safe there? Do I have time to go buy a gun and register as a republican??

Sorry, Lathum. It is too late. All is lost.

Guess I'l just put on Fox news and watch the end of the world

You most certainly have time to go buy a gun (unless you are a felon or unauthorized). Just drop by any gun or sporting goods store and you'll be out in 30 min.

If you can wait a week, my suggestion is a nice battle rifle like a Colt LE6920 at Buds (a semi-automatic like most hunting guns, not a full-automatic though) Best prices online Colt M4 Carbine MPS 5.56 16 30 $914.00.

For ammo, suggest the Federal case for 420 rounds minimum Federal XM193LCAC1 M193 5.56NATO 55GR FMJ Can 20Boxes/21 420 $149.00

Probably don't need optics immediately but if you have the money, go for a nice red dot like Aimpoint Micro H-2 2MOA LRP $812.00

Can't help you if you need night vision, don't have one.

If you're a die-hard liberal and don't feel you can shoot to protect yourself, no judgement ... but you'll need it for the zombie apocalypse sooner or later.

That embarrassing loss should show her that actually a lot of people just don't like her and that's why they voted for Trump and why they will vote for anyone but her. And some of that corruption from Benghazi/emails sticks to her whether she was charged with anything or not. Please please stay away from running for any national office ever again Hillary. And you don't have a claim on it because you think the Russians might have interfered either.

Mark Penn has not been right about a single thing in like a decade.

There are two things I know to be true:

1) No matter who earns the Democratic nomination in 2020, Trump and the Republican propaganda machine will go in overdrive to paint that person as the most liberal liberal to ever liberal. They could have a 100% rating from the NRA, have voted for every tax cut bill to ever reach the floor if they served in Congress, and say the pledge of allegiance in front of Jesus Christ while saluting the Ten Commandments (on stone tablets held by a veteran), and they will still be the most dangerous liberal socialist commie the nation has ever seen. So there's that.

2) If you want Trump II: Electric Boogaloo, "Hillary Clinton, Democratic nominee" is a fine way to make that happen. Yeah, maybe people who voted Green Party or didn't vote in 2016 will go OH SHIT GOTTA FIX THAT but presenting the Republican Party with another shot at someone they'll have spent the better part of three decades painting as Public Enemy #1 is giving them the lowest-hanging fruit imaginable. People who have been conditioned to hate Hillary Clinton and everything she stands for will turn out in droves to vote against her, regardless of what it means for them personally. I'm not saying she'd definitely lose, but I AM saying that she'd represent Donald Trump's best hope for re-election.

Maine 2nd will be the 1st Congressional race to be decided by ranked choice voting. Likely to favor the Democrat, but will be interesting to see it play out.

I don't know much about this stuff, but I find it impossible to believe she would get the partys nomination. People have to have gotten smarter the last few years. If she does somehow get the party nomination then TBH they get what they deserve, which would be 4 more years of Trump.

I expect to see lawsuits from the Republican party challenging ranked choice voting if that's the case (and it looks very likely at the moment).

I found it impossible to believe the Republican electorate would elevate Donald Trump over basically ANY of the alternatives they had.

Nobody ever went broke betting on the ability of the American public to make fucktarded decisions in the worship of name recognition.

Looks like Homeland Secretary Nielsen could be the next to go:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.41628b7333bc

Oh, get ready, Sheriff Joe!

I figure either him or Kris Kobach

Stephen Miller, come on down!

If this happens soon enough, it could allow Jeff Flake one last chance to tweet out some "serious concern" before voting yes.

CNN suing White House to regain press access for Jim Acosta.

Is there any doubt that Flake would have won in AZ if Trump had been able to forego his personal vanity and say something like, Jeff and I have our disagreements, but when we need him he's a reliable vote.

And, as a bonus, McSally probably would have won her House seat.

Good work, Trump!

He would be one that I would expect to be on the Primary list next year.

I still don't think he would have gotten out of the primary as the republican base here is hardcore and despise him. I have never seen anyone called a RINO as much as him and people on the far right was just plain ruthless to him. I think McSally knocks him off in a primary.

Arizona has a growing Dem base and a lot in independents (Who may have gone more for Flake than the did McSally) but the feeling with many in the independent base is he talked a good game against Trump, but eventually falls in line, with the notable exception of healthcare, which may have given him enough to edge Sinema if he had gotten by McSally.

All in all, I think things turned out for the best here.

If Trump had supported him I'm not convinced the base would have turned against him.

I don't think Flake would have won the primary. And if he did, who was voting for him in the general? Democrats would be voting for their candidate and Republicans would be split heavily on him.

If Trump had supported him I don't think Republicans flee and Flake wins with a smaller margin than in the past, but still comfortable. I don't think the GOP would have been killed in Maricopa County with a Trump endorsed Flake as the candidate.

He needed the embrace.

The Republicans are Trumpists now. you either genuflect at his altar, or you lose. He wouldn't do it, so he bailed.

I think you misjudge a large portion of the far right here in AZ. They don't look at the endorsement as much as how Flake aligns with what they believe, which is why they love Trump. So all they see is Flake going against the Trump message, and not supporting him based on that, regardless of endorsement because Flake would never have embraced Trump, even with his endorsement.

McSally could have played that well enough to defeat him in a two way primary, if it includes Ward and Arpaio then Flake wins and it is still a dog fight with Sinema, with the wildcard there being far right voters that stay home because they hate Flake.

I understand that, I just think that if Trump were big enough to compliment him rather than attack him the far right wouldn't hate Flake as much. Flake was basically always with Trump when it came time to vote, and Trump could have made that the message.

You really need to understand the depth the GOP hardliners here have for Flake, I don't think Trump could have saved him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/t...on-racism.html

Not a great look for Schumer.


Edit: Also that whole article is insane. Facebook is such a terrible company.

Michael Avenatti was arrested in LA today for domestic violence against his ex-wife according to TMZ. One problem with that, Avenatti's ex-wife denies it and her lawyer put out a statement denying it too. Not heard from Avenatti himself about it yet.


Edit; Avenatti denies that he has ever hit a woman, let alone last night.

It sounds like he was arrested for domestic violence but TMZ messed up the part about it being his ex-wife. Likely his new GF or someone else.

Lot of Trump tweets this morning-must be worried indictments are coming...or just watched Fox and Friends:


The inner workings of the Mueller investigation are a total mess. They have found no collusion and have gone absolutely nuts. They are screaming and shouting at people, horribly threatening them to come up with the answers they want. They are a disgrace to our Nation and don’t...

Fixed that for you.

I desperately want to see a poll about the Mueller investigation that goes something like.



Has the Mueller investigation found anything?



Y/N


And just leave it at that and see what happens. Because I really want to know who the people are who vote N on that.

Good lord
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...turkey-n933996

Looks like JPhillips was voting in Florida again.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/15/donald-trump-pushes-conspiracy-theories-florida-recount/1991767002/

Just heard that Pancho Villa may be leading the caravan in Mexico.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...led-americans/

I voted so many times my counter flipped back over to 1.

LOL! These clowns never cease to amaze me with their bullshit.

Even Mattis won't get out of this with his reputation intact.

I had seen some jokes on twitter about buying cereal-now I know why.

Avenatti blames our friend Jacob Wohl for the arrest and vows to come after him.



Michael Avenatti Suggests Jacob Wohl Was Behind His Domestic Violence Arrest in Twitter Blast Against Conspiracy Theorist

It's being reported that Trump was looking at sending Gulen to Turkey in order to get Erdogan to lay off of Saudi Arabia.

Or as this tweet says:

Some one looking at a court filing in a case totally unrelated to Julian Assange was surprised to see his name listed twice and posted on Twitter about it and soon the Washington Post picked it up and ran with it. It was an accidental use of Assange's name that if true means Assange has been charged under seal since August, and would be unsealed if arrested:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.f01e6fe1d5bc


Edit: After I read the article, someone has tweeted that Russian TV is saying Assange has been extradited by Ecuador. Given the source, not sure how accurate that is.

Do we know what for? The old stuff is obvious but he was pretty instrumental in some of the election shenanigans with Russia.

My guess is it's a "why not both" situation.

Trump would love to throw Assange in bars when Obama didn't (or couldn't), and claim the credit; if he could deflect blame on the Russian shenanigans and say "we weren't the ones who colluded, obviously, because HE'S the one getting prosecuted," I think he'd jump at it.

First amendment battle.

US 'preparing indictment against Julian Assange' of WikiLeaks - BBC News

No will know for sure unless there is another "accidental admission" But we do know Mueller's been concentrating on the timing of the revealing of the Clinton/Podesta emails as it relates to Trump, Stone, and Assange, so my guess would be federal election violations amongst them.

Trump appointed judge rules that Jim Acosta's fifth amendment rights were violated by the White House in taking his press pass away and it must be restored. There will still be a trial over this.

This judge will be asked to step down. :popcorn:

no doubt

honestly a win/win for them.

Trump/Sanders will call on him at the next press conference. Trump gets to continue a public fight with the media and CNN.

Acosta gets to make the story about him (every journalist's dream).

Actual substantive policy discussion won't happen. But that's just bad for the rest of us.

Funny how Sanders says there must be decorum at the White House.

Trump is insisting that he's writing the answers to Mueller's questions, not his lawyers.

Everything's a con.

I'm still not sure it'll be about the 1st Amendment. They've never really gone after someone like this in the past (although plenty of threats). It would also likely lose in the courts.

I still think there is probably something else they are indicting him for to avoid that conundrum. There is a line between disseminating information and actively being a part of the crime to obtain it.

FWIW, I personally am okay if he rots in the embassy (just like Snowden in Russia).

His lawyers will make it 1st Amendment issue and I would love to see it go to trial to see how it works out, it will be fascinating.

Neat graphical illustration of who the 2 parties represent. And no, Pirates aren't counting as far as diversification goes :p

The pirate who got his eye blown up by an IED.

Man, I'm not even a fan of Ocasio-Cortez, but the Fox News obsession over her is hilarious.

She makes too much money! She doesn't make any money! She has a savings account! She's wearing a nice jacket!

I visited the in-laws after she won her primary and Fox News was basically non-stop coverage of her. They either want to build her up as a new punching bag to represent the left, are afraid of her, or a little of both.

Both. She is going to be a handy demon as the "extreme left." But it also scarring them to death that she and people like her could win elections as a socialist.

Yeah, she checks off all the boogey man boxes, woman, person of color, socialist.

On the right, Socialists are more dangerous than White Nationalists.


{edit: More dangerous, worse was a little vague.}

I'm trying not to harp on things Trump says/tweets, but this one takes the cake. He's visiting victims of the fires in California who have basically lost everything and this is what he says:


Trump: "You gotta take care of the floors. You know the floors of the forest, very important... I was with the President of Finland... he called it a forest nation and they spent a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things and they don't have any problem."

Socialists and white nationalists are bad for everyone.

QFT. The only reason I'd say socialists are more dangerous - though I'm not really 'on the right', is that there are so many more of them.

The right is basically just white nationalists these days.

Our Armed Forces are socialist institutions. They have universal health care, subsidized housing and child care, even the clothing is socialized. It's insane to see Socialists in a more negative way than freakin' white supremacists. This is crazy.

So the right then comprises 10% or less of America? Pretty impressive that they have any power at all.

** 2016 ANES results showed that less than 8% of those who self-identify as Independent, just over 4% of Democrats, and about 6.5% of Republicans agreed with alt-right philosophy. Specifically in that case, the issues presented were whether race was highly important to their identity, whether it was important for whites to change laws that are unfair to whites, and whether white Americans are discriminated against.

** 2017 Washington Post poll, taken shortly after Charlottesville, had a 10% overall support for the Alt-Right. I literally can't find anything higher.

63 million people voted for a white nationalist. It's not some fringe element of the party, it is the party.

There are people on the right who have spoken out against it and they've largely been marginalized.

That kind of logic is super-simplistic. It doesn't allow for any nuance. Poll people on why they voted for trump, and they don't say in large numbers 'because he's a white nationalist'. A lot of them voted against Hillary. Some were because of economic issues like trade. Some were because, as many people vote on, of SCOTUS, etc.

I don't agree with any of those stances, but it's absurd to reduce support for any politician to one issue like that. These things are never that one-dimensional.

For instance: Bill Kristol Wanders the Wilderness of Trump World | The New Yorker



To quote from the above article...

There's elements of truth there, but again is not really accurate and is a gross oversimplification. Thought exercise to prove it; name any other modern president who:

** Received as little endorsement or support from members of his own party during the campaign(hint: there's nobody remotely close)

** Received anything approaching the level of criticism for their official duties as Trump got after things like the Putin or Charlottesville press conferences from their own party.

That's before you get into things like the ACA repeal getting voted down repeatedly and so on. GOP leadership has been far too accomodated; there is again an element of truth in the stated position. To say in a carte blance manner Trump's philosophy has completely taken over the party though is such a reductionist absurdity that it can't survive the most casual observation of what has happened in the last three years.

We spend much more than any country on our military yet we told the military is underfunded. We hardly get our bang for the buck from the military and I say that as a veteran. Our military institution is hardly the pinnacle of fiscal efficiency.

I can say socialism is bad as well as white supremacists because they both lead to terrible results.

Holy shit. PilotMan nailed it, I guess.

He received little support from party leaders early on, but from people on the right he received a ton of support. He won the primary rather easily and dominated every other candidate when it came to rallies and excitement. No one will challenge him in 2020 on the Republican side. And if someone did, they'd get trounced.

As for criticism, I think it's tough to compare to other Presidents. I don't think we've had a President speak of Nazis in glowing terms. I don't think we've had a President with such an odd relationship with a foreign adversary.

The guy has the support of the people on the right. Has high approval ratings among people on the right. And candidates that run on the right are mimicking his style. Not sure how you can argue that he's not the focal point of their political philosophy today.

I guess it's a good thing that I did not in any way argue that then.