#election data

[odinsblog]

Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign is accusing billionaire Elon Musk of spreading "manipulated lies" after he reposted a video on X featuring an AI-generated voice imitating the vice president. Musk, who has endorsed former President Donald Trump, shared the video on his social media platform without noting that the video was originally released as an explicit parody, violating X's own policy that bars users from sharing “synthetic, manipulated, or out-of-context media that may deceive or confuse people and lead to harm."

The fake video reiterates racist attacks against Harris, who previously served as a U.S. senator and attorney general of California.

“I, Kamala Harris, am your Democrat candidate for president because Joe Biden finally exposed his senility at the debate,” the voice says, adding she is a "diversity hire" who doesn't know "the first thing about running the country." The fake-Harris voiceover is played alongside real clips of Harris used by her campaign in an earlier ad, authentic Harris campaign branding and the occasional statement from the actual candidate.

The mocking statements by the voiceover echoes statements from Republican politicians that Harris was only picked as Biden's running mate because she is a Black and Indian-American woman.

…

Two AI experts told the AP that the video represents the growing power deepfakes in shaping popular opinion and belief.

“The AI-generated voice is very good,” UC Berkeley digital forensics expert Hany Farid told the news service. “Even though most people won’t believe it is VP Harris’ voice, the video is that much more powerful when the words are in her voice.”

Rob Weissman, co-president of the advocacy group Public Citizen, said that many people will be completely fooled by the video.

(continue reading)

[qqueenofhades]

Going to cautiously posit that if they're moving toward calling Kentucky for Beshear (incumbent Democratic governor) in a blindingly red state Trump won by 30 points, in an off-year election, about 30 minutes after polls close statewide, that is a Good Sign.

[my-midlife-crisis]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

David Badash at NCRM:

An Elon Musk Super PAC is allegedly targeting voters in “more than a half-dozen swing states that could determine the outcome of the 2024 election,” harvesting personal data under the guise of helping prospective voters register to vote, according to a CNBC report. After they hand over their personal information, the website says “thank you,” possibly leading them to believe they have registered to vote, when they have not. “If a user lives in a state that is not considered competitive in the presidential election, like California or Wyoming for example, they’ll be prompted to enter their email addresses and zip code and then directed quickly to a voter registration page for their state, or back to the original sign up section. But for users who enter a zip code that indicates they live in a battleground state, like Pennsylvania or Georgia, the process is very different,” CNBC’s Brian Schwartz reports. “Rather than be directed to their state’s voter registration page, they instead are directed to a highly detailed personal information form, prompted to enter their address, cell phone number, and age,” CNBC explains. “If they agree to submit all that, the system still does not steer them to a voter registration page. Instead, it shows them a ‘thank you’ page.”

CNBC also reports this 15-second video ad is from Musk’s America PAC, and uses video of the Trump assassination attempt to encourage prospective voters to the PAC’s website.

On Musk’s social media site X, Schwartz writes, “Billionaire Elon Musk has created a PAC collecting voter data from those living in key states through an online ‘register to vote’ form that does not directly register people to vote. All of this in an effort to help Donald Trump become president.” Spyware, phishing, and disinformation researcher John Scott-Railton posted what appear to be screenshots of his experience at Musk’s Super PAC site, which he calls “Elon Musk’s America PAC bait-and-switch voter registration page.”

[...] Don Moynihan, McCourt Chair of Public Policy at Georgetown University‘s McCourt School of Public Policy, remarked: “Getting people’s personal information on the promise of helping them to register to vote, and then not helping them to register to vote definitely seems like election fraud. This is what Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC is reportedly doing.”

Right-wing wanker Elon Musk’s America PAC is under scrutiny for data harvesting under the guise of helping prospective voters register to vote.

[tomorrowusa]

Data journalist Harry Enten explains just how close the 2024 race for president really is. The way he describes it even made me look at it another way.

While Kamala Harris seems to be ahead, it's a narrow lead with lots of moving parts. We need to build on that lead and make sure it becomes secure.

If you haven't already, check in with your online friends individually and make sure they are all registered to vote. Ask in DMs or PMs or whatever if they are up to date with registration.

Every state has different laws. So if anybody seems perplexed by the process, offer to do the research for them. Don't assume their state and your state have the same registration process and requirements.

And as I perpetually remind everyone, if you have moved since the last election, you must register at the new address. Voting is strictly geographic because of congressional, state legislative, and local government districts. Some boundaries even run through the middle of blocks. So even if you've moved just down the street, notify your election board or county clerk and fill out the necessary change of address forms. Don't give GOP vote suppressors an excuse to challenge your vote!

[dykeravengard]

Comparing EU parliament 2024 election results to 2019 election results and outgoing parliament

EU parliament after 2019 elections:

Outgoing EU parliament:

EU parliament after 2024 elections (provisional results):

Graph comparison between 2019 elections, outgoing parliament and 2024 elections:

Below i will in short explain each party and compare how many seat were gained or lost by that party between the 2019 and 2024 elections, and between the outgoing parliament and 2024 elections:

The first number refers to gain/loss compared between elections, the second refers to gain/loss compared to outgoing parliament.

EPP: centre-right (christian democracy, conservatism, liberal conservatism, pro-europeanism). +3/+9

S&D: centre-left (social democracy, pro-europeanism). -17/-2

Renew Europe: centre (liberalism, pro-europeanism). -29/-23

ECR: right to far-right (conservatism, national conservatism, economic liberalism, soft euro-scepticism). +11/+4

ID: right to far-right (national conservatism, right-wing populism, euro-scepticism). -15/+9

Green/EFA: centre-left to left (green politics, pro-europeanism). -22/-19

The Left: left to far-left (democratic socialism, communism, soft euro-scepticism). -5/-1

NI: non-attached to any party. -11/-16

Others: Newly elected Members not allied to any of the political groups set up in the outgoing Parliament. +54

Note: the number of seats from the last election in 2019 has been lowered from 751 to 720, while from the outgoing to incoming parliaments the number of seats has been increased from 705 to 720.

Net results (elections):

Centre-right to far-right parties have collectively lost 1 seat.

Centre-left to far-left parties have collectively lost 44 seats.

Centre parties have collectively lost 29 seats.

Others and NI have collectively gained 43 seats.

Net results (outgoing/incoming):

Centre-right to far-right parties have collectively gained 22 seats.

Centre-left to far-left parties have collectively lost 22 seats.

Centre parties have collectively lost 23 seats.

Others and NI have collectively gained 38 seats.

Note: I'm making this kind of in a rush so if there is any mistakes let me know <3

[nickioeste]

Regardless of what you think it takes to be a good politician, it's interesting to note the differences between candidates in this way.

[lokh]

oh fuckk got to the interview stage. do u think my chances are better presenting male or female

[my-midlife-crisis]

[mudwerks]

(via Mike Lindell Loses Arbitration Case and Must Pay $5 Million - The New York Times)

When conference organizers gave Mr. Zeidman and other attendees data to dissect, he said that he expected it might take weeks to analyze. But once he started going through the files, he said he quickly concluded that the data was bogus. He presented his findings to Mr. Lindell’s representatives in a 15-page report.

the garbage “data” was not only lacking in proof - but unrelated to the election 

It’s funny how grifters will spend millions to convince you to help them and to give them money, but they never pay their bills - unless absolutely forced to.

[hotcupoteckla]

So, there I was, minding my business, when a survey came unbidden to my phone.

I could tell this person was a republican based on his listing Trump as the first option, but it really devolved from there. Jill Stein, a relatively popular Green candidate in WI, was not listed, but some douchecanoe with 'Disrupt the Corruption' as his slogan was. 🙄

The questions further decline into fear-mongering, leading, and biased questions, which are definitely "Statistics as an Art form" and not Actual Science.

However, it's important to see which questions they ask & which subjects they're showing us, as we can then determine what their focus is:

1. Removing Trans Rights to Exist

2. Rolling back taxes and business regulations (we already knew this thanks to SCotUS rulings, and 2-3 questions of the set are related to this area, showing an emphasis on subject)

3. The common sense one is throwing me for a loop as it's repetitive & vague, but I have a feeling it's Rolling back education access. Most "common sense" things seem to a be a dogwhistle against public education, but anyone who knows more, please enlighten me.

4. Rolling back other civil rights for Gay people, Black & Brown people, and of course, Gay & Black/Brown people.

5. Something something Banning Abortions.

I also want to point out that

It does not matter to the Republicans which positions are being contested.

Again, they wanted me to know all the conservative options available on the ticket.

They are okay with other Libertarian choices because to them

Libertarian = Republican

It's important to vote and run for the entire ticket. Every local Republican position that goes uncontested is a possible electorate college vote for them.

Go get involved in your local politics if the above seems devastating to you.

They are showing their hand, it would be foolish of us not to use it against them.

[deadpresidents]

Carter has passed Garner! He now holds ALL the records for anyone who has ever been President or VP! Only Alf Landon's still stands and he was never President!

Yes, you are correct! Jimmy Carter has now passed John Nance Garner on the list of longest-living Presidents or Vice Presidents (here was that list at the beginning of September). And we are 10 days away from President Carter becoming the first President or Vice President to ever celebrate their 99th birthday. Not bad for a guy who has been in hospice care since February.

And, yes, Alf Landon is the longest-living major party nominee for President or Vice President. Landon was the 1936 Republican Presidential nominee and lost the general election to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Landon was 100 years, 33 days old when he died in 1987. Think about that for a second: Alf Landon was the Republican Presidential nominee when FDR ran for his second term as President, and Landon died when Ronald Reagan had a little over a year left in his Presidency!

BUT, it's worth nothing that while Alf Landon is undoubtedly the longest-living Presidential or Vice Presidential nominee by a major party, he is NOT the longest-living person to ever win Electoral votes as President or Vice President.

In 1948, many Southern Democrats opposed to support for civil rights in the party's platform at the Democratic National Convention bolted from the party and formed the States' Rights or "Dixiecrat" party to run against incumbent Democratic President Harry S. Truman and Republican nominee Thomas Dewey. The Dixiecrats nominated South Carolina Governor (and future longtime Senator) Strom Thurmond as their Presidential nominee. Despite not being a major party nominee, Thurmond and the Dixiecrats, relying on voters in former Confederate strongholds in the South, performed better in the general election than just about any third-party Presidential candidate of the 20th Century.

Thurmond and the Dixiecrats won 4 states and 39 Electoral votes in 1948. In 1936, Republican nominee Alf Landon won two states and just 8 Electoral votes. So Thurmond's racist, third-party challenge performed far better than the GOP nominee had done twelve years earlier.

So, unfortunately, while we're talking about longest-living President or Vice Presidential nominees, we have to throw Strom Thurmond in the conversation considering the fact that he won far more Electoral votes in 1948 than Alf Landon did in 1936. And Thurmond lived longer, as well. Thurmond was 100 years, 203 days old when he died in 2003 -- he lived 170 days longer than Alf Landon did.

Thurmond is also almost certainly the oldest person to ever be one of the top officials in the Presidential line of succession. As I mentioned, Thurmond eventually served in the U.S. Senate from South Carolina -- a seat that he held from 1954-2003 (except for a period of about 7 months in 1956) -- where he eventually became the first (and only, so far) person to serve in Congress after their 100th birthday. Due to his lengthy tenure in office, Thurmond was president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate for several years when his party was in control of the Senate.

As president pro tem, Thurmond was third in the Presidential line of succession, behind the Vice President and Speaker of the House. This meant that, Thurmond was third in the line of succession well after turning 98 years old. In June 2001, Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords announced that he would begin caucusing with the Democrats in the Senate, which gave the Democrats a narrow majority and control in the Senate, However, if Jeffords had not made that decision when he did, Strom Thurmond would have been president pro tempore on September 11, 2001. That means a nearly 99-year-old man would have been third in the Presidential succession at the time of the 9/11 attacks.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

This is getting ridiculous!

September 25, 2023

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

          Geez! This is getting ridiculous! Trump calls for the execution of the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley and the Washington Post performs a botched poll that is so bad the Post acknowledges it is “an outlier.” Guess which one leads the news on Sunday? Hint: It is not the story that calls for the killing of a perceived political opponent by the leading candidate for the GOP 2024 nomination.

          Let’s get the WaPo/ABC poll out of the way, first. The results were simply implausible. They were so bad that Post included this disclaimer:

[A]lthough the sizable margin of Trump’s lead in this survey is significantly at odds with other public polls that show the general election contest a virtual dead heat. The difference between this poll and others, as well as the unusual makeup of Trump’s and Biden’s coalitions in this survey, suggest it is probably an outlier.

          If you were alarmed by the headlines about the WaPo/ABC poll, the most important thing you can do is read Simon Rosenberg’s post in Hopium Chronicles, The WaPo-ABC Poll Is A Clear Outlier. Dems Are Having A Very Good 2023. As Simon explains, the results are so wacky (my word, not his), the Post should have tossed the poll. But the Post spent the money on the poll, so it published a poll it did not believe. That makes perfect sense because . . . .?

          It doesn’t make sense. If there is anything good to come out of the WaPo/ABC poll, it seals the case that presidential “horse-race” polling is irretrievably broken, counterproductive, and misleading. And yet in the dozen articles I read about the poll on Sunday, all of them treated the poll as a legitimate exercise in polling. It is not. Indeed, the notion that multiple news organizations are conducting presidential horse-race polls more than a year before the election is a sign that they view politics as entertainment—just like sports scores, the daily horoscope, and advice columns. Pathetic.

          Folks, they are trying to mess with our heads. Don’t let them. Reject their infotaintmentization of politics. Ignore the polls. If you can’t ignore the polls, tell irresponsible media outlets what you think by posting comments on offending articles, write letters to the editor, and send emails to the journalists. Ignoring the polls is a reasonable approach to preserving your sanity. But ignoring the polls may give outlets a “free pass” on their irresponsible journalism. The Post’s poll is going to be added to Five-Thirty-Eight.com’s aggregation of polls and will affect the narrative of Biden’s prospects for winning. That is why it is irresponsible and dangerous for news outlets to conduct meaningless and misleading polls.

          The 2024 presidential election features two candidates who are surrogates for different visions of America: Democracy versus autocracy; liberty versus tyranny; dignity versus bigotry; science versus disinformation; personal autonomy versus subservience to Christian nationalism; sustainability versus ecological disaster; safety versus gun violence; global stability versus confrontational isolationism. All of that—and much more—is on the ballot in 2024. The WaPo/ABC “horse-race” poll captures none of that.

          Turning to the real story that should be the only thing any media outlet is discussing is Trump's not-so-veiled threat to execute General Mark Milley. As usual, Trump made the threat on his vanity social media platform and used oblique references to provide deniability that he made the threat. Trump's use of Mafia-style threats is so common that the comparison is becoming stale, but it is the equivalent of mobsters telling a small business owner, “Nice place you got here; it would be a shame if it burned down.”

          In the waning days of the Trump administration, the US intercepted intelligence indicating that the Chinese government believed the US might attack China. In military-to-military talks that are commonplace to avoid accidental conflicts, General Milley assured his counterpart in the Chinese military that the US was not planning to attack China.

Per the book Peril by Bob Woodward and Bob Costa, Milley said the following during the call with his counterpart:

General Li, I want to assure you that the American government is stable, and everything is going to be okay. We are not going to attack or conduct any kinetic operations against you. General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise . . . If there was a war or some kind of kinetic action between the United States and China, there’s going to be a buildup, just like there has been always in history.

          That call was approved in advance by Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. Trump now claims that effort at “deconfliction amounted to treason. Trump wrote:

This guy turned out to be a Woke train wreck who, if the Fake News reporting is correct, was actually dealing with China to give them a heads up on the thinking of the President of the United States. This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!

See The Independent, Trump suggests Mark Milley should be executed in possible breach of pre-trial release conditions.

          There are two problems with Trump's statement: It is a veiled threat on the life of General Milley and it violates his pretrial release in the two felony prosecutions in DC and Florida.

          For those who believe I am engaging in hyperbole regarding Trump's threat against the life of General Milley, recall what happened in response to this Tweet:

Big protest in D.C. on January 6th!  Be there, will be wild!

          Trump has a feral instinct for urging his followers to action without directly telling them to do so. As his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, testified to Congress,

[H]e doesn’t give you orders. He speaks in a code.

          The response of the media—thus far—has been a collective yawn. Their listless response is due in part to Trump's exhaustive, daily threats against foes (real and imagined) that normalize his incendiary rhetoric to the point of background noise. It is not—as his January 6 incitement reminds us. The political press should be talking of nothing else until Republicans condemn and disavow the first major party presidential candidate to threaten a senior military officer with death.

          Recognizing that the media would rather cover a botched poll than a death threat, another avenue of accountability is for either Judge Chutkan or Cannon to revoke Trump's pretrial release or impose a gag order on him. Yes, a gag order. Trump is already the subject of a motion by the prosecution in the January 6 prosecution to refrain from intimidating witnesses. As the government said in its brief:

“The defendant continues these attacks on individuals precisely because he knows that in doing so, he is able to roil the public and marshal and prompt his supporters.”

          Trump obviously doesn’t care; he never has. He has crossed a line—another one. It is time for federal judges charged with the responsibility of protecting witnesses and jurors to act. Before it is too late.