Another morning, another walk, and then to Clinton HQ to volunteer for canvassing. Does it do any good? I have no idea, but it will help to pass the time, and if I manage to goose one reluctant Clinton voter into getting out to the polls, it will be worth the effort.
A propos Tom Cathcart's comment, I anticipate that when Clinton wins [as I am rationally sure she will], we will see a rush of Trump supporters to gun shops and psychiatric emergency wards.
North Carolina is looking good, statistically speaking, but nothing can be counted on.
Starting November 9th, we will be in uncharted waters. After I see the complete results, I will offer some thoughts about next steps for progressives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Well done Paul.
Although I'm not in favour of Clinton (but a massive Bernie supporter), Trump must be stopped. Combining thought and action as you know is the best philosophy of all. Your actions are not in vain.
Yours,
A Scotsman (who campaigned for two years for Scottish independence)
Are you following the latest in terms of "fractional" voting which our election machines deliver?
1 – SUMMARY –
This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.
http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/
Oy, the irony that we may be the ones who end up claiming the election was rigged!
Of course it's rigged. The most cursory glance through wikileaks and the guccifer leaks reveals that (a topic tellingly absent on this blog and commentary). The votes can all be counted correctly, and the running and electing of candidates can remain a total farce.
But if one wants to put their head in the sand regarding wikileaks and hacks, Nader suffices:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/25/ralph-nader-why-bernie-sanders-was-right-to-run-as-a-democrat/
I'm pretty sure Prof Wolff didn't cover those 'revelations' because it was obvious all along that the DNC was working for Clinton. That being said, sadly, Bernie would have almost certainly lost anyway.
Not sure that's "almost certain" if you take away this level of Clinton camp funding:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/dnc-leak-shows-mechanics-of-a-slanted-campaign-w430814
And then couple it with a removal of the super delegate strategy. Which wikileaks shows the Clinton team planned WAY in advance.
Also, a removal of closed primaries, and same day voter registration, and he certainly would have won. Or, at the very least, been within a percentage point or two. In the wikileaks it's showed the Clinton camp is quite excited about closed primaries, and obscene rules on when registration can occur (all forms of legal election rigging).
There's nothing incongruent with saying all the votes were counted accurately, and the election is rigged. The more we mock Trumper's for saying the election is rigged, the more we show our cards for preferring the established order over an alternative.
@Chris
RE: the Rolling Stone piece.
I'm not sure how the constitutive paperwork determines the distribution of donations, but that piece sounds like a veiled fraud accusation against the Clinton campaign.
My questions (I'm afraid they might be rather stupid) to you:
Is my reading of that article legitimate?
In case you answer in the positive, wouldn't that leave the door open to a civil lawsuit/criminal prosecution, at least in theory and however unlikely in practice?
Anonymous1
That's how I read it too.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember (I think) that back in the day, when more states had open primaries, if one party's candidate was unopposed or if there was a shoo-in candidate in their primary, members of that party would vote in the other party's primary---for the weakest candidate.
Post a Comment