Punk in Finland

kaikkien alojen asiantuntija wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2020, 10:00

Ingmar Bergmanin kuolema wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2020, 20:12

Bidenin ei ole pakko laskea Floridan varaan, koska muitakin väyliä voittoon on. Rehdissä vaalissa Trumpilla taas ei oikein ole muuta reittiä kuin Floridan kautta. Myös huijaus/kikkailuoperaatiossakin Florida olisi varmaan keskeinen, koska kisa on tiukka, tulos on pienestä kiinni ja sieltä voi pelata pois paljon valitsijahenkilöitä vaalipäivän jälkeen.

No totahan ukkoo ei saa pois White Housesta sorkkaraudallakaan - kyllä se jonkin kikan keksii meni sitten vaalit miten meni.

superlemmikki wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2020, 10:35

kaikkien alojen asiantuntija wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2020, 10:00

Ingmar Bergmanin kuolema wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2020, 20:12

Bidenin ei ole pakko laskea Floridan varaan, koska muitakin väyliä voittoon on. Rehdissä vaalissa Trumpilla taas ei oikein ole muuta reittiä kuin Floridan kautta. Myös huijaus/kikkailuoperaatiossakin Florida olisi varmaan keskeinen, koska kisa on tiukka, tulos on pienestä kiinni ja sieltä voi pelata pois paljon valitsijahenkilöitä vaalipäivän jälkeen.

No totahan ukkoo ei saa pois White Housesta sorkkaraudallakaan - kyllä se jonkin kikan keksii meni sitten vaalit miten meni.

Ai että Trump keksii jipon?
Vai Repujen Demujen kostoa pelkäävä liskosiipi ja muut demokratianvierastajat ja jees-miehet / QAnon-MAGAhattupäälliköt?

Salajulkku wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2020, 14:56

Jos Biden ei voita todella kirkkaasti, niin uhkaa yksi kaikkien aikojen sekasotku. Trumppi on jo kauan pelannut fake-kortteja vaaleihin.

sössön sössön wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2020, 07:44

tää oli vähän ja kertoo taas siitä että kohtahan tässä voi ihan virallisesti listata USAn failed statejen joukkoon

Spoiler:

In a campaign year marked by a global pandemic, a recession and a national wave of protests, it’s easy to forget that this whole election season began with an absolute debacle when it came to the simple act of voting.

The mobile app used for the Democratic caucuses in Iowa collapsed so badly that the country was left unsure—forever, as it turns out—who won. In March, malfunctioning voting technology in California led to hourslong delays; in April, the pandemic left Wisconsin voters unsure the night before whether the polls would even open. By May, unable to guarantee the safety of physical voting, 16 states had delayed their primaries or switched to vote-by-mail options. Then came Georgia’s primary in June, where massive confusion and long lines led to what observers called a “meltdown.” Some people waited in line to cast their ballots until 1 a.m.

Every month of this year has brought new evidence that voting in 2020 hasn’t been going very well. And with perhaps the most consequential election in generations—when the nation ratifies or rejects President Donald Trump’s divisive agenda—experts are starting to believe that the general election will be much, much worse.

People often deploy the “perfect storm” metaphor incorrectly, using it to describe a surprise collision of events that catches its victims off guard.

Anxious Democrats are already fretting about nightmare scenarios in which Trump uses emergency powers to cancel the election, calls in the military to “oversee” voting, or even refuses to vacate the White House. But conversations with more than a dozen campaign strategists, security officials and election administrators make clear that the most likely picture this fall is something less theatrical, and every bit as destabilizing. November 3, even if it proceeds as scheduled, is likely to bring bureaucratic snafus and foreseeable chaos unfolding on a hundred different fronts at once, in a thousand voting precincts—all of which will leave the U.S. with its most uncertain, disputed result in a lifetime.

People often deploy the “perfect storm” metaphor incorrectly, using it to describe a surprise collision of events that catches its victims off guard. But that’s not how perfect storms really work: In Sebastian Junger’s book about a deadly Atlantic Ocean gale that popularized the term, the storm was a well-foreseen event, with serious warnings, that people saw coming and chose instead to ignore—until it was too late, and the waves overwhelmed them. That’s how this election is starting to look to experts.

What’s likely to go wrong, and is there any way to head it off?

Conversations with election specialists and security officials, plus analysis of recent government reports, make clear that there are eight distinct but connected challenges. At the technical end are the uncertain new voting technologies and processes put in place for the pandemic; on the geopolitical end, we face foreign adversaries energized by their success sowing confusion in 2016. And at the center is the unprecedented human factor: The dislocations and risks associated with voting in an uncontrolled viral outbreak.

“My biggest concern for the fall election is an election administrator’s job is to convince the losers that they lost.”

Kim Wyman

Add to that a year that has already seen unprecedented street protests and vivid displays of political violence, and an incumbent president who has already been impeached for attempting dirty tricks in this election, and who is uniquely likely to cast doubt on the results if he loses, and you have a combustible recipe.

A handful of public officials have been trying to sound the alarm, such as Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who has made an issue of election security and recently warned that the country could be headed toward “an electoral Chernobyl.”

Many of the election experts interviewed for this story asked to speak anonymously to voice candid fears they didn’t want to be associated with their employers. Some have been more forthcoming about how hard it will be for the nation to agree on what happens next.

“My biggest concern for the fall election is an election administrator’s job is to convince the losers that they lost,” Washington’s Republican secretary of state, Kim Wyman, told me this spring during an event at the Aspen Institute, where I head its cybersecurity initiatives. “I guarantee you that half of the country cannot conceive that Republicans can win in November. The other half of the country cannot conceive that Democrats can win.”

All of the following are utterly foreseeable. And keep in mind, none of these weigh the X factor of a truly unexpected event—who, after all, had the 2016 election hinging on Anthony Weiner’s laptop?

loput tuolta: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... orm-372778

sössön sössön wrote: ↑

28 Jul 2020, 07:44

tää oli vähän ja kertoo taas siitä että kohtahan tässä voi ihan virallisesti listata USAn failed statejen joukkoon

Spoiler:

In a campaign year marked by a global pandemic, a recession and a national wave of protests, it’s easy to forget that this whole election season began with an absolute debacle when it came to the simple act of voting.

The mobile app used for the Democratic caucuses in Iowa collapsed so badly that the country was left unsure—forever, as it turns out—who won. In March, malfunctioning voting technology in California led to hourslong delays; in April, the pandemic left Wisconsin voters unsure the night before whether the polls would even open. By May, unable to guarantee the safety of physical voting, 16 states had delayed their primaries or switched to vote-by-mail options. Then came Georgia’s primary in June, where massive confusion and long lines led to what observers called a “meltdown.” Some people waited in line to cast their ballots until 1 a.m.

Every month of this year has brought new evidence that voting in 2020 hasn’t been going very well. And with perhaps the most consequential election in generations—when the nation ratifies or rejects President Donald Trump’s divisive agenda—experts are starting to believe that the general election will be much, much worse.

People often deploy the “perfect storm” metaphor incorrectly, using it to describe a surprise collision of events that catches its victims off guard.

Anxious Democrats are already fretting about nightmare scenarios in which Trump uses emergency powers to cancel the election, calls in the military to “oversee” voting, or even refuses to vacate the White House. But conversations with more than a dozen campaign strategists, security officials and election administrators make clear that the most likely picture this fall is something less theatrical, and every bit as destabilizing. November 3, even if it proceeds as scheduled, is likely to bring bureaucratic snafus and foreseeable chaos unfolding on a hundred different fronts at once, in a thousand voting precincts—all of which will leave the U.S. with its most uncertain, disputed result in a lifetime.

People often deploy the “perfect storm” metaphor incorrectly, using it to describe a surprise collision of events that catches its victims off guard. But that’s not how perfect storms really work: In Sebastian Junger’s book about a deadly Atlantic Ocean gale that popularized the term, the storm was a well-foreseen event, with serious warnings, that people saw coming and chose instead to ignore—until it was too late, and the waves overwhelmed them. That’s how this election is starting to look to experts.

What’s likely to go wrong, and is there any way to head it off?

Conversations with election specialists and security officials, plus analysis of recent government reports, make clear that there are eight distinct but connected challenges. At the technical end are the uncertain new voting technologies and processes put in place for the pandemic; on the geopolitical end, we face foreign adversaries energized by their success sowing confusion in 2016. And at the center is the unprecedented human factor: The dislocations and risks associated with voting in an uncontrolled viral outbreak.

“My biggest concern for the fall election is an election administrator’s job is to convince the losers that they lost.”

Kim Wyman

Add to that a year that has already seen unprecedented street protests and vivid displays of political violence, and an incumbent president who has already been impeached for attempting dirty tricks in this election, and who is uniquely likely to cast doubt on the results if he loses, and you have a combustible recipe.

A handful of public officials have been trying to sound the alarm, such as Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who has made an issue of election security and recently warned that the country could be headed toward “an electoral Chernobyl.”

Many of the election experts interviewed for this story asked to speak anonymously to voice candid fears they didn’t want to be associated with their employers. Some have been more forthcoming about how hard it will be for the nation to agree on what happens next.

“My biggest concern for the fall election is an election administrator’s job is to convince the losers that they lost,” Washington’s Republican secretary of state, Kim Wyman, told me this spring during an event at the Aspen Institute, where I head its cybersecurity initiatives. “I guarantee you that half of the country cannot conceive that Republicans can win in November. The other half of the country cannot conceive that Democrats can win.”

All of the following are utterly foreseeable. And keep in mind, none of these weigh the X factor of a truly unexpected event—who, after all, had the 2016 election hinging on Anthony Weiner’s laptop?

loput tuolta: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... orm-372778

Why Trump might quit
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald- ... -quit-why/


There is logic behind saying to hell with reelection.

By John F. Harris

7/30/20, 12:08 PM CET

U.S. President Donald Trump | Nicholas Kamm/AFP via Getty Images

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Email
Print

Press play to listen to this article

Voiced by Amazon Polly

Altitude is a column by POLITICO founding editor John Harris, offering weekly perspective on politics in a moment of radical disruption.

The purpose of the nationally televised Oval Office address was to announce new peace initiatives in Vietnam, but Lyndon B. Johnson saved the most startling news until the end of his speech on March 31, 1968. With his country badly divided over a grinding war, he didn’t believe as president he “should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes.” He was dropping out of the presidential campaign.

Now there was a president who knew how to shake up the plot.

Among Donald Trump’s problems in his long, hot and mostly housebound summer is that he has lost his once unparalleled gift for changing the story. He still can stir outrage, but even among his supporters he no longer has much capacity to surprise. “Every hero,” wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson a century before the president was born, “becomes a bore at last.”

But here is a way Trump could demonstrate that an old master still knows how to tear up the script and leave the audience gasping. It is late but not too late to pull an LBJ.

For decades, Trump has fashioned a leadership persona around the mystique of success and strength and indomitability.

As it happens, the "Trump drops out" scenario is one I have trafficked to colleagues and sources for a couple years now, usually to dismissive grunts or quizzical stares. It is true that there is scant time left for the scenario to come to pass. It’s true also that, if I were a reliable predictor of Trump’s political fortunes, Hillary Clinton would now be running for reelection.

But even if one doesn’t really think Trump will drop out of the race — as a proselytizer of the theory I acknowledge it is a stretch — it is worth examining the reasons he just might, as a way of illuminating the bleakness of his situation with just over three months to go before the general election.

Also On Politico
Trump, reeling from coronavirus fallout, revives campaign for debunked COVID-19 treatment

Quint Forgey

Also On Politico
US to pull 12,000 troops from Germany after Trump calls country ‘delinquent’

Lara Seligman

No doubt Trump would savor the validation of winning a second term. Under the current trajectory, that looks less likely than not; by the light of some evidence it looks highly unlikely. One question is whether Trump genuinely believes he has a plausible plan — beyond throw a lot of stuff against the wall and hope some of it sticks — to change that trajectory. The second question is how Trump conceives of the balance of his lifetime — and his historical reputation after that — if he were to lose to Joseph Biden and join the ranks of defeated incumbents.

The "Trump drops out" scenario hinges on the assumption that Trump is less concerned with wielding the levers of government than he is preserving his role as disrupter at large in American politics over the next decade. The latter might be much easier to maintain if he avoids being tattooed as loser in November — especially if the margin is larger than could be attributed, even by his most conspiracy-minded supporters, to media bias or vote-counting manipulation by Democrats.

The scenario hinges also on an assumption that Trump’s political project is more weakened internally — in the psychological sense — than it is even in the external sense, as measured by polls and campaign coverage.

Trump in recent days has scotched a planned rally and canceled plans for a massive partisan extravaganza at the Republican National Convention. He has gone from saying the coronavirus pandemic would be quickly routed in the spring to acknowledging, five months into the crisis, that the situation will probably “get worse before it gets better.” After saying masks weren’t for him, and implying that they are for weak spirits, he finally began wearing one and urging others to do so.

Most of the coverage has been on the theme that Trump is now right and is tacitly admitting he was wrong before — wrong not to take these and other steps much earlier to unite the country around the importance of deferring to health experts and rigorous social distancing.

But Trump surely must wonder — on the question that matters most to him — whether he was right before and is stuck in the wrong place now. For decades, Trump has fashioned a leadership persona around the mystique of success and strength and indomitability. He has long acted as if he believes that mystique is highly perishable. That’s why he never apologizes or says he was wrong. Once one is exposed as having erred, or even having normal human doubt about the path ahead, perceptions change irreversibly from strength to weakness.

People who recoil at Trump’s boasting, bullying and bombast generally know much more than he does about how conventional presidents act. But Trump surely knows much more than the critics do about how to manage the Trump persona. The pictures of Trump a few weeks ago after the weakly attended Tulsa rally — his tie undone, his face twisted in a dispirited scowl — suggest he knows that once his aura of success is punctured it will be difficult to recover. When was the last time Trump seemed to be really enjoying himself in the presidency?

Trump knows also that perceptions of power and success have an intimidating effect. As he looks to the fall, it is not opponents that he needs to keep in line. It is allies. Trump’s presidency has been propelled by two great engines of enablement. One of these, Fox News, has been robustly enthusiastic. He’s been great for business, and Fox News’ most loyal viewers are loyal to Trump. The other enabler, personified by Mitch McConnell, is not enthusiastic but sullenly transactional. McConnell and the business wing of the GOP don’t much like Trump, but they do like the chance to push their agenda on judges and deregulation.

What are the incentives of these enablers if, in late September or early October, Trump looks as beleaguered as he does in late July? In either case, an outright break with Trump is unlikely. Fox is concerned most about preserving its huge profitability. The network’s leaders would presumably be wary of potentially sustaining permanent brand damage with corporate advertisers by joining Trump in a last-ditch campaign of racially charged cultural warfare. That’s especially so if they perceive Trump is going to lose anyway. In the case of McConnell, he knows that Trump’s unpopularity is the primary factor that continued GOP control of the Senate is at best a tossup. He and other Republicans already are trying to localize their races, not splitting with Trump but finding distance from him.

Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden | Mark Makela/Getty Images

These incentives mean Trump could be a very lonely figure this fall.

Yes, but: Hasn’t Trump been lonely before, as after the Access Hollywood video in October 2016? True enough, although in circumstances in which the gravity of the nation’s challenges and the voter’s choice seem much less severe than now. And wouldn’t dropping out of the race brand him as something worse than loser, a quitter?

That one Trump could plausibly answer with an unusual approach: say something approximating the truth. This doesn’t sound much like how Trump talks but, in some moods, it may be close to what he thinks: Fellow Americans, I know I am a disrupter, and everyone knows I thrive on conflict. I believe that disruption is what Republicans and the country needed when I ran for president in 2016, and that is what I delivered. But I realize the pandemic creates a whole new agenda. I am going to devote the balance of my term to trying to get this country opened up safely, and allow someone without my sharp edges make the case for Republicans this fall.

Just this week Trump pondered why Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx have higher approval ratings than he does, even though he is their boss. “It can only be my personality, that’s all,” he told reporters.

Winning a second term was always going to be a challenge for a president who has never had a majority job approval.

Long term, forgoing the race with a measure of self-awareness conceivably could elevate Trump’s historical reputation higher than it would be if he loses reelection after a remorseless and demagogic campaign. In the near term, if a replacement nominee (presumably Vice President Mike Pence) would be indebted to Trump and subject to his leverage if he managed to beat Biden. If he lost, Trump could complain that his protégé blew it, and play GOP kingmaker (perhaps on behalf of one of his children or other allies) in 2024 without the stigma of having been expressly rejected by voters.

How plausible is this? Not terribly.

But how plausible is Trump reversing the astonishing decay in his political foundation in recent months? Winning a second term was always going to be a challenge for a president who has never had a majority job approval. At the start of the year, however, his advisers described a plausible path to reelection. The strategy had three main elements. One assumption was that, even if he was running slightly behind in swing states, his financial and organizational advantages, combined with the passion of supporters, would mean he would outperform polls by 2 to 3 percentage points. The second assumption was that Trump had room to grow his vote share with minority voters, especially African American men; even modest improvement by Trump could weaken the Democratic coalition in devastating ways. The third assumption was that Trump could repackage his divisive style as an asset. “He’s no Mr. Nice Guy,” the narrator intoned in a Trump TV ad that aired in the 2019 World Series, “but sometimes it takes a Donald Trump to change Washington.”

Five months into the pandemic, not one of those three assumptions looks secure. In key swing states he is currently running much more than a couple points behind. After the George Floyd murder and Trump’s response, the notion of gains with African American voters is highly unlikely. His plan to portray himself as an ass-kicking chief executive who presided over a booming economy is in tatters, amid vast joblessness and the prospect that the pandemic will shadow virtually every corner of American life well into 2021.

In circumstances as grim as these, it would be surprising but not inconceivable if Trump decided it is time for a séance with LBJ.

BBC wrote:Donald Trump calls for delay to 2020 US presidential election
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53597975

Donald Trump has called for November's presidential election to be postponed, saying increased postal voting could lead to fraud and inaccurate results.

He suggested a delay until people can "properly, securely and safely" vote.

There is little evidence to support Mr Trump's claims but he has long railed against mail-in voting which he has said would be susceptible to fraud

US states want to make postal voting easier due to public health concerns over the coronavirus pandemic.

In a tweet, Mr Trump said "universal mail-in voting" would make November's vote the "most inaccurate and fraudulent election in history" and a "great embarrassment to the USA".


Earlier this month, six US states were planning to hold "all-mail" ballot elections this November: California, Utah, Hawaii, Colorado, Oregon and Washington.

These states will automatically send postal ballots to all registered voters, which then have to be sent back or dropped off on election day - although some in-person voting is still available in certain limited circumstances.

About half of US states allow any registered voter to vote by post on request.

Critics of postal voting argue that people could vote more than once via absentee ballots and in person. Mr Trump has in the past said there was a risk of "thousands and thousands of people sitting in somebody's living room, signing ballots all over the place".

However, there is no evidence of widespread fraud, according to numerous nationwide and state-level studies over the years.

Jesse Python wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2020, 16:34

Miten toi niinku olis teoriassa mahdollista, että se saisi tommosen vaalien lykkäyksen läpi? Korona on varmaan ainoa keppihevonen mitä voi käyttää.

Jesse Python wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2020, 16:34

Miten toi niinku olis teoriassa mahdollista, että se saisi tommosen vaalien lykkäyksen läpi? Korona on varmaan ainoa keppihevonen mitä voi käyttää.

The New York Times wrote:Lobbying Intensifies Among V.P. Candidates as Biden’s Search Nears an End

Representative Karen Bass of California, who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus, has moved rapidly toward the top of Mr. Biden’s list. Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times

Spoiler:

WASHINGTON — Joseph R. Biden Jr. has entered the final stage of his deliberations about choosing a running mate as he prepares to talk one-on-one with the finalists next week, while Democratic leaders lobby him furiously to elevate their allies and sink their enemies.

...Two candidates who received scant attention early in the process are now among the leading contenders: Representative Karen Bass of California and Susan E. Rice, the former national security adviser, according to Democratic officials briefed on the selection process. Ms. Bass in particular has moved rapidly toward the top of Mr. Biden’s list amid an intensive lobbying drive by her fellow House Democrats, and has impressed the former vice-president’s search committee.

...In conversations with Mr. Biden and his vetting committee, lawmakers have recommended Ms. Bass as a consensus candidate who is well-liked across partisan and factional lines and would be a loyal lieutenant to him in government.

...House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is close with Ms. Bass, whom she named to oversee the recent policing reform bill, and has made her admiration clear in private conversations, including with former President Barack Obama.

...Two prominent Democrats, Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California, along with a handful of other women, remain as possibilities; both lawmakers have the statewide political experience and large national followings that Ms. Bass and Ms. Rice lack. Ms. Warren has become something of an informal adviser to Mr. Biden on economic issues and has won support from her party’s progressive wing, and Ms. Harris is regarded as a muscular fund-raiser with the backing of important people in the Democratic Party’s donor class.

...Among the other candidates Mr. Biden has looked at closely are Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan; Representative Val Demings of Florida, who has enlisted her home state’s sizable congressional delegation to make appeals on her behalf; and Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, who is backed by veterans advocates.

...However, Mr. Biden’s vetting committee has raised questions about whether tapping Ms. Duckworth could prompt legal challenges because she was born overseas.

There also some wild cards: Former President Bill Clinton has expressed enthusiasm about Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, according to Democrats familiar with his assessment.

...Mr. Biden’s top aides have made clear the premium he places on a trusting relationship is informed by his own experience as a vice president — and he will not make a nakedly political choice, a determination made easier by the sizable advantage he enjoys over Mr. Trump in the polls.

“The Bidens are looking for somebody as loyal to them as they were to Barack and Michelle Obama,” said Christine Pelosi, the daughter of the speaker.

Mr. Biden’s campaign is angry about a leak to Politico this week that revealed that former Senator Christopher J. Dodd, one of the leaders of Mr. Biden’s search team, is uneasy with Ms. Harris. Mr. Dodd has repeatedly indicated to allies that he believed Mr. Biden should broaden the prospects and not focus on only well-known possibilities.

...One Democrat close to Mr. Biden’s campaign said its polling indicated that Ms. Harris has little allure with Black voters. More telling, a Biden campaign official reached out to The New York Times, unprompted, to say that some of the former vice president’s own staff members are not supportive of her.

California Democrats, including several in Congress, have expressed their wariness about Ms. Harris to Mr. Biden’s advisers. In some cases, they have guided him in the direction of Ms. Bass, who is highly regarded in her home state.

...While Ms. Rice has a close relationship with Mr. Biden, many in the party are wary of elevating somebody who has never run for office.

Ms. Bass, too, has drawbacks. She has never been in a setting comparable to a high-stakes debate with Vice President Mike Pence. And in private vetting conversations, members of Mr. Biden’s team have asked Ms. Bass to explain aspects of her record on Cuba: She visited the country multiple times in the Fidel Castro era and issued a respectful statement when he died. Ms. Bass has said publicly that she had reconsidered those comments.

...In the House, several Democratic lawmakers have made the case for Ms. Bass to Mr. Biden’s advisers.

Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, a centrist leader of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, called Ms. Bass “a bridge-builder,” who “wants to figure out how to get to yes.”

Representative Ro Khanna of California, an outspoken progressive, was equally succinct: “She’d be a pick that every part of the Democratic coalition would respect and be excited about.”