Thanks for sharing this. Yeah, that complaint isn’t very compelling. I don’t know anything about the computer systems he’s talking about, but his analysis seems anecdotal, and his unnamed mathematicians giving odds of, “beyond 1 in a Billion,” doesn’t seem very scientific.
Do you have a link to that Reddit? Presumably, the numbers should be available. If there are 10,000 votes in a county for Trump and 8,000 for the rest of the ballot, figuring out the numbers shouldn’t be hard. I’ve also heard from reputable sources that bullet ballots were very high this year, but I hadn’t heard they were statistically improbable…
Some of this data is compelling, but this last bit now has me skeptical:
The 2004 Presidential election and a 2002 Senate election were also decried as fraudulent by experts, including Spoonamore—to no avail.
“I don’t know why John Kerry refused to engage nor why Max Cleland refused to engage. This is the third time I’ve walked into the public square, poured kerosene on myself and set myself on fire saying, ‘Hey, this election was defrauded.’ And all three times the same thing has happened. People just run around going, ‘Oh my God, don’t question elections. Oh my God.’ They keep questioning integrity. Well, I was right in 2002 and I was right in 2004.”
Anyone know if this Spoonamore guy is legit, or is he just some crank that’s been claiming the elections have been rigged for 20 years? Can anyone with expertise on these topics (statistics, cyber security, election process) weigh in on the claims here?
The Switch is fantastic for what it is. Sure, it’s anemic and old, but it’s a creative design that more or less created a whole product category and allows for very creative gameplay.
This is actually their design philosophy: “Lateral thinking with withered technology,” or, “what can we do with old technology we’re really familiar with?” Nintendo was much slower to market with their 16 bit console than Sega, but they took their time to understand the new tech, and developed the first handheld cartridge console with 8 bit technology at the same time. Sega tried to emulate its success with a color handheld system, but it was large, had poor battery life, and didn’t sell very well. Instead of rushing to catch up with a color handheld, Nintendo released the Game Boy Pocket, which was very popular. and released an entirely superior product in the Game Boy Color a few years later.
This philosophy isn’t always a benefit to them; they lost the Final Fantasy franchise because the cartridge system on the N64 wasn’t powerful enough to run it. However, it’s usually a boon; the switch has been incredibly successful despite its graphical inferiority, and despite being comically underpowered compared to its competitors, the Wii is the secon-best selling console of all time, behind only the PS2.
Their track record on consoles is hit or miss because they don’t make the same product every generation like Sony and Microsoft. For every Wii and Switch, you get a Wii. U and Virtual Boy. They’re shitty with their IP, but hardware development is literally the best thing they do.
Here’s what I wrote to my delegate’s office:
I am writing to you because I am worried about the upcoming DNC chair elections, and I’m attempting to reach my local delegate. A recent piece in Politico seemed to suggest that many in the party believe that the takeaway from the 2024 election is that the party moved too far to the left, and that it became too involved in identity politics. As Joseph Paolino Jr., the DNC committeeman for Rhode Island, put it, “The progressive wing of the party has to recognize — we all have to recognize — the country’s not progressive, and not to the far left or the far right. They’re in the middle."
Of course, the idea that the Democratic Party has gone too far left is absurd. This is the party that passed NAFTA. This is the party that ended Glass-Steagall. This is the party that added work requirements to Welfare. This is the party that prioritizesd banks over homeowners during the subprime mortgage crisis. This is the party that adopted and passed the Heritage Foundation’s healthcare plan. On paper, this is a center-right party.
However, I believe it is true that this party has focused too much on identity politics, and we need to place that blame where it squarely belongs: on the center. It was centrist Democrats who, in the absence of any coherent economic message, increasingly adopted the language of identity politics. It was the center who used identity politics as a cudgel, not only against their right-wing opponents, but also those on the left who questioned the party’s priorities. It was Hillary Clinton (who no serious person would describe as, “far-left”) who said:
"If we broke up the big banks tomorrow…would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community? Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?”
If the party were to decide that it was going to spend less time on identity politics and more time on a serious progressive platform, that would make sense. Polling indicates that many progressive policies, even those considered, “far-left,” like higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy, a higher minimum wage, Medicare for All, and even Universal Basic Income, all command widespread support from across the electorate. They are certainly more popular than the crypto-based, “economic opportunity,” platform pitched by Mark Cuban this year.
However, based on what I have read from Politico, it does not seem like the party is interested in a progressive economic message. It seems that many in the party are simply concerned with abandoning the aspects of identity politics that they believe are unpopular. One Florida member made some offensive and thinly veiled attacks on the trans community, saying that he didn’t want to be a member of the, “freak show party.” It appears that, instead of reflecting on how the Democrats’ centrist economic policies have failed the working class, many members would like to abandon vulnerable members of the party that they believe are no longer politically useful.
The Democrats don’t need to start jettisoning demographic groups, they need a progressive platform that can bring the party together. They need to move to the left economically, not to the right socially. However, if the party does decide to stop protecting the most vulnerable Americans in the interest of being more, “centerist,” there is an upside; voters will finally be able to abandon the Democratic Party without harming marginalized groups.
You’re right, but the nuance you’re discussing is not what’s being discussed here. Listen to this bit:
“The progressive wing of the party has to recognize — we all have to recognize — the country’s not progressive, and not to the far left or the far right. They’re in the middle,” said Joseph Paolino Jr., DNC committeeman for Rhode Island. “I’m going to look for a chair who’s going to be talking to the center and who’s going to be for the guy who drives a truck back home at the end of the day.”
Or as one DNC member from Florida put it: “I don’t want to be the freak show party, like they have branded us. You know, when you’re a mom with three kids, and you live in middle America and you’re just not really into politics, and you see these ads that scare the bejesus out of you, you’re like, ‘I know Trump’s weird or whatever, but I would rather his weirdness that doesn’t affect my kids.’”
These speakers aren’t distinguishing between socially left and economically left, and reading between the lines, it is very clear that the member from Florida is talking about dropping support for trans people (in a thinly veiled and very offensive way, I might add). They lost the working class because they don’t have a working class message, but they’re blaming the social policies for their loss.
There is an argument to be made that the way they are approaching socially progressive issues is hurting them. Kamala Harris telling the ACLU that she supports transition surgery for migrant detainees painted a very large target on her back for a policy that would have effected a very, very small number of people. That probably should have been a, “pick your battles,” moment for her.
If the argument was, “We’re not going to focus on trans people in sports for now, because a lot of people still don’t support that, but we’re going to talk about how Medicare for All helps everyone, and we’ll make sure that gender affirming care is covered,” OK, there’s a case to be made for that. But what they’re actually saying is, “Well, the economic policy is set by the donors, so there’s nothing we can do about that, but the trans stuff seems to be costing us more votes than it’s winning us, let’s drop that.” They’re trying to jettison the progressive groups they think aren’t helping them instead of building an agenda for progressives to rally behind.
As they begin to dissect their collapse in the presidential election, some Democratic National Committee members are concluding that the party is too “woke,” too focused on identity politics and too out of touch with broad stretches of America.
From the bottom of my heart, fuck these people. They’ve moved so far towards neoliberal policy positions that they no longer have an economic message to give their working-class base. In the absence of a coherent economic vision for the party, they keep doubling down on, “identity politics,” to keep the the Obama Coalition happy; they have nothing to unify their base, so their only option is to take up any position that is important to the demographic groups that make up the party. Now that this strategy has been thoroughly and decisively defeated, their reaction isn’t to return to the progressive economic policies that won them these groups in the first place, but instead to figure which minorities are, “unpopular,” so they can abandon them. What a bunch of stupid, shortsighted cowards.
Oh, haha, that’s much more reassuring. I assumed it was someone affiliated in the channel, and I was like, “Uh-oh, how long before this guy launches into an antisemitic conspiracy theory about lizard people?”
Huh. I’m generally wary of any group that has an Eye of Providence in their logo or uses the term, “New World Order,” but that was cathartic to watch.
I’m really sorry to hear that. Would it help if I showed you a graph that shows the stock market is actually doing great?
I am so God damn sick of reading articles from pundits who think they can just numbers-and-statistics away people’s financial experience. Listen to this shit:
America has recovered more quickly and more completely than almost any comparable country. As The Economist put it, “The American economy has left other rich countries in the dust.” Real wages have risen fastest for those at the bottom of the income scale. Today, inflation is at 2.4%, compared with the 9.1% peak in June 2022. The fight against rising prices has essentially been won.
But few in the electorate seem aware…
Wow, the electorate sounds like a bunch of dipshits. But just for the hell of it, let’s check their source for the wages of the bottom income scale. According to the Economic Policy Institute, real wages grew 13.2% between 2019 and 2023. Now, inflation was 19.2% during that period, but “real wage,” means, “wage adjusted for inflation,” so I guess the author is right. The lowest income earners got a raise during the Biden years. Guess the poor are a bunch of dipshits.
But which of Biden’s policies led to these increases in wages? Well, the Economic Policy Institute says:
Between 2019 and 2023, state-level minimum wage increases along with a tight labor market have translated into faster real wage growth for low-wage workers, particularly faster growth in states (and D.C.) that increased their minimum wage during this period.
So, it sounds like the wages went up because of a competitive labor market (which the Fed intentionally killed to combat inflation) and minimum wage increases at the state level, and that states that increased their minimum wages saw more of that growth than others. So, you could make an argument that Biden deserves little credit for this increase, but let’s not even worry about that. Let’s see look at the minimum wage by state.
The EPI has a handy Minimum Wage Tracker that color-codes states by their state minimum wage against the federal minimum wage. A quick glance shows you the states with the highest minimum wage are mostly states that went to Harris. But what’s really interesting is that, of the 7 key battleground states that Harris lost, 4 of them (Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin) have the same minimum wage as the federal minimum of $7.25, a starvation wage that hasn’t been raised since 2009. So it’s not unreasonable to assume that in more than half the key states Harris needed win saw the smallest share of that 13.2%, but did see prices increase by 19.2%.
Now, I’m not an economist, and I don’t have hours to research this shit, so it’s entirely possible that I’m missing a lot of nuance regarding cost of living and non-minimum wage increases in these states. But that’s not the point. The point is that I’ve already spent more time and energy examining why people might not feel good about the economy than the sneering chud that wrote this article. And I’ll end this tirade with one last quote from the EPI report he cited:
Wage rates remain insufficient for individuals and families working to make ends meet. Nowhere can a worker at the 10th percentile of the wage distribution earn enough to meet a basic family budget.
The Pelosi interview is honestly batshit insane. She doesn’t see the election as a rejection of the party, thinks the Democrats are doing well, Kamala Harris did everything right, Sanders is wrong, and then she made some backhanded comments about how Biden should have dropped out earlier. I know some of that is spin she that she has to say, but it’s still deeply out of touch.
Are you fucking kidding? This campaign has been a fucking train wreck. There was genuine excitement behind her candidacy when Biden stepped down, and Walz actually generated even more enthusiasm. Since then, she has spent every moment of the campaign killing that energy. She alienated Muslim and Arab voters by refusing to allow a Palestinian speaker at the DNC. She’s alienated her progressive base by campaigning with Liz Cheney and Laura Bush to court moderate Republicans. They’re literally rerunning the 2016 playbook and saying, “Yeah, but this time I’ve got a good feeling about it!”
I hope she wins, and if you’re reading this and you haven’t voted yet, please just vote for her, especially if you live in a swing state. But Jesus Fucking Christ, let’s not pretend she’d even have a shot of winning if she wasn’t up against a facist rapist.
I don’t know if it’s the same person, but I noticed this is a Substack article. A lot of good, independent journalists publish on Substack, so that’s not immediately disqualifying, but it does mean there’s no editorial review.