American Politics from 2019 on

[Tero]

Communists winning nominations!

I am a centrist Democrat and I am terrified of success | Opinion (USA Today, June 28, 2026)
Hello, I am a centrist Democrat who is terrified that progressive liberal candidates keep winning primary elections.
I am also terrified of my own shadow, but this is somehow worse.
Suddenly, voters are being won over by liberal candidates ‒ even a few who are democratic socialists! ‒ who aren’t afraid to lean into populist messages with passion and an apparent drive to actually do things that will make people’s lives better. What is that all about? Since when did the things voters want become so important?

[Tero]

Canadian can't come to US because he was once Iranian.
https://www.thetravel.com/us-customs-an ... -passport/

[Tero]

Socialist Democrats scare:

"In the wildest precincts of the online left, these ideas resonate. But in suburban Milwaukee or Phoenix — the places that decide control of Congress and the White House — this rhetoric hands Republicans attack ads that write themselves. And those ads will run against every Democrat. The GOP is skilled at pinning the craziest left-wing ideas onto even their most moderate opponents.

"In a study Third Way and others conducted after the 2020 elections, we found that “defund the police,” a slogan few Democratic candidates endorsed, helped lead to a dozen unexpected House losses for the party."

"But the DSA’s most dangerous threat is its commitment to hollowing out the Democratic Party from within. The DSA aims to primary Democrats in blue districts and replace them with ideological zealots. The right experienced a similar battle in the early 2010s, when the tea party movement began an insurgency against Republican “sellouts” that cost the GOP a half-dozen winnable Senate seats."

"Now is the moment to fight the DSA. Mainstream Democrats must emphasize that they are not a radical, socialist party and will not become one. And they must back that sentiment with money, organization and spine."

So, the battle is on for the soul of the Democratic Party. It will be interesting to watch in 2026 and 2028?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... fight-dsa/

[pErvinalia]

I feel like democrats need to stop calling themselves socialists. Although, apparently the yoof are all for it.

[JimC]

Reds under the beds!

[Tero]

[Svartalf]

Reds under the beds!

technically, the reds are i the white house crapping all over the place while it's the blues under the beds

[Tero]

Election rigged theories. I generally can understand graphs, but I don't even know what the dots represent. Left is % of votes for a candidate. The X is "total votes per machine" which goes to the right in increments, 25, 50, 75, 100 etc.



AI answer:
The x-axis of the graph in the video represents the chronological progression of votes counted by each individual voting machine (tabulator) (0:21).Instead of showing the whole county combined over time, the chart plots the data machine-by-machine, tracking how the percentage of votes shifts as a single tabulator processes its ballots from first to last (0:21).How the Count Progresses Along the X-AxisThe Starting Point (Left Side): The far left of the x-axis represents the very first ballots fed into a given tabulator (0:21). At this stage, because only a few dozen or a few hundred votes have been processed, the percentages fluctuate wildly up and down (0:51). This standard statistical behavior is called "noise" or sample variance—one candidate wins some, the other wins some, causing the lines to cross and overlap (0:12).

The "400th Ballot" Mark: As you move right along the x-axis, the chart tracks the cumulative count reaching the 400th ballot processed by that specific machine (0:33).The Flattening Line (Right Side): In the specific theory presented in the video, the speaker claims that once a machine passes this 400-ballot threshold, the vote ratio completely splits and locks into a flat, unmoving percentage (e.g., a rigid 60/40 split) for the remainder of that machine's count (0:26).

The Context Behind the GraphThe video uses this x-axis progression to argue that real human voting patterns should remain wavy and organic as more ballots accumulate (0:12). The presenter claims that a sudden, rigid flattening out across multiple individual tabulators indicates a "non-human" or pre-programmed algorithmic distribution (0:40).However, election data analysts and officials note that cumulative percentage charts naturally flatten out as the sample size grows larger (a mathematical principle known as the Law of Large Numbers). When a machine is processing a homogenous mix of early mail-in ballots from a specific region, the cumulative average quickly stabilizes, which often creates the flat visual plateau seen on the right side of the graph.If you would like to explore this further, let me know if you want to:Look closer at the mathematical concept of cumulative data flattening.Discuss the history of the specific research by Dr. Elizabeth Clarkson mentioned in the audio (1:20).

Each dot on that graph represents the cumulative vote percentage for a specific candidate at a precise moment in time on a single voting machine (0:21).If you look closely at how the lines are formed in the video, they are actually made up of hundreds of these individual dots plotted closely together from left to right (0:21).

Gives me a link:
https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/que ... q168595292

and
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/p ... =hootsuite

[Tero]

The elections 2016 and 2020 gave Democrats Nevada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Unit ... _in_Nevada
in 2024 Trump won by 2%

[Brian Peacock]

Election rigged theories. I generally can understand graphs, but I don't even know what the dots represent. Left is % of votes for a candidate. The X is "total votes per machine" which goes to the right in increments, 25, 50, 75, 100 etc.



AI answer:
The x-axis of the graph in the video represents the chronological progression of votes counted by each individual voting machine (tabulator) (0:21).Instead of showing the whole county combined over time, the chart plots the data machine-by-machine, tracking how the percentage of votes shifts as a single tabulator processes its ballots from first to last (0:21).How the Count Progresses Along the X-AxisThe Starting Point (Left Side): The far left of the x-axis represents the very first ballots fed into a given tabulator (0:21). At this stage, because only a few dozen or a few hundred votes have been processed, the percentages fluctuate wildly up and down (0:51). This standard statistical behavior is called "noise" or sample variance—one candidate wins some, the other wins some, causing the lines to cross and overlap (0:12).

The "400th Ballot" Mark: As you move right along the x-axis, the chart tracks the cumulative count reaching the 400th ballot processed by that specific machine (0:33).The Flattening Line (Right Side): In the specific theory presented in the video, the speaker claims that once a machine passes this 400-ballot threshold, the vote ratio completely splits and locks into a flat, unmoving percentage (e.g., a rigid 60/40 split) for the remainder of that machine's count (0:26).

The Context Behind the GraphThe video uses this x-axis progression to argue that real human voting patterns should remain wavy and organic as more ballots accumulate (0:12). The presenter claims that a sudden, rigid flattening out across multiple individual tabulators indicates a "non-human" or pre-programmed algorithmic distribution (0:40).However, election data analysts and officials note that cumulative percentage charts naturally flatten out as the sample size grows larger (a mathematical principle known as the Law of Large Numbers). When a machine is processing a homogenous mix of early mail-in ballots from a specific region, the cumulative average quickly stabilizes, which often creates the flat visual plateau seen on the right side of the graph.If you would like to explore this further, let me know if you want to:Look closer at the mathematical concept of cumulative data flattening.Discuss the history of the specific research by Dr. Elizabeth Clarkson mentioned in the audio (1:20).

Each dot on that graph represents the cumulative vote percentage for a specific candidate at a precise moment in time on a single voting machine (0:21).If you look closely at how the lines are formed in the video, they are actually made up of hundreds of these individual dots plotted closely together from left to right (0:21).

Gives me a link:
https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/que ... q168595292

and
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/p ... =hootsuite

Was that really worth 12 gallons of drinking water?