Election 2016 (Page 52)

I don't know how that differs from voting in person if there are paper ballots.  In other words, before voting day, someone has to load up the voting machines with the ballots.  Where do those sit beforehand?  How / where are they counted?  (And don't get me started on purely electronic voting... bad idea).

It's all about a proper chain of custody, much like tour riders drug test samples.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/03/republicans-are-now-vowing-total-war-and-the-consequences-could-be-immense/

worth a read

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by dmiller5

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/03/republicans-are-now-vowing-total-war-and-the-consequences-could-be-immense/

 

worth a read

Surely you don't believe all that, right? I thought is was the conservatives who were paranoid.

One thing that's quite funny this election.  There's a run on tinfoil in the Progressive circles.  It's the Russians you know.

While Obama and Hillary continue to go low, Trump goes high with a great positive final argument.

https://youtu.be/vST61W4bGm8

You hit the nail on the head with the chain of custody.  My issue is that on election day there are tons of volunteers from both parties watching the ballots from the beginning until they're counted.  With mail in/early voting every precinct can have a different policy on how they guard the ballots.  Some may leave them on a desk overnight and others may do who knows what.  The simple answer is we don't know what the methods to ensure chain of custody are. 
With the link I posted you had people essentially "stuffing" the ballot box because there was a hole in the chain of custody.  There's no way they could do anything like that on election day.

**edit** and I completely agree with you on fully electronic voting.  horrible idea.

OK, so tell me I'm reading this wrong.  This could be the single most damning thing I've seen come out of wikileaks.  I'm still utterly speechless.
(I didn't find this myself, so am merely relaying what others on reddit.com/r/The_Donald have found.)

First email is two months before the primaries started and contains an attachment with the plan for transitioning from primaries to the general election.  OK, not a big deal, little overconfident maybe, but not horrible.

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47719

Then we start reading under "Objective of Comm Plan":

• Frame the general election race for press and electorate at large: why HRC is running, contrast with GOP, what’s at stake for target voters (will take place in BG states, but national framing is the core objective).
• Secondary objective will be communicating Democratic unity and using Sanders and others to help drive contrast and urgency.

Then under "specific goals":

• Re­roll out core campaign message (fighting for us)/make the contrast with the GOP clear
• Put the GOP immediately on the defensive and create cross­pressure between general election and primary messages; force them to get firmly on the record with right wing positions
• Protect and reinforce leads with key constituencies
• Conduct tour in key markets to hit BG voters; focus on states that didn’t get as much time in primaries
• Demonstrate unity through POTUS, Sanders, O’M and other endorsements. Have primary opponents help drive contrast and urgency.

Then under the timing section:
Scenario 1: Primary ends Feb 9 Feb 15­March 29: rest, fundraising March: general election messaging tour, fundraising
Scenario 2: Primary ends March 1 March 1­March 15: rest, fundraising March 15­April 15: general election messaging tour, fundraising
Scenario 3: Primary ends March 15 March 15­March 30: rest, fundraising April 1­April 15: general election messaging tour, fundraising

Then under surrogate events.
OUT OF DATE/OUT OF TOUCH TEAM
Special team of reliable GOP opposition surrogates­­ this may be a good project for DWS ­­who birddog GOP candidates, especially likely nominee, at their events (need special staff team at HQ that does this); reinforce basic contrast message and try to push them further to the right.
Women’s bus tour chasing GOP; speaking at events and challenging them to be clear on women’s health/equality issues
Hispanic activist groups to protest GOP events; seek outside groups to badger GOP candidates, get them on the record
AA team; POTUS legacy?
Youth group? Hollywood types or digital influencers?

(OK, now we've confirmed yet again that the O'Keefe discovered birddogging of causing problems at Trump rallies was driven by the campaign.)

So overall the email seems a little oddly over confident two months before the primaries even begin, but it's not completely out there until you read the next email from later in the primary.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47397

Fwd: Sanders criticism

From:[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: 2015-05-26 12:04
Subject: Fwd: Sanders criticism

This isn't in keeping w the agreement. Since we clearly have some leverage, would be good to flag this for him. I could send a signal via Welch--or did you establish a direct line w him?

Begin forwarded message:
From: Christina Reynolds [email protected]
Date: May 26, 2015 at 9:22:07 AM EDT
To: Robby Mook [email protected], Kristina Schake < [email protected]>, Jennifer Palmieri < [email protected]>, Tony Carrk [email protected], John Podesta [email protected], Oren Shur [email protected], Brian Fallon [email protected]

Subject: FW: Sanders criticism
Following up on our call on Friday, just wanted to give some updates and flag that Bernie went after HRC and WJC on wealth (including using the word “hustle.)

OK, seriously?  They have an agreement that he is not suppose to attack Hillary and by talking about wealth?  He violated the agreement and they clearly have leverage over him?  WTF is this?
Was Bernie a Plant from the very beginning to make it look like the DNC is competitive?
Do we now know why Bernie said "enough about the emails"?

There's already a class action suit being put together for Bernie donors because it's becoming more and more obvious the DNC primary was rigged from the top to bottom for Hillary.

I don't know about any agreements across all the democratic candidates, but let's not forget: Bernie is not a democrat.  So he was never going to get the nomination.  You can call that rigged if you want but he didn't want to join the clubhouse, so of course they're going to push one of their own instead.

The big day is almost upon us.  I predict that Clinton wins a tight race, Trump brings suit in federal court for some sort of election fraud, it goes to a divided, eight-member supreme court, which allows the appellate court decision to stand.

The only polls that are slightly close or with Clinton in the lead have to use D+8-10 in order to get there.  Obama was D+6 in 2008.

In other words, the only way Hillary is even competitive is if she gets a 2008 level of turnout as Obama did.  IMHO there's 0.0% chance of that happening.  Trump will easily get double the black support of Romney, but could pull as much as 30%.
Trump is drawing more Democrat crossovers than any Republican since Reagan.
He's already got a solid base of electoral votes and is focusing on Blue states.  He's either stupid or very comfortable with his lead.  Hillary, must agree with him because she's campaigning in those blue states as well.

This is a good summary of the difference between the two camps.  Hillary will not do well on Tuesday.  I predict Trump with a minimum of 5% national vote win and 300+ electoral votes (probably more)

Like I said, you guys need to look outside your state bubbles  But keep on believin'

It will be a close result because both of them are bad candidates, and because the electoral college map has tipped in favor of the Democrats.

The last time Republicans had a blowout presidential election was George H.W. Bush, and that was back when California was in play for them.

Definitely looking outside my bubble.  Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New Mexico are traditionally very Blue states that are close enough that both candidates are campaigning there heavily.
That doesn't happen unless she's having big problems with support, IMHO.

It's not about Trump being there, it's why is Clinton and crew there?  If they are comfortably ahead they would continue to focus on Florida, Ohio, etc. where she's polling closely.  right?

Wisconsin I believe could go red - they even have a republican governor right now.  I doubt it on Michigan and Minnesota.  And then New Mexico is 5 electoral votes, probably not critical.  But you're glossing over Trump shooting himself in the foot with some of the states that G.W. easily won (Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, etc.).  I don't really believe Arizona will go blue but when you talk about getting out the vote -- Trump has done more to get Hispanics to the polls than a lot of the DNC groundwork.

Florida is the big toss up, as usual.

Put it another way:

Hillary isn't going to win something like Arizona *unless* she's already got an absolutely crushing win going across the country.  So it makes sense for both her and Trump to go campaign in states like the ones you mentioned.  Trump needs to win over maybe a few if he gets Florida, maybe a lot if he doesn't.  Hillary is smart to defend those as well.

Two things surprise me.  One is that neither candidate is driving for the homerun in Florida.  And two, is that Trump hasn't put more focus on Pennsylvania.  That's 20 electoral votes and a lot of blue collar support (IMO).  I'm not a campaign manager though.

Good thoughts.  I was curious about Florida as well because most of the polls have it pretty close there, but neither Trump or Clinton are focusing a lot there.  Yes, they've both been there recently but I'd expect an all out blitz if they both feel it's a tossup.  Hillary can win more easily without Florida, if Trump can't win Florida then it's likely a hopeless cause.

The only theory I can come up with about Florida is that both campaigns fear they'll make their chances worse by showing up there

Excellent point.  I think I read earlier that 42M people nationally have already voted.  Compared to 125M total votes in 2012 that still leaves a lot of votes out there.

There is an argument that Clinton will take Florida as the polling data does not accurately represent the Latino vote.  If you look at the 2012 results, the RCP average had Romney with a 1.5% lead in the final days before the election, but Obama took Florida with a 0.9% margin.