SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[The Romulan Republic]

McConnell interrupted by crowd booing and chanting "Moscow Mitch" at an event in Kentucky:

https://boingboing.net/2019/08/07/watch ... pt-se.html

[The Romulan Republic]

Interesting fact that I only just realized:

The 19th. Amendment was passed in 1920, giving women the Constitutional right to vote in America. Which means that if Elizabeth Warren (or Kamala Harris) wins next year, they will be elected on the 100th. anniversary of women gaining the Constitutional right to vote in America.

I cannot imagine a more fitting way to honour the occasion.

[bilateralrope]

Judge orders Georgia to switch to paper ballots for 2020 elections

Judge finds several serious flaws with Georgia's current election technology.
TIMOTHY B. LEE - 8/17/2019, 3:13 AM

Election security advocates scored a major victory on Thursday as a federal judge issued a 153-page ruling ordering Georgia officials to stop using its outdated electronic voting machines by the end of the year. The judge accepted the state's argument that it would be too disruptive to switch to paper ballots for municipal elections being held in November 2019. But she refused to extend that logic into 2020, concluding that the state had plenty of time to phase out its outdated touchscreen machines before then.

The state of Georgia was already planning to phase out its ancient touchscreen electronic voting machines in favor of a new system based on ballot-marking machines. Georgia hopes to have the new machines in place in time for a presidential primary election in March 2020. In principle, that switch should address many of the critics' concerns.

The danger, security advocates said, was that the schedule could slip and Georgia could then fall back on its old, insecure electronic machines in the March primary and possibly in the November 2020 general election as well. The new ruling by Judge Amy Totenberg slams the door shut on that possibility. If Georgia isn't able to switch to its new high-tech system, it will be required to fall back on a low-tech system of paper ballots rather than continue using the insecure and buggy machines it has used for well over a decade.

Alex Halderman, a University of Michigan computer scientist who served as the plaintiffs' star witness in the case, hailed the judge's ruling.

"The court's ruling recognizes that Georgia's voting machines are so insecure, they're unconstitutional," Halderman said in an email to Ars. "That's a huge win for election security that will reverberate across other states that have equally vulnerable systems."

Georgia’s voting technology is deeply flawed

Totenberg's ruling is 153 pages long because it presents a mountain of evidence that Georgia's touchscreen voting machines—as well as back-office software the state uses to manage voter registrations, design ballots, and count votes—are outdated and insecure.

Georgia is still using Diebold Accuvote TSX touchscreen machines whose hardware and software date back to around 2005. In 2006 and 2007, security researchers discovered numerous security vulnerabilities in these machines—problems serious enough to cause California to decertify them from use in state elections.

After one 2006 report, Totenberg writes, "Diebold was forced to create a security patch for the vulnerable TSX software." Yet incredibly, "there is no evidence that Georgia ever implemented the software patch or made any upgrades to protect the integrity of its DRE machines," Totenberg says.
The security problems found by those early researchers were serious. Not only can someone with physical access to the machine install vote-stealing malware, it's also possible to deliver such malware using viruses that spread from machine to machine on the memory cards election workers use to load ballot information onto them. Hence, a malicious actor with a few minutes' access to a single machine could potentially hack dozens or even hundreds of machines.

These concerns seemed somewhat theoretical when they were first raised around 2006. After all, who would want to hack an election? But they've been given added urgency after revelations that the Russian government actively probed state election systems—including in Georgia—in 2016.

Not actually air-gapped

Besides hacking voting machines directly, another way someone could compromise an election would be to first hack the office computers of election officials. Officials use these computers to create ballot definition files that are later transferred to voting machines via memory cards. Here too, there's a risk that malware could ride along with the ballot files and infect machines.

Georgia election officials dismissed these concerns. In 2018 testimony before Judge Totenberg, official Michael Barnes insisted that the computers used to design electronic ballots were air-gapped from the Internet, making it impossible for remote attackers to compromise them. But subsequent testimony made it clear that this was wrong. In reality, Totenberg writes, ballots were designed "on public-facing internet-connected desktop computers of the individual ballot builders, then copied over from the public facing computer onto a 'lockable' USB drive for transfer to the 'air-gapped' system."

In court testimony, Halderman pointed out that this setup isn't actually secure. "Air-gapping" a computer does no good if people are regularly transferring files to it from Internet-connected computers.
It gets worse. In 2016, a Georgia-based security researcher discovered that Kennesaw State University’s Center for Election Systems, which has a contract to help Georgia manage its elections, had a massive cache of sensitive election-related documents—including private voter data and passwords for election systems—publicly available on its website for anyone to download. After being notified of the breach, it took officials months to remove the sensitive information from the website.

Many voters reported problems with the machines

Meanwhile, dozens of ordinary Georgia voters told the court that they had experienced problems with Georgia's touchscreen machines. Totenberg describes one voter's experience:

Teri Adams described that when she voted at the Bleckley County Courthouse and selected candidate Stacey Abrams for governor on the DRE screen, she noticed that her designated selection was listed as Brian Kemp on the review screen. She tried to vote for Abrams a second time, but the review screen again showed Kemp as her chosen candidate. Ms. Adams cast her ballot on the third try when her selection in the governor’s race remained Abrams. Adams reported her problems on “machine number 2” to the poll workers whose only response was “did it take your vote?”

Adams was hardly an isolated case. A number of voters reported that it took two or three tries to ensure that a voting machine was choosing their preferred candidate.

Is this evidence that hackers were tampering with the election? Probably not. It seems more likely that Georgia's touchscreen machines are just old and poorly designed. Someone who hacked the machines in order to steal the election wouldn't have any reason to alarm voters by showing the stolen vote on the screen—they could show the voter's correct choice on the screen while recording a different result in the electronic record.

But the fact that so many voters have reported problems with the machines is a problem in its own right. A mis-recorded vote is a problem regardless of whether it was the result of hacking, malfunctioning equipment or just a badly designed user interface. And there's now ample evidence that touchscreen machines are a less effective way to record voters' choices than a traditional paper ballot.

Georgia must stop using its machines after 2019

Judge Totenberg had all of these problems in mind as she was deciding what to do with the lawsuit. She was convinced by the plaintiffs' argument that Georgia's current election system was fatally flawed and needed to be overhauled—and that a hand-marked paper ballot was the gold standard for secure and reliable voting.

At the same time, she took seriously warnings from the state of Georgia that an abrupt shift to paper ballots could cause more disruption than it was worth. The issue was complicated by the fact that Georgia's legislature recently passed legislation directing that the state develop a new election system based on ballot-marking devices—electronic voting machines that print out a paper ballot the voter can examine.

Georgia has signed a contract with a vendor for these new machines and plans to start testing them in a few cities in this November's elections. The state aims to start rolling the new system out statewide in time for next March's presidential primary. Under that timeline, the state would stop using its current, insecure machines before the end of the year.
The problem, critics point out, is that the state may not be able to roll out the new system in time for next March's election. Experts testified that Georgia has set an unusually aggressive timeline for standing up a completely new election system, and this creates a risk that the schedule could slip. In that case, Georgia's most likely fallback would be to continue using its existing touchscreen machines for the spring primary election—and possibly even the November 2020 general election.

So Judge Totenberg decided to split the difference. She denied the plaintiffs' request to force Georgia to begin using paper ballots in the November 2019 election. She accepted the state's argument that it would be a waste of resources to set up a paper-based system that will only be used in a single election—and that such an order could distract from efforts to develop the new system for 2020.

However, she also ordered the state not to use its old touchscreen machines as a fallback for elections in 2020. If the new ballot-marking devices aren't ready by March, the state will be required to use hand-marked paper ballots instead.

People are finally listening to computer scientists

The order is an important ruling for voters in Georgia, who won't have to worry about outdated equipment failing to accurately record their vote in 2020. But the ruling is also an important milestone in the broader debate over voting machine security. Judge Totenberg's ruling is a strong endorsement of the consensus of computer security experts about the dangers of computer-based voting. Princeton computer scientist Andrew Appel put it well in a report quoted by Totenberg:

All digital information—such as ballot definitions, voter choice records, vote tallies, or voter registration lists—is subject to malicious alteration; there is no technical mechanism currently available that can ensure that a computer application—such as one used to record or count votes—will produce accurate results; testing alone cannot ensure that systems have not been compromised; and any computer system used for elections—such as a voting machine or e-pollbook—can be rendered inoperable.

As a result of these arguments, most computer scientists favor voting via a hand-marked paper ballot. They believe that computerized optical scanners are a reasonable way to speed up the vote-counting process provided that a state also provides for routine post-election audits that hand count a random sample of ballots to verify the accuracy of the machine count.

Federal legislation to strengthen election security has been blocked by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. But that doesn't preclude changes at the state level, with the courts spurring states along in the most egregious cases. Totenberg's clear and thorough ruling will give opponents of electronic voting machines a bit of extra momentum as they race to decommission as many electronic voting machines as possible before the November 2020 presidential election.

Good.

[The Romulan Republic]

Fucking YES. Probably no single action would do more to secure the integrity of our elections (well, besides eliminating the power of the Electoral College), than abolishing electronic voting machines in favor of paper ballots.

Edit: Let me tell you a little story. A couple years ago I volunteered in a provincial election up here in Canada. One interesting thing I did was to act as an observer of the actual vote-counting. Each vote was marked on a paper ballot, and they counted them by hand while we watched, and then they tallied up the results. No opportunity for computer glitches or hacking whatsoever.

[Ace Pace]

Fucking YES. Probably no single action would do more to secure the integrity of our elections (well, besides eliminating the power of the Electoral College), than abolishing electronic voting machines in favor of paper ballots.

Edit: Let me tell you a little story. A couple years ago I volunteered in a provincial election up here in Canada. One interesting thing I did was to act as an observer of the actual vote-counting. Each vote was marked on a paper ballot, and they counted them by hand while we watched, and then they tallied up the results. No opportunity for computer glitches or hacking whatsoever.

No, just for a long list of manual errors that happen in many elections that are understaffed and forced to work on huge pressures to deliver voting results quickly, with enough examples that are down to incompetence rather than malice. Computerized voting is horrible and not ready for prime time, but implying that paper ballots are just perfect is kinda odd.

[The Romulan Republic]

Fucking YES. Probably no single action would do more to secure the integrity of our elections (well, besides eliminating the power of the Electoral College), than abolishing electronic voting machines in favor of paper ballots.

Edit: Let me tell you a little story. A couple years ago I volunteered in a provincial election up here in Canada. One interesting thing I did was to act as an observer of the actual vote-counting. Each vote was marked on a paper ballot, and they counted them by hand while we watched, and then they tallied up the results. No opportunity for computer glitches or hacking whatsoever.

No, just for a long list of manual errors that happen in many elections that are understaffed and forced to work on huge pressures to deliver voting results quickly, with enough examples that are down to incompetence rather than malice. Computerized voting is horrible and not ready for prime time, but implying that paper ballots are just perfect is kinda odd.

Not perfect, no, because nothing invented by humans is. But much, much safer.

It should go without saying that any system can fail if its understaffed and underfunded. That's not an argument against paper ballots specifically, though, or in favor of electronic voting.

Besides, given the state of American elections right now, I'm honestly much more concerned about malicious meddling than error.

[Ace Pace]

Not perfect, no, because nothing invented by humans is. But much, much safer.

It should go without saying that any system can fail if its understaffed and underfunded. That's not an argument against paper ballots specifically, though, or in favor of electronic voting.

Besides, given the state of American elections right now, I'm honestly much more concerned about malicious meddling than error.

In both cases (paper and computers) the distributed nature of the american voting system helps prevent serious malicious meddling. The far scarier attack is an attack on the trustworthiness of the system.
If someone intended to disrupt the U.S. elections themselves (and not by using the media), the easiest direction (and this has been wargamed well) would be to cause visible computer glitches in less than 1% of the ballot machines in contested areas. This would bring enough media attention that regardless of who won or whether the glitches actually impacted voting, to ruin the elections credibility in many eyes.

That's easy to do with computers and not far harder to do with the weird paper ballots used in some U.S. states.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not perfect, no, because nothing invented by humans is. But much, much safer.

It should go without saying that any system can fail if its understaffed and underfunded. That's not an argument against paper ballots specifically, though, or in favor of electronic voting.

Besides, given the state of American elections right now, I'm honestly much more concerned about malicious meddling than error.

In both cases (paper and computers) the distributed nature of the american voting system helps prevent serious malicious meddling. The far scarier attack is an attack on the trustworthiness of the system.
If someone intended to disrupt the U.S. elections themselves (and not by using the media), the easiest direction (and this has been wargamed well) would be to cause visible computer glitches in less than 1% of the ballot machines in contested areas. This would bring enough media attention that regardless of who won or whether the glitches actually impacted voting, to ruin the elections credibility in many eyes.

That's easy to do with computers and not far harder to do with the weird paper ballots used in some U.S. states.

Going with a paper ballot designed for simplicity and clarity would eliminate that problem, at least in theory, would it not?

[Ace Pace]

Going with a paper ballot designed for simplicity and clarity would eliminate that problem, at least in theory, would it not?

As far as I am aware, there are no serious cross studies of which election systems are least prone to accidental integrity issues. This leaves me cautious about recommending something and I simply feel more comfortable explaining downsides that I know about rather than suggest something.

Regarding simple paper ballots, your assumption sounds correct, but human error creeps in and can still be a significant factor. The latest elections in Israel were riddled with problems relating to integrity (Haaretz link - to bypass the paywall, google the article title and click the article) that weren't malicious, just simple mistakes from the system.

[The Romulan Republic]

Some very interesting news out of Colorado:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... step-back/

In March, the state of Colorado handed a historic win to opponents of the Electoral College by becoming the first purple state to sign on to the National Popular Vote interstate compact. Next November, however, it could make history yet again by becoming the first state to renege on the agreement.

As we’ve written previously, states that join the National Popular Vote compact agree to cast their electoral votes for the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide — not necessarily the candidate who carries the state. And the compact only goes into effect once states worth 270 electoral votes (a majority in the Electoral College) have joined, thus ensuring that its signatories have enough electoral votes to guarantee that the national popular vote winner becomes president. Currently, 15 states plus the District of Columbia, together worth 196 electoral votes, have ratified the compact.

Four of those states, including Colorado, joined the National Popular Vote movement just this year, but it remains a controversial issue — for example, it recently failed to pass in Maine and was vetoed in Nevada. And opponents in Colorado were upset enough about its passage that they are now actively trying to repeal the law. Earlier this month, the organization Coloradans Vote said it submitted more than 227,198 signatures to the Colorado secretary of state in an effort to subject the law to voter referendum in the 2020 election. With that number of signatures, chances are very good it will make the ballot, making it the first time voters in any state will vote directly on the National Popular Vote compact.

According to the Colorado secretary of state’s office, the 227,198 signatures are likely the most ever submitted for a statewide ballot initiative in Colorado — certainly the most since at least 2001. Now, it’s typical for about 20 percent of signatures to be thrown out during the verification process. But because the referendum needs only 124,632 valid signatures to qualify, up to 45 percent of them could be tossed and the measure would still make the ballot. (The secretary of state’s office will announce whether it has done so by Aug. 30.)

So the real question becomes whether voters will reject the legislature’s law and make Colorado the first state to exit the National Popular Vote compact. And polls suggest it would be a competitive election! Nationally, 53 percent of Americans said the popular vote should determine the president, and 43 percent said the Electoral College should, according to an April/May NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Unsurprisingly, given that almost every state government to pass the National Popular Vote compact was completely controlled by Democrats, there is a wide partisan gap on the question: 79 percent of Democrats preferred the popular vote, while 74 percent of Republicans favored the Electoral College.

Given that Colorado is roughly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, I’d expect support to break down about the same in the Centennial State as it does nationally. The only poll about the National Popular Vote law I could find in Colorado was a March survey from Republican pollster Magellan Strategies that found 47 percent of likely 2020 voters would vote to affirm the National Popular Vote law and 47 percent would vote to repeal it. However, even if those numbers are too rosy for the repeal effort, I would still expect support for the law to decrease as opponents prosecute the case against the National Popular Vote, so even a lead of, say, 10 points (akin to the national breakdown) would not be secure. This could be one of the most closely watched ballot measures of the 2020 cycle.

CORRECTION (Aug. 16, 2019, 10:50 a.m.): A previous version of this article incorrectly characterized the National Popular Vote compact referendum as likely to make the 2020 ballot in Colorado. If the referendum passes, it would not repeal the National Popular Vote law. The referendum campaign would put the law itself up for a vote, so Colorado would have to vote “no” on the referendum in order to exit the compact.

As much as I loath the EC as an undemocratic anachronism, I can't really object to a referendum, given my stated support for greater direct democracy. And I must admit, I'm thrilled that I will be one of the first voters in the nation to have a chance to personally and directly cast a vote to fuck the Electoral College.

[The Romulan Republic]

Warren has unveiled a sweeping proposal to aid Native Americans:

https://cnn.com/2019/08/16/politics/eli ... index.html

(CNN)Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Friday released multiple proposals that aim to address concerns and needs specific to Indian Country, including draft legislation crafted with New Mexico Rep. Deb Haaland, one of the first two Native Americans elected to Congress last year.

This marks a politically significant moment for the presidential candidate, who has weathered criticism and attacks -- including from President Donald Trump -- for the way that she has discussed her family's lineage and for releasing the results of a DNA test last year that showed the senator had distant Native American ancestry.

Warren is expected to publicly speak at length about Native American issues for the first time in months at a conference next week in Iowa hosted by Four Directions, a group that fights for Native voting rights.

Notably, a lengthy Medium post about the proposals and legislation does not mention Warren's own heritage.

"We are failing in our legal, political, and moral obligations toward tribal governments and indigenous peoples," Warren wrote. "That this failure is simply the latest chapter in generations of prior failures is no excuse."

Warren and Haaland, who recently endorsed the Massachusetts senator for president, released a draft bill aimed at addressing needs of Native Americans identified by the US Commission on Civil Rights. The campaign noted that the pair wanted a period of public input that would allow tribal governments, citizens, experts and others to offer suggestions before they would introduce final language in Congress.

Their bill seeks to provide funding for programs "vital" to Indian Country, in addition to separating funds for such programs from the congressional appropriations process. Such a move, Warren wrote, would ensure "predictable, guaranteed funding" disconnected from any appropriations fights in Congress.

"Funding these programs is not optional. It is required in order to fulfill the United States' trust and treaty obligations," she said.
Separate from the legislative proposal, Warren is also proposing what she calls "Oliphant fix."

It is aimed at a 1978 Supreme Court ruling on the Oliphant v. Suquamish case, in which it said that "tribal governments have no inherent criminal jurisdiction over non-Natives on tribal lands," according to Warren's Medium post.

"This decision has deprived countless Native victims of their day in court, and with it, the possibility of justice," she said. As part of the "Oliphant fix," Warren is proposing that tribal criminal jurisdiction be significantly expanded so that individuals who commit crimes on tribal lands against Native Americans can be brought to justice by tribal authorities.

The campaign said Warren is the first presidential candidate to call for such a fix.

Warren's Medium post also addresses ways to combat what the senator refers to as "an epidemic of missing and murdered indigenous women," which she described as a "moral failing and a stain on our country."

Another significant aspect of Warren's Medium post discuses the issue of tribal sovereignty as it relates to Native American lands and resources.

She wrote that if elected President, her administration would revoke what she deemed "ill-advised and improperly granted permits" for the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, and decline permits for any new projects where tribal sovereignty is not honored.
The senator also made note of some of her past proposals in the Medium post, including improving rural broadband and her support for the single-payer "Medicare for All" proposal, which she said would improve infrastructure and health care for Native Americans.

Warren's claims to Native American heritage
Warren, who has steadily climbed in the polls, has confronted questions and criticism about her past claims of Native American heritage. The issues first arose during her 2012 Senate campaign, when her opponent, Scott Brown, accused her of lying about her ancestry to advance her academic career. Warren denied those charges and maintained that she never used her heritage for gain.
"I am very proud of my heritage," she told NPR at the time. "These are my family stories. This is what my brothers and I were told by my mom and my dad, my mamaw and my papaw. This is our lives. And I'm very proud of it."

Last fall, in a carefully choreographed video that was published online, Warren announced the results of a DNA test that claimed "strong evidence" of Native American ancestry "6-10 generations ago."

The move was widely panned. Some tribal leaders took issue with her use of a DNA test to prove connection to any tribe, while others said Warren had played into the hands of Trump, who has repeatedly mocked her heritage claims.

The senator said in February that she had apologized to Cherokee leaders for her handling of the issue.

"I'm not a tribal citizen and I respect the difference," the Massachusetts Democrat told CNN in February. "Tribes and only tribes determine tribal citizenship."

Trump has continued to attack Warren with growing frequently as she's risen in national polls lately.

Trump mentioned Warren as recently as Thursday night at his campaign rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, reusing his favorite nickname for her -- and vowing to ratchet up his attacks.

"Like Elizabeth Warren, I did the Pocahontas thing," Trump told the audience, who booed at the mention of Warren. "I hit her really hard and it looked like she was down and out but that was too long ago, I should've waited. Don't worry, we will revive it."

[The Romulan Republic]

Inslee's out:

https://nbcnews.com/politics/2020-elect ... e-n1045066

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee is dropping out of the 2020 Democratic presidential race, he announced Wednesday night on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show."

Inslee plans to send an email to supporters on Thursday announcing that he will run for a third term as governor, two sources close to Inslee told NBC News on condition of anonymity.

"It's become clear that I'm not going to be carrying the ball. I'm not going to be the president, so I'm withdrawing tonight from the race," he told Maddow, vowing he'd help keep the other 2020 candidates focused on issue of climate change, the centerpiece of his campaign. "I've been fighting climate change for 25 years, and I've never been so confident of the ability of America now to reach critical mass to move the ball."

Inslee's presidential campaign was bookended with pleas to take climate change seriously.

"This is our moment to put the greatest threat to our existence, to our economy, to our health, at the very top of the nation's agenda," Inslee said in March at his campaign's kickoff event in Seattle.


Inslee put out a detailed 10-year plan on how he'd move the country to clean energy, spurring other candidates to put out their own plans. Butting heads with the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, he demanded that the organization hold a debate focused on climate change.

The DNC rebuffed his pleas in June, but CNN announced soon after that it would hold a town hall on the issue with the candidates in September. Inslee, however, did not meet the polling criteria the network used for the event — a minimum of 2 percent in four DNC-recognized polls — and was not on the list of attendees the network announced on Tuesday.

While Inslee said Monday that he had reached the 130,000-donation threshold for the next debate in September, his lack of qualifying polls likely would have kept him from the debate stage, as well.

Support for free trade reaches new high in NBC/WSJ poll
He told Maddow he hopes other candidates can use his climate plan, which he said has been called "the gold standard."

He declined to throw support behind another candidate on Wednesday but said he would endorse the Democratic nominee, "no matter who it is."

Other 2020 candidates were quick to praise his efforts.

"Thank you @JayInslee for fighting every day to make sure that climate change remains a primary focus of this election. Climate change is real and it's a crisis—and I will keep fighting alongside you to take bold action before it is too late," Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts tweeted.

Congratulations to @JayInslee on his impactful campaign to bring the climate crisis to the forefront of the national conversation. There is no more important issue facing humanity. Together we will work to pass a Green New Deal and create millions of jobs.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) August 22, 2019
"Few leaders have done more to shine a light on the climate crisis than @JayInslee," Sen. Kamala Harris of California tweeted. "His voice will be missed in this primary but I know he will continue this fight."

Inslee is the third major candidate in the sprawling field to exit the race after Rep. Eric Swalwell of California and former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper.

Personally I think calling Inslee a "major candidate" is a bit of a stretch, but yeah, the field is slowly narrowing.

Meanwhile, Yang has become number 9 to qualify for the September debates:

https://cnn.com/2019/08/08/politics/and ... index.html

Edit: Forgot I already posted on Yang.

[The Romulan Republic]

10th Circuit Court ruling that members of the Electoral College are Constitutionally not bound to vote the way their state's popular vote went:

https://kansaspublicradio.org/kpr-news/ ... pular-vote

DENVER (AP) — A U.S. appeals court in Denver said Electoral College members can vote for the presidential candidate of their choice and aren't bound by the popular vote in their states.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Colorado secretary of state violated the Constitution in 2016 when he removed an elector and nullified his vote because the elector refused to cast his ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote.

The ruling applies only to Colorado and five other states in the 10th Circuit: Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.

It could influence future cases nationwide in the unlikely event that enough Electoral College members strayed from their states' popular vote to affect the outcome of a presidential election, constitutional scholars said.

The Electoral College system is established in the Constitution. When voters cast a ballot for president, they are actually choosing members of the Electoral College, called electors, who are pledged to that presidential candidate. The electors then choose the president.

Electors almost always vote for the popular vote winner, and some states have laws requiring them to do so.

But the split decision by a three-judge panel on the Denver appeals court said the Constitution allows electors to cast their votes at their own discretion. "The state does not possess countervailing authority to remove an elector and to cancel his vote in response to the exercise of that Constitutional right," the ruling said.

The elector at the center of the case, Micheal Baca, was part of a group known as "Hamilton electors" who tried to convince electors who were pledged to Clinton or Donald Trump to unite behind a consensus candidate to deny Trump the presidency.

After a flurry of filings in state and federal courts, the electors met on Dec. 19, 2016, and Baca crossed out Clinton's name on his ballot and wrote in John Kasich, the Republican governor of Ohio who also ran for president.

Then-Secretary of State Wayne Williams refused to count the vote and removed Baca as an elector. He replaced him with another elector who voted for Clinton.

Colorado's current secretary of state, Jena Griswold, decried the ruling Tuesday in Colorado but did not immediately say if she would appeal.

"This court decision takes power from Colorado voters and sets a dangerous precedent," she said. "Our nation stands on the principle of one person, one vote."

Baca's attorneys said the U.S. Supreme Court will likely hear the case because it conflicts with a decision from Washington state's Supreme Court. That court said in May that electors could be fined for not casting ballots for the popular vote winner.

Constitutional scholars were skeptical, saying a conflicting opinion from a state court system has less influence on the Supreme Court than one from another federal appeals court. No other federal appeals court is believed to have ruled in a similar case.

"The court just might think this isn't something that demands our attention right now," said Michael Morley, a professor at the Florida State University College of Law.

The court ruling in Denver could be important if a future Electoral College is so closely divided that a handful of "faithless electors" change the outcome by casting a ballot contrary to the popular vote, said Ned Foley, a professor at Ohio State University's law school.

"This opinion would be taken very seriously," he said. "It would be considered judicial precedent."

But that kind of split in the Electoral College is unlikely, said Morley.

"So many individually unlikely events would have to fall in place for that," he said.

Hundreds of electors have cast votes in the history of the nation, "and only a handful have been cast by faithless electors," Morley said.

It wasn't immediately clear what impact the ruling would have on a new Colorado law that pledges the state's Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote if enough other states with a total of at least 270 electoral votes do the same.

It would ensure the winner of the popular vote wins the Electoral College and becomes president. The effort was spurred by the election of Republicans George W. Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016. Both lost the popular vote but amassed more Electoral College votes.

A Republican-led campaign is underway to overturn the Colorado law.

– 30 –
___

This story has been corrected to say that some states require electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote, not most states.

Even better, its in response to Colorado trying to invalidate a faithless Elector who went to Trump last time. So the Trumpers now have explicit permission from the Courts to flip the election to Trump regardless of the actual vote.

We need to prepare for, even expect, a scenario where Republican electors ignore the vote to pick Trump in large numbers, likely under the cover of some story about "illegal immigrant voter fraud" invalidating the results.

Of course, it could go both ways- Democratic electors could go against Trump regardless of how their states voted. But we need to start paying a lot more attention to how Electors are picked, and what their political biases are, until we can pass a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of this abomination. Because this underscores the reality in America that our "elections", and the notion that they have any say in who runs this country, are a polite fiction- our vote has all the legal force of a glorified public opinion poll, no more, no less.

That's not to say voting doesn't matter, though: both because America's reputation would be further tarnished by Trump getting a majority of the vote, and most of all because in the worst case scenario, the bigger the gap between the popular vote and the outcome of the election, the more the despotism of the EC will be apparent, whether its because of faithless Electors or a scenario like last time, where the states Trump won gave him more Electors even though he lost the popular vote, due to the winner-take-all system.

[bilateralrope]

What happens when someone bribes and/or threatens an Elector into being faithless ?

Are there any measures in place to prevent that happening ?

[The Romulan Republic]

What happens when someone bribes and/or threatens an Elector into being faithless ?

Are there any measures in place to prevent that happening ?

That's a really good question that I don't know the answer to.

I wouldn't be surprised if we find out the answer to that after the next election.

[The Romulan Republic]

Castro's made the next round of debates.

Also, CNN will be hosting a series of town halls on climate change, featuring the top ten candidates:

https://cnn.com/2019/08/19/politics/cnn ... index.html

(CNN)Ten Democratic candidates for president have qualified for next month's Climate Crisis Town Hall, which will air exclusively on CNN platforms.

CNN is devoting the evening of Sept. 4 to the climate crisis. Eight of the Democratic candidates initially accepted CNN's invitation to discuss this critically important issue: former Vice President Joe Biden; Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey; South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg; Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; former Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas; Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont; Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts; and businessman Andrew Yang.

Sen. Kamala Harris of California initially declined CNN's invitation, citing a scheduling conflict. But her campaign informed CNN on Tuesday morning that the senator would participate.

"We were happy to change our schedule to accommodate such a critical conversation," Harris spokeswoman Lily Adams said. "As Senator Harris has said, this is a climate crisis and is one of the most urgent reasons we need a new president."

With the release of a CNN poll on Tuesday, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro reached the polling threshold to participate in the event. A Castro campaign spokeswoman said he would attend.

CNN anchors Erin Burnett, Anderson Cooper, Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon will moderate individual candidate segments, and CNN Chief Climate Correspondent Bill Weir will join in the questioning throughout the event.

A CNN poll conducted in late April showed that 96% of Democrats favored taking aggressive action to slow the effects of climate change. The United Nations -- which projects that temperatures will rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030 -- has warned that governments must take "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society."
Global warming would have several consequences. It would cause coastal cities to disappear under water, leaving hundreds of millions of people displaced and forced to migrate to dry areas. Some plants and animals would face extinction, and drought would result in lower crop yields. Meteorologists just delivered the latest warning sign of global warming: July 2019 was the hottest month ever recorded on Earth.

Candidates have until Wednesday to qualify for this town hall. CNN will extend invitations to Democratic presidential hopefuls who reach 2% in at least four Democratic National Committee-approved polls conducted between June 28 and Aug. 21.

The candidates, who will make back-to-back appearances, will take questions directly from a live studio audience in New York and a CNN moderator. The audience will be drawn from Democratic voters interested in the issue. The town hall will air live on CNN platforms around the world.

Also, found this polling data, which casts a very interesting light on the campaign as it breaks down the demographics of different candidates' support:

https://people-press.org/2019/08/16/mos ... ates_0-06/

I'm backing Warren now, but as an ex-Sanders supporter who had to go through years of endless repetitions of the "Bernie Bro" narrative, I won't deny that this polling's indication that the majority of Bernie's support is now female (53%), and that the majority is non-white (albeit barely, at 51%) gives me more than a little sense of vindication.

Moreover, it looks like Bernie is currently the only candidate of the top four (Biden, Warren, Bernie, and Harris) who can claim this distinction.

So yeah. Lie debunked.

[Gandalf]

Awesome to see that Castro's made it. He's been solid in the previous debates.

Also, as it's on CNN I can watch it here. Yay!

[The Romulan Republic]

New poll has Bernie, Warren, and Biden in an effective three-way tie:

https://cnn.com/2019/08/26/politics/mon ... index.html

(CNN)Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Vice President Joe Biden top the Democratic field for president in 2020, with no clear leader, according to a Monmouth University poll released Monday.

The three candidates are bunched together, each receiving about the same amount of support (Sanders 20%, Warren 20% and Biden 19%) from registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent voters.
They're followed by California Sen. Kamala Harris (8%), New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker (4%), South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (4%), businessman Andrew Yang (3%), former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro (2%), former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (2%) and author Marianne Williamson (2%). All other candidates received 1% or less in the poll.
Since Monmouth's June poll, Sanders and Warren have gained slightly (up 6 and 5 percentage points), while Biden has lost significant support (down 13 points).
A CNN poll conducted by SSRS, out last week, found Biden with 29% support, while Sanders and Warren were lower (15% and 14%, respectively).
The results don't impact who has qualified for the debates in September, with the Wednesday deadline fast approaching. This is Williamson's first poll hitting 2%, giving her one debate qualifying poll. Williamson, who has said she has met the donor threshold, would need three more polls to qualify.
Biden's decline comes mostly from registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent voters who consider themselves moderate or conservative, down 18 points since June. Meanwhile, Sanders and Warren have gained 10 percentage points each among those voters, an area that isn't considered strong for either of the very liberal candidates.
Biden also lost support among those who don't have a college degree (down 17 points) and those under the age of 50 (down 15 points).
Biden, Sanders and Warren all have similar favorable ratings -- around two-thirds of registered Democrats and leaners have a positive opinion of the candidates, but Warren has a much lower unfavorable rating than the other two (13% find the Massachusetts senator unfavorable, compared to a 25% for Biden and 24% for Sanders).
Additionally, Warren's favorability has gone up slightly since May, while Sanders has remained steady and Biden has slipped.
On the subject of health care, more than half (58%) of Democratic voters say it's very important that they nominate someone who supports "Medicare for All," and another half (53%) want to allow people to either opt in to Medicare or keep their private coverage over getting rid of all private insurance (22%).
The Monmouth University Poll of registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent voters was conducted by telephone August 16 through 20 among a random sample of 800 adults in the United States. Results in this release are based on 298 registered voters who identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party, which has a +/- 5.7 percentage point sampling margin of error.

Polling's been all over the map, but please let this one be real.

[The Romulan Republic]

Looks like the debate line up for September will be just 10 candidates, on one night.

Several campaigns that never had a prayer and never came close to cracking five percent are screaming to high heaven about how unfair it is. Normally I'd be more sympathetic to their grievances- I don't think the criteria should change between debates to force smaller campaigns out. But right now the stakes are too fucking high, and they're basically dividing the party and playing into the "Both Sides/rigged primary" complaints that did the Republicans so much good in 2016:

https://politico.com/story/2019/08/28/d ... nc-1476635

More than half of the Democratic presidential field will get bounced from the party’s high-profile debate circuit Wednesday night, but they’re not meekly exiting stage left.

Candidates are redoubling efforts in Iowa and unleashing a blizzard of TV and digital ads to change the race. And quietly, staffers for several candidates among the 10 on the bubble are exchanging their frustrations about the Democratic National Committee’s increasingly strict debate rules in private conversations, discussing how their campaigns might push back against the party committee.

Those conversations have yet to yield any formal plans, but the options discussed include everything from public statements by campaigns to participation in unsanctioned debates or other events, which the DNC has banned as a condition for inclusion in the party-approved debates.

It’s a new phase of high-risk, high-reward campaigning ushered in by the DNC’s debate criteria (2 percent showings in four polls and money raised from 130,000 donors), which threaten to push a number of struggling candidates even farther from the national spotlight. Candidates are spending more money and time in early states and are growing bolder about criticizing DNC Chairman Tom Perez. But their senior staffers are also starting to kick around more desperate options as their candidates hold out hope of qualifying for the October debate despite missing the September cut.

“There’s a high likelihood that candidates will band together to make a clear statement to the DNC that these rules are unfair,” said Dan Sena, a consultant who led the House Democratic campaign committee in 2018 and now advises Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet. “That could manifest itself into putting a ton of pressure on the DNC — talking to donors, influencers, and building a case against the process. Maybe even other events.”

The reason is clear: The party debates have the potential to be campaign-changing moments, bumping poll numbers, donations and interest in early-state campaign stops. Candidates not involved could lose what momentum and donor engagement they have.

And now, the effects of getting left off the debate stage will stretch even farther. Other entities putting on major events for Democratic candidates — including CNN, which is holding a forum on climate change, and March for Our Lives and Giffords, which are having a gun-control forum — will only invite candidates to attend “who are eligible to participate in [the] Democratic presidential debates this fall,” according to a statement from the two gun-control groups.

But struggling candidates do have an on-ramp back to the big stage — which could delay any dramatic action by their campaigns. While the DNC debate criteria have escalated, they will be the same for the October debate as they were for September, giving candidates additional time to meet the same threshold.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is spending millions of dollars in early-state TV and digital ads to boost their polling numbers, after receiving her first 2-perecent poll this month. Montana Gov. Steve Bullock has hired more staff, signaling that he’s not going anywhere. And no one has spent more to get themselves on stage than Tom Steyer, who has poured in more than $12 million into ad spending. (Two more national polls will be released Wednesday morning.)

“There is another bite at the apple in October,” New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio told MSNBC on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, Bennet slammed the DNC at its own summer meeting, as campaigns grow more vocal about attacking the process of the campaign, which the Colorado senator called “undemocratic.” In an interview, Bennet pledged to “continue to spend time in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.”

“I don’t expect them to change the rules right now, but I hope they’ll give some consideration to it going forward,” Bennet said. “For me, I’m going to have to live off of the land [and] I’m going to have to run an insurgent campaign.”

Michael Bennet
“I don’t expect them to change the rules right now, but I hope they’ll give some consideration to it going forward,” Sen. Michael Bennet said. | Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Chief among the complaints for campaigns: polls. Campaign aides noted that there weren’t as many DNC-approved polls conducted in the weeks following the second debate as there were after the first debate. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s (D-Hawaii) and Steyer’s campaigns have criticized the committee for not accepting certain polls that put them at the 2-percent threshold, for reasons including methodology and sponsorship.

But Carol Fowler, the former South Carolina Democratic Party chairwoman, warned candidates about taking their complaints too far and potentially participating in non-DNC-sanctioned debates. They “should think twice,” Fowler said. “I think voters here, who are quite focused on this race, would pay attention if they did their own event, but it’s not worth the risk of not getting to return” to a future debate if the candidate successfully bumped up in the polls.

“It’s tempting to create an alternative to the DNC debate, but by doing that, you’re basically creating a kiddie table,” said Erik Smith, a Democratic consultant who worked on President Barack Obama’s campaigns. “You’re acknowledging you couldn’t make it, and I don’t think that goes over with voters.”

For its part, the DNC’s polling criteria have been broader and have taken in polls over longer periods of time than in the past.

“The debate rules have been public for months, and candidates have been given more opportunities and more time to qualify for debates than in previous cycles,” DNC spokeswoman Adrienne Watson said in a statement to POLITICO.

Other observers noted that so far, the debates have had little impact on polling outside the group of front-runners, meaning the debates may be less do-or-die for those candidates than some say.

Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster unaffiliated in the primary race, agreed that there “hasn’t been a ton of movement” in national polling following the two debates. But “the less exposure you have, the harder it is to raise money, to get coverage, to be visible, to generate excitement,” he said.

“Does [not making the September debate] keep you out of the primary completely? No. But does it do a lot of damage? Yes,” Mellman continued.

Rather than continue facing long odds in a shortening campaign window, some candidates have simply dropped out. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper departed the race this month, returning home to run for reelection and for Senate, respectively. Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) never appeared on the debate stage, and he, too, called it quits last week, returning home to run for another House term.

For those sticking around, many are focused on beefing up operations and visits to Iowa and New Hampshire. The strategy was once considered a staple in long-shot presidential politics — simply “go to Iowa,” said Matt McKenna, a Democratic strategist who is advising Bullock.

“I’m old enough to remember that’s how people actually won and lost these things — talking to voters,” McKenna said about Bullock’s plans, now that he is unlikely to appear on the third debate stage. “The debates aren’t the only place to hear from these candidates.”

Polk County, Iowa, Democratic Party Chairman Sean Bagniewski said it’s possible for a candidate who misses the debates to “bet it on Iowa” and “pull it off.”

“Can you do it fast enough? Do you have the money to do it?” Bagniewski said. “Those are the key questions.”

Several presidential staffers pointed to Bullock — who failed to reach the first debate but qualified for the second — as a blueprint for how to take advantage of a debate stage miss. The Montana governor, who didn’t enter the race until late April, generated early-state and national attention by making appearances on Stephen Colbert’s CBS late-night show and at events in Iowa and New Hampshire.

But for the next debate night on September 12, many of the campaigns looking in from the outside don’t yet know where they’ll spend it. “If you think of anything, let me know,” Bennet joked.

I must admit that its funny that this time its mostly minor Centrists complaining about a rigged primary. Not so fun when the shoe's on the other foot, is it?

Meanwhile, Gillibrand has put duty (or at least pragmatism) over ego and dropped out:

https://politico.com/story/2019/08/28/g ... ce-1477644

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York dropped out of the presidential race Wednesday evening, pledging to help the eventual Democratic nominee beat President Donald Trump next year.

“We wanted to win this race,” Gillibrand said in a video posted on her Twitter account. “But it’s important to know when it’s not your time, and to know how you can best serve your community and country.”

Today, I am ending my campaign for president.

I am so proud of this team and all we've accomplished. But I think it’s important to know how you can best serve.

To our supporters: Thank you, from the bottom of my heart. Now, let's go beat Donald Trump and win back the Senate. pic.twitter.com/xM5NGfgFGT

— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) August 28, 2019

Good on her for recognizing that this wasn't her time. My respect for her has gone up a little more.

[His Divine Shadow]

Joe Biden calls Angela Merkel Margaret Thatcher
https://twitter.com/BetaODork/status/11 ... 5443403778

How the hell is he still running, dude's falling apart on national stage.

[Elfdart]

Going with a paper ballot designed for simplicity and clarity would eliminate that problem, at least in theory, would it not?

As far as I am aware, there are no serious cross studies of which election systems are least prone to accidental integrity issues. This leaves me cautious about recommending something and I simply feel more comfortable explaining downsides that I know about rather than suggest something.

Regarding simple paper ballots, your assumption sounds correct, but human error creeps in and can still be a significant factor. The latest elections in Israel were riddled with problems relating to integrity (Haaretz link - to bypass the paywall, google the article title and click the article) that weren't malicious, just simple mistakes from the system.

Oregon has used mail-in ballots for decades and there hasn't been so much as a hint of cheating, because it would be almost impossible short of hijacking thousands of mail trucks. Human error isn't an issue because the ballots are simple and easy to read (no criss-crossed punch-hole ballots, like Florida 2000).

[Elheru Aran]

Joe Biden calls Angela Merkel Margaret Thatcher
https://twitter.com/BetaODork/status/11 ... 5443403778

How the hell is he still running, dude's falling apart on national stage.

Because the DNC can't shake the "successful politician that wins election=(usually) old white Christian male" mindset. That, and he's Obama's VP, OBVIOUSLY he must succeed Obama.

[bilateralrope]

The GOP is canceling primaries to help Donald Trump

Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large

Updated 1540 GMT (2340 HKT) September 10, 2019

(CNN)Not sure if you heard the breaking news but, well, the 2020 Republican primaries are canceled!

Well, not totally canceled. Some states will still hold them. But at least four states -- South Carolina, Arizona, Kansas and Nevada -- either have or will soon cancel their primaries and caucuses, simply assigning their delegates at the 2020 Republican National Convention directly to President Donald Trump.
"As a general rule, when either party has an incumbent president in the White House, there's no rationale to hold a primary," South Carolina GOP Chairman Drew McKissick said about the move.

That's generally true. South Carolina didn't hold a Republican primary in 1984 or 2004 when Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were running for second terms. In 2004, in fact, 10 states canceled their GOP nominating contests.
But there is a big difference between those past examples and 2020. Actually, three big differences, named Bill Weld, Joe Walsh and Mark Sanford. All three of those men -- two former governors and a former House member -- are running against Trump for the 2020 Republican nomination, each promising to take back the party that the billionaire businessman seized by the throat in 2016.
To be clear: None of the three have much of a chance. For all of Trump's bragging and misleading, he's right about one thing: The Republican base absolutely loves him. In Gallup's most recent monthly tracking poll, 88% of Republicans approved of the job Trump is doing. (Sidebar: Just 39% of the general populace approved of how Trump is doing his job.)
Asked about the state primaries Monday, Trump told reporters that he had no role in the cancellations. He added that he's not looking to give any credibility to his three primary opponents, who he called a "joke" and a "laughingstock."
"The four states that canceled it don't want to waste their money," Trump said. "Having primary campaigns and having a primary election is very expensive."
It's hard to beat ANY incumbent president in a primary -- just ask Ted Kennedy! -- but especially one that 9 in 10 base voters think is doing a good job.
But just because Trump is very, very likely to be the Republican nominee in 2020 doesn't mean that states shouldn't give GOP voters the chance to have their say on his presidency.
"This is not North Korea or Russia. Donald Trump is trying to eliminate elections," Walsh told MSNBC of the cancellations. "That is undemocratic BS. It's wrong and that's the kind of thing that should piss off Republican voters."
Now, obviously, states do have the right to decide whether to have primaries or caucuses. Why? Because these are intra-party races, meaning that the state party in each state gets to decide the parameters of how they work or if they happen at all.
And there are legitimate reasons to decide against holding primaries -- especially at the presidential level. It costs a big chunk of change to stage a primary and often cash-strapped state parties either don't have the money or don't want to spend it on a meaningless vote.
But this isn't a meaningless vote! Yes, Trump is a heavy favorite, but there are three credible former Republican elected officials running in the race as well. This is not a walkover situation!
So what's really going on here? Well, Trump's campaign has, almost from the moment he won the White House, worked to install loyalists at state parties around the country in hopes of thwarting any active rebellion as the president looks to a second term.
The cancellation of primaries is simply an extension of that approach. Trump doesn't want there to be a public opposition to him in the Republican primary -- for fear of being embarrassed -- and so he and his people have worked hard to ensure that outcome.

There is some precedent here. In 2012, Barack Obama wasn't seriously -- or even non-seriously -- challenged for the Democratic nomination.
But in West Virginia, a prisoner named Keith Judd who was serving 17 and a half years for extortion at a prison in Texas, somehow got on the Democratic primary ballot. Judd wound up getting 41% -- more than 70,000 primary votes.
How did Judd do it? Well, he didn't. A sizable chunk of West Virginia -- even its Democrats -- loathed Obama for his environmental policies, and Judd was a vehicle to express that discontent.
Trump wants to avoid that sort of incident at all costs. Part of his mystique -- such as it is -- revolves around the idea that Republicans love him more than they have ever loved any other president. Any vulnerability in that armor makes Trump look weak. And Trump hates looking weak.
Of the decisions by a handful of states to cancel their GOP primaries and caucuses, Trump 2020 spokesman Tim Murtaugh said this: "These are decisions made entirely by state parties and there are volumes of historical precedents to support them. Nevertheless, President Trump will dominate and prevail in whatever contest is placed before him."
Dominate and prevail!
That sort of tough talk does make you wonder: If Trump and his allies are SO certain of his success against the candidates he has taken to referring to as the "Three Stooges," then why go out of his way to limit the number of chances those candidates have at beating him? If all Republicans are aligned behind Trump, why not use the primary and caucuses over the next year to prove it?
Because maybe, just maybe, Trump and his loyalists know not everyone in the party is with him -- and they want to make sure that trickle doesn't turn into a flood.
CNN's Sarah Westwood and Caroline Kenny contributed to this report.

A money saving move or is Trump afraid of what Fox News will report on if he has to face opposition in the primary ?

[FireNexus]

The GOP knows that primary campaigns, even longshot ones, have possibly damaged incumbents historically. In fact, every recent incumbent who had a meaningful primary challenge lost the general. I don’t know whether it’s correlation or causation, but the party seems to be playing it like the latter. Which makes sense, strategically. It will prevent the process from damaging Trump or it won’t prevent the inevitable. Either way, the primary is not going to help the party or result in a meaningful change in the likelihood that Trump is the nominee.

[Gandalf]

Joe Biden calls Angela Merkel Margaret Thatcher
https://twitter.com/BetaODork/status/11 ... 5443403778

How the hell is he still running, dude's falling apart on national stage.

Because the DNC can't shake the "successful politician that wins election=(usually) old white Christian male" mindset. That, and he's Obama's VP, OBVIOUSLY he must succeed Obama.

Also, the running disaster that was Clinton's campaign has probably spooked the DNC into running a safe mode candidate.