Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Matt Blaze (mattblaze@federate.social)'s status on Sunday, 15-Jun-2025 07:50:10 JST Matt Blaze

   A couple of things about these claims circulating that the 2024 election was "rigged":

   1. The supposed "proof" is essentially the same nonsensical statistical gobbledygook that the MAGA people were claiming about 2020, with the parties reversed.

   2. There is no legal mechanism to "recount" an election after the results are certified. None. The ship has sailed.

   3. SHOCKINGLY, they need funds to continue their "work"

   4. Nope, not linking to it. Not giving them oxygen.

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Sunday, 15-Jun-2025 07:50:06 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     @mattblaze what do you think about the post facto research on the Florida recount in the 2000 election? Some work by the New Yorker, for instance, suggests that if the recount had continued, Gore would have had more votes.

     https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/12/24/recounted-out

   • Embed this notice
     Matt Blaze (mattblaze@federate.social)'s status on Sunday, 15-Jun-2025 07:50:07 JST Matt Blaze

     in reply to

     An important difference between this and the 2020 fraud claims is that here, you don't see the supposedly "defrauded" candidate amplifying the BS. Harris wants no part of this.

     Also, you don't get a discount on an overpriced pillow for donating.

   • Embed this notice
     Matt Blaze (mattblaze@federate.social)'s status on Sunday, 15-Jun-2025 07:50:09 JST Matt Blaze

     in reply to

     OK, that was four, not a "couple". A quadruple, then.

   • Embed this notice
     tom jennings (tomjennings@tldr.nettime.org)'s status on Sunday, 15-Jun-2025 08:38:42 JST tom jennings

     in reply to

     @mattblaze

     I was just about to lodge a deep and serious complaint about your misuse of the word "couple " but my lawyer talked me out of it.

     nyanide :nyancat_rainbow::nyancat_body::nyancat_face: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Sunday, 15-Jun-2025 21:14:11 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     @mattblaze right. So, your concern is less about digging up the details of the 2024 election, and more about using whatever is uncovered (which is pretty patchy and unconvincing) to try to change the current government.

   • Embed this notice
     Matt Blaze (mattblaze@federate.social)'s status on Sunday, 15-Jun-2025 21:14:13 JST Matt Blaze

     in reply to

     • Evan Prodromou

     @evan That's historical research, not grounds for a lawsuit.

   • Embed this notice
     Kim Scheinberg (kims@mas.to)'s status on Sunday, 15-Jun-2025 22:43:24 JST Kim Scheinberg

     in reply to

     @mattblaze
     A long overdue thank you, Matt

     Once or twice a week, I have a text chain that consists of half a dozen texts presenting your bona fides, and always ends with this

     [Thanks on behalf of the text recipients, too. In my circles you're responsible for more blood pressure reduction than the average beta-blocker]

   • Embed this notice
     Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Monday, 16-Jun-2025 04:45:20 JST Evan Prodromou

     in reply to

     @mattblaze I also wonder if there's even a detriment to 2000-style research. When we determine that the election would have gone a different way if such and such event happened, is there any value? That event *didn't* happen, and the election went *this* way. Maybe there's a downside to holding onto shoulda woulda coulda scenarios instead of dealing with the world as it is? Especially when it comes down to microscopic margins. Anyway, thanks for the thoughts.

   • Embed this notice
     Matt Blaze (mattblaze@federate.social)'s status on Monday, 16-Jun-2025 04:45:22 JST Matt Blaze

     in reply to

     • Evan Prodromou

     @evan Also, they’re ripping people off based on a false hope and evidently meritless claims, promising a remedy that isn't possible. But other than that…