Presidential Tweet Thread

[Ooh-Rah]

The association of Secretaries of State is already pushing back against this.

Are you referring to this link from a few weeks ago?

I need to go back and reread this one; at first glance I agree with the secretaries. Keep the feds out of our state elections. I get an immediate pucker factor when I see that the federal entity who would "help" would be Department of Homeland Security.

Secretaries of State Fume Over Election Critical Infrastructure Designation – 21CenturyState

 

[Salt USMC]

Are you referring to this link from a few weeks ago?

I need to go back and reread this one; at first glance I agree with the secretaries. Keep the feds out of our state elections. I get an immediate pucker factor when I see that the federal entity who would "help" would be Department of Homeland Security.

Secretaries of State Fume Over Election Critical Infrastructure Designation – 21CenturyState

There was a statement put out today. I'm on mobile so I can't embed the image.

Twitter

 

[AWP]

WTF is wrong with our world when a 140-character platform becomes a means of disseminating a nation's policies?

 

[Etype]

WTF is wrong with our world when a 140-character platform becomes a means of disseminating a nation's policies?

Communication reflects culture.

I learned that in college.

 

[Il Duce]

I don't think "if" is the question. I think "if" voter fraud occurred is "settled science." The question should be "how much." I think that's the big disagreement at the heart of this issue.

Everything I've read indicates that voter fraud in national elections is not nearly as widespread as some people (including me) once believed. But I guess we're about to have another investigation to find out.

I think this is indicative of the problem - and maybe this isn't the thread for this. But banal statements treating 'voter fraud' as a minor academic question miss the policy and cultural implications - which are extreme.

It's like if I say 'The Army is dominated by rapists and murderers, we need to get these murder/rapers under control since we can't trust national security to all these murder/rapers.' Now, the fact there are murderers and rapists in the Army is provable - we have the courts martial records. Some, are even murderers and rapists - also something that can be proven as a fact. You can even make speculation that some of these perpetrators are leaders at various levels - though that starts to stretch the edges of the data. Each of these statements may not be controversial - it's just an observation on something that happens. Put in context it's even more benign - when you talk about the rate of these crimes in the given population.

But, when I extrapolate to talking about how the rape/murderers dominate the Army now I'm giving the impression of a huge problem, out of proportion with it's impact - and I've impugned the trust you can put into the institution of the Army - and in those who serve in the Army in any capacity.

So, let's say there are 50 cases of provable voter fraud in the US (I think what I've read is more like 30 but I'm sure that data is all over the place with such small numbers) - out of more that 100 million ballots cast. We can further speculate for every provable case there could be some number of un-caught, un-proven cases which happens with most things. Even if that multiple is 10 or 100 times more frequent you end up with a number that is totally negligible towards impact on election results.

But, when you start to enact restrictions to 'prevent' the imaginary prevalence you run into impacts that can be incredibly significant. In the case of voting there is academic research and some data to support you are potentially disenfranchising, or making significantly less likely the ability/incidence of voting of hundreds of thousands - possibly millions of people. It also happens that most of the data on who those people are indicates they tend to vote for a party different from the one pushing the narrative of voter fraud and enacting voting restrictions. What a weird coincidence.

If we apply that same logic to the Army analogy we would say well, we know the data says it's only a few people raping and murdering but there could be lots of unreported ones - especially the rapers. Let's institute some policies to start preventing that. Let's make owning a firearm incredibly difficult for anyone in the Army. Let's start restricting the number of males who can get promoted into positions of authority - since statistics show they're the main perpetrators. Sure, each of these is guaranteed to impact massive numbers of people in ways that have nothing to do with the problem I initially outlined. It's a good idea if my real purpose all along was to restrict gun rights and male advancement - but it's a terrible idea if I give a shit about murder or rape.

Of course in each case it's impossible to prove a negative. Who's to say the murder/rape numbers after my policies are really that influenced - after all the really critical ones were all the numbers I had almost zero evidence for. Similarly the same narrative is trotted out for the voter-fraud argument.

I don't have any problem with people becoming passionate about the integrity of the voting process. I have real problems when their version of 'integrity' seems to be a straight line to less poor and minority voters regardless of evidence.

I think in the President's case he's probably sympathetic to efforts to decrease poor and minority voting - though in fairness that's much more the RNC jam than him. I think the voter fraud narrative gets to his overarching position on almost everything - credibility. His voice and the voice of his followers are the only thing you should listen to. All other information offered is suspect and should be discounted. Even if he was dropping fact-bombs I think that would be dangerous (example: see liberal bubble) from the government. The fact he's not is very fucked up and is a bad path for everyone on it.

 

[Totentanz]

Communication reflects culture.

I learned that in college.

And what it says about our (America's) culture is rather disappointing.

 

[nobodythank you]

...

While I get your intent. Your analogy is horrendously flawed. You are using a violent crime that can in no way be rationalized or justified (by right or left), versus a white collar crime that could be morally or socially justified (within certain contexts and by at least a considerable part of society) as an analogy. Understand I am not justifying it or saying that voter fraud is ok, but that from a social standpoint it could be argued.

I also believe the cultural and policy implications are extreme, but not in the same vein. The problem I have seen is where different groups draw the line on what constitutes electoral fraud or voter fraud. Anecdotally, the discussion I have participated in get stuck at this part as those that lean left usually say that in person voter fraud is non-existent, whereas the right leaning debaters claim that they both are fraud and can lead to one another. If the fraud is being committed, regardless of how small it is, it needs to be stopped as it causes more harm than ignoring it because it is a small problem.

 

[Etype]

And what it says about our (America's) culture is rather disappointing.

Would you rather be Nigerian?

 

[Marauder06]

I think this is indicative of the problem - and maybe this isn't the thread for this. But banal statements treating 'voter fraud' as a minor academic question miss the policy and cultural implications - which are extreme.

.

This is a reductionist argument that basically says "anyone concerned about voter fraud is a racist." I don't accept that, and I don't think the facts bear it out.

There are plenty of studies, and much Congressional testimony, that attest to rampant voter fraud in the US. The studies I've seen suggest that there is less fraud at the national level than at the local level, but if we accept the fact that local politics can have national consequences, or the adage "all politics is local," then it follows that we should be concerned about all levels of voter fraud. Much of the system seems absolutely designed to permit, if not encourage, voter fraud. Motor-Voter is a prime example.

There are also studies, and Congressional testimony, that suggests that the phenomenon is not widespread, or isn't a big deal.

Given the controversy and the disparity in findings, I'm fine with a detailed investigation into the integrity of this past election. I hope that it turns up nothing and the administration is thoroughly embarrassed. But my instinct is that there is some "there" there.

Do the investigation. Challenge and investigate the results. Come to a well-informed conclusion.

 

[Totentanz]

Would you rather be Nigerian?

No, and my comment wasn't really directed at America vs. the world. I'll take Murican 8 days a week...

However, relative to where we could be, it's disappointing that a significant portion of our population can't analyze past 140 characters. I don't know how that tracks over time; if people put more thought and effort into these things before (in prior generations), or if that's just a fallacy of perspective. It seems like a downward trend, though.

 

[Il Duce]

WTF is wrong with our world when a 140-character platform becomes a means of disseminating a nation's policies?

I don't know on this one, I think in some ways its the natural endstate for politicians of the burgeoning distrust (especially on the right) of media in general - and the press specifically.

I think one of the traditional benefits of 'the media' for politicians is as a medium to communicate to constituencies (voters, interest groups, other nations, etc.). A big portion of political success was your ability to impact the news cycle and drive your agenda. I recently read Rick Perlestein's books on Goldwater and Nixon and both those politicians were heavily committed to the same narrative you hear on the right now 'the media is a liberal shill, anything negative about me is because they're against me politically.' Regardless of how you feel about the accuracy of that statement a significant portion of voters thought that as far back as the 60s. When Watergate was breaking Nixon's press secretary gave a briefing that wouldn't have been out of place in the white house today - saying the Washington post was running the story, making shit up, and trying to attack the administration because the editor was a liberal that hated President Nixon.

But, despite all that Nixon and every other president gave significant access to the press and communicated with them frequently - in order to impact the news cycle to advance their political agenda.

What twitter and social media are allowing is a candidate (and now President) to communicate directly with constituencies - but most especially voters - without any media filter. I think it's a key reason President Trump is the President. His supporters find is direct communication reflective of the qualities they approve in him - and grant him a wide latitude in other standards of accuracy, decorum, etc.

What I think will be interesting to see is the limitation on that communications strategy. Twitter and social media have turned out to be the modern 'fire side chats' of FDR - allowing President Trump to communicate directly with voters for good and ill. I think though it's much more problematic when you talk about other constituencies - like interest groups, industry, and other countries. If a President's words are taken as indicative of US policy then there are some steep consequences to President Trump's remarks. If they are instead dismissed as the populist ramblings of a guy who only sometimes means what he says that also has serious consequences. If it's some combination of the two it makes the execution of policy very difficult for those in government - and the prediction of what that policy will be in practical matters very difficult to predict.

 

[Etype]

No, and my comment wasn't really directed at America vs. the world. I'll take Murican 8 days a week...

However, relative to where we could be, it's disappointing that a significant portion of our population can't analyze past 140 characters. I don't know how that tracks over time; if people put more thought and effort into these things before (in prior generations), or if that's just a fallacy of perspective. It seems like a downward trend, though.

Twitter isn't inherently good or bad, and the fact that it's only 140 characters doesn't indicate that people can or can't analyze past that. It's an efficient way to convey the summary of a message, like a one-slide CONOP.

 

[Etype]

I
What I think will be interesting to see is the limitation on that communications strategy.

It would only be limiting if he had announced that social media is going to be the ONLY way he communicates.

 

[Il Duce]

This is a reductionist argument that basically says "anyone concerned about voter fraud is a racist." I don't accept that, and I don't think the facts bear it out.

There are plenty of studies, and much Congressional testimony, that attest to rampant voter fraud in the US. The studies I've seen suggest that there is less fraud at the national level than at the local level, but if we accept the fact that local politics can have national consequences, or the adage "all politics is local," then it follows that we should be concerned about all levels of voter fraud. Much of the system seems absolutely designed to permit, if not encourage, voter fraud. Motor-Voter is a prime example.

There are also studies, and Congressional testimony, that suggests that the phenomenon is not widespread, or isn't a big deal.

Given the controversy and the disparity in findings, I'm fine with a detailed investigation into the integrity of this past election. I hope that it turns up nothing and the administration is thoroughly embarrassed. But my instinct is that there is some "there" there.

Do the investigation. Challenge and investigate the results. Come to a well-informed conclusion.

I don't think that's what I reduced those concerned with voter fraud to. I'll concede doing that for most Republican policy pursuits in voter suppression - which is a view that's been upheld by the court at least once that I know of (in my home state of NC).

I think once a narrative takes hold it's very powerful and increasingly tribal in our political environment. I think it's disingenuous to just say 'investigate and find out' as I think the political narrative is difficult to break. The examples that come most quickly to mind for me are if the multiple investigations into the Benghazi embassy attack, HRC's use of a private email server, or Russian involvement in influencing the 2016 election. I don't think the investigations in any of those have changed many minds - while they have served to harden tribal partisan lines.

I further think voter fraud as an evidentiary topic is kind of like climate change. Certainly there is data and experts that believe voter fraud is widespread and dangerous - just like there are scientists who believe climate change is not real, and not caused by man. But, in both cases those groups are extreme outliers from the consensus.

Of course, I have to admit - especially in the case of voter fraud - I can't be sure how much of my opinion is weighted by my own biases, especially in how I take in information and the sources I trust. You're not going to find much on the other side of the voter fraud argument on the NYT or NPR. I take that as a very strong case as I trust those sources - but I understand others do not. Also, the voter fraud argument gets into my own philosophical biases as a liberal. I think of access to voting and making participation as a voter as being one of the core things that make democracies work and would bias much more in favor of allowing people to exercise their franchise over preventing it when faced with evidence. I imagine it's much the same way pro-2nd amendment folks feel about access to guns - as a core aspect of our democracy requiring an extreme level of risk to be clearly demonstrated before accepting any curtailment (and maybe not even then). That's not the way I see the 2nd amendment either - but I think I've burned enough bridges on that topic.

Finally I'll add I don't think concern about voter fraud makes someone a racist - I think like most things it's fine to be concerned about it. I think the policies pursued have been classist in their application by politicians - because it is in the politicians interest - not because they hate poor people or minorities (any more than you hate anyone that doesn't vote for you). I think the same thing on most of the other scandals. I think a lot of the citizens concerned about Benghazi, HRC's emails, President Trump's comments on women are genuinely concerned with the lives of Americans abroad, the integrity of secrets in government, and a culture of sexual assault by men in power respectively. I think 99% of the politicians pursuing investigations on each of those topics could give two shits about them - they see them as ways to damage their political adversaries, and whatever rage gets ginned up by the behavior or their statements is a means to an end.

 

[TLDR20]

It would only be limiting if he had announced that social media is going to be the ONLY way he communicates.

It basically has been. He did one press conference and one televised interview after being elected.

His only official output thus far has been executive orders.

 

[Il Duce]

While I get your intent. Your analogy is horrendously flawed. You are using a violent crime that can in no way be rationalized or justified (by right or left), versus a white collar crime that could be morally or socially justified (within certain contexts and by at least a considerable part of society) as an analogy. Understand I am not justifying it or saying that voter fraud is ok, but that from a social standpoint it could be argued.

I also believe the cultural and policy implications are extreme, but not in the same vein. The problem I have seen is where different groups draw the line on what constitutes electoral fraud or voter fraud. Anecdotally, the discussion I have participated in get stuck at this part as those that lean left usually say that in person voter fraud is non-existent, whereas the right leaning debaters claim that they both are fraud and can lead to one another. If the fraud is being committed, regardless of how small it is, it needs to be stopped as it causes more harm than ignoring it because it is a small problem.

I think that's a fair point. The intent with my analogy (on my side) was a hope to use a topic someone on the other side could identify with. Agree with the massively different categories - as well as problems with administrative injunctions vs criminal and institutional vs citizen rights.

 

[Il Duce]

It would only be limiting if he had announced that social media is going to be the ONLY way he communicates.

Maybe limitations is the wrong word then. What I mean is there might be a lot of contexts where the President's unfiltered thoughts being on public record immediately could have significant unintended 2nd and 3rd order effects. I'm thinking specifically of diplomatic and domestic policy (ambassador trying to negotiate something, government agency setting execution policy).

 

[Marauder06]

I don't think that's what I reduced those concerned with voter fraud to. I'll concede doing that for most Republican policy pursuits in voter suppression - which is a view that's been upheld by the court at least once that I know of (in my home state of NC).
...

How does "I think in the President's case he's probably sympathetic to efforts to decrease poor and minority voting" translate into anything other than a "racism" argument?

Maybe the President is sympathetic to his constituents' belief that such fraud is taking place, and is taking steps to investigate the issue.

 

[Il Duce]

How does "I think in the President's case he's probably sympathetic to efforts to decrease poor and minority voting" translate into anything other than a "racism" argument?

Maybe the President is sympathetic to his constituents' belief that such fraud is taking place, and is taking steps to investigate the issue.

Because they didn't vote for him* - so he'd be sympathetic to decreasing their turnout.

*Or most didn't, I think the figures I saw were 8% of the African American vote and about 20% of those making less than 150% of the poverty line. But definitely 3 caveats to that which are - just because you're African American doesn't mean you're in poverty, President Trump received a higher percentage of the African American vote than Mitt Romney, and I imagine the numbers on poverty line voting are very speculative - something very difficult to get from exit polling, you really have to rely on demographic extrapolation. Still, even with all that I think the point holds.

 

[Etype]

Maybe limitations is the wrong word then. What I mean is there might be a lot of contexts where the President's unfiltered thoughts being on public record immediately could have significant unintended 2nd and 3rd order effects. I'm thinking specifically of diplomatic and domestic policy (ambassador trying to negotiate something, government agency setting execution policy).

The media's job isn't to filter anything, and when they do, it is agenda driven.

An ambassador's job isn't to negotiate in spite of the president. An ambassador's job is to serve as an envoy to the president.