President’s pollster willfully amplifying completely BS claim here. Percentages are of RV, not VAP and are not out of line with history. Also, the source for the claim of turnout exceeding 100 percent has retracted its data. This adult human knows better. Receipts to follow.
Wisconsin routinely has dealt high turnout among registered voters, often exceeding 80 percent. But the claim falsely says that this is 80 percent of eligible voters - a much larger category. In 2016, turnout was 64 percent among *eligible voters*
It’s also simply false that Wisconsin EVER reported 100,000 ballots for Joe Biden only at any time, ever. Just false. jsonline.com
The President’s pollster knows all this. So he is consciously and deliberately spreading something he knows to be incorrect. Why would an ethical adult do that?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1) Denying agency to Cuban American voters in Miami-Dade and assuming they were the victims of disinformation OR that Dem consultants didn’t spend enough money “reaching out” is a fundamental misreading of why people vote.
2) some (but not all) consultants who spend money on ads (which generally don’t work) targeted at “Latinx” voters as a group are grifters. Cuban American voters do not consider themselves as Latinx. They are Americans with Cuban heritage, South Floridians, with diverse concerns.
3) for a party that embraces intersectionality, some folks in it (not all) sure have a habit of assuming that, for example, the politics of immigration play the same with women and men whose parents emigrated from very different countries for very different reasons.
The continuity of government programs don’t say much about *successor incapacitation* , much as security protocols can’t do a heck of a lot with “everyone including the PPD, has to quarantine” while protecting a president who might be sick with a contagious, deadly virus.
In emergencies, WHMO and the White House staff have places to go, people to protect those places, and decent, secure communication networks. This is uncharted territory.
Starting early in the summer, WHMO and the @SecretService sketched out new ad hoc arrangements for precisely this scenario. The details and logistics are really complex because of the stochastic nature of this situation and the virus.
I used to think that the @JoeBiden campaign had no counter disinformation strategy. Now I think that the President’s disinformation avalanche has had the effect of rebutting and limiting itself, to some degree, because it has maxed out its plausible audience. However ....
It has still has an enormous unhealthy effect on the public health and voting integrity. The result of disinformation campaigns is usually paralysis and confusion, layered in with fear and aversion to norms. People who aren’t in the President’s audience have also suffered.
It has become an existential question: how can one possibly create a national counter disinformation campaign when the TOP of the information chain is the main vector of misinformation? One can’t... one CAN surgically create campaigns around specific issues.
Is there any purpose in having any rules when we know the President won’t or can’t abide by them? What’s the format for a debate using the frame of a national emergency? Chaos came from one direction. And there’s nothing a moderator can do.
Will the debate commission make the first move to allow the producer to shut off mics? Will the other debates be canceled?
The idea that someone can or even should “moderate” two candidates during a national emergency is quaint. And Trump is constitutionally not moderate-able. So.... what to do?
(1) How should TV news cover a president who makes existential threats to democracy as a habit without paralyzing the agency of voters and without giving in to the obvious gaslighting? A few thoughts.
(2). First, lead with the reality. Election night might be over quickly or it might take a while. Taking a while doesn’t mean things are bad. They mean local officials are working stuff out. Repeat this idea.
(3) the President’s threats will obtain motive force if people fear that democracy is going to die and stability will yield to chaos. Explain terror management theory - urge viewers to be ready to put his threats into context.
1. The United States DOES NOT HAVE a national counter-disinformation strategy. I say again, for the people in the back: the United States does NOT have a whole-of-government, whole of society, whole-of-anything strategy to address the grave threats posed by disinfo.
2. This is odd. It is infuriating. It is not surprising. The current president's national security strategy identifies fighting misinformation as a priority, although it treats MI as though it's an attack vector, rather than an emergent global condition hsdl.org/?abstract&did=…
3. The @nsa, @ncscgov, and @cisa have done well -- credit to them -- in fortifying physical critical infrastructure from external and internal sabotage. The @fbi and @DHSgov have the helm inside the country. This is basically all they do, though.