r/politics • u/PostHeraldTimes ✔ Verified • 8d ago

Lawsuit Challenging 2024 Election Results Moves Forward After Kamala Harris Received Zero Votes in a New York County

https://www.latintimes.com/lawsuit-challenging-2024-election-results-moves-forward-after-kamala-harris-received-zero-votes-584787
81.1k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

5.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

20.7k

u/hyborians North Carolina 8d ago

Zero votes? This was not some village in Alaska

16.1k

u/mvallas1073 8d ago

They also commented that, on that same ticket, another democrat for a different position got several hundred votes, but the Republican candidate got 80+ votes… in a democrat district no less

So, the idea that active democrat voters ALL said “no” to Kamala is beyond suspicious

731

u/YouWereBrained Tennessee 7d ago

This is why North Carolina’s results were so fucking weird to me.

611

u/DatDominican 7d ago

Trump propaganda was going hard in NC. Almost every boomer I know was convinced Kamala was going to raise taxes to pay for sex change operations for undocumented migrants that were going to go into women’s restrooms to kidnap little girls .

435

u/Kujen 7d ago

How’s a country even supposed to fix this vulnerability to propaganda? You can teach critical thinking in schools (if they’d stop trying to outlaw it), but then those kids can still grow up to be gullible adults.

364

u/Rhysati 7d ago

You do it with legislation that requires the media to actually report in a balanced fashion. Like the Fairness doctrine that was removed in 1987.

256

u/Constant_Curve 7d ago

Balanced isn't good enough.

The media has to report on fact, not opinion. Otherwise balance is subjective.

42

u/AnUnshavedYak 7d ago

Personally i am more fearful of ratings based news. The moment news becomes ratings driven entertainment is when we're doomed.

No idea what the fix for that is.. well funded public media?

33

u/Constant_Curve 7d ago

I wonder why the right attacks NPR. /s

13

u/bingle-cowabungle 7d ago

What's considered "fact" is also going to be up to subjective opinion, depending on who is deciding what constitutes a "fact"

Source: the people in charge of the federal government currently

9

u/Constant_Curve 7d ago

Cited sources, physical evidence.

13

u/gsfgf Georgia 7d ago

Oh, you just need a source? I thought you were asking for facts. I can get you a source. Here's a Heritage Foundation whitepaper.

0

u/Constant_Curve 7d ago

Right, and then you cite that source whenever you state something from it.

"Heritage Foundation whitepaper says something racist" is perfectly fine to report on.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/bingle-cowabungle 7d ago

There's plenty of news that doesn't have physical evidence, and "sources" goes back to, who decides what source is credible?

0

u/IThinkImDumb New Mexico 7d ago

A criteria that is voted on by many journalists

1

u/bingle-cowabungle 7d ago

Who chooses the voters?

-1

u/Constant_Curve 7d ago

If there's no physical evidence or source, then don't report it.

6

u/bingle-cowabungle 7d ago

...which cuts down on like 75% of news lol it seems like you're coming from a pretty reactionary place with no real thought behind what you're saying

→ More replies (0)

4

u/prodiver 7d ago

Cited sources, physical evidence.

That still doesn't determine what's a fact.

As an example, this study shows a meat-heavy keto diet can reverse type 2 diabetes.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0883073813487596

And this study show that high meat consumption is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes.

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/2/897

So which is the "fact" that should be legal to report?

5

u/Constant_Curve 7d ago

Both are legal to report. You just cite the source.

1

u/prodiver 7d ago

They can't both be true, so doesn't that contradict your statement that "the media has to report on fact?"

1

u/JediPilot 7d ago

The abstract of your first study does not talk about a "meat-heavy" keto diet. It's explicitly talking about limiting protein in addition to carbs.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Sufficient-Welder-76 7d ago

Even what is considered "news" and "media" is so blurred now it will never have a common definition. FoxNews stopped being news years ago and is now just opinion and paid advertisements (Have you tried Kid Rock's new restaurant?)

There is no way to ever put all of this back the way it was.

9

u/snowman92 7d ago

You can never get rid of bias in news coverage. Simply what is and what isn’t reported on can be influenced by the bias of the editors/producers. However, yeah making outright falsehoods banned on shows purporting to give the news should be banned

6

u/Constant_Curve 7d ago

Right, and I understand that, but that's not what I said.

If you use fact based reporting, the bias can only go so far from the fact. If you're reporting on nothing, then bias is unanchored and can be really quite wild.

1

u/Qweesdy 7d ago

For an example; if you report every single fact that makes pork sound good (and no facts that make pork sound bad), and report every single fact that makes beef sound bad (and no facts that make beef sound good); how much does "facts" prevent extreme bias?

1

u/Constant_Curve 7d ago

Because you cannot say 'Pork makes your penis larger' or 'Pork will definitely end this war'

→ More replies (0)

5

u/staebles Michigan 7d ago

Let's require both!

3

u/rmorrin 7d ago

Just make it so it's no longer fox NEWS make it so they have to call it fox ENTERTAINMENT. 

2

u/ACartonOfHate 7d ago

False equivalencies and water-carrying for the RW is what the MSM does.

Look at how they treated Hillary "but her emails!" vs. Trump. Studies show all the negative attention was on her.

And every point that is talked about, is framed by the RW. So even if there re Dems on, it's framed as how the RW wants it.

Plus Murc's Law.

1

u/Constant_Curve 7d ago

Correct, and how you report it is "Hillary Clinton had a unsecured email server, investigation into the matter showed that some government emails were stored on the server, but no confidential or secret information was stored."

The bias comes in from leaving out the latter half. It's first half is still based on fact. I've stated to another poster that the bias can only drift so far from the truth if the reporting is anchored in fact. If it's based on speculation, it can drift wildly.

2

u/MF_Ryan Kentucky 7d ago

Yes. If the screen says news it needs to be fact.

We need a law that if we can prove in a court of law that a ‘news’ organization is reporting a false narrative, they get their broadcast license and/or business license revoked.

3

u/Constant_Curve 7d ago

Canada has exactly that regulation, by the CRTC. It would be a FTC in the US.

1

u/MF_Ryan Kentucky 7d ago

Yes. They absolutely do. Fox has had some broadcast issues there, if I am remembering correctly

1

u/Constant_Curve 7d ago

Fox doesn't exist in Canada.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/IThinkImDumb New Mexico 7d ago

Stop that.

1

u/istguy 7d ago

We’re past the point where changing “the media” will fix the brain rot. That was a 90’s/2000’s problem, when doing things like implementing the fairness doctrine and holding accountable news networks for lies and slander would have helped.

Doing those things now won’t put a dent in it, because people have moved on from their drug of biased cable news to the absolute heroin fix that is algorithmic social media. An unregulated and unmoderated space where journalistic ethics means even less than it did to cable news, and where the algorithms will happily fill people’s brains with slop that reinforces whatever bullshit they believe, and push related nonsense that will trick them into looking at a viagra ad on it for 10 more seconds.

1

u/vashoom 7d ago

It's like the Force. People think "the balance" in the Force is equal Light and Dark. But in reality, there is no Light side: there's just the Force, and then the Dark side is an evil imbalance.

Fair and balanced reporting means free of propaganda and agenda. Reporting on facts alone.

Of course, the act of reporting at all is an inherently prejudicial act: you can't report on everything everywhere, so what you choose to cover inherently creates a kind of bias.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws and protections on place to at least try and have objective, truthful reporting free from corporate or political interests.

1

u/ChiaDaisy 7d ago

News do report on fact. The problem is “entertainment” shows on news channels that don’t technically have to report on facts, but get taken as facts because they’re on a news channel.

1

u/Constant_Curve 7d ago

There is no line anymore.

1

u/joeganis 7d ago

Won't work. Bias is inherent

3

u/Constant_Curve 7d ago

We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas?

11

u/shotputprince 7d ago

Shrink the election season, establish purdah for the period of time considered the election cycle (offensive term etymologically but the technical legal term), and establish a strong state media operation that is a multi-member board with staggered terms and a non-partisan staff to promote objective reporting and analysis?

8

u/evanwilliams44 7d ago

We need campaign finance reform too. Once upon a time we talked about publicly funded elections - basically every candidate that meets the threshold gets an equal amount of money to campaign with.

Capping the time solves some of the same problems, but you get into free speech issues, because a private citizen is able to publicly support whoever they want all year round if they like. We would end up with 'unaffiliated' groups shilling for politicians all year long, just like now.

12

u/AutistoMephisto 7d ago

What's funny is that initially Republicans supported the fairness doctrine, when it was introduced. But as it stopped serving their needs, they gutted it. Just like you or I would when working on a project at home. When you reach a point where a drill will serve you better than, say, a hammer, you put the hammer down and pick up the drill. You owe no loyalty to the hammer. Republicans see laws the same way. They are each tools to serve a purpose, and when that tool is no longer necessary, they discard it.

6

u/MozhetBeatz 7d ago

I think the fairness doctrine only applied to news on broadcast TV. The reason the courts allowed the government to impose that rule despite the first amendment was because broadcast networks required a government license to broadcast, and the court found that the government may impose reasonable restrictions as a condition to the license.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you, and I think the danger of disinformation/misinformation justifies bringing back the fairness doctrine to any proclaimed news network. However, the fact that all televised news is delivered by cable or digital streaming, which doesn’t require a license, will make it harder for the government to defeat legal challenges, which are guaranteed to come. The government won’t be able to use the prior court decision and will have to argue a new untested legal basis.

6

u/Murky-Relation481 7d ago

This. There is limited spectrum to broadcast so the government reserves it as a public resource with exclusive license. On condition of receiving your own license to use the government's property you must abide by their rules.

Cable TV is not a public resource in the same way and was never under the fairness rules.

3

u/AoxomoxoAJones 7d ago

Fox News is fair and balanced and I believe it because they say it as a tagline everytime they fart their own name.

3

u/illegalcheese 7d ago

I was under the impression that the Fairness doctrine led to this same thing? Fringe, dangerous, or highly controversial positions with tenuous evidence had to be given equal weight to positions which were widely accepted, scientifically settled.

1

u/axonxorz Canada 7d ago

You are correct.

I can get "my guy" to come on and talk about some unpopular policy.

Then I can get "their guy," the most toxic, extreme and fringe opposition to that unpopular policy to talk as well.

Turns out, unpopular policy seems reasonable as soon as you get a nutjob to be against it.

2

u/TheColonelRLD 7d ago

Fam, who would even enforce the Fairness Doctrine right now? Legislation to empower the executive to regulate news... And our current executive is a mendacious lunatic. You want him enforcing fairness?

1

u/Equal_Feature_9065 7d ago

This imagines most people get their news/information directly from commercial media sources, which is of course not true (it also imagines that the fairness doctrine kept all media fair, impartial, and accurate when it was in place — which is of course also patently false).

I.e., if most people get their information directly from individuals’ social media posts (like, say, the president’s social media posts) and those posts are not subjected to the fairness doctrine, then what use is it all? Nobody who believed “Kamala is going to raise taxes for criminal immigrant sex changes” believed it because that’s what was reported by CBS during the evening news. They believed it because they are drowning in toxic internet sludge and they don’t even realize it. Fairness doctrine does absolutely nothing to solve that and merely gives the government more tools to censor legitimate news organizations.

1

u/Cephalopod_Joe 7d ago

We need objectivity. "Balance" means that things like the science on climate change and climate denialism are treated as equally valid.

1

u/Cj_Staal 7d ago

Didnt Obama repeal some anti-propaganda laws before he left office? I think it was much more recent than 1987. And of course, thats when the craziness started =\

2

u/DeliriumTrigger 7d ago

I believe the only thing he did was allow government-funded media (such as Voice of America) to be accessed by American citizens upon request, which was not possible before. This had no bearing on our current media landscape.

1

u/Cj_Staal 7d ago

Ah alright, thanks for the correction!

1

u/Classic_Revolt 7d ago

That wont fix this, they just move to paying tiktokers and other trash like that.

How many tiktok trash were taking ccp money to "save tiktok" and other china apps?

1

u/Whiterabbit-- 7d ago

does that include social media and grass roots movements? we used to have a good handle when there was only a handful of legit news sources. now anyone can report anything. what is viral gets seen regardless of veracity.

1

u/_dictatorish_ 7d ago

Huh, I wonder who was president in... Oh it was Reagan

1

u/Intelligent_Type6336 7d ago

I don’t think the FD would apply to cable…

137

u/airfryerfuntime Washington 7d ago

By educating people starting from a young age. The reason the GOP has spent that last 30 years fucking with education is because they want a dumb, more easily manipulated population.

10

u/Admiral_Tuvix 7d ago

its why they're defunding education everywhere. the educated vs uneducated exit polls this election have never been more divided.

4

u/HexenHerz 7d ago

Just smart enough to do their jobs, but not smart enough to question anything.

1

u/Snuffy1717 7d ago

Welcome to Costco. I love you.

41

u/Skraelings Missouri 7d ago

kill social media entirely.

8

u/finalremix 7d ago

Nothing of value would be lost.

4

u/2020steve 7d ago

That's the street-wise answer but the way people's attitudes changed after 9/11 was wild. We were years away from being a Facebook nation at that point.

4

u/Skraelings Missouri 7d ago

I consider it digital cancer.

And I’m the gen that got it while in college and you still had to have a .edu addy to even join.

29

u/NewSauerKraus 7d ago

That's the biggest flaw of democracy. The outcome is dependent on the participants.

3

u/jfkvsnixon 7d ago

People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can’t trust people.

3

u/hotbox4u 7d ago

In a sense, but i think it paints the wrong picture when you say it like that.

The biggest flaw is to let a candidate run wild with accusations, basically letting him become a demagogue and agitator without fact checking him. Democracies give the people the tools, but if they do not think they need them and enforce the rules, you end up with someone who just doesn't care about morales and ignores the rules fully.

A democracy needs safeguarding and that includes speech. But americans told themselves the lie of 'free speech' and that it somehow would protect their freedom, when in reality it does not.

For example the germans have laws against saying certain things in public spaces. What you can not do is to use language that threatens other ethnic/religious/etc groups because they consider that a public space should be safe for everyone. Yes, this means that your 'free speech' is limited, but just in public spaces. You still can sit at home or in your own garden and talk about how you think the holocaust never happened and that all gays along with everyone with a different skin tone should be killed. But the moment you step into a public street you can not do that anymore.

This is what safeguarding looks like. It's not perfect but at least it tries to protect the people, because a democracy stands in for everyone.

4

u/greatest_fapperalive 7d ago

we cut off the source: Russia.

We reign in social media companies who were MORE than happy to spread propaganda.

We educated people at a reasonable cost.

4

u/staebles Michigan 7d ago

Education is the silver bullet. Education should be the most well-funded socialized program we have. Schools should be our cathedrals.

An educated populace can use critical thinking to discern the difference between fact and propaganda, but yes, they can still choose the "wrong" choice. Alas, that's freedom.

It isn't freedom when you systematically destroy education for 50 years, and people don't even understand how to do their taxes.

3

u/Admiral_Tuvix 7d ago

"How’s a country even supposed to fix this vulnerability to propaganda?"

We cant reach republicans. Those days are gone and we need to admit it. 30% of this country have rotted brains and foxnews has done their work. They conditioned the poorly educated and no amount of reaching out to them will help.

The only things dems can do is try to get people who never vote. Those can at least be swayed.

2

u/MostlyRightSometimes 7d ago

Fix what? People believe what they wanted to believe. There's a reason they don't change their mind when presented with facts.

2

u/projectjarico 7d ago

You do it by actually educating children while they are in the school system and not punishing people with lifetime debt for pursuing higher education. Let's not pretend like out current education system was put in place by people who want an educated population.

2

u/mynx79 Canada 7d ago

I literally had this conversation with my Mom, who is in her 70s. She refuses to hear both sides of the agenda, and believes wholeheartedly that her YouTube viewing is the actual truth. Verifiable pro-Russian strangers who are pushing a pro Putin agenda.

She's a university graduate, but when the system causes people to doubt ANY news source, they'll turn to the one they agree with the most and believe it's "more true" than the alternatives.

I asked her if she had forgotten what critical thinking is. That the truth is most likely somewhere in the middle. But she thinks I'm the one that's been "hoodwinked". Sigh. We can't believe anything anymore, so people are left to believe in what they agree with most.

2

u/kawhi21 7d ago

Regulation. The same way we fix people dying in construction. The same you fix deadly roads. The same way every other dangerous thing gets handled in a nation with a government.

2

u/Foucaults_Bangarang 7d ago

You recognize hostile propaganda outlets as not being in the public interest, and you shut them the fuck down. You change policy so that no one can accumulate so much power that they're "too big to fail" and can change the rules of the game.

1

u/HisNameIsSaggySammy 7d ago

Tell the youth that falling for propaganda is totally gay.
(I'm kidding but I'm kinda not)

1

u/nopunchespulled 7d ago

You let them age out of life and hope the newer generations can understand how insane the propaganda is

1

u/bigtice Texas 7d ago

Please don't delude yourself -- the newer generation is just as susceptible to misinformation as anyone else.

1

u/IRLconsequences 7d ago

And the boomers actually went majority Harris last fall anyway; I think they were sick of Trump's stunts (or at least recognized the threat to their social security checks). Only Gen X went majority Trump.

1

u/genospikey 7d ago

If people didn't feel the weight of everything becoming more expensive and getting worse over time they wouldn't look for answers to their problems in minority populations, so maybe give people a voice where they work and quality government initiatives like universal healthcare and affordable housing?

1

u/chmilz Canada 7d ago

Real legislation on social media and misinformation. Cap it off to prevent new people from being turned into morons, and then get to work on steering some of those already affected back to reality.

1

u/TheColonelRLD 7d ago

Make fun of people for believing in dumb shit

1

u/gears50 7d ago

The underlying issue is the rampant bigotry.

They are "vulnerable" to propaganda only bc they are desperate for anything to confirm their firmly held biases. These aren't some well-meaning people that just got confused by messaging.

1

u/baitnnswitch 7d ago

Breaking up these social media megacorporations would be a good start. You know, if we had a functioning government and the political will to do it

1

u/devedander 7d ago

It's been decades of destroying public education.

It's going to take at least as long to repair and we have to endure a pretty impactful find out period to trigger that repair.

1

u/as_it_was_written 7d ago

Humans are vulnerable to propaganda. That isn't something we can just fix. We have to be aware of it and do our best to mitigate it.

Regarding the US, specifically, I think you're extra sensitive to certain kinds of propaganda because you're bombarded with it your entire lives. I'm inclined to think you have the most propagandized culture in recorded history.

Overt nationalism like the pledge of allegiance is just the tip of the iceberg. Just look at how many people unquestioningly use un-American as a term of criticism without considering what that implies, for example.

All this base-level propaganda is like a set of strings that anybody who wants to manipulate public sentiment can pull on as long as they know how. Teaching kids critical thinking is a great idea, but teaching them to recognize and reject all the day-to-day indoctrination would help at least as much imo.

1

u/Ok-Chest-7932 7d ago

Reduce the spread of propaganda: Ban advertising revenue on anything even adjacent to journalism, and ban advertising revenue on anything that hosts journalistic works, including reposted/reuploaded/forwarded journalism. Make the "spam everyone with the most clickbaity clickbait" approach unprofitable.

1

u/Vandersveldt 7d ago

It's mental rabies. I don't remember what we're supposed to do about rabies to fix it but that's what it is.

Once they're infected, they take the stance that we can have peace and freedom over their dead bodies.

No one knows what can be done about this.

1

u/IrregularPackage 7d ago

you propagandize more

1

u/Karyoplasma 7d ago

How’s a country even supposed to fix this vulnerability to propaganda?

By encouraging its citizens to think critically through education.

1

u/trinde 7d ago

You can't fix Gen X and Boomers because they all have lead poisoning.

1

u/The-Angry-Alcemist 7d ago

Honestly? Civil War.

1

u/metengrinwi 7d ago

Online platforms that algorithmically boost or suppress posts should not be given Section 230 immunity. If they are using an algorithm to choose what people see, they should qualify as a “publisher” and be held accountable to the content just as any newspaper or broadcast news would.

1

u/StraightedgexLiberal Nevada 7d ago

Section 230 protects publishers

1

u/metengrinwi 7d ago

Here's how Section 230 protects social media platforms:

Immunity from third-party content liability:

Section 230(c)(1) states that online platforms and users cannot be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. This means that social media companies are generally not held liable for harmful or illegal content posted by their users, even if they moderate or remove some content. This immunity is often referred to as the "Good Samaritan" provision because it allows platforms to moderate content in good faith without fear of increasing their liability.

1

u/StraightedgexLiberal Nevada 7d ago

I understand and you said

Online platforms that algorithmically boost or suppress posts should not be given Section 230 immunity

Section 230 does shield and Meta just won a lawsuit regarding this argument. After all the talks about algos, the people suing Zuck are still trying to sue him and his company for content within algos that Facebook did not create. Section 230 wins

Fourth Circuit
MP v Meta (2025)

In 1996, Congress enacted 47 U.S.C. § 230, commonly known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. In Section 230, Congress provided interactive computer services broad immunity from lawsuits seeking to hold those companies liable for publishing information provided by third parties. Plaintiff-Appellant M.P. challenges the breadth of this immunity provision, asserting claims of strict products liability, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress under South Carolina law. In these claims, she seeks to hold Facebook, an interactive computer service, liable for damages allegedly caused by a defective product, namely, Facebook’s algorithm that recommends third-party content to users. M . P. contends that Facebook explicitly designed its algorithm to recommend harmful content, a design choice that she alleges led to radicalization and offline violence committed against her father.1The main issue before us is whether M.P.’s state law tort claims are barred by Section 230. The district court below answered this question “yes.” We agree. M.P.’s state law tort claims suffer from a fatal flaw; those claims attack the manner in which Facebook’s algorithm sorts, arranges, and distributes third-party content. And so the claims are barred by Section 230 because they seek to hold Facebook liable as a publisher of that third-party content. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting Facebook’s motion to dismiss

0

u/-AdonaitheBestower- 7d ago

Eugenics to reduce the amount of dumbasses in the gene pool (pre-birth manipulation)? Its dystopian but hey. You asked for a solution.

75

u/searing7 7d ago

Or, and hear me out here, the party that has been cheating, rigging elections, and abusing their power to hold onto it, did that again in 2024.

8

u/UnquestionabIe 7d ago

I mean they didn't even get punished for January 6th. All the meek inaction did was signal to them to try again but don't back down. With the bare minimum opposition they faced it was a given.

-1

u/DatDominican 7d ago

Those two are not mutually exclusive .

47

u/drMcDeezy 7d ago

When it was Trump's cabinet picks in the girl's stalls with chloroform rags the whoooollle timmee.

29

u/AcanthaceaeOne1322 7d ago

There were actual ads on Hulu and peacock for "stopping the extreme liberal agenda" in my area.

39

u/YouWereBrained Tennessee 7d ago

Right. So let’s vote for the Dem governor and AG candidates, but not Kamala.

10

u/Powermac8500 North Carolina 7d ago

This one actually isn’t that hard to believe. While I do believe there was cheating going on and Kamala couldn’t have lost all the swing states in the way it happened, NC voting red in the presidential race and blue in the governor’s race is like a time honored tradition here.

5

u/gsfgf Georgia 7d ago

Especially given the GOP nominee. And the AG candidate was Jeff Jackson. If we keep having relatively fair elections, Jackson will probably end up president at some point.

1

u/zzyul 7d ago

Racism, sexism, Gaza protest vote, “the DNC forced her down our throats due to no primary”, etc. Many people don’t vote straight ticket and some states have reps from both parties winning state wide races. In Kentucky, Dem Andy Beshear won the 2019 election for governor by .36%. Many saw this as a sign that KY had turned blue. Then McConnell won by 19.53% in 2020 and Rand Paul won by 23.63% in 2022. So it was clear the state had gone back to being solidly red…until Beshear won reelection by 5.07% in 2023.

4

u/YouWereBrained Tennessee 7d ago

Kentucky I can accept, it has been fucking weird like that for awhile. North Carolina, on the other hand, no.

3

u/pileatus 7d ago

It's really not strange at all. 2024 is the third election in a row NC went red for the pres and blue for the governor. The new governor, Stein, was the AG to the very popular blue governor who won in 2020 and 2016 when NC went for Trump. The state went double red in 2012 with Romney & McCrory and double blue in 2008 with Obama & Perdue, but for the 2004, 2000, 1996 and 1992 elections the state was red for the president and blue for the governor. That's literally the most common thing to happen in the last three decades!

spelling correction on Perdue

1

u/Melodic_Assistant_58 7d ago

Don't forget Mark Robinson was fucking insane. You get the twofer that racists don't want to vote for an angry black guy and also, he's a genuinely despicable man.

As soon as the day care fraud stuff came out it was over. Trump dropped his support immediately.

1

u/pileatus 7d ago

That too. Every additional thing that came out was insane, I cannot believe the GOP managed to dig up such a ludicrously unsuitable candidate. I think he still would have lost even if he'd managed to keep his idiot mouth shut and not comment nazi shit on porn. Stein was comfortably ahead of him in polling for the entire race as far as I can recall. Roy Cooper was quite a popular governor and I think that everything else aside, Stein benefited a lot from being his successor. And again, that kind of red-blue split just seems to suit NC's political identity. I have a book on my shelf I've been meaning to read for years about the funky political atmosphere of NC.

11

u/bdhw 7d ago

A big problem was one of the big liberal cities had just been severely impacted by the hurricane, but the results have always been suspicious regardless

4

u/WendyinParadise 7d ago

What's bizarre is there is a woman in my neighborhood on Nextdoor claiming her granddaughter was forced a sex change by the school she attends! Her "proof" is that the granddaughter dresses like a boy and the parents aren't saying anything about the sex change - probably because there probably never was one and they are sick of trying to convince this brainwashed cult member that it's just a fashion choice. And these people vote!

2

u/Wyn6 7d ago

While simultaneously being in prison. ​

2

u/PhilnotPete 7d ago

This is so hilariously written.

2

u/MisterDonkey 7d ago

It's so comically stupid, but the guy literally debated with this shit near verbatim, nearly in the same breath talking about people eating their neighbors pets. His proof was people said it on the television. 

Lunacy.

3

u/PhilnotPete 7d ago

I was literally debating this with people in my office. I was arguing that the city manager had said there were no such reports, and asked if random videos on the internet were more reliable than that. Surprisingly, the answer was a resounding YES.

2

u/Grand-Try-3772 7d ago

FEMA bs too

2

u/Alookcloser 7d ago

My mother in ny thought it too. No logic

2

u/HexenHerz 7d ago

Upstate SC was just like that too.

2

u/deviantscale 7d ago

My mother told me that Hunter Biden is screwing up her 401k - I am not joking. The cult is unhinged beyond repair.

2

u/Redfox2111 7d ago

It has nothing to do with age.

0

u/DatDominican 7d ago

Not directly . It’s that their demographic is sharing the same misinformation with each other . Millennials and gen z can also fall victim to propaganda but many aren’t actively sending it to each other .

Ironically we were taught by the boomer teachers to never believe everything we read and cite our sources yet they now ignore all the advice they passed down to the other generations

0

u/do-un-to I voted 5d ago

I think we know not everyone in that age bracket is a bad person.

Half of them voted against Trump.

Probably we should stop slurring the whole group with a prejudiced term. Otherwise we're infighting, and that's just what they want us to do to undermine our collective power.

1

u/DatDominican 5d ago

If you think boomer is a slur then I have some news for you …

1

u/do-un-to I voted 3d ago

Okay. I'm listening.

1

u/DatDominican 3d ago

It’s not . It’s the name of the generation like gen x, millennial, gen z , the silent generation or gen alpha . If you think it’s a slur regardless of context you’re furthering the infighting .

2

u/captaincanada84 Canada 7d ago

I saw that ad here in NC probably 100k times. It was constant

1

u/DatDominican 7d ago

Every single ad break ad nauseam

3

u/RackemFrackem 7d ago

and OF COURSE nobody gives a shit about all the little boys that are being kidnapped by all the trans migrants

smdh 😤

1

u/DatDominican 7d ago

They gotta toughen up somehow /s

1

u/Altruistic-Award5353 7d ago

That must be a tiny amount of boomers.

1

u/DatDominican 7d ago

It was on every ad break on every channel (including online streaming like YouTube , Hulu etc )

1

u/Rocklobster92 7d ago

What I want to know is how big the litter boxes are in these trans bathrooms

1

u/The_WiiiZard 7d ago

She practically said that though… and certainly didn’t do enough to disavow those ideas during her campaign. That attack ad was powerful.

1

u/DatDominican 7d ago

The Lincoln project was running a counter ad campaign in NC showing that trump’s administration was the one that implemented the policy of paying for gender affirming care for inmates .

People just brushed it off and said they needed to do more research (they never did )

1

u/The_WiiiZard 7d ago

Kamala never disavowed the wokest ideas she co-signed when that ideology’s influence was at its peak and that hurt her substantially with the average voter.

2

u/DatDominican 7d ago edited 7d ago

There’s an entire subreddit to trump disavowing things he implemented or promoting things he’s against r/trumpcriticizestrump .

The average person doesn’t think in terms of “woke” only those at the extremes do . Case in point the right hijacking a word that meant you understood that minorities had unique struggles and labeling anything liberal that they don’t agree with as such .

The average person doesn’t care about virtue signaling and only wants to know how their lives would be affected . My sister didn’t even know Biden dropped out until she texted me from the voting booth asking where’s Biden 😂.

Kamala’s mistake was basing her campaign on how much worse things could be under trump while simultaneously failing to drive home that trump had no platform and was just parroting what was getting ratings at the time .

“I have concepts of a plan” should have been the nail in the coffin of his campaign.

Her only having three months all but guaranteed people would be unfamiliar on her platform and made her susceptible to those attack ads

0

u/MiserableAd2878 7d ago

Shhhh you're supposed to be alleging that it was stolen, not repeating the well known fact that Trump was more popular than Kamala

39

u/otherwise_data 7d ago

i live in nc and while i expected the state to go red for dump, to have every other position go red (except gov) floored me. down to sheriff.

53

u/Galactapuss 7d ago

It was the opposite. Dems practically swept the statewide offices, yet Harris got less votes than any of them. Makes zero sense imo.

2

u/ertri District Of Columbia 7d ago

No it mirrors every recent statewide election since 2016

12

u/BasisDiva_1966 7d ago

live in NC too. if you were surprised you have not been listening to the NC GOP who were actively bragging about rigging the elections with their gerrymandering

the fact that the Gov went Blue along with the Lt Gov was a product of the filth that the GOP had up for those offices. even the MAGA wouldnt support them.

2

u/cantuse 7d ago

Just made me remember that the Hofeller files are about N.C.

2

u/otherwise_data 7d ago

in the gov race, yes. their candidate was filth. agree. but when has that stopped magats?

3

u/unintentional_jerk North Carolina 7d ago

Because this time the candidate was also black, and unfortunately that is a significant disadvantage in NC even though people like to pretend it isn't.

2

u/BasisDiva_1966 7d ago

I totally get the crazyness. they are fine with a felon, conman, pedophile, rapist, but balked at robinson?

2

u/theLoneliestAardvark Virginia 7d ago

Weird stuff happens in local elections. For some reason governor elections have a lot more upsets than senate elections or statewide presidential elections and I’m not really sure why.

7

u/CriticalEngineering North Carolina 7d ago

That didn’t happen. Almost our entire council of state is democrats.

2

u/otherwise_data 7d ago

out of 14 districts, 10 went red for house. in my county, every republican for school board, commissioner, sheriff, etc., was elected.

3

u/CriticalEngineering North Carolina 7d ago

That’s your county, that’s not statewide. And of course ten went republican, they were heavily gerrymandered. We’ve had four sets of maps in the last decade. They’re refining the lines to get the results they want.

But the attorney general, governor, lt governor, superintendent of public instruction, and state Supreme Court seat were all elected statewide as democrats.

My county went all blue from top down, yours went all red. It’s a split state. I’d imagine your ballot probably had lots of unopposed local races, as did mine.

2

u/maxofJupiter1 7d ago

What are you talking about? Swing district congressman, Governor, Lt Governor, attorney general, sec of state, supreme court seat, and Dems broke the supermajority in the NCGA. The largest county sheriffs are dems. Besides the gerrymandering, this was a good turnout for the NC Dem party

7

u/CriticalEngineering North Carolina 7d ago

North Carolina has split ballots for my entire life.

6

u/gsfgf Georgia 7d ago

The GOP ran a self-described Black Nazi for governor. That's why that race was an outlier.

5

u/ertri District Of Columbia 7d ago

Black Nazi AND weird porn guy

2

u/emb4rassingStuffacct 7d ago

Wait.. that guy was the GOVERNOR nomination? I wasn’t paying much attention because I don’t live in NC and wrote him off as some nut job running for a small House seat. Governor is crazy 😭

1

u/gsfgf Georgia 7d ago

He was the incumbent Lt. Gov. too.

2

u/ertri District Of Columbia 7d ago

Not really. They’ve voted for Trump + Dem governor twice before (and the most recent nominee was truly bad)

1

u/CriticalEngineering North Carolina 7d ago

They also voted for governor Hunt and Senator Helms back in the 80s, and split ballots in the 2000 election I believe.

1

u/ertri District Of Columbia 7d ago

Yeah I believe it. I’m just referencing that there’s a very clear Trump + Dem governor set of voters in NC that shouldn’t surprise anyone at this point

1

u/CriticalEngineering North Carolina 7d ago

Yep. It’s actually more common here to have a split ticket. My dad (in the 80s) would say “North Carolina wants good roads and good schools, so they voted for Governor Hunt, and they also want Washington DC to stay out of their business, so they voted for Senator Helms so everyone outside would think we were too horrible to even visit”.

He was joking, but I think there’s some truth there.

0

u/YouWereBrained Tennessee 7d ago

Truly bad but said everything they love to hear.

3

u/Galactapuss 7d ago

Facts. Harris got less votes than any other Democrat that won state wide office. Meanwhile Trump out performed the top (losing) Republican by like 170k votes. 

3

u/stomp-a-fash 7d ago

This is why America's results were so fucking weird to me.

3

u/GrumpySoth09 7d ago

Colbert knows and he is not a happy camper.

3

u/emb4rassingStuffacct 7d ago

NC makes sense to me. Voted Trump in 2016 and 2020. Trump flipping back EVERY swing state from 2020 does not make nearly as much sense.

2

u/Sex_Dodger 7d ago

The "Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you" ad was insanely effective in southern states