…sometimes I see a thing & it makes me wonder

In 2020, Joe Biden won the national popular vote for president by 4.5 percentage points, a seemingly safe margin that should have easily put him in the White House.

…I mean…according to the lot at the pew research center that’s 4.5 points across 158.4 million ballots…which is around 700,000 votes if you keep the half-point the pew lot seemed not to (theirs says 4 which is still upwards of 600,000)…which in the electoral college’s fun-house mirror…looked like this

But under the hood, the presidential race was extremely close. In fact, if just 42,000 votes in three battleground states – Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin – had gone differently, Biden would have lost his electoral vote majority.

…not gonna lie…stir in the vote-supression, an over-sized helping of purged polls, contested results & the traditional gerrymander…it’s enough to make you queasy

…so…not least when that aggregate leader board at the WaPo took PA from tied to +1 for the other guy…this was…something of a restorative, to be honest?

[…] given what we’re seeing this year in the data and in The Washington Post’s election model, it may not only happen again in 2024 – but be easier for Democrats to clinch the electoral college and win the White House with a smaller popular-vote margin than in recent years.

Here’s why.

…I mean…that leaderboard is an average of polls in which some may be more “average” than others…& for those who care for the things the ones with “siena” in the name are little more methodologically sound that a twitter poll conducted by joe rogan…&…well

Crucial states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan are now leaning Democratic, according to NYT/Siena poll [Guardian]

…but that doesn’t seem as comforting as the “cheaper” electoral votes thing?

To identify the tipping-point state in 2020, The Post’s elections data team ranked all U.S. states and D.C. based on the margin by which Biden won them — that is, he won D.C. by the largest margin, followed by Vermont, Massachusetts and so on, adding up how many electoral votes each state was worth as we went. The state that took Biden over 270 electoral votes was the one we were looking for — the tipping-point state. In 2020, that state was Wisconsin — and it was decided by only 0.6 percentage points.

In recent elections, we’ve seen a pattern that hasn’t helped Democratic presidential nominees who lead in the national popular vote. They have notched a narrower edge — or perhaps no lead at all — in the tipping-point state, which sometimes means the Democratic candidates don’t win the electoral college.

…this sort of thing disturbs me a little, if I’m honest…it’s a big step on the path to the logic that what decides the outcome aren’t the big numbers of voters who either won’t change their registered political alleigance for love nor money or the ones that take the thing seriously & try to be informed but the low-information & lower-effort ones who claim not to know & take pains to know little that’s accurate about much of anything…& I’m not saying that the ones that came through by the narrowest margins or the ones with the least votes in the EC aren’t the ones that tipped the balance…but there’s other ways to look at that that might be more valid than “in terms of how fast the result turns up which is the call that lets you call the result before the full count?”…which is how it plays out narratively on the night…or the morning/weeks after or whatever…but I was trying to explain why it made me feel better rather than pick holes in the whole approach

The difference between the national popular-vote margin and the margin in the tipping-point state is called the electoral college bias.

…what’s in a name?

Because of this recent history, we’ve come to assume that Republicans have a baked-in electoral college advantage. We think Democrats need to win the popular vote with some buffer, maybe two or three percentage points, to win the presidential election.

…truthfully…I dunno…because I dunno about this part

But in 2024, things may be changing. That’s because Democrats are performing less well in populous, blue states while simultaneously not losing any ground in the close states that decide the election.

…performing seems to be doing a lot of lifting, there…are populous blue states not on the tipping point list really dipping towards voting for the other guy…really…on the day?

According to The Post’s polling average, the national popular vote between Trump and Harris is currently tied. At the same time, if the election were held today and the polls (and our average) are right, Michigan would be 2024’s tipping-point state (but that might change as we get closer to November and get more polls).

…it’s not the deciding factor but in terms of people making an individual decision with respect to their individual vote it seems like that part about the popular vote being a polling tie might be worth listing on the batleground state leaderboard…for a bit of context, maybe?

…so…sidebar, your honor

Because surveys only talk to a sample of the population, we know that the result probably won’t exactly match the “true” result that we would get if we interviewed everyone in the population. The margin of sampling error describes how close we can reasonably expect a survey result to fall relative to the true population value. A margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points at the 95% confidence level means that if we fielded the same survey 100 times, we would expect the result to be within 3 percentage points of the true population value 95 of those times.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/09/08/understanding-the-margin-of-error-in-election-polls/

…I dunno what the post is going with as a “normal-sized polling error”…but the pew lot presumably picked 3% for their example for a reason…possibly just because it gives them somewhere to go when it comes to stuff that’s more useful if you get into the cross-tabs end of the thing…& unless my math is in more remedial need than I know…at a 3% margin that table says the average is in “can’t call it” territory everywhere but arizona & georgia & the state of play post candidate swap is that they’re all in play…which don’t bear up the share by colorscheme in the graphic

This is an average-size electoral college bias, relative to elections going back to 1948, and significantly smaller than the one we saw in the last two election cycles.

That means that if the national environment continues shifting toward Harris, our model shows she would not only win the national popular vote but also squeak by in Michigan. Significantly, the polling data has shown real movement toward Harris since she jumped into the contest on July 21. She has improved by nearly two percentage points in every swing state since becoming the candidate.
[…]
In more recent elections (2016, 2020), the bias has grown toward Republicans. That’s because Democrats have racked up large popular-vote margins in populous states such as California and New York but didn’t necessarily win over voters in the states that decide elections, such as Wisconsin.

…now…I dunno…only a fool thinks they can speak for more than one denizen of new york based on what another one told you…that’s what a guy from upstate told me while explaining where I should/shouldn’t countenance getting pizza in brooklyn…so you can see how I’d know that sort of thing…anyway

According to a recent Siena College Research Institute poll, Harris leads Trump in New York by 14 percentage points – significantly less than the 23 percentage points by which Biden won the state in 2020. We don’t have any recent polls in California, but the most recent RealClearPolitics average before Harris climbed to the top of the ticket showed Biden winning the state by 22 points. That’s still a lot, but less of a landslide than the 29 percentage points by which he triumphed in 2020.

…anyone think it makes sense to 9% more new york voters to pick not voting for kamala than picked voting for joe when the other guy is still the other guy…as opposed to, say, still be trying to drag a bit more movement out of her towards their headline concerns…the way that “undecided” lot were/are?

…because provided those folks still turn up & don’t withold that vote when it counts I get what they’re about & don’t really see how to argue that doesn’t have a right to be in the mix of a democracy…but…New York…softening *towards* the lying scion of slum-lords his adjudged sexually assaulting business frauding multiply impeached & serially indicted sorry-ass self…in the words of mcenroe

…so, anyway…pinch of salt & such

If these trends continue — and that’s a big if, as there is no doubt this is a close race and polls do and can change — Harris could win the presidential race without as many votes as previous Democratic nominees. That is, as long as she can eke out a victory in the tipping-point state.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/09/harris-popular-vote-electoral-college/

…I mean…if it all rides on “the tipping point state” but you can only say which state that is after the fact…there’s a limit to what it sounds like you think you can tell me that’s a fair stretch short of where you seem to be saying you can get to speaking of with apparent confidence…& that could just be cultural…maybe I just imagine it but it often feels like you hear a few more “if you elect me, then I’ll…”s from candidates in the UK trying to remind people they need them to vote if they want what’s on offer…& rather more “when I’m elected…” stuff for a US audience…like “introducing the next president of the united states” at campaign events or whatever…like putting a conditional on it makes you come over frit or some such…rather than cocky the way it always sounds to my ear when victory seems rhetorically presumed…so maybe it’s like that…but to go back to that pew research thing about margins

[…] It is not enough for one candidate to be ahead by more than the margin of error that is reported for individual candidates (i.e., ahead by more than 3 points, in our example). To determine whether or not the race is too close to call, we need to calculate a new margin of error for the difference between the two candidates’ levels of support. The size of this margin is generally about twice that of the margin for an individual candidate. The larger margin of error is due to the fact that if the Republican share is too high by chance, it follows that the Democratic share is likely too low, and vice versa.

[…] the 3-percentage-point margin of error for each candidate individually becomes approximately a 6-point margin of error for the difference between the two. […] The Republican would need to be ahead by 6 percentage points or more for us to be confident that the lead is not simply the result of sampling error.

…huh…sure would be a boring graphic for a homepage if it just said all the battleground states were a statistical wash but the popular vote favored not-the-bookies’-favorite as an overall average

[…] how can we distinguish real change from statistical noise? As with the difference between two candidates, the margin of error for the difference between two polls may be larger than you think.

In the example in our graphic, the Republican candidate moves from a lead of 5 percentage points in Poll A to a lead of 8 points in Poll B, for a net change of +3 percentage points. But taking into account sampling variability, the margin of error for that 3-point shift is plus or minus 8 percentage points. In other words, the shift that we have observed is statistically consistent with anything from a 5-point decline to an 11-point increase in the Republican’s position relative to the Democrat. This is not to say such large shifts are likely to have actually occurred (or that no change has occurred), but rather that we cannot reliably distinguish real change from noise based on just these two surveys. The level of observed change from one poll to the next would need to be quite large in order for us to say with confidence that a change in the horse-race margin is due to more than sampling variability.
[…]
The amount of precision that can be expected for comparisons between two polls will depend on the details of the specific polls being compared. In practice, almost any two polls on their own will prove insufficient for reliably measuring a change in the horse race. But a series of polls showing a gradual increase in a candidate’s lead can often be taken as evidence for a real trend, even if the difference between individual surveys is within the margin of error. As a general rule, looking at trends and patterns that emerge from a number of different polls can provide more confidence than looking at only one or two.

…huh…gee…but…like…the direction of travel seems to have been pretty clear since the names on the ticket changed for one side…the other guy is supposedly ahead by all the metrics that can also call it too close to call but the generally-more-solid inference of the shift isn’t going his way…ok…but…there’s all them sub-demos that are looking to be the rug-pull because they supposedly don’t know what’s worse for them…what about those?

Generally, the reported margin of error for a poll applies to estimates that use the whole sample (e.g., all adults, all registered voters or all likely voters who were surveyed). But polls often report on subgroups, such as young people, white men or Hispanics. Because survey estimates on subgroups of the population have fewer cases, their margins of error are larger – in some cases much larger.

…are you sure?

A simple random sample of 1,067 cases has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for estimates of overall support for individual candidates. For a subgroup such as Hispanics, who make up about 15% of the U.S. adult population, the sample size would be about 160 cases if represented proportionately. This would mean a margin of error of plus or minus 8 percentage points for individual candidates and a margin of error of plus or minus 16 percentage points for the difference between two candidates. In practice, some demographic subgroups such as minorities and young people are less likely to respond to surveys and need to be “weighted up,” meaning that estimates for these groups often rely on even smaller sample sizes. Some polling organizations, including Pew Research Center, report margins of error for subgroups or make them available upon request.

…now you’re cooking with gas…let’s throw some weights about…”AI” can do it so us mostly-bald monkeys should be able to get that shit in perspective…right?

“A simple random sample of 1,067 cases“…what a coincidence…that’s the sort of sample size listed under a whole bunch of those cross tabs for the NYT/siena effort…it’s almost like the pew research center…uh…aren’t muppets?

Many poll watchers know that the margin of error for a survey is driven primarily by the sample size. But there are other factors that also affect the variability of estimates. For public opinion polls, a particularly important contributor is weighting. Without adjustment, polls tend to overrepresent people who are easier to reach and underrepresent those types of people who are harder to interview. In order to make their results more representative pollsters weight their data so that it matches the population – usually based on a number of demographic measures. Weighting is a crucial step for avoiding biased results, but it also has the effect of making the margin of error larger. Statisticians call this increase in variability the design effect.

It is important that pollsters take the design effect into account when they report the margin of error for a survey. If they do not, they are claiming more precision than their survey actually warrants. Members of the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s Transparency Initiative (including Pew Research Center) are required to disclose how their weighting was performed and whether or not the reported margin of error accounts for the design effect.

It is also important to bear in mind that the sampling variability described by the margin of error is only one of many possible sources of error that can affect survey estimates. Different survey firms use different procedures or question wording that can affect the results. Certain kinds of respondents may be less likely to be sampled or respond to some surveys (for instance, people without internet access cannot take online surveys). Respondents might not be candid about controversial opinions when talking to an interviewer on the phone, or might answer in ways that present themselves in a favorable light (such as claiming to be registered to vote when they are not).

For election surveys in particular, estimates that look at “likely voters” rely on models and predictions about who will turn out to vote that may also introduce error. Unlike sampling error, which can be calculated, these other sorts of error are much more difficult to quantify and are rarely reported. But they are present nonetheless, and polling consumers should keep them in mind when interpreting survey results.

the margin of error one (again)

…not to be profane

“Can you believe they actually put that … in writing?” [Harris] said last month at a Massachusetts fundraiser, implying a crude term when describing the Project 2025 agenda backed by some Trump allies. “I know there are kids here, so I’ll delete some words.”
[…]
Walz has said his party should lean into a joyful message while undercutting its adversaries with lighthearted jabs, rather than treating the opposition as a foreboding, existential threat. One of his biggest applause lines at a recent rally in Michigan came as he addressed Republican book bans, using a folksy rationale that contrasted with grave Democratic warnings that such restrictions would undermine democratic values.

“It’s amazing what minding your own damn business does to make things work better,” Walz said. “Don’t like a book? Don’t read it.”

…no offense, tim…but the books they don’t like…they don’t read…they don’t like it when other people read them, though…seem not to like it when people read much of anything, really…even the constitution or the bill of rights…since those rather inconveniently don’t always back up the ones who think they should be able to use them like blunt instruments to bludgeon their way through debates they’d otherwise lose handily…still…I getcha

In his public events with Harris, Walz has limited his profanity to a few “damns” and “hells,” though those who know the former football coach say he has a much broader repertoire of risqué language.

“He’s the only governor I know who curses more than I do,” Whitmer said at the rally, in which she hailed “the freedom to make your own damn decisions about your own damn body.”

“Hell yeah!” the crowd roared back in unison.

At least in public, Harris has not used her self-described proficiency with profanity since beginning her upstart presidential campaign last month, largely sticking to prepared remarks and avoiding interviews in which she might speak off the cuff.

The vice president got a preview in May of the kind of stir her words could cause, when she used blunt language to describe her thoughts about breaking barriers.

“We have to know that sometimes people will open the door for you and leave it open,” Harris said in a moderated conversation with actor and comedian Jimmy O. Yang at a meeting of the Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies. “Sometimes they won’t, and then you need to kick that f—ing door down.”

…fuckin-A madame vice president…just like biggie said…well…”wavin’ the .44″ is probably a bit much even in an american election campaign…but if you’re wearing a camo hat I think maybe it’s implied?

…not that there isn’t the usual double-standard when it comes to un-presidented language

While there is a long history of presidents swearing in private, and a growing level of acceptance for public profanity from political leaders, Harris has to grapple with the reality that Americans have never experienced a woman in her position using language that some consider unbecoming, said Tevi Troy, a presidential historian.

“There’s the question of whether it’s appropriate for a president to be cussing. Then there’s the second question of whether it’s considered ladylike to be cussing,” said Troy, who has studied the history of presidents and profanity. “So she’s operating in both spheres, and we’re in uncharted territory.”

He added that while politicians once had to apologize when their private cursing was made public, today they face little blowback — and often gain boisterous approval — as they increasingly use expletives before large crowds.

Still, Trump’s campaign has weaponized some of Harris’s more informal moments, emphasizing the risks she faces in a heated political environment. Trump’s first television ad of the general election used video clips of Harris dancing and laughing, splicing them into an attack on the more serious matters of border security, crime and terrorism.

…yeah…you can’t be the lady in charge & know how to party

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/04/finnish-pm-sanna-marin-cleared-of-misconduct-over-partying-footage

…yeah…we remember…& who believed cindy lauper anyway?

…not for nothing…but I know ladies for whom kicking ass literally is having fun…just sayin’…anyway…where was I?

In private chats with journalists, Harris often sprinkles her remarks with salty language in a way that creates a sense that she is letting her guard down. During an extended interview with a Rolling Stone reporter earlier this year, she twice said that the actions of the Supreme Court had prompted her to swear.

“It’s f—ed up,” she told the reporter, dropping her voice to emphasize the expletive as she talked about the oral arguments in an abortion case the justices heard in April.

She said she had a similar reaction when she learned of the court’s decision in 2022 that overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion rights case. “I called my husband, Doug — because, you know, I could use words with him,” Harris said. “And I was just like, `Bleep. Bleep. Bleep. Bleep. Can you believe what they did?’”

…I bleeping well did believe what they did…been bleeping mad as hell watching them fling all the shit at all the walls it took them while they waited to get the inside track on the inside job that still required just outrageously poor jurisprudence to jury-rig into the shape they wanted to contort settled precedent into…by the time they did it the beeps sounded like a flat-lining EKG…if we’re doing it that way

“I don’t know how you feel, but I’m f—ing angry!” United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain said Wednesday at the airport rally. He added, “Donald Trump doesn’t know s— about the auto industry, and he doesn’t give a damn about the working class of this country.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/09/harris-rallies-profanity-democrats/

…oh, snap…the dude there was some surprise about when he spoke at an (R) event spoke at a (D) one…huh…almost like his crowd might cover the spread…& given what he said in front of the guy he said that last part about…huh…tempted to make an assumption or two about where he thinks a responsible union vote ought to fetch up in this balance

…I dunno…all this meandering about the shop has me out of time & it’s a rest day day of rest…so I’ll relent…but…I dunno…pace yourself, I guess…the reason there’s a lady who’s taken to calling herself belle to roll with the cadence for some of the mannerisms of the channel instead of that beau dude is the man burned himself out talking to the internet several times a day for years during these interesting times of ours…the timing on the torch passing routine might make it seem like a deliberate bit of symmetry but that isn’t the why they seemed to be pretty clear about when he went out of shot…or…if you prefer latin(-ish)

illegitimi non carborundum

…&…some language is worth minding

If Harris wins the election in November, Trump’s Jan. 6 case — though weakened by the Supreme Court — will continue to move toward trial. As sitting vice president in the administration that appointed the attorney general with oversight of the case, any comments Harris makes related to the trial could be fodder for the former president’s lawyers to argue in court that her comments interfered with Trump’s due process rights. That includes any suggestion that locking up Trump would be an explicit goal (as Trump repeatedly said about Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign).

When a “lock him up” chant broke out at a Harris rally in Wisconsin this week, she said to supporters, “We’re gonna let the courts handle that,” and used a similar line when the same chant broke out at another rally. “Our job is to beat him in November,” she said.

Harris, a former prosecutor herself, has been cautious in her references to the array of civil and criminal cases that Trump has faced in recent years. Harris is aware of the impact she could have on Trump’s pending federal cases and has surrounded herself with Justice Department veterans — including her brother-in-law, Tony West, a former top DOJ official, and former Attorney General Eric Holder, who vetted her vice presidential candidates.

But Harris does not face the same limitations in discussing any state and local cases against Trump, or those that have already been adjudicated.

…maybe if they bleep those parts & bring on a lawyer version of the anger translator?

A close read of Harris’ references – to predators who abuse women, to fraudsters who ripped off consumers, and to cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain – appear to be nods to other civil or criminal cases Trump has faced, not the Jan. 6 case he is currently facing. In 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll; earlier this year, a New York judge ordered Trump to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for civil fraud; and Trump was found guilty of 34 felonies in May in a case that involved breaking campaign finance rules to make a hush money payments to an adult film actor during the 2016 campaign.

Harris, who herself came within feet of a pipe bomb that had been left at the Democratic National Committee headquarters on the eve of Jan. 6, 2021, will face a complex task at any debates when it comes to discussions of the Capitol attack and Trump’s efforts to stay in office after his 2020 loss.

She is also likely to avoid much discussion of Trump’s handling of classified documents: While a Trump-appointed federal judge dismissed a federal case involving his alleged mishandling of classified documents, the Justice Department has appealed and the case could ultimately survive.

…should…should ultimately survive…& be won by the DoJ…because it’s a fucking slam-dunk if you ask a real judge…or even a half-decent lawyer…just off the stuff in the public record…sorry…got distracted, there

“Vice President Harris has a simple message: there is one way to stop Donald Trump and his harmful Project 2025 agenda and it’s at the ballot box this November,” a campaign official said.

The Trump campaign responded to a question about the chants by saying they “would be funny if Kamala Harris and Joe Biden had not literally weaponized the justice system against President Trump in an attempt to imprison him ahead of the election.”

…literally, huh?

The Trump campaign and Republicans in Congress have repeatedly accused the Biden administration of weaponizing the Justice Department against Trump, although the federal charges against him were brought by a more independent special counsel, Smith, who has aggressively pursued cases against both Democrats and Republicans.

During the Biden administration, the Justice Department appointed another special counsel, a former Trump appointee, who secured the conviction of Biden’s son Hunter Biden on gun charges. A third special counsel, a Republican previously appointed as a top federal prosecutor by Trump, oversaw an investigation into Biden’s handling of classified documents and decided not to move forward with charges.

Any comments Kamala Harris makes that could be seen as referencing the federal charges against Donald Trump could affect his election interference case. [NBC]

…literally…if there were any grounds for come-on-aileen’s play to throw out the nat-sec-peacocking-for-profit case…hunter gets that overturned on appeal & the tit-for-tat attempt at his dad becomes a nullifying “both-sides” token on the ability for parties rather than presidents to play the weaponizing game…& we know what kind of ribbons okham would slice that all into

Former President Donald Trump’s campaign on Saturday said that it had been hacked by an Iranian group in June, “which coincides with the close timing of President Trump’s selection of a Vice Presidential nominee,” Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, told NBC News.

The hack was first reported by Politico and NBC News has not independently verified that the hack took place or where it originated. Politico said that it began receiving emails from an anonymous account sharing internal documents from the Trump campaign in July.

The documents included research papers on at least two of the contenders to be Trump’s running mate, including the eventual GOP vice presidential nominee: Ohio Sen. JD Vance.

…of which more, anon

…in june…sorry…vance got the nod in july, I believe…middle of…joe dropped out with a week to go…are they trying to tie a bow on the idea that iran gave joe dirt on JD that made him drop out & give kamala the ticket?

[…that one really threw me so I didn’t notice I ran out of time – might keep going after I loft this, though…sorry?]

Cheung pointed to a Microsoft report released Friday, which said that an “Iranian group, this one connected with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, sent a spear phishing email in June to a high-ranking official on a presidential campaign.”

…ok…I get that this might be getting uncomfortably close to the almost-cracked hysterical kind of laughter much associated with straight-jackets & padded cells & such…but…even with all the “cyber” bullshit going on…from “let’s treat democracy like an online game of craps” to things looking to have crowdstrike level effects on major infrastructure & power & water & such…or leverage downstream access like…you remember…this one?

https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/SolarWinds-hack-explained-Everything-you-need-to-know

…some people do

On 6 May, news broke that the details of 270,000 service personnel working for the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) had been accessed. It was part of a cyber-espionage operation targeting a contractor responsible for managing the MOD’s payroll system.

In a statement to parliament, the UK’s defence secretary Grant Shapps said that the data breach was suspected to be the work of a malign actor and state involvement could not be ruled out.

Although the government did not officially attribute this data breach, many MPs pointed fingers at China, recalling its track record in cyber espionage – a significant and long-standing issue for many Western countries.

A similar data breach occurred in 2014 at the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM), a government agency overseeing the federal workforce, but on a significantly larger scale. The breach was detected in 2015 and the perpetrators used a third-party contractor as the initial point of entry into OPM’s network.

It was one of the largest breaches of government data in US history, affecting 22.1 million individuals. China was identified as the perpetrator. Shortly after, during a state visit hosted by President Barack Obama for President Xi Jinping, both leaders agreed that “neither country’s government will conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, including trade secrets or other confidential business information”.

However, this agreement mainly related to espionage aimed at giving competitive advantages to companies or commercial sectors.

…your cambridge analytica or your palantir bidding for use of NHS data…that shit be legit, yo

Earlier this year, the UK accused China of conducting a global campaign of malicious cyberattacks and issued sanctions against Chinese companies and individuals. Among the targets between late 2021 and October 2022 was the UK electoral commission.

Attribution of that attack was officially made in March 2024, more than two years after it occurred. This underscores the often lengthy process involved in making such attributions and agreeing on appropriate punitive actions.
[…]
Supply chain security, especially for sensitive institutions like the MOD, has been a concern for several years, driven by high-profile incidents like the SolarWinds hack. This attack, which occurred in 2020 and was later attributed to Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, was considered one of the largest and most sophisticated hacks.

It affected numerous organizations worldwide, including many US and UK government agencies, NATO and the European Parliament.
[…]
The presence of third-party contractors and vendors in the supply chain of large and complex organizations like the MOD is almost inevitable. The complexity creates interdependencies, making it challenging to ensure security at all times.

Having multiple parties in the supply chain increases the potential points of vulnerability, requiring comprehensive security measures and practices to mitigate risks effectively.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/05/mod-data-breach-shows-supply-chain-security-continues-be-top-priority

…everything “online” is a trade-off…can’t be online unless there’s two-way traffic…even if I actually try I can’t so much as resolve the data regarding my use of a website that lists its 3rd-party cookie “partners” down to what it is, really, they’re helping themselves to…or in conjuction with what other partners in what other places…much less the use they put it to or who pays who how much for what benefit behind it all…& that’s even if I limit it to the ones that formally claim to have “a legitimate interest”…which I understand at least enough about how at least some of it works to actually believe has some reasonable definitions without which you can’t have the thing in anything like the form we seem to like it in…so making out like I have more than inkling of what goes into a workably secure network of systems for bits of states that have to mean the secure part sounds like a mug’s game & all…but…much as I don’t love the whole notion of keyboard-warriors…it’s early yet…the internet’s only been old enough to vote for a hot minute…& there are still pirates on the actual seas…so we don’t always make a clean break with the way things used to work…but pretending there aren’t some black ships & golden triangles out there in the ether seems like it’d make me an even bigger mug…& with that in mind

Microsoft did not identify the campaign that was targeted. A spokesperson for Microsoft declined to share details about the incident beyond what was written in their Friday report.

[…I know…I should be done…but an extra hour’s just a lie-in on a sunday, right? …& honestly…I got distracted because I do in fact have other things to do…so here’s this far while I see where that last 15mins can get me]

…the folks that told that campaign whatever they might know about it…when given ample opportunity…declined to put the believability of their reputation behind the campaign’s framing of the thing & stuck to “we said what we said”…while the campaign said

“The Iranians know that President Trump will stop their reign of terror just like he did in his first four years in the White House. Any media or news outlet reprinting documents or internal communications are doing the bidding of America’s enemies and doing exactly what they want,” Cheung added.

…no…no, mr macenroe…they are not serious…these are not serious people…iran is a serious issue…very possibly a serious threat to global peace & what gets to be considered prosperity…but nobody serious seriously believes chump change in the oval office is any more likely to master that brief a hypothetical next time than he was not to fail it miserably the way the historical record reflects he did last time he copped a squat in the vicinity of a desk more resolute than every fiber of his being…don’t hate the playa…hate the game?

The FBI said that it was “aware of the media reporting” but declined to comment further.

…taps-nose-with-index-finger.gif

In its story, Politico wrote that the news organization asked the anonymous emailer about where they got the documents they were leaking and received a reply that said, “I suggest you don’t be curious about where I got them from. Any answer to this question, will compromise me and also legally restricts you from publishing them.”

…y’all don’t say

Representatives for Politico did not immediately respond to a request for comment from NBC News.

The news from the campaign comes one day after Microsoft reported that an Iranian group “sent a spear phishing email in June to … a presidential campaign.” [NBC]

…uh huh…it be like that…just like…I dunno…two things can be true at one time, maybe?

At his first rally as Kamala Harris‘s running mate Tuesday, Minnesota’s governor, Tim Walz, invoked an issue at the forefront of many Americans’ minds: the right “for our children to be free to go to school without worrying they’ll be shot dead in their classrooms”.

…even though the guy “once boasted an A rating from the NRA“…which is hard for some people to square up without assuming some sort of hypocrisy…I don’t get it, exactly…but when I squint I can sort of see where they seem to be saying they think they’re coming from…& as a lover of irony the part where people with conspicuously more knowledge than me about guns & ammo seem to loop the loop into coming at me from a place of ignorance on the connections that aren’t there & seem blind to many that are…is a mixed blessing…maybe if I looked like tim those conversations would have been productive…or at least reasonable…but I don’t think that’s it since a bunch of those conversations took place where I look like this…some faceless entity looking like they physically wear out keyboards faster than they need a new computer…which feels like it could be only partly besides the point, to be honest?

Elected to the US House of Representatives in 2007, Walz was long beloved by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association endorsed and donated to his campaigns, giving him an A rating. In 2016 Guns & Ammo magazine included him on its list of top 20 politicians for gun owners.

That wasn’t terribly surprising. Walz was representing a rural red Minnesota district and had grown up at a time and place where guns were popular for hunting

…wait for the kicker

– not mass shootings.

…how the logic train jumps the tracks past “one of these things is not like the other” with such astonishing mental agility from people who frequently don’t show signs of being that light on their cognitive feet…is a feat that stumps me

“I grew up in a small town, [so] I’d put my shotgun in my car, or at school or in the football locker, to go pheasant hunting afterwards,” he told Pod Save America last month. “But we weren’t getting shot in school.”

…as it goes I’m not much for pod save america…any more than the likes of the bulwark…but…you might say they fulfill a purpose…& baby steps are still steps…& mixing guns & baby steps is a bad recipe so that’s maybe a bad analogy

In a 2018 video March for Our Lives co-founder and Parkland survivor David Hogg reshared on X last month, Walz recounts his then teenage daughter Hope approaching him in the days after the shooting: “Dad, you’re the only person I know who’s in elected office, you need to stop what’s happening with this.”

“For me, it was both a reckoning and an embarrassment,” he told Pod Save America, recalling that the children killed at Sandy Hook elementary school would have been his son’s age.

Two weeks later, while campaigning for governor, Walz authored an op-ed in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, where he called the NRA “the biggest single obstacle to passing the most basic measures to prevent gun violence in America”. He went on to say that he’d donated the $18,000 the organization had donated to his past campaigns and wouldn’t accept NRA contributions in the future. He noted that he was currently co-sponsoring a “bump stocks” ban and came out in support of an assault weapons ban.

As Minnesota governor, Walz has signed wide-ranging gun safety measures into law, most notably a 2023 law including universal background checks and a “red flag law” (which allows state officials to temporarily seize the firearms of someone a court has ruled may be dangerous to themselves or others).

This year, Walz called for Minnesota lawmakers to go even further, asking them to support measures that would require safe firearm storage, better reporting of lost and stolen guns, and harsher penalties for “straw buyers” (those who purchase firearms for others who cannot legally have them). Since then, he’s signed legislation that prohibits automatic weapon modification devices and collects data on gun crime.

…so…you’re telling me the dem vp candidate is a…wossname…oh, you know…they’re always on about ’em but somehow made out to be scarcer than baby pigeons…not like your romanticized outlaw whose cold dead hand the state still oughta leave clutching iron because patriotism…dime a dozen, them…nah…the other thing…tip of my tongue…that’s it…a responsible gun owner™

Walz remains an enthusiastic hunter – something he’s emphasized in previous campaigns and makes him something of an everyman.

“There’s a vision to reduce gun violence with absolutely no infringement on those who lawfully own guns, to use them for things that many of us cherish,” he told reporters in Bloomington, Minnesota, last week.

…I dunno…puts some stuff in perspective…for me

[…] former congresswoman and gun violence survivor Gabby Giffords (who joined Walz in Minnesota in 2023 when he signed the state’s universal background checks into law) [said,]

“As governor, Tim did what others called impossible, passing background checks and extreme risk protection laws in Minnesota with a slim gun safety majority,” Giffords said. “It wasn’t easy, but he got it done with hard work and effective leadership. His work as governor has saved lives, and I know that will continue when he is vice-president.”

[…] Last month, the NRA called [Harris] “an existential threat to the second amendment”.

That doesn’t seem to bother Walz. “I had an A rating from the NRA. Now I get straight F’s,” he tweeted last month. “And I sleep just fine.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/09/tim-walz-gun-control-stance

…pretty sure the NRA doesn’t know who I am & wouldn’t rate me even if they did…but that last line did it for me…I’m officially jealous of the man…don’t envy him his job…or the one he’ll hopefully win come november…but I’d give a lot more than a vote to be able to say that’s how my nights go?

[…was waiting to dump that lot with some tunes but I can’t make up my damn mind about those…so…hopefully I will at some point but I’ll try to leave the rest of it well enough alone, now?]