Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Politics

DNC, RNC To Test Limits of Virtual Events as Election Enters Final Stage (cnet.com) 88

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
The Democratic and Republican nominating conventions, long mainstays of the US presidential election cycle, have been forced online, creating the biggest test yet for conducting life remotely during the coronavirus. From a report: Robbed of the energy of convention halls, the parties will seek to re-create that enthusiasm in high-production streaming events that beam their luminaries from around the country to online audiences. The Democrats, whose convention begins on Monday after a roughly month-long delay, have lined up the party's most visible figures, including former President Barack Obama. The Republicans, who will make their case for four more years in the White House, grab the spotlight on Aug. 24. Done with savvy and pizzazz, the Democrats and Republicans could galvanize support for their candidates -- former Vice President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump, respectively -- despite the absence of cheering crowds, over-amplified rock music and blizzards of confetti. If technical glitches hobble the proceedings, the parties risk broadcasting a mammoth Zoom call derailed by freezes, connection mishaps and mute fails.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DNC, RNC To Test Limits of Virtual Events as Election Enters Final Stage More

DNC, RNC To Test Limits of Virtual Events as Election Enters Final Stage

Comments Filter:

  • Plus.... (Score:1, Funny)

    by photonrider ( 571060 )
    They can make Joe look good if it's virtual. Won't even know if you're seeing him or an avatar.

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Zontar The Mindless ( 9002 )

      We'll be able to tell whether it's an avatar of Trump, though, since it'll still be spouting the same old racist and misogynist drivel to whip up his base.

      • Oh, and the Trump avatar will still have incredibly bad hair.

        • The problem is that Trump would never allow an avatar that didn't look like a 35 year old blonde superhero. His avatar would look more like Tony Stark.

          • No no. his avatar would have to be God Emperor [youtube.com]. The detail on that thing is amazing. Tony Stark is scifi not based around a living deity. Trump must have the best kind of scifi. Better than you have ever seen. That you wouldn't believe.

    • When I first heard about the virtual conventions I immediately thought of virtual bands like Gorillaz [youtube.com]. Would be kind of interesting to see virtual Biden or Trump prattling along with some meatbag host attempting to interact with empty space pretending it's real.

      This election cycle? Anything is possible.

    • He looks kinda like Max Headroom, aged at the same rate. And equally real.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Mark my words there will be a significant time delay if they do this thing virtual so they can edit out Biden putting his foot in his mouth, after all they don't want another "You ain't black" or "cornpop" moment and with Joe Biden? That man puts his foot in his mouth more than Gerlad Ford used to fall down and that is saying something.

        But on the other hand, Trump's last year in office is looking a lot like Jimmy Carter's last year, but with mass virus deaths instead of those Weimar Republic level interest rates. The only thing standing in the way of a mass defection to Biden/Harris is fear that the cancel culture and "wokeness" thugs would gain power under the Democrats.

        • But on the other hand, Trump's last year in office is looking a lot like Jimmy Carter's last year, but with mass virus deaths instead of those Weimar Republic level interest rates.

          There are two reasons Trump cannot win: >10% unemployment and -32% GDP. He cannot run on the economy. He cannot run on people's lives being better than they were 4 years ago. No amount of spin can change those facts, and there's not enough time left on the clock for him to turn those things around, even if he had a single

          • He could spin that very well in his favor. First, no-one can reasonably blame him for the economy going down the train: That's a global crisis completely out of his control. But what he can do is promise a solution. If I were playing in Trump's place, and had his flexible ethics, I'd play it like this:

            "The economy is down. It's down because of the Democrats. Because Democratic state governors forced your businesses to close. Because Democratic governors forced churches to close. Because Democratic governor

  • Why should we care about their shit at all? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lessSockMorePuppet ( 6778792 ) on Friday August 14, 2020 @02:16PM (#60401941) Homepage

    The Supreme Court ruled that they can happily and legally ignore their party members' votes for nomination. They don't work for the people, or their party members--they work for their owning corporations.

    Fuck 'em. We need ranked choice voting, a repeal of Citizens' United vs. FEC...and a lot of other things, but those two would do the most to recover what remains of our "representative republic".

    No taxation without representation.

    If a corporation can buy away all the reps and legislators, then what are we paying taxes for? To finance corporate interests with public money? Fuck that.

    No taxation without representation.

    • and sticking your nose in the air and pretending your above it all will just bite you in the ass.

      You have representation. If you win a primary by a decent margin you will get the candidate that you voted for. In very tight races the party heads cast the deciding vote.

      We have a First Past the Post, Winner Take all Voting system. That means we're going to have a 2 Party System because if either party breaks up to start sub parties then which ever doesn't do that wins everything forever.

      If you don'

    • >Citizens' United vs. FEC

      People should not be allowed to create a movie critical of a candidate in a federal election and release it around the election because ?? Why?

      I think a better position is to reform non-profit organizations and their tax exemption. Get rid of them. Red Cross? Pay taxes. Churches? Pay taxes. Political Action Committees? Pay taxes. Let's stop playing this game of whose tax exempt organization is better or worse based on politics they might push and address the meat of the issue.

      • You replaced "corporate entities and unions" with "people".

        Don't do that. People, as individuals, should have 1st Amendment rights. A corporation should not be considered a legal person due 1st Amendment rights.

        Stop trying to misportray what happened. It wasn't a private person who wanted to engage in "electioneering", it was a corporation.

        • It was a group of people who created a non-profit organization for tax purposes. Hence why I brought up non-profits.

          The government doesn't have the authority to restrict speech. People can pool their resources together to push a message. They can also use existing tax law to classify that pooled resource as a non-profit organization. Why do you think the government can restrict what an organization says?

          I am not misportraying anything.

      • People should not be allowed to create a movie critical of a candidate in a federal election and release it around the election because ?? Why?

        They should release it earlier to give both sides time to exercise their own free speech about the movie. Otherwise it's a form of oppression. "Free speech for me, but none for thee!"

        • That makes zero sense.

          Being critical of politicians running for public office is not oppression in any way shape or form. I can't believe I have to even write that sentence.

          The government doesn't have the right to restrict when you publish constitutionally protected speech.

          Criticism of politicians seeking public office is always a means to influence voters. The government doesn't have a right to restrict citizens from engaging in the political process such as publishing a documentary critical of a politicia

          • With the great power of free speech comes the great responsibility to give your opponent a chance to respond.

            • When does a politician not have the opportunity to respond to their record?

              Are you just playing devils advocate or do you really think politicians need to be protected from criticism?

    • Only reason I can think of that they need to swarm like that is to sniff each others farts.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      You need to understand that both the DNC and the RNC are privately owned. Despite the primary voting being done by the states, the processing of those votes into candidates is done by privately owned organizations operating under they own rules. They can rig how they process those votes to select the candidate that they choose. And they do, generally successfully. (Trump, admittedly, was a surprise to the RNC 4 years ago. They thought the way they'd shaped the rules would prevent him from succeeding.

    • Not ranked choice. Ranked choice is a hack that's only marginally useful in a broken winner-takes-all election. What we need instead is proportional elections. If we have 40% democrats and 40% republican, then the makeup in congress needs to reflect that as well (with the 20% make up of the third parties that got the votes). Then because no one has a majority, you have to do some deal making and have compromises (compromise is good!) so you can get a government formed. But to do that requires a constit

  • We already know that the shooting will start after the election, so could we at least have some nice weather for it?

  • I'm with you on the election man. lets just do it right now. who the heck hasn't made up their mind?

    But anyhow, if you send out 10,000 invites to a virtual conference there's gonna be a lot of zoom bombing.

    that might be worth watching.

    • It's going to be pretty easy picking out the Russian and Chinese trolls. I doubt either country has a lot of state-funded trolls that can speak in a convincing American accent. It would be more like an Indian phishing scan; "My name is John Thomas from Microsoft, and we have a found a virus on your voting machines..."

    • 16% of likely voters haven't (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday August 14, 2020 @02:39PM (#60402055)
      judging by Trump's approval numbers. He's at 42% with likely voters. 55% disapprove of him, but of that only 75% strongly disapprove

      If you just take the "strongly disapprove" you get 42%.

      And incidentally about 42% of likely voters are red and 42% blue. Republicans & Democrats.

      That leaves 16% who somehow haven't made up their minds (not to mention the 50% who don't vote).

      If the election were held today though Biden would have a 93% chance to win, but the expectation is that Trump will tighten the race. His poll numbers have been trending up (school reopenings gave people a sense of hope & normalcy, and while many will die or get very sick many won't). If he can keep that trajectory up while sabotaging the Post Office and close polls in blue precincts (or send them faulty voting equipment while understaffing them) he can pull off a win with ease. Just like 2016.

      Sure, he'll lose the popular vote by 4-5 million votes, but all that matters is winning.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Trump's numbers are getting worse. He was 9 points down, he's 10 now. Biden has been improving further since selecting Harris but it's a bit early to fully reflect in the polls.

        • the polls basically ignore the 16% of undecided voters. That's why races tighten. They start to make up their minds. If the election were held today they'd get confused and wouldn't vote, and sure Biden wins. But it's not being held today.
          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • the polls basically ignore the 16% of undecided voters. That's why races tighten. They start to make up their minds. If the election were held today they'd get confused and wouldn't vote, and sure Biden wins. But it's not being held today.

            The polls track those who respond to polls. I hang up on them or just don't answer. But I vote.

            Polls were wildly wrong last time. They may or may not be this time. I see no reason to have excessive confidence in them.

        • And polls mean nothing if you don't take the college into account. We know how easy it is for a president to win the election even when their rival gets more votes.

      • How this obviously faulty "analysis" got modded up is beyond me.

        If you just take the "strongly disapprove" you get 42%.

        Why would you do that? By leaving out people who disapprove of Trump, you've left out almost 14% of likely voters.

        That leaves 16% who somehow haven't made up their minds (not to mention the 50% who don't vote).

        No. No it doesn't. Your polls say 3% (100-55-42)of likely voters haven't made up their minds, not 16%. The 55% who disapprove of Trump have made up their minds and responded with "disapprove" to the polster's question. If they haven't made up their minds, they would've responded with "undecided".

        ...he can pull off a win with ease. Just like 2016.

        Yeah, if you take out almost 14

        • 55% disapprove of Trump. But only 75% of that Strongly Disapprove. You can get those numbers from 538 and they're highly accurate. 55*.75 = 42. Hence 42% who can be counted on to vote against Trump. And 42% who can be counted on to vote for Trump. 42+42=84. 84-100 = 16%.

          "Made up their minds" is pointless with somebody as polarizing as Trump. They haven't gotten to the point of "Strong Disapproval" with a man who send armed men in cammo to pull folks into unmarked vans, crashed the economy, presided over

          • 55% disapprove of Trump. But only 75% of that Strongly Disapprove. You can get those numbers from 538 and they're highly accurate. 55*.75 = 42. Hence 42% who can be counted on to vote against Trump. And 42% who can be counted on to vote for Trump. 42+42=84. 84-100 = 16%.

            Let's say for a moment that reasoning is valid (it isn't, it's just your opinion masquerading as logic). If you are to be consistent, then you have to eliminate the voters who "merely approve" of Trump and leave only those who "strongly approve". After all, those that don't "strongly approve" are completely up for grabs, right? But for some reason that little logical detail escaped your "analysis". I'm surprised you didn't use it, because that would mean you could cry something like "one quarter of vote

            • they're measurements of opinion. Trying to use that "Truthy" mean to discredit me is clever though, I'll give you that.

              We've known for eons that the undecided voters lean conservative. This is not anything new. The polls DO NOT MATTER THIS FAR OUT INTO AN ELECTION. What matters is how people FEEL.

              Ever notice nobody every wins on a policy centered campaign. Look at Sanders. He ran his campaign entirely on Medicare for All, which polls at 88% WITH LIKELY DEMOCRATIC VOTERS.

              So why didn't Bernie win?
              • and you don't really address any of my criticisms.

                Polls aren't opinion they're measurements of opinion.

                WTF is that supposed to mean?

                We've known for eons that the undecided voters lean conservative. This is not anything new.

                WTF does that have to do with how you arrived at your numbers? Nothing. But since you brought it up, as far as the upcoming election goes, this Washington Post analysis [googleusercontent.com] says otherwise.

                Most up-for-grabs registered voters lean toward a party, but they are more likely to identify as moderate and independent...Roughly 4 in 10 identify or lean Democrat (39 percent), while 29 percent lean Republican, and the rest lean toward neither

      • If the republicans stay united. Remember there's the Lincoln Project out there. Republicans in the past have been much more disciplined with their get-out-the-vote pushes, and in this climate it's much more likely that an old Republican voter will brave the virus to vote than an old Democrat. The kids though, they all think they're invulnerable, but kids tend to not want to vote because they're disillusioned by it all and think it doens't matter.

        • The Lincoln Project is a handful of political operatives who are just jockeying for position in a post Trump era. Don't count on them. Trump still has over a 90% approval with the GOP. They haven't been personally hurt by his antics and mismanagement and until they are they won't turn on him.

      • What Georgia has been showing is bleak.
        What sense of hope comes from your kid infecting your parent?
        COVID, the reality virus.

  • I have always been of the opinion that U.S. presidential elections are overproduced. I would like to see nothing more than the facts, the claims of future duty to the country and no fluff from any participant or coordinator.

    • The thing is campaigns are filled with words in the claims of future duty category which the president (or governor for that matter) have little to no ability to fulfill since they require legislation to be passed for them to sign and implement.

      You need to elect the president based largely on good responsible character, the ability to read and work instead of golf, demonstrated intelligence in political matters, and the willingness to work with others in government of all parties to try to form consensus

  • It's been 50 years since these were anything but 4-day advertisements for the candidates.

    On the other hand, it was kind of fun to keep on as background noise.

  • Start with Sabotage! [theguardia...ocracy.com]

    This is so uncool! And congress? On vacation!

  • Maybe without the hype, voters will make decisions based on policy and past actions rather than BS political ads, lies, deflection and fear-mongering.

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    Hahaha!! I'm such a comedian.

  • If you support the Dems or just don't agree with Trump imagine if The Lincoln Project purchased a good portion of the ad-time for the GOP convention.

    • I'm sure the Democratic billionaires who provide the funding and call the shots at the Lincoln Project are working on it, but why wouldn't the parties themselves just advertise during the opposing conventions in that case?

  • Political conventions? What about Fortnite? (Score:4, Informative)

    by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Friday August 14, 2020 @07:04PM (#60402705) Homepage

    The events on Fortnite have pulled in millions or tens of millions of people.
    Political conventions are only tens of thousands at a time.

    They're several orders of magnitude smaller.

  • The Elite wants electronic elections.. (Score:3)

    by BardBollocks ( 1231500 ) on Saturday August 15, 2020 @09:29AM (#60403853)

    ...look what they tried to pull with diebold. ...look at what Black Box Voting discovered.

    Any election that doesn't result in what the Elite wants = Russian tampering.

  • So, even more of a media event without substance than usual?

    And I thought they couldn't top themselves.

Slashdot Top Deals

In the future, you're going to get computers as prizes in breakfast cereals. You'll throw them out because your house will be littered with them.

Close