Oh, well then Kamala has never participated in a primary, and the entire argument that she's been rejected by voters is without merit, since she dropped out before Iowa.
Passing over her would create a larger problem electorally, which I thought was the theoretical problem we are trying to solve.
Deciders defined, one or more of: "voted in only one of the past two presidential elections; are between ages 18 and 25; registered to vote since 2022; did not definitely plan to vote for either Biden or Trump this year; or switched their support between 2016 and 2020." This is dumb. (1/2)
In six swing states that Biden narrowly won in 2020, a little more than half of voters classified as likely to decide the presidential election say threats to democracy are extremely important to their vote for president, according to a poll.
This group has a composite turnout score of like 20. That means only 1/5th of this group will even vote, and that's on the high side. (Many of these new registrants are getting captured by motor voter. They aren't even intending to register!)
Yeah, it's tough. She would have aged out of barista, so I'm guessing itinerant jewelry designer/maybe philanthropist.
Actual Mia Sara is a poet: miasara.nyc/bio.html
Deaths? I'm out of ideas. I do think that there's a bunch of 65+ who are putting "democracy" at the top of their issues, and they may be thinking of January 6th. That could be full flips. The D-Day speech was for them.
We did the brainstorming of terms on a weekend in the office. That's when we found out they turned the AC off on weekends. We were inspired and perspired.
We tested Global Meltdown and Boiling Point, they both did much better than Climate Change, but any term will be demonized and lose power to some degree when opponents sell to invalidate it.
Some are people coming into and out of the electorate, but I'm guessing this will be a 140m election, 2020 was 160k, so there's a bunch of voters dropping out. I could see reluctant Trump voters in 2020 not voting this time around.
Ok, above you were talking about Photo DNA, which scans for CSAM. That's run by Thorn, and here's what they have to say about end to end encryption: "The minute end-to-end encryption is enabled...(1/2)
"...it will become impossible for [platforms] to detect, remove, and report illegal and harmful images and videos of children being sexually abused that are shared on this service."
I appreciate your overall point here, but it's simply not true that every platform is doing everything they can, much of the lobbying from platforms is not to get rid of CSAM but to get rid of their liability for CSAM by putting communications behind encryption.
I don't disagree with most of this, but I do to you'll never have effective movement if 230 isn't reformed. I do think Wyden's reliance on encryption as a tool for protecting children rather than predators is a mistake. I assume we will disagree on this as well.