A fake Biden campaign site may be outperforming the real one

Bubbajim

Posts: 720   +694

Given the prominence of allegations around ‘fake news’ and disinformation on social media in the run up to the 2016 election, it’s no surprise that online content is under scrutiny as we head towards the 2020 presidential race. But that’s not stopped the popularity of parody, as a fake campaign page for Joe Biden’s 2020 run is allegedly drawing in more visitors than the real deal.

Biden’s real page, joebiden.com, is a somewhat schmaltzy site, typically expected of the ‘all American’ politician that Biden wants to be seen as. According to data revealed by the New York Times, his website was visited roughly 310,000 times between mid-March and the end of May. But during that same period, joebiden.info saw almost 400,000 visits.

That latter site labels itself “political commentary and [a] parody of Joe Biden's Presidential campaign website.” In its footer, it clarifies that “This is not Joe Biden's actual website.” Most people looking at the site should not be surprised – it’s full of clumsy lines uttered by the former Vice President, illiberal policy positions he’s taken over his career, and numerous gifs and images of Biden being a bit too hands-on with women and girls. Importantly, nothing on the site is made up, but the context could be said to be disingenuous.

Not everyone has spotted the parody. According to the New York Times, the site’s creator has received messages from Democrats asking for Biden to deliver speeches, or people looking to volunteer their time.

So who is the creator? A man named Patrick Mauldin, owner of Vici Media Group (Vici, meaning ‘I won’ or ‘I conquered’). Mauldin has helped create digital content for President Trump’s 2020 run, but his latest efforts have been focused not on promoting his preferred candidate, but instead sowing discord among Democrats with numerous parody pages. He has made websites for Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, but none have been so popular as joebiden.info.

It seems that while ‘Russian trolling’ has been on the minds of many Democratic Party supporters, they may need to turn their attention to efforts closer to home.

Permalink to story.

 

m4a4

Posts: 2,285   +2,490
TechSpot Elite
@Uncle Al, why would we? Especially when we are never given good choices to begin with. Elections are a joke and have been for at least half a century.
The electoral college is also a joke. The winning candidate often has millions less votes than the loser.
Sounds like you understand little to nothing about the EC (relying on what social media tells you).

Tell me, how many times has a candidate won the popular vote and lost the election? Because "often" suggests more than half the time in the 50+ elections that have happened...
 

yRaz

Posts: 3,605   +3,525
Sounds like you understand little to nothing about the EC (relying on what social media tells you).

Tell me, how many times has a candidate won the popular vote and lost the election? Because "often" suggests more than half the time in the 50+ elections that have happened...
It isn't even just the presidential election. Representatives and congressmen benifit from this too.

But would you like to explain to me how the electroal college is more honest than a straight popular vote? Because what you said strongly implies that social media has convinced me that popular votes are bad!
 

m4a4

Posts: 2,285   +2,490
TechSpot Elite
It isn't even just the presidential election. Representatives and congressmen benifit from this too.

But would you like to explain to me how the electroal college is more honest than a straight popular vote? Because what you said strongly implies that social media has convinced me that popular votes are bad!
I don't need to, you obviously have access to google (which you should've used before your first comment).

BTW, the answer is 5. 5/58 elections have been against the popular vote. So often!
 

Hexic

Posts: 934   +1,292
TechSpot Elite
Sounds like you understand little to nothing about the EC (relying on what social media tells you).

Tell me, how many times has a candidate won the popular vote and lost the election? Because "often" suggests more than half the time in the 50+ elections that have happened...
It isn't even just the presidential election. Representatives and congressmen benifit from this too.

But would you like to explain to me how the electroal college is more honest than a straight popular vote? Because what you said strongly implies that social media has convinced me that popular votes are bad!

Believing that the EC should be abolished for a popular vote is literally up there with flat earthers in the logic.

Not even worth explaining anything - I invite you to utilize the power of Google and common sense.
 

yRaz

Posts: 3,605   +3,525
Believing that the EC should be abolished for a popular vote is literally up there with flat earthers in the logic.

Not even worth explaining anything - I invite you to utilize the power of Google and common sense.
Neither of you have given me a reason why. Do you guys feel like arguing your argument or would you just like to tell me I'm wrong and walk away?
 

Cycloid Torus

Posts: 4,729   +1,533
It isn't even just the presidential election. Representatives and congressmen benifit from this too.

But would you like to explain to me how the electoral college is more honest than a straight popular vote? Because what you said strongly implies that social media has convinced me that popular votes are bad!
I don't need to, you obviously have access to google (which you should've used before your first comment).

BTW, the answer is 5. 5/58 elections have been against the popular vote. So often!
Being a citizen from a very small state, I am grateful for the Electoral College. When the republic (yes, it is a republic) was being formed, an idea of "states rights" was considered important. Little Rhode Island was worried that the big (in population) states like Virginia would run everything their way. Self-taught lawyer from New Haven, Roger Sherman, offered a compromise. So in the House, membership is based on populations yet assures a state (no matter how small) gets at least one Representative. In the Senate, every state, whether big or small, gets two and ONLY two. The Electoral College is based on the count of Representatives and Senators for each state.

It is a compromise which helps balance the allocations of power so that the small are at less of a risk of being bullied. It has been important in the survival of our government as some good ideas and good people come from little states.

Maybe the real issue is that the major parties and their candidates focus too much on their 'path to success' and not enough on the welfare of all of the states and all of the citizens.
 
Last edited:

Puiu

Posts: 4,489   +3,320
TechSpot Elite
The website is really funny and well done. Kudos to the guy who worked on it :D

As for the Electoral College, in my opinion as a non-american, it should be abolished and just let the president win with a majority vote. How anyone can support unequal voting rights in the "most democratic" country in the world is baffling to me. Why does living in state A mean that your vote is less important than someone living in state B? It's an archaic system that is just stupid in modern times. I see no difference between the US and China/Russia in this regard.

People seem to have forgotten than 2 of the last 5 presidents were "unpopular". And I don't see this trend changing in the next decade or 2.
 
Last edited:

Puiu

Posts: 4,489   +3,320
TechSpot Elite
Being a citizen from a very small state, I am grateful for the Electoral College. When the republic (yes, it is a republic) an idea of "states rights" was considered important. Little Rhode Island was worried that the big (in population) states like Virginia would run everything their way. Self-taught lawyer from New Haven, Roger Sherman, offered a compromise. So in the House, membership is based on populations yet assures a state (no matter how small) gets at least one Representative. In the Senate, every state, whether big or small, gets two and ONLY two. The Electoral College is based on the count of Representatives and Senators for each state.

It is a compromise which helps balance the allocations of power so that the small are at less of a risk of being bullied. It has been important in the survival of our government as some good ideas and good people come from little states.

Maybe the real issue is that the major parties and their candidates focus too much on their 'path to success' and not enough on the welfare of all of the states and all of the citizens.
The smaller states are not getting bullied, just completely ignored as every candidate is forced to focus on just the big states. Why do you think that in this day and age where information and ease of travel readily available smaller states will get "bullied"? We don't even know what the word "bullied" entails?

FYI "representatives" can still be used to ensure that every state has a voice, but it doesn't mean that the president himself should be elected this way.
 

tkabou

Posts: 123   +136
Maybe the real issue is that the major parties and their candidates focus too much on their 'path to success' and not enough on the welfare of all of the states and all of the citizens.

Your assessment and conclusion, especially the the last paragraph are spot on.
 

Hexic

Posts: 934   +1,292
TechSpot Elite
The website is really funny and well done. Kudos to the guy who worked on it :D

As for the Electoral College, in my opinion as a non-american, it should be abolished and just let the president win with a majority vote. How anyone can support unequal voting rights in the "most democratic" country in the world is baffling to me. Why does living in state A mean that your vote is less important than someone living in state B? It's an archaic system that is just stupid in modern times. I see no difference between the US and China/Russia in this regard.

People seem to have forgotten than 2 of the last 5 presidents were "unpopular". And I don't see this trend changing in the next decade or 2.

The "unequal voting rights" would be persistent with a popular vote, let me be explain why, leading into your following statement of why state A shouldn't have any more voting power than state B - of which I agree with you on.

State A, California for example, with a popular voting system, would have more power than a dozen+ other states because of the population of 2 of their cities.

Let's take that father now. California, New York, Texas, Florida, and Illinois are our 5 most populous states. These states combined population make up ~35.7% of our ENTIRE countries population. Based off of your statement, why should 5 states have supreme governance over the other 45 combined? That's what you call unfair.

The US is much more complicated than even our own citizens give it credit for when it comes to the electoral college. The bottom line is that certain people's candidate didn't win, so now they're throwing a fit about it. It happens every time the EC does it's job because people just can't take it that they lost at something anymore.
 

cliffordcooley

Posts: 12,696   +6,055
Based off of your statement, why should 5 states have supreme governance over the other 45 combined? That's what you call unfair.
The five states that has a larger dependency on the other states. We help support their *** so why don't we have an equal voice? 50 States should be 50 votes regardless of state population. The rich states should not have the power to piss on the poor states. The poor states of which they are dependent.
 

Puiu

Posts: 4,489   +3,320
TechSpot Elite
The "unequal voting rights" would be persistent with a popular vote, let me be explain why, leading into your following statement of why state A shouldn't have any more voting power than state B - of which I agree with you on.

State A, California for example, with a popular voting system, would have more power than a dozen+ other states because of the population of 2 of their cities.

Let's take that father now. California, New York, Texas, Florida, and Illinois are our 5 most populous states. These states combined population make up ~35.7% of our ENTIRE countries population. Based off of your statement, why should 5 states have supreme governance over the other 45 combined? That's what you call unfair.

The US is much more complicated than even our own citizens give it credit for when it comes to the electoral college. The bottom line is that certain people's candidate didn't win, so now they're throwing a fit about it. It happens every time the EC does it's job because people just can't take it that they lost at something anymore.
You do realize that you are saying that the system should remain unfair because more people live in a different state, right? The exact opposite of a democracy. We can apply your faulty logic to how mayors are voted by people from different districts of a city --> double standards much?

The state votes for their representatives to defend the interests of those living in X state, but those same representatives should not be the ones that vote for the president which represents the interests of the entire country.

You are electing the president of the entire country not of a single state. Trump is literally president because of technicality not because he won the hearts of the US citizens and it shows... the US hasn't been this divided and controversial in a very long time.
 

Cycloid Torus

Posts: 4,729   +1,533
You do realize that you are saying that the system should remain unfair because more people live in a different state, right?
Yup, you got it. It is a democratic REPUBLIC, not a democracy. Main feature of a republic is protecting rights of the lesser members against the vastly stronger ones. It is not meant to be meticulously democratic, but to be fair. Yes, it is a compromise. I do hope that the Democrats and the 'Main Street" Republicans figure that out quick - otherwise we will see another term with President Antithesis.
 

Hexic

Posts: 934   +1,292
TechSpot Elite
You do realize that you are saying that the system should remain unfair because more people live in a different state, right? The exact opposite of a democracy. We can apply your faulty logic to how mayors are voted by people from different districts of a city --> double standards much?

The state votes for their representatives to defend the interests of those living in X state, but those same representatives should not be the ones that vote for the president which represents the interests of the entire country.

You are electing the president of the entire country not of a single state. Trump is literally president because of technicality not because he won the hearts of the US citizens and it shows... the US hasn't been this divided and controversial in a very long time.

Unfortunately you're missing the entire point. By the states representatives voting for the interests of their constituents locally, they literally represent their community's interests. That's brutally simple.

Our President won not through a technicality, he won through the very system itself. You can try and rebrand or justify that to yourself all you'd like, but it won't matter.

But by all means, continue to support a system that would depend on mega cities for all presidential outcomes, and no one else. That makes sense.
 

Puiu

Posts: 4,489   +3,320
TechSpot Elite
Unfortunately you're missing the entire point. By the states representatives voting for the interests of their constituents locally, they literally represent their community's interests. That's brutally simple.

Our President won not through a technicality, he won through the very system itself. You can try and rebrand or justify that to yourself all you'd like, but it won't matter.

But by all means, continue to support a system that would depend on mega cities for all presidential outcomes, and no one else. That makes sense.
You may call it a fancy name, but it is what it is and you can't change that simple fact: a technicality. The "Our" from "Our president" doesn't include the majority of the voters. So no, he's not the guy people voted for, he missed the mark by millions.

And what does big cities vs small cities have to do with the presidential elections? Just because you live in a smaller town means that your vote should count more? That's just a stupid excuse.

The whole "the big will dominate the small" is an argument that is devoid of any reason. You should actually look at what is happening right now in your own backyard. Since when did the US Republican party work for the small guy? It's not Lincon's party anymore, it hasn't been in a very long time.

"By the states representatives voting for the interests of their constituents locally, they literally represent their community's interests. That's brutally simple."

The representatives would still be able to do that perfectly, just not when it comes to presidential elections since this doesn't concern just your smaller community, but the entire country as a whole.

TL;DR a technicality should not replace a majority in a democratic country that is supposed to be a role model for others.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,507   +5,312
You may call it a fancy name, but it is what it is and you can't change that simple fact: a technicality. The "Our" from "Our president" doesn't include the majority of the voters. So no, he's not the guy people voted for, he missed the mark by millions.

And what does big cities vs small cities have to do with the presidential elections? Just because you live in a smaller town means that your vote should count more? That's just a stupid excuse.

The whole "the big will dominate the small" is an argument that is devoid of any reason. You should actually look at what is happening right now in your own backyard. Since when did the US Republican party work for the small guy? It's not Lincon's party anymore, it hasn't been in a very long time.

"By the states representatives voting for the interests of their constituents locally, they literally represent their community's interests. That's brutally simple."

The representatives would still be able to do that perfectly, just not when it comes to presidential elections since this doesn't concern just your smaller community, but the entire country as a whole.

TL;DR a technicality should not replace a majority in a democratic country that is supposed to be a role model for others.
You make a lot of interesting and very valid points.

There is one fatal flaw in the democratic process, a supposed "oppressed minority" can literally breed themselves into the majority, and subsequently governmental control.. And in point of fact, the white majority has been forced to pay for it. (Try reading about the US' "social entitlement" programs (free food, free lodging, free health care, free schools, et al)).

I've been alive through our civil rights movement, which brought forced busing of students, and the "affirmative action", perhaps qualified blacks were given jobs before fully qualified whites. These moves were perhaps extreme but (arguably) necessary.

What's going on today is horse sh!t from the jump. Minorities have more than their proportional share of power. Why shouldn't states be allowed to have a statue of Robert E Lee. Forcing its removal is an Orwellian rewrite of history. The US Civil War, cost 1,000,000 lives. 600,000 from the South, 400,000 from the North. In spite of the North's sacrifice, blacks still view northern white with the same contempt as those southern whites.

The Federal government has intervened to stamp out segregation. But now, inner city non tax paying citizens feel they are entitled "to parity in schools", which comes down to suburban taxpayers, being required to fund inner city schools, while paying school taxes to their communities as well.

Now we have a situation where 72 Philadelphia police officers are off duty and in danger off being dismissed for "hate speech" on the web. I live in the hood, and I see first hand how much abuse our patrol officers are subjected to. IMO, they deserve to have a place to get their bitterness and hostility out of their systems, before they have nervous breakdowns. The world wouldn't miss anyone if my entire police district came out and gunned down everybody on my block. But no, they can't even say rude things on the web.

Don't get me started about the "me too" movement. That's where some b*tch from 30 years in the past comes out of the woodwork, accuses a high profile male of sexual harassment, and the next in line for his job, (who happens to be a woman), gets it.

If things keep rolling downhill the way they have been, the US will be an Amazon society wherein only the most virile men are brought in to service the queen, and then slaughtered..

Then there's the issue of the aptly named Peter Buttigegg. Personally, I think wee'd sacrifice more prestige on the world stage,if we had his husband as our "first lady", than we have already given away having Trump in the White House.

Then we have the issue where deviants like RuPaul https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuPaul have become folk heroes. That's fine I suppose, but tell me honestly if this ****** doesn't look like a character from "District One" in the "Hunger Games". We should elect him (?) president, That'll show Vladimir Putin a thing or two about American strength and resolve.

GettyImages-1147428667.jpg


And you wonder why white, middle class America, voted for Donald Trump. I certainly don't.