I wrote recently of several, when taken together, bizarre actions emanating from Wonderboy's Justice Department.
As sort of an afterthought, I included the recent decision to drop prosecution of the Black Panthers who engaged in documented, undeniable voter intimidation in Philadelphia last November.
As I've reflected on that post, I realize there's a more clear juxtaposition between the CIA prosecution and that of the Black Panthers.
This administration is consciously and deliberately weakening our defenses, while also consciously and deliberately failing to punish voter intimidation.
It's as if Wonderboy is acting to trigger a crisis in America. A crisis by which he can call for special powers. And, in the process, perhaps alter an otherwise-unbroken string of elections from 1789 until today.
These two actions are both just so inexplicable without the assumption that the president who sanctioned them wants a harmful outcome for America, rather than the one to which he swore when he took the oath of his office last November.
Showing posts with label Voter Turnout. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Voter Turnout. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Minnesota's Shame: Recount Cheats Coleman of Victory, Names Comedian Franken Senator
Minnesota is currently displaying a sickening drama involving Democratic Senate candidate Al Franken stealing the election with the help of the state's certification board and Democratic Secretary of State.
Originally, Republican incumbent Norm Coleman had won the election by some 200 votes. A recount, of course, was required.
With a Democratic party-controlled process, is it any surprise that, weeks later, the Democratic candidate, Al Franken, ended up 200 votes ahead, and certified yesterday by the state's board?
Among the irregularities catalogued by the Wall Street Journal were these:
-counties in which Franken 'won' having more total ballots than registered voters.
-varying use of either election-night totals, or revisited totals, all of which magically handed Franken more votes in each case
-situations in which, when recounted, Franken added many more votes than were added for Obama among the same ballots.
-inconsistent rulings on whether to use damaged ballots
-lost custody records on suspect ballots
It seems incredible that Coleman could wake up on election day having won, and then lose by a like amount two months later.
It seems to me that the sensible approach for any state to take in elections of a statewide nature is to hold a second election for any race in which the margin of victory is smaller than the least number of contested ballots by any candidate in the race.
Recounts, beginning with the Florida situation in the 2000 Presidential election, always leave one party feeling cheated. There's no way these things are seen as fair. The presiding officer is of one party, so the other feels it was cheated.
That's what has happened with Coleman/Franken. But not in Georgia, where they held a runoff.
It's a fair bet that, with a new election, Coleman would win.
But the reality is that the Minnesota Supreme Court probably won't want to be seen as picking a winner, so they'll likely hear, then deny Coleman's bid to be named the winner.
So the Democrats rack up another national embarrassment. First the circus for Senator from Illinois. Then New York. Now this cheating and theft of the Senate election by Franken in Minnesota.
Should help 2010 be easy pickings for the GOP.
Originally, Republican incumbent Norm Coleman had won the election by some 200 votes. A recount, of course, was required.
With a Democratic party-controlled process, is it any surprise that, weeks later, the Democratic candidate, Al Franken, ended up 200 votes ahead, and certified yesterday by the state's board?
Among the irregularities catalogued by the Wall Street Journal were these:
-counties in which Franken 'won' having more total ballots than registered voters.
-varying use of either election-night totals, or revisited totals, all of which magically handed Franken more votes in each case
-situations in which, when recounted, Franken added many more votes than were added for Obama among the same ballots.
-inconsistent rulings on whether to use damaged ballots
-lost custody records on suspect ballots
It seems incredible that Coleman could wake up on election day having won, and then lose by a like amount two months later.
It seems to me that the sensible approach for any state to take in elections of a statewide nature is to hold a second election for any race in which the margin of victory is smaller than the least number of contested ballots by any candidate in the race.
Recounts, beginning with the Florida situation in the 2000 Presidential election, always leave one party feeling cheated. There's no way these things are seen as fair. The presiding officer is of one party, so the other feels it was cheated.
That's what has happened with Coleman/Franken. But not in Georgia, where they held a runoff.
It's a fair bet that, with a new election, Coleman would win.
But the reality is that the Minnesota Supreme Court probably won't want to be seen as picking a winner, so they'll likely hear, then deny Coleman's bid to be named the winner.
So the Democrats rack up another national embarrassment. First the circus for Senator from Illinois. Then New York. Now this cheating and theft of the Senate election by Franken in Minnesota.
Should help 2010 be easy pickings for the GOP.
Monday, November 24, 2008
The Incredible Naivete of Obama Voters
Fox News aired a disturbing piece last week on its Hannity & Colmes program.
I can't recall the name of the producer/videographer, but the story was essentially this.
A filmmaker had selected for him, without his involvement, a group of people who had voted for the Democratic candidate for President earlier this month. This was, effectively, an exit survey.
He then provided them with a 10-question, multiple choice quiz to complete.
Among the astonishing and troubling results were that every respondent, as verified by the video clip on H&C, thought that both Congressional Houses were controlled by the Republicans!
Further, he documented the extremely toxic environment the media had created for the GOP ticket by asking the voters who, among the four candidates on the two major tickets, had an unmarried teenaged daughter.
Again, every one of the respondents appearing on the video replied the same, and that was, correctly, Sarah Palin.
It reminds me of a discussion which my business partner and I had earlier this year regarding the Constitution's original requirements for voting. Given this horrifying story, I'm going to write a post about that conversation, and what could be done to improve electoral outcomes going forward.
I can't recall the name of the producer/videographer, but the story was essentially this.
A filmmaker had selected for him, without his involvement, a group of people who had voted for the Democratic candidate for President earlier this month. This was, effectively, an exit survey.
He then provided them with a 10-question, multiple choice quiz to complete.
Among the astonishing and troubling results were that every respondent, as verified by the video clip on H&C, thought that both Congressional Houses were controlled by the Republicans!
Further, he documented the extremely toxic environment the media had created for the GOP ticket by asking the voters who, among the four candidates on the two major tickets, had an unmarried teenaged daughter.
Again, every one of the respondents appearing on the video replied the same, and that was, correctly, Sarah Palin.
It reminds me of a discussion which my business partner and I had earlier this year regarding the Constitution's original requirements for voting. Given this horrifying story, I'm going to write a post about that conversation, and what could be done to improve electoral outcomes going forward.
Friday, November 14, 2008
The Truth About The Election's Voter Turnout, Behaviors & 'Realignment'
This week has seen a number of thoughtful analyses of last week's voter behaviors by people such as Karl Rove, Dick Morris, and Jennifer Marsico. The first two are well known. Ms. Marsico wrote a succinct, brilliant piece in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal.
Key passages from her article, "This Election Has Not 'Realigned' the Country," include,
"With Barack Obama's victory and Democratic gains in Congress, more than a few commentators are talking about that "r" word so important in presidential politics -- "realignment." Was 2008 a realigning election? I don't think so.
The academic discussion of realignment began with V.O. Key's seminal 1955 essay "A Theory of Critical Elections." Key wrote that critical or realigning elections exhibit high voter interest and realigning voter turnout, as well as a shift in the dominant political ideology. Most often cited is FDR's victory over Hoover in 1932, which started a decades-long period of Democratic dominance. Americans tended to support government intervention in their lives to a greater degree than before the Great Depression. Hence, there had been a fundamental ideological shift.
Today, our elections are more candidate- than policy-centered, and detecting a seismic policy shift has become more difficult.
But there's another similarity that disqualifies both contests from constituting a realigning election: The elections turned on their predecessors. Reagan's sound bite "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" encapsulated what his campaign was about. The election was a referendum on Jimmy Carter's performance, and voters rejected it.
Even more to the point, the congressional election results also cast doubt on the thesis that this year's election, or that of 1980, signals a political realignment. Republicans picked up 33 seats in the House and control of the Senate in 1980. But two years later, Democrats picked up 26 seats in the House and regained control of the Senate in 1986.
In 2008, Democrats picked up 19 House seats (with a few races still too close to call), but this represented the continuation of a trend from 2006, a year in which Democrats picked up a more impressive 31 seats. It is too early to conclude that 2008 marked the start of an enduring period of one-party domination or the continuation of short-term voter dissatisfaction with the GOP.
Put another way, Mr. Obama got about 40,000 fewer votes in Ohio than John Kerry got four years ago. Mr. Obama carried the state when Mr. Kerry did not because Republicans stayed home. Nationally, the anticipated record turnout didn't materialize. About the same percentage of registered voters came out this year as in 2004. And was that a realignment year?
In the same way that 1980 did not yield a generation-long period of Republican dominance, those on the right can take heart that 2008 does not represent the beginning of an era of Democratic supremacy."
Add to Ms. Marsico's insights Dick Morris' observation that, despite what he referred to as the erroneous 'truths' now being fabricated, voter turnout this year was actually about the same as 2004, i.e., some 130MM. For all the alleged new young voters registered, there wasn't a corresponding increase in their rate of voting.
Karl Rove has noted similar statistics, joining Morris and Marsico in cautioning anyone to interpret this election as 'realigning' or any other sort of radical seismic shift in American voter preferences.
Rather, for a candidate with 96% of 13% of the electorate in his pocket to begin with, the Illinois rookie won by a shockingly narrow margin over McCain. And most of this was attributable to the former's painting McCain as 'four more years of George Bush,' while the latter wasn't as articulate and able a campaigner as his younger foe.
This election was about relative choices between two men, not larger choices for the long term between two competing views of how to (re)fashion our society.
If the Democrats, as is their usual practice, can't help themselves from attempting a wholesale push of American government to the left, you'll see a resurgent GOP House in two years, and the White House back in GOP hands in four.
Paradoxically, if the Democrats don't attempt this socialization of American government, their own far-left attack dogs will turn on them.
Either way, with a fresh, energized set of young Republican Governors and Representatives, look for a dramatic turnabout in two and four years' time.
Key passages from her article, "This Election Has Not 'Realigned' the Country," include,
"With Barack Obama's victory and Democratic gains in Congress, more than a few commentators are talking about that "r" word so important in presidential politics -- "realignment." Was 2008 a realigning election? I don't think so.
The academic discussion of realignment began with V.O. Key's seminal 1955 essay "A Theory of Critical Elections." Key wrote that critical or realigning elections exhibit high voter interest and realigning voter turnout, as well as a shift in the dominant political ideology. Most often cited is FDR's victory over Hoover in 1932, which started a decades-long period of Democratic dominance. Americans tended to support government intervention in their lives to a greater degree than before the Great Depression. Hence, there had been a fundamental ideological shift.
Today, our elections are more candidate- than policy-centered, and detecting a seismic policy shift has become more difficult.
But there's another similarity that disqualifies both contests from constituting a realigning election: The elections turned on their predecessors. Reagan's sound bite "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" encapsulated what his campaign was about. The election was a referendum on Jimmy Carter's performance, and voters rejected it.
Even more to the point, the congressional election results also cast doubt on the thesis that this year's election, or that of 1980, signals a political realignment. Republicans picked up 33 seats in the House and control of the Senate in 1980. But two years later, Democrats picked up 26 seats in the House and regained control of the Senate in 1986.
In 2008, Democrats picked up 19 House seats (with a few races still too close to call), but this represented the continuation of a trend from 2006, a year in which Democrats picked up a more impressive 31 seats. It is too early to conclude that 2008 marked the start of an enduring period of one-party domination or the continuation of short-term voter dissatisfaction with the GOP.
Put another way, Mr. Obama got about 40,000 fewer votes in Ohio than John Kerry got four years ago. Mr. Obama carried the state when Mr. Kerry did not because Republicans stayed home. Nationally, the anticipated record turnout didn't materialize. About the same percentage of registered voters came out this year as in 2004. And was that a realignment year?
In the same way that 1980 did not yield a generation-long period of Republican dominance, those on the right can take heart that 2008 does not represent the beginning of an era of Democratic supremacy."
Add to Ms. Marsico's insights Dick Morris' observation that, despite what he referred to as the erroneous 'truths' now being fabricated, voter turnout this year was actually about the same as 2004, i.e., some 130MM. For all the alleged new young voters registered, there wasn't a corresponding increase in their rate of voting.
Karl Rove has noted similar statistics, joining Morris and Marsico in cautioning anyone to interpret this election as 'realigning' or any other sort of radical seismic shift in American voter preferences.
Rather, for a candidate with 96% of 13% of the electorate in his pocket to begin with, the Illinois rookie won by a shockingly narrow margin over McCain. And most of this was attributable to the former's painting McCain as 'four more years of George Bush,' while the latter wasn't as articulate and able a campaigner as his younger foe.
This election was about relative choices between two men, not larger choices for the long term between two competing views of how to (re)fashion our society.
If the Democrats, as is their usual practice, can't help themselves from attempting a wholesale push of American government to the left, you'll see a resurgent GOP House in two years, and the White House back in GOP hands in four.
Paradoxically, if the Democrats don't attempt this socialization of American government, their own far-left attack dogs will turn on them.
Either way, with a fresh, energized set of young Republican Governors and Representatives, look for a dramatic turnabout in two and four years' time.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
