That's why I said Cruz would have an uphill battle vs. Clinton.
Gun to my head, if I had to bet... I'd say Clinton wins 9 out of 10 times.
EDIT: I think Cruz wins Colorado and WI. But Ohio/Florida? <shudder> That's going to be ridiculously close.
Interesting, why do you think he'll win Colorado and Wisconsin? I attribute his win in the primary to be due to a concerted "not trump" campaign, not because the state has a love for Cruz.
Polonius wrote: The dirty secret behind Trump is that he has anemic fundraising, and isn't really spending much of his own. He's luxuriating in free media, but he's not running ads, he has no ground game, and even his high level campaign staff is threadbare.
He's actually making money by "loaning" his campaign himself.
His lack of infrastructure is what's holding him back. That's how Cruz was able to snare additional delegates, because his staff knows the rules.
Infrastructure is mandatory in California... or, he's going to lose there as well.
He's done amazingly well because of an odd confluence of events and his own, lets call it charisma. A third party run would probably be embarrassingly futile.
Indeed... he was smart enough to tap into the voter's anger... he just didn't know *how* to run a campaign, which will be his downfall.
That's why I said Cruz would have an uphill battle vs. Clinton.
Gun to my head, if I had to bet... I'd say Clinton wins 9 out of 10 times.
EDIT: I think Cruz wins Colorado and WI. But Ohio/Florida? <shudder> That's going to be ridiculously close.
Interesting, why do you think he'll win Colorado and Wisconsin? I attribute his win in the primary to be due to a concerted "not trump" campaign, not because the state has a love for Cruz.
I doubt anyone unfriendly to marijuana legallization can do very well in Colorado. But now that I say that, I'm not quite sure where Cruz stands on that issue.
He has a brand, and part of that is that he's a "winner".
Besides, he's *not* going to get the fundings he'd need for a 3rd party run.
He will have "won" by getting the most votes and being "cheated out of it".
As far as funding, he's pretty rich, and his supporters will no doubt give donations. And you can be damn sure that there will be donations by left-wing groups to hurt the R's chances.
Now, it's not a sure things, But I wouldn't put it past him
That's why I said Cruz would have an uphill battle vs. Clinton.
Gun to my head, if I had to bet... I'd say Clinton wins 9 out of 10 times.
EDIT: I think Cruz wins Colorado and WI. But Ohio/Florida? <shudder> That's going to be ridiculously close.
Interesting, why do you think he'll win Colorado and Wisconsin? I attribute his win in the primary to be due to a concerted "not trump" campaign, not because the state has a love for Cruz.
I frequent Colorado as most of my family lives there now, so I pay attention to the local politics there.
One of the reason Cruz is "respected" there, is that he's not going to force them to drop their Marijuana industry. He believes it should be handled at the state level.
Plus, the Democrats has taken major beatings of the last few years, which culminated with the aftermath of the anti-2nd laws that were passed (then repealed), and the Democrat legislatures faced multiple recalls.
My sense is that Democrat Coloradoan voters is, at best, ambivalent towards Clinton and at worst despise her. They're very much feeling the Bernnow.
As for WI... have you not notice a Republican Governor who's in his 2nd term and survived a recall? WI is one of those "purple" states where Conservatives is actually growing and are well motivated in politics.
That's why I said Cruz would have an uphill battle vs. Clinton.
Gun to my head, if I had to bet... I'd say Clinton wins 9 out of 10 times.
EDIT: I think Cruz wins Colorado and WI. But Ohio/Florida? <shudder> That's going to be ridiculously close.
Interesting, why do you think he'll win Colorado and Wisconsin? I attribute his win in the primary to be due to a concerted "not trump" campaign, not because the state has a love for Cruz.
I doubt anyone unfriendly to marijuana legallization can do very well in Colorado. But now that I say that, I'm not quite sure where Cruz stands on that issue.
-Let's see what happens in Colorado with legalization. (Nov 2015)
-Lower minimums and mandatory sentencing for drugs. (Apr 2015)
-2014: federal enforcement; 2015: let states experiment. (Mar 2015)
-I disagree with states legalizing pot, but it's their right. (Feb 2015)
-Let states be laboratories of democracy on marijuana. (Feb 2015)
-I foolishly smoked pot when young, but never since. (Feb 2015)
jmurph wrote: It doesn't matter if "that's how these conventions work"- politically, with the current climate, I don't see how anyone but the frontrunner getting the nomination turns out well for the party. (And with the whole "Anyone But Trump" faction, even that will be problematic). Expecting the GOP leadership to somehow lecture their angry populist wing (already largely hostile to the so called "GOP establishment") to swallow a bitter pill seems like throwing gasoline on a fire.
Let's be fair though, Trump won a ton of his delegates due to quirks in the rules and a crowded field. He hasn't taken 50% of any given state yet. He's got the most votes, but nothing approaching a mandate. And that's the rule: get to half, or take your chances in a convention.
If I was in the RNC, I'd worry less about the angry populists, who aren't a reliable bloc, and more on the religious right, which is. Running Cruz shows the hard right that the GOP is about true conservative values. More Trump voters would support Cruz than vice versa. It's the smarter play, and Cruz can be expected to not embarrass the party too badly, especially if the actual general election seems lost. All those down ticket races matter.
The GOP has spent six years trying to kowtow to angry voters since the Tea Party sprang up, and it's gotten nothing but grief. I don't think they make the same mistake twice. It's the same cold calculation the democrats make with the Green party and the other far left agitators: make them realize that it's a two party system, and they'll buckle to support the lesser of two evils. Worst case, they're just staying home.
The GOP has been the party that kowtowed to angry voters as long ad I can remember. The American Taliban that they linked themselves to were angry voters long before the Tea Party was born...
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: the brand is already damaged. The name 'Trump' is now more associated with racism and sexism than it is with tacky luxury and reality TV.
Tell that to his supporters and all of the news organizations stepping all over themselves to interview Trump.
Interesting, why do you think he'll win Colorado and Wisconsin? I attribute his win in the primary to be due to a concerted "not trump" campaign, not because the state has a love for Cruz.
At least in the case of Wisconsin you're talking about a place that elected Scott Walker, both by normal process and recall. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Cruz managed to carry the State with his small government rhetoric.
He has a brand, and part of that is that he's a "winner".
Besides, he's *not* going to get the fundings he'd need for a 3rd party run.
He will have "won" by getting the most votes and being "cheated out of it".
As far as funding, he's pretty rich, and his supporters will no doubt give donations. And you can be damn sure that there will be donations by left-wing groups to hurt the R's chances.
Now, it's not a sure things, But I wouldn't put it past him
Trump isn't spending much of his money now, he's loaning it to his campaign and he'll use campaign donations to pay himself back. If Trump doesn't win the nomination at the convention he'll pay himself back on his campaign loan, declare a 3rd party candidacy but he won't really campaign except for doing some rallies at friendly venues and milking the media for all the interviews and air time he can get by staying in the race while barely doing any real campaigning. Trump gets donations but they tend to be small individual donations not big donations from big donors so I don't think he could self fund a real 3rd party run.
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: the brand is already damaged. The name 'Trump' is now more associated with racism and sexism than it is with tacky luxury and reality TV.
Tell that to his supporters and all of the news organizations stepping all over themselves to interview Trump.
A brand can be terribly damaged and still generate a lot of ratings.
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: the brand is already damaged. The name 'Trump' is now more associated with racism and sexism than it is with tacky luxury and reality TV.
Tell that to his supporters and all of the news organizations stepping all over themselves to interview Trump.
A brand can be terribly damaged and still generate a lot of ratings.
whembly wrote: [I frequent Colorado as most of my family lives there now, so I pay attention to the local politics there.
One of the reason Cruz is "respected" there, is that he's not going to force them to drop their Marijuana industry. He believes it should be handled at the state level.
Plus, the Democrats has taken major beatings of the last few years, which culminated with the aftermath of the anti-2nd laws that were passed (then repealed), and the Democrat legislatures faced multiple recalls.
My sense is that Democrat Coloradoan voters is, at best, ambivalent towards Clinton and at worst despise her. They're very much feeling the Bernnow.
As for WI... have you not notice a Republican Governor who's in his 2nd term and survived a recall? WI is one of those "purple" states where Conservatives is actually growing and are well motivated in politics.
Interesting perspective. I think "the bern" will fade, especially if Cruz is the nominee, because he's the bogeyman the left has been painting the GOP as for 15 years. He's very, very conservative, and doesn't try to hide it. I think that motivates a lot of lefties that might sit out an Al Gore nomination to block him. But... it will be interesting to see how Clinton handles winning the nomination and moving forward.
Plenty of blue states have republican governors. Michigan, Ohio, even Maryland all have GOP Governors. People like Paul Ryan, and apparently dislike state employees. I'm not sure Cruz's very heavy social conservatism will translate, but I've been surprised before.
What Cruz might do, more than any candidate since Reagan, is really cause a spike in turn out from the religious right. The problem is that Reagan was crazy charismatic on top of being conservative, and Cruz, well, isn't.
Well, except that this is not like 2008 for the GOP. Or any year. 538 had a good article talking abut primary voters and how most of them are unhappy with any given candidate as compared to Dems who, as a majority, would be happy with either (and the same was true of both Dems and GOP in prior elections for all candidates except Ron Paul).
Obama v. Clinton was very similar to Clinton v. Sanders.
Polonius wrote: I saw that article, and I agree, for the same reasons. Contested conventions are crazy, but they're still ~2500 die hard republicans. There is no way they nominate Trump on a second ballot, but I think they'll go for the hard right conservatism of Cruz.
The hard right conservatism will carry no water with the type of voter who only cares about politics once every 4 years, nor will it cut the mustard in crucial marginal states like Florida.
Western politics is all about the centre ground these days.
One of the reason Cruz is "respected" there, is that he's not going to force them to drop their Marijuana industry. He believes it should be handled at the state level.
Cruz asked this question...
“What steps will you take to require these states to cease and desist their support of the cultivation, distribution, and sale of marijuana, or to otherwise bring these states into compliance with existing federal controlled substance law?”
...of Loretta Lynch in 2015, just about a year ago. That doesn't seem very much like a State oriented sentiment, it seems more like a Federally oriented sentiment designed to up his conservative cred for a Presidential run.
As for WI... have you not notice a Republican Governor who's in his 2nd term and survived a recall? WI is one of those "purple" states where Conservatives is actually growing and are well motivated in politics.
The Milwaukee County Executive is also trying to sell off its public park land to private entities, because the liquidation of public assets always works out well for the public.
Interesting, why do you think he'll win Colorado and Wisconsin? I attribute his win in the primary to be due to a concerted "not trump" campaign, not because the state has a love for Cruz.
At least in the case of Wisconsin you're talking about a place that elected Scott Walker, both by normal process and recall. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Cruz managed to carry the State with his small government rhetoric.
Small government rhetoric?
Forgive me if I've mistaken you for somebody else, but a few years ago when we had a thread about Reagan's legacy, I'm pretty sure that it was you that made the point that every time there's a Republican in the white House, the Federal government increases in size!
The myth of small government has surely been de-bunked by now?
Wisconsin also showed that where Trump doesn't benefit from national media, he lags. But don't forget that most of the WI primary votes still went against Cruz, so it's not like they are huge fans. And it wasn't unexpected. Trump has shown some weak ground game in certain states and certainly in the delegate process as a whole. He should recover nicely in NY, though.
The myth of small government has surely been de-bunked by now?
Nah, people like their myths way too much to give them up. Even the ostensibly "small government" Tea Party is primarily driven by "feth the Democrats".
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: the brand is already damaged. The name 'Trump' is now more associated with racism and sexism than it is with tacky luxury and reality TV.
Tell that to his supporters and all of the news organizations stepping all over themselves to interview Trump.
The sheeple are lining up to meet their new daddy , and the news orgs are lining up to interview a political freakshow. They are not lining up to buy gaudy glasses, go golfing, get a condo, or buy premium steaks.
One of the reason Cruz is "respected" there, is that he's not going to force them to drop their Marijuana industry. He believes it should be handled at the state level.
Cruz asked this question...
“What steps will you take to require these states to cease and desist their support of the cultivation, distribution, and sale of marijuana, or to otherwise bring these states into compliance with existing federal controlled substance law?”
...of Loretta Lynch in 2015, just about a year ago. That doesn't seem very much like a State oriented sentiment, it seems more like a Federally oriented sentiment designed to up his conservative cred for a Presidential run.
It's the same ol' thing: States' Rights are something that Republicans agree with....until the states want to do something the Republicans disagree with.
One of the reason Cruz is "respected" there, is that he's not going to force them to drop their Marijuana industry. He believes it should be handled at the state level.
Cruz asked this question...
“What steps will you take to require these states to cease and desist their support of the cultivation, distribution, and sale of marijuana, or to otherwise bring these states into compliance with existing federal controlled substance law?”
...of Loretta Lynch in 2015, just about a year ago. That doesn't seem very much like a State oriented sentiment, it seems more like a Federally oriented sentiment designed to up his conservative cred for a Presidential run.
It's the same ol' thing: States' Rights are something that Republicans agree with....until the states want to do something the Republicans disagree with.
Small Government is good, until a smaller government wants to do something that a larger government doesn't want.
Like cities legalizing protections for certain groups, and states saying nope. Or cities banning certain things, and states saying nope.
One of the reason Cruz is "respected" there, is that he's not going to force them to drop their Marijuana industry. He believes it should be handled at the state level.
Cruz asked this question...
“What steps will you take to require these states to cease and desist their support of the cultivation, distribution, and sale of marijuana, or to otherwise bring these states into compliance with existing federal controlled substance law?”
...of Loretta Lynch in 2015, just about a year ago. That doesn't seem very much like a State oriented sentiment, it seems more like a Federally oriented sentiment designed to up his conservative cred for a Presidential run.
It's the same ol' thing: States' Rights are something that Republicans agree with....until the states want to do something the Republicans disagree with.
Small Government is good, until a smaller government wants to do something that a larger government doesn't want.
Like cities legalizing protections for certain groups, and states saying nope. Or cities banning certain things, and states saying nope.
The marijuana law question to Loretta Lynch isn't about states rights it's about the constitutional obligation of the federal government. Federal drug laws still exist, federal anti marijuana laws still exist. Colorado can pass state laws decriminalizing marijuana but that has no effect on federal laws still existing and having to be enforced. The only thing keeping the DEA from enforcing federal drug laws and anti marijuana laws in Colorado is the DoJ telling them not to enforce them. There is legal justification for the administration to tell the DoJ to have the DEA ignore violations of federal drug laws in Colorado. Federal agencies can't just arbitrarily decide not to enforce federal laws. The DEA is still busting people for marijuana in other states. Why does the DoJ get to pick and choose when and where federal drug laws get enforced and when and where they're allowed to be flaunted with impunity. If the administration thinks marijuana should be decriminalized they can get legislation introduced in Congress to strike marijuana laws off the books. What they can't legally do is just refuse to uphold their constitutional responsibility to enforce federal laws. That's not how the system works.
The marijuana law question to Loretta Lynch isn't about states rights it's about the constitutional obligation of the federal government. Federal drug laws still exist, federal anti marijuana laws still exist. Colorado can pass state laws decriminalizing marijuana but that has no effect on federal laws still existing and having to be enforced. The only thing keeping the DEA from enforcing federal drug laws and anti marijuana laws in Colorado is the DoJ telling them not to enforce them. There is legal justification for the administration to tell the DoJ to have the DEA ignore violations of federal drug laws in Colorado. Federal agencies can't just arbitrarily decide not to enforce federal laws. The DEA is still busting people for marijuana in other states. Why does the DoJ get to pick and choose when and where federal drug laws get enforced and when and where they're allowed to be flaunted with impunity. If the administration thinks marijuana should be decriminalized they can get legislation introduced in Congress to strike marijuana laws off the books. What they can't legally do is just refuse to uphold their constitutional responsibility to enforce federal laws. That's not how the system works.
Which doesn't change the fact that Republicans don't care about state's rights or small government, unless they ideologically agree with whatever is being proposed.
Prestor Jon wrote: The marijuana law question to Loretta Lynch isn't about states rights it's about the constitutional obligation of the federal government. Federal drug laws still exist, federal anti marijuana laws still exist. Colorado can pass state laws decriminalizing marijuana but that has no effect on federal laws still existing and having to be enforced. The only thing keeping the DEA from enforcing federal drug laws and anti marijuana laws in Colorado is the DoJ telling them not to enforce them. There is legal justification for the administration to tell the DoJ to have the DEA ignore violations of federal drug laws in Colorado. Federal agencies can't just arbitrarily decide not to enforce federal laws. The DEA is still busting people for marijuana in other states. Why does the DoJ get to pick and choose when and where federal drug laws get enforced and when and where they're allowed to be flaunted with impunity. If the administration thinks marijuana should be decriminalized they can get legislation introduced in Congress to strike marijuana laws off the books. What they can't legally do is just refuse to uphold their constitutional responsibility to enforce federal laws. That's not how the system works.
While I agree ultimately decriminalization needs to be done via Congress, i don't see a problem with the executive branch issuing direction on how crimes and resources are prioritized by subordinate law enforcement agencies; it's not really different than prosecutorial discretion. The police don't have unlimited resources to prosecute every jaywalker; and there are countless examples of archaic laws still on the books but not enforced, or enforceable. How many states still have anti sodomy, or miscegenation laws still on the books? Like, a dozen states have clauses in their constitutions prohibiting atheists from holding office. Obviously, not enforceable.
@d-USA I'm not disputing your claim that the Republican party only selectively cares about states rights. I agree with you on that but the failure to enforce federal drug laws in Colorado isn't about states rights about an administration selectively enforcing federal laws which is illegal and dangerous.
@Ouze The federal govt isn't ignoring marijuana laws everywhere just in Colorado. That's a problem and it's why other states are suing the federal govt over it. The federal govt is letting Colorado flaunt federal drug laws which is causing a dramatic increase in the trafficking of marijuana in neighboring states which is increasing crime rates and the cost of policing along the borders of neighboring states. The War on Drugs is still in effect the DEA is still seizing property and sending people to prison for marijuana trafficking. If the DoJ wants to give Colorado a special dispensation to break federal drug laws they need to find some legal justification for it beyond just making an arbitrary decision on enforcement policy. If we're going to establish a precedent that states can pass their own drug laws that nullify federal drug laws then we're overturning all the legal arguments that enforce federalism and we're going back to the nullification crisis of 1832. While I personally wouldn't mind giving states nullification powers that issue was decided rather decisively already and we've reinforced it with well over a century of case law.
The government currently places marijuana in the same category as heroin and LSD.
The Drug Enforcement Administration says it will make a decision in the coming months that could prove to be a watershed moment for the burgeoning legal marijuana industry.
In a memo to lawmakers this week, the DEA announced plans to decide “in the first half of 2016” whether or not it will reschedule marijuana, according to The Washington Post. Cannabis is now listed under the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule 1 drug, a categorization it shares with other drugs, such as heroin and LSD, which the U.S. government defines as “the most dangerous drugs” that have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”
Advocates for marijuana legalization have long argued that the drug should be rescheduled, considering marijuana’s relative safety when compared to a drug like heroin, which caused roughly 11,000 overdose deaths in 2014, according to the National Institutes of Health. The argument for rescheduling marijuana also revolves largely around the drug’s potential for medical use, as 23 states have already legalized medical pot to treat a variety of maladies—from cancer to chronic pain—and U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy even admitted last year that “marijuana can be helpful” for certain medical conditions.
Should the DEA decide to reschedule marijuana, bumping it down with supposedly less dangerous drugs such as cocaine (Schedule 2) or ketamine (Schedule 3), the move would likely open the door for expanded research of cannabis’ potential for medical applications. As it stands, the government has an exclusive contract with a University of Mississippi research lab to grow marijuana for the purpose of medical research, and the DEA notes in its letter that the government supplied an average of just nine researchers with marijuana for research purposes per year between 2010 and 2015.
Rescheduling could also have a major financial effect on the legal marijuana industry, which some estimates suggest will hit $6.7 billion in sales this year while expanding to nearly $22 billion by 2020. While more and more states have voted to legalize marijuana in some form over the past several years, the drug remains very much illegal on the federal level—an inconvenient fact for a rapidly expanding industry that has led to a range of issues for marijuana-related businesses, from a lack of banking options to federal tax issues.
Which, btw, I disagree with Heroin and LSD also being Schedule 1 drugs, as they have both been found to have medical benefits. I mean, Meth has a medical benefit, it is kinda hard to believe that Heroin, LSD, and Marijuana have none.
whembly wrote: The pollings between Clinton and Sanders has been whacky.
In one state it was whacky. Sanders needs probably four or more Michigans from here to win this thing.
I mean, where's there is life there is hope, but I wouldn't be too quick to put money on Sanders at this point, no matter what odds were offered.
He wasn't expected to win some of the states that he has... besides, *momentum* can be a 'thing' now:
Momentum is only really relevant early in a race. It is important in showing voters which candidates are a real shot, and which candidates are a 'wasted vote'. And it can lead to more positive news coverage, but that mild effect only matters when candidates are new and people are getting their first impressions. People have seen Clinton and Sanders for months now.
Nope. It's really about performing well in each of the next state's congressional districts.
Okay, I don't think you read what I said. The argument was made that Trump needed 60-odd% of the vote to win from here. I pointed out that number was irrelevant, because with a lot of winner take all primaries coming up, what matters is simply winning those states, and having good results in the loophole states (where 40 to 50% of the vote can translate in to 75% of the delegates, if things fall well for you).
We're headed to a contested convention bro.
Almost certainly. But what decides it from here isn’t the % of overall vote, but taking the winner take all states, and hitting the right numbers in the loophole states.
If Trump's the nominee, I can see the GOP voters sits at home giving the D's control in the WH/House/Senate (ala, 2008). Nothing the GOP leadership can do to ameliorate that imo.
But, if it's a "not-Trump"... we'll see. And at this point, it'll have to be either Cruz or Kasich. An outsider dropping in to "save the day" ain't going to happen.
If Trump is the candidate it will likely be a very bad election day for the Republicans. But if the party shuts him out despite him coming very close to 1,237, and handles it badly, then it could be just as bad, it might even be worse.
It depends on a lot of things. How many states Cruz wins in the last month of the campaign, if he can score some good wins and come in to the convention with ‘momentum’ and a reasonably close delegate count, then his win will look a lot better to the Republican base. And then there’s how well they sell the process, how much they make the convention and delegate movements look like a natural part of the process, and not the party deciding over the people.
And of course how well Trump plays it, and how well his inevitable dummy spit looks. Did you read his Wisconsin speech, that stuff is gonna be turned to 11 if the party shuts him out. If that plays well with a lot of the Republican base, and given the anti-elite tendencies in the party it might even play well with people who aren't Trump supporters, well then it could get really bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: The parties (both!) did this to themselves with these delegates and super delegates to try and prevent party darlings from losing to a populist candidate.
No, the reasons by which Trump will miss if he doesn’t reach 1,237, and the ways in which a Democratic winner might get shut out by superdelegates are very different. They are very different systems.
Bernie winning the pupular (i.e. regular delegate) vote would be fantastic.
Because then both parties will have to explain why the belief of the american people in "one person, one vote" isn't really in the people's best interest...lol....
Go and read about the 2008 Democratic primary. When Obama pulled ahead in the delegate lead, then all the superdelegates that had committed to Clinton simply swapped over to Obama. The party made the choice that they didn’t want to be seen as having insider ‘elites’ over-riding the unpledged delegates decided by popular vote. There is no reason to believe that wouldn’t happen again, if somehow Sanders managed to win the pledged delegates.
Oh, and would it interest you to know that the Sanders campaign has stated that he is looking to attract superdelegates to give him the win, even if he loses the unpledged delegates? He’s arguing they should flip to him because he’s more electable, even if he isn’t actually the winner of the pledged delegates.
This plucky little Sanders vs big, mean Clinton nonsense has to fething stop.
whembly wrote: The pollings between Clinton and Sanders has been whacky.
In one state it was whacky. Sanders needs probably four or more Michigans from here to win this thing.
I mean, where's there is life there is hope, but I wouldn't be too quick to put money on Sanders at this point, no matter what odds were offered.
Oh... I don't really mean that Sanders is going to overcome Clinton's delegate lead. It's just that he doing just enough to keep Clinton in "Primary Campaign" mode. She's gotta be thinking that she should've have this wrapped up by now.
He wasn't expected to win some of the states that he has... besides, *momentum* can be a 'thing' now:
Momentum is only really relevant early in a race. It is important in showing voters which candidates are a real shot, and which candidates are a 'wasted vote'. And it can lead to more positive news coverage, but that mild effect only matters when candidates are new and people are getting their first impressions. People have seen Clinton and Sanders for months now.
That's actually a great point.
The thing is, Sanders is making just enough noise that the Clinton campaign has to exert energy/effort to keep him at bay. Which seems a little demoralizing where they were convinced that they would have this locked up already.
Nope. It's really about performing well in each of the next state's congressional districts.
Okay, I don't think you read what I said. The argument was made that Trump needed 60-odd% of the vote to win from here. I pointed out that number was irrelevant, because with a lot of winner take all primaries coming up, what matters is simply winning those states, and having good results in the loophole states (where 40 to 50% of the vote can translate in to 75% of the delegates, if things fall well for you).
I understood. There's not as much as the WTA states anymore.
NY has one, but Trump has to win EVERY congressional district by 50%. Not happening there...
I believe CT and NJ are WTA, so those are safe bets for Trump.
Almost certainly. But what decides it from here isn’t the % of overall vote, but taking the winner take all states, and hitting the right numbers in the loophole states.
No one is getting to 1237.
If Trump's the nominee, I can see the GOP voters sits at home giving the D's control in the WH/House/Senate (ala, 2008). Nothing the GOP leadership can do to ameliorate that imo.
But, if it's a "not-Trump"... we'll see. And at this point, it'll have to be either Cruz or Kasich. An outsider dropping in to "save the day" ain't going to happen.
If Trump is the candidate it will likely be a very bad election day for the Republicans. But if the party shuts him out despite him coming very close to 1,237, and handles it badly, then it could be just as bad, it might even be worse.
It depends on a lot of things. How many states Cruz wins in the last month of the campaign, if he can score some good wins and come in to the convention with ‘momentum’ and a reasonably close delegate count, then his win will look a lot better to the Republican base. And then there’s how well they sell the process, how much they make the convention and delegate movements look like a natural part of the process, and not the party deciding over the people.
And of course how well Trump plays it, and how well his inevitable dummy spit looks. Did you read his Wisconsin speech, that stuff is gonna be turned to 11 if the party shuts him out. If that plays well with a lot of the Republican base, and given the anti-elite tendencies in the party it might even play well with people who aren't Trump supporters, well then it could get really bad.
Trump is going to lose and he'll be such a sore loser that he'll even turn off his "anti-establishment" supporters imo.
From the nomination till the Nov election, that's a long time in politics, such that the events that transpired in Cleveland would be old news.
whembly wrote: Remember that nasty fight in 2008 between Obama vs Clinton?
Same sorta thing.
Democrats turned out great... eh?
That was a long and close fight, where the winner was ultimately the guy who went to the convention with the most unpledged delegates, at which point most super-delegates supported him. The party conceded to the decision made by the base.
What’s being suggested here is the opposite of that. It’s as if 2008 went the other way, the superdelegates stuck by Clinton and gave her the win in spite of Obama’s lead in unpledged delegates. Which would have caused a whole lot of problems for the Democrats. Maybe not enough to cost them the general, but possibly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: The GOP has spent six years trying to kowtow to angry voters since the Tea Party sprang up, and it's gotten nothing but grief. I don't think they make the same mistake twice. It's the same cold calculation the democrats make with the Green party and the other far left agitators: make them realize that it's a two party system, and they'll buckle to support the lesser of two evils. Worst case, they're just staying home.
That’s a great summary, and one I will be stealing to make myself sound very wise and insightful Thanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: Interesting perspective. I think "the bern" will fade, especially if Cruz is the nominee, because he's the bogeyman the left has been painting the GOP as for 15 years. He's very, very conservative, and doesn't try to hide it. I think that motivates a lot of lefties that might sit out an Al Gore nomination to block him.
Yeah, and in any other year I can see a Cruz nomination leading to a big Democratic win. But in this season, where people have gotten so worked up over a possibly Trump candidacy, it might be a lot harder for Democrats to get people worked up over Cruz - relief at no Trump might slide right through in to November.
What Cruz might do, more than any candidate since Reagan, is really cause a spike in turn out from the religious right. The problem is that Reagan was crazy charismatic on top of being conservative, and Cruz, well, isn't.
There's a great series of 538 graph that shows the problem in Cruz's plan.
That graph is showing how likely someone is to turn out and vote, by their political view. It shows the very conservative voters are already out, they were almost 85% in 2012. Pushing them harder won't produce that many more votes, because there just isn't that many more to get. And it also has issue with what states those votes are in - in raw votes Romney was much closer than McCain, but in swing states the results were even more solidly in favour of Obama, because the greater turn out of far right states was mostly in strong Republican states. Winning Texas is worth as much as winning Texas by lots.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Oh... I don't really mean that Sanders is going to overcome Clinton's delegate lead. It's just that he doing just enough to keep Clinton in "Primary Campaign" mode. She's gotta be thinking that she should've have this wrapped up by now.
Yeah, she should have wrapped this up ages back. Remember how you were saying for a couple of years there that Clinton had to whitehouse all but taken, and I kept saying it’s nowhere near a foregone conclusion, for lots of reasons not least of which is that Clinton is a crappy campaigner? Well, yeah.
The thing is, Sanders is making just enough noise that the Clinton campaign has to exert energy/effort to keep him at bay. Which seems a little demoralizing where they were convinced that they would have this locked up already.
I’m not sure about the demoralising effect, but it’s certainly keeping her to stay to the left on many issues, when she probably would have like to swing back to the centre. The longer the primary lasts the harder it is to swing back to the centre. When you can start your general campaigning in March you’ve got lots more time to establish yourself as a centrist by November, than if you have to keep staying left into May and June.
I understood. There's not as much as the WTA states anymore.
There’s a lot more to come than there’s been so far. If he won all the winner take all states and managed his current vote share in all the other states he’s easily reach 1,237 votes. The problem is that there’s a couple of winner take all states he’s very unlikely to win.
Yeah, it looks like the Trump ceiling that 538 has been talking about since like, November last year, has finally kicked in. It was 25%, then 30%, then 35%, and now it’s 40%. The difference is that this time that ceiling looks real, and it looks like it could be enough in what’s almost become a two horse race.
Trump is going to lose and he'll be such a sore loser that he'll even turn off his "anti-establishment" supporters imo.
It could play out that way, and if it does, then the Republican leadership will be very relieved. About as relieved as they could be with Ted Cruz as a candidate
From the nomination till the Nov election, that's a long time in politics, such that the events that transpired in Cleveland would be old news.
Maybe. But I bet you know lots of people on this site alone who are still pissed about the 2000 general election. Some things go away quickly, some don’t. Time will tell on this one.
Last month, the George Mason University School of Law decided to honor the late Supreme Court Justice and rename their school the Antonin Scalia School of Law.
However, this month GMU decided that ASSoL may not be the most fitting of names, so they are now changing their name to the safer Antonin Scalia Law School, or ASLS.
Polonius wrote: The GOP has spent six years trying to kowtow to angry voters since the Tea Party sprang up, and it's gotten nothing but grief. I don't think they make the same mistake twice. It's the same cold calculation the democrats make with the Green party and the other far left agitators: make them realize that it's a two party system, and they'll buckle to support the lesser of two evils. Worst case, they're just staying home.
That’s a great summary, and one I will be stealing to make myself sound very wise and insightful Thanks.
I should add that the GOP has really only had setbacks nationally, meaning the presidency. They're still stronger in the House, and while they might lose the Senate, they held it for six years. They also hold the majority of Governorships and state legislations.
The government currently places marijuana in the same category as heroin and LSD.
The Drug Enforcement Administration says it will make a decision in the coming months that could prove to be a watershed moment for the burgeoning legal marijuana industry.
In a memo to lawmakers this week, the DEA announced plans to decide “in the first half of 2016” whether or not it will reschedule marijuana, according to The Washington Post. Cannabis is now listed under the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule 1 drug, a categorization it shares with other drugs, such as heroin and LSD, which the U.S. government defines as “the most dangerous drugs” that have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”
Advocates for marijuana legalization have long argued that the drug should be rescheduled, considering marijuana’s relative safety when compared to a drug like heroin, which caused roughly 11,000 overdose deaths in 2014, according to the National Institutes of Health. The argument for rescheduling marijuana also revolves largely around the drug’s potential for medical use, as 23 states have already legalized medical pot to treat a variety of maladies—from cancer to chronic pain—and U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy even admitted last year that “marijuana can be helpful” for certain medical conditions.
Should the DEA decide to reschedule marijuana, bumping it down with supposedly less dangerous drugs such as cocaine (Schedule 2) or ketamine (Schedule 3), the move would likely open the door for expanded research of cannabis’ potential for medical applications. As it stands, the government has an exclusive contract with a University of Mississippi research lab to grow marijuana for the purpose of medical research, and the DEA notes in its letter that the government supplied an average of just nine researchers with marijuana for research purposes per year between 2010 and 2015.
Rescheduling could also have a major financial effect on the legal marijuana industry, which some estimates suggest will hit $6.7 billion in sales this year while expanding to nearly $22 billion by 2020. While more and more states have voted to legalize marijuana in some form over the past several years, the drug remains very much illegal on the federal level—an inconvenient fact for a rapidly expanding industry that has led to a range of issues for marijuana-related businesses, from a lack of banking options to federal tax issues.
Which, btw, I disagree with Heroin and LSD also being Schedule 1 drugs, as they have both been found to have medical benefits. I mean, Meth has a medical benefit, it is kinda hard to believe that Heroin, LSD, and Marijuana have none.
LSD was found during trials in the 60s to be quite effective as part of a treatment for some mental illnesses, I believe. MDMA has also been trialled, though not very much, in the same kind of way and seemed to be effective. Heroin of course has obvious medical applications as it is a very powerful opiate and so is a very effective painkiller. It is more commonly called diamorphine here in the UK and is used for things like epidurals where its powerful and fast acting effects are very useful.
Ouze wrote: I don't think Colorado should have selective enforcement (non-enforcement more accurately). If that's the crux of your beef, then I agree.
Ultimately I think marijuana along should just be legalized.
We're in agreement then.
One thing about Colorado (and Washington State) doing this is that they are acting as laboratories which the Fed can observe and (hopefully) make better policy decisions. At least that's my theory.
The marijuana law question to Loretta Lynch isn't about states rights it's about the constitutional obligation of the federal government. Federal drug laws still exist, federal anti marijuana laws still exist.
What Constitutional obligation of the Federal Government?
Regardless, it is still a State rights issue because the guy is asking a leading question to a prospective US Attorney General about the actions she would take to get States into line with Federal law; law he has since argued should be left to the States. It smacks of political convenience.
Yes, it is. A guy who wants to run for President as a Republican says a lot of things about how the Federal government should make certain State's ban a controlled substance, then recants (but not really), because he wants to appear like he supports State's rights (a conservative issue). That's a standard Conservative tactic.
The marijuana law question to Loretta Lynch isn't about states rights it's about the constitutional obligation of the federal government. Federal drug laws still exist, federal anti marijuana laws still exist.
What Constitutional obligation of the Federal Government?
Regardless, it is still a State rights issue because the guy is asking a leading question to a prospective US Attorney General about the actions she would take to get States into line with Federal law; law he has since argued should be left to the States. It smacks of political convenience.
Yes, it is. A guy who wants to run for President as a Republican says a lot of things about how the Federal government should make certain State's ban a controlled substance, then recants (but not really), because he wants to appear like he supports State's rights (a conservative issue). That's a standard Conservative tactic.
It's not a state's rights issue. The state of Colorado can pass whatever state drug laws it wants, their decriminalization of marijuana at the state level was never challenged it's always been within their right as a state to pass that law. The question posed to Lynch deals with the issue of the federal govt telling the DEA not to enforce federal anti marijuana charges in Colorado, while the DEA simultaneously continues to enforce anti marijuana drug laws in other states. What is the reasoning behind, and legal justification of, that specific instance of selective endorsement? States can't nullify federal laws, we already had that issue decided back in the 19th century. The administration doesn't have any legal grounds to say that since Colorado legalized pot that the federal anti pot laws are null and void there now. That would be illegal. If Lynch is okay with a de facto reversal on the nullification issue on any law the DoJ sees fit to ignore that is something worthy of questioning her on during her congressional hearing.
The federal govt has been selectively enforcing federal laws in some states and not in others for centuries? What is the legal justification for the DEA busting somebody for marijuana trafficking in say Tennessee while ignoring the same behavior in Colorado? What other federal laws can you currently break with impunity in some states but be prosecuted for in others?
You're conflating two separate issues: Ted Cruz pandering and posturing to help his presidential campaign and the DoJ deliberately ignoring people who violate federal drug laws in Colorado for spurious reasons. I don't care about Cruz pandering I care about the federal govt choosing to ruin people's lives over marijuana trafficking in some states while deliberately allowing other people to flaunt those laws in Colorado. The DoJ isn't ignoring anti marijuana laws completely, they're selectively ignoring them in some places and enforcing them in others. That kind of hypocrisy has no place in govt policy and shouldn't be acceptable to anyone. Either we're all equal under the law or the system doesn't work at all.
Ouze wrote: I don't think Colorado should have selective enforcement (non-enforcement more accurately). If that's the crux of your beef, then I agree.
Ultimately I think marijuana along should just be legalized.
We're in agreement then.
One thing about Colorado (and Washington State) doing this is that they are acting as laboratories which the Fed can observe and (hopefully) make better policy decisions. At least that's my theory.
Yet the DoJ and the DEA are still putting people in prison and seizing their assets over marijuana laws in other parts of the country. What's the administration's legal justification for that hypocrisy? Why is it ok for them to enforce the law on some people in some areas and not on other people in other areas? Justice is supposed to be blind and the law is supposed to govern all of us equally. The federal govt can't allow states de facto nullification powers over federal law, we already fought a civil war over that and established that federalism doesn't allow nullification. Either enforce the law equally or push to repeal it but don't selectively enforce it based on geography. The DoJ can't just stop prosecuting drug crimes in Colorado because they feel like conducting a social experiment they have to provide legal justification for why its ok for them to not do their job and uphold federal law. How does the DoJ explain why its ok for them to prosecute somebody in Minnesota for trafficking in marijuana they bring in from Canada to distribute and sell while they deliberately ignore people the same thing violating the same laws in Washington state?
I can see a very good reason to ignore it in Colorado. This is because illegal drug trafficking tends to result in violence and theft (including not paying taxes). It makes sense to deploy limited resources towards places where actual harm is being caused.
It's just like a cop choosing to pull over the guy going 20 over the speed limit and ignoring the guy going 1 over. It's technically illegal, but the guy going 1 over isn't as much of a threat to other people as the guy going 20 over. If you can only pull one of them ovef, which do you choose?
skyth wrote: I can see a very good reason to ignore it in Colorado. This is because illegal drug trafficking tends to result in violence and theft (including not paying taxes). It makes sense to deploy limited resources towards places where actual harm is being caused.
It's just like a cop choosing to pull over the guy going 20 over the speed limit and ignoring the guy going 1 over. It's technically illegal, but the guy going 1 over isn't as much of a threat to other people as the guy going 20 over. If you can only pull one of them ovef, which do you choose?
This. The DEA has limited manpower and money. Does it spend that manpower and money raiding a load of cannabis users in Colorado who are only threatening the supply of crisps and baked goods at their corner store with their drug-induced munching or do they target violent criminals who are actually importing and distributing drugs in areas where these drugs are causing lasting harm to society?
The government currently places marijuana in the same category as heroin and LSD.
The Drug Enforcement Administration says it will make a decision in the coming months that could prove to be a watershed moment for the burgeoning legal marijuana industry.
In a memo to lawmakers this week, the DEA announced plans to decide “in the first half of 2016” whether or not it will reschedule marijuana, according to The Washington Post. Cannabis is now listed under the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule 1 drug, a categorization it shares with other drugs, such as heroin and LSD, which the U.S. government defines as “the most dangerous drugs” that have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”
Advocates for marijuana legalization have long argued that the drug should be rescheduled, considering marijuana’s relative safety when compared to a drug like heroin, which caused roughly 11,000 overdose deaths in 2014, according to the National Institutes of Health. The argument for rescheduling marijuana also revolves largely around the drug’s potential for medical use, as 23 states have already legalized medical pot to treat a variety of maladies—from cancer to chronic pain—and U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy even admitted last year that “marijuana can be helpful” for certain medical conditions.
Should the DEA decide to reschedule marijuana, bumping it down with supposedly less dangerous drugs such as cocaine (Schedule 2) or ketamine (Schedule 3), the move would likely open the door for expanded research of cannabis’ potential for medical applications. As it stands, the government has an exclusive contract with a University of Mississippi research lab to grow marijuana for the purpose of medical research, and the DEA notes in its letter that the government supplied an average of just nine researchers with marijuana for research purposes per year between 2010 and 2015.
Rescheduling could also have a major financial effect on the legal marijuana industry, which some estimates suggest will hit $6.7 billion in sales this year while expanding to nearly $22 billion by 2020. While more and more states have voted to legalize marijuana in some form over the past several years, the drug remains very much illegal on the federal level—an inconvenient fact for a rapidly expanding industry that has led to a range of issues for marijuana-related businesses, from a lack of banking options to federal tax issues.
Which, btw, I disagree with Heroin and LSD also being Schedule 1 drugs, as they have both been found to have medical benefits. I mean, Meth has a medical benefit, it is kinda hard to believe that Heroin, LSD, and Marijuana have none.
LSD was found during trials in the 60s to be quite effective as part of a treatment for some mental illnesses, I believe. MDMA has also been trialled, though not very much, in the same kind of way and seemed to be effective. Heroin of course has obvious medical applications as it is a very powerful opiate and so is a very effective painkiller. It is more commonly called diamorphine here in the UK and is used for things like epidurals where its powerful and fast acting effects are very useful.
My earlier post got eaten by a double, but MDMA helps with depression, LSD has been found to help a LOT with PTSD. Small amounts of Psilocybin(Magic Mushrooms) daily have been found to improve peoples lives by promoting happier thoughts by stimulating the production of dopamine. Lots and lots of medical uses for these things. But what it comes down to is "DRUGS GRRR" because prohibition has historically worked for this country.
It's not a state's rights issue. The state of Colorado can pass whatever state drug laws it wants, their decriminalization of marijuana at the state level was never challenged it's always been within their right as a state to pass that law. The question posed to Lynch deals with the issue of the federal govt telling the DEA not to enforce federal anti marijuana charges in Colorado, while the DEA simultaneously continues to enforce anti marijuana drug laws in other states. What is the reasoning behind, and legal justification of, that specific instance of selective endorsement? States can't nullify federal laws, we already had that issue decided back in the 19th century. The administration doesn't have any legal grounds to say that since Colorado legalized pot that the federal anti pot laws are null and void there now. That would be illegal. If Lynch is okay with a de facto reversal on the nullification issue on any law the DoJ sees fit to ignore that is something worthy of questioning her on during her congressional hearing.
The federal govt has been selectively enforcing federal laws in some states and not in others for centuries? What is the legal justification for the DEA busting somebody for marijuana trafficking in say Tennessee while ignoring the same behavior in Colorado? What other federal laws can you currently break with impunity in some states but be prosecuted for in others?
So are you saying this is a black and white issue? It is all or nothing for laws? Because that isn't really how it works. I mean, correct me if I am wrong, but if something is illegal federally and a state legalizes it, is that not how you start towards ratification? How do you ratify anything if the Feds just show up and say "Nope, you can't even try it" and shut it down?
skyth wrote: I can see a very good reason to ignore it in Colorado. This is because illegal drug trafficking tends to result in violence and theft (including not paying taxes). It makes sense to deploy limited resources towards places where actual harm is being caused.
It's just like a cop choosing to pull over the guy going 20 over the speed limit and ignoring the guy going 1 over. It's technically illegal, but the guy going 1 over isn't as much of a threat to other people as the guy going 20 over. If you can only pull one of them ovef, which do you choose?
This. The DEA has limited manpower and money. Does it spend that manpower and money raiding a load of cannabis users in Colorado who are only threatening the supply of crisps and baked goods at their corner store with their drug-induced munching or do they target violent criminals who are actually importing and distributing drugs in areas where these drugs are causing lasting harm to society?
The DEA is actively investigating and prosecuting marijuana trafficking in other states. Behavior that would be legal in Colorado is getting people sent to federal prisons in other states. The DEA hasn't stopped prosecuting marijuana so they clearly think it's still a high priority in states like NY. There's no difference in the impact of the behavior just a difference in state laws which apparently makes it ok for the Feds to ignore it. If it's not worth prosecuting in Colorado why is it still worth prosecuting in other states? What's the difference? What's the reasoning behind the different enforcement policy?
skyth wrote: I can see a very good reason to ignore it in Colorado. This is because illegal drug trafficking tends to result in violence and theft (including not paying taxes). It makes sense to deploy limited resources towards places where actual harm is being caused.
It's just like a cop choosing to pull over the guy going 20 over the speed limit and ignoring the guy going 1 over. It's technically illegal, but the guy going 1 over isn't as much of a threat to other people as the guy going 20 over. If you can only pull one of them ovef, which do you choose?
This. The DEA has limited manpower and money. Does it spend that manpower and money raiding a load of cannabis users in Colorado who are only threatening the supply of crisps and baked goods at their corner store with their drug-induced munching or do they target violent criminals who are actually importing and distributing drugs in areas where these drugs are causing lasting harm to society?
The DEA is actively investigating and prosecuting marijuana trafficking in other states. Behavior that would be legal in Colorado is getting people sent to federal prisons in other states. The DEA hasn't stopped prosecuting marijuana so they clearly think it's still a high priority in states like NY. There's no difference in the impact of the behavior just a difference in state laws which apparently makes it ok for the Feds to ignore it. If it's not worth prosecuting in Colorado why is it still worth prosecuting in other states? What's the difference? What's the reasoning behind the different enforcement policy?
It's because in the states that have no legalized it, it is, get this, still illegal. So that state still does not think it should be okay. So the Feds are doing their job their while letting states such as Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska test out how it is. I believe somebody said that states should be incubators of democracy. Something like that.....
You do still need a jury of your peers to convict you even in a Federal case right? One thing might be that they don't think they can find people to actually convict in a state that has legalized Marijuana?
Pointless to arrest and prosecute if you're not getting a conviction out of it.
skyth wrote: I can see a very good reason to ignore it in Colorado. This is because illegal drug trafficking tends to result in violence and theft (including not paying taxes). It makes sense to deploy limited resources towards places where actual harm is being caused.
It's just like a cop choosing to pull over the guy going 20 over the speed limit and ignoring the guy going 1 over. It's technically illegal, but the guy going 1 over isn't as much of a threat to other people as the guy going 20 over. If you can only pull one of them ovef, which do you choose?
This. The DEA has limited manpower and money. Does it spend that manpower and money raiding a load of cannabis users in Colorado who are only threatening the supply of crisps and baked goods at their corner store with their drug-induced munching or do they target violent criminals who are actually importing and distributing drugs in areas where these drugs are causing lasting harm to society?
The DEA is actively investigating and prosecuting marijuana trafficking in other states. Behavior that would be legal in Colorado is getting people sent to federal prisons in other states. The DEA hasn't stopped prosecuting marijuana so they clearly think it's still a high priority in states like NY. There's no difference in the impact of the behavior just a difference in state laws which apparently makes it ok for the Feds to ignore it. If it's not worth prosecuting in Colorado why is it still worth prosecuting in other states? What's the difference? What's the reasoning behind the different enforcement policy?
What is the point of quoting something if you totally ignore what it said? The answer to the question you asked is in the text you quoted...
That and the feds aren't going after users or street levels dealers anyway. Heck, here in Texas, a kilo or two won't even make it onto the feds radar- AUSAs won't bother with it. They are after major narco traffickers, labs, etc.
The government currently places marijuana in the same category as heroin and LSD.
The Drug Enforcement Administration says it will make a decision in the coming months that could prove to be a watershed moment for the burgeoning legal marijuana industry.
In a memo to lawmakers this week, the DEA announced plans to decide “in the first half of 2016” whether or not it will reschedule marijuana, according to The Washington Post. Cannabis is now listed under the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule 1 drug, a categorization it shares with other drugs, such as heroin and LSD, which the U.S. government defines as “the most dangerous drugs” that have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”
Advocates for marijuana legalization have long argued that the drug should be rescheduled, considering marijuana’s relative safety when compared to a drug like heroin, which caused roughly 11,000 overdose deaths in 2014, according to the National Institutes of Health. The argument for rescheduling marijuana also revolves largely around the drug’s potential for medical use, as 23 states have already legalized medical pot to treat a variety of maladies—from cancer to chronic pain—and U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy even admitted last year that “marijuana can be helpful” for certain medical conditions.
Should the DEA decide to reschedule marijuana, bumping it down with supposedly less dangerous drugs such as cocaine (Schedule 2) or ketamine (Schedule 3), the move would likely open the door for expanded research of cannabis’ potential for medical applications. As it stands, the government has an exclusive contract with a University of Mississippi research lab to grow marijuana for the purpose of medical research, and the DEA notes in its letter that the government supplied an average of just nine researchers with marijuana for research purposes per year between 2010 and 2015.
Rescheduling could also have a major financial effect on the legal marijuana industry, which some estimates suggest will hit $6.7 billion in sales this year while expanding to nearly $22 billion by 2020. While more and more states have voted to legalize marijuana in some form over the past several years, the drug remains very much illegal on the federal level—an inconvenient fact for a rapidly expanding industry that has led to a range of issues for marijuana-related businesses, from a lack of banking options to federal tax issues.
Which, btw, I disagree with Heroin and LSD also being Schedule 1 drugs, as they have both been found to have medical benefits. I mean, Meth has a medical benefit, it is kinda hard to believe that Heroin, LSD, and Marijuana have none.
LSD was found during trials in the 60s to be quite effective as part of a treatment for some mental illnesses, I believe. MDMA has also been trialled, though not very much, in the same kind of way and seemed to be effective. Heroin of course has obvious medical applications as it is a very powerful opiate and so is a very effective painkiller. It is more commonly called diamorphine here in the UK and is used for things like epidurals where its powerful and fast acting effects are very useful.
My earlier post got eaten by a double, but MDMA helps with depression, LSD has been found to help a LOT with PTSD. Small amounts of Psilocybin(Magic Mushrooms) daily have been found to improve peoples lives by promoting happier thoughts by stimulating the production of dopamine. Lots and lots of medical uses for these things. But what it comes down to is "DRUGS GRRR" because prohibition has historically worked for this country.
It's not a state's rights issue. The state of Colorado can pass whatever state drug laws it wants, their decriminalization of marijuana at the state level was never challenged it's always been within their right as a state to pass that law. The question posed to Lynch deals with the issue of the federal govt telling the DEA not to enforce federal anti marijuana charges in Colorado, while the DEA simultaneously continues to enforce anti marijuana drug laws in other states. What is the reasoning behind, and legal justification of, that specific instance of selective endorsement? States can't nullify federal laws, we already had that issue decided back in the 19th century. The administration doesn't have any legal grounds to say that since Colorado legalized pot that the federal anti pot laws are null and void there now. That would be illegal. If Lynch is okay with a de facto reversal on the nullification issue on any law the DoJ sees fit to ignore that is something worthy of questioning her on during her congressional hearing.
The federal govt has been selectively enforcing federal laws in some states and not in others for centuries? What is the legal justification for the DEA busting somebody for marijuana trafficking in say Tennessee while ignoring the same behavior in Colorado? What other federal laws can you currently break with impunity in some states but be prosecuted for in others?
So are you saying this is a black and white issue? It is all or nothing for laws? Because that isn't really how it works. I mean, correct me if I am wrong, but if something is illegal federally and a state legalizes it, is that not how you start towards ratification? How do you ratify anything if the Feds just show up and say "Nope, you can't even try it" and shut it down?
There are a lot of drugs that can be used to benefit people when they're used under the direction of a doctor. Drugs shouldn't be illegal anyway. We had prohibition of alcohol in the 1930s and all it did was create a black market, increase revenue for criminal gangs and increase violent gang crime. That's why we repealed prohibition. Then for some reason we refused to acknowledge the lessons we learned and decided to prohibit certain drugs. The DoJ is consistently issuing reports about how prescription drugs are a huge problem but nobody wants to ban them yet people are afraid of letting people legally use marijuana or other banned drugs. People still use them anyway only we get the negative side effect of funneling money into violent gangs.
It is a black and white thing in principle yes. There's no reason to have the DEA chasing down and prosecuting marijuana trafficking in some states but not in others. Marijuana use isn't any more dangerous in states where it is still illegal versus in states that have decriminalized it.
The federal government can't use state laws as justification for not enforcing federal laws. States don't have the right to nullify federal laws. States have argued that they should have nullification rights but that's been put down by the federal government, most notably with the civil war. The Nullification Crisis of 1832 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis) made that pretty clear. South Carolina declared federal tariffs to be null and void within the boundaries of South Carolina and the federal government threatened to use military force to make them comply with federal law.
On December 10 Jackson issued the Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, in which he characterized the positions of the nullifiers as "impractical absurdity" and "a metaphysical subtlety, in pursuit of an impractical theory." He provided this concise statement of his belief:
"I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed."[76]
The language used by Jackson, combined with the reports coming out of South Carolina, raised the spectre of military confrontation for many on both sides of the issue. A group of Democrats, led by Van Buren and Thomas Hart Benton among others, saw the only solution to the crisis in a substantial reduction of the tariff.
Ultimately the tariffs were replaced with new tariffs that were a palatable compromise for both sides. That's what the federal government should be doing with marijuana. If states are going to legalize drugs at the state level that are still illegal on the federal level then the federal government should either enforce the law or push for federal decriminalization or other measures that actually resolve the conflict instead of just ignoring it based on personal opinions instead of established legal precedent.
skyth wrote: I can see a very good reason to ignore it in Colorado. This is because illegal drug trafficking tends to result in violence and theft (including not paying taxes). It makes sense to deploy limited resources towards places where actual harm is being caused.
It's just like a cop choosing to pull over the guy going 20 over the speed limit and ignoring the guy going 1 over. It's technically illegal, but the guy going 1 over isn't as much of a threat to other people as the guy going 20 over. If you can only pull one of them ovef, which do you choose?
This. The DEA has limited manpower and money. Does it spend that manpower and money raiding a load of cannabis users in Colorado who are only threatening the supply of crisps and baked goods at their corner store with their drug-induced munching or do they target violent criminals who are actually importing and distributing drugs in areas where these drugs are causing lasting harm to society?
The DEA is actively investigating and prosecuting marijuana trafficking in other states. Behavior that would be legal in Colorado is getting people sent to federal prisons in other states. The DEA hasn't stopped prosecuting marijuana so they clearly think it's still a high priority in states like NY. There's no difference in the impact of the behavior just a difference in state laws which apparently makes it ok for the Feds to ignore it. If it's not worth prosecuting in Colorado why is it still worth prosecuting in other states? What's the difference? What's the reasoning behind the different enforcement policy?
What is the point of quoting something if you totally ignore what it said? The answer to the question you asked is in the text you quoted...
Because that answer isn't applicable unless you ignore the results of the Nullification Crisis, issue of secession, and states rights as they've been established for the past 150+ years.
See, this is where your Nullification Crisis falls through. They did not nullify anything. What happened was they legalized it recreationally and the Government said "Alright, lets see how this goes." Now, the DEA is going to consider rescheduling the drug(as I posted earlier in the thread) and doing exactly what you are saying they should be doing. But they are going about it the smart way and running a social experiment instead of just opening the flood gates.
The Feds are enforcing drug laws in states where it is illegal, and watching states where it is not. If they did what you are arguing for, it would be counter productive to ending the prohibition and it would just continue to perpetuate the war on drugs.
jmurph wrote: That and the feds aren't going after users or street levels dealers anyway. Heck, here in Texas, a kilo or two won't even make it onto the feds radar- AUSAs won't bother with it. They are after major narco traffickers, labs, etc.
The DEA is still actively pursuing and prosecuting marijuana trafficking. Again, why is importing and selling marijuana a problem in some states but perfectly fine in others? The DoJ isn't using the increasing number of states legalizing marijuana as a reason to reduce enforcement of federal drug laws, they're enforcing them just as vigorously in all the other states. On paper, on the federal level, marijuana is just as illegal in Colorado or Alaska as it is in New York or anywhere else in the US. If other states want to prosecute marijuana crimes that's the states' decision but the Feds don't have to get involved unless they choose to do so. They're choosing not to do so in Colorado but they are choosing to do so in other states. That's a hypocritical waste of resources and the continuation of a failed policy that even a cursory examination of history would have shown legislators was doomed to fail anyway. I'd prefer for the federal govt to learn from its mistakes and take action to govern smarter and better instead of just making stuff up as they go along and not even bothering to try to provide the public they serve with consistent reasoned legal justifications for their decisions and actions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: See, this is where your Nullification Crisis falls through. They did not nullify anything. What happened was they legalized it recreationally and the Government said "Alright, lets see how this goes." Now, the DEA is going to consider rescheduling the drug(as I posted earlier in the thread) and doing exactly what you are saying they should be doing. But they are going about it the smart way and running a social experiment instead of just opening the flood gates.
The Feds are enforcing drug laws in states where it is illegal, and watching states where it is not. If they did what you are arguing for, it would be counter productive to ending the prohibition and it would just continue to perpetuate the war on drugs.
That's not a legitimate legal justification for not enforcing federal laws. The Feds refusing to enforce existing federal laws because of a state law is de facto nullification but nullification isn't legal. Any reason the Feds have to not enforce drug laws in Colorado is equally applicable to the Feds not enforcing federal laws in other states. State and Federal laws exist in parallel there are separate jurisdictions that don't influence each other. The DEA would be completely within their legal rights if they started prosecuting people for federal drug crimes in Colorado even if those actions were no longer criminalized under state laws. If the Feds can decide not to enforce federal drug laws in Colorado because they don't feel like doing it then they can decide to not enforce whatever federal law they don't feel like enforcing anywhere in the US at any time. Since we've established that fact we can now state that the rule of law on the federal level no longer exists because we no longer have a consistent impartial legal system, we have bureaucrats deciding what is and isn't legal based on personal whims and opinions. I don't see why anyone would want the system to break apart like that.
Graham: Trump or Ryan as nominee will destroy the GOP
...
"Let me say this, my Republican friends: If you parachute somebody in just on electability -- Paul Ryan's a wonderful guy, doesn't want to be put in this position. I'm trying to get us the most viable nominee for 2016 that could win without destroying the party," Graham said. "I think Trump destroys the party. And if you parachute somebody in, and try to ignore millions of votes, you're going to destroy this party. So we're right back to Ted."
Asked how Republicans who dislike Cruz could support the Texas senator's campaign, Graham said, "If I can do it, anybody can do it."
...
jmurph wrote: That and the feds aren't going after users or street levels dealers anyway. Heck, here in Texas, a kilo or two won't even make it onto the feds radar- AUSAs won't bother with it. They are after major narco traffickers, labs, etc.
The DEA is still actively pursuing and prosecuting marijuana trafficking. Again, why is importing and selling marijuana a problem in some states but perfectly fine in others? The DoJ isn't using the increasing number of states legalizing marijuana as a reason to reduce enforcement of federal drug laws, they're enforcing them just as vigorously in all the other states. On paper, on the federal level, marijuana is just as illegal in Colorado or Alaska as it is in New York or anywhere else in the US. If other states want to prosecute marijuana crimes that's the states' decision but the Feds don't have to get involved unless they choose to do so. They're choosing not to do so in Colorado but they are choosing to do so in other states. That's a hypocritical waste of resources and the continuation of a failed policy that even a cursory examination of history would have shown legislators was doomed to fail anyway. I'd prefer for the federal govt to learn from its mistakes and take action to govern smarter and better instead of just making stuff up as they go along and not even bothering to try to provide the public they serve with consistent reasoned legal justifications for their decisions and actions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: See, this is where your Nullification Crisis falls through. They did not nullify anything. What happened was they legalized it recreationally and the Government said "Alright, lets see how this goes." Now, the DEA is going to consider rescheduling the drug(as I posted earlier in the thread) and doing exactly what you are saying they should be doing. But they are going about it the smart way and running a social experiment instead of just opening the flood gates.
The Feds are enforcing drug laws in states where it is illegal, and watching states where it is not. If they did what you are arguing for, it would be counter productive to ending the prohibition and it would just continue to perpetuate the war on drugs.
That's not a legitimate legal justification for not enforcing federal laws. The Feds refusing to enforce existing federal laws because of a state law is de facto nullification but nullification isn't legal. Any reason the Feds have to not enforce drug laws in Colorado is equally applicable to the Feds not enforcing federal laws in other states. State and Federal laws exist in parallel there are separate jurisdictions that don't influence each other. The DEA would be completely within their legal rights if they started prosecuting people for federal drug crimes in Colorado even if those actions were no longer criminalized under state laws. If the Feds can decide not to enforce federal drug laws in Colorado because they don't feel like doing it then they can decide to not enforce whatever federal law they don't feel like enforcing anywhere in the US at any time. Since we've established that fact we can now state that the rule of law on the federal level no longer exists because we no longer have a consistent impartial legal system, we have bureaucrats deciding what is and isn't legal based on personal whims and opinions. I don't see why anyone would want the system to break apart like that.
No, stop. It is not nullification. It is in no way nullification. Colorado did not say they do not recognize federal law. What Colorado did say was the state does not care. They did not ban the Feds from enforcing it in their state. They nullified nothing. So stop it.
Also, they did not stop enforcing federal drug laws "because they don't feel like doing it". That is just false, so, we have not established any facts at all here. They stopped so they could have a social experiment,, like I said earlier. That is not the same as "they don't feel like it" in any way, shape or form. You say this is not a black and white issue, but then you continue to paint it as a Black and White issue. "Is it federally illegal? Yes. Then prosecute them! But the state legalized it and they want to see what ending prohibition is like. Don't Care, prosecute them!" That is a black and white argument, you are not taking anything in to account on this other than "It is against the law!"
It's not a state's rights issue. The state of Colorado can pass whatever state drug laws it wants, their decriminalization of marijuana at the state level was never challenged it's always been within their right as a state to pass that law. The question posed to Lynch deals with the issue of the federal govt telling the DEA not to enforce federal anti marijuana charges in Colorado, while the DEA simultaneously continues to enforce anti marijuana drug laws in other states.
That wasn't the question. Cruz specifically asked Loretta Lynch what she would do to bring States into compliance with federal law. That's not a DEA enforcement question, that's a "What will this prospective Attorney General do to make States change their laws." question, with a side of "I've established myself as a conservative, and want up that notion for my Presidential run."
The very idea that he would ask such a thing tromps all over the idea that he is for general State's rights, though I'm sure he would totally support the right of State's to ban or restrict gay marriage.
States can't nullify federal laws, we already had that issue decided back in the 19th century.
True, but as you have already noted State agencies are not Federal agencies. State agencies follow their own laws, and don't necessarily need to follow Federal ones.
You're conflating two separate issues: Ted Cruz pandering and posturing to help his presidential campaign and the DoJ deliberately ignoring people who violate federal drug laws in Colorado for spurious reasons.
No, I'm not. I am very clearly focusing on Cruz and what he said. You are the one who is introducing enforcement of Federal drug law to the conversation.
Graham: Trump or Ryan as nominee will destroy the GOP
...
"Let me say this, my Republican friends: If you parachute somebody in just on electability -- Paul Ryan's a wonderful guy, doesn't want to be put in this position. I'm trying to get us the most viable nominee for 2016 that could win without destroying the party," Graham said. "I think Trump destroys the party. And if you parachute somebody in, and try to ignore millions of votes, you're going to destroy this party. So we're right back to Ted."
Asked how Republicans who dislike Cruz could support the Texas senator's campaign, Graham said, "If I can do it, anybody can do it."
...
jmurph wrote: That and the feds aren't going after users or street levels dealers anyway. Heck, here in Texas, a kilo or two won't even make it onto the feds radar- AUSAs won't bother with it. They are after major narco traffickers, labs, etc.
The DEA is still actively pursuing and prosecuting marijuana trafficking. Again, why is importing and selling marijuana a problem in some states but perfectly fine in others? The DoJ isn't using the increasing number of states legalizing marijuana as a reason to reduce enforcement of federal drug laws, they're enforcing them just as vigorously in all the other states. On paper, on the federal level, marijuana is just as illegal in Colorado or Alaska as it is in New York or anywhere else in the US. If other states want to prosecute marijuana crimes that's the states' decision but the Feds don't have to get involved unless they choose to do so. They're choosing not to do so in Colorado but they are choosing to do so in other states. That's a hypocritical waste of resources and the continuation of a failed policy that even a cursory examination of history would have shown legislators was doomed to fail anyway. I'd prefer for the federal govt to learn from its mistakes and take action to govern smarter and better instead of just making stuff up as they go along and not even bothering to try to provide the public they serve with consistent reasoned legal justifications for their decisions and actions.
And Prohibition had lots of issues- largely because it was far from all embracing and poorly enforced after entire legal networks were already in place in a country with a heritage of using alcohol. But it still "worked"- alcohol consumption decreased dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.
Arrests for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.
Violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition's 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after. Still does.
One of the major things that killed Prohibition was the loss of tax revenues on alcohol. Before Prohibition, many states relied heavily on excise taxes in liquor sales to fund their budgets. In New York, almost 75% of the state's revenue was derived from liquor taxes. With Prohibition in effect, that revenue was immediately lost. At the national level, Prohibition cost the federal government a total of $11 billion in lost tax revenue, while costing over $300 million to enforce. The most lasting consequence was that many states and the federal government would come to rely on income tax revenue to fund their budgets going forward.
So don't misconstrue the "lessons of Prohibition". Government action can definitely affect behavior. But it can also have unintended consequences and hidden costs. Fortunately, in a democratic system, voters get to decide these issues, either directly on issue votes or indirectly in the candidates they select.
In my experience, criminals love weed, to the degree that they will smoke it even while on bond, probation, etc. that they do not with alcohol. It is one of those things where not all people who smoke mj are engaged in other, more serious crimes, but almost all of those who are engaged in other more serious crimes smoke weed. Which is awesome, because when they are dumb enough to drive with it (which they usually are because god forbid you just smoke at your house where nobody cares) and get pulled over, the officer smells it, searches the car and finds the meth, illegal weaponry, stolen property or whatever. All anecdotal, I know, but I have not really seen many repeat criminals who don't have weed priors. Again, not saying weed makes people do it; just that people who do it seem to smoke weed.
I am also of the opinion that people who get fired up about all the people in jail for drugs have very little knowledge of what actually goes on in the CJS or what drug abuse really looks like.
jmurph wrote: I am also of the opinion that people who get fired up about all the people in jail for drugs have very little knowledge of what actually goes on in the CJS or what drug abuse really looks like.
Well, having worked with drug addicts in the past I would like to call BS on this.
A group of wealthy donors is preparing to draft retired Marine Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis to run for president and taken down Donald Trump, according to reports.
Nearly a dozen donors are willing to throw their resources behind the former head of U.S. Central Command. The group has delivered six memos to Mattis outlining how he could win the race in the hope that it will encourage him to run, the Daily Beast reported.
The game plan would be for Mattis to win enough states to keep Trump and Hillary Clinton from getting the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. The House would then pick the president, and supporters believe lawmakers would support a former general widely seen as an American hero.
A "Gen. James Mattis for President 2016" unofficial Facebook page has more than 4,000 likes.
Mattis served in the Marine Corps for 42 years, including as the head of American forces in the Middle East from 2010 to 2013, when he retired. He now serves as a Davies Family Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution.
The former four-star is best known for his blunt speaking style and colorful quotes such as "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."
"He's a man of character and integrity. He's given his life to his country. How do you ask someone like that to leap headfirst into this toxic mud-puddle of a race? It's damn hard. But Trump is a fascist lunatic and Hillary has one foot in a jail cell. That means the lunatic can win. I'd be first in line to plead with the general to come save America," John Noonan, a former national security adviser to Jeb Bush who is working on the campaign to draft Mattis, told the Daily Beast.
Noonan tweeted on Friday that he's received a "blast of emails/calls" in response to the Daily Beast story with people asking him to "sign me up" for the effort.
He also tweeted how the storied war general would come down on some of Trump's policy proposals.
"Q posted to me just now: Would Mattis build a wall?" Noonan wrote on Twitter.
"Trick question. Mattis is the wall."
It's not the first time supporters of the "warrior monk," another of Mattis' nicknames, have wanted him to run. A former Marine launched a write-in campaign for Mattis in 2012, though it didn't gather much support and didn't have the financial backing of the current attempt.
Despite all the support, Mattis has said he's not up for the job and doesn't "have a broad enough perspective" to be commander in chief.
"[It's] time for younger people, especially veterans, to run for office," Mattis told Marine Corps Times.
Mattis received one write-in vote in a Military Times 2016 poll released last month.
Is this serious? My troll alarm is going off, but I just can't trust that anymore with this election cycle.
In my experience, criminals love weed, to the degree that they will smoke it even while on bond, probation, etc. that they do not with alcohol. It is one of those things where not all people who smoke mj are engaged in other, more serious crimes, but almost all of those who are engaged in other more serious crimes smoke weed. Which is awesome, because when they are dumb enough to drive with it (which they usually are because god forbid you just smoke at your house where nobody cares) and get pulled over, the officer smells it, searches the car and finds the meth, illegal weaponry, stolen property or whatever. All anecdotal, I know, but I have not really seen many repeat criminals who don't have weed priors. Again, not saying weed makes people do it; just that people who do it seem to smoke weed.
I am also of the opinion that people who get fired up about all the people in jail for drugs have very little knowledge of what actually goes on in the CJS or what drug abuse really looks like.
You know what else they do? Drink water and eat food. Don't you think the fact someone has a prior for a harmless plant is a problem with the laws, and not the person? It's very well documented that incarcerating people for minor things leads to bigger problems, from the current recidivism rates in the US to the rise of ISIS.
What drug abuse really looks like? For cannabis? Come on man. It's one of the least harmful psychoactive substances known to man. You show me someone whose only issue is cannabis abuse and I'll give you a dollar, because they don't exist. I know people that are wastes of life that smoke a lot, but they were wastes without it too.
Prestor Jon wrote: question posed to Lynch deals with the issue of the federal govt telling the DEA not to enforce federal anti marijuana charges in Colorado, while the DEA simultaneously continues to enforce anti marijuana drug laws in other states. What is the reasoning behind, and legal justification of, that specific instance of selective endorsement? States can't nullify federal laws, we already had that issue decided back in the 19th century. The administration doesn't have any legal grounds to say that since Colorado legalized pot that the federal anti pot laws are null and void there now. That would be illegal. If Lynch is okay with a de facto reversal on the nullification issue on any law the DoJ sees fit to ignore that is something worthy of questioning her on during her congressional hearing.
The federal govt has been selectively enforcing federal laws in some states and not in others for centuries? What is the legal justification for the DEA busting somebody for marijuana trafficking in say Tennessee while ignoring the same behavior in Colorado? What other federal laws can you currently break with impunity in some states but be prosecuted for in others?
Quid Pro Quo... Generally speaking the Federal level law enforcement agencies want to be on good, professional terms with State and Local agencies. In a state like Colorado, the sherriffs and State PD have basically told the Feds "Do not Feth with us on this issue."
No local PD support on a federal level bust is no bueno for all involved. As such, they would rather elect to not enforce DEA stuff in the state of Colorado, or at least, not enforce marijuana (until such a time as marijuana has violated the law), and have support for financial crimes involving the FBI or things that may involve BATFE, etc.
If the fed goes against Colorado on Mary Jane, they will find other laws more difficult to enforce, or get local support on.
As for times when "The Feds" have violated their own laws... One specific instance was when U.S. Grant was elected. He purposefully wrote policy toward native americans that disregarded their 1st Amendment rights. Specifically the right to freedom of religion.
I'd like to know more about General Mattis' politics. I can't really find much. I don't know where he stands on virtually any issue. I'd be concerned that he joined the military less than a year after his 18th birthday and has spent literally a lifetime working for the government - when the only tool you know about is a hammer, I think a lot of problems start to look like nails.
Ouze wrote: I'd like to know more about General Mattis' politics. I can't really find much. I don't know where he stands on virtually any issue. I'd be concerned that he joined the military less than a year after his 18th birthday and has spent literally a lifetime working for the government - when the only tool you know about is a hammer, I think a lot of problems start to look like nails.
Gen. James Mattis, known to his troops as “Mad Dog Mattis,” is retiring after 41 years of military service.
The Marine Corps Times is calling Mattis the “most revered Marine in a generation.”
Mattis has been commander of the United States Central Command since 2010 and led the 1st Marine Division into Iraq in 2003.
According to reports, President Barack Obama decided to force the Marine Corps legend out early because he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way, and forced them to answer tough questions regarding Iran.
Mattis was an inspirational leader of men and his powerful words will go down in history.
Here are some of the best words that the “Mad Dog” has had to offer:
1. “I don’t lose any sleep at night over the potential for failure. I cannot even spell the word.”
2. “The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some donkey-caves in the world that just need to be shot.”
(Business Insider)
3. “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you feth with me, I’ll kill you all.”
(San Diego Union Tribune)
4. “Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.”
(San Diego Union Tribune)
5. “Marines don’t know how to spell the word defeat.”
(Business Insider)
6. “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
(San Diego Union Tribune)
7. “The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.”
(San Diego Union Tribune)
8. “You are part of the world’s most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon.”
(Mattis’ Letter To 1st Marine Division)
9. “There are hunters and there are victims. By your discipline, cunning, obedience and alertness, you will decide if you are a hunter or a victim.”
(Business Insider)
10. “No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.”
(Defense News)
11. “There is nothing better than getting shot at and missed. It’s really great.”
(San Diego Union Tribune)
12. “You cannot allow any of your people to avoid the brutal facts. If they start living in a dream world, it’s going to be bad.”
(San Diego Union Tribune)
13. “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it’s quite fun to fight them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up there with you. I like brawling.”
(CNN)
14. “I’m going to plead with you, do not cross us. Because if you do, the survivors will write about what we do here for 10,000 years.”
(San Diego Union Tribune)
15. “Demonstrate to the world there is ‘No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy’ than a U.S. Marine.”
(Mattis’ Letter To 1st Marine Division)
16. “Fight with a happy heart and strong spirit”
(Mattis’ Letter To 1st Marine Division)
Its not the 1950's, America isn't voting for a realistically unknown general.
Without Trump, all that "tough talk" would probably do great with the right, but its too little too late.
Why are so many Republicans trying so desperately to distance themselves from Trump? Embrace it. Enjoy the fruits of what you have sown. This is what your party has become and what your party wants. Might as well enjoy it, its not going to get better when Hillary wins.
DutchWinsAll wrote: Its not the 1950's, America isn't voting for a realistically unknown general.
Without Trump, all that "tough talk" would probably do great with the right, but its too little too late.
Why are so many Republicans trying so desperately to distance themselves from Trump? Embrace it. Enjoy the fruits of what you have sown. This is what your party has become and what your party wants. Might as well enjoy it, its not going to get better when Hillary wins.
No.
#NeverTrump.
And Colin fething Powell is another who'd be massively popular. But, his Queen said "no" so, he gotta respect that.
DutchWinsAll wrote: Its not the 1950's, America isn't voting for a realistically unknown general.
Without Trump, all that "tough talk" would probably do great with the right, but its too little too late.
Why are so many Republicans trying so desperately to distance themselves from Trump? Embrace it. Enjoy the fruits of what you have sown. This is what your party has become and what your party wants. Might as well enjoy it, its not going to get better when Hillary wins.
No.
#NeverTrump.
And Colin fething Powell is another who'd be massively popular. But, his Queen said "no" so, he gotta respect that.
But why just "No"?
Do you think after the inevitable Hillary win Trumpers and their ilk will quiet down and fall in line? They're more likely to get louder and more prominent. So why not just embrace it, say "feth it" and enjoy the ride? This is, after all, what the Republican Party wants.
Because the other option is a lot of soul-searching and honest reflection, something little to nobody is good at, especially in politics.
Slightly OT.I finally met my first Trump supporter in real life yesterday actually. It wasn't who I would have expected. Mid-20's Black guy that was the night manager at the hotel I was staying at. Regular dude, pretty cool about things, just "supports somebody that will stop Muslim terrorism". The fact we were both smoking cigarettes I tried to point out is waaaaaay more dangerous. Didn't get through at all.
whembly wrote: And Colin fething Powell is another who'd be massively popular. But, his Queen said "no" so, he gotta respect that.
I can see the campaign posters now:
As always, the guy who produced 65% of this threads content (railing about Hillary's involvement in the deaths of 4 people in Benghazi) has absolutely no problem giving a free pass to the guy who fronted bogus intel that led to the deaths of over 4,400 American troops.
DutchWinsAll wrote: Its not the 1950's, America isn't voting for a realistically unknown general.
Without Trump, all that "tough talk" would probably do great with the right, but its too little too late.
Why are so many Republicans trying so desperately to distance themselves from Trump? Embrace it. Enjoy the fruits of what you have sown. This is what your party has become and what your party wants. Might as well enjoy it, its not going to get better when Hillary wins.
No.
#NeverTrump.
And Colin fething Powell is another who'd be massively popular. But, his Queen said "no" so, he gotta respect that.
But why just "No"?
Because I believe he'd be worst than Obama.
That should mean something come from me.
Do you think after the inevitable Hillary win Trumpers and their ilk will quiet down and fall in line? They're more likely to get louder and more prominent. So why not just embrace it, say "feth it" and enjoy the ride? This is, after all, what the Republican Party wants.
Because the other option is a lot of soul-searching and honest reflection, something little to nobody is good at, especially in politics.
Like a Tea Party Part Deux movement? Maybe.... but, why wait?
Let's go to contested convention and see what transpire. If it's Cruz... well... he'll have his work cut out for him.
Or, maybe Rubio/Walker/Chuck Norris will get it the nomination.
Slightly OT.I finally met my first Trump supporter in real life yesterday actually. It wasn't who I would have expected. Mid-20's Black guy that was the night manager at the hotel I as staying at. Regular dude, pretty cool about things, just "supports somebody that will stop Muslim terrorism". The fact we were both smoking cigarettes I tried to point out is waaaaaay more dangerous. Didn't get through at all.
whembly wrote: And Colin fething Powell is another who'd be massively popular. But, his Queen said "no" so, he gotta respect that.
I can see the campaign posters now:
As always, the guy who produced 65% of this threads content (railing about Hillary's involvement in the deaths of 4 people in Benghazi) has absolutely no problem giving a free pass to the guy who fronted bogus intel that led to the deaths of over 4,400 American troops.
You okay?
People are known to be afflicted by a debilitating disease called the "Bush Derangement Syndrome".
Just making sure you're okay buddy.
Anyhow... you do make an interesting parallel between Powell and Clinton.
The difference here is that you seem to buy into the idea that it was Powell and some "man behind the curtain" who intentially knew and pushed that flawed intel.
Whereas the mother fething Secretary Clinton fething knew, that the attacks in Benghazi wasn't a reaction from an anti-islamic youtube video.
whembly wrote: And Colin fething Powell is another who'd be massively popular. But, his Queen said "no" so, he gotta respect that.
I can see the campaign posters now:
As always, the guy who produced 65% of this threads content (railing about Hillary's involvement in the deaths of 4 people in Benghazi) has absolutely no problem giving a free pass to the guy who fronted bogus intel that led to the deaths of over 4,400 American troops.
You okay?
People are known to be afflicted by a debilitating disease called the "Bush Derangement Syndrome".
Just making sure you're okay buddy.
Anyhow... you do make an interesting parallel between Powell and Clinton.
The difference here is that you seem to buy into the idea that it was Powell and some "man behind the curtain" who intentially knew and pushed that flawed intel.
Whereas the mother fething Secretary Clinton fething knew, that the attacks in Benghazi wasn't a reaction from an anti-islamic youtube video.
"Bush Derangement Syndrome" refers to dumb views like Bush cause the recession of 2007/8. It's not a derangement to conflate his administration with the Iraq War, because, you know, they invaded Iraq.
It's documented that from the beginning of the administration there were a lot of Iraq hawks pushing for a reason to invade. And if that invasion was based on "flawed" intel, it's still orders of magnitude worse than making up a reason for an attack on a consulate in an active war zone. Like many orders of magnitude worse.
I mean without that "flawed" intel and the Iraq War there is arguably Arab Spring and no Benghazi attack.
One fethup cost 4 American lives and including the multiple investigations, what, 50-100 million max? And I'm being generous here.
The other fethup cost 2 trillion, 4 thousand+ American deaths, 100 thousand+ Iraqi deaths (conservatively), not to mention the tens of thousands of maimed Americans and Iraqis and ISIS.
The difference here is that you seem to buy into the idea that it was Powell and some "man behind the curtain" who intentially knew and pushed that flawed intel.
Whereas the mother fething Secretary Clinton fething knew, that the attacks in Benghazi wasn't a reaction from an anti-islamic youtube video.
Colin Powell was also Secretary of State when he pushed that argument at the the UN, and he later admitted to knowing it was bad; you're just trying to deflect because you're a Republican who hates Clinton.
The difference here is that you seem to buy into the idea that it was Powell and some "man behind the curtain" who intentially knew and pushed that flawed intel.
Whereas the mother fething Secretary Clinton fething knew, that the attacks in Benghazi wasn't a reaction from an anti-islamic youtube video.
Colin Powell was also Secretary of State when he pushed that argument at the the UN, and he later admitted to knowing it was bad; you're just trying to deflect because you're a Republican who hates Clinton.
No... he admitted that it was flawed. Not that he knew that it was flawed at the time of his famous UN speech that Ouze was alluding too... you're just trying to deflect because you're a Democrat who hates Republicans.
No, I am saying a Pipe Dream is something you absolutely want and dream about and that this is not actually something you want. Come on, you are the super informed voter guy! You would never vote for a man when you do not even know his political stances.
No, I am saying a Pipe Dream is something you absolutely want and dream about and that this is not actually something you want. Come on, you are the super informed voter guy! You would never vote for a man when you do not even know his political stances.
What you are displaying is Blind Hope.
In the face of a Clinton or Trump Presidency?
You damn right I'm engaging on some Blind Hope™... feth Trump and Clinton.
Apparently the Boston Globe is publishing a lampoon of American with Trump as President. I may be mistaken but I don't remember newspapers doing this in my lifetime. I mean, normal newspapers, not satirical ones like The Onion or college newspapers which have always been off the rails. Whatever. Time to kick back because it's dinner and a show.
No... he admitted that it was flawed. Not that he knew that it was flawed at the time of his famous UN speech that Ouze was alluding too... you're just trying to deflect because you're a Democrat who hates Republicans.
Actually Powell's chief of staff is on record saying Powell had doubts about the quality of the intelligence during private meetings held at the time of the speech. At any rate that isn't deflection as the issue of Powell's speech was raised as a matter of direct comparison to Clinton. Moreover, I'm not a Democrat and I don't hate Republicans. I would also never stoop to the argumentative level of "Bush Derangement Syndrome", that's a line that should be left to partisan shills. and only ever get pulled out when there is clear intention to deflect from another issue.
Although Powell had doubts...he was still relying upon the info/story provided to him by the POTUS and others in that circle who desired to push forward with a war.
In my opinion, he was doing his job as the "mouthpiece" for the administration.
Polonius wrote: I should add that the GOP has really only had setbacks nationally, meaning the presidency. They're still stronger in the House, and while they might lose the Senate, they held it for six years. They also hold the majority of Governorships and state legislations.
Sure, it’s important to recognise that Republicans are dominant in non-presidential elections. They have a smaller base but it gets out and votes. That’s an advantage in lower profile elections. The party is not weak at this point in the basic metric of scoring votes and winning elections.
Rather Republican weakness is a combination of things. There’s a lack of party discipline, as seen by the bloated presidential field and weak efforts to move against Trump early in the campaign. And there’s a rather severe lack of purpose in the Republican party right now – can anyone name an issue championed by the Republican party today that commands more than about 30% support among the general public? And then on top of that you add the long term demographics issues.
I think you’re right that the party would be much better served by ignoring the angry Tea Party style crowd that’s commanded outsized attention in the last few cycles. But doing that would require individual Republicans risking primary battles, and winning those primaries would require those candidates to find some way to cut through and win votes from the calmer conservative base. I’m not sure that’s as easy as the party just choosing to do it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Asked how Republicans who dislike Cruz could support the Texas senator's campaign, Graham said, "If I can do it, anybody can do it."
Ha! Okay, this has replaced the Clinton shrug as my favourite bit of the election so far.
I hope the mods don't mind me posting this, but I've been doing some spring cleaning, and as always, I've got too many books, and not enough shelf space.
However, the plus side is that you encounter books you forgot you had, and I'd like to recommend these books to my fellow dakka members.
These books are about American politics and history, so technically, it's relevant to the discussion
All these books carry the DINLT seal of approval
1) What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815–1848 by Daniel Walker Howe. A very good, political, economic and social history of this crucial chapter in American history.
2) Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA by Tim Weiner. Until reading this book, I didn't realise how ineffective, or how wasteful the CIA have been over the years, but I suspect most Americans know this!
3) Crazy Horse and Custer by Stephen E Ambrose. The US military really needs to name a ship or helicopter after Crazy Horse. A true icon of American history.
4) The 2nd amendment: a biography by Michael Waldman. Worth pointing out that the author worked for Bill Clinton at one time, but for a non-American like myself, it was an excellent overview of an important issue.
The issue of gun control has been on going since the day the 2nd was written, and over the years, different generations of Americans have approached it in different ways, as have the courts.
3) Crazy Horse and Custer by Stephen E Ambrose. The US military really needs to name a ship or helicopter after Crazy Horse. A true icon of American history.
If you have never been to Crazy Horse monument, do yourself a favor and go. Yeah, it will likely take another 50 years to complete, but it is pretty damn impressive. Self funded. And it will absolutely dwarf Mt. Rushmore. We do stuff big in SD. TX ain't got nothing on us.
Spoiler:
Edit: damn, how does one use the spoiler button to hide big images? Sorryfor making you squint guys...
I've been there twice, and have a piece of the mountain sitting on my desk at home. It is incredibly impressive, and it's pretty close to Mt. Rushmore as well, so would make a great trip for anyone.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Yeah, it will likely take another 50 years to complete, but it is pretty damn impressive.
I thought that it was essentially an abandoned project that ran out of money awhile back.
It did and was, but about fifteen years ago it got new management and has been advancing quite well. It's making bank for the past ten years or so (more than its progress would suggest) There were some rumors that it couldn't be completed a few years ago due to some fault lines or weak strata, but that seems to have been overcome or mitigated and it's all steam ahead, afaik. I own a cabin in the hills so I try to keep up on the whatnots and wherefores. Go see it and contribute if you get the chance.
Don't Crazy Horse's people hate the idea of that sculpture as Crazy Horse didn't want a sculpture, the mountain it is being made out of is considered sacred so it is like making a Starbucks out of the Sistine Chapel, and the original sculptor did it (and the faces) out of a 'feth nature I rule all this' kind of attitude?
3) Crazy Horse and Custer by Stephen E Ambrose. The US military really needs to name a ship or helicopter after Crazy Horse. A true icon of American history.
I feel it necessary to point out that that author, Stephen Ambrose is kind of reviled among the historian community for his *cough*plagiarism*cough*
Ahtman wrote: Don't Crazy Horse's people hate the idea of that sculpture as Crazy Horse didn't want a sculpture, the mountain it is being made out of is considered sacred so it is like making a Starbucks out of the Sistine Chapel, and the original sculptor did it (and the faces) out of a 'feth nature I rule all this' kind of attitude?
Some do. Many were very supportive of it. One Chief gave up all 900 acres of the land he owned in trade for the mountain that it is being carved on, so that it could be done.
3) Crazy Horse and Custer by Stephen E Ambrose. The US military really needs to name a ship or helicopter after Crazy Horse. A true icon of American history.
I feel it necessary to point out that that author, Stephen Ambrose is kind of reviled among the historian community for his *cough*plagiarism*cough*
Still, you may get some takers on the book.
In my budding professional opinion, as a historian, I would say that Ambrose isn't so much a plagiariser, as he is a victim of the history paper mill that he runs. When you're cranking out dozens of books, thousands and thousands of pages of text and information, honestly you are just going to miss a few things here and there.
My background in professional History wasn't in American history but Ambrose did come up occasionally in conversations as divisive. I still have a few of his books from back in the day.
In an interview with The Denver Post at the Colorado GOP convention, he also dings EPA over Gold King Mine spill
COLORADO SPRINGS — If elected president, Republican Ted Cruz said Saturday he would not interfere with Colorado's legalization of marijuana.
In an one-on-one interview Saturday with The Denver Post, the Texas senator said he opposes legalization but declared that the U.S. Constitution allows "states to experiment."
"I think on the question of marijuana legalization, we should leave it to the states," Cruz said before addressing 6,000 GOP activists at the state GOP convention in Colorado Springs."If it were me personally, voting on it in the state of Texas, I would vote against it.
"The people of Colorado have made a different decision. I respect that decision," he continued. "And actually, it is an opportunity for the rest of the country to see what happens here in Colorado, what happens in Washington state, see the states implement the policies, and if it works well, other states may choose to follow. If it doesn't work well other states may choose not to follow."
Cruz declined to make a judgment about the first two years of legalization in Colorado. "I'm going to give that some time to let the facts and evidence play out and ultimately that will be a decision for the people of Colorado," he said.
On the question of banking for the marijuana industry, Cruz said he hasn't studied the issue and needed to learn more before taking a position.
The White House hopeful is visiting Colorado for the first time to compete for the state's 37 national delegates. Cruz won 21 at seven congressional district conventions in the past week — a clean sweep — and is confident he can win a portion of the 13 statewide delegates awarded Saturday.
Still, Cruz said he is preparing for a "battle on the convention floor" in Cleveland with Donald Trump to "see who can earn a majority of the delegates."
He called a contested convention a "very significant possibility" and called the 21 delegates he won in Colorado vital to his effort.
"If that happens I am confident we are going to win in Cleveland at a contested convention," he said. "What we are seeing is, naturally, Republicans are uniting behind our campaign and once we do we are going to beat Hillary Clinton in November."
His strategy reflects a shift from earlier in the campaign, when he expressed confidence in capturing the delegates needed to reach the 1,237 mark to win the party's nomination.
Trump and Ohio Gov. John Kasich did not attend the state convention, sending surrogates in their place. Cruz suggested the reason Trump avoided making an appearance is "he was scared.
"They knew he wasn't going to do well," Cruz said. "He has lost now seven elections in a row in Colorado. And I think it is very likely when the delegates here vote it will become eight elections in a row. ... Donald doesn't handle losing well."
Addressing other Colorado issues in interviews with local reporters, Cruz criticized Planned Parenthood even as he condemned the attack on the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs.
"Anytime there is a shooting by a deranged killer our hearts are grieving," he said. "That should never happen. And we need to do everything we can to prevent crimes of violence."
Referencing his career as a prosecutor, he continued, "you're never justified taking violence into your own hands."
"Planned Parenthood this past year was caught on film in what appears to be a pattern of multiple felonies," he continued, highlighting the disputed undercover video regarding fetal tissue. "It is unfortunate that the Obama Justice Department is so corrupt that they won't investigate a political ally of the Democratic Party and enforce the laws fairly."
Responding to the Animas River spill outside Durango last year, Cruz said it's just another example of the problems at the EPA, which he said has strayed from "its core mission of clean air and clean water."
"If you look at the tragic spill here, they are not even watching what they are doing and they are ending up causing massive environmental damage and there is no accountability," Cruz said.
"If anyone in the private sector did what EPA did what they did, they'd be prosecuted," he continued, sounding a popular GOP criticism. "We need to rein in the EPA and refocus it to what it's supposed to be doing, which is protecting our environment and not making it harder for people who are struggling to provide for their families and have good high paying jobs."
3) Crazy Horse and Custer by Stephen E Ambrose. The US military really needs to name a ship or helicopter after Crazy Horse. A true icon of American history.
I feel it necessary to point out that that author, Stephen Ambrose is kind of reviled among the historian community for his *cough*plagiarism*cough*
Still, you may get some takers on the book.
And in the literary community, he is beloved. Honestly, when it comes to anything to do with W.R. Hearst, it's pretty difficult to know where the truth ends and the fiction/slander begins. Just ask Welles. The plagiarism idea is a nonstarter in literary academic communities with Bierce. Not quite the same as saying Marlowe wrote Shakespere's stuff, but getting pretty close.
jmurph wrote: So Cruz yoinked all of Colorado's delegates with no voting. Trump is really getting smoked in the ground and technical game.
For a guy who's brand is built up around winning and being a winner, I wonder how much that might be impacted by Trump's incompetence in the nuts and bolts of the political process. Probably not much, given Trump's support base is generally quite low information and this stuff is quite technical, but it could still be part of an overall narrative of 'not such a winner afterall'.
EDIT: Yes it does... if Trump gets 50% in NY, WTA is triggered and he takes it all... if not, NY is by Congressional district. Cruz/Kasich just need to keep Trump from 50% and it's doable as they're competitive in update NY.
Just to update on this, NY doesn't have a statewide 50% WTA. The 50% only kicks in per congressional district, so even if Trump got more than 50% of the vote, he wouldn't claim all the delegates. He could only do that by getting 50% in every single congressional district, which isn't going to happen. NY will still end up being one of his best states, he'll still be behind where he needs to be to reach 1,237.
jmurph wrote: So Cruz yoinked all of Colorado's delegates with no voting. Trump is really getting smoked in the ground and technical game.
For a guy who's brand is built up around winning and being a winner, I wonder how much that might be impacted by Trump's incompetence in the nuts and bolts of the political process. Probably not much, given Trump's support base is generally quite low information and this stuff is quite technical, but it could still be part of an overall narrative of 'not such a winner afterall'.
That's my hope when he doesn't get to 1237 delegates on the first ballot.
Interestingly, Paul Ryan had to have a press conference to say "no, I'm not interested in the presidency". Then he goes to say that it should *only* be any of the candidates that actually ran in the primary. I wonder if he's signaling to the Rules Committee to tweak the convention rules to open it up to one of: Trump Rubio Kasich Carson Fiorina Perry Walker Jeb! Rand Paul Huckabee Christie Santorum Gilmore Jindal Graham Pataki
Gimmie Perry or Walker! But, I'll take Rubio/Cruz as consolation.
EDIT: Yes it does... if Trump gets 50% in NY, WTA is triggered and he takes it all... if not, NY is by Congressional district. Cruz/Kasich just need to keep Trump from 50% and it's doable as they're competitive in update NY.
Just to update on this, NY doesn't have a statewide 50% WTA. The 50% only kicks in per congressional district, so even if Trump got more than 50% of the vote, he wouldn't claim all the delegates. He could only do that by getting 50% in every single congressional district, which isn't going to happen. NY will still end up being one of his best states, he'll still be behind where he needs to be to reach 1,237.
Yeah... I edited that like five times as I was confused.
California is really the key state for Trump. What people don't know is that it's a closed primary and the GOP voters there tend to be very conservative. So, you'd think Trump would win a bunch of CA's delegate... but, I really think both Cruz and Kasich will do better than Trump.
According to 528, Trump is going to be shy about ~100 delegates (with him doing really well in NY, CT and MD), so my dream of a contested convention is highly likely.
whembly wrote: Interestingly, Paul Ryan had to have a press conference to say "no, I'm not interested in the presidency". Then he goes to say that it should *only* be any of the candidates that actually ran in the primary. I wonder if he's signaling to the Rules Committee to tweak the convention rules to open it up to one of:
Trump
Rubio
Kasich
Carson
Fiorina
Perry
Walker
Jeb!
Rand Paul
Huckabee
Christie
Santorum
Gilmore
Jindal
Graham
Pataki
Pretty stoked about none of those guys having any real chance of winning in the general.
whembly wrote: Interestingly, Paul Ryan had to have a press conference to say "no, I'm not interested in the presidency". Then he goes to say that it should *only* be any of the candidates that actually ran in the primary. I wonder if he's signaling to the Rules Committee to tweak the convention rules to open it up to one of:
Trump
Rubio
Kasich
Carson
Fiorina
Perry
Walker
Jeb!
Rand Paul
Huckabee
Christie
Santorum
Gilmore
Jindal
Graham
Pataki
Pretty stoked about none of those guys having any real chance of winning in the general.
Until you realize that Hillary Clinton will overcome the insurgent Sanders campaign to win the Democratic nomiation.
Clinton vs. "not-Trump" has all the makings of a close race.
However, if Trump win's the GOP nomination? Clinton turns 45+ states FETHING BLUE!
whembly wrote: Until you realize that Hillary Clinton will overcome the insurgent Sanders campaign to win the Democratic nomiation.
Yeah, I'm good with it. I'm not a big Hillary Clinton fan, and I certainly didn't caucus for her, but if any of those clowns are the alternative, I feel OK with voting for her.
d-usa wrote: What happened to the last two years of "Clinton is an auto-win"?
She's a formidable opponent indeed.
I'm surprised how high her negatives at this point though... as, I'd thought she'd have the nomination wrapped up by now.
Her high negative may be moot by the time the November elections come around though.
Another point why I'm wavering a bit how unstoppable Clinton would be is that, in Missouri, it's traditionally been "Clinton Country". However, Hillary barely squeaked by Sanders by 0.2% in the primary.
o.O
Hence, me changing my expectation a bit in that I think any "not-Trump" candidate would have at least a fighting chance against Hillary.
whembly wrote: Hence, me changing my expectation a bit in that I think any "not-Trump" candidate would have at least a fighting chance against Hillary.
This was a thing in 2012 as well if I recall. It was often pointed out how a generic Republican would likely beat Obama by the polls, and the polls indeed said thus, but the problem was "generic republican" wasn't running, and still isn't. The specific republicans, both then and now, showed a pretty poor matchup. I just checked the most accurate numbers and the only person that Hillary isn't predicted to beat in the general is Kasich - who thus far as in my opinion only been popular via obscurity.
whembly wrote: Yeah... I edited that like five times as I was confused.
Yeah, I posted that he was likely to take NY with 50%, then edited it after I went looking to see if that was the rule, then asked, and got your answer. And then stumbled across the answer while I was reading about something else today.
The rules for each state are inconsistent, but that's fine, just part of the charm of US politics. I just wish there were better resources on-line that gave clear descriptions of the rules for each state.
According to 528, Trump is going to be shy about ~100 delegates (with him doing really well in NY, CT and MD), so my dream of a contested convention is highly likely.
538 was saying he'd be within 100, and that was maybe enough to swing a few of the nominated delegates to squeak over to 1,237, but poor results in Wisconsin and Colorado have pushed him further back. If he really has reached a nationwide ceiling of about 40%, then he'll end up well short of that, Cruz will go to the convention with a string of good results, and that'll be that. Even a strong result in California won't stop that narrative.
What an amazing election it is when the Republican establishment is relieved at making Cruz their candidate.
Military defence at 37%, 32% against. So that's true. Not exactly the kind of thing to build a national party around.
Tax cuts are an interesting one. First and foremost, you have to remember this isn't 1980 anymore. Taxes have come way down, and are no longer a major issue. In fact Gallup reports 1% of Americans putting it among their top priorities. The other element in this story is that while you'll get about 40% of Americans saying taxes are too high, if you focus on their own tax burden that number jumps to around 55%. So lowering taxes is a bit meh, but telling a specific person that they will pay less tax gets a healthy amount of interest. Unfortunately Republicans are committed to tax cuts for everyone and especially for the rich, and this means their traction on the issue goes way down. Polling on ending the Bush tax cuts on people over 250k came in 59 to 37 in favour of 'soaking the rich', but if you look at keeping all the tax cuts vs dropping them all, it was a decisive 85 to 15. So Republicans might claim overall support for tax cuts, but the only real vote base is for middle class tax cuts, and that's not the policies the Republicans are pursuing. And even then it's a minor base at best - seriously 1% of people rank this issue.
Gun rights are a bit misleading, because about 50% of voters at any given time are 'satisfied with current laws' which is kind of a good thing for Republicans, but also not really. Republicans only get to claim that 50% if we pretend that the issue is entirely Democrats pushing for new laws and Republicans fighting them. Instead we have to see that while Democrats are pushing for new laws, Republicans are also pushing for relaxing laws, or expanding things like concealed carry. About 5% of people believe gun laws should be more relaxed. But then when you drill down, it gets even weirder. 5% report wanting less gun laws, but laws that allow or expand concealed carry are generally pretty popular. And while the high watermark for 'more gun laws' is about 40%, on specific issues like background checks, Americans have polled in favour of that 91 to 8. So it actually seems like on actual policy the issue as simple as more or less gun laws, but about the right gun laws - keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people and making it easier for the right people. But all of that said, this issue is definitely a vote winner for Republicans because most people who want more gun laws, or even just reformed gun laws, or the status quo, don't rank this issue at all - it doesn't compete with the economy, security etc. But for that 5% who want less gun laws, it is generally a big issue and one that often drives their vote.
But overall, are you not seeing the problem there? You've got a slight advantage in defence, an issue that polls pretty low. Then you've got taxes, which barely ranks as an issue these days, and where Republicans lose terribly as soon as it goes to specifics. Then you've got guns, where the only real impact is Republicans picking up a fairly small number of single issue voters.
Looking at that, is Trump still a surprise to anyone?
whembly wrote: Another point why I'm wavering a bit how unstoppable Clinton would be is that, in Missouri, it's traditionally been "Clinton Country". However, Hillary barely squeaked by Sanders by 0.2% in the primary.
But would those same Sanders voters, when faced with either voting for Clinton or voting for the living embodiment of asshattery (which is just about anyone on your list), instead decide to vote for the asshat?
Interesting bit on 538, looking at past Republicans candidates and how quickly they won their primaries. There's been 7 primaries that didn't have a Republican incumbent, and Trump's is the weakest performance so far. And while the article doesn't make much of it, the most interesting thing to me is that the last three primaries have produced the three weakest primary wins.
It seems to lend a lot more to the notion that this isn't just a freak Trump thing. That it is getting harder for candidates to find a common ground that appeals to all parts of the Republican base, that maybe the fractures are real.
Or possibly its just that 2008 was a weird election, 2012 was a meh field, and 2016 is a meh field that's been trampled on by a crazy from out of nowhere. It's a small sample, so the amount of noise in there can be esaily read as a signal. But still, when you combine with the amazing bad favourable scores of Republican candidates among their own party, there is something of a story forming.
whembly wrote: I'm surprised how high her negatives at this point though... as, I'd thought she'd have the nomination wrapped up by now.
Don't just look at the national negative score though. That's figure has a massive chunk of Republicans who hate her rolled in to it. They don't really matter as they won't be voting for her anyway. Instead look at the numbers of Democrats who'd be happy with her as their candidate. Clinton polls around 55% net favourable. In contrast Cruz polls around 15% net favourable among Republicans, only slightly ahead of Trump.
sebster wrote: Military defence at 37%, 32% against. So that's true. Not exactly the kind of thing to build a national party around.
I'd argue it's one of the few things to build a national party around, but I'm a libertarian.
Scroll down, by the way. There's more info. The percentage of people who either want to increase or are satisfied with maintaining the current level of defense spending outnumbers the percentage who want to reduce it by quite a bit.
Gun rights are a bit misleading, because about 50% of voters at any given time are 'satisfied with current laws' which is kind of a good thing for Republicans, but also not really. Republicans only get to claim that 50% if we pretend that the issue is entirely Democrats pushing for new laws and Republicans fighting them. Instead we have to see that while Democrats are pushing for new laws, Republicans are also pushing for relaxing laws, or expanding things like concealed carry. About 5% of people believe gun laws should be more relaxed. But then when you drill down, it gets even weirder. 5% report wanting less gun laws, but laws that allow or expand concealed carry are generally pretty popular. And while the high watermark for 'more gun laws' is about 40%, on specific issues like background checks, Americans have polled in favour of that 91 to 8. So it actually seems like on actual policy the issue as simple as more or less gun laws, but about the right gun laws - keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people and making it easier for the right people. But all of that said, this issue is definitely a vote winner for Republicans because most people who want more gun laws, or even just reformed gun laws, or the status quo, don't rank this issue at all - it doesn't compete with the economy, security etc. But for that 5% who want less gun laws, it is generally a big issue and one that often drives their vote.
That whole paragraph ignores the issue that most voters have no idea what they're giving their opinion on when it comes to gun laws. You ask voters if background checks should be run for internet firearm purchases, and you get ridiculously high numbers - which Democrats would cast as support for their position. You inform voters that background checks are already required on internet purchases, and suddenly we're back in Republican Victoryville. Regardless, you're correct; the gun vote goes Republican, and Democrats have generally done poorly any time guns have been a serious issue in an election. That only tends to happen in state or local races.
General support for the Second Amendment remains extremely high, and support for the right to own a handgun or defend oneself with a firearm also remain what I'm sure many in Europe would term ludicrously high. Where things get murky is where Democrats deliberately introduced murkiness - "assault weapons" that fire a far more deadly version of .223 than non-assault weapons, etc.
But overall, are you not seeing the problem there?
From a presidential electability standpoint? Sure, there's a problem. The national voter base is more concerned with nonsense issues like who gets to pee where or whether or not Trump meant that all Mexicans are rapists. From a state/local electability standpoint? No, those are winning positions, which is why Republicans currently have a historic level of power in the US. From a personal standpoint? feth no, those are pretty much the only things I think we ought to be voting on, anyway.
Anyway. You asked for three issues that Republicans poll better than 30% on. Those were the three that popped immediately into my head. There are plenty more.
whembly wrote: Another point why I'm wavering a bit how unstoppable Clinton would be is that, in Missouri, it's traditionally been "Clinton Country". However, Hillary barely squeaked by Sanders by 0.2% in the primary.
But would those same Sanders voters, when faced with either voting for Clinton or voting for the living embodiment of asshattery (which is just about anyone on your list), instead decide to vote for the asshat?
I would say probably not.
They may not vote for whoever ends up the Republican candidate but they might very well just not vote at all if the best they can get is Clinton. Using those gosh-darning rethuglicans as a boogeyman is not going to work when you don't offer anything. I wouldn't vote for a Republican but neither would I vote for someone who can't remotely be trusted to look after my interests. You can't rally people around the grand cause of getting nothing. The Democratic party will find that out the hard way. They already have no idea what do with the growing share of leftist voters and are more likely to abandon them in favour of right-wingers who aren't happy with seeing the GOP imploding and would be open to changing ships as long as they were offered the proper policies.
Clinton's given victory ran into the problem of materialism. Sanders has support above and beyond what people tought he would because the economic and social systems are heading ever closer to a breaking point. Someone who has spent several decades saying that things fething suck but we can fight to make them good instead is far more appealing than utterly disconnected US royalty with no principles other than saying whatever wins votes.
reds8n wrote: ...is this likely to have any impact on the elections ?
Probably not, now that Jeb! is Out! of the running.
9/11 is politically not useful so long as none of the principals are involved in the current election, and none really are.
Depends on what's in the previously redacted pages. A lot of the stuff that hurts/embarasses Bush, being too close to KSA, over looking previous warning signs, aligning with or helping the wrong factions in the ME, etc. can also hit Bill Clinton. Bush43 had only been president for less than 9 months at the time and a lot of the issues date back to long before he was sworn in. In that sense it hurts the Bushes more as Bush41's policies impacted the Clinton administrations. Hillary could be damaged if the information makes Bill look bad too.
reds8n wrote: ...is this likely to have any impact on the elections ?
Probably not, now that Jeb! is Out! of the running.
9/11 is politically not useful so long as none of the principals are involved in the current election, and none really are.
Depends on what's in the previously redacted pages. A lot of the stuff that hurts/embarasses Bush, being too close to KSA, over looking previous warning signs, aligning with or helping the wrong factions in the ME, etc. can also hit Bill Clinton. Bush43 had only been president for less than 9 months at the time and a lot of the issues date back to long before he was sworn in. In that sense it hurts the Bushes more as Bush41's policies impacted the Clinton administrations. Hillary could be damaged if the information makes Bill look bad too.
That seems like a pretty hard reach, akin to arguing that George W. Bush might be hurt by new revelations about Iran-Contra.
whembly wrote: Another point why I'm wavering a bit how unstoppable Clinton would be is that, in Missouri, it's traditionally been "Clinton Country". However, Hillary barely squeaked by Sanders by 0.2% in the primary.
But would those same Sanders voters, when faced with either voting for Clinton or voting for the living embodiment of asshattery (which is just about anyone on your list), instead decide to vote for the asshat?
I would say probably not.
From what I'm hearing... those who were "Feeling the Bern™" would stay home in a Most Corrupt Witch® vs Asshattery® election.
reds8n wrote: ...is this likely to have any impact on the elections ?
Probably not, now that Jeb! is Out! of the running.
9/11 is politically not useful so long as none of the principals are involved in the current election, and none really are.
Depends on what's in the previously redacted pages. A lot of the stuff that hurts/embarasses Bush, being too close to KSA, over looking previous warning signs, aligning with or helping the wrong factions in the ME, etc. can also hit Bill Clinton. Bush43 had only been president for less than 9 months at the time and a lot of the issues date back to long before he was sworn in. In that sense it hurts the Bushes more as Bush41's policies impacted the Clinton administrations. Hillary could be damaged if the information makes Bill look bad too.
That seems like a pretty hard reach, akin to arguing that George W. Bush might be hurt by new revelations about Iran-Contra.
Just look at how many Benghazi hearings we've had...
whembly wrote: Another point why I'm wavering a bit how unstoppable Clinton would be is that, in Missouri, it's traditionally been "Clinton Country". However, Hillary barely squeaked by Sanders by 0.2% in the primary.
But would those same Sanders voters, when faced with either voting for Clinton or voting for the living embodiment of asshattery (which is just about anyone on your list), instead decide to vote for the asshat?
I would say probably not.
From what I'm hearing... those who were "Feeling the Bern™" would stay home in a Most Corrupt Witch® vs Asshattery® election.
whembly wrote: Another point why I'm wavering a bit how unstoppable Clinton would be is that, in Missouri, it's traditionally been "Clinton Country". However, Hillary barely squeaked by Sanders by 0.2% in the primary.
But would those same Sanders voters, when faced with either voting for Clinton or voting for the living embodiment of asshattery (which is just about anyone on your list), instead decide to vote for the asshat?
I would say probably not.
From what I'm hearing... those who were "Feeling the Bern™" would stay home in a Most Corrupt Witch® vs Asshattery® election.
Not so fast. I support Bernie, but nothing would keep me from going to the polls to vote against either Trump or Cruz.
whembly wrote: Another point why I'm wavering a bit how unstoppable Clinton would be is that, in Missouri, it's traditionally been "Clinton Country". However, Hillary barely squeaked by Sanders by 0.2% in the primary.
But would those same Sanders voters, when faced with either voting for Clinton or voting for the living embodiment of asshattery (which is just about anyone on your list), instead decide to vote for the asshat?
I would say probably not.
From what I'm hearing... those who were "Feeling the Bern™" would stay home in a Most Corrupt Witch® vs Asshattery® election.
Not so fast. I support Bernie, but nothing would keep me from going to the polls to vote against either Trump or Cruz.
I can see that bounce around till election season.
I just can't find that same poll for the Republicans... still hunting.
I remember reading that 25 percent of Republicans won't vote for trump or Cruz. And trumps supporters probably won't vote for anyone but trump (or a large chunk at least) and a brokered convention would lead to a large portion of Republicans probably not voting at all. This race is the Democrats to lose pretty much
The same types of polls with similar results were being done with Obama vs. Hillary, if memory serves. They don't mean anything. People say that a lot, and then wind up voting once they've gone through eight more months of general campaigning.
The same types of polls with similar results were being done with Obama vs. Hillary, if memory serves. They don't mean anything. People say that a lot, and then wind up voting once they've gone through eight more months of general campaigning.
I don't know... the thing is, this election season is full of surprises.
Right now, we shouldn't be surprised if Gen. Mattis ends up being the nominee.
Ustrello wrote: This race is the Democrats to lose pretty much
Depends on who they nominate, I think. Sanders polls great now, but he has Republican money actually helping him rather than attacking him. Once the attacks start - and most of them will be nothing more than just pulling old video of him saying truly radical leftist gak - I think his numbers are going to plummet. The dude is way, way, way to the left of what Americans are comfortable with, but he's doing a damn good job keeping the crazy tamped down for now.
whembly wrote: Another point why I'm wavering a bit how unstoppable Clinton would be is that, in Missouri, it's traditionally been "Clinton Country". However, Hillary barely squeaked by Sanders by 0.2% in the primary.
But would those same Sanders voters, when faced with either voting for Clinton or voting for the living embodiment of asshattery (which is just about anyone on your list), instead decide to vote for the asshat?
I would say probably not.
From what I'm hearing... those who were "Feeling the Bern™" would stay home in a Most Corrupt Witch® vs Asshattery® election.
Not so fast. I support Bernie, but nothing would keep me from going to the polls to vote against either Trump or Cruz.
I'm sure X% of people say that they wouldnt buy a shotgun if they can't buy a pistol. But if you tell them a maniac is coming to break into their home in a couple weeks, they'd buy the shotgun.
However if you told them the chance of a maniac breaking into their home was under 1 in 100 million, they might think they won't bother with the shotgun after all.
Let's get back to the realities of the primaries, not fantasy scenarios about opinion polling.
“Yes. I like Marco Rubio. Yeah. I could,” he told Powers. “There are people I have in mind in terms of vice president. I just haven’t told anybody names … I do like Marco. I do like (John) Kasich … I like (Scott) Walker actually in a lot of ways. I hit him very hard … But I’ve always liked him. There are people I like, but I don’t think they like me because I have hit them hard
“Yes. I like Marco Rubio. Yeah. I could,” he told Powers. “There are people I have in mind in terms of vice president. I just haven’t told anybody names … I do like Marco. I do like (John) Kasich … I like (Scott) Walker actually in a lot of ways. I hit him very hard … But I’ve always liked him. There are people I like, but I don’t think they like me because I have hit them hard
I guess Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Maher said they were too busy. Seriously, Kasich aside, he humiliated these people. No way they'd want to work for him unless they are devoid of pride.
“Yes. I like Marco Rubio. Yeah. I could,” he told Powers. “There are people I have in mind in terms of vice president. I just haven’t told anybody names … I do like Marco. I do like (John) Kasich … I like (Scott) Walker actually in a lot of ways. I hit him very hard … But I’ve always liked him. There are people I like, but I don’t think they like me because I have hit them hard
I guess Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Maher said they were too busy. Seriously, Kasich aside, he humiliated these people. No way they'd want to work for him unless they are devoid of pride.
Conspiracy Theory Time: Should Trump be the nominee, they will make sure the real GOP leadership's choice will be the VP on the ballot. And then Trump will suffer a convenient, but totally untraceable, accident the day after he is sworn in.
Conspiracy Theory Time: Should Trump be the nominee, they will make sure the real GOP leadership's choice will be the VP on the ballot. And then Trump will suffer a convenient, but totally untraceable, accident the day after he is sworn in.
Who needs an accident? Just let him start to do any of the illegal/unconstitutional things he’s promising to do, and then start the impeachment procedures. I wonder how long it would take when everyone in DC wants him gone?
Nate does superb job in estimating the delegates Trump would need and how he needs to perform...
In conclusion:
Although our panel’s original estimates had Trump finishing with 1,175 pledged delegates, my revised deterministic projections have him at 1,155, and the probabilistic version has him at 1,159. I wouldn’t make a huge deal of the differences given the considerable uncertainty in the race, however. Basically, flipping Indiana from a probable win to a probable loss outweighs the gains I have Trump making relative to our original projections in New York and Connecticut. In other states, the differences from the original projections are minor.
At the same time, the path-to-1,237 scenario doesn’t look all that far-fetched — certainly not as compared with, say, Bernie Sanders’s quixotic path to catch Hillary Clinton in pledged delegates. Our path-to-1,237 path has Trump sweeping almost everything in the Northeast, winning Indiana and winning California by a solid-but-not-spectacular margin. I wouldn’t bet on that parlay at even odds, but it’s far from impossible. There’s also a reasonable variation; Trump could win slightly fewer delegates than I’m expecting in New York and Connecticut but make them up with a bigger win in California. So we’re not yet at the point where absolutely everything has to go right for Trump to clinch 1,237 delegates after California; although he can’t afford major setbacks such as losing Indiana or Maryland.
Keep in mind, however, that the question of whether Trump will get 1,237 bound delegates by California is not the same as the question of whether he’ll win the Republican nomination. If he’s close, Trump could still get some uncommitted delegates to come along with him — especially some of the 54 from Pennsylvania if he wins that state. He could also win on the second or later ballot in Cleveland, although I wouldn’t want to count on that if I were in Trump’s shoes.
Ahtman wrote: Don't Crazy Horse's people hate the idea of that sculpture as Crazy Horse didn't want a sculpture, the mountain it is being made out of is considered sacred so it is like making a Starbucks out of the Sistine Chapel, and the original sculptor did it (and the faces) out of a 'feth nature I rule all this' kind of attitude?
Can we build a giant General Sherman behind him pointing a Colt Peacemaker?
Also, yet again, these laws over-zealously go after an issue that doesn't exist. The type of voter fraud that this addresses is practically non-existent. They stop more people from voting than actual instances of fraud.
edit: Also, more than just stopping people from voting, they dissuade people from going in the first place. And with our voting number as low as they are, that's the exact opposite of what we need.
Also, yet again, these laws over-zealously go after an issue that doesn't exist. The type of voter fraud that this addresses is practically non-existent. They stop more people from voting than actual instances of fraud.
edit: Also, more than just stopping people from voting, they dissuade people from going in the first place. And with our voting number as low as they are, that's the exact opposite of what we need.
But it's pretty much the entire point of the laws, to pretty much disenfranchise the poor and underclasses.
See politics isn't about real democracy, it's about getting what *you* want done, even if means making it so the "other guys" can't vote!
Also, yet again, these laws over-zealously go after an issue that doesn't exist. The type of voter fraud that this addresses is practically non-existent. They stop more people from voting than actual instances of fraud.
edit: Also, more than just stopping people from voting, they dissuade people from going in the first place. And with our voting number as low as they are, that's the exact opposite of what we need.
But it's pretty much the entire point of the laws, to pretty much disenfranchise the poor and underclasses.
See politics isn't about real democracy, it's about getting what *you* want done, even if means making it so the "other guys" can't vote!
He couldn't get a photo ID from Wisconsin because the state of Illinois had his name wrong on his birth certificate. How is it Wisconsin's fault that Illinois couldn't get his name right? If Illinois had the right name on is birth certificate he wouldn't have had a problem. The time and money he spent was done to try to get Illinois to fix his birth certificate, that's an Illinois problem not a Wisconsin problem. He needed to use his birth certificate because he was unemployed and living with family in Wisconsin so he didn't have other documents that somebody who had a job or residence in Wisconsin would have had.
I don't understand why he wasn't issued a provisional ballot to use to cast his vote but I also don't see why Wisconsin should be responsible for fixing clerical errors made by Illinois.
Then the guy with the Illinois birth certificate with a clerical error should have been allowed to use one. The article says he voted in the past but doesn't specify if that was in Illinois or Wisconsin. If he voted in Wisconsin previously he should have been on the voter rolls and been able to cast a provisional ballot if he didn't have ID.
The camps are pretty firmly staked out on voter ID laws-
Pro: Identification is a legitimate requirement of many official processes. It is necessary to combat fraud and illegal voting
Con: ID laws place an unreasonable burden on certain groups and act to disenfranchise the poor and minorities. Voter impersonation is a theoretical threat that there is no real evidence to support.
I am pretty conservative in my stances on immigration and travel, but having worked with the poor for almost a decade, I have seen how hard it can be for the poor and elderly to get "official" identification. The obstacles are often indirect such as lack of access to transportation, lack of education/language ability to understand processes and requirements, etc. but no less real. A lot of these individuals struggled to get identification for things that offered very real benefits, such a SSI/SSD. For something like voting, I can't imagine going through such effort.
And given that turnout is currently abysmal and such laws do not seem to address any actual problem, I cannot support such government expansionism to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Con: ID laws place an unreasonable burden on certain groups and act to disenfranchise the poor and minorities.
Not to pick on you, but there are other things we ask of our government that requires various levels of ID.
Case point: In St. Charles County, Missouri - in order to get a Marriage License, you'd have to show two forms of valid/non-expired identifications, with one of them needing to have a picture ID. (plus proof of resident in the county and a $75 fee)
Surely if Voter ID laws were to "disenfranchise the poor/minorites"... then, these Marriage License requirements is just as hard (if not harder). Leaving the SSM aside, how come we haven't heard of these "marriage tax" that disproportionally impacts the poors??
jmurph wrote: The camps are pretty firmly staked out on voter ID laws-
Pro: Identification is a legitimate requirement of many official processes. It is necessary to combat fraud and illegal voting
Con: ID laws place an unreasonable burden on certain groups and act to disenfranchise the poor and minorities. Voter impersonation is a theoretical threat that there is no real evidence to support.
I am pretty conservative in my stances on immigration and travel, but having worked with the poor for almost a decade, I have seen how hard it can be for the poor and elderly to get "official" identification. The obstacles are often indirect such as lack of access to transportation, lack of education/language ability to understand processes and requirements, etc. but no less real. A lot of these individuals struggled to get identification for things that offered very real benefits, such a SSI/SSD. For something like voting, I can't imagine going through such effort.
And given that turnout is currently abysmal and such laws do not seem to address any actual problem, I cannot support such government expansionism to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
I don't disagree with the cons that you listed and personally voter ID laws don't rank very high at all on my list of priorities for govt action. That said, without requiring an ID the govt is basically taking you at your word that you are who you say you are when you show up and vote. There are very few other instanaces where the govt takes you word as proof of your identity. Like you mentioned, enrolling in programs and benefits that you are entitled to use often requires ID and paperwork that can act as an obstacle for the very people who are supposed to sign up and benefit from those programs and entitlements. I don't think there's a strong agument to make that requiring voter ID is a matter of urgency or need but I also don't think you can make a strong argument that voting should be allowed a lower threshold of identification than a whole host of other govt interactions both minor and major. If the people of a state want their legislature to pass voter ID laws I'm ok with it but don't think it should be a high priority for any legislature either.
Why do you persist in your pretence that voter ID has anything to do with preventing voter fraud, and that any problems to do with it are merely minor bureaucratic niggles?
You personally did not invent the idea. You don't have to support it. Are you really so mind-controlled that you will support anything a Republican administration puts forward?
There really isn't an "if' about them. It is pretty consistently shown that they disenfranchise the groups that makers of the laws don't want voting, and one or two actually saying as much. It is like passing laws that effect gay and/or trans people and pretending that it doesn't, or making idiotic abortion bills that de facto ban abortion while pretending they don't. Many can hear a dog-whistle when it comes across, some can't.
Why do you persist in your pretence that voter ID has anything to do with preventing voter fraud, and that any problems to do with it are merely minor bureaucratic niggles?
The purpose of requiring voter photo-identification is to suppress voter impersonation at the polls...
to stifle double voting by persons who are registered in more than one state or locality...
to stop any voting facilitated by fictitious voter registration...
to stop voting by legal/illegal aliens who are not citizens and have no right to vote in our elections.
Nothing to do with stopping "the wrong kind of eligible voters" from voting...
These are all worthwhile goals because bogus ballots cast by foreigners, impersonators and frauds are ballots stolen from honest Americans.
You personally did not invent the idea. You don't have to support it. Are you really so mind-controlled that you will support anything a Republican administration puts forward?
Why do you persist to take anything from democratic administrations as gospel?
The purpose of requiring voter photo-identification is to suppress voter impersonation at the polls... to stifle double voting by persons who are registered in more than one state or locality... to stop any voting facilitated by fictitious voter registration... to stop voting by legal/illegal aliens who are not citizens and have no right to vote in our elections.
The purpose of requiring voter photo-identification is to suppress voter impersonation at the polls...
to stifle double voting by persons who are registered in more than one state or locality...
to stop any voting facilitated by fictitious voter registration...
to stop voting by legal/illegal aliens who are not citizens and have no right to vote in our elections.
Doesn't happen.
What doesn't happen? That people vote who shouldn't be allowed to?
It's been consistently brought up (and reinforced by research) that voter impersonation does not happen in numbers appreciable enough to constitute a problem. Organizing an invasive policy, that will block more valid votes than invalid votes, to solve something that is not an apparent problem is asinine.
And that's just being nice about it. If we wanted to cut the crap and be honest, we could go into the blatant barely veiled racism, elitism, and anti-democratic notions that permeate talk of voter ID laws. Not that I'd expect that talk to go anywhere. That would require all sides to be honest about what they're doing, and while the GOP has ironically been rather honest about their intentions with voter ID, their polity has consistently not been such.
LordofHats wrote: It's been consistently brought up (and reinforced by research) that voter impersonation does not happen in numbers appreciable enough to constitute a problem. Organizing an invasive policy, that will block more valid votes than invalid votes, to solve something that is not an apparent problem is asinine.
And that's just being nice about it. If we wanted to cut the crap and be honest, we could go into the blatant barely veiled racism, elitism, and anti-democratic notions that permeate talk of voter ID laws. Not that I'd expect that talk to go anywhere. That would require all sides to be honest about what they're doing, and while the GOP has ironically been rather honest about their intentions with voter ID, their polity has consistently not been such.
Is there evidence that supports a high incidence rate of fraud or impersonation with all the other instances where the govt requires a photo ID? It would be nice to get the govt to stop requiring photo ID for a host of actions and programs. Why do I need to show a photo ID to get on an airplane? I don't need a photo ID to get on a bus or train or other methods of travel. Why is it ok for states to make people have a photo ID to use EBT SNAP cards? I'm all for pushing back govt intrusion as much as possible in every facet of our lives.
I wouldn't use gatewaypundit as a source... he's a brazen mouth-piece for Trump.
The police stated they have photo evidence of the battery... but, the DA must of felt they wouldn't have a good case to pursue, as it is their descretion.
If the people who supported voter ID laws would put at least half as much effort into getting those IDs into voters' hands, then would this really even be an issue?
What doesn't happen? That people vote who shouldn't be allowed to?
Yes. That.
Voter Fraud is extremely rare.
It's being extremely rare to prove.
Proving that it exist or doesn't has been a challenge to quantity.
31 credible cases out of 1B votes cast. That's 0.0000031% of all votes. It's a statistical non-issue. Even if it all happened in one election it would generally not make an impact.
RICHMOND, Va. – A crosscheck of voter rolls in Virginia and Maryland turned up 44,000 people registered in both states, a vote-integrity group reported Wednesday.
And that’s just the beginning.
“The Virginia Voters Alliance is investigating how to identify voters who are registered and vote in Virginia but live in the states that surround us,” Alliance President Reagan George told the State Board of Elections.
George acknowledged that the number of voters who actually cast multiple ballots is relatively small. In the case of Maryland and Virginia, he revealed that 164 people voted in both states during the 2012 election.
...
The investigator discovered 164 people who voted twice. That's a tiny amount... however, consider the margin in the Bush v. Gore in the 2000 presidential elections. Which was 537 votes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: If the people who supported voter ID laws would put at least half as much effort into getting those IDs into voters' hands, then would this really even be an issue?
I agree with you there... WI should've at least made a provisional ballot for him and helped him ensure his vote counted.
The investigator discovered 164 people who voted twice. That's a tiny amount... however, consider the margin in the Bush v. Gore in the 2000 presidential elections. Which was 537 votes.
And how does requiring photo ID prevent these people from being able to vote in multiple states? That is a problem with the electoral rolls not being updated, not with people getting impersonated.
Tannhauser42 wrote: If the people who supported voter ID laws would put at least half as much effort into getting those IDs into voters' hands, then would this really even be an issue?
Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner! I am sorry I brought it up by referencing an Onion article!
Anyone going to watch the Rumble in Brooklyn tonight?
However, the very idea of how pervasive ID Theft is these days, is it a stretch that it couldn't spill through voting activities?
Yes, because people are not stealing your ID so that they can vote for someone they like in elections that come around every 4 years. They are stealing your ID so that they can get financial benefit.
The investigator discovered 164 people who voted twice. That's a tiny amount... however, consider the margin in the Bush v. Gore in the 2000 presidential elections. Which was 537 votes.
And how does requiring photo ID prevent these people from being able to vote in multiple states?
Typical state's VoterID laws often empowers the Secretary of State to review/purge the voter rolls.
But, you're shifting the conversation. That was my response to (it doesn't/rarely happen).
However, the very idea of how pervasive ID Theft is these days, is it a stretch that it couldn't spill through voting activities?
Yes, because people are not stealing your ID so that they can vote for someone they like in elections that come around every 4 years. They are stealing your ID so that they can get financial benefit.
Oh?
So you believe voters who are willing to steal your IDs for financial gains would have no compunction to illegally vote?
Here's a random thought. How much would it cost to actually buy an election? Suppose Texas is expected to go red by only 1000 votes, and Oklahoma will go blue by 5000 votes. What if you paid 2000 of those blue Oklahomans to move and live in Texas just long enough to swing Texas blue? Compared to how much is already spent on campaigning and ads, would this sort of thing cost more or less? Just something I was wondering.
However, the very idea of how pervasive ID Theft is these days, is it a stretch that it couldn't spill through voting activities?
Yes, because people are not stealing your ID so that they can vote for someone they like in elections that come around every 4 years. They are stealing your ID so that they can get financial benefit.
Oh?
So you believe voters who are willing to steal your IDs for financial gains would have no compunction to illegally vote?
Yes. There is no financial reward for voting. All that would do is potentially open them up to getting caught.
An oldie, but a goodie: Giant spoilered article, please post with some thought to others
Spoiler:
In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens.[1] While that may not seem like many, just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presidential vote margin in Florida in 2000. Indeed, the Census Bureau estimates that there are over a million illegal aliens in Florida,[2] and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has prosecuted more non-citizen voting cases in Florida than in any other state.[3]
Florida is not unique. Thousands of non-citizens are registered to vote in some states, and tens if not hundreds of thousands in total may be present on the voter rolls nationwide. These numbers are significant: Local elections are often decided by only a handful of votes, and even national elections have likely been within the margin of the number of non-citizens illegally registered to vote.
Yet there is no reliable method to determine the number of non-citizens registered or actually voting because most laws to ensure that only citizens vote are ignored, are inadequate, or are systematically undermined by government officials. Those who ignore the implications of non-citizen registration and voting either are willfully blind to the problem or may actually favor this form of illegal voting.
Americans may disagree on many areas of immigration policy, but not on the basic principle that only citizens-and not non-citizens, whether legally present or not-should be able to vote in elections. Unless and until immigrants become citizens, they must respect the laws that bar non-citizen voting. To keep non-citizens from diluting citizens' votes, Immigration and election officials must cooperate far more effectively than they have to date, and state and federal officials must increase their efforts to enforce the laws against non-citizen voting that are already on the books.
An Enduring Problem
Illegal voting by immigrants in America is nothing new. Almost as long as there have been elections, there have been Tammany Halls trying to game the ballot box. Well into the 20th century, the political machines asserted their ascendancy on Election Day, stealing elections in the boroughs of New York and the wards of Chicago. Quite regularly, Irish immigrants were lined up and counted in canvasses long before the term "citizen" ever applied to them-and today it is little different. Yet in the debates over what to do about the 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens estimated to be in the United States, there has been virtually no discussion of how to ensure that they (and millions of legal aliens) do not register and vote in elections.
citizenship is and should be a basic requirement for voting. citizenship is a legal requirement to vote in federal and state elections,[4] except for a small number of local elections in a few jurisdictions.[5]
Some Americans argue that alien voting is a nonexistent problem or dismiss reported cases of non-citizen voting as unimportant because, they claim, there are no cases in which non-citizens "intentionally" registered to vote or voted "while knowing that they were ineligible."[6] Even if this latter claim were true-which it is not-every vote cast by a non-citizen, whether an illegal alien or a resident alien legally in the country, dilutes or cancels the vote of a citizen and thus disenfranchises him or her. To dismiss such stolen votes because the non-citizens supposedly did not know they were acting illegally when they cast a vote debases one of the most important Rights of citizens.[7]
The evidence is indisputable that aliens, both legal and illegal, are registering and voting in federal, state, and local elections. Following a mayor's race in Compton, California, for example, aliens testified under oath in court that they voted in the election.[8] In that case, a candidate who was elected to the city council was permanently disqualified from holding public office in California for soliciting non-citizens to register and vote.[9] The fact that non-citizens registered and voted in the election would never have been discovered except for the fact that it was a very close election and the incumbent mayor, who lost by less than 300 votes, contested it.[10]
Similarly, a 1996 congressional race in California may have been stolen by non-citizen voting.[11] Republican incumbent Bob Dornan was defending himself against a spirited challenger, Democrat Loretta Sanchez. Sanchez won the election by just 979 votes, and Dornan contested the election in the U.S. House of Representatives. His challenge was dismissed after an investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform turned up only 624 invalid votes by non-citizens who were present in the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) database because they had applied for citizenship, as well as another 124 improper absentee ballots.[12] The investigation, however, could not detect illegal aliens, who were not in the INS records.
The Oversight Committee pointed out the elephant in the room: "[I]f there is a significant number of 'documented aliens,' aliens in INS records, on the Orange County voter registration rolls, how many illegal or undocumented aliens may be registered to vote in Orange County?"[13] There is a strong possibility that, with only about 200 votes determining the winner,[14] enough undetected aliens registered and voted to change the outcome of the election. This is particularly true since the California Secretary of State complained that the INS refused his request to check the entire Orange County voter registration file, and no complete check of all of the individuals who voted in the congressional race was ever made.[15]
The "Quick Ticket"
Non-citizen voting is likely growing at the same rate as the alien population in the United States; but because of deficiencies in state law and the failure of federal agencies to comply with federal law, there are almost no procedures in place that allow election officials to detect, deter, and prevent non-citizens from registering and voting. Instead, officials are largely dependent on an "honor system" that expects aliens to follow the law. There are numerous cases showing the failure of this honor system.
The frequent claim that illegal aliens do not register in order "to stay below the radar"[16] misses the fact that many aliens apparently believe that the potential benefit of registering far outweighs the chances of being caught and prosecuted. Many district attorneys will not prosecute what they see as a "victimless and non-violent" crime that is not a priority.[17]
On the benefit side of the equation, a voter registration card is an easily obtainable document-they are routinely issued without any checking of identification-that an illegal alien can use for many different purposes, including obtaining a driver's license, qualifying for a job, and even voting.[18] The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, for example, requires employers to verify that all newly hired employees present documentation verifying their identity and legal authorization to work in the United States.[19] In essence, this means that new employees have to present evidence that they are either U.S. citizens or legal aliens with a work permit. The federal I-9 form that employers must complete for all new employees provides a list of documentation that can be used to establish identity-including a voter registration card.[20]
How aliens view the importance of this benefit was illustrated by the work of a federal grand jury in 1984 that found large numbers of aliens registered to vote in Chicago. As the grand jury reported, many aliens "register to vote so that they can obtain documents identifying them as U.S. citizens" and have "used their voters' cards to obtain a myriad of benefits, from social security to jobs with the Defense Department."[21] The U.S. Attorney at the time estimated that there were at least 80,000 illegal aliens registered to vote in Chicago, and dozens were indicted and convicted for registering and voting.[22]
The grand jury's report resulted in a limited cleanup of the voter registration rolls in Chicago, but just one year later, INS District Director A. D. Moyer testified before a state legislative task force that 25,000 illegal and 40,000 legal aliens remained on the rolls in Chicago. Moyer told the Illinois Senate that non-citizens registered so they could get a voter registration card for identification, adding that the card was "a quick ticket into the unemployment compensation system."[23] An alien from Belize, for example, testified that he and his two sisters were able to register easily because they were not asked for any identification or proof of citizenship and lied about where they were born. After securing registration, he voted in Chicago.
Once such aliens are registered, of course, they receive the same encouragement to vote from campaigns' and parties' get-out-the-vote programs and advertisements that all other registered voters receive. Political actors have no way to distinguish between individuals who are properly registered and non-citizens who are illegally registered.
A Failure to Cooperate
Obtaining an accurate assessment of the size of this problem is difficult. There is no systematic review of voter registration rolls by states to find non-citizens, and the relevant federal agencies-in direct violation of federal law-refuse to cooperate with state election officials seeking to verify the citizenship status of registered voters. Federal immigration law requires these agencies to "respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or Immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information," regardless of any other provision of federal law, such as the Privacy Act.[24] However, examples of refusal to cooperate are legion:
In declining to cooperate with a request by Maryland to check the citizenship status of individuals registered to vote there, a spokesman for the U.S. citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS) mistakenly declared that the agency could not release that information because "it is important to safeguard the confidentiality of each legal immigrant, especially in light of the federal Privacy Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act."[25]
One surprising result of this policy: In 2004, a guilty verdict in a murder trial in Maryland was jeopardized because a non-citizen was discovered on the jury-which had been chosen from the voter rolls.[26]
In 2005, Sam Reed, the Secretary of State of Washington, asked the CIS to check the immigration status of registered voters in Washington; the agency refused to cooperate.[27]
A request from the Fulton County, Georgia, Board of Registration and elections in 1998 to the old Immigration and Naturalization Service to check the Immigration status of 775 registered voters was likewise refused for want of a notarized consent from each voter because of "federal privacy act" concerns.
In 1997, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's office in Dallas were investigating voting by non-citizens. They sent a computerized tape of the names of individuals who had voted to the INS requesting a check against INS records, but the INS refused to cooperate with the criminal investigation.[28] An INS official was quoted as saying that the INS bureaucracy did not "want to open a Pandora's Box…. If word got out that this is a substantial problem, it could tie up all sorts of manpower. There might be a few thousand [illegal voters] in Dallas, for example, but there could be tens of thousands in places like New York, Chicago or Miami."[29]
These incidents show that the CIS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),[30] the successor agencies to the INS, are either ignorant of federal legal requirements or deliberately ignoring them. An inquiry by a state or local election official regarding voter eligibility based on citizenship falls squarely within their statutory authority.
To be sure, CIS and ICE databases are not comprehensive; they contain information only about legal immigrants who have applied for the documentation necessary to be in the United States and illegal immigrants who have been detained. But even access to that information would be a big step forward for election officials in their attempts to try to clean up registration lists and find those aliens who are illegally registered and voting in elections.
The Honor System
The refusal of federal agencies to obey the law compels local election officials to rely almost entirely on the "honor system" to keep non-citizens from the polls. As Maryland's state election administrator has complained, "There is no way of checking…. We have no access to any information about who is in the United States legally or otherwise."[31]
Most discoveries of non-citizens on the registration rolls are therefore accidental. Though the Department of Justice has no procedures in place for a systematic investigation of these types of criminal violations, in just a three year period, it prosecuted and convicted more than a dozen non-citizens who registered and voted in federal elections in Alaska, Florida, the District of Columbia, and Colorado. [32] Among them was an alien in southern Florida, Rafael Velasquez, who not only voted, but even ran for the state legislature.[33] Eight of the 19 September 11 hijackers were registered to vote in either Virginia or Florida-registrations that were probably obtained when they applied for driver's licenses.[34]
In 1994, Mario Aburto Martinez, a Mexican national and the assassin of Mexican presidential candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio, was found to have registered twice to vote in California.[35] A random sample of just 10 percent of the 3,000 Hispanics registered to vote in California's 39th Assembly District by an independent group "revealed phony addresses and large numbers of registrants who admitted they were not U.S. citizens."[36] This problem may be partially explained by the testimony of a Hispanic member of the Los Angeles Police Department who had been a volunteer for the California-based Southwest Voter Registration Education Project. When she reported to her supervisor that her fellow volunteers were not asking potential voters whether they were citizens, she was reprimanded "and told that she was not to ask that question…only whether the person wished to register to vote."[37] Similarly, the Dornan-Sanchez investigation produced an affidavit from a non-citizen stating that the Sanchez campaign's field director, an elected member of the Anaheim Board of Education, told him that it "didn't matter" that he was not a U.S. citizen-he should register and vote anyway.[38]
In 2006, Paul Bettencourt, Voter Registrar for Harris County, Texas, testified before the U.S. Committee on House Administration that the extent of illegal voting by foreign citizens in Harris County was impossible to determine but "that it has and will continue to occur." Twenty-two percent of county residents, he explained, were born outside of the United States, and more than 500,000 were non-citizens. Bettencourt noted that he cancelled the registration of a Brazilian citizen in 1996 after she acknowledged on a jury summons that she was not a U.S. citizen. Despite that cancellation, however, "She then reapplied in 1997, again claiming to be a U.S. citizen, and was again given a voter card, which was again cancelled. Records show she was able to vote at least four times in general and primary elections."[39]
In 2005, Bettencourt's office turned up at least 35 cases in which foreign nationals applied for or received voter cards, and he pointed out that Harris County regularly had "elections decided by one, two, or just a handful of votes." In fact, a Norwegian citizen was discovered to have voted in a state legislative race in Harris County that was decided by only 33 votes.[40] Nor is this problem unique to Harris County. Recent reports indicate that hundreds of illegal aliens registered to vote in Bexar County, Texas, and that at least 41 of them have voted, some several times, in a dozen local, state, and federal elections.[41]
In 2005, Arizona passed Proposition 200, which requires anyone registering to vote to provide "satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship," such as a driver's license, a birth certificate, a passport, naturalization documents, or any other documents accepted by the federal government to prove citizenship for employment purposes. The state issues a "Type F" driver's license to individuals who are legally present in the United States but are not citizens. Since Proposition 200 took effect, 2,177 non-citizens applying for such licenses have attempted to register to vote. [42] Another 30,000 have been denied registration because they could not produce evidence of citizenship.[43]
The constitutionality of Arizona's requirement is currently being litigated in federal court. The district court hearing the case refused to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law, and the Supreme Court vacated a preliminary injunction issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.[44] Trial is scheduled for July 2008.[45] The plaintiffs will have to convince the presiding judge that the very same proof of citizenship required by the federal government before an individual can work is somehow unlawful when imposed by a state before a person can vote.
Some non-citizen registrations can be detected through the jury process. The vast majority of state and federal courts draw their jury pools from voter registration lists, and the jury questionnaires used by court clerks ask potential jurors whether they are U.S. citizens. In most states, however, and throughout the federal court system, court clerks rarely notify local election officials that potential jurors have sworn under oath that they are not U.S. citizens. In jurisdictions that share that information, election officials routinely discover non-citizens on the voter rolls. For example, the district attorney in Maricopa County, Arizona, testified that after receiving a list of potential jurors who admitted they were not citizens, he indicted 10 who had registered to vote. (All had sworn on their registration forms that they were U.S. citizens.) Four had actually voted in elections. The district attorney was investigating 149 other cases.[46]
The county recorder in Maricopa County had also received inquiries from aliens seeking verification, for their citizenship applications, that they had not registered or voted. Thirty-seven of those aliens had registered to vote, and 15 of them had actually voted. As the county's district attorney explained, these numbers come "from a relatively small universe of individuals-legal immigrants who seek to become citizens…. These numbers do not tell us how many illegal immigrants have registered and voted."[47] Even these small numbers, though, could have been enough to sway an election. A 2004 Arizona primary election, explained the district attorney, was determined by just 13 votes. Clearly, non-citizens who illegally registered and voted in Maricopa County could have determined the outcome of the election.[48]
These numbers become more alarming when one considers that only a very small percentage of registered voters are called for jury duty in most jurisdictions. The California Secretary of State reported in 1998 that 2,000 to 3,000 of the individuals summoned for jury duty in Orange County each month claimed an exemption from jury service because they were not U.S. citizens, and 85 percent to 90 percent of those individuals were summoned from the voter registration list, rather than Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) records.[49] While some of those individuals may have simply committed perjury to avoid jury service, this represents a significant number of potentially illegal voters: 20,400 to 30,600 non-citizens summoned from the voter registration list over a one-year period.
Helping Aliens Vote
Under the Constitution, an individual's eligibility to vote is left mostly to the states. Article I and the 17th Amendment provide that the electors for Members of Congress shall have the qualifications for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.[50] Article II provides that presidential electors shall be chosen in the manner directed by state legislatures.[51] All of the states require voters to be U.S. citizens to vote in state elections,[52] and 18 U.S.C. § 611 makes it a crime for "any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector," or Congress.[53]
Other federal laws authorize the Justice Department to prosecute non-citizens for registering and voting in elections. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires individuals registering to vote to affirm eligibility requirements, including citizenship.[54] The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) added a specific citizenship question to the federal voter registration form.[55] Since citizenship is clearly material to a voter's eligibility, aliens can be prosecuted for providing false registration information and voting under the NVRA.[56] They can also be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1015(f), which criminalizes making a false statement or claim about citizenship "in order to register to vote or to vote in any Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum)," and under 18 U.S.C. § 911, which prohibits making a false claim of citizenship.
The NVRA has contributed to the problem of aliens registering to vote. The largest source of voter registrations are state programs created under Section 5 of the NVRA, known as "Motor Voter," which requires all states to allow individuals who apply for a driver's license to register to vote at the same time.[57] States such as Maryland, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington allow illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses, and other states, such as Tennessee, provide licenses to resident aliens.[58]
To comply with Motor Voter, states automatically offer voter registration to all applicants for a driver's license. Most government employees do so even when they know the applicants are not citizens because these employees do not want to face claims that they discriminated based on ethnicity, and they believe it is the responsibility of election officials, not state DMVs, to determine the eligibility of voter registration applicants. Yet when license bureaus submit completed registration forms to state election officials, they often omit the citizenship status of the applicants.
Savvy politicians may already have taken advantage of this state of affairs. During the Clinton Administration, for example, the Justice Department allegedly forced states to offer voter registration to non-citizens. In response, the Texas Secretary of State reportedly asked his attorney general to sue the department.[59]
Confusion still reigns in the states. In 2004, a Maryland state legislator contacted the DOJ to express his concern that the Maryland Department of Motor Vehicles was allowing non-citizens applying for driver's licenses to register to vote. When he asked the DMV to stop, he was told that it was required by the NVRA to offer all driver's license applicants the opportunity to register to vote. The Justice Department quickly sent the Maryland delegate a letter pointing out that the NVRA had no such requirement and that federal law makes it a crime for a non-citizen to register. The letter went on to say that a state that issues licenses to non-citizens should not offer such an individual the right to register to vote.[60] Nonetheless, there is no evidence that the Maryland DMV has changed its procedures to deter non-citizens from registering, and Maryland officials recently testified that they were issuing 2,000 driver's licenses per week to undocumented aliens.[61]
Utah, which issues licenses to illegal aliens, switched to a two-tiered system that issues a visibly different "driving privilege" card to illegal aliens after a limited 2005 audit by the state's Legislative Auditor General. The audit found that hundreds of illegal aliens had registered to vote when they obtained their Utah driver's licenses-and at least 14 of them had voted.[62] The audit used a small sample; Utah State Senator Mark Madsen said that an extrapolation of the audit numbers suggested that 5,000 to 7,000 aliens were registered to vote.[63]
This problem has been exacerbated by many states' interpretation of a HAVA provision that requires a citizenship question on the federal mail-in voter registration form. The provision, in 42 U.S.C. § 15483, requires the following question: "Are you a citizen of the United States of America?" If an applicant fails to answer this question, HAVA provides that the local election official must notify the applicant of the failure and "provide the applicant with an opportunity to complete the form in a timely manner to allow for the completion of the registration form" prior to the election.[64] Under the threat of lawsuits by organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, states such as Ohio, Iowa, and South Dakota will register an individual even if he fails to answer the citizenship question. The Justice Department so far has failed to sue these states to force compliance with HAVA.[65]
HAVA also imposes an identification requirement for first-time voters who register by mail.[66] Many states, including California, have interpreted this provision to apply only to registration forms received through the U.S. mail, so the requirement is easily avoided by turning in the registration form directly to election officials. Additionally, documents named in the law as acceptable forms of identification for voter registration, such as utility bills and bank statements, are easily obtained by non-citizens. HAVA also requires applicants to provide a driver's license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number but allows an individual to register even if he has neither number.[67]
Practical Solutions
There are several changes that states and the federal government can and should make to prevent non-citizens from registering and voting illegally in state and federal elections:
Congress and state legislatures should require all federal and state courts to notify local election officials when individuals summoned for jury duty from voter registration rolls are excused because they are not United States citizens. United States Attorneys are already under a similar obligation: Under the NVRA, they must send information on felony convictions to local election officials so that the felons can be removed from voter registration rolls.[68]
All states should require anyone who registers to vote to provide proof of U.S. citizenship. This requirement should be identical to the federal requirement of proof for employment.
ICE and CIS should comply with federal law and confirm the citizenship status of registered voters when they receive requests for such information from state and local election officials. If the agencies decline to do so, they should be investigated by Congress and the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for their failure to follow the law.
The database, known as E-Verify, that is being used by U.S. employers to check the citizenship status of prospective employees should be made available to election officials and administrators of the statewide registration databases required by HAVA so that election officials can run database comparisons to identify registered voters who are not citizens.
The DOJ should file enforcement actions against all states that allow an individual to register to vote when he or she has not answered the citizenship question on the voter registration form required by HAVA.
Local district attorneys must be made to realize that registration and voting by non-citizens are offenses against the basic principles of our democratic system and that such cases must be prosecuted. CIS and ICE should also realize that all information they have on non-citizen voting-such as when immigrants applying for citizenship admit they have registered and voted or when illegal aliens who are detained are found to possess voter registration cards or other documents indicating they are registered to vote-must be referred to the DHS for institution of removal proceedings, to the DOJ for prosecution, and to the relevant election officials so that the individual can be struck from the registration rolls.
The DOJ should conduct a survey of all state DMVs to determine which ones have rules and procedures in place that prevent non-citizens who apply for driver's licenses from registering to vote and then file enforcement actions against any state that refuses to comply with this requirement.
A voter registration card should not be a valid identifying document to obtain a driver's license or employment.
Conclusion
America has always been a nation of immigrants, and we remain today the most welcoming nation in the world. Newly minted citizens assimilate and become part of the American culture very quickly. Requiring that our laws-all of our laws- be complied with requires no more of an alien than it does of a citizen. It is a violation of both state and federal law for immigrants who are not citizens to vote in state and federal elections. These violations effectively disenfranchise legitimate voters whose votes are diluted, and they must be curtailed.
Election officials have an obligation not only to enforce those laws, but also to implement registration and election procedures that do not allow those laws to be bypassed or ignored. Anything less encourages contempt for the law and our election process. Lax enforcement of election laws permits individuals who have not entered the American social compact or made a commitment to the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and the U.S. cultural and political heritage to participate in elections and potentially change the outcome of closely contested races that affect how all Americans are governed.
Hans A. von Spakovsky served as a member of the Federal Election Commission for two years. Before that, he was Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he specialized in voting and election issues. He also served as a county election official in Georgia for five years as a member of the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections.
Are you fething serious wembley. You put a gigantic, unspoilered thing just to say "just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presidential vote margin in Florida in 2000", which isn't even the point? Put more thought into how you post in this thread, I know it's one of your babies but just do it.
motyak wrote: Are you fething serious wembley. You put a gigantic, unspoilered thing just to say "just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presidential vote margin in Florida in 2000", which isn't even the point? Put more thought into how you post in this thread, I know it's one of your babies but just do it.
So, I'm not convince you've read the whole article then... there's good stuff in there if you spend the time...
Furthermore, what's the criteria for something that's "too big" that'd be a good candidate to spoiler?
motyak wrote: Are you fething serious wembley. You put a gigantic, unspoilered thing just to say "just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presidential vote margin in Florida in 2000", which isn't even the point? Put more thought into how you post in this thread, I know it's one of your babies but just do it.
So, I'm not convince you've read the whole article then... there's good stuff in there if you spend the time...
Furthermore, what's the criteria for something that's "too big" that'd be a good candidate to spoiler?
As a mobile user, I'd seriously appreciate it if you spoiler anything over 6-7 paragraphs. It's not that I don't want to read it, it's just after I've read it and I come back to the thread using "First Unread" it can occasionally drag the screen back up the page. It's a minor annoyance with a simple fix.
Which this bill would have required jury commissioners to retain information from individuals not qualified to serve as jurors for reasons that would also disqualify them from voting, such as:
- not being a citizen of the United States
- no longer being a resident of the Commonwealth
- being a resident of another county or city in the Commonwealth
- having been convicted of a felony and having not provided evidence that their right to vote has been restored
- or having been adjudicated incapacitated.
Gov. McAuliffe said, "more study is requred"... but, has since done nada.
motyak wrote: Are you fething serious wembley. You put a gigantic, unspoilered thing just to say "just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presidential vote margin in Florida in 2000", which isn't even the point? Put more thought into how you post in this thread, I know it's one of your babies but just do it.
So, I'm not convince you've read the whole article then... there's good stuff in there if you spend the time...
Furthermore, what's the criteria for something that's "too big" that'd be a good candidate to spoiler?
As a mobile user, I'd seriously appreciate it if you spoiler anything over 6-7 paragraphs. It's not that I don't want to read it, it's just after I've read it and I come back to the thread using "First Unread" it can occasionally drag the screen back up the page. It's a minor annoyance with a simple fix.
d-usa wrote: If we had as many hearings and investigations about in-person voter fraud than we have on emails and Benghazi.
Different burden of proof for different folks.
You don't have any burden when you have the Truth (trademark pending)
Ya know... if you want double-standards in prosecuting citizens vs. elected officials, or are okay with your elected officials flat-out lying to you because it's inconvenient to your favored party's re-election campaign...
The Democratic Party is for you!
Just make sure you are who you say you are when you arrive at the polling stations.
motyak wrote: Are you fething serious wembley. You put a gigantic, unspoilered thing just to say "just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presidential vote margin in Florida in 2000", which isn't even the point? Put more thought into how you post in this thread, I know it's one of your babies but just do it.
So, I'm not convince you've read the whole article then... there's good stuff in there if you spend the time...
Furthermore, what's the criteria for something that's "too big" that'd be a good candidate to spoiler?
Just spoiler everything because you always c and p entire articles
motyak wrote: Are you fething serious wembley. You put a gigantic, unspoilered thing just to say "just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presidential vote margin in Florida in 2000", which isn't even the point? Put more thought into how you post in this thread, I know it's one of your babies but just do it.
So, I'm not convince you've read the whole article then... there's good stuff in there if you spend the time...
Furthermore, what's the criteria for something that's "too big" that'd be a good candidate to spoiler?
Just spoiler everything because you always c and p entire articles
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what demographics are being targeted by voter ID laws, and it doesn't take a genius to listen to the same politicians talk about how these laws will benefit their party.
I feel dumber every time I listen to people try to defend them and explain to me how it doesn't have anything to do with disenfranchising people.
d-usa wrote: It doesn't take a genius to figure out what demographics are being targeted by voter ID laws, and it doesn't take a genius to listen to the same politicians talk about how these laws will benefit their party.
I feel dumber every time I listen to people try to defend them and explain to me how it doesn't have anything to do with disenfranchising people.
Right, because having to prove that you're eligible is "disenfranchising the people".
d-usa wrote: It doesn't take a genius to figure out what demographics are being targeted by voter ID laws, and it doesn't take a genius to listen to the same politicians talk about how these laws will benefit their party.
I feel dumber every time I listen to people try to defend them and explain to me how it doesn't have anything to do with disenfranchising people.
Right, because having to prove that you're eligible is "disenfranchising the people".
Why bother with IDs for anything then?
Are they on the electoral roll? Yes? Then they're eligible. End of.
Right, because having to prove that you're eligible is "disenfranchising the people".
It is if the end result is people can't vote solely because they can't get ID. I'm sure many a southern gentlemen said "it's not disenfranchising people to require them to pass a literacy test. How can they even read the ballot to vote if they can't read?" Que auto failing anyone not white regardless of whether they passed (and everyone white who failed because only "trash" can't read). The moment you establish a litmus test beyond "citizen" for the right to vote, you inevitably start disenfranchising people. Sometimes it just has to be that way. We have to maintain rolls after all as a most basic component of any electoral process. That's completely different from this. This is arguing for a safeguard against and problem that does not demonstrably exist that makes it harder for people to vote.
Right, because having to prove that you're eligible is "disenfranchising the people".
It is if the end result is people can't vote solely because they can't get ID. I'm sure many a southern gentlemen said "it's not disenfranchising people to require them to pass a literacy test. How can they even read the ballot to vote if they can't read?" Que auto failing anyone not white regardless of whether they passed (and everyone white who failed because only "trash" can't read). The moment you establish a litmus test beyond "citizen" for the right to vote, you inevitably start disenfranchising people. Sometimes it just has to be that way. We have to maintain rolls after all as a most basic component of any electoral process. That's completely different from this. This is arguing for a safeguard against and problem that does not demonstrably exist that makes it harder for people to vote.
Then at what point do you ascertain the voter is a "citizen" and those are legally able to vote?
d-usa wrote: It doesn't take a genius to figure out what demographics are being targeted by voter ID laws, and it doesn't take a genius to listen to the same politicians talk about how these laws will benefit their party.
I feel dumber every time I listen to people try to defend them and explain to me how it doesn't have anything to do with disenfranchising people.
Right, because having to prove that you're eligible is "disenfranchising the people".
Why bother with IDs for anything then?
Are they on the electoral roll? Yes? Then they're eligible. End of.
No. There's demostrative proof that simply being on the roll isn't enough.
I love how the party of smaller government that constantly complains about government overreach keeps on creating laws like this to solve 'problems' that don't exist...
Whembly, would you support a bill that guaranteed every citizen would get an ID? It would be a large step towards ensuring voter fraud does not happen and all citizens are given a voice. However, it would require a federal expansion and a lot of tax money to accomplish. Oh yeah, it would also have to be a free ID.
Whembly, would you support a bill that guaranteed every citizen would get an ID? It would be a large step towards ensuring voter fraud does not happen and all citizens are given a voice. However, it would require a federal expansion and a lot of tax money to accomplish. Oh yeah, it would also have to be a free ID.
Absolutely.
I'd go as far as re-issuing picture IDs on Social Security cards (excepting non-citizens legally here of course).
Seaward wrote: I'd argue it's one of the few things to build a national party around, but I'm a libertarian.
Well if you want to go out there and try to make military spending levels the primary point in a national campaign, you go and do that. But 'its the military spending, stupid' isn't a phrase for one very good reason.
Regardless, you're correct; the gun vote goes Republican, and Democrats have generally done poorly any time guns have been a serious issue in an election. That only tends to happen in state or local races.
And this is the primary problem - guns can be winning issues in some local races, but it's a big part of the national party's platform.
From a presidential electability standpoint? Sure, there's a problem. The national voter base is more concerned with nonsense issues like who gets to pee where or whether or not Trump meant that all Mexicans are rapists.
You're confusing internet noise with the actual issues that most voters base their choice on. "It's the bathroom transgender equality" also isn't a famous political phrase for a reason.
Anyway. You asked for three issues that Republicans poll better than 30% on. Those were the three that popped immediately into my head. There are plenty more.
Yeah, and thanks for taking up the challenge. And for the record there's a couple of others, a lot more depending on how you characterise Rep and Dem positions. The question wasn't an absolute (it'd be absurd if it were actually true). It's a means to get people thinking about the nature of the problem. In terms of general political identification the Republicans have a large natural advantage - lots more people self-identify as conservative than as liberal. But once you get past that general level and in to politicy detail, then you start to see the Republican party problems start to form.
People want to pay less tax, that's an easy vote winner. But once you see Republican tax plans built around massive tax cuts at the top end of town, justified with warmed up Reagan trickle down stuff, it isn't hard to see how that becomes a vote loser.
Yeah, and thanks for taking up the challenge. And for the record there's a couple of others, a lot more depending on how you characterise Rep and Dem positions. The question wasn't an absolute (it'd be absurd if it were actually true). It's a means to get people thinking about the nature of the problem. In terms of general political identification the Republicans have a large natural advantage - lots more people self-identify as conservative than as liberal. But once you get past that general level and in to politicy detail, then you start to see the Republican party problems start to form.
People want to pay less tax, that's an easy vote winner. But once you see Republican tax plans built around massive tax cuts at the top end of town, justified with warmed up Reagan trickle down stuff, it isn't hard to see how that becomes a vote loser.
I've personally seen a lot of "we need to deregulate business" type arguments from people who lean Right... whether they be identified Republicans, self-identified Libertarians or whatever. And I think that that idea does seem to go hand in hand with Reaganomics. Luckily, I'm beginning to see better and better explanations by left-leaning experts and pundits that are beginning to sway the more rational folks out there, that *better* regulation is a good thing, and that no one out there really wants *more* regulation.
And I believe that 60% is of people who turned up to vote for Sanders in a primary. And everyone should remember that primary voters is still a pretty small portion of the electorate - about 10% vote in the Democratic primary. And it's a pretty selective group - the most committed Clinton and Sanders voters are voting.
So if you open it out and ask the greater Democratic base if they'll stay home if Clinton or Sanders wins, that number almost disappears. Then you start seeing 80% they'd be satisfied with either, and very few saying they'll stay home or switch candidates if their preference doesn't get up.
The numbers are much bigger in the Republican party. 35% would be unsatisfied with Trump or Cruz, and a large portion of that have stated they will stay home.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: The same types of polls with similar results were being done with Obama vs. Hillary, if memory serves. They don't mean anything. People say that a lot, and then wind up voting once they've gone through eight more months of general campaigning.
Yep.
This is a question that gets asked in this mid to late stage of the primary every single cycle. And right now, because people are fully engaged in the primary and cheering for their guy, they answer accordingly. Months from now, once losing candidates have pledged support behind their guy, and once the debates and speeches between the two final candidates are underway, all of this will be a forgotten memory.
The only real complicating factor to any of it is the Republicans, who will likely end up with a nominee who didn't win the most delegates. How that plays out is likely to have greater ramifications that in previous years. Whether they are big or small ramifications will be the question, and depend on how well the leadership plays it, and how Trump decides to accept it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Depends on who they nominate, I think. Sanders polls great now, but he has Republican money actually helping him rather than attacking him. Once the attacks start - and most of them will be nothing more than just pulling old video of him saying truly radical leftist gak - I think his numbers are going to plummet. The dude is way, way, way to the left of what Americans are comfortable with, but he's doing a damn good job keeping the crazy tamped down for now.
Yeah, and it's quite telling how little Clinton has attacked Sanders. She doesn't want to alienate the left wing of the base she'd like to have in the general. About the only sustained attack she's made on Sanders has been on gun control, because it's the one issue where he's to the right of the party's base.
Seaward wrote: Depends on who they nominate, I think. Sanders polls great now, but he has Republican money actually helping him rather than attacking him. Once the attacks start - and most of them will be nothing more than just pulling old video of him saying truly radical leftist gak - I think his numbers are going to plummet. The dude is way, way, way to the left of what Americans are comfortable with, but he's doing a damn good job keeping the crazy tamped down for now.
Yeah, and it's quite telling how little Clinton has attacked Sanders. She doesn't want to alienate the left wing of the base she'd like to have in the general. About the only sustained attack she's made on Sanders has been on gun control, because it's the one issue where he's to the right of the party's base.
Here's the thing to consider though... I've seen a number of recent comparisons recently that suggest that Sanders is no more extreme than some previous sitting presidents. A number of comparisons suggest that he is a combined/carbon copy of guys like Teddy Roosevelt and FDR, based on his policies.
Would you agree that, in general terms, the US fared pretty damn well with either of those guys in office, no?
Tannhauser42 wrote: Here's a random thought. How much would it cost to actually buy an election? Suppose Texas is expected to go red by only 1000 votes, and Oklahoma will go blue by 5000 votes. What if you paid 2000 of those blue Oklahomans to move and live in Texas just long enough to swing Texas blue? Compared to how much is already spent on campaigning and ads, would this sort of thing cost more or less? Just something I was wondering.
It'd cost many thousands of dollars per vote to swing just 1,000 votes, think of movie, hotels etc. And the idea of being able to identify a state as needing exactly 1,001 more votes isn't a thing in the first place. You'd be looking at needing 100k votes, so we're probably talking something like $500m to swing a close state.
It'd also be much cheaper to give money to locals to get them to vote. You'd find a lot of people willing to do it for less than the thousands it'd take to move state. In fact, at this point parties do everything but hand over money - they drive buses down to aged care, organise church groups, go door knocking in poor areas offering lifts to voting location. They do everything they can to make the process as easy as possible, short of actually handing over a monetary reward.
He makes the argument that public knowledge or shared reality, the range of things we collectively know that is drawn mostly from scientific discovery, has been eroded. He makes the case that this is because the Republican party has found one scientific reality unacceptable - climate change. And so the party that founded NASA and NOAA has now decided to ignore or deny the unequivocal statements made by those same organisations.
The article really shines from then on, when it opens up the debate past climate change, in to the consequences on all parts of policy and political debate. From the article “If the point of science is to provide us with a method for establishing public knowledge, then its rejection is also the rejection that such public knowledge is possible.”
It is an insight in to how someone as ridiculous as Trump could win a majority of votes in a major political party. If the facts are just a matter of opinion, then why does it matter when Trump says factually wrong things on an almost daily basis. And when Ted Cruz is a goldbug, is he really in any position to call out Trump on the facts?
Give it a read, it’s a really good piece. For my own money, I’m not convinced that climate change was actually the issue that pushed the Republicans out of the reality based community. The author touches on evolution and creationism as a forbearer, but I think the connection there is stronger than he realises. There’s no political reason that it should be the Republicans who went for climate denial – it’s just as easy to make a case for Democrats denying climate change in order to protect coal miners as one of the last union sectors, but that didn’t happen. Instead it was the Republicans, and it’s probably because there’d been a long decline in the party towards rejecting accepted scientific reality – starting with creationism. It was the wedge by which all subsequent rejection of science and accepted reality was made possible.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I've personally seen a lot of "we need to deregulate business" type arguments from people who lean Right... whether they be identified Republicans, self-identified Libertarians or whatever. And I think that that idea does seem to go hand in hand with Reaganomics. Luckily, I'm beginning to see better and better explanations by left-leaning experts and pundits that are beginning to sway the more rational folks out there, that *better* regulation is a good thing, and that no one out there really wants *more* regulation.
Yeah, that’s a pretty good example of a political argument that’s run its course. ‘Less government’ and deregulation was a big vote winner, it was the central plank of Reagan’s policy goals, and that guy did pretty well in two elections. But it’s a stale argument, precisely because as you say it isn’t about more or less regulation, but about the right regulation. I don’t people have quite woken up to that distinction yet, but the endless talk about ‘less regulation today, economic growth tomorrow’ is sounding increasingly hollow, because deregulation is actually very hard to deliver in a sensible fashion, and where it has been delivered it hasn’t delivered growth.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Here's the thing to consider though... I've seen a number of recent comparisons recently that suggest that Sanders is no more extreme than some previous sitting presidents. A number of comparisons suggest that he is a combined/carbon copy of guys like Teddy Roosevelt and FDR, based on his policies.
I wasn’t making an argument that Sanders would be ineffective in office. My point was that he wouldn’t get there. The thing people have to remember about Clinton is that Republicans have been working on her for almost 25 years. Everything she’s done wrong, and everything that Republicans can semi-plausibly accuse her of having done wrong has been pushed in to the media endlessly. I doubt Republicans will be able to move opinions of Clinton any more than they already have. But Sanders current approval ratings have to be viewed in the context that no-one has started any attacks on him yet. Remember how fast the shine wore off Obama once the Republicans started in with attacks on him? Sanders is only going to be more vulnerable, because they won’t just be accusing him of being socialist – he actually is.
But I think your point about FDR’s effectiveness raises a good point, so even though I wasn’t talking about Sanders in office, I’ll post a reply anyway Thing is, politicians don’t work in a vacuum, though. FRD had an agenda that was set to massively change US institutions, and drag the economic framework of the country way to the left… far more than Sanders is even hinting at. But FDR was dealing with vastly different economic and social conditions are vastly different. Right now there is a lot of built up economic frustration, but that’s nothing like the economic disaster that FDR was facing.
As a slightly offbeat comparison, our most recent Prime Minister would probably sit somewhere around the blue dogs in US politics, though his very conservative social views could arguably drag him in closer to the establishment Republicans. But in Australia he was a disaster pretty much from day one. Every policy initiative was shot down, and his personal approvals rankings sank to terminal levels in pretty much record time. The man wasn’t stupid, and he had political skill and a lot of experience, but he was simply a terrible fit for leading Australia at this time.
I suspect a hypothetical Sanders presidency might be somewhat similar – wrong guy in the current political circumstances.
Would you agree that, in general terms, the US fared pretty damn well with either of those guys in office, no?
FDR is my personal fave , so yeah, I’d have to agree. Teddy I’m not so well informed on, outside of the ‘Teddy was an awesome man of action’ stuff. I understand he fought a lot of corruption, but that’s about all I know.
I have often wondered about that. My conclusion is that Republicans have for decades been confronting a world that is against them.
Public opinion on many social issues has become more liberal, e.g. gay marriage.
Science has disproved things that religion used to reserve to itself, such as the origin of species. This undermines traditional authority, which is a fundamentally conservative concept.
Humans are social creatures. Society clearly works better when people co-operate more than compete.
The economy hasn’t improved as a result of deregulation, tax decreases and other right-wing measures. The rate of growth has dropped since the mid-1970s, when neo-conservatism started to gain ground.
There’s evidence for societies with more even distribution of wealth being happier and healthier for everyone, even including the (no longer so super-) rich.
The sum of the above is that a lot of cherished Republican ideas are challenged and disproved by the world actually works. In order to keep believing in the conservative ideals it therefore becomes essential to be able to ignore the facts.
Kilkrazy wrote: I have often wondered about that. My conclusion is that Republicans have for decades been confronting a world that is against them.
Public opinion on many social issues has become more liberal, e.g. gay marriage.
Science has disproved things that religion used to reserve to itself, such as the origin of species. This undermines traditional authority, which is a fundamentally conservative concept.
Humans are social creatures. Society clearly works better when people co-operate more than compete.
The economy hasn’t improved as a result of deregulation, tax decreases and other right-wing measures. The rate of growth has dropped since the mid-1970s, when neo-conservatism started to gain ground.
There’s evidence for societies with more even distribution of wealth being happier and healthier for everyone, even including the (no longer so super-) rich.
The sum of the above is that a lot of cherished Republican ideas are challenged and disproved by the world actually works. In order to keep believing in the conservative ideals it therefore becomes essential to be able to ignore the facts.
The R's have also lost a lot of their traditional blue collar support from industries such as the automobile industry, that ended up going to South Korea and Japan.
Why do you persist in your pretence that voter ID has anything to do with preventing voter fraud, and that any problems to do with it are merely minor bureaucratic niggles?
You personally did not invent the idea. You don't have to support it. Are you really so mind-controlled that you will support anything a Republican administration puts forward?
Pretty harsh there boyo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: If the people who supported voter ID laws would put at least half as much effort into getting those IDs into voters' hands, then would this really even be an issue?
Agreed: several methods:
*At 18, everyone gets a state ID. Its done at school. If you drop out of school, well, no voting for you.
*There is no reason IDs could not be issued at any significant government office. All you need is a smart phone to take down the data and take a pic.
- proof can be the Canadian style: bills with your name showing you have been her the requisite time, etc.
*Alternatively federal ID. Show me your Paperz, Zitizen!
I wouldn't use gatewaypundit as a source... he's a brazen mouth-piece for Trump.
The police stated they have photo evidence of the battery... but, the DA must of felt they wouldn't have a good case to pursue, as it is their descretion.
I linked gateway because they had the video of the DA talking about the case. Kinda hard to beat that as a source for what the DA is doing, alleged bias of the reporting agency notwithstanding. If you read through the articles, and as I pointed out in my post, the photo evidence was a picture taken days later. Images recovered from her phone the day of showed no bruising or marks after the event. That combined with the video provided by Trump and the Secret Service review lead to the DA (a Democrat) not pursuing charges. Essentially it wasn't even a bad case- it was no case.
Media doesn't seem to be plastering this one everywhere, though, as they did the allegations. Which just goes to show that the entertainment based US media likes Trump's sensationalism, but are not terribly interested in follow up or facts overall.
"Sarah Palin: Bill Nye is as much a scientist as I am"
Spoiler:
Sarah Palin tore into Bill Nye’s scientific qualifications on Thursday, saying he has no authority to say climate skeptics are wrong.
Palin, the former governor of Alaska and the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate, said the man known for his show "Bill Nye the Science Guy," is using his position of authority to harm children by teaching them that climate change is real and man-made.
“Bill Nye is as much a scientist as I am,” Palin said at a Capitol Hill event held to roll out a film that aims to discredit climate scientists. “He’s a kids’ show actor, he’s not a scientist.”
Palin said behind the “alarmism” that the climate is changing is a “predetermined” and political agenda “of those, I think, who are controlling the narrative right now on changes in the weather.”
She repeatedly dismissed climate change as changes in weather, and said scientists who believe the consensus that humans are the main cause of global warming are trying to shut down human progress.
Palin encouraged parents to teach their children to doubt climate change and to “ask those questions and not just believe what Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to tell them.”
Palin, largely unknown on the national stage before the 2008 election, made a name for herself as an outspoken advocate of fossil fuels, repeatedly exclaiming, “Drill, baby, drill!” during the campaign to encourage more oil and natural gas drilling.
She has endorsed Donald Trump in the 2016 election, though she largely shied away from talking about presidential politics Thursday, except to suggest that candidates talk more about the climate change controversy.
“It’s something that our candidates should be talking about, and giving us their view on and hopefully acknowledging that it needs to become, in the science community, less political,” she said. “Otherwise, it leads us to believe that so many things coming from perhaps the scientists could be bogus. If this is bogus, you know, what else are they trying to tell us and trying to control us around if they can’t get this one right?”
Nye is a one of the main targets of the film shown Thursday, known as "Climate Hustle." It stars Marc Morano, head of skeptic blog Climate Depot, and is presented largely as a response to "Merchants of Doubt," a documentary attacking skeptics and comparing them to the tobacco industry.
In an interview with Morano in the film that he highlighted, Nye advocates for investigating people and companies who make a name for themselves doubting climate science.
“The introduction of this extreme doubt … about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen,” he said. “So I can see where people are very concerned about this and are pursuing criminal investigations as well engaging in discussions like this … they’re keeping us from getting to work, they’re holding us back.”
Palin shot back at the event.
“I’m all about mankind. I want life to be better for mankind and that takes development of our natural resources. That’s what allowed America to become exceptional,” she said.
“If anything, some people would say I’m pushing progress and development too aggressively, certainly not holding anybody back, I want people to work, I want people to produce.”
Sauce Disclaimer: I have no idea, political spectrum, where the source website lays. It was something that I had linked to me via Facebook. Thought it hysterical and wanted to share into this thread, since it's political in nature.
However, the very idea of how pervasive ID Theft is these days, is it a stretch that it couldn't spill through voting activities?
Yes, because people are not stealing your ID so that they can vote for someone they like in elections that come around every 4 years. They are stealing your ID so that they can get financial benefit.
Oh?
So you believe voters who are willing to steal your IDs for financial gains would have no compunction to illegally vote?
Whembly, this is really silly. You steal someone's ID to either use their credit, get your own credit, establish that you're a legal citizen, etc. You don't then risk that by turning up at an election booth. In the history of ID fraud, I'm betting it's never happened.
Co'tor Shas wrote: That's... odd reasoning. He's not a climate scientist. but that doesn't mean he can't research and interpret information.
edit: nijed
Bear in mind that she's saying this as part of an invite only screening for a film that Marc Morano produced which is basically a refutation of ""Merchants of Doubt", a documentary about how the tactics used by climate change deniers are similar to those used by the tobacco industry to delay government regulation until waaaaay after the harmful effects of smoking had been scientifically proven.
So, I don't know if you guys pay attention to reddit, but the Donald Trump subreddit (/r/the_donald) just got into a war with the Swedish subreddit, and much racism was had, to the point of the moderators of The_Donald, actually getting rid of their "no racism" rule*. Now, I doubt this will effect the primaries much, but younger Rs are probably going to be put off. Not only that, the subreddit has attacked enough attention to get the NYT tor write a story on them a few days ago, so older voters may be put off as well. The reporter was talking to a moderator on the subreddit, who requested to stay anonymous, and gave this in responce to why. It really is sort of eye-opening about the sort of people who support him.
However, the very idea of how pervasive ID Theft is these days, is it a stretch that it couldn't spill through voting activities?
Yes, because people are not stealing your ID so that they can vote for someone they like in elections that come around every 4 years. They are stealing your ID so that they can get financial benefit.
Oh?
So you believe voters who are willing to steal your IDs for financial gains would have no compunction to illegally vote?
Whembly, this is really silly. You steal someone's ID to either use their credit, get your own credit, establish that you're a legal citizen, etc. You don't then risk that by turning up at an election booth. In the history of ID fraud, I'm betting it's never happened.
You're missing the point. In the age of how pervasive ID Theft occurs, it's silly to think that someone using stolen IDs wouldn't vote.
We have the IRS wanting illegal immigrants to illegally use Social Security numbers to file their taxes.
If you want to keep beating that drump that VoterID laws is all about disenfranchising elible voters, by all means go ahead. Or, you can actually try to cut through the BS thrown about and dig deeper, like read this article, vet the writer's sources, and then from there research yourself and come up with your own opinions.
But, I refuse to believe VoterID laws makes things "harder" for folks to vote. It's a dumb argument and also,incredibly insulting.
VoterID laws, which includes proper vetting of voter rolls AND displaying proper identifications at the polls strengthens the election process.
You really shouln't link to they heritage foundation if you want people to take your stuff seriously. They are about as biased as they come, it's like asking ford execs to review toyotas.
Co'tor Shas wrote: So, I don't know if you guys pay attention to reddit, but the Donald Trump subreddit (/r/the_donald) just got into a war with the Swedish subreddit, and much racism was had, to the point of the moderators of The_Donald, actually getting rid of their "no racism" rule*. Now, I doubt this will effect the primaries much, but younger Rs are probably going to be put off. Not only that, the subreddit has attacked enough attention to get the NYT tor write a story on them a few days ago, so older voters may be put off as well. The reporter was talking to a moderator on the subreddit, who requested to stay anonymous, and gave this in responce to why. It really is sort of eye-opening about the sort of people who support him.
But, I refuse to believe VoterID laws makes things "harder" for folks to vote. It's a dumb argument and also,incredibly insulting.
VoterID laws, which includes proper vetting of voter rolls AND displaying proper identifications at the polls strengthens the election process.
What voter ID laws "include proper vetting of voter rolls"? NC did nothing to clean up the voter rolls with their law. They just added the requirement for photo ID.
However, the very idea of how pervasive ID Theft is these days, is it a stretch that it couldn't spill through voting activities?
Yes, because people are not stealing your ID so that they can vote for someone they like in elections that come around every 4 years. They are stealing your ID so that they can get financial benefit.
Oh?
So you believe voters who are willing to steal your IDs for financial gains would have no compunction to illegally vote?
Whembly, this is really silly. You steal someone's ID to either use their credit, get your own credit, establish that you're a legal citizen, etc. You don't then risk that by turning up at an election booth. In the history of ID fraud, I'm betting it's never happened.
You're missing the point. In the age of how pervasive ID Theft occurs, it's silly to think that someone using stolen IDs wouldn't vote.
Spoiler:
We have the IRS wanting illegal immigrants to illegally use Social Security numbers to file their taxes.
If you want to keep beating that drump that VoterID laws is all about disenfranchising elible voters, by all means go ahead. Or, you can actually try to cut through the BS thrown about and dig deeper, like read this article, vet the writer's sources, and then from there research yourself and come up with your own opinions.
But, I refuse to believe VoterID laws makes things "harder" for folks to vote. It's a dumb argument and also,incredibly insulting.
VoterID laws, which includes proper vetting of voter rolls AND displaying proper identifications at the polls strengthens the election process.
That's purely supposition on your part, without any support by research, and is contradicted by numerous pieces of real evidence.
For example, here's a report by a professor of law, that identifies 31 cases of voter ID fraud in 1 billion ballots cast.
The reason why voter ID fraud is incredibly uncommon is partly because it's basically pointless. There are no benefits, and there's a fairly stiff penalty if you're caught, so there's no reason to do it.
And, honestly, I doubt just a vote ID would stop those committed to impersonation. I don't know about where you guys live, but the people who run the polling place where I live are not people I would expect to no the difference between a real and well made fake ID. Quite a few of them could probably barley read the writing without a magnifying glass.
Co'tor Shas wrote: And, honestly, I doubt just a vote ID would stop those committed to impersonation. I don't know about where you guys live, but the people who run the polling place where I live are not people I would expect to no the difference between a real and well made fake ID. Quite a few of them could probably barley read the writing without a magnifying glass.
That would be because most polling places are staffed by volunteers, and not any sort of professional.
And to clear up the air, there already is voter ID. It's called a voter registration card. Everyone gets one mailed to them. You don't strictly need it on your person to vote, but the process of putting in for one gets your name on the rolls and confirms you can vote on E-Day.
The issue at hand is that some people claim that people go to polling places and vote as people they are not, therefor we need to require photo ID to vote. Which has been studied and proved to be bull gak. Voter impersonation happens so infrequently that its effect on the electoral process is absolutely negligible. You can count the number of times it happens a year on one hand. Human error results in more mistakes than impersonation during election season by a rather large margin.
Kilkrazy wrote: I have often wondered about that. My conclusion is that Republicans have for decades been confronting a world that is against them.
Except I think the Republicans moved themselves in to most of those positions. There was nothing saying they had to take Reagan's economic positions, where success was limited anyway, and take them 11 for ever and all time, but they did. They didn't have to pick gay marriage as a wedge issue, but they did (it's almost forgotten to history now, but gay marriage only really became an issue with momentum when the Republicans used it as a get out the vote issue to help Bush win his second term in 2004).
I maybe think this is just a thing that happens to political movements from time to time. Prestige and attention starts going to the people who prove themselves the most extreme, not the people who actually say sensible things. Ted Cruz has got where he's got through a simple strategy of making he is always more right wing than anyone else. Even the supposedly sensible people in the party, guys like Rubio, still propose tax plans that are close to deranged they are so unworkable in political and economic real world.
A think a similar thing happened to the left wing in the 1970s. Back then amongst the real left it was actually a contentious thing to say that Socialist Russia was a very bad place. That was the era in which left wing economics had the Phillips Curve, their own very stupid model that greatly appealed to politicians wanting simple answers - in this case it was the idea that you could push up inflation to push down unemployment forever, and nothing bad would come of it. Stagflation was a big shock.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: The issue at hand is that some people claim that people go to polling places and vote as people they are not, therefor we need to require photo ID to vote. Which has been studied and proved to be bull gak. Voter impersonation happens so infrequently that its effect on the electoral process is absolutely negligible. You can count the number of times it happens a year on one hand. Human error results in more mistakes than impersonation during election season by a rather large margin.
Yep, and it's that argument coming from the right that reminded me of that NPR piece. There are some basic facts that have to be accepted on this issue.
1) The amount of voter ID fraud is about as close to zero as it is possible to get.
2) A lot of people, especially minorities, do not have the ID sufficient to pass new voter ID laws.
The basic, can't be denied conclusion of this is that there will be little improvement in vote authenticity, but a reasonable increase in voter disenfranchisement.
And the bigger point is none of that is debatable. It is stuff that simply belongs in the shared reality, because it is things that we know to be true. But we are stuck arguing this anyway, because one side of politics is more and more choosing what it wants to believe over what it must acknowledge is true.
Co'tor Shas wrote: So, I don't know if you guys pay attention to reddit, but the Donald Trump subreddit (/r/the_donald) just got into a war with the Swedish subreddit, and much racism was had, to the point of the moderators of The_Donald, actually getting rid of their "no racism" rule*. Now, I doubt this will effect the primaries much, but younger Rs are probably going to be put off. Not only that, the subreddit has attacked enough attention to get the NYT tor write a story on them a few days ago, so older voters may be put off as well. The reporter was talking to a moderator on the subreddit, who requested to stay anonymous, and gave this in responce to why. It really is sort of eye-opening about the sort of people who support him.
It's not my intention to insult any American dakka member, many of whom I like and respect, and I apologise in advance if I say anything offensive to some people, because it's your president after all.
But this article about Obama's visit to the UK, and his speech urging Britain not to leave the European Union, makes my blood boil!
If half of these claims are true, then well, Obama can go and jump off the grand canyon for all I care.
Article hidden in spoilers for those who don't want to link.
Spoiler:
Barack Obama opposed David Cameron holding a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, and his ambassador in London expressed fears that the prime minister’s approach was losing the UK influence inside Europe, according to a former minister in the coalition government.
The revelation came ahead of the US president’s visit to Britain next week, during which he will make the case for British membership of the EU and celebrate the Queen’s 90th birthday at a lunch in Windsor Castle on Friday.
Obama plans to use his visit and a speech on US European relations to help rescue Cameron from the consequences of a decision with which he never agreed.
David Laws, the former Liberal Democrat cabinet minister and author of a new history of the coalition, said Cameron repeatedly admitted to his deputy, Nick Clegg, he knew he was taking a risk with the referendum but was only staging one in order to keep Ukip at bay and retain party unity.
Laws reveals that Clegg formed an alliance with the Americans, including the then US ambassador to London, Louis Susman, to try to persuade Cameron his increasingly Eurosceptic stance was a profound strategic mistake based on short-term party management. Clegg advised Susman to persuade Obama to tell Cameron directly he was making a mistake, Laws claims.
The ambassador told Clegg the US administration was worried that “you guys may soon not count in Europe any more”. In particular, Laws says Susman expressed his concerns that “David Cameron was not being listened to on Europe, and that the UK was no longer acting as a bridge to Europe for America”.
According to Laws, Clegg told Susman this message needed to go directly from the president to the prime minister with something said in public. Days before Cameron made his speech calling for a referendum, Washington was tipped off, according to Laws, and Obama’s officials made statements urging the UK to remain in the EU, and for the EU not to distracted by institutional issues.
Now with the referendum campaign under way , Obama is seen in Downing Street as possibly the last major influential independent voice that has yet to be deployed in support of Britain remaining a member of the EU. He is seen as likely to be influential in galvanising younger voters who are more supportive of EU membership, but disinclined to make the effort to vote.
Obama is also being urged to make a positive internationalist case for British membership of the EU that goes beyond saying it is in the US national interest that the UK remains a strong voice in the EU.
It is still under discussion whether Obama should follow his trade representative, Michael Froman, in warning that Britain outside the EU would not be able to negotiate its own tariff deals, but would instead face the prospect of the same high rates as Russia and China. The US is Britain’s biggest export market after the EU, buying more than $54bn (£35bn) in goods from the UK in 2014.
US and UK diplomats are weighing how Obama should echo Froman’s warning without appearing to be threatening its oldest ally.
Boris Johnson, the London mayor, accused Obama of hypocrisy for calling on the UK to accept a loss of sovereignty, as a member of the EU, that would never be tolerated in the US.
He told the Evening Standard: “I honestly don’t mind the idea of him joining the debate. Where we do part company, and where I do mind, is that it is plainly hypocritical for America to urge us to sacrifice control – of our laws, our sovereignty, our money and our democracy – when they would not dream of ever doing the same.”
Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, waded into the row by describing Obama as the most anti-British president in history. “Mercifully, this American president, who is the most anti-British American president there has ever been, won’t be in office for much longer, and I hope will be replaced by somebody rather more sensible when it comes to trading relationships with this country,” Farage said.
Washington has also been warned that the Labour opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn, critical to the outcome of the vote according to some polls, opposes the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. In a speech this week expressing his clear support for continued membership of the EU, Corbyn described TTIP as a huge cause for concern, and something that should be defeated.
A petition has been launched by 38 Degrees calling on Obama ahead of his visit to drop the TTIP talks. Many trade unionists also oppose TTIP, claiming it will lead to enforced privatisation of public services. However, Obama is still hoping to secure the EU-US trade deal before the end of his presidency in January, and is using a meeting in Germany on 24 April with Angela Merkel and EU commissioners to try to end the deadlock in the negotiations.
Froman – who was in London at the beginning of this week for a further round of talks on the deal – has been blunt about the consequences of a Brexit. He said in 2105: “I think it’s absolutely clear that Britain has a greater voice at the trade table being part of the EU, being part of a larger economic entity. We’re not particularly in the market for FTAs with individual countries. We’re building platforms … that other countries can join over time.”
If Britain left the EU, Froman said, it would face the same tariffs and trade barriers as other countries outside the US free trade network.
Obama opposed the UK having a referendum?
I know that ultimately, America will always act in its own interests, and that interest includes the UK in the EU. I understand that.
But who the Hell is Obama to tell us what to do? The nerve of the man, this foreigner sticking his nose into our democratic affairs!
If the tables were reversed and the British were lecturing the USA on their elections, then Americans would be very angry and rightly so. If Obama loves the EU so much, then make the case for the USA to join.
But, I refuse to believe VoterID laws makes things "harder" for folks to vote. It's a dumb argument and also,incredibly insulting.
VoterID laws, which includes proper vetting of voter rolls AND displaying proper identifications at the polls strengthens the election process.
What voter ID laws "include proper vetting of voter rolls"? NC did nothing to clean up the voter rolls with their law. They just added the requirement for photo ID.
Vetting of the rolls would be acceptable if substantial time before the next election such that errors from the "vetting" could be easily corrected. I am assuming they have installed an easy method of correcting by reference.
historically, vetting has occasionally mysteriously occurred to throw out an awfully large number of people who tended to vote the opposite of those in power doing the vetting.
And to clear up the air, there already is voter ID. It's called a voter registration card. Everyone gets one mailed to them. You don't strictly need it on your person to vote, but the process of putting in for one gets your name on the rolls and confirms you can vote on E-Day.
Some have argued for putting a picture on the voter registration ID. Inversely, I do not need a registration card to vote in Texas.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
But who the Hell is Obama to tell us what to do? The nerve of the man, this foreigner sticking his nose into our democratic affairs!
That is a criticism, that he likes to criticize and impugn the actions of those who oppose him.
Co'tor Shas wrote: So, I don't know if you guys pay attention to reddit, but the Donald Trump subreddit (/r/the_donald) just got into a war with the Swedish subreddit, and much racism was had, to the point of the moderators of The_Donald, actually getting rid of their "no racism" rule*. Now, I doubt this will effect the primaries much, but younger Rs are probably going to be put off. Not only that, the subreddit has attacked enough attention to get the NYT tor write a story on them a few days ago, so older voters may be put off as well. The reporter was talking to a moderator on the subreddit, who requested to stay anonymous, and gave this in responce to why. It really is sort of eye-opening about the sort of people who support him.
What in the what? So we have a for real group of a real life US presidential candidate referring to themselves as something that references a horrendous amalgamation of sadistic fleshcrafting and results in an endless loop of mouths connected to anuses the produces only human suffering AND said group also insults by referring to opposition as an abbreviation of "cuckhold" (IE the husband of and adulterous wife).
The thing I hate the most about the whole Reddit thing is that the Trumpets have forced me to be on the side of r/Sweddit, where sanity goes to die. It's essentially the Swedish political nutters and trolls vs. their American counterparts.
Co'tor Shas wrote: You really shouln't link to they heritage foundation if you want people to take your stuff seriously. They are about as biased as they come, it's like asking ford execs to review toyotas.
But, I refuse to believe VoterID laws makes things "harder" for folks to vote. It's a dumb argument and also,incredibly insulting.
VoterID laws, which includes proper vetting of voter rolls AND displaying proper identifications at the polls strengthens the election process.
What voter ID laws "include proper vetting of voter rolls"? NC did nothing to clean up the voter rolls with their law. They just added the requirement for photo ID.
Pretty sure that numerous groups of both sides (ie, Brennon and Truth to Vote) has reviewed the voter rolls and has done some additional cleanups. I'll try to dig 'em up.
Also, wasn't NC the one state that you had to pay for non-drivers license? Or was it free?
Co'tor Shas wrote: And, honestly, I doubt just a vote ID would stop those committed to impersonation. I don't know about where you guys live, but the people who run the polling place where I live are not people I would expect to no the difference between a real and well made fake ID. Quite a few of them could probably barley read the writing without a magnifying glass.
That would be because most polling places are staffed by volunteers, and not any sort of professional.
And to clear up the air, there already is voter ID. It's called a voter registration card. Everyone gets one mailed to them. You don't strictly need it on your person to vote, but the process of putting in for one gets your name on the rolls and confirms you can vote on E-Day.
But those are fraught with issues. They need to be vetted.
I moved in Jan '15 to a different county, but because I has the US Post Office forward my mail from my old address to new, I got my voter reg card to vote in my old county... AND I got my new voter card to vote. Conceivably, I could've voted in both St. Louis County and St. Charles County.
The issue at hand is that some people claim that people go to polling places and vote as people they are not, therefor we need to require photo ID to vote. Which has been studied and proved to be bull gak. Voter impersonation happens so infrequently that its effect on the electoral process is absolutely negligible. You can count the number of times it happens a year on one hand. Human error results in more mistakes than impersonation during election season by a rather large margin.
No... the BS here is proving you're eligible to vote is some kind of undue hardship here.
No... the BS here is proving you're eligible to vote is some kind of undue hardship here.
It is, if they're deliberately unclear on which sorts of ID are permissible, if there are costs involved or if the offices that issue permissible ID are open four days in a year. Demanding a particular kind of ID is absolutely meant to make it increasingly difficult for people to vote. That's why it's being pushed.
Co'tor Shas wrote: You really shouln't link to they heritage foundation if you want people to take your stuff seriously. They are about as biased as they come, it's like asking ford execs to review toyotas.
But, I refuse to believe VoterID laws makes things "harder" for folks to vote. It's a dumb argument and also,incredibly insulting.
VoterID laws, which includes proper vetting of voter rolls AND displaying proper identifications at the polls strengthens the election process.
What voter ID laws "include proper vetting of voter rolls"? NC did nothing to clean up the voter rolls with their law. They just added the requirement for photo ID.
Pretty sure that numerous groups of both sides (ie, Brennon and Truth to Vote) has reviewed the voter rolls and has done some additional cleanups. I'll try to dig 'em up.
Also, wasn't NC the one state that you had to pay for non-drivers license? Or was it free?
Co'tor Shas wrote: And, honestly, I doubt just a vote ID would stop those committed to impersonation. I don't know about where you guys live, but the people who run the polling place where I live are not people I would expect to no the difference between a real and well made fake ID. Quite a few of them could probably barley read the writing without a magnifying glass.
That would be because most polling places are staffed by volunteers, and not any sort of professional.
And to clear up the air, there already is voter ID. It's called a voter registration card. Everyone gets one mailed to them. You don't strictly need it on your person to vote, but the process of putting in for one gets your name on the rolls and confirms you can vote on E-Day.
But those are fraught with issues. They need to be vetted.
I moved in Jan '15 to a different county, but because I has the US Post Office forward my mail from my old address to new, I got my voter reg card to vote in my old county... AND I got my new voter card to vote. Conceivably, I could've voted in both St. Louis County and St. Charles County.
The issue at hand is that some people claim that people go to polling places and vote as people they are not, therefor we need to require photo ID to vote. Which has been studied and proved to be bull gak. Voter impersonation happens so infrequently that its effect on the electoral process is absolutely negligible. You can count the number of times it happens a year on one hand. Human error results in more mistakes than impersonation during election season by a rather large margin.
No... the BS here is proving you're eligible to vote is some kind of undue hardship here.
Co'tor Shas wrote: You really shouln't link to they heritage foundation if you want people to take your stuff seriously. They are about as biased as they come, it's like asking ford execs to review toyotas.
But, I refuse to believe VoterID laws makes things "harder" for folks to vote. It's a dumb argument and also,incredibly insulting.
VoterID laws, which includes proper vetting of voter rolls AND displaying proper identifications at the polls strengthens the election process.
What voter ID laws "include proper vetting of voter rolls"? NC did nothing to clean up the voter rolls with their law. They just added the requirement for photo ID.
Pretty sure that numerous groups of both sides (ie, Brennon and Truth to Vote) has reviewed the voter rolls and has done some additional cleanups. I'll try to dig 'em up.
Also, wasn't NC the one state that you had to pay for non-drivers license? Or was it free?
Co'tor Shas wrote: And, honestly, I doubt just a vote ID would stop those committed to impersonation. I don't know about where you guys live, but the people who run the polling place where I live are not people I would expect to no the difference between a real and well made fake ID. Quite a few of them could probably barley read the writing without a magnifying glass.
That would be because most polling places are staffed by volunteers, and not any sort of professional.
And to clear up the air, there already is voter ID. It's called a voter registration card. Everyone gets one mailed to them. You don't strictly need it on your person to vote, but the process of putting in for one gets your name on the rolls and confirms you can vote on E-Day.
But those are fraught with issues. They need to be vetted.
I moved in Jan '15 to a different county, but because I has the US Post Office forward my mail from my old address to new, I got my voter reg card to vote in my old county... AND I got my new voter card to vote. Conceivably, I could've voted in both St. Louis County and St. Charles County.
The issue at hand is that some people claim that people go to polling places and vote as people they are not, therefor we need to require photo ID to vote. Which has been studied and proved to be bull gak. Voter impersonation happens so infrequently that its effect on the electoral process is absolutely negligible. You can count the number of times it happens a year on one hand. Human error results in more mistakes than impersonation during election season by a rather large margin.
No... the BS here is proving you're eligible to vote is some kind of undue hardship here.
If you ignore the evidence showing that it is.
Oh? It's evidence you're wanting?
Spoiler:
Vote Fraud News 5/8/15: What Happens When You Have a Voter Integrity Task Force
http://www.bnd.com/news/local/crime/article20547705.html A newly-elected Alorton trustee and a Cahokia man were charged Friday afternoon with four counts of vote fraud stemming from the April 7 election. St. Clair County Sheriff Department Capt. Scott Weymouth said Brian McDouglar, 38, of 38 Westwood Drive in Cahokia, was charged with three counts of tampering with an absentee ballot. Davione M. Kidd, 24, of 4208 E. Broadway, Alorton, was charged with one count of tapering with an absentee ballot. Alorton trustee and Cahokia man charged with vote fraud Belleville News-Democrat, May 8, 2015
1/24/15: Investigating Vote Buying in Tennessee Will get you Fired
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/watchful-eye/tbi-confirms-votebuying-probe-in-monroe-county_64143313 The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is probing allegations of vote-buying in last year’s controversial Monroe County sheriff’s election. TBI spokesman Josh DeVine said Friday the probe was ongoing and that he could not comment further. TBI confirms vote-buying probe in Monroe County Knox News, January 24, 2015
1/13/15: Cautionary Tale: Alabama Woman Pleads Guilty to Absentee Fraud
http://www.rnla.org/%20http://www.wtvy.com/home/headlines/Jury-Selection-Begins-in-Dothan-Voter-Fraud-Trial-288324181.html The trial of the first suspect in last year's voter fraud investigation in Dothan's District 2 commission election started Tuesday morning. Janice Lee Hart is charged with eight counts of falsifying applications for absentee ballots. Hart Pleads Guilty in Voter Fraud Case WTVY, January 13, 2015
1/12/15: Why the Use of Provisional Ballots is Important
http://www.electionlawcenter.com/uncategorized/jail-for-community-organizer-for-election-fraud/ At least 26 voters from one Ohio county cast two in the November election, but no extra votes were actually counted. Hamilton County elections officials say they caught the double votes and are investigating why they happened. If voters intentionally cast more than one ballot, they will be referred to prosecutors for possible criminal prosecution. In Ohio county, 26 voted twice in November USA Today, January 12, 2015
12/16/14: Election Fraud Conviction of Community Organizer in Michigan
http://www.electionlawcenter.com/uncategorized/jail-for-community-organizer-for-election-fraud/ A far-left community organizer is going to jail for at least 2 and a half years for election fraud in Michigan. Edward Pinkney was sentenced to up to 10 years in prison for rigging a recall election for the mayor of Benton Harbor Michigan. Jail for Community Organizer for Election Fraud Election Law Center, December 16, 2014
12/15/14: Another Democrat Exposes Same Day Registration Fraud
http://www.wmur.com/politics/gardner-sameday-voting-process-open-to-abuse/30244734 On Nov. 4, almost 35,000 people in New Hampshire turned out at the polls to register and cast a ballot. It was a record turnout for same-day registrations, but Secretary of State Bill Gardner said he has concerns there are not enough safeguards in place. Another Democrat Exposes Same Day Registration Fraud WMUR , December 16, 2014
12/1/14: Even More Incredible than Voting Twice
http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/01/politician-whose-father-is-landrieus-chief-of-staff-urges-voters-to-vote-twice-video/ Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s chief-of-staff was present at an event held a day before the midterm election in which his father, a Louisiana mayor, urged people to vote twice in order to re-elect Landrieu. The Black Conservatives Fund published video of the event, recorded on Nov. 3, showing Opelousas mayor Don Cravins Sr. telling a crowd that if they had already cast an early voting ballot in the election that they should vote again. Politician Whose Son Is Landrieu’s Chief-Of-Staff Urges Voters To ‘Vote Twice’ Daily Caller, December 1, 2014
10/22/14: In Illinois, Democrats Resorting to Multiple Forms of Vote Fraud
http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/61969f22c3824784b6a521bd169a41d2/PA--Ex-Chief-Absentee-Ballots Early voting in Illinois got off to a rocky start Monday, as votes being cast for Republican candidates were transformed into votes for Democrats. Republican state representative candidate Jim Moynihan went to vote Monday at the Schaumburg Public Library. “I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent,” Moynihan said. “You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat.” ‘Calibration error’ changes GOP votes to Dem in Illinois county Fox News, October 22, 2014
10/22/14: More Vote Fraud in the Home of Vote Fraud Deniers the Brennan Center
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/21/ballot-harvesting-by-colorado-campaign-workers-rai/ It’s harvest time in Colorado, and not just for pumpkins. Concerns are running high over door-to-door campaign workers asking voters for their mail-in ballots in what is known as “ballot harvesting.” Now that all-mail voting is the law of the land in Colorado, the challenge for campaigns is to persuade voters to drop off or mail in their ballots — or hand them to the foot soldiers who turn up on their doorsteps offering to do it for them. What could go wrong? Volunteers go door-to-door ‘ballot harvesting’ in Colorado Washington Times, October 21, 2014
10/1/14: NY Ballot Box Stuff Scheme Now Importing People from Israel
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2014/10/bloomingburg-and-ramapo-votes-impounded-votes-challenged-poll-watchers-banned-and-haredi-voter-fraud-456.html In the tiny village of Bloomingberg, NY the votes on whether or not to dissolve the 420-person village’s government and fold the village into the neighboring Town of Mamakating were reportedly sealed by Sullivan County Supreme Court Judge Stephan Schick. The votes will, at least in theory, be unsealed in November. In the meantime, the Sullivan County Board of Elections (and immediately after that, likely the courts) will deal with the extremely high number of voter registration challenges issued by both sides. Bloomingburg And Ramapo Elections: Votes Impounded, Votes Challenged, Poll Watchers Banned And Haredi Voter Fraud Caught On Tape, Failed Messiah, October 1, 2014
9/26/14: Connecticut Democrat state representative arrested on 19 charges of vote fraud
http://www.nhregister.com/government-and-politics/20140926/bridgeport-state-rep-christina-ayala-arrested-on-19-voting-fraud-charges?fb_locale=id_ID Democrat State Representative Christina Ayala has been arrested on 19 charges of voting fraud, including: eight misdemeanor counts of fraudulent voting, ten felony counts of primary or enrollment violations and one felony count of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. Her arraignment is scheduled for October 7. Bridgeport State Rep. Christina Ayala arrested on 19 voting fraud charges , NH Register, September 26, 2014
9/18/14: Ex-Kentucky judge disbarred due to vote fraud
http://www.kentucky.com/2014/09/18/3435470_ex-judge-convicted-of-vote-fraud.html?rh=1 Former Clay County Circuit Judge Cletus R. Maricle has been permanently disbarred following his guilty plea of committing vote fraud. Court documents showed Maricle had used his position to bribe officials, candidates for county offices, defendants in his court, and family members of defendants in his court. Ex-Judge Convicted of Vote Fraud , Lexington Herald-Leader, September 18, 2014.
9/9/14: Georgia launches fraud investigation into voter registration group
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/state-launches-fraud-investigation-voter-registrat/nhJxg/ A preliminary investigation into the New Georgia Project has revealed significant illegal activities including forged voter registration applications, forged signatures on releases and applications with false or inaccurate information. The New Georgia Project is an offshoot of the organization Third Sector Development, a group founded and led by Democrat GA House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams. State launches fraud investigation into voter registration group , Channel Two Action News, September 9, 2014.
8/25/14: Fairfax County Electoral Board Refers Potential Voter Fraud Cases for Investigation
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/news/2014/voter-fraud-investigation.htm The Fairfax County Electoral Board referred 17 individuals to the DOJ for investigation of possible voter fraud. The individuals seem to have voted in both Fairfax County as well as throughout Maryland in the 2012 elections, and in the case of some individuals, multiple elections over the last decade. Fairfax County Electoral Board Refers Potential Voter Fraud Cases for Investigation , Fairfax County Press Release, August 25, 2014.
8/21/14: Investigations underway, suspected voter fraud in Virginia and Maryland
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/21/investigations-underway-suspected-voter-fraud-in-virginia-and-maryland/ Virginia Voters Alliance drew attention to multiple duplicate voter registrations in Maryland and Virginia. They said there are 14,646 duplicate registrations between Fairfax County, VA and Maryland alone. If a voter is convicted of voter fraud in Maryland, they are still allowed to vote, as it is only a misdemeanor; in Virginia, it can result in a year in prison and $2,500 fine. Investigations underway, suspected voter fraud in Virginia and Maryland , Daily Caller, August 21, 2014.
6/27/14: Allegations of Voter Fraud in Hotly Contested Minn. House DFL Primary Race
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S3488477.shtml?cat=1 More than 140 people are alleged to have listed their current address as a mail center in the basement of a Minneapolis, Minn. commercial property while registering to vote. An investigation has been started as to whether or not there is a coordinated effort to register voters using the 419 Cedar Avenue address in Minneapolis. Some of these “voters” may also have been registered without knowing. Allegations of Voter Fraud in Hotly Contested Minn. House DFL Primary Race , Eyewitness 5 ABC News, June 27, 2014.
6/20/14: Dothan commissioner’s girlfriend indicted on voter fraud charges
http://www.dothanfirst.com/story/d/story/olivia-reynolds-amos-newsome-dothan-voter-fraud/28295/8MC2pWsfS0KPmKrR-KSKpw An Alabama grand jury indicted the girlfriend of Dothan, AL commissioner Amos Newsome on 23 counts of vote fraud in the campaign to re-elect Newsome last August. The alleged vote fraud scheme includes two additional women – one charged with 20 counts of vote fraud, the other charged with 10. Dothan commissioner’s girlfriend indicted on voter fraud charges , Dothan First, June 20, 2014.
6/12/14: Judge orders new election in Weslaco City commissioner race due to vote fraud
http://www.krgv.com/news/judge-orders-new-election-in-weslaco-city-commission-race/#.U58WvS4LWeY.twitter A Texas judge invalidated a city commissioner election as a result of vote fraud. The judge carefully evaluated each of the 44 contested votes and found many of them were cast by people who deliberately and illegally voted under a “home is where the heart is” residency standard – they registered at homes belonging to the fraudulently-elected commissioner’s friends, neighbors, and relatives. Judge orders new election in Weslaco City commissioner race , KRGV, June 12, 2014.
6/10/14: NH man pleads guilty to voting illegally
http://www.tauntongazette.com/article/20140610/NEWS/306119992/11158/NEWS A Massachusetts man pled guilty to illegally voting in both the 2008 and 2012 NH primaries. He was charged with one felony county and two misdemeanor counts of “wrongful voting” under NH law for traveling from Massachusetts to New Hampshire to cast votes in both primaries. He was fined $5,000 and given a suspended prison term of one to three years. Carver man pleads guilty to voting illegally in NH , Taunton Daily Gazette, June 10, 2014.
5/22/14: Former Bolivar city council member sentenced for vote fraud
http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/news/260267841.html Former Bolivar, TN City Councilwoman Brenda Woods was sentenced for corralling felons to vote for her in the city’s 2009 municipal elections. Woods transported three felons to the polls to case votes for her. She used this method for her election to city council and her failed mayoral bid. She received a suspended sentence of two years in prison, and has lost her voting rights and her ability to run for elected office. Former Bolivar city council member sentenced , JRN News Channel 5, May 22, 2014.
5/12/14: Nashville election worker fired over double voting
http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/12/election-officials-weigh-double-voting/9013815 A Tennessee state elections commissioner is questioning whether to certify election results after six people voted twice in a Davidson County election last week. The fraudulent voters cast absentee ballots and also appeared at the polls on Election Day. The election worker has been fired. Nashville election worker fired over double voting , Tennessean, May 12, 2014.
4/21/14: Complaint Against Robert Garcia Suggests Voter Fraud
http://www.loscerritosnews.net/2014/04/21/complaint-against-robert-garcia-suggests-voter-fraud-in-lb-mayor-campaign/ A California mayoral candidate is alleged to have recruited between 15 and 20 non-voters to cast absentee ballots illegally in April. The formal complaint submitted to the Los Angeles County District Attorney states that candidate Robert Garcia hired a bus to transport the individuals into the district to request absentee ballots. Complaint Against Robert Garcia Suggests Voter Fraud , Hews Media Group, April 21, 2014.
4/21/14: Woman Arrested in NV on Voter Fraud
http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/Woman-Arrested-In-NV-On-Voter-Fraud-256054321.html An illegal immigrant with a Nevada ID was arrested in California on two felony charges for allegedly using a false ID to register to vote and also for casting ballots in NV elections. Authorities confirmed that the woman also voted in both the 2008 and 2010 elections. Woman Arrested in NV on Voter Fraud , KOLO News, April 21, 2014.
5/9/14: Three Houston County Women Accused of Felony Voter Fraud
http://www.wtvy.com/home/headlines/Three-Houston-County-Women-Accused-of-Felony-Voter-Fraud-258675191.html Houston County Sheriff’s Office arrested three women on charges of voter fraud after the narrowly decided election. Police conducted a thorough investigation in which they discovered that the three women created and submitted false ballots in August 2013. Three Houston County Women Accused of Felony Voter Fraud , WTVY News, May 9, 2014.
4/23/14: Two more indicted for vote fraud in Hamilton County
http://wvxu.org/post/two-more-indicted-vote-fraud-hamilton-county A poll worker in Hamilton County, OH is the eighth person to be indicted on charges of illegal voting in 2013. Authorities say that Ellen Elizabeth Duncan submitted an absentee ballot and also appeared at the polls on Election Day. Two More Indicted for Vote Fraud in Hamilton County , WVXU News, April 23, 2014.
5/8/14: Arraignment Postponed for Paterson Councilman, Wife in Election-Fraud Indictment
http://www.northjersey.com/news/arraignment-postponed-for-paterson-councilman-wife-in-election-fraud-indictment-1.1012557 New Jersey authorities arrested mayoral candidate Rigo Rodriguez and his wife on charges that they submitted ballots as votes for people who did not vote in 2010. Prosecutors also stated that Rodriguez instructed campaign workers to lie to authorities investigating the allegations. Arraignment Postponed for Paterson Councilman, Wife in Election-Fraud Indictment , Examiner, February 17, 2014.
5/13/14: Wild Acres Man Charged with Voter Fraud in Board Election
http://www.neagle.com/article/20140513/News/140519956#ixzz31oCksm8B Pennsylvania police have charged a man with ballot tampering in Pike County. Myron Cowher allegedly stole 70 ballots and planned to use different colored ink pens so the ballots did not all look the same. Wild Acres Man Charged with Voter Fraud in Board Election , The News Eagle, May 13, 2014.
5/1/14: Alabama Supreme Court to Look at Voter Fraud Allegations
http://cbs42.com/2014/05/01/alabama-supreme-court-look-voter-fraud-allegations/ The Alabama Supreme Court will reconsider allegations of voter fraud by college students. The students allegedly received illegal alcohol in exchange for their votes. Alabama Supreme Court to Look at Voter Fraud Allegations , WIAT News, May 1, 2014.
4/15/14: Two Accused of Voter Fraud in 2012 Election
http://www.alicetx.com/news/article_a6b57902-6a27-506b-b4d9-221d824496dc.html Texas officials recently arrested two felons for alleged voter fraud after voting in May 2012. The two men allegedly knew they were not eligible to vote in the election. Two Accused of Voter Fraud in 2012 Election , Alice Echo News Journal, April 15, 2014.
2/17/14: New York: Noncitizens to Vote in New York?
http://www.examiner.com/article/n-y-gop-sen-says-bill-de-blasio-plans-for-illegal-voting-new-york Under a plan being pushed by de Blasio and the council, noncitizens, including illegal immigrants, would be given city-issued identification cards. . . .GOP State Senator Greg Ball this would open the door to noncitizens, including illegal aliens, to vote illegally in New York State Elections. N.Y. GOP Sen. says Bill de Blasio plans for illegal voting in New York , Examiner, February 17, 2014.
1/27/14: New Hampshire: Temporary Campaign Staffer Continues to be "Voted" After Moving
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20140128/OPINION01/140129331.php We confirmed with the city clerk’s office that a vote under Former Jeanne Shaheen spokesperson Caitlin Legack's name and address was recorded. But Legacki moved out of New Hampshire shortly after the 2008 election (in which she voted) and was in St. Louis on Election Day 2012, working for U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill. ." Vote fraud: It, and mistakes, happen, Union Leader, January 27, 2014.
1/27/14: Texas: Hispanics are the Victims of Vote Fraud
http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=999593#.UwzlRfldV8G In one example listed in the lawsuit, 23 voters who cast a ballot in favor of Rivera were registered to a home on East 6th street in Weslaco. Controversy over voter fraud continues in Weslaco, Action 4 News, January 27, 2014.
1/12/14: Texas: Campaign Workers trade cash, drugs, beer and more for votes
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/us/politics/texas-vote-buying-case-casts-glare-on-tradition-of-election-day-goads.html?_r=1 Three women working as politiqueras in the 2012 elections in Donna were arrested by F.B.I. agents in December and accused of giving residents cash, drugs, beer and cigarettes in exchange for their votes. Texas Vote-Buying Case Casts Glare on Tradition of Election Day Goads, New York Times, January 12, 2014.
12/30/13: New York: Police Prove How Easy Voter Impersonation is next door to the Brennan Center
http://nypost.com/2013/12/30/the-dead-can-vote-in-nyc/ Investigators posing as dead voters were allowed to cast ballots for this year’s primary and general elections, thanks to antiquated Board of Election registration records and lax oversight by poll workers, authorities said. Undercover DOI agents were able to access voting booths in 61 instances — including 39 dead people, 14 jail birds and eight non-residents. The dead can vote in NYC, New York Post, December 30, 2013.
12/27/13: North Carolina: Fraudlent Election Requires "Do Over"
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/12/27/3488140/irregularities-found-in-pembroke.html#storylink=cpy Voters in the Robeson County town of Pembroke will go to the polls a second time to elect town council members after the State Board of Elections found many “irregularities” in the November election and ordered a new vote. In a written order released Friday, the state board found that problems “occurred to such an extent in this election that they tainted the results of all the Pembroke municipal elections and cast doubt upon their fairness.”Irregularities found in Pembroke election; town to vote anew in 2014, News & Observer, December 27, 2013.
12/18/13: Ohio: More Noncitizen
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/18/non-citizens-caught-voting-in-2012-presidential-election-in-key-swing-state/ Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted announced Wednesday that his office found 17 non-citizens illegally cast ballots in the 2012 presidential election -- and has referred the case for possible prosecution. The alleged crime would be a notable case of voter fraud in a key swing state. By law, only American citizens are allowed the privilege of casting ballots for the nation's leaders. Non-citizens caught voting in 2012 presidential election in key swing state, Fox News, December 18, 2013.
12/4/13: Minnesota: Mentally Ill Felons in Prison Hospitals Vote
http://www.mankatofreepress.com/local/x1636699079/Prisoner-faces-felony-voter-fraud-charge He had voted in a DFL primary election for District 19A, which was won by now state Rep. Clark Johnson of North Mankato. When Olivayes was interviewed by the detective, he allegedly admitted to applying for and casting an absentee ballot early this year. He told the detective that he thought he was casting a vote to decide who would be in charge of the Security Hospital. Suspect cast absentee ballot from Minnesota Security Hospital, Mankato Free Press, December 4, 2013
11/30/13: Kentucky: Drug Dealers Running Fraudlent Elections
http://www.kentucky.com/2013/11/30/2963131/decades-of-poverty-and-vote-buying.html#storylink=cpy There was a time when vote fraud was so pervasive in Clay County that a lot of honest people saw no reason to vote, said Ken Bolin, pastor of Manchester Baptist Church. Decades of poverty and vote-buying led to widespread corruption in Clay County, Hearld Leader, November 30, 2013
10/14/13: Wisconsin: Man Votes 5 Times
http://m.jsonline.com/more/news/crime/milwaukee-man-pleads-guilty-to-five-counts-of-voter-fraud-b99119682z1-227686051.html A Milwaukee man pleaded guilty Monday to illegally voting five times last year in West Milwaukee, when in fact he did not have residency there. Brown was among 10 people charged in March with a variety of charges related to voter fraud.Milwaukee man pleads guilty to five counts of voter fraud, Journal Sentential, October 14, 2013
9/11/13: New York: Voter Impersonation Ignored by Police
http://gothamist.com/2013/09/11/voter_fraud_attempts.php Police watch multiple people attempt to impersonate voters and do nothing. The NYPD later answers that "allegations of voting fraud weren't under the department's purview." Brazen Voting Fraud Alleged Among Ultra-Orthodox In Williamsburg, Gotham News, September 11, 2013.
8/1/13: New York: Election Official Abuses Seniors at Home She Manages
http://thereplawyer.blogspot.com/2013/08/more-on-ny-vote-fraud-scandal-apartment.html Democrat Election Commissioner Frances Knapp was indicted and plead not guilty to 46 felony counts and 48 misdemeanor counts of official misconduct and other charges. The most serious charges against Knapp, however, involve Knapp's involvement in absentee ballot fraud. Knapp allegedly tampered with the computer system sending of absentee ballots. Many of these victimized voters were residents of Maplewood Apartments, a senior living complex in Poughkeepsie managed by Knapp. Eric Shawn, More on NY Vote Fraud Scandal, Apartment Manager Vote Fraud?, RNLA Blog, August 1, 2013 (Post includes multiple links to local sources).
6/17/13: INDIANA: Ballot Fraud: Obama-Clinton primary
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/17/indiana-dem-official-sentenced-to-prison-for-08-ballot-fraud-in-obama-clinton/ “The most amazing part about this voter fraud case involving the highest office in the United States is the fact that such a few number of people, because of laziness, arrogance or both did not do their job and thus could have affected the outcome of the election," noted St. Joseph County Republican Party Chairwoman Dr. Deborah Fleming.“ Eric Shawn, Dem Official sentenced to prison for ’08 ballot fraud in Obama-Clinton primary, Fox News, Jun 17, 2013.
6/14/13: FLORIDA: FEMA Official: Vote Fraud
http://www.news4jax.com/news/fema-official-charged-in-voter-fraud-case/-/475880/20574780/-/hco5k6/-/index.html%E2%80%9D “FEMA official charged in voter fraud case. Federal Emergency Management Agency official has been arrested in connection with a voter fraud case in St. Johns County, Florida. Michel Pawlowski, 68, was named in a complaint last fall alleging voter fraud. He lives in Maryland. His daughter ran for St. Augustine Beach city commission and won.” FEMA Official Charged in Voter Fraud Case, News 4 Jax, June 14, 2013.
6/5/13: South Dakota: vote fraud, absentee ballots
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/mitchell-man-arrested-on-charge-of-voter-fraud/article_d821b304-64ea-53d4-902c-f09144ab424b.html “The Daily Republic reports that Craig Guymon was arrested on charges of voter fraud. Police say Guymon voted Tuesday morning at the Mitchell Career and Technical Education Academy and later returned an absentee ballot to the Davison Auditor's Office.” Associated Press, South Dakota man arrested and charged with voter fraud, Rapid City Journal, Jun 5, 2013.
5/31/13: FLORIDA: Florida Congressman: Vote Fraud
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/02/top-staffer-for-florida-democratic-rep-resigns-amid-voting-fraud-probe/ “Top staffer for Florida Democratic Rep. Garcia resigns amid voting fraud probe. The congressman said he thinks the plot was a “well-intentioned attempt to maximize voter turnout” and that the system is “prone to fraud.” AP, Top staffer for Florida Democratic Rep. Garcia resigns amid voting fraud probe, Fox News, May 31, 2013.
5/6/13: NEW YORK: Scheme to Steal Election Through Dead, Non-Existent and Moved Voting
http://mountvernon.dailyvoice.com/schools/report-mount-vernon-group-says-voting-fraud-has-riddled-school-elections “The most amazing part about this voter fraud case involving the highest office in the United States is the fact that such a few number of people, because of laziness, arrogance or both did not do their job and thus could have affected the outcome of the election," noted St. Joseph County Republican Party Chairwoman Dr. Deborah Fleming.“ Eric Shawn, Report: Mount Vernon Group Says Voting Fraud Has Riddled School Elections, Mount Vernon Daily Voice, May 6, 2013.
3/21/13: WISCONSIN: Milwaukee County: Double Voting
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/prosecutors-charge-10-with-voter-fraud-4t98ni8-199446341.html “Milwaukee County prosecutors Thursday filed voter fraud charges against 10 people, including two accused of double voting in 2012 elections and two felons ineligible to vote. Also among the fraud cases: a Milwaukee woman who is accused of signing a recall petition against Republican Gov. Scott Walker three times; and the petition circulator who collected those signatures.” Steve Schultze and Bruce Vielmetti, Milwaukee Prosecutors Charge 10 With Voter Fraud, Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, Mar. 21, 2013.
2/19/13: OHIO: Melowese Richardson: multiple voting
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/19/ohio-poll-worker-obama-supporter-investigated-for-potentially-voting-six-times/ "Richardson told a local television station this month that she voted twice last November. She cast an absentee ballot and then voted at the polls as well...Authorities also are investigating if she voted in the names of four other people, too, for a total of six votes in the 2012 presidential election." Eric Shawn, Did Obama supporter vote 6 times in 2012? Ohio poll worker target of investigation, Fox News, Feb. 19, 2013.
2/18/13: ILLINOIS: absentee ballot fraud, voter intimidation
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8997628 "Aurora Ivarra says she was intimidated when a town employee wearing a badge came to her door on Sunday and tried to convince her that voting absentee or by mail is illegal... The town of Cicero claims it was sending people door-to-door to investigate alleged absentee voter fraud. The town was concerned about a record number of requests for mail in ballots." Cicero candidates accuse each other of voter fraud, ABC Local, Feb. 18, 2013.
2/14/13: INDIANA: Mike Marshall: absentee ballot fraud
http://newsandtribune.com/local/x766087996/Ex-campaign-worker-accepts-plea-in-voter-fraud-case "A North Vernon man who worked on a former Jeffersonville mayor’s re-election campaign in 2011 has agreed to plea guilty to three counts of vote fraud in Jennings County Circuit Court on charges related to a campaign there." Matt Koesters, Ex-campaign worker accepts plea in voter-fraud case, News and Tribune, Feb. 14, 2013.
1/31/13: OHIO: Dominique Atkins: double voting
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/01/31/voting-twice-2010-sentence-fine-columbus.html "A Northeast Side woman was fined $500 today for voting twice in the 2010 general election. Dominique Atkins, 38, of Barnes Drive E., pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of attempted illegal voting." John Futty, Woman fined for voting twice in 2010 election, Columbus Dispatch, Jan. 31, 2013.
1/23/13: WISCONSIN: Leonard K. Brown, Chad Vander Hyden: double voting
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/188065461.html "Milwaukee prosecutors are investigating at least two instances of suspected voter fraud from the presidential election in November, court records reveal. In one matter, investigators seek records that might prove Leonard K. Brown voted twice in the November election, once in Milwaukee and again in West Milwaukee. The other suggests a Mukwonago man voted there and in West Allis. That man, Chad Vander Hyden, was arrested on charges of double voting in December after he declined West Allis detectives' invitation to come in and discuss what appeared to be his signature on poll records." Bruce Vielmetti, Milwaukee prosecutors investigating voter fraud, Journal Sentinel, Jan. 23, 2013.
1/21/13: INDIANA: Michael R. Marshall: absentee ballot fraud
http://www.plaindealer-sun.com/main.asp?SectionID=3&SubSectionID=40&ArticleID=24245 "A North Vernon man and longtime Jennings County Democratic Party worker will plead guilty to three counts of vote fraud, according to terms of a plea agreement filed Friday in Jennings County Circuit Court. Michael R. Marshall, 60, will plead guilty to the three offenses, all Class D felony charges that his attorneys will argue to be reduced to Class A misdemeanor charges before Judge Jon Webster." Bryce Mayer, Plea agreement reached in voter fraud case, Plain Dealer-Sun, Jan. 21, 2013.
1/18/13: WISCONSIN: Karl Reinelt: felon voting
http://www.livinglakecountry.com/blogs/staffblogs/187480881.html "Karl Reinelt, A 51-year-old felon, was charged in Waukesha County Circuit Court with one count of election fraud after voting in the Nov. 6, 2012 election." Steve Garrison, Pewaukee felon charged with voter fraud, Living Lake County, Jan. 18, 2013.
1/10/13: MASSACHUSETTS: Enrico Villamaino, Courtney Llewellyn: absentee ballot fraud
http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/local/hampden/new-charges-for-villamaino-llewellyn-in-voter-fraud-case "Former East Longmeadow Selectman Enrico “Jack” Villamaino has been released on his own recognizance after he and his wife Courtney Llewellyn answered to new charges in their voter fraud case...The two are accused in a voter fraud scheme, where in which 280 East Longmeadow residents had their party registration changed from Democratic to unenrolled. 280 applications for absentee ballots were then dropped off at the East Longmeadow Town Clerk’s office." Laura Hutchinson, New Charges for Villamaino and Llewellyn in Voter Fraud Case, WWLP, Jan. 10, 2013.
1/2/13: MASSACHUSETTS: Stephen "Stat" Smith: absentee ballot fraud
http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/02/everett-representative-vacates-seat-after-voter-fraud-scandal/mZ4AhugopPNAkfymd7C0FM/story.html "According to a Dec. 20 statement from the US attorney’s office , Smith allegedly submitted fraudulent requests for absentee ballots, then cast those ballots on behalf of voters without their knowledge. Prosecutors say Smith also knowingly delivered absentee ballots to ineligible voters, knowing that their votes in his favor would be fraudulent. Smith was charged with two misdemeanor counts of deprivation of rights under color of law. He faces up to two years in prison, and prosecutors will recommend a 6-month sentence, according to his plea agreement, which also requires that he vacate his seat in the Legislature and prohibits him from seeking another elected office for the next five years." Martine Powers, Everett legislator, charged with voter fraud, vacates seat, Boston Globe, Jan. 2, 2013.
12/28/12: TENNESSEE: voter impersonation, double voting
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/dec/20/no-headline---ds_elections/ "District 4 Election Commissioner Carl Payne reported an incident in which "a father cast an absentee ballot, the son voted in person and then the son changes clothes and returned to vote as his father. We learned of this from a written statement from the poll manager." Among other cases reported by Payne (who was defeated Nov. 6 by Sissie Ferguson): A voter came to cast a ballot, gave a name that was on the poll book, signed the receipt book and was allowed to vote. Another person using the same name came to vote later that day, "and was informed he'd already voted. The second person provided proof of identity," Payne reported. Also, a voter cast a ballot in person at the proper precinct — and then prepared a provisional ballot, including a sworn affidavit, at another precinct." Henry Bailey, Potential voter fraud in DeSoto turned over to investigators, The Commercial Appeal, Dec. 20, 2012.
12/20/12: NEW JERSEY: John Fernandez: absentee ballot fraud
http://belleville.patch.com/articles/belleville-man-gets-five-years-for-voter-fraud "A 61-year0old Belleville man was sentenced Thursday to five years in prison for submitting phony absentee ballots while he was working on the 2007 election campaign of state Sen. Teresa Ruiz (D-29)." Belleville man gets five years for voter fraud, Belleville Patch, Dec. 20, 2012.
12/14/12: OHIO: double voting
http://www.dailystandard.com/archive/story_single.php?rec_id=19825 "Auglaize County officials are looking into possible voter fraud after discovering one resident may have voted twice in the Nov. 6 election." Amy Kronenberger, POssible voter fraud incident in Auglaize County, The Daily Standard, Dec. 14, 2012.
12/10/12: NEVADA: Mike Hays: non-resident voting
http://www.mohavedailynews.com/articles/2012/12/10/news/local/doc50c58fd080395347166303.txt "Court documents indicate that Hays was registered to vote in both Mohave County and Coconino County. He used a campaign worker’s address in Kingman along with that of a shooting range, also in Kingman, when he filled out paperwork to run for sheriff. But prosecutors say he was actually living in Flagstaff and working for the Arizona Department of Corrections in Winslow." Hays pleads guilty to voter fraud, Mohave Valley Daily News, Dec. 10, 2012.
12/3/12: MINNESOTA: William Manzano, Braulio Manzano: noncitizen voting
http://www.austindailyherald.com/2012/12/03/two-charged-with-voter-fraud-in-austin/ "Brothers William and Braulio Manzano were each charged Friday, Nov. 30, in Mower County Court. According to the court complaints, the brothers each checked the boxes on their voter applications that indicate they are not U.S. citizens. However, both men continued to fill out their applications and signed the portion that indicates they are citizens who can vote and that providing false information is a felony offense punishable by up to five years in jail and a $10,000 fine." Matt Peterson, Two Charged with Voter Fraud in Austin, Austin Daily Herald, Dec. 3, 2012.
11/29/12: MINNESOTA: voter impersonation
http://www.swcbulletin.com/event/article/id/21807/ "A Cottage Grove man told police Nov. 6 that someone had committed voter fraud by signing his name at a polling place, making it impossible for him to vote. The incident was being investigated." Cottage Grove police reports for Nov. 29: Drugs, suspicious activity, voter fraud, burglary, South Washington County Bulletin, Nov. 29, 2012.
11/29/12: OREGON: Deanna Swenson: ballot tampering
http://www.opb.org/news/article/clackamas-woman-indicted-for-voter-fraud/ "A grand jury has indicted a Clackamas County woman, for alleged ballot tampering. Deanna Swenson was a temp working for Clackamas County Elections." Clackamas Woman Indicted for Voter Fraud, OPB, Nov. 29, 2012.
11/26/12: OHIO: double voting
http://www.limaohio.com/news/local_news/article_3892fad0-37df-11e2-b7f0-001a4bcf6878.html "Three cases of possible voter fraud are under investigation in Allen County. Ken Terry, director of the Allen County Board of Elections, announced the cases were passed on to the prosecutor's office after three people voted twice in the Nov. 6 election. He told the board during a special meeting at the Allen County Board of Elections on Monday." Sarah Stemen, Three possible cases of election fraud sent to Allen County prosecutor, Nov. 26, 2012.
11/26/12: MINNESOTA: noncitizen voting
http://www.austindailyherald.com/2012/11/26/groh%E2%80%883-local-ballots-showed-illegal-voting/ "The Mower County Auditor-Treasurer’s office, after its review of local election ballots, discovered three people who may have illegally voted this year. According to Auditor-Treasurer Doug Groh, all three people indicated that they are not citizens on their voter registration forms. However, the three people continued to fill out their forms and also voted." Matt Peterson, Groh: 3 local ballots showed illegal voting, Austin Daily Herald, Nov. 26, 2012.
11/23/12: IOWA: Tehvedin Murgic, Laurie McCarroll, Leonard Blower: noncitizen voting
http://www.thonline.com/news/iowa-illinois-wisconsin/article_0b79c86d-d132-582d-98b4-cf84754b7896.html "A citizen of Bosnia and two Canadian citizens have been charged with election fraud and fraudulent practices for allegedly registering and voting in Iowa without U.S. citizenship. The Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation said it issued a citation to appear in court for 28-year-old Tehvedin Murgic, of Clive. The DCI said he is a citizen of Bosnia and registered and voted on Nov. 2, 2010. Murgic's attorney did not immediately return a call. Arrest warrants were issued for 66-year-old Laurie McCarroll and 53-year-old Leonard Blower, both of Shenandoah. The DCI said they are Canadian citizens who registered and voted in a school election in September 2011. The DCI said it believes they are no longer living in the United States." 3 more election fraud cases filed, Associated Press, Nov. 23, 2012.
11/21/12: OHIO: double voting
http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2012/11/21/henrietta-township-man-accused-of-voting-twice/ "The Lorain County Board of Elections is investigating a Henrietta Township man who cast two ballots during the presidential election. The man, who could potentially face criminal charges for voter fraud, requested an absentee ballot on Oct. 23, and the ballot was returned to the elections board Nov. 3, according to board records. The man then voted at his polling place Nov. 6." Brad Dicken, Henrietta Township man accused of voting twice, The Chronicle Telegram, Nov. 21, 2012.
11/21/12: IOWA: Albert Harte-Maxwell, Linda Harte-Maxwell, Maria Ayon-Fernandez: noncitizen voting
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/20/three-noncitizens-charged-with-voter-fraud-in-iowa/#ixzz2DKotBuEE/ "Two Canadian nationals and a Mexican national were booked into the Pottawattamie County jail. The felony charges allege they registered to vote in Iowa and voted in at least one election. The arrests followed an investigations by an Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation agent who was assigned to work with Secretary of State Matt Schultz to root out voter fraud Charged are 52-year-old Albert Harte-Maxwell, 49-year-old Linda Harte-Maxwell, and 40-year-old Maria Ayon-Fernandez, all of Council Bluffs." Three noncitizens charged with voter fraud in Iowa, Associated Press, Nov. 20, 2012.
11/8/12: NEW YORK: Sang Soo Park: improper influence
http://www.qchron.com/editions/queenswide/election-fraud-in-flushing-by-korean-poll-interpreter/article_4833330d-4d00-5f18-bd73-51df696703a8.html "A case of election fraud occurred in Flushing when a Korean-American translator helping voters at PS 20 was caught directing them to vote for Democratic candidates. A volunteer poll watcher confirmed the incident. The translator, Sang Soo Park, was expelled from the polling place for breaking the law by telling at least three voters to choose the Democratic slate, according to the observer, attorney Daniel Baek." Peter C. Mastrosimone, Election fraud in Flushing by Korean poll interpreter, Queens Chronicle, Nov. 8, 2012.
11/8/12: NEW YORK: voter impersonation
http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2012/11/08/news/doc509b15b96a413151587560.txt "there were at least two instances of “outright voter fraud” — one in the city of Poughkeepise and another in Pleasant Valley — where a voter went to vote only to find someone had forged that person’s name and voted in their stead." Patricia Doxsey, Dutchess County voting marred by controversy, Daily Freeman, Nov. 8, 2012.
11/6/12: NORTH CAROLINA: Andrew Gail Holmes: double voting
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/11/06/democrat-double-voter-caught-in-north-carolina/ "An individual by the name of Andrew Gail Holmes voted early in Sampson County, North Carolina and then appeared at their precinct today to vote again, according to the staff director of the Sampson County Board of Elections, Donna Mashburn. “We have a gentleman who had early voted,” Mashburn told me this morning, “and went to his precinct to vote. We are aware of it. We will handle the issue at canvassing.”" Bryan Preston, Democrat Double Voter Caught in North Carolina, PJ Tatler, Nov. 6, 2012.
11/6/12: CALIFORNIA: posthumous voting
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Dead-and-Still-Voting-177286281.html "According to state records, Carol has voted in the last two presidential elections, despite having passed away...NBC Bay Area found several other examples, too. People like Sara Schiffman of San Leandro who died in 2007 yet still voted in 2008, or former Hayward police officer Frank Canela Tapia who has voted 8 times since 2005, though he died in 2001." Stephen Stock, Felipe Escamilla and Kevin Nious, Dead and Still Voting, NBC Bay Area, Nov. 6, 2012.
11/5/12: PENNSYLVANIA: destruction of voter registrations
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/05/philly-activist-group-shreds-gop-registrations "The Community Voters Project is a "non-partisan" lefty organization whose mission is to register people to vote, with a particular emphasis on minorities. In the 2008 election, they had offices in 10 states and registered around 300,000 minority voters. So far, so good. This year, however, it seems they aren't registering everyone who wants to vote. Outside a CVP office in Philadelphia, for example, they shredded and threw away numerous registration forms. A number of these were for people trying to register as a Republican." Mike Flynn, Philly activist group shreds GOP registrations, Breitbart, Nov. 5, 2012.
11/5/12: VIRGINIA: improperly influencing the elderly
http://watchdog.org/61244/va-power-of-attorney-doesnt-stop-alzheimers-patient-from-voting/ "The daughter of an Alzheimer’s patient is fighting mad that a Henrico County rehabilitation facility cast her mother’s vote in the face of warnings that the elderly woman “doesn’t know what she is doing.” Janet Benedict, of Louisa, told Watchdog.org she was stunned when the activities director at Lexington Court informed her that 81-year-old Dorene Hagen had voted via absentee ballot." Kenric Ward, VA: Power of attorney doesn't stop Alzheimer's patient from voting, Watchdog, Nov. 5, 2012.
11/5/12: MASSACHUSETTS: Joel Santiago-Vazquez, Bruno Paulino, Jose Jimenez, Marcos Acosta: noncitizen voter registration fraud
http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/20001618/2012/11/05/non-citizens-registered-to-vote-in-lawrence-but-officials-shrug "FOX Undercover found out something else about Santiago-Vazquez. He's been registered to vote from his home address in Lawrence since 2010. Our investigation shows he's not the only registered voter in Lawrence who is not a citizen. By cross-checking Lawrence voter records with criminal records that included records indicating lack of citizenship, we found three others: * Bruno Paulino is a legal resident detained by immigration authorities earlier this year, has been a registered Lawrence voter since 2009; * Jose Jimenez, a legal resident who faces "potential deportation to the Dominican Republic", according to federal court records, has been a registered Republican in Lawrence since 2010; * and Marcos Acosta, picked up during a recent immigration sweep, has been a registered voter in Lawrence since 2008." Non-citizens registered to vote in Lawrence but officials shrug, Fox Boston, Nov. 5, 2012.
11/3/12: OHIO: voter registration fraud
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/03/hitler-appears-on-ohio-voter-registration-form/#ixzz2BDuIMVeI "The listing, "Adolf Hitler, John...666 Heltz...la," puts his supposed residence in Los Angeles. It was part of a batch of roughly 200 voter registrations that election officials say were flagged as possibly fraudulent, forged, or duplicated by the group that collected them, FieldWorks, a private Washington, D.C. based firm. FieldWorks, says it works largely with Democratic candidates, causes and progressive organizations collecting signatures for voter registration or ballot initiatives across the country." Eric Shawn, Hitler Appears on Ohio Voter Registration Form, Fox News, Nov. 4, 2012.
11/2/12: TEXAS: vote harvesting ring, posthumous voting, absentee ballot fraud
http://www.gonzalescannon.com/node/11637 "The Texas Secretary of State has asked the state Attorney General to look into a complaint of "vote-harvesting" centered around a San Antonio cemetery." Complaint alleges widespread voter fraud in South Texas, Gonzales Cannon, Nov. 2, 2012.
11/2/12: OREGON: ballot tampering
http://www.koinlocal6.com/news/local/story/Clackamas-Co-elections-employee-investigated-for/u0RgiJVlN0iMVjr7ERVGbw.cspx "A temporary worker with the Clackamas County Elections Division is under investigation over a possible criminal violation of Oregon Election Laws. Oregon Department of Justice spokesperson Jeff Manning confirmed Friday that the state is investigating whether the employee tampered with ballots." Chad Carter, Clackamas Co. elections employee investigated for ballot fraud, KOIN 6, Nov. 2, 2012.
COLORADO: "How would you feel if you went to vote for Mitt Romney, but it turned out you voted for Barack Obama? That's the concern in Pueblo County as early voters are coming forward, saying electronic voting machines changed their vote. Reports of problems have come from every polling location in Pueblo county." Voting machines changed their vote, some say, KOAA, Nov. 2, 2012.
http://www.koaa.com/news/voting-machines-changed-their-vote-some-say/ OHIO:"Joan Stevens was one of several early voters at the polls on Monday. But when Stevens tried to cast her ballot for president, she noticed a problem. Upon selecting “Mitt Romney” on the electronic touch screen, Barack Obama’s name lit up. It took Stevens three tries before her selection was accurately recorded." Nick Bechtel, Problem found at board of elections, Marion Star, Oct. 31, 2012.
http://www.marionstar.com/article/20121031/NEWS03/310310009/Problem-found-board-elections?nclick_check=1&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter KANSAS: "Nancy explained that while her husband was casting a vote for Romney, the touchscreen highlighted Obama." Liz Klimas, MORE ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES CHANGING ROMNEY VOTES TO OBAMA: WE LOOKED INTO IT AND HERE’S WHAT A VENDOR TOLD US, The Blaze, Oct. 31, 2012.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/more-electronic-voting-machines-changing-romney-votes-to-obama-we-looked-into-it-and-heres-what-a-vendor-told-us/ NEVADA: "a voter in Las Vegas tried voting for Governor Mitt Romney but the machine automatically checked “Obama” multiple times instead." Voter Machine in Las Vegas Checking Obama, Politichicks, Oct. 25, 2012.
http://politichicks.tv/2012/10/voter-machine-in-las-vegas-auto-checking-obama/ NORTH CAROLINA: "On Monday, several voters complained that their electronic ballot machine cast the wrong vote....One of the voters, Sher Coromalis, says she cast her ballot for Governor Mitt Romney, but every time she entered her vote the machine defaulted to President Obama."
http://myfox8.com/2012/10/23/guilford-county-voters-say-they-voted-for-the-wrong-candidate/ Scott Gustin, Brandon Jones and Charlie Glancy, Guilford Co. voters say ballot cast for Romney came up Obama on machine, Fox News, Oct. 23, 2012. "Faurest Stum says she voted at the Pleasant Garden Town Hall location. Her vote was for Mitt Romney, but the machine cast the vote for Barack Obama." Scott Gustin, Brandon Jones and Charlie Glancy, More voting problems reported in Jamestown, Pleasant Garden, Fox News, Oct. 24, 2012.
http://myfox8.com/2012/10/24/more-early-voting-issues-in-guilford-county/
10/30/12: NORTH CAROLINA: double voting
http://www.carynews.com/2012/10/30/65976/former-morrisville-councilwoman.html "Former Town Councilwoman Linda Lyons faces voter fraud-related charges after allegedly trying to vote twice during last year’s election, according to a Wake County prosecutor." Former Morrisville councilwoman faces voter fraud charge, News Observer, Oct. 30, 2012.
10/30/12: ARIZONA: absentee ballot fraud
http://www.kvoa.com/news/voter-fraud-investigation-underway-in-pima-county/ "The Pima County Recorders Office is investigating a case of voter fraud. F. Ann Rodriguez said, while verifying signatures, her operators came across a signature that did not match that of two voters, a husband and wife. Her office then contacted the couple, who confirmed they had not even received their ballots in the mail" Voter fraud investigation underway in Pima County, KVOA News, Oct. 30, 2012.
10/29/12: IOWA: absentee ballot fraud
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121029/NEWS09/310290018?odyssey=mod%7Cmostcom "Muscatine resident Craig White says a Democratic campaign worker somehow gave his 75-year-old mother the impression that it was OK for her to sign his name on an absentee ballot request form when he wasn’t home." Absentee ballot issues reported in 2 Iowa counties, Des Moines Register, Oct. 29, 2012.
10/23/12: LOUISIANA: Douglas Barthlomew Claiborne: voter registration fraud
http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/DeSoto-School-Board-member-booked-with-voter-fraud-3975086.php#ixzz2AF6msnir "Sheriff's deputies booked Douglas "Barthlomew" Claiborne, 30, in Mansfield, into the DeSoto Parish Detention Center on a warrant issued by the 10th Judicial District in Natchitoches Parish. The Times reports the arrest warrant was based on a complaint by the Louisiana Secretary of State's Election and Compliance Unit. It accuses Claiborne of "procuring falsified voter registration applications." DeSoto School Board member booked with voter fraud, Associated Press, Oct. 23, 2012.
10/22/12: ARKANSAS: vote buying
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/22/arkansas-operatives-plead-guilty-in-vodka-for-votes-scam/#ixzz2A8El18b3 "[former Democrat state Rep. Hudson]Hallum and three others have pleaded guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to commit election fraud during the special election that put him in the Arkansas House of Representatives in 2011. A total of nine people have been charged by federal and state authorities in connection with the plan." Eric Shawn, Vodka for votes: Arkansas rep, operatives await sentencing in fraud scheme, Fox News, Oct. 22, 2012.
10/22/12: COLORADO: electioneering
http://kdvr.com/2012/10/22/colorado-gop-accuses-obama-team-of-electioneering-at-csu/ "Democratic volunteers offered people free t-shirts and pizza for voting early and posted official Obama campaign signs within 100 feet of the polling location, which is against federal and state election laws." Eli Stokols, Colorado GOP accuses Obama volunteers of electioneering at CSU, Fox KDVR, Oct. 22, 2012.
10/22/12: FLORIDA: voter suppression
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/voter-suppression-efforts-fla-against-republicans "The Florida Division of elections and state law enforcement officials are investigating "multiple" bogus letters sent to Florida voters to inform them that they have been flagged as suspected illegal, non-citizen voters...The letters appear to be going mostly or entirely to Republicans in Florida." Voter suppression efforts in Fla - against Republicans, Tampa Bay Times, Oct. 22, 2012.
10/19/12: VIRGINIA: Colin Small: destruction of voter registration applications, disclosure of voter registration information
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57535950/man-charged-after-tossing-voter-registration-forms-in-virginia/ "Colin Small, was caught throwing out voter registration forms, Richmond, Va., the Rockingham County sheriff's office confirmed to CBS News." Lucy Madison, Man charged after tossing voter registration forms in Virginia, CBS News, Oct. 19, 2012.
10/19/12: FLORIDA: Michel S. Pawlowski: registration fraud
http://www.historiccity.com/2012/staugustine/news/florida/former-mayor-claims-voter-fraud-at-beach-31360 "In documents filed with the Secretary of State, [former St. Augustine Beach Mayor Frank] Charles claims that the father of City Commissioner Undine Pawlowski, 68-year-old Michel S Pawlowski, has fraudulently misrepresented his place of residence at the beach, presumably so that her gentleman friend, Edward Stephen George, can pick up another critical vote." Former mayor claims voter fraud at beach, Historic City News, Oct. 19, 2012.
10/17/12: MASSACHUSETTS: Enrico "Jack" Villamaino, Courtney Llewellyn: ballot tampering
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/10/former_east_longmeadow_selectm_1.html A judge set a $10,000 cash bail for Enrico "Jack" Villamaino, after after the former East Longmeadow selectman pleaded innocent to a 12-count election fraud indictment. Jack Flynn, Former East Longmeadow Selectman Enrico "Jack" Villamaino denies 12-count election fraud indictment, The Massachusetts Republican, Oct. 17, 2012.
10/17/12: OHIO: Dominique Atkins, Debbie L. Tingler, Marian Wilson: double voting
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/17/3-people-indicted-for-felony-vote-fraud.html "Three Franklin County residents face felony charges of voter fraud after the Board of Elections reported that they had voted more than once in a past election." 3 People Indicted for Felony Vote Fraud, The Columbus Dispatch, Oct. 17, 2012.
10/16/12: FLORIDA: Noucelie Josna, Carline Paul: absentee ballot fraud
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/10/16/3053013/judge-wants-police-to-find-miami.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy "In his lawsuit, Julien alleges that Josna and a woman named Carline Paul gathered several fraudulent absentee ballots from nursing homes and apartments. Josna has not responded to a court-ordered subpoena and a private investigator hired by Julien has not been able to track her down. On Tuesday, Judge Charles Francis reviewed more than 150 absentee ballots from two contested precincts in the race and found six of them to be invalid." Toluse Olorunnipa, Judge wants police to find 'Queen of Absentee Ballots', The Miami Herald, Oct. 16, 2012.
10/15/12: WISCONSIN: Yadira Colon: election fraud and falsification of nomination papers
http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local/fox_cities/former-oshkosh-woman-yadira-colon-convicted-of-election-fraud "A former Oshkosh woman has been convicted of two felonies for election fraud and falsification of nomination papers. Yadira Colon was convicted Monday in Milwaukee County Circuit Court and sentenced to 20 days in jail and one year on probation." Former Oskhosh Woman Yadira Colon Convicted of Election Fraud, Associated Press, Oct. 15, 2012.
10/5/12: FLORIDA: Florida Democrat Party, Florida New Majority Education Fund, National Council of La Raza/Democracia USA: voter registration fraud
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Voter-fraud-complaint-filed-against-Fla-Democrats-3923654.php#ixzz28WxuT97v "The Florida Department of State on Friday confirmed that it has forwarded complaints about voter registration fraud that have been filed against the Democrats, as well as two other groups — the Florida New Majority Education Fund and the National Council of La Raza/Democracia USA." Gary Fineout, Voter fraud complaint filed against Fla. Democrats, San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 5, 2012.
10/2/12: NORTH DAKOTA: Samuel Ojuri, Joshua Colville, Marcus Williams, Brendin Pierre, Lucas Albers, Aireal Boyd, Demitrius Gray, Bryan Shepherd, Antonio Rogers and Charles Smith III: forgery
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/10-north-dakota-state-university-football-players-plead-guilty-in-petition-fraud-case/2012/10/02/cd0b52a4-0d03-11e2-ba6c-07bd866eb71a_story.html "Ten football players at North Dakota State pleaded guilty Tuesday to misdemeanor election fraud and were sentenced to community service for faking signatures on ballot measure petitions they were hired to collect. Among the players on the nation’s top-ranked Football Championship Subdivision team who pleaded guilty were starters Samuel Ojuri, Joshua Colville, Marcus Williams and Brendin Pierre. The other players were Lucas Albers, Aireal Boyd, Demitrius Gray, Bryan Shepherd, Antonio Rogers and Charles Smith III." 10 North Dakota State University football players plead guilty in petition fraud case, Washington Post, Oct. 2, 2012.
9/30/12: MARYLAND: deceased voting
http://marylandreporter.com/2012/09/30/dead-people-voted-and-registered-to-vote-watchdog-group-finds-hundreds-of-deceased-still-on-the-rolls/#ixzz284D0vC7g "According to their research, voter registration numbers for Montgomery County resident Rufus Harris of Silver Spring, who died in 2002, was used to cast an absentee ballot in the 2008 general election. Prince George’s County resident George T. Zell of Hyattsville, who died in July 2004, cast a vote in the 2004 general election. Records also indicated that Harris became registered as a voter on Sept. 4, 2008, six years after his death. The group also identified two deceased people who were registered to vote after their deaths. James Proctor of Laurel died in 1988 and became registered in 1992, and Virginia Ann Given of Upper Marlboro, who died in 1991, also became registered in 1992. Both names remain on the Maryland rolls today as “inactive” voters, although neither have cast a vote under their new voter registration numbers." Mary Dowling, 67, who currently resides in a nursing home in Timonium, has two voter registration numbers. The latest voting records that are available show Dowling has been voting twice in almost every even-year election since 2002, in both the general and the primary. Ten out of 16 times Dowling voted by absentee ballot. Glynis Kazanjian, Dead people voted and registered to vote, Maryland Reporter, Sept. 30, 2012.
9/29/12: FLORIDA: Nathan Sproul and Strategic Allied Consulting: voter registration fraud
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/09/29/rnc-fires-consulting-firm-after-florida-counties-report-voter-registration-fraud/ "The firm, Strategic Allied Consulting, has been fired by the Republican National Committee after over 100 hundred allegedly fraudulent signatures appeared in Palm Beach County." Eric Shawn, RNC Fires Consulting Firm After Florida Counties Report Voter Registration Fraud, Fox News, Sept. 29, 2012.
9/28/12: NEW JERSEY: John Fernandez: absentee ballot fraud
http://www.politickernj.com/60053/essex-man-convicted-absentee-ballot-fraud#ixzz27uTT3FZI "John Fernandez, 61, of Belleville, was found guilty of election fraud following a two-week trial. The jury found Fernandez guilty of charges of conspiracy (2nd degree), election fraud (2nd degree), absentee ballot fraud (3rd degree), tampering with public records or information (3rd degree), and forgery (4th degree)." Darryl R. Isherwood, Essex man convicted of absentee ballot fraud, Politicker NJ, Sept. 28, 2012.
9/26/12: ARKANSAS: Amos Sanders, Lisa Burns, Deshay Lorenzo Parker III, Leroy Grant: absentee ballot fraud
http://www.baxterbulletin.com/article/20120927/NEWS01/309270034/5-charged-ballot-fraud-Crittenden-Co-?nclick_check=1 "Five more Crittenden County residents were arrested and charged Tuesday with using absentee ballots to defraud an election official during three special elections in 2011.....The new charges were filed against Eric Fontain Cox of Earle and four people from West Memphis — Amos Sanders, Lisa Burns, Deshay Lorenzo Parker III and Leroy Grant." 5 charged iwth ballot fraud in Crittenden County, 4 guilty pleas already entered, Baxter Bulletin, Sept. 26, 2012.
9/25/12: ARIZONA: double voting
http://ktar.com/22/1577644/Arizona-ready-to-crack-down-on-voter-fraud "Secretary of State Ken Bennett announced Tuesday that nine new cases of suspected voter fraud from the 2008 election are under investigation by the Arizona Attorney General. Bennett said the Cross-State Match program helps states exchange voter-registration history to keep people from voting more than once in any given election." Jim Cross, Arizona ready to crack down on voter fraud, KTAR, Sept. 25, 2012.
9/20/12: IOWA: Albert Harte-Maxwell, Linda Harte-Maxwell, Maria Ayon-Fernandez: non-citizen voting
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/3-noncitizens-in-Iowa-charged-with-voter-fraud-3881337.php#ixzz276aEUfLI "The Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation filed election misconduct charges Thursday against three Council Bluffs residents, alleging they registered to vote without U.S. citizenship and voted in at least one election... The three people arrested in Iowa, where it's a felony for noncitizens to vote, were 52-year-old Albert Harte-Maxwell and 49-year-old Linda Harte-Maxwell, along with Maria Ayon-Fernandez, 40. The Harte-Maxwells have Canadian citizenship, and Ayon-Fernandez is from Mexico. All three were booked into the Pottawattamie County jail on Thursday and released." David Pitt, 3 noncitizens in Iowa charged with voter fraud, Associated Press, Sept. 20, 2012.
9/14/12: INDIANA: Paul Etheridge, Joshua Clemons: vote fraud
http://www.wlky.com/news/politics/New-Albany-mayoral-primary-candidate-indicted-on-voter-fraud-charges/-/9365900/16593866/-/34kwm5/-/index.html#ixzz26UG9OUoe "According to the indictment, Paul Etheridge, a candidate in the New Albany Democratic mayoral primary, knowingly forged or falsely made the official endorsement of the ballots of two women in March 2011. The indictment also alleges Etheridge solicited one of the women to complete the ballot, knowing she was ineligible to register to vote or to vote. The indictment also claimed Etheridge delivered the ballots to the women to vote. Separately, Joshua Clemons was indicted on charges he solicited two others to complete an absentee ballot knowing they were ineligible to register to vote or to vote and delivering the ballots to them to vote." New Albany mayoral primary candidate indicted on voter fraud charges, WLKY, Sept. 14, 2012.
9/11/12: HAWAII: double voting
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/169421106.html "Hawaii County detectives have opened an investigation into allegations of voter fraud during the 2010 election. Police declined to give details, but the Hawaii County Clerk's Office said in July that an audit of the county’s voter rolls showed four people voted twice in 2010 elections and that between 50 and 60 people were registered more than once." Hawaii County police open 2010 voter fraud investigation, Honolulu Star Advertiser, Sept. 11, 2012.
9/7/12: CALIFORNIA: Ricardo Lopez-Munguia: noncitizen voting
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/escondido/escondido-mexican-man-admits-to-voter-fraud/article_4bfb746f-100b-5a44-b84d-6c505474778b.html "A Mexican who was deported decades ago for drug trafficking pleaded guilty this week to living illegally in Escondido under a false identity and fraudulently voting in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, federal authorities said Friday. Ricardo Lopez-Munguia, 45, pleaded guilty Thursday to attempted entry to the U.S. after deportation, making a false claim to U.S. citizenship, and voter fraud by an illegal alien, according to a statement from the U.S. attorney's office." Mexican man admits to voter fraud, Escondido, Sept. 7, 2012.
9/7/12: IOWA: Jason Anthony Rawlin, Stacy Rae Brown: election fraud
http://theiowarepublican.com/2012/more-election-fraud-charges-filed/ "A DCI investigation has resulted in two individuals being charged with Election Fraud, a Class D Felony, and Fraudulent Practices, an Aggravated Misdemeanor. Those charged are 37 year old Jason Anthony Rawlin of Indianola, Iowa, and 37 year old Stacy Rae Brown of Kanawha, Iowa." More Election Charges Filed, Iowa Republican, 2012.
9/7/12: NORTH DAKOTA: Lucas Albers, Aireal Boyd, Don Carter, Joshua Colville, Joshua Gatlin, Demitrius Gray, Darren (D.J.) McNorton, Sam Ojuri, Brendin Pierre, Antonio Rodgers, Bryan Shepherd, Charles (C.J.) Smith, Marcus Williams, Jennifer Krahn and William Brown: forgery
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/373568/ "Fifteen people were charged Friday with violating North Dakota election law, many of them telling investigators they forged names on petitions they circulated in order to meet quotas and achieve bonus pay...According to the Cass County State’s Attorney’s Office, the individuals charged are: Lucas Albers, Aireal Boyd, Don Carter, Joshua Colville, Joshua Gatlin, Demitrius Gray, Darren (D.J.) McNorton, Sam Ojuri, Brendin Pierre, Antonio Rodgers, Bryan Shepherd, Charles (C.J.) Smith, Marcus Williams, Jennifer Krahn and William Brown." Dave Olson, 15 accused of rampant petition fraud in face of quotas, bonus pay; 10 Bison FB players charged, Inforum, Sept. 7, 2012.
9/5/12: ARKANSAS: Hudson Hallum, Kent Hallum, Phillip Wayne Carter and Sam Malone: absentee ballot fraud; bribery
http://www.fox16.com/news/local/story/Ark-lawmaker-pleads-guilty-to-election-charge/qjc8PtXwfkC8frDCgwLNrg.cspx "Prosecutors said Democratic Rep. Hudson Hallum of Marion, Kent Hallum, Phillip Wayne Carter and Sam Malone acknowledged that they participated in a conspiracy to bribe voters to influence absentee votes in the Arkansas District 54 primary, runoff and general elections in 2011." Ark. lawmaker pleads guilty to election charge, Fox News 16, Sept. 5, 2012.
9/2/12: NORTH DAKOTA: vote fraud
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/09/05/10-to-face-voter-fraud-charges-in-ND/UPI-17591346881228/#ixzz25h3vZema "The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead reported the statement said formal misdemeanor charges against the others were expected in a day or so. The newspaper reported Tuesday eight North Dakota State University football players and one former player were among the 10 people suspected of fraud in attempts to place two measures on this fall's general election ballot." 10 to face voter fraud charges in N.D., UPI, Sept. 5, 2012.
9/2/12: CALIFORNIA: Roderick Wright: vote fraud
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rod-wright-20120903,0,1203700.story "Almost two years after his grand jury indictment on eight felony counts of voter fraud and perjury, state Sen. Roderick Wright has yet to stand trial. The longtime Inglewood Democrat may not get his full day in court before voters decide this fall whether to give him another term in the Legislature." Jean Merl, State senator's trial may begin just before election, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 2, 2012.
9/2/12: FLORIDA: Derrick Henry: absentee ballot fraud
"Two weeks ago, the Supervisor of Elections, Ann McFall, announced her office was looking into questionable absentee ballots gathered by Henry's campaign. In 2012, Henry won a city commission seat for zone five and was in office when he was charged and arrested for voter fraud after one of his workers fraudulently requested absentee ballots." Saul Saenz, Derrick Henry campaign responds to voter fraud allegations, News 13, Sept. 2, 2012.
8/15/12: Timothy Noel Zureick: voter registration fraud
http://www.athensnews.com/ohio/article-37561-former-ou-student-charged-with-forging-signatures-on-redisticting-petition.html "A former Ohio University student was in jail in Hamilton County Wednesday, facing multiple felony counts for allegedly forging 22 signatures on a petition for the redistricting amendment to the Ohio Constitution. He faces an additional criminal charge for having allegedly signed his own name with a false address." Jim Phillips, Former OU student charged with forging signatures on redistricting petition, Athens News, Aug. 15, 2012.
8/13/12: FLORIDA: Josef Sever: noncitizen voting
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-08-13/news/fl-broward-voter-gun-20120813_1_citizen-voter-registration-form-mary-cooney "A Plantation man who authorities said admitted voting in two presidential elections in Broward County though he is not a U.S. citizen has been indicted on federal charges. Federal investigators began looking at Josef Sever, 52, earlier this year when state officials forwarded his name as a possible illegal voter, according to court records. The indictment against Sever was made public on Monday." Paula McMahon, Just in time for primaries, Broward non-citizen indicted for voting, Sun Sentinel, Aug. 13, 2012.
8/10/12: FLORIDA: Sergio Robaina: absentee ballot fraud
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/08/former-hialeah-mayors-uncle-arrested-in-absentee-ballot-fraud-investigation.html#storylink=cpy "Sergio Robaina was charged with two felony counts of voter fraud for allegedly filling out the two ballots in a way that did not match the voters’ intentions. He also faces two counts of violating a county ordinance by possessing more than two absentee ballots belonging to others." Former Hialeah mayor's uncle arrested in absentee-ballot fraud investigation, Miami Herald, Aug. 10, 2012.
8/9/12: MICHIGAN: Paul Seewald, Don Yowchuang: petition fraud
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-09/business/sns-rt-usa-politicsmccotterl2e8j94cr-20120809_1_vote-petitions-felony-charges-forgery "[F]our former staffers 'were engaged in a blatant attempt to commit forgery and election fraud,' Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said at a news conference in Detroit. 'They copied petitions, submitted petitions falsely signed by circulators and did cut-and-paste jobs that would make an elementary art teacher cringe,' Schuette said." David Bailey, Ex-US lawmaker's aides charged with faking vote petitions, Chicago Tribune, Aug. 9, 2012.
8/7/12: MASSACHUSETTS: voter registration fraud
http://www.wggb.com/2012/08/07/secretary-of-state-galvin-investigates-possible-voter-registration-fraud-in-east-longmeadow/ "The Massachusetts Secretary of State’s Office is looking into possible voter registration fraud in east Longmeadow. The problem came to light when some voters in town say their party affiliations were changed without permission." Secretary of State Galvin Investigates Possible Voter Registration Fraud in East Longmeadow, WGGB ABC40, Aug. 7, 2012.
8/6/12: OHIO: voter registration fraud
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/elections-board-probes-suspicious-voter-registrati/nQCD5/ "The Montgomery County Board of Elections is investigating a large case of possible voter registration fraud, after receiving more than 100 “suspicious” registration cards from a single organization, many that appeared to have false or nonexistent addresses." Jeremy Kelly, Montgomery Co. probes possible voter fraud, Dayton Daily News, Aug. 6, 2012.
8/3/12: CALIFORNIA: nonresident voting
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120803/A_NEWS/208030318 "A Record investigation found McNerney registered and voted in the primary election in Stockton, though his main residence appears to be in Pleasanton." GOP officials file complaint of voter fraud against McNerney, The Record, August 3, 2012.
8/2/12: TEXAS: nonresident voting
http://www.news-journal.com/news/local/upshur-county-gop-chairman-alleges-voter-fraud/article_b4d8abd0-011e-53e3-a21c-2e38a67a3cbb.html "Upshur County GOP Chairman Ken Ambrose has filed a new complaint with the Texas attorney general regarding potential voter fraud in the county’s primary election....Ambrose said at least six people participated in early voting for the May 29 Republican Primary with “questionable” addresses." Christina Lane, Upshur County GOP chairman alleges voter fraud, News Journal, August 2, 2012.
8/2/12: FLORIDA: Deisy Penton de Cabrera: absentee ballot fraud
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/08/02/159629/florida-woman-is-charged-with.html "Deisy Penton de Cabrera, 56, was charged with absentee-ballot fraud, a third-degree felony, and two misdemeanor counts of violating a county ordinance that makes it illegal for anyone to possess more than two ballots belonging to other voters. Investigators say Cabrera illegally collected at least 31 absentee ballots for the Aug. 14 primary election." Patricia Mazzei, Daniel Chang, Charles Rabin and Christina Veiga, Florida woman is charged with absentee-ballot fraud, McClatchy Newspapers, August 2, 2012.
7/30/12: TEXAS: voter intimidation
http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=782270#.UBc1m7S0wmQ "Esiquiel Silva joined the Citizens Against Voter Abuse because he said his father was almost victimized. He claims the elderly man was almost forced into a van headed to the polls to vote for a certain candidate. Silva said it all happened while his father was at an adult day care in Brownsville." Daisy Martinez, Keeping a Close Eye on Voter Fraud, Valley Central, July 30, 2012.
7/30/12: FLORIDA: vote fraud
http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/21008138483635/alleged-voter-fraud-incident-under-investigation/#ixzz229wyJdtE "Authorities are investigating a case of potential voter fraud, right before the August primary. A 71-year-old Hialeah woman said she trusted a woman to fill out her absentee ballot. However, the woman took off with the ballot, and the elderly woman said she has no clue for whom she voted." Alleged voter fraud incident under investigation, WSVN, July 30, 2012.
7/29/12: TEXAS: vote fraud
http://www.caller.com/news/2012/jul/29/jim-wells-election-contest-heads-to-court/ "According to the amended petition, more than 30 people cast a ballot who were not registered to vote at least 30 days before the election. The petition states the voters registered between May 14-19. The primary was May 29. It also lists several voters who submitted mail-in ballots stating they are disabled. Barrera's petition asks for those ballots to be declared void because those people are not disabled. Others, the petition states, have permanent addresses in Alice but actually live in Corpus Christi." Julie Silva, Jim Wells Election Contest Goes to Court, Caller, July 29, 2012.
7/29/12: FLORIDA: Daisy Cabrera: absentee ballot fraud
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/29/2920287/vote-helper-chose-them-all.html#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy "Matilde Galindo, who is 75 and illiterate, has no clue who she voted for last week. She said that late in June, Daisy Cabrera, an acquaintance of a distant relative, offered to help her register as a Miami-Dade County voter... Authorities are investigating Cabrera, 56, after finding her in possession of dozens of absentee ballots last week in Hialeah. It is the first case of its kind since a new county ordinance took effect this month that makes it a misdemeanor to possess two or more ballots belonging to someone else." Melissa Sanchez and Enrique Flor, As Hialeah absentee-ballot probe continues, voter regrets accepting help, Miami Herald, July 29, 2012.
7/28/12: HAWAII: absentee ballot fraud
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/19135733/sources-state-taps-fbi-for-help-in-voter-fraud-probe "The FBI has gotten involved in an investigation into allegations of voter fraud on the Big Island, sources told Hawaii News Now Friday...About one week ago, state officials received reports about possible voter fraud on the Big Island, allegations that someone was doctoring absentee ballots, sources said." Keoki Kerr, Sources: State Taps FBI for Help in Voter Fraud Probe, Hawaii News Now, July 28, 2012.
7/26/12: NEW MEXICO: Luz Vargas, Mary Ann O'Brien: false voting
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/2-more-accused-of-fraud-in-Sunland-Park-election-3737436.php "Authorities say 56-year-old Luz Vargas registered El Paso, Texas, resident Mary Ann O'Brien to vote in Sunland Park's municipal election in March. They were charged Wednesday with false voting, conspiracy to commit false voting, registration offenses, falsifying election documents and false swearing." 2 more accused of fraud in Sunland Park election, San Francisco Gate, July 26, 2012.
7/26/12: VIRGINIA: Bonnie Nicholson: felon voting
http://www2.starexponent.com/news/2012/jul/26/tdmain01-louisa-felon-illegally-registered-after-r-ar-2084757/ "A felon living in Louisa County registered to vote illegally and then cast a ballot in the 2008 presidential election after filling out and submitting a voter-registration form she received by mail from the Voter Participation Center, a state senator who prosecuted the case confirmed Wednesday." Mark Bowes, Louisa felon illegally registered after receiving form from Voter Participation Center, Richmond Times Dispatch, July 26, 2012.
7/26/12: ARIZONA: deceased voting
http://www.azcentral.com/community/pinal/articles/2012/07/25/20120725pinal-supervisor-hopeful-enright-quits.html#ixzz22A42GOnC "A Pinal County supervisor candidate has withdrawn from the race in the wake of voter-fraud allegations involving a former companion who, records show, has continued to vote by absentee ballot in the five years since her death. His statement made no mention of the scandal unleashed in an anonymous, undated letter sent several weeks ago to the Pinal County Recorder's Office. As recently as this year, the letter alleged, someone had been filling out and mailing in absentee ballots addressed to a woman who died on Feb. 3, 2007. The woman, Sheila Nassar, and Enright lived together at the time of her death." Lindsey Collom, Pinal County supervisor hopeful John Enright quits, The Republic, July 26, 2012.
7/26/12: KENTUCKY: Naomi Johnson, Jackie Jennings, Earl Young: vote buying
http://www.wkyt.com/wymt/home/headlines/Three-convicted-in-vote-fraud-case-will-be-sentenced-Thursday-163775996.html "Three people from Breathitt County who were involved in a vote buying scheme in a 2010 magistrate's race are expected to be sentenced. Naomi Johnson, Jackie Jennings, and Earl Young all pleaded guilty or were convicted in the case." Three convicted in vote fraud case will be sentenced Thursday, WYMT, July 26, 2012.
7/25/12: KENTUCKY: vote buying
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/25/drug-money-funds-voter-fraud-in-kentucky/ ""We believe that drug money did buy votes," Kerry B. Harvey, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky, said. He described a stunning vote-buying scheme that includes "very extensive, organized criminal activity, involving hundreds of thousands of dollars, and in many cases that involves drug money." Harvey has led a recent string of federal prosecutions exposing the widespread and accepted practice of vote buying in eastern Kentucky." Eric Shawn, Drug money funds voter fraud in Kentucky, Fox News, July 25, 2012.
7/23/12: MICHIGAN: vote fraud
http://macomb.patch.com/articles/macomb-man-alleges-election-fraud-sues-township-county-clerks "A Macomb Township resident has filed a lawsuit against the county and Macomb Township clerks that challenges the validity of more than 50 signatures on supervisor candidate Janet Dunn's nominating petitions" Macomb Man Alleges Election Fraud, Sues Township, County Clerks, The Patch, July 23, 2012.
7/20/12: WEST VIRGINIA: absentee ballot fraud
http://www.wvmetronews.com/news.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=53937 "Lincoln County Commissioner Thomas Ramey is scheduled to plead guilty next month in connection with a vote fraud investigation." Guilty Plea Hearing Set In Vote Fraud Case, Metro News, July 20, 2012.
7/17/12: CALIFORNIA: vote fraud
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Cudahy-Officials-Corruption-Bribery-Ballots-Voting-162259065.html "The documents state that in city elections in 2007 and 2009, ballots in favor of challengers were discarded, while ballots that favored incumbents were retained." Olsen Ebright, Melissa Pamer and Jason Kandel, Election Fraud Alleged in Cudahy; 2 Accept Plea Deal, NBC Los Angeles, July 17, 2012.
7/13/12: NEW MEXICO:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/4-more-charged-in-Sunland-Park-voter-fraud-case-3706104.php Jose Ramirez, Elizabeth Ramirez, Matthew Valenzuela, Nelson Owens: registration fraud
"Third Judicial District Attorney Amy Orlando announced Friday that voter fraud charges from a Sunland Park election were filed against Texas residents Jose Ramirez, Elizabeth Ramirez, Matthew Valenzuela and Santa Teresa, N.M. resident Nelson Owens." 4 more charged in Sunland Park voter fraud case, Associated Press, July 13, 2012.
7/12/12: ARIZONA: nonresident voting
http://www.mohavedailynews.com/articles/2012/07/12/news/local/doc4ffe71aadfaf5579339986.txt "A former candidate for Mohave County Sheriff was charged on felony counts for claiming to be a resident of the county when he actually was not. Michael David Hays of Flagstaff was charged in Kingman Justice Court on four counts of voter fraud. The first count stated that on March 11, 2010, Hays allegedly made fraudulent statements about his residence on a voter registration form. The second count stated that on Jan. 22, 2011, he allegedly made fraudulent statements on the form." Jim Seckler, Former candidate charged with voter fraud, The Daily News, July 12, 2012.
7/10/12: VIRGINIA: Sheila J. Peterson: felon voting
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/jul/10/woman-voter-fraud-case-jailed-after-positive-drug--ar-2047510/ "A convicted drug felon who pleaded no contest Tuesday to illegally registering to vote in the 2008 general election later withdrew her plea after a judge – concerned about her sobriety – ordered that she immediately be tested for drugs. She failed, testing positive for cocaine." Mark Bowes, Woman in voter fraud case jailed after positive drug screen, Richmond Times Dispatch, July 10, 2012.
7/6/12: VIRGINIA: nonresident voting
http://www2.wsls.com/news/2012/jul/06/voter-fraud-sends-former-charlottesville-council-c-ar-2038539/ "A former Charlottesville City Council candidate will spend 60 days in jail for using a false address on campaign filings... Halfaday pleaded guilty in August 2011 to a felony election fraud count. Prosecutors say he no longer lived at an address he listed on campaign paperwork that he filed for the 2011 election." Voter fraud sends former Charlottesville Council candidate to jail, Associated Press, July 6, 2012.
7/6/12: TEXAS: dead voting
http://www.caller.com/news/2012/jul/06/allegations-voter-fraud-jim-wells-brooks-counties/ "There are about 325 supercentenarians in the country and 79th District Attorney Armando Barrera finds it hard to believe 18 of them voted in the Brooks County primary in May." Julie Silva, Allegations of voter fraud in Jim Wells, Brooks counties, Corpus Christi Caller, July 7, 2012.
7/3/12: NEW YORK: vote fraud
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/03/rangel-opponent-floats-possibility-new-election-amid-fraud-claims/?test=latestnews#ixzz1zzMyZdeV "Rangel holds a narrow lead of just 802 votes in the Democratic primary for New York's 13th congressional district -- 2,000 absentee and affidavit ballots are set to be counted on Thursday. Both sides are waiting for the final tally in a race marred by accusations from supporters of Rangel's challenger that there was widespread voter fraud and voter suppression aimed at Latino voters." Eric Shawn, Rangel opponent floats possibility of new election amid fraud claims, Fox News, July 3, 2012.
7/3/12: CALIFORNIA: vote fraud
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-election-fraud-20120704,0,5517685.story "Two elections are now part of an FBI investigation into allegations of corruption at Cudahy City Hall. Transcripts of wiretaps allegedly show that local officials believed they could control election outcomes." In Cudahy, FBI probes allegations of election fraud, Los Angeles Times, July 3, 2012.
7/2/12: NEW MEXICO: Elias Fresquez: vote buying
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2676622.shtml?cat=504 "Last month, 4 On Your Side investigative team showed an undercover video of a political operative Elias Fresquez telling our producer who to vote for and offering whiskey as he drove him to an early voting site." 4 On Your Side: State police to investigate Espanola voter fraud, KOB News, July 2, 2012.
6/26/12: OHIO: Robert Gilchrist: illegal voting
http://morningjournal.com/articles/2012/06/26/news/doc4fe938c15f2c2243133674.txt "Robert Gilchrist, former director of the Lorain County Community Action Agency and Lorain city official, was secretly indicted on four counts of illegal voting." Kaylee Remington, Gilchrist indicted for voter fraud, The Morning Journal, Jun. 26, 2012.
6/25/12: WISCONSIN: missing voter signatures
http://caledonia.patch.com/articles/whole-pages-of-signatures-missing-for-same-day-registrations-in-city-poll-books "Republican recount observers are raising a red flag over votes cast by residents who registered on election day after pages of missing signatures from same-day voters have been discovered throughout the City of Racine." Heather Asiyanbi, More Election Snafus Reported in Racine Recall Election, Caledonia Patch, Jun. 26, 2012.
6/25/12: VIRGINIA: Feda Kidd Morton: registration fraud
http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/2012/jun/25/fluvanna-school-teacher-officially-indicted-voter--ar-2013164/ "A grand jury handed down an indictment against Feda Kidd Morton Monday morning in Fluvanna County Circuit Court, formally accusing her of making a false statement on a voter registration form, Commonwealth’s Attorney Jeffery W. Haislip confirmed." Fluvanna school teacher officially indicted in voter fraud, The Daily Progress, Jun. 25, 2012.
6/20/12: NEW YORK: multiple voting
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/RSC-vote-subject-of-state-fraud-probe-3646358.php#ixzz1zl9tuSml "The commissioner of the state Department of Education is investigating election fraud accusations at the Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk School District... John Allen said he brought up concerns because he saw more than one person vote more than once at the May 15 election, saw students wearing "Vote Yes" T-shirts in the polling place and said the voting procedures were disorganized." RCS vote subject of state fraud probe, Times Union, Jun. 20, 2012.
6/14/12: WISCONSIN: vote fraud
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/159115905.html "The Racine County sheriff's department is trying to find out how election related documents ended up in a dumpster. The sheriff's department confirms they are investigating possible voting irregularities at the Cesar Chavez Community Center." Racine County sheriff's department looking into possible voting irregularities, WTMJ, Jun. 14, 2012.
6/14/2012 ARIZONA: nonresident voting, posthumous voting
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2012/06/07/20120607quartzsite-refuses-seat-winning-mayor.html#ixzz1xopokbNS "The political furor is complicated by allegations of election fraud in a mayoral vote that tallied just 706 ballots. Town Manager Alex Taft announced during this week's council meeting that 168 votes are under investigation. Cowell said she and other incumbents believe "something is not right" because about 300 new voters registered before the election, including some staying on federal lands. "We have proof that there were (three) people who were dead who voted," she added." Dennis Wagner, Quartsite refuses to seat winning mayor, Arizona Republic, June 14, 2012.
6/11/2012 PENNSYLVANIA: Robyn Pugh: nonresident voting
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120611/NEWS/120619972/-1/NEWS01 "The Monroe County district attorney's office charged the embattled former Middle Smithfield Township golf course director with several counts of voter fraud Monday. Robyn Pugh was charged with perjury, false swearing in official matters and unlawful voting. She could receive up to 10 years in prison and fines of $20,000. The DA alleged that Pugh registered to vote in Middle Smithfield Township and voted there four times when she was actually living in Stroud Township." DA charges ex-Middle Smithfield golf director Pugh with voter fraud, Pocono Record, June 11, 2012.
6/6/2012 OHIO: Joseph Gallucci: election fraud
http://www.cleveland.com/countyincrisis/index.ssf/2012/06/former_cuyahoga_county_employe.html "Russo testified that he figured Gallucci's sham candidacy saved him about $50,000 in campaign advertising he didn't have to pay." James F. McCarty, Former Cuyahoga County employee is sentenced to prison for running a sham election in 2006, Plain Dealer, June 6, 2012.
5/25/2012 VIRGINIA: Sheila J. Peterson & Michael Anthony Harris: felon voting
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-politics/2012/may/25/tdmet02-state-voter-fraud-investigation-results-in-ar-1941327/ "Sheila J. Peterson, 53, was indicted Monday by a Chesterfield County grand jury on one felony count of making a false statement on an election form on Oct. 3, 2008, according to court records. Last week, Michael Anthony Harris, 50, was arrested in Chesterfield on a similar charge for an offense that occurred on Sept. 26, 2008, records show." Mark Bowes, State voter fraud investigation results in two more arrests in Chesterfield , Richmond Times-Dispatch, May 25, 2012.
5/23/2012 TEXAS: ineligible voting
http://everythinglubbock.com/fulltext?nxd_id=107452 "A KAMC investigation shows Harvey has reason to question her election. We obtained a copy of the official list of voters filed with the Texas Secretary of State's Office by officials in Crosby County. That list says 187 people voted in the recent election. We also go a copy of the tally sheet used by election officials to count the votes. It lists 199 total votes for mayor... Rowland and Jane King said two of their neighbors were given ballots for council races where they weren't eligible to vote. When they went to City Hall to question the validity of that, nobody could give them an answer." Nick Ochsner, KAMC Investigates: Voter Fraud in the City of Lorenzo, KAMC, May 23, 2012.
5/23/2012 IDAHO: double voting
http://www.kivitv.com/news/local/153103225.html "A northern Idaho county is investigating possible election-night fraud after one voter may have voted twice in the May 15 primary. Kootenai County told the Coeur d'Alene Press a precinct poll worker didn't notice a voter had already voted absentee before showing up to a polling place and voting in person, too." Associated Press, N. Idaho officials investigating possible voter fraud, KIVI-TV, May 23, 2012.
5/4/2012 CALIFORNIA: Richard Alarcon & Flora Montes De Oca Alarcon: nonresident voting
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-alarcon-case,0,3260844.story "Moving swiftly after a judge dismissed its case, the district attorney's office refiled 24 perjury and voter-fraud charges late Thursday afternoon against Councilman Richard Alarcon and his wife, Flora Montes De Oca Alarcon. The new charges make the same allegations as a case thrown out by Superior Court Judge Kathleen Kennedy on Thursday morning, accusing the Alarcons of lying about living in a house in Panorama City so that the councilman could run for his 7th District office." Perjury, Fraud Charges Refiled Against Richard Alarcon And Wife, Los Angeles Times, May 4, 2012.
5/3/2012 WISCONSIN: Yadira Colon: forgery
http://wisconsin.onpolitix.com/news/118299/fmr-oshkosh-woman-to-be-tried-for-election-fraud "A former Oshkosh woman will stand trial on two counts of election fraud and two counts of falsifying nomination papers. Forty-four-year-old Yadira Colon was bound over for trial Thursday in Milwaukee County." Woman to Be Tried for Election Fraud, Associated Press, May 3, 2012.
5/2/2012 INDIANA: Douglas Campbell: absentee ballot fraud
http://www.indystar.com/article/20120502/NEWS02/120502026/Southern-Indiana-mayor-faces-voter-fraud-charges "Austin Mayor Douglas Campbell and a city employee surrendered Tuesday to face the felony voter fraud and conspiracy charges. The accusations include that they illegally accepted absentee ballots from voters and that Campbell in one instance filled out a woman's incomplete ballot." Southern Indiana mayor faces voter fraud charges, Associated Press, May 2, 2012.
4/26/2012 WISCONSIN: Austin Thompson: nonresident voting
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/149145165.html "Voter registration applications from three men who listed the Glendale Residence Inn as their address is what sparked this investigation…The three including Austin Thompson, who was arrested last year during an occupy protest, are accused of voter fraud by registering and voting even though they lived in a hotel." Milwaukee County DA investigating voter fraud claims, WTMJ4, Apr. 26, 2012.
4/22/2012 VIRGINIA: 400 cases of vote fraud
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/apr/22/tdmain01-va-investigates-voter-fraud-ar-1859666/ "As Virginia legislators hotly debated a voter ID bill that narrowly passed the General Assembly, many were unaware of a state police investigation that, so far, has resulted in charges against 38 people statewide for voter fraud. Warrants have been obtained for a 39th person who can't be located. A majority of those cases already have resulted in convictions, and 26 additional cases are still being actively investigated nearly 3½ years after the state Board of Elections forwarded more than 400 voter and election fraud allegations from 62 cities and counties to Virginia State Police for individual investigation." Mark Bowes, Va. Investigates voter fraud , Richmond Times Dispatch, Apr. 22, 2012.
4/14/2012 FLORIDA:
http://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/Madison_County_Officials_Arrested_for_Voter_Fraud_133032448.html 9 individuals charged with various counts of vote fraud "Abra “Tina” Hill Johnson, 43, was charged with 10 counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, and two counts of absentee ballots and voting violations. Her husband Ernest Sinclair Johnson, Jr., 45, was charged with 11 counts of fraud in connection with casting votes, one count of corruptly influencing voting, and one count of perjury by false written declaration. Jada Woods Williams, 34, Madison County Supervisor of Elections, was charged with 17 counts of neglect of duty and corrupt practices for allowing the distribution of these absentee ballots, contrary to Florida state statute. The following individuals, all residents of Madison, Fla., were arrested for their role in the fraud:
* Judy Ann Crumitie, 51, charged with four counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, and one count of providing a false report to law enforcement authorities
* Laverne V. Haynes, 57, charged with two counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, two counts of perjury by false written declaration, and one count of providing a false report to law enforcement authorities
* Ora Bell Rivers, 41, charged with seven counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, three counts of perjury by false written declaration, and one count of providing a false report to law enforcement authorities
* Raven Simona Williams, 20, charged with two counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, two counts of perjury by false written declaration, and one count of providing a false report to law enforcement authorities
* Shalonda Michaelle Brinson, 36, charged with nine counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, and one count of provided a false report to law enforcement authorities." Julie Montanaro and Mike Springer, Madison 9 Attorney Speaks Out, WCTV, Apr. 14, 2012.
4/10/2012 CALIFORNIA: Gary Sabara, Jr.: nonresident voting
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/10/local/la-me-0411-vernon-elections-20120411 "In one of the disallowed ballots, the chamber alleged voter Gary Sabara Jr. actually lived in Buena Park. Frederic Woocher, the chamber's attorney, presented evidence gathered by a private investigator, including Sabara's Facebook page and an Orange County Register article that listed him as a resident of Buena Park." Sam Allen, Vernon council election thrown into chaos by fraud allegations, Los Angeles Times, Apr. 10, 2012.
4/3/2012 INDIANA: forgery
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/4-indiana-dems-charged-with-election-fraud-in-2008/#ixzz1xoPqX27T"
"Prosecutors in South Bend, Ind., filed charges Monday against four St. Joseph County Democratic officials and deputies as part of a multiple-felony case involving the alleged forging of Democratic presidential primary petitions in the 2008 election, which put then-candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the Indiana ballot. The officials are accused of taking part in a scheme to fake signatures and names on the primary petitions needed to run for president. Court papers say the plan was hatched by local Democratic Party officials inside the local party headquarters. Among those charged is the former long-time chairman of the St. Joseph County Democratic Party, Butch Morgan, who allegedly ordered the forgeries...The St. Joseph County Board of Voter Registration's Democratic board member, Pam Brunette, Board of Voter Registration worker Beverly Shelton and Democratic volunteer and former board worker Dustin Blythe also face charges." Eric Shawn, 4 Indiana Dems charged with election fraud in 2008 presidential race, Fox News, Apr. 3, 2012.
3/24/2012 OHIO: multiple voting, nonresident voting
http://www.northwestohio.com/news/story.aspx?id=734222#.T9pi27W0wmT "Republican Jon Husted said Friday that an initial review by the Fulton County Board of Elections revealed that an individual appeared to have voted in both northwest Ohio and South Carolina in the 2008 and 2010 general elections. Husted asked Attorney General Mike DeWine to investigate. The county board told Husted the individual has been registered there since 2006. A person with the same name and personal information has also been a registered and active voter in SouthCarolina since 2002." Ohio elections chief asks for voter fraud probe, Associated Press, Mar. 24, 2012
3/22/2012 WISCONSIN: Michael Henderson: vote fraud
http://bayviewcompass.com/archives/10687 "Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen announced today that Michael Henderson, of Milwaukee, was convicted of election fraud arising out of the 2008 general Presidential election. Henderson was convicted of Election Fraud - Providing False Information to Election Official, a Class I felony. An additional count of Voting By Disqualified Person was dismissed against Henderson but read-in for the purposes of sentencing." Van Hollen announces voting fraud conviction, Bay View Compass, Mar. 22, 2012.
3/7/2012 WEST VIRGINIA: Jerry Bowman & Donald Whitten: absentee ballot fraud
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/07/former-west-virginia-sheriff-county-clerk-plead-guilty-to-attempting-to-steal/#ixzz1xoEtgPef "Prosecutors say Bowman and former Lincoln County Clerk Donald Whitten, 62, were part of a scheme to steal the May 2010 Democratic primary by stuffing ballot boxes with illegal absentee ballots. Bowman admitted to falsifying more than 100 of the absentee ballot applications and even voting with some of the ballots himself, while Whitten, who also pleaded guilty Wednesday, acknowledged lying to investigators about the plan to try to throw the election." Eric Shawn, Former West Virginia sheriff, county clerk plead guilty to attempting to steal election, Fox News, Mar. 7, 2012.
3/7/2012 NORTH CAROLINA: 4 charged with nonresident voting
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/03/07/3075256/politician-charged-in-voter-fraud.html "Statesville City Councilman Flake Huggins and three family members have been indicted on voter fraud charges after investigators said the politician had relatives lie about their addresses to vote in his runoff race last fall….According to Iredell and Alexander County District Attorney Sarah Kirkman, the disqualified votes were cast by Huggins' sister Rhonda Williams, her husband, Willie Williams Jr., and son, Christopher Williams." Cleve R. Wootson Jr. and David Vieser, Politician charged in voter fraud case, Charlotte Observer, Mar. 7, 2012
3/6/2012 ALABAMA: Venustian Hernandez-Hernandez: noncitizen voting, voter impersonation
http://blog.al.com/live/2012/03/baldwin_man_convicted_of_fraud.html%22 "Records from the Baldwin County Board of Registrars show that Hernandez-Hernandez is registered to vote under the name of Severo Benavidez, the name he used for almost 4 decades after slipping into the United States from his native Mexico in the 1970…Ed Packard, an election official with the Alabama Secretary of State's Office, said Baldwin County's voter rolls have included Severo Benavidez since 1984. Packard said the 62-year-old man voted in the 1996 and 2008 general elections, the 2002 primary election and special elections on a constitutional amendment to overhaul Alabama's tax system in 2003 and to incorporate Perdido Beach as Baldwin County's 14th municipality in 2009." Brendan Kirby, Baldwin man convicted of fraud voted regularly under name of U.S. citizen, records showPress-Register, Mar. 6, 2012.
3/6/2012 NEW MEXICO: Priscilla Morales & Angelica Marquez: nonresident voting
http://www.nmpolitics.net/index/2012/03/two-more-charged-in-sunland-park-voter-fraud-scheme/ "A former Sunland Park city councilor and a current city employee were charged today in the alleged voter-fraud scheme that has rocked the town. Priscilla Morales, the public works director's secretary, and former Councilor Angelica Marquez each face fourth-degree felony charges of false voting and conspiracy to commit false voting." Heath Haussamen, Two more charged in Sunland Park voter-fraud scheme, N.M. Politics, Mar. 6, 2012.
3/4/2012 NEW MEXICO: Silvia Gomez: nonresident voting
http://www.nmpolitics.net/index/2012/03/sunland-park-employee-arrested-on-false-voting-charges/ "In the new case, investigators allege that Gomez pushed two El Paso residents to illegally register to vote in Sunland Park and then cast ballots in the mayoral race for Salinas... When the two advised Gomez they were Texas residents, "Silvia Gomez told them it was okay and that they could use Silvia Gomez's address as their residence on the voter registration form," the criminal complaint states." Heath Haussamen, Sunland Park employee arrested on false voting charges, N.M. Politics, Mar. 4, 2012.
2/27/2012 TEXAS: Carlos Medranos: illegal voting
http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2012/02/after-weeklong-trial-break-def.html/ "Carlos Medrano was sentenced to 180 days in county jail, five years probation and assessed a $2,500 fine." Rudolph Bush, Carlos Medrano guilty of one count of illegal voting. Frank Medrano not guilty of perjury chargesDallas News, Feb. 27, 2012.
2/17/2012 NORTH CAROLINA: Erik Ray Jackson: voter impersonation, nonresident voting
http://www.courier-tribune.com/sections/news/local/jackson-charged-voter-fraud-montgomery-county.html-0 "The warrant states that Jackson registered to vote in Montgomery County on Oct. 4, 2011, and used the address of 305 N. Tomlinson St., Candor, the same address as Wayne Holyfield, a state trooper who was elected to the Candor Board of Commissioners last November and has been embroiled in a controversy over firing four of the five officers on the town police force. According to the warrant, Jackson lived at 131 Young Drive, Lexington, at the time of the election and had lived there since Sept. 16, 2011. The warrant also says that Jackson voted in the Candor municipal election on Nov. 8, 2011, and was not a resident of Candor for at least 30 days preceding the election as required by law." Mary Anderson, Jackson charged with voter fraud in Montgomery County, Courier-Tribune, Feb. 17, 2012.
2/16/2012 MASSACHUSETTS: Mark Evangelous: absentee ballot fraud, posthumous voting
http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-16/metro/31063789_1_voter-fraud-marlborough-man-absentee-ballot-application "A former candidate for the Marlborough City Council was arraigned yesterday on voter fraud charges for allegedly handing in an absentee ballot application for a man who had died earlier in the year, Middlesex prosecutors said yesterday. Mark Evangelous, 51, of Marlborough, faces charges of forgery, uttering, and violating absentee voting laws, District Attorney Gerard T. Leone Jr.'s office said." Marlborough man accused of voter fraud, Boston Globe, Feb. 16, 2012.
2/13/2012 OHIO: Melissa R. Schilling: forgery
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/02/13/False-signatures-sentence.html "A Fairfield County woman will serve jail time for providing two false signatures on a liquor-option petition filed with the county Board of Elections last year. County Common Pleas Judge Richard E. Berens sentenced Melissa R. Schilling, 46, of Baltimore, on Friday, after she pleaded guilty to two counts of the fifth-degree felony, a court spokesman said." Mary Beth Lane, Fairfield County woman sentenced for falsifying petition signatures, Columbus Dispatch, Feb. 13, 2012.
2/7/2012 WASHINGTON: Marda Aglubi-Blomstrom: noncitizen voting
http://www.chronline.com/news/local/article_f113de72-51f2-11e1-8675-001871e3ce6c.html "A 35-year-old Glenoma woman who emigrated to the United States from Ghana, Africa, is accused of voter fraud in Lewis County Superior Court. Marda Aglubi-Blomstrom is expected on Feb. 16 to enter a plea to one count of providing false information on an application for voter registration." Adam Pearson, Glenoma Woman Charged with Voter Fraud, The Chronicle, Feb. 7, 2012.
2/2/2012 FLORIDA: noncitizen voting
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/16662854/2012/05/07/nbc2-investigates-voter-fraud "'I vote every year,' Hinako Dennett told NBC2. The Cape Coral resident is not a US citizen, yet she's registered to vote. NBC2 found Dennett after reviewing her jury excusal form. She told the Clerk of Court she couldn't serve as a juror because she wasn't a U.S. citizen. We found her name, and nearly a hundred others like her, in the database of Florida registered voters. Naples resident Yvonne Wigglesworth is also a not a citizen, but is registered to vote. She claims she doesn't know how she got registered…Records show Wigglesworth voted six times in elections dating back eleven years. 'I know you cannot vote before you become a citizen, so I never tried to do anything like that,' Samuel Lincoln said. He isn't a U.S. citizen either, but the Jamaican national says he doesn't know how he ended up registered to vote. 'It's their mistake, not mine,' said Lincoln. We obtained a copy of his 2007 voter registration application. It's clearly shows he marked U.S. citizen." Andy Pierrotti, NBC2 Investigates: Voter fraud, Feb. 2, 2012.
11/28/2011 GEORGIA: 12 officials indicted for vote fraud
http://www.walb.com/story/16104533/12-indicted-for-voter-fraud "12 former Brooks County officials were indicted for voter fraud. The suspects are accused of illegally helping people vote by absentee ballot…. The defendants include some workers in the voter registrar's office and some school board members. They are Angela Bryant, April Proctor, Brenda Monds, Debra Denard, Lula Smart, Kechia Harrison, Robert Denard, Sandra Cody, Elizabeth Thomas, Linda Troutman, Latashia Head, and Nancy Denard." Stephen Abel, 12 former officials indicted for voter fraud, WALB, Nov. 28, 2011.
It is, if they're deliberately unclear on which sorts of ID are permissible, if there are costs involved or if the offices that issue permissible ID are open four days in a year. Demanding a particular kind of ID is absolutely meant to make it increasingly difficult for people to vote. That's why it's being pushed.
I know in the state I currently live in (NC) and where I lived last year (GA) there is really no reason to be confused, the states are very clear on what sorts of ID are permissible. Both offer free voter ID to folks who need it as well.
It is, if they're deliberately unclear on which sorts of ID are permissible, if there are costs involved or if the offices that issue permissible ID are open four days in a year. Demanding a particular kind of ID is absolutely meant to make it increasingly difficult for people to vote. That's why it's being pushed.
I know in the state I currently live in (NC) and where I lived last year (GA) there is really no reason to be confused, the states are very clear on what sorts of ID are permissible. Both offer free voter ID to folks who need it as well.
Jake, remember that was put into place after the USSC came down like a ton of bricks on NC for their law.
Additionally, there was actually confusion because the law allowed for certain things or persons to be used as ID that were bizarre. For example, there was an age threshold(in the 60s+ I believe) that allowed for persons to vote with expired driver's licenses...provided it had expired within a 'reasonable amount of time'.
After that court case, the NC State Board of Elections was required to send out a bright green mailer to ALL registered voters that did not have a valid driver's license or ID.
It gave you 3 options:
"Yes, I have an acceptable form of Photo ID(must be unexpired, unless the expiration date is after your 70th birthday)."
"No, I do not have an acceptable form of Photo ID, but I don't need assistance."
"No, I do not have an acceptable form of Photo ID, and I need help obtaining one."
But, I refuse to believe VoterID laws makes things "harder" for folks to vote. It's a dumb argument and also,incredibly insulting.
Voter ID laws, like all laws regarding voter eligibility, create a series of hoops for people to jump through in order to determine their eligibility. All such laws, by necessity, make it more difficult to vote.
The question here isn't whether or not voter ID laws make it more difficult to vote, they do. The question is whether or not such added difficulty is necessary.
I know in the state I currently live in (NC) and where I lived last year (GA) there is really no reason to be confused, the states are very clear on what sorts of ID are permissible. Both offer free voter ID to folks who need it as well.
Jake, remember that was put into place after the USSC came down like a ton of bricks on NC for their law.
Additionally, there was actually confusion because the law allowed for certain things or persons to be used as ID that were bizarre. For example, there was an age threshold(in the 60s+ I believe) that allowed for persons to vote with expired driver's licenses...provided it had expired within a 'reasonable amount of time'.
I moved here last summer. Anything prior to that I don't know anything about. I didn't get registered to vote until this past December. I do know the process was simple, and the web site explained it well. Folks at the DMV were probably the best DMV folks I've dealt with (and I've dealt with many in several states).
I moved in Jan '15 to a different county, but because I has the US Post Office forward my mail from my old address to new, I got my voter reg card to vote in my old county... AND I got my new voter card to vote. Conceivably, I could've voted in both St. Louis County and St. Charles County.
Simply because you received a voter registration card for your old address does not indicate that your name is still on the rolls in that county. After all, it takes a fair amount of time for document to be sent by mail, while it takes very little time to remove a person's name from a given record.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here Whem'. I looked through about a dozen of those and voter ID wouls not stop any of them.
That voter fraud does, indeed, exists and countering KillKrazy that it doesn't happen.
I moved in Jan '15 to a different county, but because I has the US Post Office forward my mail from my old address to new, I got my voter reg card to vote in my old county... AND I got my new voter card to vote. Conceivably, I could've voted in both St. Louis County and St. Charles County.
Simply because you received a voter registration card for your old address does not indicate that your name is still on the rolls in that county. After all, it takes a fair amount of time for document to be sent by mail, while it takes very little time to remove a person's name from a given record.
Voter Registration card *is* is a valid form of ID in my state. All I have to do is "show" it to the pollster that I'm allowed to vote there is enough. Then, I'd get a non-identifiable voting sheet to make my selections.
I *could've* done it again in my old county. It just to point out that the voter roll isn't the end-all-be-all to ensure a 1 person-to-vote concept and that it's ripe for abuse.
But, I refuse to believe VoterID laws makes things "harder" for folks to vote. It's a dumb argument and also,incredibly insulting.
Voter ID laws, like all laws regarding voter eligibility, create a series of hoops for people to jump through in order to determine their eligibility. All such laws, by necessity, make it more difficult to vote.
Sure, I'll go with that assessment.
The question here isn't whether or not voter ID laws make it more difficult to vote, they do. The question is whether or not such added difficulty is necessary.
You have completely missed the point. Voter fraud exist, but not voter impersonation (the only kind voter ID stops). Voter impersonation is basically non-existent.
Co'tor Shas wrote: You have completely missed the point. Voter fraud exist, but not voter impersonation (the only kind voter ID stops). Voter impersonation is basically non-existent.
Not accordings to the wall-o-text I posted previously... it's a lil' more than non-existent.
Having a rigorous review of the voter rolls AND supplying a valid ID can only be a good thing.
Co'tor Shas wrote: You have completely missed the point. Voter fraud exist, but not voter impersonation (the only kind voter ID stops). Voter impersonation is basically non-existent.
Not accordings to the wall-o-text I posted previously... it's a lil' more than non-existent.
Having a rigorous review of the voter rolls AND supplying a valid ID can only be a good thing.
Let's see then
1. Voter ID would not stop 2. Voter ID would not stop 3. Voter ID would not stop 4. Voter ID would not stop 5. Voter ID would not stop 6. Allegations, and Voter ID would not stop 7. Voter ID would not stop 8. Voter ID would not stop 9. Voter ID would not stop, and it doesn't seem to actually be vote fraud (although I guess it depends on that state's rules) 10.Voter ID would not stop 11. Voter ID would not stop 12. Voter ID would not stop 13. Voter ID would not stop 14. Voter ID would not stop 15. Voter ID would not stop 16. Voter ID would not stop 17. Voter ID would not stop 18. Voter ID would not stop 19. Voter ID would not stop 20. Voter ID would not stop 21. Voter ID would not stop 22. Voter ID would not stop 23. Voter IDwould stop... if he wasn't caught while registering, negating the whole issue. If the false ID was accepted, it actually wouldn't, as it would be good enough to pass anyway. 24. Does not appear to be voter impersonation, thus Voter ID would not stop 25. Voter ID would not stop 26. Voter ID would not stop 27. Voter ID would not stop 28. Voter ID would not stop 29. Voter ID would not stop 30. Voter ID would not stop 31. Weird. Also, Voter ID would not stop
I'd do them all, but I don't have the time.
edit: I'm wondering, did you miss "voter impersonation" or are you just playing dumb.
Voter Registration card *is* is a valid form of ID in my state. All I have to do is "show" it to the pollster that I'm allowed to vote there is enough. I *could've* done it again in my old county. It just to point out that the voter roll isn't the end-all-be-all to ensure a 1 person-to-vote concept and that it's ripe for abuse.
Unless polling places in your State don't check IDs against a roll of eligible voters, which would defeat the purpose of providing ID in the first place, I highly doubt you could've done what you describe.
That depends. Are you of the position that States have the right to independently determine the eligibility requirements to vote in a Federal, direct election?
Voter Registration card *is* is a valid form of ID in my state. All I have to do is "show" it to the pollster that I'm allowed to vote there is enough. I *could've* done it again in my old county. It just to point out that the voter roll isn't the end-all-be-all to ensure a 1 person-to-vote concept and that it's ripe for abuse.
Unless polling places in your State don't check IDs against a roll of eligible voters, which would defeat the purpose of providing ID in the first place, I highly doubt you could've done what you describe.
That depends. Are you of the position that States have the right to independently determine the eligibility requirements to vote in a Federal, direct election?
The USSC ruled it that way... meaning the states determines *how* to implement voter laws/regulations.
@Co'tor Shas: buddy... you're jumping in between me & KK's tiff. Furthermore, you & I don't see eye-to-eye on this, so let's declare an impasse... cool?
In North Carolina, prior to the new ID law, they did. Each polling place has a list of all people eligible to vote there, and when you go in to vote they check that you are on the list (and mark that you have now voted). You would not have been able to vote in your previous county because you would no longer be on the approved list, unless you had not yet switched your registration to your current address.
The ONLY thing NC's voter ID law does is prevents the hypothetical situation where I show up at the polling place where you are registered to vote, say "hi, I'm Whembly", and vote under your name. This theoretically prevents some voting fraud, but in practice the number of cases which would have been prevented by the new law is somewhere between "nonexistent" and "so tiny it would have no effect on any real-world election".
As fun as it is watching one side post a list of 30 things and how they don't say what one side thinks they said, and that other side responding with a gif and calling a tie, I think we're getting bogged down in voter ID. We're leaving it there and moving on.
The Guardian wrote:Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, waded into the row by describing Obama as the most anti-British president in history. “Mercifully, this American president, who is the most anti-British American president there has ever been...,” Farage said
Presidents Washington and Madison could not be reached for comment.
The Guardian wrote:Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, waded into the row by describing Obama as the most anti-British president in history. “Mercifully, this American president, who is the most anti-British American president there has ever been...,” Farage said
Presidents Washington and Madison could not be reached for comment.
Bernie Sanders says his platform makes financial sense for most Americans. For example, his campaign says Sanders's single-payer health care system would save an average family of four almost $6,000 per year.
But in order to pay for his proposed programs, Sanders needs to increase taxes on virtually everyone in America. So if you're a voter, the question is simple:
Are you willing to pay more taxes for his proposals, like nationalized health care and free public college tuition?
How much more?
When we polled voters, we found most Sanders supporters aren't willing to pay more than an additional $1,000 in taxes for his biggest proposals. That's well short of how much more the average taxpayer would pay under his tax plan.
We asked voters how much more they are willing to pay for nationalized health care and free public college
We conducted a poll the week of April 4 in partnership with the nonpartisan technology and media company Morning Consult. In it, we asked voters how much more they would be willing to pay for two of Sanders's big propositions: a universal health care system covering all Americans and free tuition at public colleges and universities.
Most Americans say they are willing to pay something extra for these programs:
Nationalized health care: Around 80 percent of Sanders supporters are willing to pay more in federal taxes for universal health care coverage, compared with about 70 percent of Clinton supporters and about 40 percent of those supporting a Republican candidate.
Free public college tuition: A slightly lower percentage of people were willing to pay more for free public college tuition: 80 percent of Sanders supporters, 60 percent of Clinton supporters, and about 40 percent of those supporting a Republican candidate.
But when we look at how much more voters are willing to pay, we get a better idea of how voters view Sanders's plan.
Two in three Sanders supporters don't want to pay more than $1,000, or at all, for universal health care
About 66 percent of Sanders supporters said they wouldn't be willing to pay more than an additional $1,000 in taxes for universal health care. This includes the 8 percent of Sanders supporters who aren't willing to pay anything at all.
How much more are you willing to pay in federal taxes for a universal health care system that covers all Americans? <see website for dynamic graph on this>
When we asked what percentage of their income they would pay, rather than a dollar figure, voters seem to be a bit more generous.
While half of Sanders supporters said they aren't willing to pay or that they're only willing to pay less than 5 percent of their income, a quarter said they would pay between 5 and 10 percent.
What Sanders supporters are willing to pay isn't enough for his health care plan
In 2015, the average person on an employer-sponsored health plan paid a little more than $1,000 annually in premiums, and the average family paid nearly $5,000, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
In other words, even Sanders supporters are saying they don't want to pay as much to the federal government for health care as they are paying right now in the private sector.
But Sanders's plan to pay for universal health care coverage would increase taxes on most voters by more than $1,000. He wants to:
Add a 2.2 percentage point surcharge on individual incomes. This means marginal tax rates go up for everyone. (After a standard deduction, about a quarter of households won't have to pay this surcharge.)
Add a new 6.2 percent tax on earnings, which employers pay — but will be passed on to workers over time in the form of lower wages, according to the Tax Policy Center's Roberton Williams.
The kicker for all of this? Some analysts believe Sanders's plan will cost twice as much as his campaign estimates.
Older people and wealthier people don't want to pay as much When you break down the poll results by age, rather than by candidate, it appears older people don't want to pay as much for universal health care. This is especially interesting because older people have higher premiums, use the health care system more often, and spend a larger portion of their money on health care. So a universal health care system would curb their spending a lot more. Still, they either don't want Sanders's health care plan or they want to pay less for it:
How much more are you willing to pay in federal taxes for a universal health care system that covers all Americans? <see website for dynamic graph on this>
Exit polls have shown older people are much less likely to support Sanders compared with younger people, and this shows that a big part of that might be older people unwilling to hand over more money to the federal government to provide services.
But the other factor might be income. Older people generally make more money and are more likely to be employed, and our poll shows that people who earn more money would pay less for Sanders's health care plan — both as a percentage of their income and in dollars.
How much more are you willing to pay in federal taxes for a universal health care system that covers all Americans? <see website for dynamic graph on this>
About two in three Sanders supporters don't want to pay extra, or no more than $1,000, for free public college tuition Sanders supporters are far and away the most likely to want free public college tuition. Still, 14 percent said they don't want to pay additional taxes for it — and another half said they would only pay up to $1,000 a year:
How much more are you willing to pay in federal taxes for free tuition at public colleges and universities? <see website for dynamic graph on this>
That said, in a theoretical world where every Sanders policy comes true, they might not even have to pay a dime. The way Sanders proposes paying for free public college tuition is by levying a tax on Wall Street speculators.
Older and wealthy people do not want to be taxed more for higher education
One reason so many Sanders supporters might be willing to pay more for higher education is that for many of them, it is a large burden right now.
Sanders has consistently polled well among voters under 30, who are recent college graduates, and those are the voters who said in our poll that they were willing to pay more taxes for free public college tuition.
Meanwhile, a larger portion of older people said they did not want to pay more for free public college tuition:
How much more are you willing to pay in federal taxes for free tuition at public colleges and universities? <see website for dynamic graph on this>
This is also reflected in people of higher income brackets, who were similarly less willing to pony up to fund higher education:
How much more are you willing to pay in federal taxes for free tuition at public colleges and universities? <see website for dynamic graph on this>
Many Sanders supporters don't want to Feel the Bern in their wallets
Sanders's plan would put an additional $5,000 of federal tax liability on households earning $50,000, but in exchange he would nationalize vital services currently in the private sector.
That means at least some of the money we're now paying private companies would be paid to the federal government instead.
But the majority of Sanders supporters in our poll (much less all voters) aren't willing to pay enough to actually support those nationalized services.
This isn't a question of whether Sanders's ideas are valid. This is a question of how voters are thinking about Sanders's revolution, which is a radical increase in the scope of what government is responsible for, versus the private sector.
To their credit, some Sanders supporters have done the math and figured out that even with big tax increases, they would end up saving more money from Sanders's new programs. But many other people were surprised when they used our candidate tax calculator and found out how much additional taxes they would pay under Sanders's plan.
Yet that's the revolution — one that promises Medicare for all, public college tuition for all, massive investments in infrastructure, expanded Social Security, etc. Those services require higher taxes, but could also save people money in the long run.
It's a shift in the way we think about how we pay for social services. But right now, it appears that even Sanders supporters haven't gotten their heads around what that means for their finances.
About 66 percent of Sanders supporters said they wouldn't be willing to pay more than an additional $1,000 in taxes for universal health care.
...
In 2015, the average person on an employer-sponsored health plan paid a little more than $1,000 annually in premiums, and the average family paid nearly $5,000, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
In other words, even Sanders supporters are saying they don't want to pay as much to the federal government for health care as they are paying right now in the private sector.
What's the point of even responding to him anymore? Best case scenario, he posts a big wall of garbage that doesn't prove his point, gets called out on it, and posts a gif saying it's a mulligan.
I'm not trying to restart that discussion, just pointing out that if this thread is going to stay open, maybe we should just ignore the worst parts of it, the parts that have a 2+ save to rational discussion.
What's the point of even responding to him anymore? Best case scenario, he posts a big wall of garbage that doesn't prove his point, gets called out on it, and posts a gif saying it's a mulligan.
EDIT: acknowledging that reasonable people can have differences in opinions is NOT an attempt to walk back by posting a gif mulligan.
I'm not trying to restart that discussion, just pointing out that if this thread is going to stay open, maybe we should just ignore the worst parts of it, the parts that have a 2+ save to rational discussion.
FDR is my personal fave , so yeah, I’d have to agree. Teddy I’m not so well informed on, outside of the ‘Teddy was an awesome man of action’ stuff. I understand he fought a lot of corruption, but that’s about all I know.
The story goes that, during the days of Teddy, getting the VP job was basically political suicide, if your ambition was to be president one day. So, to basically get him away from "real" politics, the Republicans got Teddy the VP job. Little did they know that their president was gonna croak, and give Teddy the job he always wanted.
One particular big reason why they didn't want a Teddy presidency was because not only was he anti-corruption, he was anti-"Big Business". Namely, in that his previous campaign promises were extremely heavy handed and very anti-trust (The Carnegies and Rockefellers donated/bribed a bunch of people to keep him out of office, because they were worried about their position, should he have gotten into power)
Today, Sanders' platform is very reminiscent of the first Roosevelt's in that he's "promised" to go after, and dismantle the huge banks on wall street, get Glass-Steagel (or a more modern version of it) put in place... It's kind of a modern anti-trust stance.
Did anyone watch the Bern/Rodham show yesterday? I missed it but have heard reports that Bernie took HRC to task.
I didn't see it...
But, I did see Obama's former advisor tweet this:
David AxelrodVerified account
@davidaxelrod
Unless she genuinely feels none, shouldn't @HillaryClinton express some regrets or lessons learned on Libya? #demdebate
So... that prompted me to read CNN's debate transcript.
Dayum... Sanders got some zingers in...
EDIT: this is one thing I respect out of Sanders:
SANDERS: We're going to work with state governments all over this country. And you know what? In a very divided Congress, and a very divided politics in America, actually the one area where there is some common ground is conservatives understand that it's insane to be spending $80 billion a year locking up 2.2 million people.
With federal and presidential leadership, we will work with state governments to make sure that people are released from jail under strong supervision, that they get the kind of job training and education they need so they can return to their communities. On this one, Errol, actually I think you're going to see progressive and conservative support. We can do it, if we're prepared to be bold.
SANDERS: ...that they [captives in gitmo] get the kind of job training and education they need so they can return to their communities.
Wow. Just... wow. I know Sanders is ignorant when it comes to the war on terror, but this is taking idiocy to a whole new level.
Err, I think you got the context on that wrong. The quote is referring to prisons in the US and domestic criminals, not the ridiculous mess of "we can keep you in prison forever without any kind of trial as long as we declare that you're a Bad Person" we have with "terrorists".
SANDERS: ...that they [captives in gitmo] get the kind of job training and education they need so they can return to their communities.
Wow. Just... wow. I know Sanders is ignorant when it comes to the war on terror, but this is taking idiocy to a whole new level.
I am incredibly curious as to where you got your quote from. Particularly the insertion of "[captives in gitmo]", which was not present in the actual transcript, and is not even what they were talking about at the time.
Thanks.
blood boil! 
