home

In 2004, DOJ Precleared MI Internet Voting

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:43:51 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

A Marc Ambinder reader who purports (I do not question this, I simply can not confirm it) to be a former attorney in the DOJ Voting Rights Section says:

I was the DOJ attorney who discussed [allowing Internet voting] with the Michigan Democratic Party, reviewed the party's submission to DOJ, and recommended preclearance. DOJ approved the change and the state party's Internet voting in the 2004 primary election proceeded.

The do-over elections being discussed for Michigan and Florida would similarly be "changes affecting voting" since they would be new elections held on previously unscheduled election dates. Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, these changes must be precleared by DOJ . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) More . . .

I had forgotten about Internet voting in Michigan in 2004. Folks will please excuse me when I opine that DOJ approval of mail-in voting is NOT an issue. And, can be handled with a great deal of expedition if it requires DOJ review. Consider this memo from the Texas Secretary of State.

The Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice has 60 days in which to interpose an objection to a submitted change affecting voting. Therefore, if the county executive committee has not already reviewed actions since the last primary elections to see if any changes must be submitted for preclearance, this should be done as soon as possible. If changes need to be made at the last minute, the Justice Department may be able to give the submission expedited consideration.

(Emphasis supplied.) There is plenty of time for the DOJ, which approved INTERNET PRIMARY VOTING in Michigan, to approve the Florida Plan. But even if the approval process runs the 60 days, the revote can take place and become legally enforceable once the DOJ inevitably approves the revote. My gawd, they approved internet voting. How can they disapprove mail in voting?

< The Florida Revote Plan | The Math >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    In 2004, DOJ Precleared MI Internet Voting | 125 comments (125 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Both interent and mail-in voting are valid (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Joike on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:14:27 PM EST
    Mail in voting has been used previously so the DoJ can't object to the format.

    As with anything, it's not perfect, but it's less susceptible to fraud than paperless electronic voting machines.

    If the DoJ dummies up some excuse to deny a mail-in vote, that's not the fault of the Dems, but it is another example of the pervasive politicalization of the Department.

    Concerns of wide-spread fraud are over-blown.

    If a candidate is concerned about supporters moving and not getting ballots, that candidate can committ resources to ensuring voters are pointed in the right direction.  It's called GOTV.

    if one or the other candidate concedes (none / 0) (#40)
    by cy street on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:04:15 PM EST
    the race, then the doj, revotes, and party infighting are over.  florida and michigan get seated, the race begins and the focus turns to where it belongs.

    i am sure neither side is considering this, however, it is an option that deserves as much consideration as those being proposed here and elsewhere.

    remember al gore.  when he put the country before his personal ambitions, he exhibited the better of our politic.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, someone will concede eventually... (none / 0) (#45)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:07:16 PM EST
    But nobody is going to concede before PA, and by then, it will be well past time to do anything about a revote.

    If you're going to revote Florida, you need to get the process started yesterday. Which means getting local Florida politicians to stop infighting and actually settle on a plan.

    [ Parent ]

    how does pennsylvania change (none / 0) (#54)
    by cy street on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:15:18 PM EST
    anything we already know?  does eventually mean denver?

    the more detailed and process oriented this story becomes, the more the party is defined by that story.  non dems are scratching their heads and wondering what the hell is going on.

    when an independent takes all this in, it is fair question to ask, "if they cannot manage their party, then how are they going to manage the country?"

    this is a perspective that is not represented here, but makes up about a third of the electorate in november.  think about what message is being sent out to them.

    [ Parent ]

    the message I'm receiving is (none / 0) (#64)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:21:21 PM EST
    since Obama can't unite the Dems on a party issue - how is he planning to unite the country?

    [ Parent ]
    Me too, Josey (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:25:03 PM EST
    And:    If  he  can't  stand  up  and  LEAD  the party in  this moment,   how  can  he  LEAD  the  country  or  the  Congress  to  come  to   consensus  on  anything  else?

    [ Parent ]
    In all fairness, though... (none / 0) (#82)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:31:44 PM EST
    Couldn't the same be said of Hillary?

    I mean, she started this race with a HUGE lead in Supers, massive name recognition, the unstoppable campaign team, and piles and piles of money.

    If she couldn't LEAD with all that, how can she LEAD the country or the congress?

    (note: I actually believe that both Clinton and Obama are fine candidates and that either will lead quite effectively given the opportunity, but you see my point.)

    [ Parent ]

    auntmo, your default anti obama rhetoric (none / 0) (#99)
    by cy street on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:40:58 PM EST
    does not make a case for hillary and your question fails to acknowledge the success of his campaign.  it is difficult to believe he is in the position he is on account of his poor leadership acumen.

    i will engage your ideas about his policy positions, and hers, but questioning either on the basis of leadership flies in the face of each of their successes.

    [ Parent ]

    i disagree with what you are getting. (none / 0) (#75)
    by cy street on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:29:22 PM EST
    i believe both candidates are capable of unifying the party.  my proposition is for both campaigns to answer for themselves.

    it is fair question that is not being asked of either.

    mister obama why not concede for the party?

    miz clinton why not concede for the party?

    neither will, but their answers would reveal more than the tit for tat we are in.  tell us why you are in the race today and how you plan to win in the clearest way possible.

    both have a case to make.  it would be interesting to see in a different context than florida and michigan revotes.

    [ Parent ]

    I can answer for Obama's side (none / 0) (#88)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:35:09 PM EST
    "I'm leading in delegates.  I'm leading in popular votes. I'm leading in states won.  I'm leading McCain in the polls.  I believe I will help more with down ticket races.   What is the argument for conceding?"

    [ Parent ]
    It has to potential to change the popular vote... (none / 0) (#73)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:29:07 PM EST
    Which is really all we have left. I can't see any realistic scenario in which Hillary overtakes Obama in the pledged delegate count, which means it comes down to lobbying the Supers.

    Personally, I don't think the 'big states' argument will get much traction there, but the popular vote one might, so Hillary needs to win that. That's going to be a lot harder after Mississippi, but it's still possible. Possible enough that I don't see her withdrawing before PA. And I certainly don't see Obama withdrawing either...I mean, he's winning.

    I don't think it will go all the way to Denver, but we still have a ways to go. I agree that it's not an ideal situation, but then life rarely is.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll Bet (none / 0) (#80)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:31:32 PM EST
    This goes to Denver.

    [ Parent ]
    sweetthings, if you believe she has a weak case to (none / 0) (#81)
    by cy street on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:31:44 PM EST
    make, then it is fair to ask her to concede.  if her chances are as diminished as you describe, what is more important?  a slim chance?  or your party?

    [ Parent ]
    I said the 'big states' argument is weak... (none / 0) (#86)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:34:46 PM EST
    The 'winner of the popular vote' argument is much stronger. But nobody knows who will get to take that argument to the Supers, and nobody will know until after PA.

    Like I said, not ideal. But unavoidable.

    [ Parent ]

    it is avoidable. (none / 0) (#103)
    by cy street on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:42:36 PM EST
    concede the race and save your party.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama won't concede, re-do, won't count votes ... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:55:11 PM EST
    ... won't look at what disenfranchising the voters of two huge states will do to Dems' chances in November.

    All he's done is guarantee to unify with Republicans. The more I see of this, the worse it looks for the state of the nation, for human rights all around, for the party.

    I've gone from being 50-50 and being perfectly happy with HRC or Obama as each struck me as capable, intelligent and -- although bringing different assets to the table -- someone I'd be proud to support.

    Now, the more I see of Obama, the more terrified I am of what he'll be unleashing should he be allowed to do more damage to an already toxic environment.

    This isn't based on talking points, imagined grievances or anything but on his and his team's own statements and actions. He's not just ineffectual but (active-verb) divisive, intentionally so, and that's as Bush-Lite as you get.

    [ Parent ]

    amen sister (none / 0) (#115)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:58:02 PM EST
    Beautifully put.

    [ Parent ]
    It's going to the Supers anyways.... (none / 0) (#106)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:45:00 PM EST
    ...since neither can mathematically get there without them.  Big deal if Obama is leading - he can't cross the finish line and that's all that really matters.

    [ Parent ]
    keeping your opponent from crossing the finish (none / 0) (#108)
    by cy street on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:51:20 PM EST
    line is a hollow victory for either candidate.  if you concede he is winning, why is not a legitimate course for miz clinton to concede the race for the party?

    [ Parent ]
    I'm saying he's ahead right now. (none / 0) (#113)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:56:55 PM EST
    His supers (and the "pledged" by the way, which is not a real number until all the caucus states vote in their party conventions) could switch to HRC.  Why should she pull out when he can't win without the same sales job she has to make?

    [ Parent ]
    cmugirl, you make a good case. (none / 0) (#120)
    by cy street on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:03:44 PM EST
    i am not sure hers is stronger than his today.  however if you believe this is likely to occur, then she should continue on.  the question is how likely?  ten percent?  fifty/fifty?

    the less likely, the more pertinent the idea of concession.

    [ Parent ]

    What a Mess (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:53:07 PM EST
    ----->  Jan. 29.
    Everyone blames (none / 0) (#47)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:09:50 PM EST
    the National DNC or FL DNC but the 4-state Party chairs who dreamed up the "Pledge" should shoulder the bulk of the responsibilty -  without the Pledge, the candidates  would have campaigned in those States

    [ Parent ]
    The branches of this Government are Republican. (none / 0) (#1)
    by MMW on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:49:09 AM EST
    Competent civil servants have been set aside in favor of party loyalty.

    Sorry but it is in their best interest to go up against Obama in the fall. DOJ will stall and find a reason to deny.

    Really? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:00:48 PM EST
    All the (latest) polls I've seen have Obama beating McCain by a larger margin than does Hillary.  How is it in their best interest to run against Obama?  I think they're more interested in dragging this thing out.

    [ Parent ]
    That Obama is a weaker GE candidate (none / 0) (#7)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:07:31 PM EST
    Is taken as an article of faith by many HRC supporters (just as the converse is by many Obama supporters).  While I suspect that Obama probably is better, mainly due to the Clinton Derangement Syndrome that is rampant amongst the GOP, Obama also has some liabilities and I think it's too far out for anyone to say confidently who would perform better.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure (none / 0) (#13)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:22:22 PM EST
    We'll hear lots of "He's a Muslim," "He's scary and Black," "He's not ready!  The wolves that got into the White House when the red phone was ringing are going to...wait the call's coming from INSIDE YOUR HOUSE!!!" slime from the repubs if Obama's the nominee.  I just don't see any real evidence that HRC would be harder to beat than Obama.  She'll have to deal with terrible sexism/outright hate from the media, confront McCain on the experience issue, which is probably not an argument we want to have, AND National Security (again, another non-starter for her...however unfair as that fact may be).  I think with Obama we may have a JFK v. Nixon situation.  Young and dynamic v. Oldest potential President ever.  I just think HRC has a much tougher time.  She voted for the war, she's run on experience but doesn't have nearly the experience he does (which would NOT make him a better Prez; I think she'd be great), not to mention that it's a badge of honor among many Independents and repubs to hate, vote against, do whatever they can to stop Hillary. I just do not see comparable arguments for Obama being easier to beat.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (none / 0) (#20)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:36:15 PM EST
    But I am concerned about Obama's ability to win the white working class.  He made good headway amongst that group in Wisconsin but those gains have disappeared in the more recent contests.

    [ Parent ]
    And you might add (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:42:14 PM EST
    Women

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed (none / 0) (#24)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:44:38 PM EST
    But I don't think that all those white workers who voted for HRC are going to stay home if BO's our nominee.  Seems to me that Hillary's message is simply resonating MORE with them.  I'm not sure we can extrapolate a reluctance to vote for him from their support of her. In fact, exit polling seems to suggest otherwise.  Supporters of both dem candidates seem happy voting for the other against a republican.  

    [ Parent ]
    ah no (none / 0) (#26)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:46:28 PM EST
    I won't vote for him. How's that. The BO campaign seems to think I will just suck it in and vote for him. They are wrong. I think he will get torched in a electoral landslide.

    [ Parent ]
    I think your outlook is sad (none / 0) (#29)
    by Joike on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:50:43 PM EST
    If you want a third Bush term, then sit on the sidelines.

    If you want to move this country back on track, then you'll support the Dem nominee whether it is Obama or Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    Joike (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    I  would  hope you'd  give  the  same   lecture   to   Obama  supporters,   who   seem   to indicate  that  all  the  AA's  will   stay  home  if  Clinton is  the nominee.  

    In  fact,  I've  heard  Clinton  tell her  voters  to support  the party  nominee.  

    I   have  NOT  heard    Obama  say  the  same.  

    So,   get  off  your  high horse,  please.    

    [ Parent ]

    I'm (none / 0) (#93)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:37:46 PM EST
    On the "I don't want a Republican President" horse.  And I'm not getting off it.  I would be furious with ANYONE who stayed home/voted for Nader because they didn't like whichever of our excellent candidates we decided to nominate.

    [ Parent ]
    Some of us (none / 0) (#96)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:39:53 PM EST
    Don't think Barack Obama is an excellent candidate. In fact, he reminds me of George Bush more than McCain who espouses all of his positions. Perhaps that is what should concern you.

    See the PA analysis down thread. That is right where a lot of people are...in this party.

    [ Parent ]

    No (none / 0) (#130)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:52:08 PM EST
    My concern is your position.  Obama reminding you more of GWB is, frankly, nuts.  He speaks well, his policy positions are much, much closer to Clinton's than McCain's, and he's winning.  He's gotten Millions of votes from dems.  I know, none of "those" states or votes matter, he's too inexperienced, he's a huge sexist, etc.
    Good thing all exit polls show that you are in the minority.

    [ Parent ]
    What high horse are talking about? (none / 0) (#131)
    by Joike on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:24:56 PM EST
    Didn't you read my post?

    I said we need to support the winner regardless of whether it is Clinton or Obama.

    I started out an Edwards supporter so I'm tired of people whining on both sides about petty issues.

    My guy lost so I'll take the next best thing which Obama and if he loses I'll take the next best thing which is Clinton.

    Any of our candidates are miles above McCain.  I've been consistent in that position throughout these threads so I don't need to be told to get off a high horse by people sitting in highchairs.

    [ Parent ]

    There will always be some people (none / 0) (#42)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    who vote based on pique.  I suspect their numbers are small.

    [ Parent ]
    JJE (none / 0) (#44)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:07:08 PM EST
    You  mean,   the  AA's,   if    Obama  is not  the nominee?   THOSE  voters?

    [ Parent ]
    anyone who votes based on pique (none / 0) (#46)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:08:07 PM EST
    sorry, not taking your bait.

    [ Parent ]
    Not bait, dear (none / 0) (#55)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:17:03 PM EST
    Obama   himself  said  his  supporters  may not   support  Hillary if  she's  the  candidate.  

    And  Michelle   said  she  wasn't  sure    she would  either.  

    The  "pique"  is  mostly  coming  from  the  Obama  side.  

    Re-read  Wolcott,  per  BTD's   recommendation.    

    [ Parent ]

    Bah (none / 0) (#56)
    by spit on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:17:33 PM EST
    if the results of the election are seen as having come out of a legitimate process by the vast majority of voters, most Democrats will vote for the nominee in the end.

    There will be some that are so angry they sit out either way, but I think those will be few when it becomes clear through general election campaigning that McCain is abso-friggin-lutely nuts.

    [ Parent ]

    I (none / 0) (#27)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:47:22 PM EST
    Don't think women are going to give up the right to have a safe, legal abortion just because we had the chance to run a woman for the highest office and didn't.  I just don't.  

    [ Parent ]
    Was that talking point in a 3:00am phone call? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:17:48 PM EST
    Vote Obama or no legal abortion, Monster Women!!!

    It's not quite what I had in mind when hoped for a Dem candidate who would affirmatively promote choice,

    In fact, "non"-partisan unity with Republicans, which has been Obama's marquee promise, historically has seriously diminished women's access to safe, legal abortion. Unifying with the Pugs has seriously rolled back basic human rights and I HUGELY don't believe it's because previous Dems who have tried it just aren't as magically charming as Obama to do it.

    However, I'd love to see a concrete plan that guarantees women safe legal abortions (as opposed to this gender-baiting fearmongering from say-anything TeamObama!)

    [ Parent ]

    I think (none / 0) (#66)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:23:07 PM EST
    That the Obama's uniting meme is B.S.  It, like HRC's fear ad, is an election tactic. My point is that if we have a republican president, we may well lose many of the rights we've fought VERY hard to secure.


    [ Parent ]
    may well lose (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:25:39 PM EST
    thats optimistic.
    if McCain gets to appoint one more Alito they are gone baby gone.
    at least for the lifetime of most people reading this.


    [ Parent ]
    I'm impressed. (none / 0) (#72)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:28:58 PM EST
    I,  too,  think  Obama's    unity  schtick  is  BS.     Most  of  his  choices  have  been  divisive,  so  far.    

    If   he  blocks   including  FL  &  MI,  after  he  publicly  told  them he would  support  their  inclusion,    he's  toast in the  GE.  

    [ Parent ]

    Unity with GOP is Obama's marquee campaign point (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:38:03 PM EST
    That the Obama's uniting meme is B.S.  It, like HRC's fear ad, is an election tactic.

    There's a HUGE difference in what you're comparing.

    Obama has promised post-partisan UNITY with Republicans, an outlandish promise which simply will not happen. The wishful thinking is how he has amassed interest, support and a honeymoon from the media.

    As the primary unfolds, his campaign is almost daily s howing itself not to be above politics, but among the worst offenders of ugly politics as  usual.

    HRC's primary ad was for a transitory primary gain. I personally didn't like it, but it was effective.

    Beyond that already forgotten blip, HRC has a more substantial accumulation of positives to bring to winning the election, and governing.

    As TeamObama gets more, hard scrutiny on living up to Obama's own promise of UNITY, they're on the decline. They've failed to seal the deal after a honeymoon from the MSM and waiting in the weeds Repugs, who've aimed most of their fire at HRC.

    HRC's on the ascendancy as she's survive triple-negative vicious attacks from Obama, the MSM and Repugs and held.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#28)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:49:31 PM EST
    I hope you enjoy President McCain and all the prosperity that comes with his term in office.

    [ Parent ]
    Also (none / 0) (#30)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:51:13 PM EST
    there's no evidence out there of Obama getting "torched in a electoral landslide."  HRC wouldn't either.

    [ Parent ]
    Really (none / 0) (#37)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:59:13 PM EST
    He will probably lose most big states and we will be stuck spending money in states that we shouldn't even have to defend. Add the MI and FL fiasco to this and you have an electoral landslide.

    I hate to tell you this but following the "we will win the cities" strategy will ensure defeat. You can't win just the cities. You can't win without white working class voters. You can't win without a giant gender gap.

    [ Parent ]

    And one more thing (none / 0) (#38)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Most Latinos don't hate McCain and they aren't single issue voters either. They just happen to be loyal to the Clintons.

    [ Parent ]
    Uh (none / 0) (#59)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:18:06 PM EST
    The "cities strategy" is how he's winning primaries.  This is not the GE.  Your argument assumes that no Hillary voters will come out to vote for Obama.  I think that's absurd.  I think most working class voters who voted for Hillary are sick of being screwed by the republicans.  Exit polling supports me.  

    [ Parent ]
    Ah so it is the blackmail argument (none / 0) (#34)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:54:38 PM EST
    This is where I think you are wrong. Not everyone lives in a pro life state to start with. Secondly, we are not one issue voters. I don't like BO for a number of reasons including his stances on - payroll tax increase, social security, health care, etc. I also believe he is unqualified to be president and his team looks like a bunch of amateurs.

    Further, I dislike him intensely and I am not alone. It has little to do with the fact Hillary is a woman but when I see top BO advisers go overseas and refer to someone I respect as a monster...that sealed the deal for me. Weeks ago I would have voted for him with reservations but now I will not vote for him at all. You seem to think there is no alternative on the ballot. There is - Ralph Nader as a protest vote. If that costs BO election so be it. I don't trust him.  I don't like him. And I don't even think he is a real democrat cuz he sure has done a lot to rip this party apart. He is all about Barack Obama

    [ Parent ]

    Okay (none / 0) (#48)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:10:50 PM EST
    How 'bout this: we have an incredibly old Supreme Court.  Do you like the 4th ammendment?  How 'bout the 8th?  I'm not blackmailing you, I'm just saying that any pouting that helps put McCain in office is disastrous.  If Nader's your candidate, have at it.  I just hope you don't live in a battleground state.

    [ Parent ]
    "Any pouting (none / 0) (#52)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:15:03 PM EST
    that  helps  put  McCain in office...."  

    INCLUDING  pouting   from  the  Obama  side.

    Due  respect  from Wolcott.

    [ Parent ]

    ABSOLUTELY (none / 0) (#78)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:30:09 PM EST
    You are completely right!  This is my point. We cannot afford Prez. McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Dissenter (none / 0) (#49)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:11:25 PM EST
    I  think  our  board  Obama  supporters  are not paying  attention  to  the  Obama  trend  as  shown  in  Mississippi:    he's  LOSING   the  white    voters   he  claims  to   be  able  to  draw.      

    The pattern  of  his  campaign's   use  of  "race  card"   accusations   and his  supporters    threatening  that   AA's  will  desert  the party if  Obama  is not  the  nominee,   is  growing  more  and more  tiresome  to  the   party  as  a  whole.    

    Are  these  guys  claiming  that  the  AA's  will vote  for   McCain instead?    

    Puuuuleeeeeze.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, he has little chance at rump dixiecrats (none / 0) (#53)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:15:13 PM EST
    'tis true.

    [ Parent ]
    "Rump dixiecrats?" (none / 0) (#63)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:20:32 PM EST
    You're  having  trouble  reading  for  the main idea,  again,  JJE.  

    Not  taking  your  childish  bait.

    [ Parent ]

    maybe if you call him (none / 0) (#68)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:25:04 PM EST
    a racist nickname again I'll be able to see it.

    [ Parent ]
    but Rump Dixiecrats (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:27:32 PM EST
    no problem there

    [ Parent ]
    I never really heard that one (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:29:29 PM EST
    before.
    rump dixiecrats
    what exactly is that supposed to be implying?

    [ Parent ]
    Google is your friend (none / 0) (#87)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:34:58 PM EST
    Or maybe auntmo can explain to you.  She shares their fondness for the prefix "lil" before a black person's name.

    [ Parent ]
    try again (none / 0) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:36:26 PM EST

    Your search - "rump dixiecrats" - did not match any documents.

    [ Parent ]
    I have a lot of gay (none / 0) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:38:29 PM EST
    souther friends who might embrace that title but something tells me thats not where you are going.

    [ Parent ]
    try removing the quotations (none / 0) (#97)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:40:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I did (none / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:41:04 PM EST
    nothing


    [ Parent ]
    I find that hard to believe (none / 0) (#105)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:43:48 PM EST
    here.  this should work in firefox.

    [ Parent ]
    ok, you got me (none / 0) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:55:11 PM EST
    I was lying.  I really just wanted you to define your own terms.  but really I would be more interested in hearing why you think its OK to suggest anyone who might not vote for Obama as a Dixiecrat.  whos party slogan was "Segregation Forever!"  but you get your panties in a bunch when Ferrarro suggests that Obama may be benefiting from a surge of support based on the fact that he could be the first AA president.

    [ Parent ]
    That's too bad (none / 0) (#124)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:12:05 PM EST
    I only debate with people who do so in good faith.  I won't be responding to you further.

    [ Parent ]
    issue adroitly avoided (none / 0) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:19:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Thank you! (none / 0) (#77)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:30:07 PM EST
    JJE  has  trouble  seeing  the mote in  his own  eye,    and   steps  in his own   stuff,   OFTEN.

    [ Parent ]
    It is the Obama Delusion (none / 0) (#83)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:33:13 PM EST
    They have no idea how pissed off they have made people like me. And Reagan Dems are gonna be a whole lot harder to get than me. They simply won't vote him. And I don't care whether it is a primary or a GE, you can't just run a city campaign and win. Look at Kerry.

    I didn't like Kerry but I went in that booth and voted for him like a good soldier. I won't do it for  Obama because I don't even think he is a real democrat. And while I didn't really like Kerry, I didn't have a visceral reaction to him. I detest what BO has done in this campaign.

    I worry about the court to be sure but maybe it will just force democrats to do something they haven't done for 8 years. THEIR JOB.

    [ Parent ]

    Nader (none / 0) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:35:32 PM EST
    is going to do well this time.
    I keep saying that.

    [ Parent ]
    Just To Be Clear (none / 0) (#107)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:49:59 PM EST
    Could you tell us what BHO has done that is so detestable?  I'm not supporting him yet, but I think he's run a pretty honerable campaign so far.  The same with Hillary.  There have been some bumps in the road, but all in all, seems pretty tame to me.

    [ Parent ]
    you would probably (none / 0) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:57:57 PM EST
    be better off asking one of the people who say they wont vote for him.
    I, at this point, am still saying I will.
    I still think Nader is going to do well.
    I would love to be wrong but I dont think I am.

    [ Parent ]
    Hey Capt'n (none / 0) (#121)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:04:35 PM EST
    My question was really for "dissenter" since he was the one making the comment.  Thanks for responding, though.

    [ Parent ]
    Dissenter here (none / 0) (#123)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:08:56 PM EST
    First, Dissenter is a she. Secondly, Dissenter is on a very tight timeline to get in some work to USAID so Dissenter needs to stay focused on the project at hand. However, by doing a search through the threads I think my issue with Obama and his campaign can be gleaned quite easily.

    If not, check back late tonight and I will outline it for you.

    [ Parent ]

    Take Your Time (none / 0) (#128)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:20:32 PM EST
    I have till November to decide.  And sorry about the "he"

    [ Parent ]
    oops (none / 0) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:14:27 PM EST
    its hard to tell when we reach the right margin

    [ Parent ]
    Could you please stop (none / 0) (#61)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:19:11 PM EST
    throwing abortion around like it's a threat?  Because Obama has waffled on abortion more than many care to admit.  He says it is a "moral issue" and that he can understand how the anti-choice groups feel.  Just another of the hundreds of corer dem values he's waffled on, and I have no confidence that in his great quest to "unite" with the republicans, he wouldn't cave on some of the more draconian restrictions (partner consent, forcing the woman to have a "time out," forcing her to have an ultrasound, forcing her to have a three day waiting period).  The greatest challenges to Roe v. Wade have not come from the SCOTUS.  They have come from legislators and presidents who have sought to regulate it out of existence.

    "Moral issue" is code for these regulations.  I have a "moral issue" with any man saying he has a right to tell me what I can do with my body, and I won't be intimidated by scare tactics.

    [ Parent ]

    Bravo, Kathy! (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:21:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sigh (none / 0) (#71)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:27:49 PM EST
    I'm simply giving you the reality.  We're about one Justice away from having Roe overturned.  And don't think that repubs and all the "graduates" from Fallwell's "law school" aren't waiting in the wings to get this done.
    I recommend Toobin's "The Nine," if you think I'm just feeding you a line of bull.

    [ Parent ]
    Waffling (none / 0) (#74)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:29:19 PM EST
    Typically refers to changing your position, not your rhetorical stance.  Considering it was HRC's idea to bring in Dick Morris to triangulate, and the Clinton record of craven capitulation on everything that requires an ounce of political backbone, I don't think we'll see anyone from the Clinton campaign picking up on that line of attack any time soon.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:31:01 PM EST
    he understands how homophobes feel too.
    great to be united isnt it?


    [ Parent ]
    Except (none / 0) (#117)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:01:47 PM EST
    Many of those same white workers voted for Ronald Reagan.  

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton Derangement Syndrome (none / 0) (#33)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:53:08 PM EST
    is not as rampant among Republican Women voters. AND, more people are liking her than they did 6 months ago. So maybe it is just the MSN that is still carrying this Derangement Syndrome.

    [ Parent ]
    Gotta disagree (none / 0) (#39)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    First, I don't think we can rely on republican women voters to carry Hillary to victory.
    Second, I have liberal dem friends who suffer from the syndrome and I'm always having to pull them back from the brink.
    Third, the MSM produces the info that most voters hear about.  The MSM is important in every election.  Not everyone is informed enough to visit TL ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    It's not so much (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Lena on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:17:57 PM EST
    depending on Republican women to win it for Clinton as it would be "broadening the Democratic base" and "growing the party." Or does the Democratic party only grown when Obama gets Republicans to vote for him? :)

    Also, Clinton's poll numbers are where they are AFTER a full scale case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome in the media and amongst many (gulp) Democrats. In addition to the advantage of a rabid Clinton-hatin' press, Barack benefitted from more money, and outspent Hillary 2-1 in Ohio and 3-1 (allegedly) in Texas. Even with all of these advantages, he STILL couldn't beat her. And her poll numbers are still roughly equal to his.

    So if Obama needs a massive assist from the media, and to outspend his opponent by anywhere from 2-1 to 4-1... AND he still can't attract Latinos, Asians, the working class, or women... well, what's going to happen AFTER the media goes after him?

    His numbers have nowhere to go but down. Hers are already as low as they'll go.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't forget (none / 0) (#119)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:02:48 PM EST
    his negatives are about as high as hers.  She has peaked, while he can really only go up.

    [ Parent ]
    The problem is Obama's vow to unite with Repugs (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:52:09 PM EST
    The whole campaign is predicated on unity with the Republicans, which Divisive Monster HRC is preventing.

    I don't know whether this promise is more ridiculous or dangerous, or just the fusion that spells doom ahead.

    The Dems are ruined if Team O's "unifying" neverending flap about FL and MI hasn't made them that already.

    [ Parent ]

    For Years, All I Heard (none / 0) (#50)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:12:12 PM EST
    was how we democrats want to take our country back.  Now, it's alot of cumbaya from a big swath of the party.  What happened to putting up the good fight for out country?

    [ Parent ]
    Mail voting (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:52:09 AM EST
    is in many ways better than traditional balloting. You get paper, and it's handled by the USPS.

    Internet voting seems a bit riskier to me, but I'm guessing it could be done right.

    Mail in voting IS subject to an old election fraud (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jerry on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:05:43 PM EST
    Where your boss comes by and says, vote for Kodos or you're fired.  Or your insurance agent comes by and says, I'll pay you $20 if you vote for Kang.  And either one of them takes their proof by actually watching you vote.

    Many (Most) implementations of internet voting have the same flaws.

    It's a real issue.  I think that Oregon's vote by mail is considered controversial still by many voter reform groups and voting experts.

    I'm not pleased with a Florida vote by mail revote.  I'd much prefer a full blown primary.

    I am very much unhappy with any "candidate of change" that is against a redo vote for FL or MI.

    [ Parent ]

    Those same flaws (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by spit on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:21:38 PM EST
    are among my concern with caucuses, too, where maintaining a secret ballot isn't even an option.

    It's also a potential problem with absentee voting, which has become widespread. No system is going to get around every possible problem, though I think making every effort in that regard is important.

    IMO, we're in a position right now where we have to find a "least bad" solution that allows the party to include MI and FL under election rules that encourage good turnout and minimize the chances for the results to be gamed and in a way that the vast majority of voters will find basically fair and logical.

    At the end of this whole process, if I ruled the universe, I'd lock the leaders of the state parties and the DNC in a room and not let them out until they come up with an agreement for the future that addresses all of the myriad problems we've had in this cycle. This stuff has been ridiculously stupid. But IMO the question for right now is how to proceed for this election, in which the possibilities are far more limited.

    [ Parent ]

    Vastly superior to a caucus (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:22:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Totally agreed (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by spit on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:28:01 PM EST
    caucuses are IMO the stupidest process of the lot. And I've thought so long before this election.

    I can see some valid concerns with all mail-in voting (and internet voting, and a bunch of other methods being explored for the past few years -- rightly, IMO, but it's important to keep track of the potential issues involved), but I also think that the potential problems with them are probably far more minor, for the most part, than the problems with the generally-accepted process of running a caucus.

    [ Parent ]

    The Oregon Plan ... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:44:40 PM EST
    deals with fraud and secrecy very well.

    FL will be following that plan.

    This is a non-issue.

    [ Parent ]

    The same could be said of absentee (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Practically Lactating on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:29:32 PM EST
    systems as well, which I believe FL has.

    [ Parent ]
    you could pay people to vote (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Joike on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:55:34 PM EST
    one way or another in a voting booth as well.

    There is no evidence to suggest that voter fraud is in any way widespread in this country.

    Bush's lapdogs at the DoJ have been hounding voters for 7 years trying to establish a pattern of voter fraud.

    Despite their best, sleazy efforts, they've proven the opposite.  It's voter suppression not voter fraud that's the big problem.

    I'd take a signed, mailed paper ballot over an electronic ballot with no paper receipt any day.

    [ Parent ]

    You can pay people to pay, but you can't tell how (none / 0) (#109)
    by jerry on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:52:30 PM EST
    they voted.

    That's one reason that paper trails for electronic ballots are problematical too.  The systems I prefer tend to have a way to confirm your vote in the voting booth, a way to audit all of the votes, and nothing for anyone to take home.

    Some systems simply print out an human readable optical scannable ballot that the voter can place in a box.

    Some systems print out behind a glass window a paper receipt that if you verify, drops into a sealed box.

    I prefer the former.

    [ Parent ]

    Weigh those concerns against (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:08:59 PM EST
    incompetent poll workers and long lines.

    The instructions on my last absentee ballot said

    You shall mark your ballot in SECRET (unless you are entitled to  and are reciving assistance).

    and

    Completed ballots must be returned by mail or and delievered by the voter ONLY.


    [ Parent ]
    And weigh those concerns (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:20:57 PM EST
    against doing nothing and risking handing FL & MI to McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    No worse than caucuses (none / 0) (#9)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:11:47 PM EST
    Nothing is going to be perfect.  If the options are an imperfect primary or alienating the voters of MI and FL, I'll take the former.

    [ Parent ]
    You can't mail your vote privately, or from home? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:58:44 PM EST
    Or does your boss live with you? You can also E-vote somewhere besides the workplace and receive a paper trail not accessible to those who'd try to extort  your vote.

    I'd regard a paper ballot mail-in, which is often my way of voting due to working out of a suitcase much of the time, as safe as voting in person. (And I still want machines to give a paper trail for recounts, though.)

    I genuinely don't understand the problem here; not being sarcastic.

    [ Parent ]

    I believe the worry is that your boss (none / 0) (#112)
    by jerry on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:56:21 PM EST
    could demand you bring your ballot in, he fills it out, you sign it, he drops it into the mail.

    For boss, read boss, union leader, gang leader, someone that wants to pay for your vote.

    Is this any different from absentee systems, no, they are identical.  I think we "permit" absentee systems because absentee votes are considered a small percentage of the actual vote, and are often, not even counted unless the race is close, and so the fraud is considered ignorable.

    [ Parent ]

    Fairness benefits outweight fraud likelihood tho (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:06:36 PM EST
    I'd rather see votes abd voters count rather than disenfranchise millions on the overblown 'what-if' fraud scenarios not borne out in reality.

    As someone pointed out, voter suppression or extortion is different than election fraud. Caucuses strike me as closer to extortion than the mean Dem boss scenario, which likelihood is minimal.

    As someone else pointed out, I vote regardless of the slim potential my piece of paper will fall through the cracks. I'd be hugely pissed if someone said that millions of votes from my state didn't count because one of the candidates wouldn't get off a hissy fit rather than abide by the results.

    Double that if this stance came from the UNITY CANDIDATE.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#126)
    by jerry on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:17:08 PM EST
    I am just pointing out the classic and real reasons for in general not preferring mail in voting systems.  Why, for instance, many reasonable people do not think that the Oregon vote by mail is a good thing.

    I would not agree with anyone that says that there should be no Florida mail in revote, I am just saying those people could be very sincere in their concerns.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh believe me, I know Floridians are passionate (none / 0) (#129)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:23:46 PM EST
    ... about their votes. I thought I was a poli-geek just for following the exploits of the Bush / Cheney trainwreck but Floridians out-geek me by becoming ELECTION geeks after 2000.

    Dems, take note:

    You. Do not. Piss off. Florida. Again.

    [ Parent ]

    But If Only The Mail's Vote (none / 0) (#85)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:34:45 PM EST
    Then what about the femail's, who are Hillary's strongest supporters.

    Oh.... Neve mind :)

    [ Parent ]

    Where's Sen. Levin on all of this? (none / 0) (#3)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:52:23 AM EST
    Or the MI Gov. (sorry, forgot her name) for that matter?  

    Also, can anyone from MI report on how this is playing out there?  Are they (local news I guess) discussing this?  Is this water-cooler talk?  Any reaction to the 50/50 plan?  

    Keep it up BTD--you're doing yeoman's work on this issue!

    Agree (