Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Five Reasons Not to Get Cocky
Around the dexterosphere, the question about the coming election seems to be whether it will be more like 1994 or 1894. Amidst the confident babble, Instapundit has made a trademark out of the whisper, Dont get cocky, kid. Its not just that cockiness enrages the gods and lacks social grace. This year, in particular, there are solid reasons to doubt that November 2nd will be nearly as happy a day as we hope:
1. Its not enough to win; you have to win by more than the margin of fraud. That concern ought to be obvious in states like Illinois and Nevada, where a Republican has to run about five percentage points ahead to be sure that hell be declared the winner, but it also exists in places like Washington State. There almost all voting is by mail, which means that ballot secrecy is optional and verification of voters identity hit-and-miss.
As John Fund has documented in Stealing Elections, electoral crime has never been easier. Which party benefits? Look at which one denies that theres a problem and relentlessly opposes even such minimal security measures as the presentation of identification at the polls.
2. An unenthusiastic vote counts just as much as an enthusiastic one. The enthusiasm gap matters only if the unenthusiastic Democrats dont cast ballots. They may not, but shepherding them to the polls (or fraudulently subbing for them) is going to be a high and well-financed Democratic priority. Its true that the GOTV machine didnt work for Republicans in 2006 or 2008, but thats because a high Republican voter turnout depends crucially on informal networks. When a large proportion of GOP activists stopped urging their friends and neighbors to vote, the machine faltered. The Democratic Party relies far more on paid efforts, which can go forward even if morale is low.
3. Money still talks, and Dem money talks louder and smarter. Democratic Funding Fades was an encouraging Wall Street Journal headline and, alas, a misleading one. In the last paragraph, we learn, The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics said the Democratic Party and candidates had raised a total of $1.25 billion so far for the election. The comparable GOP figure is $1.1 billion. The Democrats are moaning that their funding margin isnt as vast as in the last two elections, but a $150 million advantage aint peanuts.
Whats more, the Democrats money is likely to be more astutely deployed. Most of it comes from labor unions or rich socialists, or is funneled through umbrella organizations. It can be easily directed to the races where it is most needed. The more chaotic, small-donor-based Republican fund raising is inherently inefficient. Money tends to flow to candidates who catch the rank-and-files fancy. To take a couple of examples, Christine ODonnell, whose chances of winning are near to nil, and Michele Bachman, a Minnesota congressman whose chances of losing arent much greater, have raised vast sums that could have been better used to, say, bolster Dino Rossis close race in Washington State or turn the Oregon Senate race into a contest. So far as I can tell, there are many underfunded Republican candidates in winnable districts this year, while no Democrat who has a chance is going to lose because of lack of cash.
4. If lying didnt work, nobody would do it. Dishonest Democratic ads have proliferated as the election draws near. The claim that Republican campaigns are being financed from abroad is only the most prominent. On the Right, we tend to see this trend as a sign of desperation, and our hopes rise correspondingly. Bear in mind, though, that most citizens have better things to do than follow politics closely and that ignorance makes them risk-averse. One reason why incumbents usually win is that the fact of incumbency lends them a patina of safety. At least, nothing disastrous has happened on their watch. If there is even a small chance that a challenger will be dramatically worse, e. g., is financially beholden to shadowy foreign benefactors, caution dictates voting against him.
5. The pollsters are skating on stilts. The key to accurate polling is gauging who will and wont vote. Mid-term elections are notoriously harder to poll than Presidential years, and mistakes in turnout models are more likely this year than in most, because the electorate in 2008 was so atypical. Poll takers seem to be assuming that turnout among the last elections first-time Obama voters will fall off sharply. That sounds plausible, but it may be that the decline will be almost entirely among those who are now disillusioned and might be inclined to vote Republican in remorse. Those who approve of the Ones performance, for whatever irrational reasons, could be more strongly motivated than the typical voter, old or new. In any event, if the polls are going to be badly wrong, this is the year for them to fail...
1.) Because Republicans never ever commit fraud.
2.)
3.) Republicans only have themselves to blame for their monetary "problems".
4.) Because Republicans never lie or make false statements about their opponents.
5.) People shouldn't trust poll numbers in the first place.
1.) Because Republicans never ever commit fraud.
2.)
3.) Republicans only have themselves to blame for their monetary "problems".
4.) Because Republicans never lie or make false statements about their opponents.
5.) People shouldn't trust poll numbers in the first place.
3/5 of your reply was nothin but "Yeah, but what about the Wepubwicans?"
I could almost hear the whine from here...
was so effective, don't you think?
3/5 of your reply was nothin but "Yeah, but what about the Wepubwicans?"
I could almost hear the whine from here...
But the
1.) Because Republicans never ever commit fraud.
2.)
3.) Republicans only have themselves to blame for their monetary "problems".
4.) Because Republicans never lie or make false statements about their opponents.
5.) People shouldn't trust poll numbers in the first place.
3/5 of your reply was nothin but "Yeah, but what about the Wepubwicans?"
I could almost hear the whine from here...
3/5 of your reply was nothin but "Yeah, but what about the Wepubwicans?"
I could almost hear the whine from here...
But the
Because the author of the article acted like the Republicans never do these things. Partisan hackery is partisan hackery no matter how much you want to play it.
As for you Annie, how's the kool-aid?
The author of the article was addressing a segment of the populace. I was speaking to those on the board to whom the information might pertain. You on the other hand wish to use it to condemn other parties? Go right ahead.
The author of the article was addressing a segment of the populace. I was speaking to those on the board to whom the information might pertain. You on the other hand wish to use it to condemn other parties? Go right ahead.
You mean you were speaking to the people on the board whose view this reinforces (including your own), got it.
I was merely pointing out that neither party is innocent. I thought you were actually wanting to see the problems of this country solved with the elections this November, my apologies for assuming such a thing.
Enjoy the kool-aid.
No, the author didn't intimate anything about those mean 'ol republicans...3/5 of your reply was nothin but "Yeah, but what about the Wepubwicans?"
I could almost hear the whine from here...
But the
Because the author of the article acted like the Republicans never do these things.
Awesome advice... You should follow it sometime...Partisan hackery is partisan hackery no matter how much you want to play it.
Annie is one of the most respected posters here, Doggie... Left or right...As for you Annie, how's the kool-aid?
3/5 of your reply was nothin but "Yeah, but what about the Wepubwicans?"
I could almost hear the whine from here...
But the
Because the author of the article acted like the Republicans never do these things. Partisan hackery is partisan hackery no matter how much you want to play it.
As for you Annie, how's the kool-aid?
October 18, 2010
Lawsuit: CPS pushing Democrats
By Kimball Perry
[email protected]
Three van loads of Hughes High students were taken last week during school hours to vote and given sample ballots only for Democratic candidates and then taken for ice cream, a Monday lawsuit alleges.
The complaint was made by Thomas Brinkman Jr., a Republican candidate for Hamilton County auditor, and the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending & Taxes against Cincinnati Public Schools.
They plan to bring four more high schools (to vote) this week, Christopher Finney, COAST attorney, said Monday after filing the suit...
The author of the article was addressing a segment of the populace. I was speaking to those on the board to whom the information might pertain. You on the other hand wish to use it to condemn other parties? Go right ahead.
You mean you were speaking to the people on the board whose view this reinforces (including your own), got it.
I was merely pointing out that neither party is innocent. I thought you were actually wanting to see the problems of this country solved with the elections this November, my apologies for assuming such a thing.
Enjoy the kool-aid.
1.) Because Republicans never ever commit fraud.
2.)
3.) Republicans only have themselves to blame for their monetary "problems".
4.) Because Republicans never lie or make false statements about their opponents.
5.) People shouldn't trust poll numbers in the first place.
I am going to do what I can to make sure that the people I influence get out and vote. If you people do the same - we'll have a very good result. It is time to bounce 55-60 of these idiots out!
Judge won't reinstate 6,000 purged voters
By Felisa Cardona
The Denver Post
Posted: 10/20/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT
Updated: 10/20/2010 09:40:52 AM MDT
A federal judge declined to force the secretary of state to reactivate approximately 6,000 new voters whose registrations were canceled under Colorado's 20-day rule.
In a decision issued Monday, Senior U.S. District Judge John L. Kane denied a motion for a preliminary injunction that was requested by several labor and voting-rights groups.
When a new voter registers in Colorado, the secretary of state mails a nonforwardable notice of disposition that the voter's registration has been received. If the notice comes back undeliverable in the mail, then clerks deem the voter's registration inactive within 20 days.
Melody Mirbaba, an assistant attorney general, argued that the 20-day rule is designed to stop voter fraud and duplicate registrations.
James Finberg, an attorney representing voting and labor groups, said voters are harmed because sometimes the voter cards are returned through no fault of their own.
He said some voters have filled out their address incorrectly on forms; clerks sometimes make errors when inputting the new data; and postal workers also make mistakes in delivering the voter cards.
But Mirbaba argued that inactive voters can still show up at the polls and vote on a provisional ballot until their addresses can be verified.
"I am unable, based on the arguments made and the record before me, to conclude that Plaintiffs have made a strong, or even colorable, showing that the balance of harm weighs in favor of the interim relief requested," Kane wrote in his decision.
The motion for the preliminary injunction is one of several federal challenges regarding purged voters filed against the secretary of state by Common Cause of Colorado, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund and the Service Employees International Union.
The 20-day rule is the only claim left in dispute.
Read more: Judge won't reinstate 6,000 purged voters - The Denver Post Judge won't reinstate 6,000 purged voters - The Denver Post
