MS: McDaniel goes to court over the MS-Sen runoff results

[Statistikhengst]

Contested Mississippi U.S. Senate election heads to court | Reuters

The Tea Party-backed U.S. Senate candidate defeated in the June Mississippi Republican primary filed a legal challenge contesting his loss on Thursday, days after his own party declined to look into his allegations of electoral misdeeds.

State Senator Chris McDaniel's judicial petition to take up his complaint marks a new stage in a contest against incumbent Thad Cochran - once viewed nationally as a key test of Tea Party clout in challenging the Republican establishment.

"This challenge is not about the candidates,” McDaniel said in a written statement. “It is about the integrity of Mississippi's election process.”

Since McDaniel's loss to the six-term incumbent by roughly 7,700 votes in a June 24 runoff, his camp has insisted that he was done in largely by a cynical campaign to turn out black Democrats to vote against him.

 

[BreezeWood]

He is also asking for an injunction against printing general election ballots bearing Cochran's name until the dispute is resolved.

vague would best characterize their law suit - not to mention untimely.

its been over for McDaniel since his own party ridiculed his complaint ... nothing from the court was mentioned in the article.

- hasn't the printing already begun ???

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Didn't I read somewhere that one of McDaniel's lawyers showed up on their make believe list of "questionable" voters?

 

[Shanty]

Didn't I read somewhere that one of McDaniel's lawyers showed up on their make believe list of "questionable" voters?

Among the questionable votes presented by Chris McDaniel?s lawyer? His own. - The Washington Post

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Didn't I read somewhere that one of McDaniel's lawyers showed up on their make believe list of "questionable" voters?

Among the questionable votes presented by Chris McDaniel?s lawyer? His own. - The Washington Post

Yep, that's the story I read. Thank you!

 

[Shanty]

Didn't I read somewhere that one of McDaniel's lawyers showed up on their make believe list of "questionable" voters?

Among the questionable votes presented by Chris McDaniel?s lawyer? His own. - The Washington Post

Yep, that's the story I read. Thank you!

I really like TeaBaggeds candidates like McDaniels. They make the crazy seem funny.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Didn't I read somewhere that one of McDaniel's lawyers showed up on their make believe list of "questionable" voters?

Yes, his main lawyer's vote was thrown into question, with the reasoning that somehow, a poll worker "tainted" the vote, which was counted for McDaniel.

No shit. You just cannot make this shit up.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Even with this happening, Cochran (R) is still very likely to win re-election in November, for two main reasons:

1.) The power of the incumbency
2.) Mid-terms are "base" elections, and DEMS tend to not turn out their base as well as Republicans in mid-terms.

That being said, presenting Southerners in a deep, deep southern state like Mississippi with a very Conservative Democrat like Childers could break the ice for Democratic gains in the South in the future. The principle of electoral shift, combined with massive migration from the snowbird states to the sunbird states, tells me that this is possible. Conversely, it opens up possibilities for the GOP in states that have been securely Democratic, at least at the national level, for the last 22 to 26 years, states like Minnesota, Wisconsin Iowa, Michigan - states that are losing on population and the population that remains is more white, older and more conservative in nature.

Childers could turn this into a middle single digit race, but a win is a win and a loss is a loss. Either way, Childers is likely to lose in November, barring any unforseen weirdness.

We could have a long, productive conversation on the principle of "electoral shift".

As a start, a perusal of this thread from my blog would be helpful, very helpful:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: ELECTORAL COLUMNS - a map display

 

[eagle1462010]

The Bottom line............The Dem voters changed the outcome.

The Bottom line...........Primary voter rules need to be changed to register a party for the State and after looking into Alabama it needs changing here also...................

In Alabama, if you vote in a Republican primary you may not cast a vote for a Dem primary runoff...........but if you are a Dem you can vote in a Republican runoff..........as Alabama allows the parties to decide. Standard rules for both parties should apply and the same should the case in Mississippi..........

If thousands voted in Mississippi for the Dem primary.....they were not supposed to be able to vote in the runoff..........If they did then they violated election law.

Either way, the laws should be standardized to ensure fairness which was not the case in Miss.......last election. The Dems changed the outcome with spoiler votes plain and simple.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The Bottom line............The Dem voters changed the outcome.

The Bottom line...........Primary voter rules need to be changed to register a party for the State and after looking into Alabama it needs changing here also...................

In Alabama, if you vote in a Republican primary you may not cast a vote for a Dem primary runoff...........but if you are a Dem you can vote in a Republican runoff..........as Alabama allows the parties to decide. Standard rules for both parties should apply and the same should the case in Mississippi..........

If thousands voted in Mississippi for the Dem primary.....they were not supposed to be able to vote in the runoff..........If they did then they violated election law.

Either way, the laws should be standardized to ensure fairness which was not the case in Miss.......last election. The Dems changed the outcome with spoiler votes plain and simple.

Bottom line..... you are wrong on both counts.

First, because of Federalism, the state of Mississippi has decided to not do VR by party affiliation and therefore, it is impossible to demand that voters suddenly declare a party when the state itself keeps and publicizes no record of it. By saying standard rules, you are probably meaning national standards, and in that point, I agree with you. For this very reason, I made this enormous thread about ELECTIONEERING (spread over the first 5 postings), and the point you are talking about, I mentioned in posting no. 5:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/333884-electioneering.html


Take a look. Of course, your view is considered a progressive view, which I, I say again, support, but most die-hard Conservatives consider this to be heresy.

As for claiming that DEM voters changed the outcome, there is absolutely no way for you to back up that claim, for the specific reason, once again, that Mississippi does not, I repeat, does not do Voter Registration by party affiliation and for this reason, is pretty much forced to have the rules it wants.

It is far more fair to say that the two candidates were pretty even with each other and Cochran took advantage of a mechanism in the states election rules, one that is totally legal.

If McDaniels and his team had actually reached out to Black voters, they may have just voted for him. Point to think about.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Bottom line............The Dem voters changed the outcome.

The Bottom line...........Primary voter rules need to be changed to register a party for the State and after looking into Alabama it needs changing here also...................

In Alabama, if you vote in a Republican primary you may not cast a vote for a Dem primary runoff...........but if you are a Dem you can vote in a Republican runoff..........as Alabama allows the parties to decide. Standard rules for both parties should apply and the same should the case in Mississippi..........

If thousands voted in Mississippi for the Dem primary.....they were not supposed to be able to vote in the runoff..........If they did then they violated election law.

Either way, the laws should be standardized to ensure fairness which was not the case in Miss.......last election. The Dems changed the outcome with spoiler votes plain and simple.

Bottom line..... you are wrong on both counts.

First, because of Federalism, the state of Mississippi has decided to not do VR by party affiliation and therefore, it is impossible to demand that voters suddenly declare a party when the state itself keeps and publicizes no record of it. By saying standard rules, you are probably meaning national standards, and in that point, I agree with you. For this very reason, I made this enormous thread about ELECTIONEERING (spread over the first 5 postings), and the point you are talking about, I mentioned in posting no. 5:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/333884-electioneering.html


Take a look. Of course, your view is considered a progressive view, which I, I say again, support, but most die-hard Conservatives consider this to be heresy.

As for claiming that DEM voters changed the outcome, there is absolutely no way for you to back up that claim, for the specific reason, once again, that Mississippi does not, I repeat, does not do Voter Registration by party affiliation and for this reason, is pretty much forced to have the rules it wants.

It is far more fair to say that the two candidates were pretty even with each other and Cochran took advantage of a mechanism in the states election rules, one that is totally legal.

If McDaniels and his team had actually reached out to Black voters, they may have just voted for him. Point to think about.

Yawn. My statement was that the law needs to change to declare parties for primary elections to prevent what just happened..............Putting you on a party role to vote to prevent opposing parties from doing what just happened in Mississippi. You may switch parties up to 30 days before the elections...........

This isn't wrong........It's to prevent the spoiler votes. Alabama needs to change as well as the Dems can vote in a GOP runoff, while the GOP can't do it in a Dem runoff.........

I show an I.D. to vote, and I'm on a voter registration sheet. They check off my name on the voter roles in a few seconds before voting. I have no problem with that, and I have no problem changing the laws to ensure a FAIR ELECTION.

Had this been the GOP voting in a Dem Runoff you may very well be singing a different tune Stat.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The Bottom line............The Dem voters changed the outcome.

The Bottom line...........Primary voter rules need to be changed to register a party for the State and after looking into Alabama it needs changing here also...................

In Alabama, if you vote in a Republican primary you may not cast a vote for a Dem primary runoff...........but if you are a Dem you can vote in a Republican runoff..........as Alabama allows the parties to decide. Standard rules for both parties should apply and the same should the case in Mississippi..........

If thousands voted in Mississippi for the Dem primary.....they were not supposed to be able to vote in the runoff..........If they did then they violated election law.

Either way, the laws should be standardized to ensure fairness which was not the case in Miss.......last election. The Dems changed the outcome with spoiler votes plain and simple.

Bottom line..... you are wrong on both counts.

First, because of Federalism, the state of Mississippi has decided to not do VR by party affiliation and therefore, it is impossible to demand that voters suddenly declare a party when the state itself keeps and publicizes no record of it. By saying standard rules, you are probably meaning national standards, and in that point, I agree with you. For this very reason, I made this enormous thread about ELECTIONEERING (spread over the first 5 postings), and the point you are talking about, I mentioned in posting no. 5:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/333884-electioneering.html


Take a look. Of course, your view is considered a progressive view, which I, I say again, support, but most die-hard Conservatives consider this to be heresy.

As for claiming that DEM voters changed the outcome, there is absolutely no way for you to back up that claim, for the specific reason, once again, that Mississippi does not, I repeat, does not do Voter Registration by party affiliation and for this reason, is pretty much forced to have the rules it wants.

It is far more fair to say that the two candidates were pretty even with each other and Cochran took advantage of a mechanism in the states election rules, one that is totally legal.

If McDaniels and his team had actually reached out to Black voters, they may have just voted for him. Point to think about.

Yawn. My statement was that the law needs to change to declare parties for primary elections to prevent what just happened..............Putting you on a party role to vote to prevent opposing parties from doing what just happened in Mississippi. You may switch parties up to 30 days before the elections...........

This isn't wrong........It's to prevent the spoiler votes. Alabama needs to change as well as the Dems can vote in a GOP runoff, while the GOP can't do it in a Dem runoff.........

I show an I.D. to vote, and I'm on a voter registration sheet. They check off my name on the voter roles in a few seconds before voting. I have no problem with that, and I have no problem changing the laws to ensure a FAIR ELECTION.

Had this been the GOP voting in a Dem Runoff you may very well be singing a different tune Stat.

The GOP has voted in DEM primaries in the past. See: Pennsylvania, 2008, Rush Limbaugh's OPERATION CHAOS.

Then, if you live in Mississippi, let the state know that you think the law should change. It's that easy.

 

[eagle1462010]

Bottom line..... you are wrong on both counts.

First, because of Federalism, the state of Mississippi has decided to not do VR by party affiliation and therefore, it is impossible to demand that voters suddenly declare a party when the state itself keeps and publicizes no record of it. By saying standard rules, you are probably meaning national standards, and in that point, I agree with you. For this very reason, I made this enormous thread about ELECTIONEERING (spread over the first 5 postings), and the point you are talking about, I mentioned in posting no. 5:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/333884-electioneering.html


Take a look. Of course, your view is considered a progressive view, which I, I say again, support, but most die-hard Conservatives consider this to be heresy.

As for claiming that DEM voters changed the outcome, there is absolutely no way for you to back up that claim, for the specific reason, once again, that Mississippi does not, I repeat, does not do Voter Registration by party affiliation and for this reason, is pretty much forced to have the rules it wants.

It is far more fair to say that the two candidates were pretty even with each other and Cochran took advantage of a mechanism in the states election rules, one that is totally legal.

If McDaniels and his team had actually reached out to Black voters, they may have just voted for him. Point to think about.

Yawn. My statement was that the law needs to change to declare parties for primary elections to prevent what just happened..............Putting you on a party role to vote to prevent opposing parties from doing what just happened in Mississippi. You may switch parties up to 30 days before the elections...........

This isn't wrong........It's to prevent the spoiler votes. Alabama needs to change as well as the Dems can vote in a GOP runoff, while the GOP can't do it in a Dem runoff.........

I show an I.D. to vote, and I'm on a voter registration sheet. They check off my name on the voter roles in a few seconds before voting. I have no problem with that, and I have no problem changing the laws to ensure a FAIR ELECTION.

Had this been the GOP voting in a Dem Runoff you may very well be singing a different tune Stat.

The GOP has voted in DEM primaries in the past. See: Pennsylvania, 2008, Rush Limbaugh's OPERATION CHAOS.

Then, if you live in Mississippi, let the state know that you think the law should change. It's that easy.

I work in Mississippi but my home is in Alabama..............This court case will speed up the process to change the Mississippi laws on primary voting. It has also raised my understanding that Alabama needs to change them as well.

Bottom line.........If Dem voted in the Dem primary and then voted in the GOP runoff they are in violation of the law in Miss............The problem is how to verify this, which is highly unlikely...............Which means the lawsuit will fail but may be the beginning of a change to the laws on primary elections.

I support that for the future change, but don't believe it will amount to a hill of beans in this current election. That's the deal for me.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yawn. My statement was that the law needs to change to declare parties for primary elections to prevent what just happened..............Putting you on a party role to vote to prevent opposing parties from doing what just happened in Mississippi. You may switch parties up to 30 days before the elections...........

This isn't wrong........It's to prevent the spoiler votes. Alabama needs to change as well as the Dems can vote in a GOP runoff, while the GOP can't do it in a Dem runoff.........

I show an I.D. to vote, and I'm on a voter registration sheet. They check off my name on the voter roles in a few seconds before voting. I have no problem with that, and I have no problem changing the laws to ensure a FAIR ELECTION.

Had this been the GOP voting in a Dem Runoff you may very well be singing a different tune Stat.

The GOP has voted in DEM primaries in the past. See: Pennsylvania, 2008, Rush Limbaugh's OPERATION CHAOS.

Then, if you live in Mississippi, let the state know that you think the law should change. It's that easy.

I work in Mississippi but my home is in Alabama..............This court case will speed up the process to change the Mississippi laws on primary voting. It has also raised my understanding that Alabama needs to change them as well.

Bottom line.........If Dem voted in the Dem primary and then voted in the GOP runoff they are in violation of the law in Miss............The problem is how to verify this, which is highly unlikely...............Which means the lawsuit will fail but may be the beginning of a change to the laws on primary elections.

I support that for the future change, but don't believe it will amount to a hill of beans in this current election. That's the deal for me.

I agree with you on this point. The key word being "if".

 

[eagle1462010]

The GOP has voted in DEM primaries in the past. See: Pennsylvania, 2008, Rush Limbaugh's OPERATION CHAOS.

Then, if you live in Mississippi, let the state know that you think the law should change. It's that easy.

I work in Mississippi but my home is in Alabama..............This court case will speed up the process to change the Mississippi laws on primary voting. It has also raised my understanding that Alabama needs to change them as well.

Bottom line.........If Dem voted in the Dem primary and then voted in the GOP runoff they are in violation of the law in Miss............The problem is how to verify this, which is highly unlikely...............Which means the lawsuit will fail but may be the beginning of a change to the laws on primary elections.

I support that for the future change, but don't believe it will amount to a hill of beans in this current election. That's the deal for me.

I agree with you on this point. The key word being "if".

The if will be very doubtful to prove either way. I have no doubt that the if happened, but the burden of proof is basically impossible.....................I get a Miss paper every day going to work. The sound offs and columns confirmed the if as the posts themselves stated that they voted in the Dem primary, had no intention of voting GOP, and then voted in the GOP runoff.

I read a few of these in the sound off. They were admitting they violated the election law in the paper.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I work in Mississippi but my home is in Alabama..............This court case will speed up the process to change the Mississippi laws on primary voting. It has also raised my understanding that Alabama needs to change them as well.

Bottom line.........If Dem voted in the Dem primary and then voted in the GOP runoff they are in violation of the law in Miss............The problem is how to verify this, which is highly unlikely...............Which means the lawsuit will fail but may be the beginning of a change to the laws on primary elections.

I support that for the future change, but don't believe it will amount to a hill of beans in this current election. That's the deal for me.

I agree with you on this point. The key word being "if".

The if will be very doubtful to prove either way. I have no doubt that the if happened, but the burden of proof is basically impossible.....................I get a Miss paper every day going to work. The sound offs and columns confirmed the if as the posts themselves stated that they voted in the Dem primary, had no intention of voting GOP, and then voted in the GOP runoff.

I read a few of these in the sound off. They were admitting they violated the election law in the paper.

We have a member right here, Bendog, who already reported that his vote and his wife's vote were both challenged as "illegal" and both of them signed affadavits confirming that they voted for Cochran in both primary elections.

So, the question is, how many other votes did the McDaniel team fuck up?

LOL....

 

[eagle1462010]

I agree with you on this point. The key word being "if".

The if will be very doubtful to prove either way. I have no doubt that the if happened, but the burden of proof is basically impossible.....................I get a Miss paper every day going to work. The sound offs and columns confirmed the if as the posts themselves stated that they voted in the Dem primary, had no intention of voting GOP, and then voted in the GOP runoff.

I read a few of these in the sound off. They were admitting they violated the election law in the paper.

We have a member right here, Bendog, who already reported that his vote and his wife's vote were both challenged as "illegal" and both of them signed affadavits confirming that they voted for Cochran in both primary elections.

So, the question is, how many other votes did the McDaniel team fuck up?

LOL....

Don't know and don't really care. My position is the hope that the primary voting laws are changed as a result of the case.

 

[BreezeWood]

Miss. candidate tries to revive primary loss suit - Yahoo News

Attorneys for state Sen. Chris McDaniel filed a notice of appeal Friday, saying they intend to ask the Mississippi Supreme Court to overturn a judge's dismissal of the lawsuit.

.

if not the first time try, try again ...

is it to late to run as a write-in candidate - that would be an appropriate pay back to the Rs in Mississippi, for some such as Chris McDaniel.

hope he thinks about it.

.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Don't know and don't really care. My position is the hope that the primary voting laws are changed as a result of the case.

@eagle1462010 sorry for the late response. Actually, I agree with you strongly about that. I believe that primary/caucus and GE rules for all 50 states, DC and the territories should be uniform. There is no earthly reason for Federalism to have the upper hand in this matter.

.

if not the first time try, try again ...

is it to late to run as a write-in candidate - that would be an appropriate pay back to the Rs in Mississippi, for some such as Chris McDaniel.

hope he thinks about it.

.

It appears that McDaniel lost his lawsuit. Now it remains to be seen how that will impact voting on election day in November.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

if not the first time try, try again ...

is it to late to run as a write-in candidate - that would be an appropriate pay back to the Rs in Mississippi, for some such as Chris McDaniel.

hope he thinks about it.

.

It appears that McDaniel lost his lawsuit. Now it remains to be seen how that will impact voting on election day in November.

.

Miss. candidate tries to revive primary loss suit - Yahoo News

McDaniel has taken his case to the Miss. SC ...

hopefully he will consider running as a write-in candidate ( if he fails again ) not that the democrat is much different a choice, it would just add a little intrigue to a boring outcome.

.