So, this is the first time ever that I am aware of that a primary in Virginia has been important in tilting a presidential nominating race, now all the more significant since VA appears to be competitive in the national election, despite an edge John McCain may have with all the military personnel and veterans in the state (and, yes, most of those protesting Evangelical pro-Huckabee supporters will probably "go home" to him against that obvious "Muslim," Barack Hussein Obama). I had made forecasts in a local blog about the outcome, but way underpredicted the scale of Obama's win (as did everybody else).
I note that some of the media has been misreporting things. I heard somebody this morning on ABC claim that Obama won "all regions" of VA. Not so. Except for saying Northern VA would be close (it was a blowout for Obama) I came near to perfectly forecasting the regional outcomes in the state. I said the Blue Ridge Mountains would be the line, with Hillary winning most locales west of them, with the city of Harrisonburg (where I live) a possible exception (it went for Obama with 69%), and east of the mountains going for Obama, with the exception maybe of a few counties just east of the mountains in the Southwest. This is how it played out. Among the counties east of the Blue Ridge in the Southwest going for Hillary was Franklin County, long famous as the Moonshine Capital of America (yes, she got the Dukes of Hazzard vote, especially Daisy's mom and aunt). One of the few mistakes I made was that the county containing Harrisonburg (here in VA, alone among states, counties do not embed cities), Rockingham, also went for Obama, although only by 57%. I blame this on the influence of Harrisonburg on the county. The only identifiable demographic group going for Hillary statewide were white women, by 55% (which group included my wife, who says "we need a woman as president to keep those macho bastards in line"). I close by noting that both Rockingham and Harrisonburg and the areas that went for Hillary, mostly also went for Huckabee on the Republican side.
23 comments:
I would also credit Obama's victories in the Shenandoah Valley to a high turnout of newly energized "Swing voters," which bodes well for him in November.
I think there was a feeling among Valley voters that McCain and Clinton didn't care about the region, and didn't try. Huck visited, and (even though Obama never crossed the mountains) Obama's supporters were out in full force at least a week prior.
I guess I have some mildly alternative interpretatons from finnegan. I would agree with him that the Obama supporters were well organized specifically around Harrisonburg and Rockingham County. But this may have a lot to do with Harrisonburg being a college town, with James Madison University in it. After all, Obama's victories did not carry over to the rest of the Shenandoah Valley much (one or two other counties, mostly to the north, closer to Washington). Hillary easily swept the southwest and actually made a campaign stop in Roanoke, the biggest city west of the Blue Ridge.
I do agree with finnegan that a lot of swing voters in the Valley were attracted to Obama. I think this is part of why Huckabee won around here. After all, though outsiders probably think of the rural areas west of the Blue Ridge as dominated by extreme right wing religious fanatics, this part of Virginia was Republican leaning in the Civil War and has a tradition of moderate "mountain valley" Republicanism that has not entirely faded away. The real nut cases are east of the mountains, in Lynchburg and Virginia Beach and Northern Virginia, where the mail order right wingers hang out. One would have expected McCain to do better out here. But I think a lot of his potential supporters jumped to Obama instead.
Of course, further southwest is much more Democratic than Republican, and has a Dem congressman in Rick Boucher. But it is coal mining country, more like West Virginia, and everybody knew all along that it would be Hillary territory, despite Boucher endorsing Obama.
I agree with finnegan that Obama's chances of winning Virginia this fall against McCain are substantial, despite McCain having some advantages. The fall election may well come down to VA, although if VA goes for Obama, it may be part of a larger sweep.
Barkley
I'm wondering if all of these women voting for Hillary will jump on the handguns, mace, terror and fear bandwagon in the general election.
Are white women ready to give up their socially installed fear of black men?
Obama is certainly on a role. I would have thought Virginia would have gone for Clinton - but it seems not. Even her supporters seem to think she must win both Ohio and Texas if she is to have any chance.
What does Obama stand for?
Regarding: "we need a woman as president to keep those macho bastards in line"
I'd just as happily settle for a man who will keep macho bastards in line. But 'macho' is not the actual problem in the US. Rather, it is the existence of two neoliberal/imperialist political parties in cahoots with each other. And no apparent way for the population to vote either out of power.
Speaking of women keeping their man in line, where was Hillary Clinton when her husband oversaw the following:
- the nomination of a Monsanto lobbyist to be an American consumer rep on an intercontinental committee on GE foods?
- the long housing boom fed by inappropriate monetary and fiscal policies?
- when the secret money-machine of derivatives took off?
- The passing of the North American Free Trade Agreement. With subsequent impoverishment of Mexicans and Canadians and extrordinary levels of large scale environmental abuse?
- The maintenance of the strong US dollar policy. Keeping the currency far and above what fundamental economics would warrant?
- The disaster of stock options?
- A financial economy 20-50 times larger than the real economy?
- the ongoing failure to take action against widespread financial fraud?
- the draconian new US copywright regime?
- globalisation of turbo capitalism. Unfettered by regulation?
- an exploding credit bubble?
- The failure (and inappropriate bail-out) of Long Term Capital Management?
- the Asian financial crisis. Worsened by the draconian policies of the IMF?
- corporations mostly paying no tax?
- stock market Keynesianism?
- the dotcom speculative bubble?
- the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933?
- The loss of $2.3 trillion dollars from the Pentagon? (1999) with another $1.2 trillion lost again in the year 2000.
- US economic growth through the process of reducing everyone else's?
- When her husband Bill attended the secretaive Bilderberger conference in 1991? [Kissinger talks at the Bilderberger Conference in Evians, France. “..individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.”]
etc
Out of curiousity, what are the politics of the students at Eastern Mennonite University? Strong for Huckabee because of the Christian connection? Is the anti-war sentiment there strong enough to side people with Obama?
Jim V. (hi!),
EMU is definitely not Huckabee territory, although some of the Mennonites back him. Given Obama's more antiwar stance relative to Hillary, I suspect Obama is popular there. Most of the Mennonites I know seem to be for him now, although they tend to be non-Old Order types, some of them profs at EMU.
Brenda,
Regarding Hillary and her man, well, you said it: she is a neoliberal, although she has more recently been running as the "Establishment Democrat." According to Carl Bernstein, she differed from Bill when he was in office on a number of issues, NAFTA reportedly one, which she is now criticizing. But, of course, he was the prez then. I don't see her being all that far to the left of him in general.
pgl,
Curiously, and I have now seen a few commentators noting this, I think that actually the real showdown state will be Wisconsin next Tuesday, my old stomping ground (note: I happen to know the governor there, Jim Doyle, from high school), which has often been a key state in primary races. I think for Hillary to have any chance of turning the momentum around and winning strongly in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, she must win in Wisconsin, which she had basically been giving up on, but is now apparently going to fight for. The key will be white women and the ethnic working class.
She has better chances there than many may credit her with. Most have said that Obama will be favored because WI is next door to his state of Illinois. But I can attest that there is a lot of anti-Illinois, and anti-Chicago in particular, prejudice in Wisconsin. Some of this is blatantly racist; some of this is resentment of rich Chicagoans coming to vacation and buying up prime properties. Obama has a lead in the polls, but it is slender, and in such situations, Hillary has been known to make a comeback.
The five biggest cities in the state are in order Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, Racine, and Kenosha. Madison will go for Obama, and Kenosha being right on the border of Illinois might also. The others look more up in the air, with Hillary probably having an edge in Green Bay in the northeast.
Clearly, Milwaukee and its main suburbs, especially Waukesha County to the west, will be the main battleground. Milwaukee will probably split north and south. The biggest pool of African American voters in the state is in the northwestern part of the city, and the northeastern part is more affluent and also has the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, although it also has the main Jewish population, which in New York went 3 to 1 for Hillary. There is a valley full of factories running east-west across the city, and south of it is the main Latino neighborhood, presumably mostly pro-Hillary, and then major ethnic working class neighborhoods, especially Polish and Serbian. These are where Hillary will need to win big, along with Waukesha County, to win the state. I think she still has a chance of doing it, and if so, she might still be able to win big in those later states and win the nomination.
Finally, I was slightly off on my reporting of the VA results. Saw the final count in WaPo this morning. Obama took more cities and counties west of the Blue Ridge than I initially suggested. He took the four largest cities: Roanoke, Winchester, Harrisonburg, Staunton, and Waynesboro, with the counties surrounding them. The Shenandoah Valley was thus split, with only fully rural counties going for Hillary such as Page and Shenandoah. However, to the southwest of the Valley, the only place to go for Obama besides the city of Roanoke was Montgomery County, where Virginia Tech is located. Overall, west of the Blue Ridge, Hillary won 21 counties while Obama won 7. The only jursidictions east of the mountains that Hillary won were five counties in the southwest near the Blue Ridge. Over on kos somebody noted that this portend trouble for Obama in eastern Kentucky and southeastern Ohio in upcoming primaries.
Barkley
The existence of great inequalities in mainstream media access and election finance should make any national election null and void. In any case, if ordinary Americans want a viable public health system and freedom from economic predation then they're going to have to fight for it. It won't be handed to them on their lap merely by ticking a box on a ballot paper.
There's an interesting Zmag article at:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=90&ItemID=14670
Could Paul Street's question:
" Who knows what percentage of the delegates the partly (or is it formerly?) left presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (who despicably told his caucus-goers to give their votes to Obama) would have gotten if he'd been able to spend $9 million in Iowa. Edwards would have won Iowa handily if he'd enjoyed Obama's resources...
equally apply to the state of Virginia?
"..But sorry, I was not “moved.” I’d done my homework on the candidates .. Obama is a master triangulator and class-race accommodator in the insidious corporate-neoliberal and militaristic Clinton-DLC mode. I also learned that he was being richly rewarded for his careful, cautious, and even “deeply conservative” politics and rhetoric with more than $80 million (just $10 million behind Hillary) in largely corporate-funded campaign financing (Center for Responsive Politics 2007), with the support of much of the Democratic Party’s imperial foreign policy establishment and (perhaps most significant of all) with astonishing and unprecedented levels of dominant (corporate) media love (1).
Ralph Nader got it right when he said the following to Chris Mathews on MSNBC a week before Christmas: “he [Obama] has excluded himself from the progressive coalition by the statements he’s made, unfortunately. He’s a lot smarter than his public statements, which are extremely conciliatory to concentrated power and big business.” By sharp contrast, Nader noted that “Edwards raises the question of the concentration of wealth and power in a few hands that are working against the majority of people. The people of Iowa and New Hampshire,” Nader added, “have to ask themselves: who is going to fight for you?” ..
...[Edwards was] unable to match the BaRockstar either in campaign advertisements or in free media attention given during national and news broadcasts and press accounts and endorsements. Throughout the Caucus campaign, Obama was given an astonishing and unmatched level of positive and lengthy media coverage. This reflected (i) corporate media's deep disdain for anything that even slightly hints of populism and (ii) that media's deep approval of Obama's message of reconciliation across class, regional, racial, partisan and ideological lines(4).
Also worth noting, the Obama campaign’s superior financial resources allowed it to pour millions of dollars into the expensive operation called “data mining” – the generation and use of complex micro-targeted survey and marketing data to identify likely supporters and to expand the universe of likely caucus-goers. It is a chillingly effective tool in advancing the basic purpose of corporate-crafted elections: marketing candidate brand names (“Hope,” “Unity,” “Change”) to purchasers/voters and contributors/investors. . ."
Obama - geared up for perpetual war
"“When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won." ... "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan…The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan...We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan…I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is more violent than it has been since 2001....As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban.."
On Iran:
"Iran is now presenting the broadest strategic challenge to the United States in the Middle East in a generation. Groups affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda operate worldwide. Six years after 9/11, we are again in the midst of a ‘summer of threat,’ with bin Ladin and many more terrorists determined to strike in the United States…It is time to turn the page. It is time to write a new chapter in our response to 9/11..
"I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America…This cannot just be an American mission. Al Qaeda and its allies operate in nearly 100 countries…As president, I will create a Shared Security Partnership Program to forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks from the remote islands of Indonesia, to the sprawling cities of Africa..
"And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism."
www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/obamasp0807.pdf
"The people of Iowa and New Hampshire,” Nader added, “have to ask themselves: who is going to fight for you?” ..
We all have to ask ourselves that question because we haven't heard anyone yet say anything that even hints at a serious intention to create: a) constraint on errant financial and banking activities,
b) a one payer health care system wherein mediacl personnel are independent in their medical decision making and rich and otherwise have access to good care,
and c) our foreign policy will be revised to discontinue the inclination of our government to support some of the worst totalitarian scum on earth. Maybe the crazy fundamentalists across the globe would then have less focus on what we do and more focus on what their own nasty dictators are up to.
brenda,
I have agreed that Obama is far from perfect. Heck, I was backing Edwards while he was still in the race.
Regarding Obama's funding, it is not coming largely from large corporations. He has organized a massively successful online fundraising operation along the lines of what Howard Dean did four years ago. The money is coming in from all over and all kinds of people. The guy is popular, and maybe people are being misled or swept off their feet by fancy speeches, but his supporters are enthusiastic. Also, he has been far smarter than Hillary in organizing his campaign and his fundraising. Hillary raised $100 million, spent it on Super Tuesday, and is now broke and behind Obama in fundraising and organizing in the various states, even as she was supposed to have this great Establishment machine behind her.
I have no use for Ralph Nader these days. He gave us George W. Bush and a war in Iraq.
As for Iran, I do not see a single reference to Iran in the statements you quote from Obama. He has been much clearer than anybody still in the race about getting out of Iraq, and he has said he would meet with Ahmadinejad, a stance for which he has been harshly criticized by both Hillary and McCain. Also, he voted against granting Bush power to go to war with Iran, unlike Hillary, who still has not admitted that her vote to grant warmaking power to Bush in Iraq was a mistake (Edwards made the same vote, but said later that it was a mistake). As far as I am concerned, Obama is clearly superior on foreign policy, especially on Iran, over both Hillary and McCain.
Barkley
"I have no use for Ralph Nader these days. He gave us George W. Bush and a war in Iraq."
Okay, that's it Barkley! I don't mind being derided as a 'tin foil hat'. Bush did NOT win the 2000 and 2004 elections. And Ralph Nader did NOT bring you Bush or the bloody war in Iraq.
I spent hundreds of hours checking out the protocols and results of those two US elections. Why? Because it was the first time in my life I had been exposed to such a continuous flow of news of election fraud. I just couldn't believe that the US had such a disorganised, incredibly fallible election system. After all, I grew up with the word America being constantly associated with the word 'democracy'. "Truth, justice and the American way" and all that.
KEY QUESTIONS:
Given that US Governments are antagonistic toward democracy in OTHER countries, why would they want it in their own?
What reform has taken place since 2004 to ensure another US election is not stolen?
Links:
Bush - Most Hated President Ever Stole Both Elections
By Evelyn Pringle. June 3, 2006
Original Article at http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_evelyn_p_060603_bush___most_hated_pr.htm
*Why can't the left face the Stolen Elections of 2004 & 2008?*
by /Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman/ The Free Press
October 18, 2005
Public interest in news topics beyond control of mainstream media
By KENNETH F. BUNTING. P-I ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER. Friday, June 9, 2006
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/273283_bunting09.html
U.S.: A Call for a New Election, by Ken Reiner. 6th December 2004
http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=2037&blz=1
Opinion: Michael Collins
Notes from the Underground. 22 August 2007
Why the 2004 Election Matters More than Ever
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0708/S00284.htm
SMOKING GUN ? THE CNN NATIONAL EXIT POLLS PROVE KERRY WON!
Edited on Thu Dec-30-04 10:05 PM by TruthIsAll
http://www.exitpollz.org/CNN_national2.htm
The Theft of the 2004 Presidential Election*
http://projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.html
By Dennis Loo, Ph.D.
BLOGGED BY Joy and Tom Williams ON 7/18/2006 6:17AM
Democracy in Crisis - An Exclusive BRAD BLOG Interview with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3079
Another Election Held and Another Election Stolen
http://www.justaflyonthewall.com/votefraud.html
"I needed the good will of the legislature of four states. I formed the legislative bodies with my own money. I found it cheaper that way." -- Jay Gould
Bradley,
You surprise me with your ire towards Nader. He didn't give us Bush. He exercised his rights as a citizen to offer us an alternative to the crap we are fed in every election. Both Gore and Kerry are far more responsible for Bush in each of their respective elections. They both gave it piss poor efforts. They both caved in to the absurd rantings of the right wing and so-called liberal media pundits. Either one of them could have acted far more assertively in their respective campaigns. The voters might have been impressed had either of them took a bit more of a bare knuckles approach to those efforts. They didn't. They lost their opportunities to lead. Maybe neither had leadership in them. At least both H. Clinton and Obama seem more pugnacious in their approaches to the campaign. That's a plus because McCain deserves to be roughed up a little bit.
brenda,
"Tin foil hat"? I don't think I said anything of the sort ever. Gore won the popular vote in 2000, and I happen to think he also had the most voted in Florida. And, of course it was Bush not Nader who gave us Iraq.
In 2004, the popular vote nationwide was on the order of 52 to 48%. It was not close, and I think that is why he did not fight over Ohio where there was indeed some evidence that he may have had more votes, although that is far from certain.
jack,
OK, so Nader was not responsible for Bush getting in. Just the people who voted for him rather than for Gore.
Barkley
Barkley,
'Tin foil hat' was a description I found in a document that explained how neoliberal politicians were describing individuals who dared to continue to express deep concern about the conduct of US federal elections.
You said: "In 2004, the popular vote nationwide was on the order of 52 to 48%."
How could the actual vote be ascertained given that there actually isn't an election system in place in the US that permits a vote count? Here (below) are some of my notes on the 2004 election.
US Federal Election 2004
- Extraordinary divergence between exit polls and voter tallies both nationally and in swing states. A simultaneous gap of 12% - 14% between tallied results and exit polls. By the next day the ‘fix’ was in. In Florida, for one example, 16 respondents produced a 4% swing to Bush. The change in stats simply didn’t add up. Voter News Service was replaced in 2004 by a partnership between Edison Media Research and National Election Pool (Mitofsky International).
- Stickers placed over Ohio ballots in the position that would register a Kerry vote by the scanning machine, so that instead a ‘no-vote’ was registered.
- Misallocation of voting machines affecting mostly Democratic districts. Voters waited hour after hour to vote.
- Insecure storage of ballots and machinery
The counting of irregularly marked ballots.
- Insecure storage of ballots and machinery.
- A failure to allow witneses for candidates to observe the recount – a right guaranteed in Ohio law.
- Results were not rechecked after it was found that hand counts did not match machine counts.
- ‘Deeply problematic’ process surrounding the casting and counting of provisional ballots.
- Denial of the right to vote
- 40% without verification of vote
- Nebraska, Florida and other states prohibit counting paper ballots in votes that were originally counted by machines. You can only count votes in the original way in which the votes were counted.
- HAVA legislation as a result of corporate lobbying. Requires states to use Diebold machines. Has a provision that discourages voter verification using paper ballots.
2004 – The US Department of Homeland Security issued a “Cyber Security Alert” concerning an undocumented backdoor in Diebold’s central tabulator software which, if accesed could allow a malicious user to change the results of any election.
2005 – September 6th. GAO Report on Election Failure – Security & Vulnerability of Electronic Voting”
“Examples of Voting System Vulnerabilities and Problems
• Cast ballots, ballot definition files, and audit logs could be modified.
• Supervisor functions were protected with weak or easily guessed passwords.
• Systems had easily picked locks and power switches that were exposed and unprotected.
• Local jurisdictions misconfigured their electronic voting systems, leading to election day problems.
• Voting systems experienced operational failures during elections.
• Vendors installed uncertified electronic voting systems.
2006 January. An independent analysis of the Diebold systems was commissioned by California’s Secretary of State, Bruce McPherson. A summary…
The security vulnerability was used to flip a mock election on Diebold optical-scan voting equipment in Leon County, Florida in December 2005. The analysis also found 16 other previously unknown bugs categorized as “more dangerous”, “more serious” and going “well beyond” was was revealed in the Leon County hack. The analysis did not involve the giving away of any passwords or keys to the system, and did not allow the "hackers" to plug their computers into the system in the now infamous "Hursti Hack" (so-named after Harri Hursti, the Finnish Computer Security Expert who devised and executed the hack.) The "hackers" changed information on a memory card, which they had obtained off the Internet for $100, and after the mock election there was no trace of their hack left behind save for the paper ballots. The Californian analysis concluded that only a manual hand-count, or audit of a sufficient size of the paper ballots would reveal the hack. But such audits are now illegal in Florida and some other US states.
www.bradblog.com/?p=2808
2006 February – Diebold admitted in a letter to California’s Secretary of State, Bruce McPherson, that they employ “interpreted code” in the software of their electronic voting systems. A summary..
This represents a danger because such code allows a program to run differently depending on what information is given to it via the system’s memory card at run-time. It also represents a violation of the Federal Election Commission’s Voting System Standards. Protecting the chain of custody on the memory cards is the only recourse officials have come up with to try and ward off such an attack. However, since information on the memory card can be written to those cards, in a variety of ways, without ever removing them from the machine, there is really no safe way to use a Diebold machine which uses such code.
www.bradblog.com/?p=2808
- “Reel to reel” paper trails or “toilet paper rolls” is what makes up the paper trail in some states and counties. They have very small lettering and requires a very long and labour intensive effort to count manually. As far as is known noone has every done a full manual hand-recount using these paper trails from touch-screen voting systems.
- 2006 – May. There is no procedure in place to determine what will be the official count in the event of a discrepancy between the electronic votes and the paper ballots.
- Failure of the American Press to cover the issues raised and the nature of the widespread fraud.
- Florida and Ohio allow campaign managers or candidates who are participating in the contest to simultaneously act as election officials.
2002 - Diebold Added Secret Patch to Georgia E-Voting Systems. Georgia Secretary of State, Cathy Cox failed to certify the patch.
- “Reel to reel” paper trails or “toilet paper rolls” is what makes up the paper trail in some states and counties. They have very small lettering and requires a very long and labour intensive effort to count manually. As far as is known noone has every done a full manual hand-recount using these paper trails from touch-screen voting systems.
- Campaign finance system - a system of legalized bribery.
.... yet many more examples of fraud.
Brenda,
Yes, the US election system needs fixing. However, regarding 2004 the polls had been pretty consistently showing the national totals at about what they came out to be. I do not think there was national level fraud or tampering on a significant scale. Bush won the popular vote because he succeeded in convincing so many people that Saddam was involved in 9/11, with over 60% of those voting for him believing this.
To the extent there was serious fraud it was concentrated in those key swing states for the electoral college. There may have been some in Florida, but Bush had a pretty large edge there. I doubt it made the difference. Ohio was much closer and from what I have read, there does seem to have been a more serious level of fraud there. I already said that it is possible that Kerry actually had more votes there, which would have had him winning in the electoral college.
I think the reason he went against the advice of several people, including his running mate, John Edwards, and did not fight the results, was the combo of both his loss in the popular vote, which I think was for real, and which I am sure he thought was for real, which made things different from the situation in 2000 between Gore and Bush, and also the outcome then. Gore had the moral authority and a much, much closer outcome according to the official records in Florida. He fought it and he fought it hard, with the country waiting and waiting for weeks, until the Supreme Court gave it to Bush on a 5-4 vote. So, it was obvious to Kerry that he did not have a chance of winning. If he pushed it and pushed it hard, it would just go to the same damned Supreme Court.
Which allows me to reiterate something that I do not think you take sufficiently seriously. The composition of the Supreme Court is a whole lot more important than a bunch of scattered irregularities involving voting machines. Presidents appoint those folks, and we have a reactionary Surpreme Court because we have had Republican presidents for 28 out of the last 40 years. These appointees serve for life. In presidential races in more years than not, the Republicans have lined up behind their candidates while Democrats have been more likely to be sitting it out or voting for somebody like Nader or otherwise whining in their beer claiming that somehow things would be better if we had a nasty Republican than an impure Democrat as president. Well, of course, we do not know for sure how things would have gone if the balance over those years had been different, but I am reasonably sure that at least the Supreme Court would be a lot better than the one we have now, and they do have a lot of power over many things in this country (and therefore, ultimately in the rest of the world; there will be cases coming up over presidential power to wage war, to torture, etc.).
Barkley
Barkley,
This is my second attempt to reply and it's pretty late at night so I will try to be quick.
Points:
- Nader had negligible impact on the outcome of the 2004 US election.
- The flaws in the US election system are so extensive that one would feel compelled to say that there is no democracy in your country. Because the elections cannot be described as 'free and fair' (to say the least, when it comes to opportunities for genuine citizen input).
- I disagree with your view on what the polls were showing as the 2004 election approached. I was following them at the time and they were indicating Kerry and Edwards were winning the election debates, the war in Iraq was mostly not popular and neither was Bush.
- There is no way to confirm that bush won the 'popular vote'.
- the fraud was not concentrated merely in the swing states. Report after report evidences this fact. The fraud was widespread. I followed corruption in about 16 different states and just found it impossible to keep up with it all. Fortunately there are groups (who are on the Web) who did keep up.
The irregularities encompassed just about every dirty tactic one could find. They were not just about voting machines.
- Good point about the judicial system in the US. I haven't spent that much time thinking about it, you're right.
- Left wing voters for Nader should not face a prospect of their vote undermining the Democrat position. And the Democrat Party should not benefit from a hobbled progressive electorate.
- I see the US as a 'failed state', just as Chomsky does. The Constitution is being repeatedly ignored along with other laws. I can't see a broadly-based opposition movement to these incredible abuses.
There needs to be a complete overhaul and immediate impeachment processes ...
The DAY AFTER the 2004 elections:
Americans Show Clear Concerns on Bush Agenda
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER
Published: November 23, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/23/national/23poll.html?ex=1258952400&en=61eeac4f19acf243&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt
I'll have to agree with Brenda in regards to the mythology of the Nader effect on the 2000 election outcome. See this link for a reasonable review of the issue:
http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html
I'll reiterate that is the height of absurdity to cast blame on any one's effort to provide a better choice, however remote it may have been. The Democratic Party has been trying too hard over the past several decades to represent corporate America, and whether by design or unintentionally, it has abandoned any hint of support for the vast majority of the population. That persistent abandonment of progressive opublic policy is what led to the growth of support for a third party effort. Let's not forget that Gore has made efforts since then to seem far more progressive, if only in the area of climate change.
He didn't present any such image at the time he ran for President.
All that's been said about the devastating effects of the Bush presidency is all too true. When was the Congress absolved of its complicity in allowing that devastation to happen? The last time I took elementray government 101 I was taught that we have "checks and balances" that are designed to assure the adherence constitutional government in this country. The ultra right wing Supreme Court was confirmed by the Senate. The war in Iraq was voted for by the Senate. The tax follies were voted for by the full Clongress.
Nader caused all of that?? I don't think so. Brenda's points are only too true and should be well taken. I suppose that there's always hope that the voters will come out of the ether some day and begin to vote their own self interests rather than their fears and hatreds.
Sorry, have not looked at this for awhile.
jack,
Brenda did not say that about Nader for 2000. She said it about 2004, and on that I agree. In 2000the number of voters for Nader in Florida far exceeded the official difference in votes between Bush and Gore. And, please do not tell us that if Nader had not been running either most of those voters would have stayed home or voted for Bush (or maybe some other alternative candidate).
Brenda,
The only debate Kerry won clearly was the first one, and the polls for him jumped a bunch after that one, putting him into a more competitive position after being unpleasantly behind. But the next two had no bounce either way. The first one was on foreign policy, and Kerry nailed Bush as I had long forecast he would. On the later two, Bush followed more closely whoever was speaking to him through that weird hump that was on his back. They simply had no effect, and Bush managed to hang onto his narrow, but definite, lead. Kerry simply never was in much of a lead after the Republican convention.
Barkley
Barkley,
I can't say what those who voted for Nader in '00 or '04 would have done had he not been on the ballot. I suspect that they were voters who were disgusted with the choices given. Yes, after the fact we know that Bush and Cheney are renegades deserving of no respect. We have a Congress to thank for being fast asleep at the controls that are built in to our system in our Constitutions. Every Senator and Representative bears great responsibility for a run away Executive Branch during the past four years. If there were a candidate running now who promised to prosecute the two of them I'd volunteer time and money to try to get them elected. I am saying that both Gore and Kerry lost their opportunities by being lack luster and refusing to fight hard for what they sought. The Democrats have been spineless, not in the face of terrorism but in the face of extreme right-wing ideologues. Yes, Nader's presence is not helpful, but the Democrats have marginalized his ideals for the sack of their own expediencies. That's not good for us. It is disgusting that our choices are so abysmal and so anti-populist.
Nader's role, part II:
Nader makes his own case far better than can I. The transcript of his appearence on Meet the Press is far more detailed and rational than anything being said by Obama or Clinton. Read it here,
thoug I assume you must have already, http://www.counterpunch.com/nader02252008.html
The difference is substance versus vague promise with little evidence from the past that any of those promises will prove to be fruitful.
Barkley, you said: "The only debate Kerry won clearly was the first one.."
The commentators on the 2004 election, the ones I have read, all say that Bush lost the debates. So I'm not sure which polls you are referring to. The polls to do with the public's response to the presidential election debates or the polls on the general popularity of the candidates?
It is my understanding that Bush was never in the lead on either.
Second presidential debate — October 8, 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates%2C_2004
"A CNN/USA Today/Gallup snap poll taken immediately after the presidential debate found that 47% of respondents felt Kerry had won while 45% said the same of Bush..."
+
"..Kerry’s margin of victory was smaller than the 1st debate & the VP debate, but still solid, yet beyond the margin of error in all the independent/undecideds. More importantly, in the key demographic of uncommitted women, the President came off looking bullying & uncaring."
The Final Moments
by Dan Schneider, 10/30/04
http://www.cosmoetica.com/B171-DES115.htm
3rd Presidential Debate:
" Here are the poll #s for the last debate. CBS had it 39-25% Kerry only using undecideds, CNN had it 53-39% Kerry with an even Republican/Democratic split at 36% each, while, most tellingly, ABC gave it 42-41% Kerry with a 38-30% Republican advantage. On style Kerry won this debate with a bigger margin than Debate 2. The image is he’s pulling away. Yes, despite my reservations about Kerry, & decision to go Green, there’s no doubt, to the middle ground, that Kerry won the debates on substance, too. All he has to do is stay on focus & pounce upon the increasing desperation of the Republicans...
And another new discovery about the 2004 election:
"Fifty-six of eighty-eight counties in Ohio destroyed their election ballots, destroyed all their election records, or most of them, making a pure recount impossible. This is in direct violation of a federal court injunction and standing federal law. So far, nobody has been prosecuted. What kind of country are we living in?..."
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/17/harvey_wasserman_on_new_ohio_voting
Brenda,
47 to 45 is significant? And one of those for the third debate was 42 to 41.
For me the bottom line was not who said who won, but how the debates moved the overall rankings. The first debate moved Kerry up noticeably in the overall polls. The second two did not budge things at all, those who thought Kerry won and caring about it having already made their move. I would remind that in 2000 it was the first debate that also moved things, with Bush moving ahead of Gore after it was revealed that Gore had misspoken about the date on which he met the FEMA director, irony of ironies. Bush would only lose that lead on the day of the election itself.
As for Ohio, I have already agreed that there is evidence of malfeasance and manipulation there. Whether it was sufficient to overcome an actual majority by Kerry we shall never know, but I have already explained why Kerry did not contest the matter.
Barkley
Post a Comment