Sunday, November 2, 2008

A 13 Point Lead and I Still Wonder...

...what the Republicans will do to steal this election. Hope I'm wrong...

Here is the link to the story about the 13 point lead in the polls: Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is trouncing Sen. John McCain in the latest CBS/NY Times poll -- by a margin of 13 percent. This is three percent more than the Gallup poll released Saturday, in which Obama took the largest Gallup lead ever over McCain.

"With two days left until the presidential election, Barack Obama continues to lead John McCain by 13 points among likely voters, 54 percent to 41 percent," CBS writes. "The margin in the new poll, released Sunday, is identical to that in a CBS News poll released Saturday."

The number of undecideds are dwindling, the poll found.



I am going to try this one more time; I have been having trouble posting here lately. Anybody else?

Frankly, I think even McCain doesn't hold out much for his chances.

I think it will be extremely interesting to be a fly on the wall during the Bush/Obama transition meetings. A nice candid photo of Karl Rove(if he will be involved in this)would be worth it.

Verification word - "disful", I love it.

csm said...

What types of problems have you been having, Bawdy?

G said...

"Steal" this election? Give me a break.

With all we've seen with voter registration fraud, refusing to allow dead voters to be removed from the rolls, registering the homeless at park benches, etc. (Not to mention the national press corps changing from investigators to advocates), anything the Reps might do will at best lessen the effect of the shenanigans on the other side.

And after all the whining over the past two presidential elections (which Bush DID win legitmately), I was hoping whichever side loses could just take it like adults for once. I guess that's not possible if Obama loses since we're already seeing an abundance of excuses... even though he's still leading in the polls.

Whoever wins wins. Whoever loses loses. It won't be the end of the world, and it won't be the start of a Utopian society. Those who are looking at Obama as the savior of this nation will either be sorely disappointed on 11/5... or sorely disappointed by the end of his first term. He's just another politician... not much different than the others.

coreydbarbarian said...

don't homeless folks on park benches have the same rights as property owners?


If they are legitimately registered to vote, they do(but most if not all states need to have a physical address for registration.)


There have been a few times when problems have occurred. In one instance I couldn't get the white posting screen and I found out you can't post on the screen with the black background. This instance, on this thread, once I hit the button to post I got an error screen talking about a duplication error. What all this means technically, I don't know, but if I was a more paranoid individual I would have to think it is some federal plot to control the Internet. Or maybe you were trying to shut me up. ;)

csm said...

Trying to shut you up? Never!

Why, if it were even possible I wouldn't attempt to quash such an unconventional voice as yours!

csm said...

g, my friend (he says using his best John McSame impersonation), fairness is all in the eye of the beholder. Bush did NOT win the 2000 election and if Gore had any guts he would have kept fighting until all the votes were accurately counted in Florida. And 2004? I'm not so sure about that, but there are many "provisional" ballots in Ohio that still have not been counted. You see, when someone who believes they are registered and eligible to vote shows up and they are not on the roll (for whatever reason), they are given a provisional ballot to complete that is almost never counted. So the Republicans use this as they try every tactic they can dream up in their dirty little minds to remove voters from the registration rolls. They do this, because they know that the more people that vote, generally, the more that favors Democrats.

And yes, Corey, a homeless person has every right to vote. Where in the Constitution does it say only homeowners (for example) can vote?

Has there been voter registration fraud? Yes. Is it a big issue? No. Mickey Mouse will not show up to vote even if his registration somehow sneaks through.

csm said...

What could go wrong?


This is from the website,"Things Which are Not in the Constitution". Note that the states are the arbiters of who can vote as long as it is not forbidden in the Constitution. This is as it should be, IMO. I hope this clears things up some.

"The Right To Vote

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.
Thanks to Roy Neale for the idea and to Brian Shaprio for some clarifications."


One more thing csm, awhile back(I forget which thread) we were talking of the financial...crisis and the topic of the banks jumping at the chance of the bailout came up and you posted(and I paraphrase)that the banks "weren't forced" into the fed's bailout and the money being waved under their noses, or so you thought. Well, from what I have heard and read since, this isn't quite the way it went down. Apparently, the weekend before the bailout was announced, Paulson, Bernanke, the FDIC chief(whats-her-name) and nine of the largest banks, of which Wells Fargo was one, were given "a deal they couldn't refuse". And if they refused they would have to jump through tougher hoops if they were to encounter problems later down the road of financial potholes. Wells Fargo balked at the deal, but was forced to back down, according to the NPR report I heard a couple of weeks after the bailout was announced. There was a detailed article about the arm-twisting in the Wall Street Journal(which admittedly I haven't read), but above it all, I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the claim considering the administration involved and their love of power. I still believe this is just another powergrab by the federal government and will be very surprised if the government relinquishes the new power no matter who becomes the new President today.

csm said...

And the disenfranchisement of voters starts... in Virginia.


I heard about McCain's suit on the behalf of military voters in Virginia on NPR; which would lead me to believe this isn't strictly a Republican plot to take over the world,... er Virginia,... er the Presidency.

G said...


Actually, yes. George Bush DID win the 2000 election. Multiple independent counts have been conducted, and they all confirmed that Bush won Florida and the national election. Believing otherwise is nothing more than drinking too much of the Dem party's Kool-Aid.

But even if that weren't the case, the members of the Electoral College cast their ballots, and George Bush won. Technically, any member of the college can vote for whomever he/she chooses, regardless of the way his/her state went.

As for homeless people voting, it's fine by me if you can determine a way to verify their identity and eligibility. In a previous thread, you expressed your opposition to requiring voter IDs. Ok. If there are no voter IDs and the person doesn't have an address where a voter registration card can be sent, what do you suggest?

I suppose we could also mention the need to verify eligibility as a legal resident of that state (and as a US citizen, for that matter).

And it's a bit disappointing to hear your lack of concern for voter registration fraud. In a state like my home state of California (and Nevada as well, as far as I know), there is absolutely no identification required to cast a ballot. Just state your name (or point to it on their list), sign, and get your ballot. So it is INCREDIBLY easy for a fraudulent registration to turn into a fraudulent vote. And since our elections are by secret ballot, it is impossible to trace any fraudulent ballots cast after the election has been decided.

It's classic partisanship. Shout from the mountaintops when the other side does anything remotely questionable. But look the other way when one's own side is caught red-handed in illegal practices.

But my point wasn't to claim that either side is particularly clean or dirty compared to the other. My point was simply that one person will win, and it won't be by "stealing" the election. Again, everything we see on 11/4 is just for show. The POTUS is determined by the Electoral College. Even if Barack Obama pulled in 100% of the popular vote, the EC could come together and decide on J-Lo if they wanted to. And there wouldn't be a thing the people could do about it (for this election).

csm said...

I don't recall ever giving a position one way or the other on ID cards?

csm said...

And I just don't see voter registration fraud as being all that big of a deal (especially the ACORN ridiculousness). Most of that "fraud" was caught before the election - and much of it was with names that are readily recognized as not real (Mickey Mouse, Elmer Fudd, etc.)

Also, if all you have to do in your state is point at a name on a list, then perhaps your state needs to remedy a bad process.

G said...

Please forgive me if I misunderstood and misstated your position.

Looking at your comment on that thread from 5/18 10:47am, I'm wondering how this could be accomplished with people who have no real address.

coreydbarbarian said...

requiring an id or a permanent address is awfully close to requiring property ownership, in my book.

i think i could live with a thumb-print, though.

G said...

An apartment can be a permanent address as well. It has nothing to do with ownership.

I actually agree that a thumbprint would be ideal. Of course, it would require a tremendous upgrade to the existing election technology. And it would probably also require a significant window for verification, so there would probably be a registration cutoff around a month before an election.

In any case, I doubt the ACLU would let thumbprint verification go through without a long fight.

csm said...

My stance on government voter registration ID cards is that I would have to wait to see the actual implementation details before deciding one way or the other.

My stance on the overall issue is that actual voter fraud where someone is showing up to vote who should not be is rare, and there is no need to fix a problem that does not exist.

And I think my overall stance on voter registration itself is in flux. I'm not sure registration is even necessary, but I can't say that with enough certainty to argue vehemently about it.