Mitt Romney didn't get any bounce from the GOP convention. Maybe that's because no one can remember what he said but they do remember Clint Eastwood and the empty chair. I also seem to be the only one questioning how wise ti was to hold the convention the week BEFORE Labor Day. No one in America was paying attention.
Take a look at the president'a approval ratings. When Rasmussen has you at 50-45, that's a real bounce. Gallup had him at 52-42 over the weekend but there is something wrong with their methodology. For the truly wonky, Nate Silver's 538 blog on nytimes.com is great. The propeller on his head is larger than all the rest and for the latest on the state of the race, his site is a must.
Now, the question is will this bounce last? Most people think no but let's see what happens next week.
Both campaigns have now admitted that it's come down to nine states. They are: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The Romney campaign has all but given up on Michigan and Pennsylvania. With the president outraising Governor Romney in August $114 to $112 million, they have to spend their money wisely. Privately, the GOP are admitting that the president has the advantage at present.
If you take these nine states out of Andy's number above, that puts the numbers at 237-191. Essentially, the president has to get 33 EVs and he wins. Governor Romney has to get 79. Obviously, it's an uphill task for Mr. Romney and we've already seen him pivot (out of political necessity) to the middle slightly yesterday with his statements on keeping parts of the Affordable Care Act...the popular parts, of course. Folks like Mr Van Duzer are registered Republicans but they are voting for the president because the GOP has moved too far to the right.
Further, Mr. Romney is going to have to get more detailed about exactly what his plan is for the economy. The remaining undecideds aren't going to respond well to bloviating straw men arguments about socialism, Kenyans, and anti-colonial rage. Mr. Romney now says (yesterday on Meet The Press) he is not going to cut taxes for the wealthy and will remove some of their loopholes. Great. Which ones? And isn't that now the same thing the president is saying?
I'd like to see a plan for exactly how Governor Romney is going to stimulate demand. If not from the government, then from where? Since he has said, "We can't cut our way to growth" how do we get to growth? Recall, his tax plan was completely blown apart by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center for being vague and leaving several key points blank. He's going to have to fill in those blanks in the next two months or he has no chance at all. Why?
Because he's maxed out the part of his supporters that aren't so much supporting him but voting against the president. The only people left are the ones who need to be convinced to vote FOR Governor Romney and not against the president. In addition to getting specific about what he's going to do, he has the debates to possibly turn it around.
Can he?
37 comments:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-wendy-rosen-withdraws-20120910,0,3764352.story
vote fraud doesnt ever happen, just move along, nothing to see here.
No one has ever said that voter fraud doesn't ever happen. In fact, it happens more with absentee balloting than in person voting. So, one would think that Republicans would be more concerned with that. Of course, they aren't, because that would hurt them so they focus on the very rare in person voter fraud.
Here are the numbers for you to look at again, sw.
http://articles.philly.com/2012-08-12/news/33168209_1_registration-fraud-election-fraud-voter-impersonation
So, now you can increase that number from 10 to 11. Hoo-boy!
Now, sw, how about that far more serious number of 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud, hmm?
Hmmmmm.
Was driving down the highway today.
Just about everybody was speeding 10+ mph over the limit.
We passed a cop. He had someone pulled over. Everyone slowed down as they passed him. Then they all sped up again.
That's one case of someone speeding.
Does that mean that was the only person speeding?
So, it's innuendo and more false eqiuvalencies, eh GD? Let's stick to the evidence and the facts...starting with the more prevalent issue of absentee ballot fraud.
Facts? OK. Try this one out for size.
If you do not check ID at the gate, then you are not checking to see if the person voting is the person allowed to vote.
If you are not checking, then you will not have evidence of people doing it.
Using that lack of evidence as 'proof' that is it not happening does not actually prove that it is not happening.
Can you wrap your head around that?
When I got to vote, I give my name and address. They look me up on a sheet and give me my ticket. I take my ticket and get my ballot. I sign my name. That's checking to see if I am allowed to vote.
As the investigation linked above clearly shows, there are far more incidents of absentee ballot fraud than in person voter fraud. I would think you would be more concerned with that as opposed to in person voter fraud. These are the facts of the investigation and they confirm reality. People don't fraudulently vote in person. This is also confirmed in a JD study between 2002 and 2007 which showed that of the 300 million votes cast during that period, there were only 86 cases of voter fraud. And of those 86, most were unaware of their eligibility.
Now, if you are questioning either investigation, that's fine. Let's hear your reasons for why you think their methodology was flawed. So far, all you have is assumptions and avoidance of the absentee ballot issue.
Republicans are concerned about absentee ballot fraud, you nincompoop. Given the problems of absentee ballot fraud, why is it only heavily Democrat states have adopted all-absentee ballot elections? Why aren't Democrats beating the drum and introducing bills for anti-fraud absentee ballot reforms instead of resisting efforts for _any_ serious measure to combat vote fraud? How many dead people are registered to vote? Felons? How many felons in Minnesota voted and put Franken over the top? How many people living at Seattle City Hall voted to put Christine Gregoire over the top?
When I got to vote, I give my name and address. They look me up on a sheet and give me my ticket. I take my ticket and get my ballot. I sign my name. That's checking to see if I am allowed to vote.
Crap Mark, I know you aren't the most logical thinker in the room - but this should be gawd awful easy.
If you are not checking for people who are voting under someone elses name - then there are going to be very few cases of people voting under someone elses name. See how that works?
If you aren't checking for underage drinkers at the college bar, you are going to have very few 'cases' of underage drinkers at the college bar.
That is the flawed methodology of the study - lack of 'cases' can just as easily prove lack of looking for cases as it does lack of actual activity. If it can prove both - then it proves neither.
Chairman, evidence, please...from an unbiased and thorough study...for all your assertions.
GD, you haven't addressed any of the questions that I brought up and you are continuing with the false equivalencies again. I suspect it's because you are a smart guy and you know that there really is no problem with voter fraud in this country. It's simply not widespread. People simply don't vote under other people's name in any significant number.
The election judges at the polling places are all the same every year I go. They know all the people who come in and vote and they do a great job of confirming the identity of new voters, most of whom register ahead of time to vote.
To put it simply, voter fraud is a snipe hunt.
voter fraud is a snipe hunt
I didn't know snipe was that easy to find!
It really is this easy, Holder
It really is this easy, Vermont
they do a great job of confirming the identity of new voters
How do they do that? They don't check ID, they can't confirm IDentity. Oh, they can confirm that a person named M is registered to vote. They can't confirm that you are M. They can't confirm that the real M isn't in the cemetery and you aren't from MoveOn dot org helping the Chicago jeezus get re-elected.
It's simply not widespread. People simply don't vote under other people's name in any significant number.
How do you know that? What you call false equivalencies (that really aren't - use a dictionary dude) are analogies that try to show a dense guy how his theory doesn't necessarily work. You don't know there is no widespread fraud. The study you reference doesn't know it either, it simply reports that nobody is looking for it.
you haven't addressed any of the questions
What questions?
Here's the deal, GD. Show me evidence that voter fraud is occurring as much as you say it is. Let's see a study on the level of the JD investigation (done during the Bush years, I might add) that supports your claims. Until then, your assertions are made of imagination, not fact.
Further, you can explain how Viviette Applewhite's right to vote is NOT being infringed upon.
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Noni, where's the intensive study and thorough examination done using the scientific method (facts, logic, etc)? Real evidence, please.
No, here's the real deal Mark.
Quote me. Quote where I've done this asserting and quote where I've done this quantifying.
You can't, because I haven't. You can't because you don't pay attention, you don't listen and you don't comprehend.
This entire conversation went right over your head and all you noticed was the wind whistling between your ears.
Sad.
Viviette Applewhite, GD. How is she supposed to vote? Well, at least Jim Cramer's dad got his voter ID
Oh, look! Standard Response #4!
Hmm...let's see. This post was about the president's approval ratings and what the specifics may be about Romney's policy plans. rld then posted a thing about voter fraud and the whole voter ID so we started talking about that. No problem, as I allow that sort of thing. I present the facts that voter fraud is not widespread (supported by two different studies). I also wonder how photo ID laws are going to affect individuals like Viviette Applewhite with no response.
And I'm avoiding the issue?
I present the facts that voter fraud is not widespread (supported by two different studies).
The response to this assertion is what you're avoiding. (The studies show that no one knows if it's actually happening because no one is checking. And that it is entirely possible, and in fact easy, to do as demonstrated by tests.)
Still avoiding the question on Viviette Applewhite. What is she supposed to do, Noni?
And still no comments on the absentee voter fraud issue, shown to be more widespread.
The response to my assertion is innuendo, not an investigation, evidence or facts. You said it yourself...no one really knows. How does that become in person voter fraud is widespread?
You're also not thinking about this logically. Why would one person risk a federal fine and/or jail time just to vote? Unless, of course, you think there is a plot of some sort....
Viviette Applewhite, OK.
She can't vote because she can't get ID. She can't get ID because she can't prove she is who she says she is and can't prove she is a citizen.
So your outrageous situation is a person who can't vote because she doesn't have ID to prove she is a citizen because she doesn't have documentation to prove she is a citizen....
Hmmm. Do you know who she is? Do you know she really is Viviette? Do you know if the actual Viviette is a US citizen. She could be a old Soviet sleeper agent or even worse - a Canadian.......
No, you don't know that.
Let me quote you, quoting the constitution.
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State."
See that bolded section? Citizens.
Can you claim with absolute certainly that she is a citizen? No you can't, so why are you outraged that a non-citizen can't vote?
The response to my assertion is innuendo, not an investigation, evidence or facts.
And you don't seem to understand that your assertion is the same. It doesn't actually answer the question you think it does. It is not an investigation, evidence nor facts whether there is significant in person voter fraud. It only is evidence and facts that there is not a significant number of known cases of in person voter fraud.
The number of known cases is directly related to the procedures put in place to make those cases known. Since there are very few procedures that would make those cases known (and which you are actually arguing against) then it is not surprising that there are few known cases.
Closing ones eyes and not looking for something happening and then using that lack of seeing anything happening as evidence of nothing happening is folly.
Just because Sgt. Schultz 'know's nothing' doesn't mean that Col. Hogan doesn't have a secret tunnel.....
Can you claim with absolute certainly that she is a citizen?
That's an absurd question because one could ask that of someone who has both a state issue ID and a birth certificate which might be forged, right? I mean, we have no way of knowing for certain if I'm me and you're you. Just because no one checks for forgeries doesn't mean they aren't going on, right?
Do you see how ridiculous this all is?
So, I'm wondering how Jim Cramer's dad got a photo ID with the same lack of paperwork that Viviette had. Thoughts?
Just because Sgt. Schultz 'know's nothing' doesn't mean that Col. Hogan doesn't have a secret tunnel.....
But you can say that about anything, right? Just because we saw Neil Armstrong landing on the moon doesn't mean that it wasn't on some sound stage somewhere. Just because we didn't see a controlled demolition of the WTC doesn't mean that it didn't happen, right?
Suppose everyone gets photo IDs. You know what's coming next, don't you? The Democrat votes are all fake IDs and they are running a scam.
You said it yourself...no one really knows.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!
Now, use some logic and figure out what this means.
Here's a hint: It means you cannot say that it's not happening.
Do you really think voting is so unimportant that a clear opportunity for fraud should be left unaddressed?
Mark, pay attention. GD repeatedly used a very important key word:
And you don't seem to understand that your assertion is the same. It doesn't actually answer the question you think it does. It is not an investigation, evidence nor facts whether there is significant in person voter fraud. It only is evidence and facts that there is not a significant number of known cases of in person voter fraud.
The number of known cases is directly related to the procedures put in place to make those cases known. Since there are very few procedures that would make those cases known (and which you are actually arguing against) then it is not surprising that there are few known cases.
But you can say that about anything, right?
To rephrase, it will always be possible to get around voter ID requirements, therefore we shouldn't even try. Do I understand your position?
No, I'm trying to understand yours which seems to contain (ahem) an awful lot of hand waving. Having photo ID laws won't sate you. Next it will be something else because anything's possible and no one really knows.
It's not that we shouldn't try. It's that I think it's a waste of time for the people of this country to continually manage paranoid fantasies.
I'm also still trying to understand the motivation here behind an individual committing voter fraud. To me it seems akin to someone trying to steal a tank from the army. Why would they do something so stupid? Of course, your response would be just because there aren't very many cases of tank theft doesn't mean that we really know.
Or that it's possible that it could happen so we better pass an anti tank theft law.
Riiight…
So your not saying anything at all…
But you're just fine with putting words and intentions in our mouths.
Pardon me mister "mind reader", but your straw man is…
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
— Exodus 20:16
“If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. The rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you. Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
— Deuteronomy 19:16–21
There are six things which the LORD hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.
— Proverbs 6:16–19
A false witness will not go unpunished,
And he who tells lies will not escape.
— Proverbs 19:5
“For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.”
— Matthew 15:19–20
I'm not the one you have to worry about, liar.
Of course, your response would be just because there aren't very many cases of tank theft doesn't mean that we really know.
Or that it's possible that it could happen so we better pass an anti tank theft law.
Now your just pulling things out of your ass.
1) There already is a law against tank theft. (Actually stealing a tank would result in about a dozen federal felonies)
2) We do know how many cases of tank theft there are - because the army takes basic precautions like knowing how many tanks they park in the garage the night before and putting armed guards and fences around their bases.
Basic precautions - like photo id to prove you are you and are eligible to vote. Will it stop every case? No. Will it, as you ask, prevent all forgeries? No again.
But unlike your assumption, people will be checking for forgeries. Because also unlike you - my earlier example was not pulled out of my ass. I compared this to checking for ID at the bar. I've done that. I've also arrested around fifty people for using fake ID. ID's get checked. Fakes and forgeries get caught. But I wouldn't have caught any of them if I wasn't requiring ID. If I wasn't checking them I could have, like you, falsely claimed that we didn't have an underage drinking problem because we had no known cases of underage drinkers.
You also ask why would someone would do something stupid and vote when not allowed to? Why does someone risk a felony charge at 20 1/2 years old to go drink in a bar? Why does someone risk a 10-15 years in prison to rob a 7-11 for the $40 in the till? Why? Why would a passionate true believer in a particular political party or cause risk breaking the law to give their side a little extra edge? Hell, people risk death over that sort of thing, what's a jail term in comparison.
Just because we saw Neil Armstrong landing on the moon doesn't mean that it wasn't on some sound stage somewhere. Just because we didn't see a controlled demolition of the WTC doesn't mean that it didn't happen, right?
No. And you are an idiot.
That was actually such a stupid statement and so far off the mark from what I've been saying to you that I'm surprised you could find the keyboard to have typed it.
I can't even figure out a way to explain it to you - because you've got it so turned around that it's mind boggling that you can breathe without someone to remind you.
People risk charges on drinking because it feels good and it's fun to get drunk. Does it feel good to vote and is it fun? Nearly 40 percent of this country doesn't even vote because they can't be bothered.
It's not that I don't understand what you are saying. I do. I simply think it's another one of these fantasies that has to be managed (see: time wasted when we could actually be working to improve something). You (sadly, along with many others) have invented a reality where voter fraud is rampant. You don't even have to say that it is...you just say that it might be...and when the people who are listening to this drivel see who is showing up at the polls without a photo id, then "maybe" becomes "definitely" and we're now in a post-truth land of make believe where someone's musings are real and how dare I for questioning them!! I must be an idiot!!!
The worst part about all of this is that it's simply not Constitutional. States have no right to deny or abridge the right to vote. The federal government decides who has the right to vote but that's the problem , isn't it?
It's not that I don't understand what you are saying. I do.
Sigh. No you don't. If you did you wouldn't have made some of the ridiculous comments you have.
Try this:
What exactly and specifically was I referring to when I said this:
If you do not check ID at the gate, then you are not checking to see if the person voting is the person allowed to vote.
If you are not checking, then you will not have evidence of people doing it.
Using that lack of evidence as 'proof' that is it not happening does not actually prove that it is not happening.
Again, I understand what you are saying and, as I have said many times, it's an imagining that is completely unsupported by evidence. You're doing what the Right does all the time...it's possible that it might be happening somewhere so that means we better WATCH OUT!!!!
You're also assuming that the election judges (usually the same volunteers) are completely unfamiliar with the people in their precinct. If they fail to check their ID yet know that the person is who they say they are because they know them from the neighborhood, your entire line of thought falls apart.
You're also not reflecting on the vast differences between drinking and voting. You need a photo ID to drink because there are a shit ton of people who want to drink and party. That's not the case with voting.
Are you familiar with the methodology that the Bush JD used to investigate voter fraud for five years?
You didn't answer the question.
You assert that you know what I am saying but are you unable to answer that simple question?
You then fill up a couple paragraphs saying things that show that you don't understand what I am saying.
Quit asserting and start showing.
Show that you know what I am saying. Easy simple question.
Show that you know what I am saying. Easy simple question.
I did and that's why I asked you if you knew that the methodology was that the JD used. It wasn't simply lack of evidence that they used to show that voter fraud doesn't exist. Were you aware that they use methods other than checking ID to verify someone's identity? Are you aware that anyone can report suspicion of voter fraud to special JD agents who are set up in special offices on election day? That these offices field many complaints and follow up to see if these individuals are actually who they say they are even if they don't have an ID?
The problem here is, GD, that I reject all three of your assertions and so now it's on to the games. Think about your second one for a minute. How were the few cases of voter fraud (intentional or unintentional) discovered if a photo ID law was not in place? They weren't checking and they still found a few people doing it, most unintentional. How did they find this out?
Christ Mark....
A simple question does not require a multi-paragraph answer.
If you can't answer that question in a concise manner then you absolutely do not understand what I am talking about.
Oh, and no you did not fucking answer the question.
No, he didn't, did he?
Personally, I've yet to vote in any place I've lived where I knew anybody manning the polling place. Nor has my wife. Whether it was a town with rural town of 30,000 poeple or a metropolitan area with multi-million person population. There wasn't any way they could've known I wasn't who I claimed to be. Nor were there cops standing by to make an arrest, so I'm not sure what would prevent someone who somehow miraculously aroused suspicion from just walking away.
I'm curious what measures Democrats have introduced or proposed to combat absentee vote fraud, though.
>I'm curious what measures Democrats have introduced or proposed to combat absentee vote fraud, though.
Good luck getting an answer to that. They'll talk about it but they won't have any concrete policies they have actually put in place on a national level. Talking about it is all they need.
What did Mark call this again? Heading off at the pass? Yeah, that's it, fer shizzle.
Post a Comment