It would have been much easier for me to win the so-called popular vote than the Electoral College in that I would only campaign in 3 or 4-states instead of the 15 states that I visited. I would have won even more easily and convincingly (but smaller states are forgotten)!Where does he get the idea of millions of people voting illegally? It's not very confidence-building to tweet stuff like that!
ADDED: Is this Trump back in campaign mode — because of the recount? The recounters have their craziness in motion, so he's throwing chaos back at them? He knows how to fight hard. That's how he won. If you provoke the animal to fight, he fights.
Posts
331 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 331 of 331"Sure! That's the European way." Not to mention that when we do have our moderate number of kids, we get our au pairs from Europe.
Ha.
If illegals were expected to vote for Republicans, Democrats would have log ago demanded machine gun emplacements every 20 yards along the border, and the barbed wire on The Wall would be coated with poison.
"Millions" requires only two to be accurate. California alone could easily account for two million illegal immigrants voting.
Looked at another way, it seemed to be generally accepted just a few months ago that there are about 11 million illegal immigrants in the US. So it would only take about 18% of them to vote to get to "millions."
When you consider the left's overwhelming hostility to voter ID laws and California issuing drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants, "millions of illegal immigrant voters" stops sounding whacky and starts sounding a lot more like "of course."
Gee and I imagine if you left banks and their safes unlocked overnight no one would break in and steal all the money, and if they did, hey, where's the evidence? Yesireebob.
Robert said, "Did millions of illegals vote? I have no idea. But to refute it, you have to determine how many did."
This is the leftist line. You must prove that lots of bad stuff was done in order to show that any bad stuff was done.
No. Let us be serious. Some people are voting illegally. Some are voting on behalf of dead people. It happens. 'Twas ever thus. It dissolves the American political system and makes patriots think, "why should I bother?" When our President is telling an illegal immigrant that she can vote just because she lives here, I want to give up.
The proper standard is that if you have a right to vote, you should prove it. If not, go away. Back whence you came. Good luck with that.
Stein’s Recount May Prevent WI, PA, MI Votes From Being Counted by Electoral College
Jim Hoft Nov 27th, 2016 9:04 am 416 Comments
trump-map-30-states
Jill Stein is asking for recounts in an effort to nullify the electoral votes of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Federal law says that presidential recounts must be completed within 35 days after an election. Stein waited until 90 minutes before the Wisconsin deadline for filing a recount petition expired.
All the votes have to be certified by December 13 according to a report on Friday. The electors meet on December 19.
Wisconsin will almost certainly miss that deadline, since the last recount took more than a month. And that recount was for a state Supreme Court contest where only 1.5 million votes were cast.
If Wisconsin misses the December 19 deadline, the electoral votes may not be counted.
Stein is going to ask for a hand recount, which will slow the process even further.
If Wisconsin’s electoral votes are excluded on December 19, the state will then have to try and get Congress to include the votes in the January 6 count.
According to Inquisitr:
The statewide recount in the presidential election would require a recount of nearly twice as many ballots — about 3 million — and the process would become even more cumbersome if Stein is successful in requiring a recount by hand, as she has said she prefers.
If the proposed Wisconsin recount is not completed on time, the state’s 10 Electoral College votes could be rendered void. In that scenario, Trump would be left with 296 electoral votes, which is still 26 more than the 270 needed to win the presidency.
But two other states, Michigan and Pennsylvania, where Stein plans to demand a recount could cause even more severe turmoil.
So the situation is actually much worse than most people think.
Stein may successfully strip Trump of the electoral votes of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. If so, it’ll be up to Congress to decide whether they include the votes or not.
You’re letting them distract you. IT ISN’T THE VOTES. The goal is to the nullify the electoral votes by making the states miss the deadline. https://t.co/KACEVja6eD
— Thomas Wictor (@ThomasWictor) November 27, 2016
Ann Althouse said...
Okay, if this is really true, point to the evidence.
It comes across as wacky to me.
Here is the source for the 3 million number, with lots of words tucked around the 2.9 million number used here.
http://www.fairus.org/issue/noncitizens-voting-violations-and-u-s-elections
Why is Jill al-Franken Stein doing this? I had a neutral/positive opinion of her before this. Now she looks like another bought-off Bernie.
HT said...
"Being a dual national and carrying the passport of another country is perfectly legal. Under U.S. law, naturalizing as a citizen of a foreign state will not in and of itself cause you to lose your U.S. citizenship."
"Ann, you need a fact checker."
Yes, HT, the State Department recently (a few years ago) changed their guidance on that matter. This is because under Mexican law, children of US citizens, born in Mexico, have dual citizenship until they turn 18. At that point, if they wish to keep their Mexican citizenship, they must formally renounce their US citizenship. However, no one informs the US of that formal renunciation, so it is quite common for them to continue using a US passport when that is convenient. The State Department used to be concerned about that, but lately they have found more important things to worry about than who is or isn't a US citizen.
@Apple (not April but Apple Inc): I will not embrace Jill al-Franken Stein.
I would love to see evidence that 100 undocumented immigrants voted.
There was no evidence that any white person was involved in lynchings in the 1920's. All of those court cases proved that no white person did it.
Must not have happened.
Trump had nothing to base his accusations of a rigged election on, absolutely nothing but wacky conspiracy theories. The Russians hacking into our governmental electronic systems has been strongly suspected by the country's top security experts.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/white-house-hackers-election-recount-231849
Even the computer scientist who told Hillary to protest said there is no evidence.
So, please, provide the suspicions.
The millions-of-illegal ballots argument is bullshit, without evidence, and at best calculated to distract and enervate (as suggested by Professor Althouse), and alternatively evidence amenable to some of the more worrisome theories about the President-elect.
Do you support cleaning the voter rolls to insure this is a non-issue and demanding identification at a polling location to vote?
"Okay, if this is really true, point to the evidence.
It comes across as wacky to me."
Wacky as in Madison bubble wacky
What a mess.
Okay. Over at the US Census Bureau, a simple search yields the following paper from 1994 called:
ILLUSTRATIVE RANGES OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF UNDOCUMENTED
IMMIGRANTS BY STATE
Edward W. Fernandez & J. Gregory Robinson
Population Division
U.S. Bureau of the Census
https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0008/twps0008.html
First paragraph (for executive types) serves as abstract:
The following presents updated indicatorsof the relative distribution of the undocumented immigrant population by State. Previously, we had issued unofficial indicators by State for April 1993 based on a U.S. total of 4,000,000 undocumented immigrants (see Appendix). That illustrative set was often misconstrued as representing the Census Bureau's "official" estimates of the number of undocumented immigrants for States.
It continues to state that the method of Messrs Fernandez and Robinson is called point estimation where they look at a few states (CA, NY and a few others) and give a high/low estimate.
The Graph is here: https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0008/fig01.gif
CA has a hi/lo estimate of 1.79/1.35 MILLION undocumented immigrants, NY has 0.55/0.45 MILLION undocumented immigrants, and so on.
Okay. That was in 1994. Figure there may have been some sort of coefficient of natural increase and WHOA DUDE; hold the phone. The Donald is UNDERESTIMATING the number of undocumented immigrants in CA. What? How can that be?
I think that the Professor would agree that the US Census office (mandated by the Constitution to do things like count the population every ten years to determine the number and distribution of seats in the House of Representatives) MIGHT be an authority on population statistics.
Okay. These are dated data (pun intended). Now WHO was President in 1994?
Give it a rest. Settle down. Go home. Have a beer. Smoke a joint. But, please don't look for facts in the MSM. There are nice public sites provided by the US Government; and we know they never lie or meddle in other countries' elections; now do they.
Well, with all the governorships and republican state control, I guess this just means, for the integrity of the system, it's time to tighten up those voting rules.
Those who don't, you will just have to go hmmmm.....
Well, how many illegals voted in the election according to team Hillary?
One hundred thousand?
Ten thousand? A thousand?
Nope.
Zero.
After campaigning hard in areas of the country known for their high population of immigrants, and demonizing Trump to these immigrants, team Hillary said exactly zero non-US citizens voted in the election. No immigrant here illegally, no immigrant here on a work visa, a student visa, a tourist visa, or a 'fiance' visa, no immigrant with a green card.
No felons who had there voting rights rescinded voted either.
Zero.
Tell me who is making outrageous claims, now?
Before cons make the whole country more like Alabama and Mississippi and other strongly con dominated states, if you take away the con states where folks can stick a straw in the ground to pump out dough (and other natural resource stuff), what's so great about them vs. the blue (or purple) states that are succeeding in the 21st century?
A federal government dedicated to insuring success in some states and failure in others is no bette than Jim Crow...which was also a Democrat idea.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/nov/18/blog-posting/no-3-million-undocumented-immigrants-did-not-vote-/
"Our ruling
Reports claim 3 million "illegal aliens" cast votes in this year's election.
The articles point back to tweets from Gregg Phillips, who has worked for the Republican Party and has a voter fraud reporting app. But Phillips will not provide any evidence to support his claim, which happens to be undermined by publicly available information.
If Phillips does release a more detailed report, we will consider that information. But for now, this claim is inaccurate. We rate it False."
25th amendment time.
This is the President Elects way of informing the Democrats that there will be a price to be paid (a very steep price) for their typical bull shit. Hillary should take Obama's advice and return to her village.
Can you provide the link Jupiter?
If they throw a curve, you throw a knuckleball. Simple.
"1) 2016 is the first voter-ID-required election in Pennsylvania, and the first election won by the GOP since 1988."
This is false. I live in Pennsylvania, and the voter-ID law was struck down in court almost 3 years ago.
Besides, "the first election won by the GOP since 1988" is only true if you mean a presidential election. The state legislature has been solidly R for years.
Is four Pinocchios bad? Seems like it's a lot better than ten. Is ten a thing? It's way better than a billion Pinocchios.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/11/27/trumps-bogus-claim-that-millions-of-people-voted-illegally-for-hillary-clinton/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_factchecker-trump-658pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Voters do not need to show photo identification at the polling place. Poll workers
should not ask every voter for photo identification.
In 2014, the Commonwealth Court held that the in-
person proof of identification
requirements enacted under Act 18 of 2012 were unconstitutional. Those provisions
are no
longer in force even though
you may see them in Pennsylvania’s Election Code.
http://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Documents/Voter%20ID%20Guidance%20FINAL.pdf
Obama Encouraging Illegals to Vote
This is the smoking gun you are looking for:
Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections, Richman, J. 2014:
"The number of non-citizen voters...could range from just over 38,000 at the very minimum to nearly 2.8 million at the maximum."
https://www.scribd.com/document/332480549/Do-Non-Citizens-Vote-in-US-Elections-Richman-Research-Study
Found at the Conservative Treehouse blog:
theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/11/27/the-historic-facts-about-illegal-alien-voters-full-research-pdf/#more-125026
Gregg Phillips @Jumpvote also says he has data to show 3 million non-citizens voted. He was a managing director for Newt Gingrich's super PAC in 2012 and his organization put out a mobile app to report voter fraud.
The arguments are angels on heads of pins type logic. What Trump should do, and might just do it, is use this flap to insist on ballot integrity including purging voter rolls of dead and duplicate registrations. Then Congress mandates voter ID.
The Democrats opened this door with allegations of hacking and now the recount. Trump should walk through it.
Obama did no such thing in that video. He said if you're voting you're a "citizen".
http://www.snopes.com/obama-encouraged-illegal-aliens-to-vote/
"CLAIM: President Obama encouraged "illegal aliens" to vote and said there would be no consequences if they do.
FALSE
ORIGIN:In the final count down to the upcoming election on 8 November 2016, Fox News host Neil Cavuto expressed disbelief over what he claimed to be remarks by President Barack Obama that encouraged undocumented immigrants to vote illegally. Other conservative outlets soon followed suit, with the Gateway Pundit calling the comments "criminal":
Barack Obama openly called on illegal aliens to vote in Tuesday’s election.
This whole administration is lawless!
They lie at every turn.
They lied to get Obamacare passed.
They lied about Benghazi.
They lied about Hillary’s private server and emails.
And now they are calling on illegal aliens to vote.
The claim originates from an interview with Obama published on 3 November 2016, in which millennial actress Gina Rodriguez asked the president about a number of issues facing young Latinos. Many of the outrage posts were written around a video in which the majority of the president's response was edited out to give the misleading impression that Obama was urging undocumented immigrants to vote illegally:..."
The arguments are angels on heads of pins type logic. What Trump should do, and might just do it, is use this flap to insist on ballot integrity including purging voter rolls of dead and duplicate registrations. Then Congress mandates voter ID.
The Democrats opened this door with allegations of hacking and now the recount. Trump should walk through it.
Agreed. But the Senate GOP is laden with enough pussies to not do it. They don't want to do away with the filibuster if needed, even after the Dems have said, for a year, that they will.
Blogger Unknown said...
Obama did no such thing in that video. He said if you're voting you're a "citizen".
. . . and Obama's interviewer began the question by stating that she considers people here illegally to be citizens because they contribute to society.
Bad response by Obama. Not only did he imply that voting illegally was not going to be detected or punished:
RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?
OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.
Look, if we're expected to believe - and in fact the entire "Republicans are racist" narrative relies on it - that while Richard Nixon was campaigning heavily on, and enacted, affirmative action and forced busing, he was really sending super secret dog whistles to all the southern racists that it's ok to be racist, then I really think it's infinitely more plausible that the very brief mentions in that Obama video that illegals shouldn't vote were barely audible next to the bellowing "nudge nudge wink wink" dog siren of all the statements leading up to it.
The Wikileaks revelations showed that the DNC had in place a plan to bus people to and from various polling stations in multiple battle ground states so they could vote over and over again. There are countless videos on YouTube that show Democrats at various polling stations stuffing ballots. Project Veritas undercover videos also proved that the Democrats always cheat in elections. The Jill Stein recount effort could be to try and stall or expose some kind of election fraud so they can say the whole thing was rigged and we have to do the election all over again. There is no way Jill Stein wins in this she is a pawn for Hillary Clinton who said she wouldn't protest the results. I don't trust anything that's going on and I don't blame Trump for being pissed. He already had to go through hell during this campaign and now this.
There are probably not less than 800,000 non-citizens voting. I would guess a much better estimate would be 1.5 million or so in presidential elections.
Paper from a few years ago:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973
Then add a few hundred thousand of other fraud, which definitely exists - he's not that far off.
The lefties are using the "unbiased" sources Politifact, WaPo, and Snopes to bolster their weak arguments. Lulz
"Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself.
"RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens -- and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country -- are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?
OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.
RODRIGUEZ: This has been a huge fear presented especially during this election.
OBAMA: And the reason that fear is promoted is because they don't want people voting. People are discouraged from voting and part of what is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you're not just speaking for yourself. You're speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school...
RODRIGUEZ: Your entire community.
OBAMA: ... who may not have a voice. Who can't legally vote. But they're counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.
The unedited video, posted by mitú, a media network geared toward young Latinos, can be viewed Here
The rightists are using Alex Jones for their source of information. LULZ my ass off.
Is it wacky?
1. It is well established that many states, especially California, do not take vote fraud seriously.
2. The assumption, which is backed by a great deal of evidence, is vote fraud overwhelming benefits the Democratic Party.
3. Said benefiting political party, coincidentally, opposes any efforts to root out vote fraud as voter suppression and, in fact, actively encourages repealing existing anti-fraud measures while also encouraging laws that make vote fraud much easier (like mail-in voting, motor voter laws, etc.).
4. There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country along with 22 million legal non-citizen immigrants. 3 million out of 33 million is a mere 9% of the total.
5. This does not include any other kinds of illegal voting like felons, dead people, voters voting in multiple precincts, voter impersonation, etc.
Is the 3 million number confirmed by a formal audit? No. Given the information we do know, is the number completely unreasonable? No, it is certainly within the realm of possibility. I could be convinced it is much lower or much higher. It is somewhat scary that we don't know given that the government's legitimacy is dependent on free and fair elections.
Since some of y'all want the Rs in DC to take over the election processes in the States, is there some reason you couldn't justify the DC Rs also putting themselves in charge of redistricting across the country? That way you can even further enshrine the strong R majorities in the House even though, overall, more Americans cast votes for D House candidates.
1) 2016 is the first voter-ID-required election in Pennsylvania, and the first election won by the GOP since 1988."
Maybe, but it was true for WI this election. And I think 1984 was the last R for President in WI.
Con slogan for 2020: "MAMA"
Make America Mississippi Again
Yes, Unknown. We're all aware of the entire context. As I said above, even with that context, it's a hell of a lot more plausible "dog whistle" suggesting illegals can safely vote than Richard Nixon supposedly telling southern racists they can be racists while he campaigned heavily on enacting affirmative action.
That way you can even further enshrine the strong R majorities in the House even though, overall, more Americans cast votes for D House candidates.
This is a bizarre formulation, PB&J. What country do you think that you live in?
When you present this argument to people, do they look at you quizzically? Burst out laughing? Do you think that we should have just one member of the House, who is elected by a national popular vote?
Nationwide voter ID...
That has a nice ring to it.
MAGA
Terry,
Is redistricting confusing to you?
Such bullshit Qwinn. Only wacko rightists and Alex Jones buy into such utter nonsense.
Anything is within the realm of possibility.
(Still waiting, Jupiter.)
"Where does he get the idea of millions of people voting illegally? It's not very confidence-building to tweet stuff like that!"
California Ann, California. Where else?
Ann, it's happening because someone can imagine it happening.
The DHS estimates that there are 11 million illegal aliens in the US. (I think that number is too low, but let's use it anyway.) A George Mason study concluded that approximately 25% are registered to vote. By that math at least 2.75 million non-citizens could have voted in the last election.
By the definition used by the Brennan Center for Justice (the Justice Department uses the Brennan Center definition as do mainstream media outlets), if a non-citizen "accidentally" votes, or votes because he believes it is his or her legal right to do so, no vote fraud has taken place.
What Is Voter Fraud?
“Voter fraud” is fraud by voters.
More precisely, “voter fraud” occurs when individuals cast ballots despite knowing that they are ineligible to
vote, in an attempt to defraud the election system.
http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/The%20Truth%20About%20Voter%20Fraud.pdf
The Brennan center footnotes its definition (presented here by the lawyer-author). It comes from a white paper written by a social scientist, not by a lawyer.
coulda woulda shoulda....
Again, if Trump seriously thinks this is a real issue, he will be a very very bad leader if he sits back and does nothing but jaw about it.
HT,
Trump, bless his heart, tried hard to look presidential for a week or two, but his true self just couldn't be repressed, lol.
I view this as more battlespace preparation than anything. Trump might have been willing to indulge letting the left pump up its popular vote victory as consolation, but if they seriously want to argue that something "fishy" occurred in these 3 states to provide his electoral vote victory, he has no qualms about coming out with something to challenge the legitimacy of Clinton's popular vote margin, irrelevant though it is.
I have no idea what the true number of illegals who voted is, but I think we all know the number isn't 0 and that the Democrats would rather we not know what the answer to this question is. To use DACA as a guide, over a million people here illegally felt comfortable enough to give their identifying information to the federal government for this program. It seems reasonable that at least a similar number would feel comfortable registering to vote, particularly in jurisdictions where the authorities are known to be friendly to illegals (hello California & New York).
"If you provoke the animal to fight, he fights."
Let's hope he restricts these instincts somewhat deciding when to go to war.
"Then Congress mandates voter ID."
First of all, that may be unconstitutional. If not it's bad policy. We need to reduce federal power, not augment it, especially in areas that have been state responsibilities since the nation was formed.
The lefty tears of sorrow are just as sweet today as they were nineteen days ago. Don't stop!
If this has already been posted sorry.
https://www.scribd.com/document/332480549/Do-Non-Citizens-Vote-in-US-Elections-Richman-Research-Study
Tears of laughter is more apt.
Trump only visited 15 states? Who says he lacks focus and discipline.
In 1960, Nixon foolishly promised to visit every state. He kept that promise, despite missing nearly two weeks of campaigning while seriously ill with a leg infection. Keeping that promise cost him the election.
Are you laughing about the left being completely out of power, UnknownInga -- I know I am!
I don't know about "redistricting", PB&J, but the idea that because more people voted for Democrats in the house than Republicans (I'll take your word for it), the house should be controlled by Democrats is bizarre. That's not the way we pick which party controls congress. If we had a "flat" system for choosing reps, the way all congressional campaigns are run would change. The results would not be the same as they are now. The GOP might have more -- or fewer -- reps.
You can't arbitrarily change a rule to suit your side, and then say "see? we really won!"
When you got numbers on your side "the people are sovereign", when the numbers aren't on your side "the rules are there to protect the rights of the minority!" Where was this fevered argument against gerrymandering when the Dems were in charge of redistricting? BTW, we do have a state where the Dems the Dems dominate and have been doing their best to redistrict the GOP out of existence: California.
In my state's legislature, the senate has 26 Dems, 0 republicans, and the house has 45 dems, 6 Republicans. Hillary got two votes for every vote Trump got this year. Shouldn't our state legislature be at least 1/3 GOP?
It's a childish game. That's why I don't play it.
BTW. Voter ID won't work in CA since illegals can get a regular drivers license. And when they do, they get registered to vote unless they say no. The Clinton "Motor-Voter" law is working as intended.
Unknown: "Tears of laughter is more apt"
Oh, certainly. Pay no attention to the non-stop televised mourning occurring on the left.
According to Unknown and Pravda, those are really tears of laughter!!
Who are you gonna believe, your eyes or your local lefty blog-based commissars?
Laughing at you Alex Jones believers. One of which is your man Trump.
Unknown said...
HT,
Trump, bless his heart, tried hard to look presidential for a week or two, but his true self just couldn't be repressed, lol.
I guess that in Unknown's opinion, staying married to an abusive spouse, losing an American ambassador to a jihadi mob, etc, is "looking presidential,"
Terry: "I don't know about "redistricting", PB&J, but the idea that because more people voted for Democrats in the house than Republicans (I'll take your word for it), the house should be controlled by Democrats is bizarre. That's not the way we pick which party controls congress."
You don't understand Terry. If some dem congressperson wins by too many votes in a district the left ought to be allowed to transfer the extra votes to other poorer performing dems!
You know, precisely as the founding fathers intended. But, of course, they were just a bunch of white guys who have nothing to say about our complex modern world. In fact, nothing about our founding principles really matter anymore to the left. That is why the top universities in our country no longer require even 1 semester of Western Civ.
Have to make room for more ______-Studies programs.
Unknown: "Laughing at you Alex Jones believers. One of which is your man Trump"
Perhaps you should spend a few moments contemplating the likelihood of a Farrakhan/Muslim Brotherhood fellow by the name of Ellison heading up the DNC.
That's the spirit! It's never too early to give into Sharia and terrorism!
When will the left renounce these dem supporting organizations with proven ties to actual, real, terrorism?
"You don't understand Terry. If some dem congressperson wins by too many votes in a district the left ought to be allowed to transfer the extra votes to other poorer performing dems!"
An interesting idea, Drago, and I think Obama has hinted that he'd approve of a system like this ("our voters are in the wrong places"), but the problem is that people would voting for a person out of their district, e.g., they would be casting their vote for their representative for a person who did not represent them. People from West LA should not be voting for the person who represents Oklahoma City, and vice versa. This what is stupid about PB&J's theory. Nancy Pelosi's rock-solid dem district should not have more influence on national politics than my district.
David said...First of all, that may be unconstitutional. If not it's bad policy. We need to reduce federal power, not augment it, especially in areas that have been state responsibilities since the nation was formed.
I agree, but SCOTUS can chose to side with (or not rule against) States which pass voter ID laws. Isolate and conquer the cancer that is California!
Drago, I suspect that the Ellison nomination represents the Obama way of looking at the Dems' national problems. Obama looks at the election map, and sees that there are real barriers to national Democrat dominance, esp. given his party's antagonism to the people who live in less populous states.
I think team Obama is trying to use an alternate method of controlling the agenda. Team Obama will control the more populous cultural centers and the lawyers, and they will leverage existing civil rights and environmental laws to force the feds to act the way that team Obama wants them to act, regardless of who controls the White House and congress.
In California, over half of new drivers licenses were issued to illegals in 2015:
Does anybody think a California election worker is going to challenge somebody who has a valid drivers license? Isn't gonna happen.
The AB-60 driver's license, which is clearly marked, is issued for driving purposes only and can't be used as a form of ID. Those applicants are not registered to vote under the Motor Voter law. They can not use those licenses to register elsewhere. I did not approve of AB-60 but although I'm sure some will fall through the cracks because some always do, I don't think there's much danger those licenses will enable massive illegal registration.
But so what? To register in CA, while you are supposed to provide your DL or state ID card number and the last four digits of your SSN, you can register by mail without providing those numbers. In that case when you go to the polls, you may be required to show an acceptable form of ID. The operative word here is may. And if you request mail-in ballots when you register, you can avoid providing ID altogether.
So, if you think there aren't plenty of illegals registered to vote in California, you're just deluding yourself.
Terry,
Since you're wasting a lot of blather not addressing what I wrote, I'll assume that that is your way of agreeing w/ me: the Rs in DC should not try to takeover the individual States' voting processes and congressional redistricting.
"Does anybody think a California election worker is going to challenge somebody who has a valid drivers license?"
That reminds me. When I lived in California in 1979-81, I went down to the DMV to get a Driver's License. The woman next to me in the test room was blatantly cheating: openly copying the answers to the driving test out of the instruction booklet she was supposed to have memorized. I pointed that out to the armed policeman guarding the test room and he just shrugged and sent me on my way. I was not at all surprised how much higher my car insurance was than in the previous state.
Jupiter,
Amen on Oregon. Sen. Wyden said that our system "works just fine." I myself can't think of one more amenable to voter fraud, of which just signing your own name on the ballot of a previously-registered person (registered legally or not -- there are many bedridden in nursing homes and the like) and filling it out yourself is only the most obvious.
Technically, these signatures are to be cross-checked against ones on file. Practically, who does this? At all?
boycat wrote: "There were an estimated 2 million illegal votes in LA County alone." Could you please provide a link to the source of that estimate? Thanks very much. Because otherwise I have to assume you just made it up.
"I have no idea what the true number of illegals who voted is, but I think we all know the number isn't 0 and that the Democrats would rather we not know what the answer to this question is." Yes.
I didn't see any of leftys address the evidence cited from jury duty summons. I could have missed it.
All progs want to do is help folks, not get Rich off of corruption, hence my deepest sympathies lie with them, getting so wealthy by fiat accident and all, and only harming those they dearly dearly champion and care for.
Also, I AM GOING TO HEAT the world up and kill it to deadly death, thanks for letting me know just exactly how Godish I am in actuality and sorry 'bout Earth and all progs. Maybe y'all should have not told all of us Hitlers how to permanently exterminate you and yours through climate. What were you thinking, letting all of us crazy, science-denying homocidal mega-killers know how to end you forever?
You brought this on yourself, like the chains coming for you Thursday at 4:30 pm.
"David said...
"Then Congress mandates voter ID."
First of all, that may be unconstitutional. If not it's bad policy. We need to reduce federal power, not augment it, especially in areas that have been state responsibilities since the nation was formed."
Regulating federal elections is a specifically enumerated constitutional power.
(Art. I, Sec 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.")
I can't see how that could be more clear.
Blogger Douglas said...
boycat wrote: "There were an estimated 2 million illegal votes in LA County alone." Could you please provide a link to the source of that estimate? Thanks very much. Because otherwise I have to assume you just made it up.
"-A quarter of the roughly 11.4 million immigrants in the country illegally live in California. Of those, nearly 60% live in six Southern California counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura."
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-immigrants-california-daca-20150115-story.html
Surprised?
I'm not.
Cali has population of 37 million.
If the LA Times is right, 1 out of twelve people living in Californians is an illegal alien.
Sukie Tawdry wrote:
But so what? To register in CA, while you are supposed to provide your DL or state ID card number and the last four digits of your SSN, you can register by mail without providing those numbers. In that case when you go to the polls, you may be required to show an acceptable form of ID. The operative word here is may. And if you request mail-in ballots when you register, you can avoid providing ID altogether.
California has . . . interesting laws covering voter registration drives (as opposed to you actually registering yourself to vote):
"While federal law requires the voter to check a box on the affidavit of registration to indicate that they are a U.S. citizen, Elections Code section 2111 says that a person who signs an affidavit of registration under penalty of perjury is assumed, in the absence of contrary information, to be a citizen. Elections Code section 2112 additionally states that an affidavit of registration is proof of citizenship for voting purposes only; it cannot be used to prove citizenship for any other purpose."
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/additional-elections-information/publications-and-resources/guide-vr-drives/
Oh, PB&J, you are being silly.
Blogger Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...
Terry,
Since you're wasting a lot of blather not addressing what I wrote, I'll assume that that is your way of agreeing w/ me: the Rs in DC should not try to takeover the individual States' voting processes and congressional redistricting.
11/27/16, 10:03 PM
The feds have taken a keen interest in congressional redistricting since the dawn of the civil rights era. You are onto your "one rule for my guys, one rule for their guys" kick again.
Remember what I wrote in an earlier comment about how "flat" redistricting wouldn't necessarily help the Dems?
Well, good-bye federally mandated majority Black districts! Hello lilly-white US house of reps!
If the LA Times is right, 1 out of twelve people living in Californians is an illegal alien.
Add to this the fact that we have 12% of the country's population and 1/3 of the country's welfare cases.....now you begin to understand the Hell I live in.......
Althouse: Is it more or less nutty to believe that the bulk of anti-establishment news sits (left, right, and libertarian) are secretly working for Russia and should be investigated by the government for treason, or that a significant number of votes in states like California were cast by illegals?
Left a comment with links. Don't see it so I'm wondering if it got spammed. I linked to a 2014 study by academics from Old Dominion and George Mason claiming up to 2.8 million illegal voters.
Title of the paper was "Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections?" The lead author was named Richman and it was written in 2014.
The former director for Newt Gingrich is part of an organization that released a mobile app for reporting voter fraud and he and his organization are claiming 3 million illegal votes based on their analysis of county data. His name is Gregg Phillips.
"Dwayne Johnson stars as Rahm Emmanuel"
The full Hollywood would require that Rahm Emmanuel be played by Arnold Schwarzeneggar.
"While federal law requires the voter to check a box on the affidavit of registration to indicate that they are a U.S. citizen, Elections Code section 2111 says that a person who signs an affidavit of registration under penalty of perjury is assumed, in the absence of contrary information, to be a citizen. Elections Code section 2112 additionally states that an affidavit of registration is proof of citizenship for voting purposes only; it cannot be used to prove citizenship for any other purpose."
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/additional-elections-information/publications-and-resources/guide-vr-drives/
Am I crazy, or does this say that in Cali a person who registers to vote is not required to prove that they are a citizen, but the fact that they have registered (under penalty of perjury) is considered proof of citizenship for voting, but for nothing else?
Jesus Christ, this is an invitation to registers illegals to vote, and an open door for illegals to vote in California.
The marmalade hairball won't even accept election results that he won
Blogger EsoxLucius said...
The marmalade hairball won't even accept election results that he won
It's Stein and Hillary that want a recount, you idiot.
It would have been much easier for me to win the so-called popular vote than the Electoral College in that I would only campaign in 3 or 4-states instead of the 15 states that I visited. I would have won even more easily and convincingly (but smaller states are forgotten)!
This is nonsense on stilts.
Here we have Donald Trump again (you would have hoped maybe he would have stopped, but he seems to have slipped sback into the spirit of the campaign) repeating something that other people said without caring whether or not it is true.
It is not true that if the election was decided by the popular vote he would only campaign in 3 or 4 stts. Every state would be important, according to population. In the states that he visisted did he on;y visit larger cities?
The visits, by the way, were a form of polling.
The problem with polling is taht the percentage of people who respond is now well below 10% Part of the reason is the enormous number of marketing calls, plus they now have a system where if you answer the ohone too quickly, there's dead air. The calls are dialed automatically, and timed so there is someone at their end only toward the later rings. A lot of people look at their caller id, especially wh cellphones, and decide to pick up only if it is someone or some number hey know - otherwise it goes to voice mail. So the pollsteers have to adjust.
What Trumps people did was stratify not according to age and sex and so on like that, but something that is linked to opinion. They stratifie according to store loyalty cards, gym memberships and contributions to certain charities. The "polling" consisted of asking people to take yard signs, buy hats, and especially, attend rallies. If in a certain place more people attended rallies, they knew there was more support.
The idea of massive illegal registration may be correct, particularly in California, but it's probably not that big. eolple may have registered without people taking care that they are eligible, but that doesn't mean that they weren't in fact eligible. Pre-registration itself (well priopr to Election Day), and more or less limiting the right to vote to one polling place per person per election, is a great preventative to any kind of fraudulant or double voting.
Where does he get the idea of millions of people voting illegally? It's not very confidence-building to tweet stuff like that!
The figure of millions comes, I think, from an estimate of the number of dead people or people who have moved, still registered all over the country.
But if they voted, it wouldn't be in person, and it would highly noticeable if it occurred in any significant numbers. They also wouldn't all vote one way, unless it was organized by insiders.
Registration doesn't mean voting. It is sometimes common for people to vote according to their old address, but then they don't vote, and aren't registered, at their new address.
11/28/16, 1:55 AM
this is an invitation to registers illegals to vote, and an open door for illegals to vote in California.
It's mre an invitation to people onducting registration drives in California not to pay any attention to the citizenship requirement. That would slow them down, if they had to ask.
The person who killed the leading candidate for president of Mexico in 1994 (he killed him in Mexico and he wasn't at that time, any kind of a resident of California, let alone a U.S. citizen) was registered to vote in Caifornia.
In very heavily Democratic areas, everybody gets caught up in registration drives, it seems.
There are plenty of U.S. citizens who aren't registered, so it is reasonable to assume, that not every non-U.S. citizen, or even a majority, is registered. Fewer would actually vote. The scale of this I don't have any idea of. I suppose it might increase the Dem vote in some poorer areas by up to 20% - it ccold only tae pace where there's no opposition.
Statewide, lets's say it will add 3%. Thiss means a margin of 61% is really 58% or so, and i popular votes, about 300,000.
You could be especially wary of absentee or later counted ballots - they've been trending heavily toward Hillary, but she led on Election Night too. Where those late ballots come from, I don't know. They are reportedly mainly from states she carried heavily. There should be more late arriving overseas ballots from places like New York and California. But I don't know really the cause.
Here's a Washington Post story about it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/08/hillary-clinton-will-gain-votes-after-election-night-heres-why/
Here's a claim (fake news) that military absentee ballots were delivered late, and would have swung the election to Hillary, which is unlikely, since they voted more for Trump.
http://www.duffelblog.com/2016/11/military-absentee-ballots/
One comment says this is the same spoof story that appeared in 2012. Nor is it explained in that article why very many ballots mailed on November 2 or 3, should not have arrived by November 8, nor how any postal clerks in Bahrain would know which sealed ballots to steal, or what side they were on. Also, in fact, ballots that arrive late, but were postmarked earlier, do get counted if they arrive within a week or so.
This is the Snopes report on that:
http://www.snopes.com/military-absentee-ballots-clinton/
"Prior instances in which Duffel Blog articles were misidentified as genuine news included claims West Point posthumously revoked diplomas of confederate soldiers, the Army adopted a "mandatory divorce" policy to "improve readiness," Ariana Grande joined ISIS, the USS Gabrielle Giffords would be the Navy's first "gun-free" warship, the Pentagon allocated large amounts of money for Powerball tickets to fund the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, and Medal of Honor recipient Kyle Carpenter was stripped of his award after failing to complete a minor course while actively serving."
Here's anotehr report from Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/13/who-won-the-popular-vote/
"Several states, notably California and Washington, have liberal absentee and mail-in voting laws. California, for instance, allows residents to submit ballots up to three days late (although they must be postmarked on or before Election Day). These provisions have made alternative voting pretty popular, and the ballots a bit harder to count. California alone has more than 4 million votes pending; Washington is waiting on another 700,000."
I don't understand this language. If they must be postmarked by Election Day, then they are submitted on or before Election Day.
Snopes also links to a false claim that abxentee ballots are never counted unless needed to decide an election.
@Boxty
I didn't see a comment of yours in the spam file. I don't know what happened there. Just try again if you like. I didn't delete anything.
"I don't understand this language. If they must be postmarked by Election Day, then they are submitted on or before Election Day."
Maybe it means the government accepts mailed ballots 3 days after Election Day, but you've got to mail it on Election Day at the latest.
Here is the well-linked regularly updated unofficial spreadsheet of current election results:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19
Many states have no change from November 15, and others add like 1% or less but California increased its vote total by about one third:
Earlier results reported in California were:
Hillary Clinton: 6,262,707
Donald Trump: 3,352,555
Others: 543,995
Or 61.6% vs 33.0% vs. 5.4%
Results as of November 27 I guess, are:
Hillary Clinton: 8,172,583
Donald Trump: 4,239,740
Others: 756,916
Or 62.2% vs 34.3% vs. 3.5%
Interesting the percentage for third party candidates went down.
Ohio increased it's total by aboout 3% or 4% but its 3rd-party total stayed exactly the same: 236.410 votes/ Maybe the value in that column in the spreadsheet wasn't updated. The percentage is still 4.4%. The mathematics is still correct - in the first case it's rounded down and in the second case, rounded up. Trump vs Hillary goes from 52.1% and 43.5% to 51.8%to 43.8%
"I don't understand this language. If they must be postmarked by Election Day, then they are submitted on or before Election Day."
Maybe it means the government accepts mailed ballots 3 days after Election Day, but you've got to mail it on Election Day at the latest.
That is the most logical meaning and most likely to be true (it would be BIG news if you could vote after Election Day), but why use the word "submit?" It's the wrong word.
As for federal law, the states electoral votes are not VOIDED if the vote isn't complete by the statutory "safe harbor" deadline. It's just a different process.
In 2000, the Florida Supreme Court had established that as a matter of state law, the deadline had to be met. That's why the US Supreme Court said the recount could not be done in time -- in time to get into the safe harbor.
Remember, if the whole process goes to hell, the final determination of who will be President will be made will be by the House, with each state getting 1 vote. Trump will win.
"That is the most logical meaning and most likely to be true (it would be BIG news if you could vote after Election Day), but why use the word "submit?" It's the wrong word."
The word is quoted from an article in The Atlantic, not the California statute. I assume it's a careless paraphrase.
"Remember, if the whole process goes to hell, the final determination of who will be President will be made will be by the House, with each state getting 1 vote. Trump will win."
So really the question is: How much chaos should we have in the run-up to a new presidency? How much distraction do you want from the transition?
Trump talking crazy talk about illegal votes might affect one's answer to that question. He's seeking chaos. Or maybe he's saying: You want chaos, I'll give you chaos. Better back off on your chaos, because my chaos is more powerful. I will still be President in the end. And now you'll have President Chaos!
This is worse than 2000.
Craig: The comments section here is an incubator for paranoid nutcases:
I would love to see evidence that 100 undocumented immigrants voted. Good luck.
Boy are you an ignorant prick. Try 1000, not 100. Virginia caught them last election:
"The 1,046 Virginia voters may just be the tip of the iceberg, as it’s only the number found in eight Virginia localities, the report reads. The report found that the most illegal votes were cast in 2012..."
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/bombshell-1000-illegal-votes-cast-eight-virginia-localities/
Here's a thought - before you start sliming people as "paranoid nutcases", perhaps you should get out of the house once in awhile.
Right, Donald Trump is an animal and he will absolutely destroy the U.S. electoral process if he is not respected as he wants to be respected.
As election day approached, one group calling itself the Public Interest Legal Foundation that is based in Indiana and another one based in Virginia came up with a dubious “investigation” that “found” 1,046 people who were not eligible to be registered to vote in several Virginia counties and cities, notably in the Washington suburbs. The groups had used similar ruses in other states.
When I wrote a blog piece about the reports in The Post, I was quickly pounced upon by such echo-chamber standouts as the Bull Elephant, PJ Media and the American Civil Rights Union. Even Bacon’s Rebellion, where I blogged for years, couldn’t resist a jab or two.
Trump stirred the pot nationally by suggesting that Clinton operatives were subverting the electoral system and that he might not respect the results if he were to lose.
Come election day, I found myself on a news assignment to watch for voter intimidation and fraud. I was in regular contact with various registrars, the Virginia Department of Elections and the American Civil Liberties Union. I visited several polling stations at demographically eclectic spots in the Richmond area.
Alas, I didn’t have anything of substance to report. There was a phantom report of intimidation in Chesapeake and one real one in Sussex County (the troublemaker decided leave before the cops showed up).
There was no huge fraud. There didn’t seem to be any fraud at all. No thugs in hobnailed boots showed up. Of course, I couldn’t tell if phony voters had registered before the election, but I didn’t hear anything overt.
In the end, Hillary Clinton won Virginia with 49.75 percent of the vote. Trump came in with 44.43 percent of the vote. Virginia was the only Southern state to go blue. Of course, Trump won the national electoral college, giving him the presidency.
Trump’s victory means nothing among the strident fraud watchdogs.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all-opinions-are-local/wp/2016/11/23/conservatives-are-still-beating-the-drum-about-voter-fraud-in-virginia/?utm_term=.c76e5a5eea8a
Also, in fact, ballots that arrive late, but were postmarked earlier, do get counted if they arrive within a week or so.
"n the most shameful and painful act of the hand counts, the Democrats on the ground, and their operators from the Democratic National Committee and the state organization and the Gore campaign, deliberately and systematically scrutinized for challenge every military absentee ballot, and knocked out as many as they could on whatever technicality they could find or even invent.
Reports begin to filter out. The Democratic army of lawyers and operatives marches into the counting room armed with a five-page memo from a Democratic lawyer, instructing them on how to disfranchise military voters. The lawyers and operatives unspool reams of computer printouts bearing the names and party affiliation of military voters. Those who are Republicans are subject to particular and seemingly relentless scrutiny. Right down to signatures on ballots being compared with signatures on registration cards. A ballot bearing a domestic postmark because a soldier had voted, sent his ballot home to his parents and asked them to mail it in on time, is thrown out. A ballot that comes with a note from an officer explaining his ship was not able to postmark his ballot, but that he had voted on time—and indeed it had arrived in time—is thrown out, because it has no postmark.
The Democratic operatives are ruthless, focused. As one witness says, “They had a clear agenda.”
Received late Wednesday, an e-mail forwarded from a Republican who witnessed the counting of the Brevard County overseas absentee ballots.
It is 11:30 PM (Tuesday) and I have just returned from the count of absentee ballots, that started at 4PM. Gore had five attorneys there, the sole objective was to disenfranchise the military absentee voter. . . . They challenged each and every vote. Their sole intent was to disqualify each and every absentee voter. They constantly challenged military votes that were clearly legitimate, but they were able to disqualify them on a technicality. I have never been so frustrated in all my life as I was to see these people fight to prevent our active duty Military from voting. They succeeded in a number of cases denying the vote to these fine Men and Women.
This was a deliberate all out assault on the Armed Forces solely to sustain the Draft Dodger and his flunky. These people must have a hard time looking at themselves in a mirror. . . . They denied a number of votes postmarked Queens NY, ballots that were clearly ordered from overseas, clearly returned from overseas, and verified by the Post Office that DOD uses the Queens post office to handle overseas mail, were denied because it didn’t say APO, They denied military votes postmarked out of Jacksonville, Knowing full well it came from ships at sea and was flown into Jacksonville"
http://www.peggynoonan.com/121/
"This is worse than 2000."
Not even close. I was on the ground in Florida during the recount, so I know.
Much has changed. For one, if the Left resorts to violence, the Trump crowd is going to bash their teeth in. These will not be the Brooks Brothers "riot" of 2000. You're going to see marxist scum lying dead in streets.
Trump has about as much evidence for his claim as Stein, Clinton, et al have for demanding a recount in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Obadiah, I live in Pennsylvania, and I have voted here for several years, and the long-time poll worker, a neighbor and friend of mine, required me to show ID, as she did every other voter in line.
So it's nice that the PA voter ID law is headed for the state supreme court. But on the ground in my voting district, and presumably in others, voter ID is required.
Paul said...
"Where does he get the idea of millions of people voting illegally? It's not very confidence-building to tweet stuff like that!"
California Ann, California. Where else?"
Any sanctuary city. I know how it works because as a kid I watched it work and it works amazingly well.
http://www.nbcnews.com/card/voters-wrongly-asked-id-polls-pennsylvania-n679791
Voters Wrongly Asked for ID at the Polls in Pennsylvania
Trump being Trump. "Millions" is way over the top, but illegals voting could impact individual voting districts and even states.
The best way to look at it that if you exclude CA, Trump wins the popular vote. CA should secede.
Remember, the Progs "laughing" at conservatives here believe Putin hacked thousands of machines in hundreds of locations without using the internet and requiring numerous people to pull off --- and nobody caught any of them.
THAT is their belief.
So, yes, assuming illegals who are registered to vote when they get a license and CA gives licenses regardless of citizenship is just wacky. Assuming that Russians rigged the election --- well, that is why we investigate shit, kids.
You don't understand Terry. If some dem congressperson wins by too many votes in a district the left ought to be allowed to transfer the extra votes to other poorer performing dems!
Also ask if I, in SC, should be able to vote against Nancy Pelosi in CA.
I don't know the laws of all of the 50 states, but in the several (AZ, WA, PA, MA) that I have lived in, citizenship is not a requirement for getting a photo driver's license. This regime makes sense, in general: if you're here and can drive competently, you should be able to get a license. Europeans are often required to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for driver school. Those who come to the USA get a USA license and switch, pretty much for free, upon moving back to Europe. Long story, statism, blah blah.
Anyway, it's easy to find a way to vote in America, without legal voting privilege.
Bob Ellison reasons: This regime makes sense, in general: if you're here and can drive competently, you should be able to get a license.
It makes sense if the applicants are here legally, citizen or not. It does not make sense--to me--for California or any other state to issue drivers licenses to those who are already breaking the law by being here and then automatically register them to vote.
Terry said on 11/27/16, @ 9:41 PM CST:
BTW, we do have a state where the Dems the Dems dominate and have been doing their best to redistrict the GOP out of existence: California.
In my state's legislature, the senate has 26 Dems, 0 republicans, and the house has 45 dems, 6 Republicans. Hillary got two votes for every vote Trump got this year. Shouldn't our state legislature be at least 1/3 GOP?
We have another state, New York, where, even though districts, since the 1960s, have to approximately equal in population, the state Assembly is always Democratic and the State Senate always always Republican, through the miracle of gerrymandering, for over 40 years, with a temporary exception or two.
The Assembly always has a map drawn to favor Dems and the State Senate to favor Reps. The state is heavily Dem (the Assembly is about 2/3 Dem) so it takes some doing. It's getting harder for the Republicans -- I think the last time they may have lost the prison districts, where downstate prisoners are counted among the population of the area.
Right now the Senate Republicans are relying on one state Senator, Simcha Felder * , who represents a district specially created for him, and who is elected as Democrat but votes in the State Senate as a Republican, and also on a caucus of "Independent Democrats," led by Jeffrey Klein, that just grew from 5 members to 7. These members are more liberal than average.
* He was recently re-elected. This November, there was a choice betweeen Simcha Felder the Democrat, and Simcha Felder the Republican and Simcha Felder the Conservative Party nominee, or otherwise you could write-in a name.
After giving it some thought, I decided to vote for Simcha Felder the Republican, because I approve of what he's doing, even though I don't really like the Republican Party.
As a 'red' voter, I am officially moving out of my 'blue' state to a red one.
Craig said...
Gahrie, I'm googling to try to find the districts where > 100% of registered voters voted.
You should have enough evidence by now, Craig.
Jesus Christ, this is an invitation to registers illegals to vote, and an open door for illegals to vote in California.
BINGO!
Ann Althouse: Trump talking crazy talk about illegal votes might affect one's answer to that question. He's seeking chaos.
You see chaos. I see him setting a marker down. How many other "crazy" positions turned out to be closely aligned with the final outcome? Winning blue states? Winning more Black and Hispanic votes?
You see, we know the number of illegal votes is greater than zero. You're just positing the number 2 million as a "crazy" number meant to incite chaos when I, who live surrounded by vote fraud and machine politics at it's ugliest, consider his estimate to be low and not nutty at all. The chaos is happening NOW as we allow non-citizens and felons to vote illegally!
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-primary-results-finally-counted-20160710-snap-story.html
(WHY IT TOOK A MONTH TO COUNT CALIFORNIA'S VOTES DURING THE PRIMARY)
POLITIFACT LINK:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/nov/18/blog-posting/no-3-million-undocumented-immigrants-did-not-vote
California Motor Voter Election Codes: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=02001-03000&file=2260-2270
In particular look at codes 2268 and 2269. Registering and/or voting illegally is offically sanctioned by the state of California.
The evidence has been well and truly presented. Only those who don't want to believe it won't. Anyone living on the West Coast knows what's going on. It's just a question of how you frame it.
I live in Pennsylvania and my girlfriend and I both had to show ID. I don't think everyone had to, though. The impression I got was that we had to because we had just moved to the district and it was our first time voting there. Our name in the registration book basically had a "Check ID" stamp because of it.
When I showed them my license with my old address (on the other side of the same town), they asked for change of address documentation, which I had.
I was quite glad to see it.
No real evidence was presented here. Imaginings, scenario-playing-outs, links to alt right media, but no real evidence.
It is true that some municipalities either have given the vote to legal residents for local elections or are considering it. This consideration is happening in Washington, DC and I am against it and think it is a mistake.
I too can imagine people trying to sneak in to vote. And hey, my catastrophizing may even be worse than yours! it is very different than the fears I see presented here that’s for sure. But so what? What difference does it make that I imagine this or that you imagine that? I have not actually seen undocumented people vote, and I have not heard of people attempting to do so, directly.
If Donald Trump wants to actually put his money where is mouth is and make election integrity a serious issue, but only ends up focusing on supposed voter fraud, then what a fraud he is, what a poor job of governing that would be. I’m not saying don’t look into it, but good Lord, pull your gaze back long enough to notice the broader picture.
Post a Comment