I was the classic nonvoter: I didn't vote because the weather was bad. It wasn't even that bad. Early on, it was raining, but then it changed to snow, and it was even big fluffy flakes, the kind I tend to exclaim about with delight. And yet, it was windy, and it was getting a bit late.
But who was I supposed to vote for? It's Wisconsin, where I could have voted in either party's primary. The most compelling candidate was in the Democratic Party primary: "uninstructed delegation." This morning I see, in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "Wisconsin 'uninstructed delegation' voters more than double Biden's 2020 margin." I had a little trouble understanding what that meant.
Voters who chose "uninstructed delegation" in Wisconsin's presidential primary Tuesday more than doubled the 20,000 votes President Joe Biden won the state by in 2020, sending a warning sign for his reelection chances in the battleground state.
Now, there was some constitutional amending going on, and I missed out on that.
But: "Wisconsin voters approve constitutional amendments on election funding, officials/Wisconsin voters have approved a pair of constitutional amendments put on the spring 2024 ballot by the Republican-controlled Legislature to ban private money to fund elections and to say only designated officials can perform any task in the conduct of elections" (PBS Wisconsin).Private money to fund elections will be banned in Wisconsin after voters approved a constitutional amendment on April 2 put forward by Republicans in reaction to grants received in 2020 that were funded by donations from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
Voters also approved a second question put on the ballot by the Republican-controlled Legislature that amends the constitution to say that only election officials can administer elections. That’s already state law, but putting it in the constitution makes it more difficult to repeal or change.
Posts
82 comments:
Zuckerbucks are gone. Random unauthorized, but fully stuffed ballot boxes bought and paid for by Zuckerbucks are supposedly gone.
Other things happened in other states, small but meaningful things. Like Nebraska going back to a 'winner takes all' electoral vote instead of a district by district awarding. Small, but big thing in a tight race.
In other news, the GOP is still missing in Michigan. No one seems to know their last whereabouts and they haven't been seen in years.
Why haven't they spent the last 3 and a half years making elections as obviously secure as possible...I know how the "election denier" will answer my question!
That's because you teed it up for them. The answer is so obvious that at first I thought the question was rhetorical. It's the same reason Democrats voted against preventing Mark Zuckerberg from financing get-out-the vote efforts in Democratic precincts.
This would have been the issue that got me to the polls, but since the good guys won handily, it's ok if some people blew it off.
Why haven't they spent the last 3 and a half years making elections as obviously secure as possible instead of reviling those who think Trump actually won in 2020?
We all know the answer. If elections are secure, Democrats can't win.
The 2020 election was rigged. Wisconsin was part of it.
Voter fraud is how Democrats in purple states win and protect democracy.
Milwaukee passed a referendum to raise taxes and give more money to Milwaukee Public Schools.
51-49. Affluent, liberal, white areas of the city voted for the increase, poorer minority neighborhoods voted against it.
Some minority neighborhoods were 10% yes, 90% no. Interesting racial split among Milwaukee Democrat voters.
I know how the "election denier" will answer my question!
Good. Now I don’t have to type it…
I’ve never been one for the if you don’t vote you can’t complain theiry. Meaningful abstention, the snow was too fluffy…all good.
Private funding of public elections reminds me of this—Keep it fair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyJ3_10Wrcc
I wish Democrats would respond to those who fear that elections are or could be rigged. Why haven't they spent the last 3 and a half years making elections as obviously secure as possible instead of reviling those who think Trump actually won in 2020? I know how the "election denier" will answer my question!
Please stop trying to paint yourself as a prototypical Naive Nelly. The “I’m just a woman so please don’t force me to think too hard” shtick ain’t working for a professor with your impressive CV.
Why haven't they spent the last 3 and a half years making elections as obviously secure as possible instead of reviling those who think Trump actually won in 2020?
Saying "we won the last election fair and square" is not incompatible with a deep dive into the mechanics of that election.
It would take some pretty fancy exposition to connect "we won the last election fair and square" with ", and here's all the things that weren't done last time that will make future elections even more fair."
Saying "we won last election was fair and square", "no, you can't audit it", *and* "no, we don't need to make them more fair" has one obvious implication.
I think you need a justice system committed to rule of law for any of this stuff to matter. WI got rid of their: I believe…
Why haven't they spent the last 3 and a half years making elections as obviously secure as possible instead of reviling those who think Trump actually won in 2020?
Undoubtedly the answer our host is expecting is the one I would give: because they don't want to make elections "as obviously secure as possible," and they do want to "revile" Trump supporters.
But I thought the question would be different. I thought it'd be, "Why haven't they spent the last 3 and a half years proving that the 2020 election was as secure as they continually claimed it was?" In which case, my answer would've been, because they can't.
But I don't think Trump "actually won." I don't know who "actually won" because changes to election procedures rendered that question unanswerable. What I do know is that... 1. changes to election procedures did render the questions of election veracity and security unanswerable, 2. every such change, no matter how dicey or how unsupported by state legislature or how unprecedented, was in a direction that stood to benefit Democrats, 3. Biden got a huge in-kind and (in a different sense) unanswerable donation from the entire media establishment including those same social media outlets that want to be considered common carriers, and 4. even with all that help, Biden won by only some 40,000 votes.
Which, to my mind, renders the claims of the "How dare you question the veracity and security of the 2020 election?!" crowd, that we "election deniers" believe there was "massive" election fraud, kind of moot. It wouldn't have had to be "massive." It - meaning actual ballot fraud - would just have had to be properly targeted. And in any case, we'll never know, and it likely wouldn't have mattered, because the advantage provided by 1-3 above was enough to tip the election.
Though barely.
Please stop trying to paint yourself as a prototypical Naive Nelly. The “I’m just a woman so please don’t force me to think too hard” shtick ain’t working for a professor with your impressive CV.
Good grades and a brain wired to please the professor doesn’t make you a thinker. Also old. Cut her some slack…
The Chicago way is now the left's universal way.
You will not be allowed to question it.
"That's because you teed it up for them. The answer is so obvious that at first I thought the question was rhetorical."
Reflect on the old Allen Ginsburg adage: "first thought, best thought."
What's with all these comments flatfootedly stating what I've already implied? And you seem to be dinging ME for not getting it what I've just said (but not sledgehammered).
Why not say something more friendly like: I agree with what I think you are implying?
Ann Althouse said...What's with all these comments flatfootedly stating what I've already implied? And you seem to be dinging ME for not getting it what I've just said (but not sledgehammered).
There is a lazy rhetorical trick of undermining an objection by anticipating it--pretending that, because you saw it coming but said what you said anyway, it must not have been persuasive. You followed that formula.
It was only the primary, but how do you know you didn’t vote? I wonder if you can check your voting record with the registrar …
"There is a lazy rhetorical trick of undermining...."
Now, I'm rethinking my "first thought, best thought" advice to you. Your first thought seems to be sour and unfriendly.
If that's why you read this blog, I won't respond to you again. I was genuinely trying to help and to be friendly.
"Gusty Winds said...
Milwaukee passed a referendum to raise taxes and give more money to Milwaukee Public Schools.
51-49. Affluent, liberal, white areas of the city voted for the increase, poorer minority neighborhoods voted against it.
Some minority neighborhoods were 10% yes, 90% no. Interesting racial split among Milwaukee Democrat voters."
Yep, another $250 million down the shitter. And my taxes go up...again.
Some people have clearly never been in a Socratic Method classroom...
Reap what you sow Ann...
" That’s already state law"
And yet, Zuckerberg broke it and election officials in heavily Democratic districts went along.
@8:09 am
That's an interesting comment. There's a huge gap, in both word choice and thought, between implication and sledgehammering, ...just clearly & calmly stating one's opinion, for one. To "imply" leaves you subject to commenters then trying to dig through that implication "mud" to find clarification.
Communication requires mutual understanding of words and concepts and positions. You do your commentariat a disfavor if you're intentionally being equivocal or ambiguous, and then criticizing them for seeking clarification. In simple terms, it's teasing your readers and then telling them to quit overreacting.
I agree with what you are clearly implying. By their works ye shall know them.
Well done, uninstructed voters and non-voters. You have achieved greatly.
Question for discussion: has the aggressively partisan posture of the newly installed Wisconsin Supreme Court majority given the voters second thoughts? A low turnout primary is probably not too instructive, but is there change in the air?
The Michigan GOP, as noted above, has gone missing. Lost, stolen, or strayed?
I didn't comment on yesterday's election post, but my thought was, "I knew when it was time to vote in my state because they sent me my absentee ballot." If the weather is bad on the actual day, I don't care. I sent my return weeks earlier.
I know it's not fashionable in right-leaning circles to champion for the absentee ballot as routine. I love it. I registered to vote at the dmv, where my eligibility was certified.
To answer your question: the right has its bastion, and the left theirs. Each side believes the other has a malicious reason for not meeting and solving this. So they never meet.
My voting has been forced mail-in for years. Non of the pageantry of in-person voting is possible.
Re: 2020 election
There is no great mystery about what happened in 2020. Mollie Ball spelled it out in Time in February 2021 (The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign that Saved the 2020 Election). Mollie Hemingway wrote a book about it (Rigged). Shortest version: Dems using Silicon Valley millions and COVID fears played Calvinball with the 2020 election rules and procedures, and Team Trump had no way to effectively challenge the process after the fact.
Trump has stoked grievances and chased rabbits ever since.
If that's why you read this blog, I won't respond to you again. I was genuinely trying to help and to be friendly
So say you so be it. It looked to me like you were trying to prevent a certain kind of comment re: election integrity you’ve in the past defined as ‘boring’ or ‘shitting on the blog’. Now you want to be friendly?
I think Ann understands that our election system is purposely terrible.
It is why congress has a 7% approval rating and a 95% re-election rate.
Nobody knows when things happen or what is being voted on. It is raining constantly, there is a 3 vote process to decide one thing. It is done on touch screens that don't provide a receipt.
The voter registration system is opaque and obviously corrupt being run by for profit 3rd parties that get no bid contracts.
Dumbfucks that support Biden want concrete proof that someone committed fraud in a system that is designed to hide fraud.
When a company is caught breaking GAAP rules they go into an audit process where they have to prove their innocence. And Election system should be open and transparent and if it is not then it is rightfully assumed to be corrupt just like any corporation would be.
Tim Maguire can speak for himself exceedingly well, so this may be unnecessary and even unwelcome. I was surprised to see AA dispute so personally with Tim. He is at least as accurate word-for-word as anyone else on this blog's comments (IMO). He almost never replies to an argument personally. Perhaps more than this comment, but also one or more of his past analyses, nettled? If so, it was probably from being correct in its relentless logic, whose terseness may omit diplomacy. Let an honest disagreement go. Fwiw, I too had some doubts produced by AA's expression of her viewpoint -- seeming to me to avoid an actual commitment to its apparent conclusion. Maybe it was written in haste.
This was a shitty night for both front runners.
65,399 voters showed up to voted against Biden and 123,809 show up to vote against Trump. The difference is the Dems are in panic mode and the Trumpies think they have this *in the bag.* The protest voters hated Trump by a two to one margin. Grampa Joe also got 30,000 more votes overall than Trump.
If the Dems are successful at kicking Joe off the ticket, it won't even be a contest.
I voted. It was brutal. I got wet! But Our Democracy needed saving from those who would corrupt it.
Betcha Meade voted.
I don't blame you for staying home. It's a primary and the weather's crap.
The Madison WI subreddit is really insufferable reading when they talk about those two referenda and the results.
Why don't those people vote the way I think they should!!!?
Dear Professor,
Some people don't like playing fun games with rhetoric like that. My mother and father went to college roughly the same years you did - they enjoy much the same style of expressing themselves. It's an art largely lost today.
Saving your vote for RFK Jr.?
Better than nothing is a high standard.
"Why haven't they spent the last 3 and a half years making elections as obviously secure as possible instead of reviling those who think Trump actually won in 2020?"
My thinking is that as long as the results are what you want why mess with a good thing regardless of what the opposition thinks. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
"Democratic Gov. Tony Evers had previously vetoed Republican-backed legislation that sought the same provisions, prompting the GOP lawmakers to put the measures before Wisconsin voters instead, according to NBC News."
Anybody know what Evers' justification for the veto?
It's dismaying that roughly 50% voted against this obvious precaution against election fraud.
"It was only the primary, but how do you know you didn’t vote? I wonder if you can check your voting record with the registrar …"
It is 100% public record. I have an annoying neighbor that texts us to shame us if we do not vote. This is one of the reasons that the election fraud nonsense is such a joke. It's all public record. Who you voted for is secret. Whether you voted is a matter of public record.
It's heartening that even in Wisconsin people reject billionaires buying their elections. Nevertheless, Biden is inexplicably rising in the national polls, so I will stick with, "We're toast!"
The occasional positive actions by good people can't offset the souless demonstrations by thousands in our streets and on our campuses in support of Palestinean/Hamas monsters who seek to "obliterate" Jews in Israel.
"Saying "we won last election was fair and square", "no, you can't audit it", *and* "no, we don't need to make them more fair" has one obvious implication."
What do you mean by "audit" the election? It's 100% public record. We know the names and addresses of every single person who voted in every election. If dead people are voting, why can't the Trumpies tell us who they are? It's public record. If people are requesting ballots for those who haven't asked for them, those voters would find out when they showed up for the election. You can't find them because it never happened.
There are observers physically present watching the count. Even at 2 AM! I have been one of those observers. People have cameras on the process. It is all public. The only this that is not public is whatever each voter does in the election booth. That is secret. For literally everything else there are eyes on the process and a legal process to challenge the results.
There is a right to a recount which was overseen by his legal team.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-falls-short-wisconsin-recount-he-paid-3-million-n1249289
What would "audit" accomplish that the recount would not. I'm really trying to understand here because it seems like a lot of people have a lot of demonstrably wrong ideas about how elections work.
Last night I tried to follow the Wisconsin primary because I was particularly interested in Question 1. This essentially said: Should private entities sponsored by wealthy Democrats like Zuckerberg be kept out of our election process. And since I made some comments last night on what I then saw, I want to follow up.
Last night, the numbers on Milwaukee as sent in by whoever is running the process there did not add up. In fact, toward the end of the count at about 10 pm Milwaukee suddenly changed its percentage of votes counted from 94% to 70%, finding about 40,000 more votes to be counted. You can imagine my thoughts fizzing away: "Chicago only found 10,000" and so on. This morning I went carefully over all the different final totals as reported by the Journal Sentinel (our local newspaper/ Regime Minion Flack Flunkey) and others. I concluded that some DEI expertise went into those early totals but that the final result was such a bloodbath for the Dems that the results have some validity. They were not what the Dems wanted to see.
Of course, bloodbath is a relative term for those of us enduring The Regime in Milwaukee County. We mean there's a sign, some sign, any sign of a disturbance in the Force. Last night, the Dems turned out more voters than the Rebel Alliance and the percentage in the primary vote was the usual: 70% Dem voters, 30% Republican. But on question 1 the vote of the same set of voters went: 54.9% "No" (Dems, 84,117), 45.1% "Yes" (Republican, 69,206). In numbers, 21,000 more voted for the "Republican" position on Question 1 than voted in total for the Republican candidates. This number can be reached by assuming that all the Uninstructed voted "Republican" on this issue + 8,000 Biden voters defected = 21,000. Biden will not win if Milwaukee goes 55% Dem/ 45% Republican as happened last night on Question 1. This is what is meant by "Battleground state." The voters have minds to be reached by argument.
So Tony Evers favors mentally ill, pathologically confused men over women. Way to go, Wisconsin!
Temujin said...
...
...In other news, the GOP is still missing in Michigan. No one seems to know their last whereabouts and they haven't been seen in years.
I certainly won't argue the metaphor. The Trumpers (Meshawn Maddock, then Kristina Karamo) took over, and ran the party into the ground. Fundraising failed, the Party neared bankruptcy, they couldn't maintain the headquarters building that establishment GOP donors had provided, and the MI GOP started nominating TrumpWing maniacs, all of whom lost every statewide election in which they ran.
Meshawn Maddock, the former Party Co-Chair, is under indictment as a fake elector from 2020.
Matt DePerno, the 2022 MI GOP nominee for (checks notes) Attorney General, is under indictment in a voting machine tampering case.
Kristina Karamo has lost her hotly disputed bid to remain as the Party Chair in a bitter fight that went to court in several successive court actions. She's been replaced by former Ambassador, former Congressman, former Chairman of House Intel, and all-around Establishment Deepstater, Pete Hoekstra. (Lol; Hoekstra is now saying all of the usual Trump-supportive MAGA shit, which I hate.)
Trumpism wrecked the Michigan GOP, like it wrecked many state and national Republican groups. They are right now trying to patch things back together with a handful of formerly-respected pre-Trump Republicans who have been willing to go all-Trump. I'll be working to make sure they lose in 2024.
Cant handle the Cruel Neutrality.
Temujin said...
...
Other things happened in other states, small but meaningful things. Like Nebraska going back to a 'winner takes all' electoral vote instead of a district by district awarding. Small, but big thing in a tight race.
Goof for Nebraska Republicans I suppose But if ALL states did it the Maine and now former Nebraska way, Democrats would have a very hard time getting a President elected.
I think Trump won. I followed it from the UK.
I read the audit report on the Maricopa county election ballots. Biden had 11,000 votes more than Trump in Arizona. But there were over 62,0000 invalid votes in Maricopa, plenty more than 11,000. Maybe they were all Trump or Biden. We don’t know. I saw the shenanigans in Fulton County (Georgia). Republican election observers thrown out (because of a leak), tapes over windows whilst who knows what went out. Fake votes for Biden? Trump votes suppressed? Georgia and Arizona would have taken Rrump to 259 votes. Was Wisconsin (10 votes) clean? Easy to see how Trump thought he had won. That Democrats had not tackled issues like drop off boxes (really?) and other insecurities suggests that insecurities are good for them.
So over 80 percent said NO to Trump in the GOP primary.
80 percent seems to be Trump's ceiling. For a guy who has the nomination locked up.
In addition to the usual, maybe folks just didn't like Trump's dick move of suing the guys who created Truth Social to give him a platform to shoot his mouth off.
Althouse I saw no mention by you or in the comments (my apologies if I missed it) of the peculiar Trump aspect in the WI Republican Presidential primary results, where despite the fact that Trump was essentially unopposed, more than 20% voted against him. And similar numbers were seen in Connecticut, New York and Rhode Island. 20%, more or less, voting against Trump in each of those three Republican presidential primaries. Trump keeps winning Republican primaries handily, and he keeps losing 20-30 percent of the voters in those primaries.
“In addition to the usual…”
Well thank you very much, Morning Joe Mark!
"What's with all these comments flatfootedly stating what I've already implied? "
A thought: "Implied" comes across for the written word about as well as sarcasm does. IOW, it doesn't. Though I believe that most regular commenters should have understood.
D.D. Driver said...
If the Dems are successful at kicking Joe off the ticket, it won't even be a contest.
Keep hoping, dude, keep hoping.
"This was a shitty night for both front runners."
I posit that no conclusions can be drawn re: the presidential race. The primary is over on both sides. The only reason I showed up is because of the referenda. I had no intention of voting for president, though in the end I voted for Vivek because I genuinely like the guy. It was not a vote against Trump.
Modifying your Constitution, your basic law, through a simple majority in a low turnout primary election would not be considered a best practice by those guys in Philadelphia.
It does present some opportunities for the Republicans in Wisconsin (the absolute bottom of the dustbin as Republicans go, in my opinion) when the tide is in their favor. Probably wishful thinking.
Possession of the implication detection gene seems to be connected to possession of the sarcasm detection gene.
Or it could be that some people are just stupid.
I didn’t vote either. First time I haven’t in over thirty years. Politics in America are tiresome and I now loathe both parties. Both Suck. It is no longer a case of voting for the lesser evil, they both just suck.
"Or it could be that some people are just stupid."
Some here are willfully obtuse. Though I would not put tim in that category. I'm with Kai Akker @9:42am on this one.
I voted absentee ballot and stayed warm and dry. It’s not hard.
to compare with Professora
Cold weather and sleet hasn’t deterred Wisconsin Trump supporters from lining up this afternoon outside the KI Convention Center.
The rally comes on a busy day in northeastern Wisconsin. It’s Election Day, when there are a host of municipal and school races as well as the presidential preference primary for Wisconsin – and the area is expecting 8 to 12 inches of snow.
"What's with all these comments flatfootedly stating what I've already implied? "
=================
is that like insdie joke?
William50 said...
"My thinking is that as long as the results are what you want why mess with a good thing regardless of what the opposition thinks. If it ain't broke don't fix it."
Or possibly, if it's broke the way we want it to be broke, don't fix it.
Re those votes against Trump
Could they be Dems voting in the GOP primary because Slow Joe has it wrapped up? I voted in the Dem primary in Chicago to get a decent candidate for state’s attorney on the November ballot. It worked by 1500 votes. I voted for Sean Phillips for presidential nominee.
DDDriver: "There are observers physically present watching the count. Even at 2 AM! I have been one of those observers. People have cameras on the process. It is all public."
This was not true in Atlanta Ga, Philadelphia Pa, and Detroit MI in the 2020 election. The observers were kicked out the the vote counting continued. But it is next to impossible to challenge illegal vote-counting procedures. And of course, counting the ballots simply shows you that enough ballots were marked (when? by whom?) to give the result.
Now we can switch parties for the primary. I switched to vote against some (local) politician I didn't like.
"Re those votes against Trump
Could they be Dems voting in the GOP primary because Slow Joe has it wrapped up?"
Could be some of that. In Wisconsin you are offered one ballot but you can only vote in one party's primary. I am an independent that is disgusted with both parties. So my options were to vote against Biden in the Democrat primary by selecting a protest candidate or "uncommitted" or against Trump in the Republican primary.
In my case, I decided to vote against Trump in the primary for a very specific reason: the Biden "uncommitted" movement has been highjacked by the pro-Hamas protester and I don't want to be associated with that movement or have my vote be misinterpreted as solidarity with Hamas.
D.D. Driver : " . If people are requesting ballots for those who haven't asked for them, those voters would find out when they showed up for the election....
There are observers physically present watching the count. Even at 2 AM! I have been one of those observers. People have cameras on the process. It is all public. The only this that is not public is whatever each voter does in the election booth. That is secret. For literally everything else there are eyes on the process and a legal process to challenge the results. "
DD, you are accurately describing the traditional old process present day conservatives long to restore. In person, precinct-based, pre-registered voters showing up with ID for Election Day balloting that keep the voters' preferences secret.
The processes that we've progressed to now with "motor voter" registration, election day registration, and most of all vote by mail processes ... suppose we have a fundamentalist preacher who demands everyone in his congregation, and all their distant kin, register at the church address. Then request mail ballots come to the church. Then the pastor and his deacons lead the congregation in filling out ballots "correctly". (Against abortion, against gun control, against immigrants, against public school teachers' unions ...) If a congregation member, or kinfolk, aren't present, then the deacons fill it out correctly, on his behalf. Then the pastor takes all the bundled ballots and votes them through a nearby convenient drop box. Are you okay with that? If the situation is flipped, and a "community activist" registers the residents (or non-resident homeless people) at a homeless shelter and gets their mail ballot, is that better?
Is it better to prevent this scenario or discover it via audit after the election results are announced?
"The processes that we've progressed to now with "motor voter" registration, election day registration, and most of all vote by mail processes ... suppose we have a fundamentalist preacher who demands everyone in his congregation, and all their distant kin, register at the church address. Then request mail ballots come to the church...?"
I'm sure you have read this on the internet and you are certain that it is true. But, this a lie. Absentee mail-in ballots must be mailed to the home residence, not to churches. Period. End of story. In order for this to happen, the entire congregation would have to list the church as their residence. And...this too would be a matter of public record. So where are all the voters in Wisconsin that list their residence at a church? This was supposedly a MASSIVE fraud so there should be thousands and thousands of voters listed as residing at a church. Should be very, very easy to find that fraud. If Trump's investigation couldn't find it, you can safely assume it did not happen. If Trump's investigation did find it, tell me the names of the churches and the names of the voters. This is all public information.
Any other election myths we can go over? Don't believe everything you read on the internet, especially from politically biased sources.
"This was not true in Atlanta Ga, Philadelphia Pa, and Detroit MI in the 2020 election. The observers were kicked out the the vote counting continued."
Not in Milwaukee!
and the Trumpies think they have this *in the bag.*
It would be helpful if you could point to one person who thinks this is 'in the bag.'
Just one.
I live in Iowa, so just as a reminder to everyone, Iowa is the first in the nation caucus. Our caucuses were a little over 2 months ago. Only 14 percent of registered Republicans even bothered to show up and vote, and of those 14 percent who voted, 49 percent voted for someone other than Trump.
“I voted absentee ballot and stayed warm and dry. It’s not hard.”
Meh. Cold and dry, I’d wager.
I’m 99.9 precent convinced the people running Biden know they have it in the bag. Somebody had to tell Macron Trump will never win. I believe that person…
“I voted absentee ballot and stayed warm and dry. It’s not hard.”
Neither is putting on a rain coat.
Ya gotta consider viewing media that doesn't disappear referendums like what passed.
If it was cannabiss or abortion related, it would be inescapable.
I was working a news gig in a Milwaukee hood. Some very old ladies made the treck.
Absentee mail-in ballots must be mailed to the home residence, not to churches. Period. End of story. In order for this to happen, the entire congregation would have to list the church as their residence. And...this too would be a matter of public record. So where are all the voters in Wisconsin that list their residence at a church?
Did you really not get that this example was hypothetical? As opposed to the example of registering the homeless, or unhomed, or people experiencing homelessness, whichever term is now a la mode, at a shelter, and "assisting" them with their ballots as described, which followed. And is not hypothetical, but - as far as the voter registration goes - is a reasonable solution to a voter problem.
Because what could an audit point to there? Why shouldn't these people, who don't have a fixed address, be registered there? They're - very possibly - citizens; their lack of fixed address doesn't disqualify them from voting.
But... what about the "assistance"? Who's to say whether or not they were "assisted" in voting only for a single slate or candidate? After all, as you say, your actual vote is secret, unlike the fact of your having voted. So there's no way to tell whether their votes reflected their own preferences. Do you think if a bunch of Trump supporters descended on the homeless shelters of Wisconsin and attempted to interview all the temporary residents as to how they voted, there wouldn't be immediate outcry from not just the Left but privacy advocates everywhere?
How about assisted living homes, especially those serving low income elders who don't get a lot of visitors?
This was supposedly a MASSIVE fraud so there should be thousands and thousands of voters listed as residing at a church.
First, it's the "The 2020 election was the freest and fairest ever in history!" crowd who say that their opponents all insist it was "MASSIVE fraud." I, like many who think the 2020 election was full of procedural, factual, and statistical irregularities that all seemed to break for Biden somehow, don't think there was "MASSIVE fraud." I think there may have been targeted fraud, but that the more important Biden advantage was the utter complicity of the media and social media with agencies like the DOJ in elevating Biden and denigrating, criminalizing, and silencing Trump and his supporters.
And again, the church thing was an example intended to get those on the "freest and fairest" side to flip the script and look at what apparently did happen on their guy's behalf from the standpoint of what they'd think if it had happened on the other guy's behalf.
Are you not able to turn the question around like that, or do you just not want to? Either way, your contention that all types of 2020 election interference, and, perhaps, fraud, are just Internet phantoms is no more effective at dispelling them than your pointing out that in Milwaukee, ballot counting observers were not kicked out while counting continued unobserved, and therefore, hey, no fraud occurred anywhere.
Glad to see lonejustice clawed his way to the keybaord. And Heaven knows many are enlightened by yje reminder that "Iowa is the first in the nation caucus.".
But let's dig in..
"A recent blizzard that dropped 10-15 inches of snow also means there is plenty of snow on the ground to continue to make roads slick and reduce visibility.
A typical morning low on any given Jan. 15 is 13 degrees in Des Moines, and a high can reach the lower 30s. So this forecast is chilly even by Iowa standards."
https://www.foxweather.com/lifestyle/election-day-forecast-monday-impacts
"Although winning delegates is important, gaining momentum is even more essential heading into the heart of primary season. The actual impact of winning Iowa is relatively small — the state offers just 40 delegates out of a total of 2,429 up for grabs. It takes 1,215 to secure the nomination.
Trump will leave Iowa with plenty of momentum as he won by a large margin. The result has him already thinking about the general election and a potential rematch against President Joe Biden.
"We have to beat them. I'm the only one — every single poll over the last two months and beyond that, I am beating him (President Joe Biden). I'm say we're beating him because we have to get him out. He's destroying our country," Trump told an Iowa caucus gathering on Monday.
In the final Iowa caucuses poll released by the Des Moines Register and NBC News before Monday, Trump had a commanding lead over his Republican challengers. If anything, Trump even beat those expectations on Monday."
https://scrippsnews.com/stories/live-results-iowa-republicans-head-to-caucus-sites/
"Washington — Former President Donald Trump's margin of victory in Monday's Iowa caucuses smashed the previous record for Republican presidential candidates, underscoring the broad support he attracted in the first contest of the 2024 nominating process.
Trump won the support of 51% of Iowa caucusgoers, a 30-point victory over Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who came in second place with 21% of support. Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley won 19% to come in third.
Since the advent of the modern primary process in 1972, the previous record for margin of victory in a competitive GOP race in Iowa was set by Sen. Bob Dole, who beat evangelical heavyweight Pat Robertson by 13 points in the 1988 caucuses. Dole won 37.4% of the straw poll to Robertson's 24.6% and George H.W. Bush's 18.6%. Dole bowed out of the race in March of that year, and George H.W. Bush became the Republican nominee, so an easy victory in the Iowa caucuses doesn't necessarily mean clinching the GOP nomination. In fact, the past three GOP winners in Iowa ended up losing the nomination.
Other Iowa caucuses have been quite close. In 2016, Sen. Ted Cruz beat Trump by just three points. Trump went on to prevail elsewhere, clinch the GOP nomination, and win the presidency. Rick Santorum beat Mitt Romney by just 34 votes out of a total of 121,501 cast in 2012.
Trump's win in Iowa on Monday wasn't a surprise, nor was his margin of victory. Polls leading up to the Iowa caucuses showed he was the clear favorite to win the first state. His wide margin of victory was a reflection of his improved standing with Iowa's largely White, evangelical Republican electorate since 2016."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-iowa-caucus-margin-of-victory/
"As opposed to the example of registering the homeless, or unhomed, or people experiencing homelessness, whichever term is now a la mode, at a shelter, and "assisting" them with their ballots as described, which followed."
And how are the homeless getting drivers licenses showing a homeless shelter as their residence? Is this common. It's all *public record* so surely you have lots of examples this occuring right? There has now been almost four years and we are still talking about "hypotheticals." If any of these "hypotheticals" were "reality" we would know by now. It's fucking public record, bro.
Let me explain this to D.D. before he has a stroke.
Suppose you manage to get accross the boarder and get one of our country's largest midwestern cities. One of the things the average illegal alien wants is a drivers license. to get a drivers license you need an address. Any address will do. Make one up. It's never challenged. Take the test. It's OK the whole thing is in Spanish. You'll pass. It's not a hard test and if you're hispanic you can have someone with you to explain the test as you go. They will even provide someone. Simple driving test. Put on your seatbelt, stop at all the stop signs and don't hit anything and you pass. Wait 20 minutes have your picture taken and they hand you your license. You are also automatically registered to vote. Now you can drive AND vote! Aren't blue cities wonderful!
Next.
Getting everyone in your moms assisted living complex to vote Democrat! It's easier than you think!
So where are all the voters in Wisconsin that list their residence at a church? This was supposedly a MASSIVE fraud so there should be thousands and thousands of voters listed as residing at a church. Should be very, very easy to find that fraud.
It would be easy to find the fraud if the urban counties that manage the rolls would share the data. If not, it's pretty difficult.
If Kris Kobach had been allowed to collect voter registration rolls in 2017? If the state of Nevada would provide copies of voter rolls to the GOP in 2024?
And a legal shenanigan short of outright fraud is when the influencers stand in the pulpit, at the lectern of the union hall, in the quad at the university, at the gun show, at the dragon-boat races ... and get indifferent citizens to register at all. If the demographic leans one way and influencers can increase registration, and later "turn out", of voter from that demographic, well, it's legal. If the influencer can collect incoming mail and ASSIST the voter, that's not. But the latter influence is quite common and old.
https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/absentee-minded-6391500 (from 2001, city elections)
It's not about Trump, it's about processes that were originally compromises that protected elections from undue influence from anybody. The newer procedures relaxed and abandoned those protections. Who would testify those protections were unnecessary all along? Or who would swear that voters are more honest and less susceptible to influence in this day and age?
"It would be easy to find the fraud if the urban counties that manage the rolls would share the data. If not, it's pretty difficult."
It's public record. My fucking neighbor can look up when I vote and nag me if I forget! It's annoying. Do you understand what public record even means?
"Suppose you manage to get accross the boarder and get one of our country's largest midwestern cities. One of the things the average illegal alien wants is a drivers license. to get a drivers license you need an address. Any address will do."
Sure! That sounds totally plausible that the Democrats got driver's licenses for 20,000 Mexicans! Sure buddy. Lol. You don't sound stupid at all. You've had four years to do an investigation of the public data and start naming names! Where are the names?!
Laughing Fox said...
DDDriver: "There are observers physically present watching the count. Even at 2 AM! I have been one of those observers. People have cameras on the process. It is all public."
This was not true in Atlanta Ga, Philadelphia Pa, and Detroit MI in the 2020 election. The observers were kicked out the the vote counting continued. But it is next to impossible to challenge illegal vote-counting procedures. And of course, counting the ballots simply shows you that enough ballots were marked (when? by whom?) to give the result.
...
I am certain that you are wrong about all of this, but I want to focus on your "Detroit" claim, where I knew some of the MI GOP attorney volunteer poll watchers, and spoke with them on election night. I followed the controversy from within the Detroit metro area, consuming all of the local news as well as the national news, as I read the decision of Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Tim Kenney in the subsequent legal case, and ultimately the Michigan state senate review report authored chiefly by conservative Republican state senator Ed McBroom. Every one concluded that there was no fraud at the Huntington Center.
What you claim -- "The observers... kicked out..." Is clearly, flatly, comprehensively false. It is an old, stupud TrumpWing lie. It didn't happen. You're using the Althouse Blog comments pages to spread phony bullshit.
What happened in Detroit? At the Wayne County AV (Absentee Voter) Countind Center within the Huntington Bank Center, a call/text had gone through the regional MI GOP communication network urging volunteers to come to the Center. Among the reasons for calls going out was the fact that a couple of non-lawyer GOP activist/poll watchers had been expelled for violatoins of COVID precuations (masking/distancing/etc.). The Center was already fully staffed with MI GOP volunteers and there was a limit on the numbers of people who could congregate. But the call went out anyway for more.
As more GOP watchers arrived, they were told that they could not enter. There may have been a few instances of credentialed GOP watchers leaving the counting room for personal reasons and then not being allowed back in during the moments when they realized that the counting room might be overrun. In any event, there was never a time when the counting room -- and I was one of the observers in that room in 2012 -- was not fully staffed with maximal or near-maximal numbers of Democratic-credentialed and Republican-credentialed observers.
Later in the evening, at one end of the room where windows look out on an exterior hallway, GOP activists gathered near those windows. They had been told that they could not enter the counting room (for the reasons outlined above), and they were angry. They began pounding on the windows, and also began using their cellphones to take images (stills, videos) of the counting room. Again, it was a counting room where GOP observers were present. The picture-taking was a clear violation of Michigan law, which proscribes photography in polling and counting locations. In reponse to the picture-taking, no one was arrested but volunteers in the counting room put up large cardboard sheets over the windows as a corrective. That action led some uninformed commentators to conclude that the counting was being done in secret without any outside observation.
You, Laughing Fox, appear to have been fully caught up in that lie. Undoubtedly, there are millions of other people just like you; poorly informed, misinformed, conspiratorial, fearful, suspicious and ready to believe TrumpWing agitprop.
None of the conspiracy theories were true. In the end, Trump lost Michigan by 150,000 votes in 2020 after he had won the state by a little over 10,000 votes in 2016. Trump actually did marginally BETTER in Detroit in 2020 than he had in 2016. Where Trump LOST the state was in the college-educated suburban populations.
For newer viewers, consider anecdotes and accounts from Chuck! through the lens of his admittedd bias:
Chuck said...
"I am afraid you are mistaking me for someone who has an interest in fair treatment of Donald Trump. I'm not your guy. I am interested in smearing him, hurting him and prejudicing people against him."
3/4/16, 4:46 PM
Post a Comment