I brought up Sherrod Brown as a possible VP pick elsewhere, and a number of people said there was too much unspecified "baggage" there. No one answered any follow-ups, but do any of you know any weird rumors about him?

I love Brown, and I think it's reasonable to assume the Dems could hold onto that seat. And Brown would probably deliver OH, which would mean he'd deliver the election.

He did use the phrase "state's rights" in that speech. Maybe he didn't mean it that way, but that phrase has a history to it, and it's perfectly reasonable to think it was a continuation of the southern strategy.

Perhaps, but one can't come to that conclusion there and then turn around and say that pictures of a chain being dragged behind a truck and Byrd's daughter saying Bush's actions were like lynching her father all over again and be suddenly struck dumb, unable to see the connection.

There's plenty of reason to think that if you've actually been to the precincts you're talking about. I worked as a poll monitor in Detroit in the 2004 elections. The vast majority of voters were black, but fewer than half of the poll workers were black. And 100% of the Republican lawyers there to intimidate and challenge voters were white.

As long as we're taking the Super Partisan Ideologue Position, then someone on the Republican side can do the same thing and suggest that maybe Democrats should stop committing voter fraud.

Webb would be an awful VP candidate. Yes, he provides the war credentials that Obama lacks against McCain. But he's shown no interest whatsoever in domestic policy, he's apparently a real jerk, his previous(?) sexism could drive women toward McCain, and he won't even vote for redeployment bills that he seems to agree with if they're authored by someone else.


I don't want to spend much more time on this, but the point about Webb is that he's the perfect complement to the ticket: Blunt, white, working class background, with exactly the sort of "experience" that Obama lacks. The "real jerk" bit refers to his famous temper, but that's been a characteristic of way too many other politicians (including McCain) to work much against him.

The way it is now, Obama's wrapped up the black vote and the liberal vote. What's in play are the Reagan Democrats and an indeterminate number of disgruntled women of the sort who see sexism in the makeup of the National Football League.

The latter group is going through their PMS moment now, but are they really likely to rally to a candidate who laughed at one of his supporters who referred to their hero as a "rhymes with witch"? Are they going to vote for a candidate who just yesterday promised once again to appoint more men like John Roberts to the Supreme Court? Color me skeptical.

Which leaves the Reagan Democrats. And if you had to invent a candidate who would appeal to them, it'd be Jim Webb. He's an economic populist who knocked off one of the big time Senate Republican bullshltters in a state that's been solidly Republican on the presidential level for decades. To get fixated on his less than perfect liberal voting record is to miss the point altogether. This isn't about running for the presidency of the Americans for Democratic Action. This is about putting together a ticket that would best bring together the greatest possible number of potential Democratic voters. On that score, Webb is an almost stunningly obvious choice.

I should add that Richardson wouldn't be bad, either. But Clark, as good as he is, is too much of the "academic military" type to add anything to the ticket. And FWIW, every military man I encountered in my shop (and there were many) who'd had dealings with him came away with the impression that he was what they called a "military politician," and were much unimpressed. This was back in 2004 when there was a brief flurry of interest in him as a presidential candidate.

I don't want Hillary on the ticket. I'd love to see Edwards, but after how poorly everything went with Kerry I think they'll have a hard time getting him on board. But then, I'm not voting for any of them, so my opinion counts for nothing...

One of my relatives, a lifelong Dem who works in politics, has said she'll vote for McCain before Obama (I really took her to task for this- she was anti-war from day one, so it just makes no sense, but anyway...). She's a type that would jump back on board with Hillary on the ticket, maybe there wouldn't be as passionate a group with Edwards.

BTW, did anyone see Edwards on Colbert?
http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=166019

an indeterminate number of disgruntled women of the sort who see sexism in the makeup of the National Football League.

The latter group is going through their PMS moment now

Oh barf, Andy. You're better than that.

EDIT: or, God, I wonder what could possibly make women see sexism around them. What crazy #######!

He did use the phrase "state's rights" in that speech. Maybe he didn't mean it that way, but that phrase has a history to it, and it's perfectly reasonable to think it was a continuation of the southern strategy.

Perhaps, but one can't come to that conclusion there and then turn around and say that pictures of a chain being dragged behind a truck and Byrd's daughter saying Bush's actions were like lynching her father all over again and be suddenly struck dumb, unable to see the connection.

Dan, that's literally the first time I knew that about the ad. If that's true, then I'd have to agree that it was way over the line. There's quite a difference between the text as presented on paper, which is what I was commenting on before, and the same text accompanied by the footage you describe.

Andy -

Also, most of those "Reagan Democrats" are women. The "white ethnic" vote that Hillary turned out was primarily women. I don't see any reason to presume that the women will come home and the men won't.

The middle-class and upper-class feminists who supported Clinton will come home. Most partisans will. But that's a pretty distinguishable group from the working class voters, mainly "white ethnic" who made up a good portion of Clinton's base.

Cracked the top 10 overnight.

Next is Honus Wagner at 3415.

EDIT: screw it, too many debates at once

an indeterminate number of disgruntled women of the sort who see sexism in the makeup of the National Football League.

The latter group is going through their PMS moment now

Oh barf, Andy. You're better than that.

EDIT: or, God, I wonder what could possibly make women see sexism around them. What crazy #######!

Matt, I was obviously (or so I thought) referring to Hillary's more hardcore supporters, and not to women in general. But those are precisely the sort of women with the mindset I refer to.

The best example of this mindset I can think of was in an early issue of Ms. magazine, edited by one of Hillary's more prominent supporters, Gloria Steinem. In it, there were three photographs, with the combined heading of "What's Wrong With These Pictures?"

The first photo was of the all-male Supreme Court.

The second photo was of an all-male fire department.

The third photo was of the Oakland A's.

Everyone I showed that to nearly doubled over with laughter as the utter absurdity of the juxtaposition. And yet there wasn't one letter to the editor that saw this. And trust me, it wasn't meant as a parody.

That's the sort of mindset I was alluding to, and don't tell me that it still doesn't exist among Hillary's more hardcore supporters, the ones who now claim that they'll "never vote for Obama."

Andy -

Also, most of those "Reagan Democrats" are women. The "white ethnic" vote that Hillary turned out was primarily women. I don't see any reason to presume that the women will come home and the men won't.

The middle-class and upper-class feminists who supported Clinton will come home. Most partisans will. But that's a pretty distinguishable group from the working class voters, mainly "white ethnic" who made up a good portion of Clinton's base.

Fine. But how is any of this a case against Webb?

Fine. But how is any of this a case against Webb?

Webb's appeal is mainly to men. His history and record on women's issues are not good.

Hillary Clinton has proven her appeal to Reagan Democrats. I'd take her over Webb.

Sherrod Brown has proven his appeal to Reagan Democrats. I think he's the best pick out there, but for some reason he isn't in the conversation.

EDIT: To be clear, my point is two-fold. First, I don't really like Jim Webb that much. He's not a very good Democrat. He's a great Democratic Senator from Virginia, but he's not someone I want in the #2 spot in the Democratic party. Second, I don't think Webb's appeal is as broad as you think, becuase the voters Obama needs to win back into the fold are disproportionately women, and I think you're using the term "Reagan Democrat" to refer to working class white men, which is an incorrect use.

As long as we're taking the Super Partisan Ideologue Position, then someone on the Republican side can do the same thing and suggest that maybe Democrats should stop committing voter fraud.

Are you actually denying that Republicans disproportionately sent lawyers to challenge voters in predominantly black precincts? Is there any reason whatsoever to think fraud is more likely to occur in these precincts?

Matt, I was obviously (or so I thought) referring to Hillary's more hardcore supporters, and not to women in general. But those are precisely the sort of women with the mindset I refer to.

You might consider that it's precisely the sort of dismissive misogyny that your post engages in that in part, leads some women vote and think as they do.

Are you actually denying that Republicans disproportionately sent lawyers to challenge voters in predominantly black precincts? Is there any reason whatsoever to think fraud is more likely to occur in these precincts?

Not at all, I'm objecting to the usual crap about how one side is holy and one side is evil and racist.

And yes, it does seem more likely. The Democrats themselves say that voters in those areas are less likely to have proper identification to vote, which makes fraud easier. How many rich whites in Westchester County do you think don't have proper ID?

I'm objecting to the usual crap about how one side is holy and one side is evil and racist.

No one said that the Democrats are holy. I think the agreement on the Byrd ad is that the Democrats play dirty pool too.

But you have chosen not to address specific allegations of racist behavior and instead stood behind a faux-centrist "pox on both your houses" model unrelated to the actual discussion happening.

an indeterminate number of disgruntled women of the sort who see sexism in the makeup of the National Football League.

The latter group is going through their PMS moment now

I'm not a champion of political correctness, but this really is an egregiously sexist comment. Also, it's not particularly funny, which makes it doubly bad.

Matt, I was obviously (or so I thought) referring to Hillary's more hardcore supporters, and not to women in general. But those are precisely the sort of women with the mindset I refer to.

This is a lousy justification. Somebody trying to excuse a racist comment by saying, "But those are precisely the sort of blacks I'm referring to," would rightly be excoriated here.

Matt,

Just to be clear, I could certainly live with Hillary on the ticket, much as I've found her campaign to be beneath contempt. That can possibly be chalked off as "politics," though to me it sunk way below that.

But I doubt if it's going to happen, unless (a) Hillary conducts the rest of her campaign on a far higher level, and specifically never mentions the W-word again, except to dismiss it as an issue; and (b) Obama asks her to be on the ticket, and she accepts. I see all three of these as a long shot.

And I still see Webb as bringing in more of the Reagan Democrats than anyone else, both men and women. If women's issues are what matters to them, the contrast between Obama and McCain is like night and day to begin with. Just look at what McCain was saying yesterday about his prospective Supreme Court appointments.

The Democrats themselves say that voters in those areas are less likely to have proper identification to vote, which makes fraud easier.

Yes, and there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Absent evidence that these lawyers were there in response to actual fraud, their role must be assumed to be intimidation more than protection of the law.

Ah, Good Face, the defender of women. I love it.

I've explained my take on PMSgate, and I'll leave it at that. People can think what they wish about my sexism. My wife will be amused at their interpretations.

My wife will be amused at their interpretations.

He has lots of women friends, too!

No one said that the Democrats are holy. I think the agreement on the Byrd ad is that the Democrats play dirty pool too.


They don't though. Scroll up. Eraser-X and Andy were unable to see what was wrong with those ads, the former would can find racism in shapes of clouds and the second who can't go two political threads in a row without finding some bizarre reason to invoke Lee Atwater.

But you have chosen not to address specific allegations of racist behavior and instead stood behind a faux-centrist "pox on both your houses" model unrelated to the actual discussion happening.

What specific allegation? The allegations have been vague claims about how expecting voters to properly identify themselves as voters is racist, and by some people, comparable to Jim Crow laws.

Yes, and there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Absent evidence that these lawyers were there in response to actual fraud, their role must be assumed to be intimidation more than protection of the law.

If the voters were not able to identify themselves and voted anyway, that's voter fraud. There needs to be no evidence of a concerted effort.

By this bizarre logic, you'd also think that nobody ever jaywalked because nobody gets arrested for jaywalking. The only voter fraud cases that are ever pursued are large ones en masse like ACORN's absentee-ballot voter fraud. And even not always then. I know my grandmother's nursing home was investigated in 2000 - I was one of the people that made complaints when I found a nurse filling out my grandmother's absentee ballot (my grandmother had advanced Alzheimer's so there was no verbal communication there). Naturally, not a damn thing came of it in Maryland.

Matt, I was obviously (or so I thought) referring to Hillary's more hardcore supporters, and not to women in general. But those are precisely the sort of women with the mindset I refer to.

Do you really not see how referring to women supported Clinton but might not vote for Obama as going through their "PMS moment" is degrading and sexist?

The polls show Clinton faring much better than Obama among women versus McCain. Webb's history of sexism would be exploited by McCain to woo even more women.

If the voters were not able to identify themselves and voted anyway, that's voter fraud. There needs to be no evidence of a concerted effort.

Man, you are really grasping at straws.

The allegations have been vague claims about how expecting voters to properly identify themselves as voters is racist, and by some people, comparable to Jim Crow laws.

There are tons of ways to expect voters to identify themselves. In most states, it's done through a voter registration process in which people provide personal information under penalty of law for misrepresentation. This has been shown to be an effective system, as there is no evidence of widespead voter fraud.

The question is why would we create a new set of regulations and government services to solve a problem that doesn't exist? This, then, is where allegations of classism and racism play in, because academic work shows that voter ID laws depress turnout disproportionately among poor and african-american voters. We have a set of laws and government regulations that are not shown to respond to any actually existing problem, but that do have the effect of depressing turnout among Democratic-leaning constituencies.

They don't though. Scroll up. Eraser-X and Andy were unable to see what was wrong with those ads

Dan, once again, do you even bother to read what I write before you post? Scroll up to #3407.

If the voters were not able to identify themselves and voted anyway, that's voter fraud.

No it's evidence that they didn't have identification. Not every single person has that. Disproportionately, poor people, African-Americans, and women lack this sort of identification.

People without these forms of identification are still American citizens and still have the right to vote.

Ah, Good Face, the defender of women. I love it.

Do I lack some special characteristic that renders me unable to see and point out sexism? Apparently I do in your eyes, since I'm not a liberal.

I've explained my take on PMSgate, and I'll leave it at that. People can think what they wish about my sexism. My wife will be amused at their interpretations.

Yes, and I've pointed out the utter incoherence and inadequacy of that take. I'm sure some of your BEST friends are women though, so it's cool.

If the voters were not able to identify themselves and voted anyway, that's voter fraud.

Uh, no. If they represented themselves as other voters and voted under those voters' names, or if they represented themselves as registered voters when they in fact were not, THAT'S voter fraud.

No it's evidence that they didn't have identification. Not every single person has that. Disproportionately, poor people, African-Americans, and women lack this sort of identification.

And in Indiana, the state we're talking about, they can get that identification for free. Can't be bothered to make even the slightest shred of effort to be a citizen? Too bad, so sad.

Danny, the polls in May are not necessarily harbingers of November. After the Democratic convention of 1988 Dukakis had a double digit lead over Bush I.

And if you think that a Vice Presidential candidate's "sexism" will neutralize McCain's thoughts on the Supreme Court (not to mention the trivial but sure to be mentioned "rhymes with witch" moment back in Iowa), then your opinion of Hillary's supporters is a lot lower than I would have supposed.

You always make this bizarre defense of Bush when the Horton ad comes up. No one claimed the Bush campaign ran it--only that Republicans ran it. I don't think anyone cares whether it was from the Bush campaign or Americans for Bush.

Well, if you mean "no one in this thread claimed today that the Bush campaign ran it," then that's true. If you mean "No one claimed it," that's not correct; people claimed it all the time. (Hell, Andy keeps attributing it to Lee Atwater, who was part of the campaign, not part of Floyd Brown's operation.)

You clearly don't think anything can be correctly termed racist unless it's spelled out on the screen. But racial stereotyping is often far less overt than that.

Well, isn't that convenient. If we don't have evidence, it isn't because it doesn't exist; it's because it was "covert."

But what racial stereotyping? None of the ads mentioned race at all. There's not the slightest shred of evidence that Gore or Bush seized on the Horton incident because of Horton's race, or that the ads would have been the slightest bit different if Horton had been white. The Bush ad, as I mentioned, never showed Horton at all, so how would anyone have even known?

There's a reason they changed his name from William to Willie in the ad and on the stump, for example.

And that reason would be...? To alienate Detroit Tigers fans?

Voter ID laws are being passed in legislatures on party-line votes, and it's not because Republicans care more about voter fraud than Democrats do. Everyone understands perfectly well which party's potential voters will be more significantly affected.

Of course. Everyone understands that Republicans are evil and do stuff for nefarious partisan reasons, while Democrats are noble and do stuff for the good of the country.

Most blacks (at least in the northern states) live in places which are heavily (a) Democratic, and (b) black. There's no reason to think poll workers in these areas would have any incentive to make it hard for blacks to vote.

There's plenty of reason to think that if you've actually been to the precincts you're talking about. I worked as a poll monitor in Detroit in the 2004 elections. The vast majority of voters were black, but fewer than half of the poll workers were black. And 100% of the Republican lawyers there to intimidate and challenge voters were white.

You sort of omitted the other half of what I said. "Places which are heavily (a) Democratic." Why would white Democratic poll workers want to suppress Democratic votes in Detroit? Why would black Democratic election officials want to hire white Democratic poll workers who would want to do that?

There are tons of ways to expect voters to identify themselves. In most states, it's done through a voter registration process in which people provide personal information under penalty of law for misrepresentation. This has been shown to be an effective system, as there is no evidence of widespead voter fraud.

There was no evidence of widespread worker deaths either at the time of OSHA, but that didn't stop your ilk from imposing far, far, more restrictive burdens on others.

voter ID laws depress turnout disproportionately among poor and african-american voters.

White candidates also depress turnout disproportionately among African-American voters. Should that be illegal as well? Unless African-Americans and the poor are being refused their free IDs, there's no relevance here. Perhaps the people who claim to care about them should be spending their resources helping them get their IDs rather than lawsuit after lawsuit crying about injustice. Not that I'm surprised, when I volunteered at a soup kitchen some years ago, I always saw it, always some bright young idealists, usually a white liberal kid from a good family that went to Towson or Goucher talking about how happy they were to make a difference until they quit after 2 days because helping the less fortunate is a lot harder than talking about the less fortunate.

My wife will be amused at their interpretations.

He has lots of women friends, too!

Indeed. He has them stashed all over the country.


I'll probably vote for McCain at this point (though there is a non-neglible chance I'll vote for the libertarian, whoever that ends up being, again). The one thing that would turn me away from McCain is if he chooses a real hardline evangelical or something. If he tries to satisfy the far right by choosing one of theirs as VP, I won't vote for him for the simple reason that the odds his VP becomes president someday will be higher than average. The same issue probably exists on the Democratic side as (not to be too morbid, cynical or paranoid) I think the odds that someone takes a shot a black president must be pretty high. I think white racism isn't nearly as prominent as many believe but I'll certainly grant that there is a noticible group of serious, practicing racists in the US and that they generally know how to shoot. Please note that I'm not advocating that someone take a shot at Obama, just that I think it's likely to happen, perhaps even before the general. SS security is pretty good and I doubt they'll be successful but...And McCain dying in the next 4 (or certainly 8) years wouldn't exactly shock anyone.

I happen to think both these guys are good candidates but they owe it to us (not that others don't) to pick competent VPs.

Can't be bothered to make even the slightest shred of effort to be a citizen?

They are citizens. They do not need an ID card to be citizens. Jesus Christ.

They need the ID card because of an new law that created excess government regulation in response to a problem that hasn't been shown to exist. It is funny to see Dan Szymborski, defender of all things bureaucratic.

If McCain has sense he will now choose a woman to be his VP nominee.

Generally speaking, the Republican party doesn't do identity politics, that's the Democrats' obsession, now more so ever before.

Though after watching McCain's sickening pandering to the disgusting "La Raza" separatist group, I'm afraid that it wouldn't surprise me if he stooped to such a sad level.

Just to be clear, I could certainly live with Hillary on the ticket, much as I've found her campaign to be beneath contempt. That can possibly be chalked off as "politics," though to me it sunk way below that.

I think she'd be a lousy choice, if for no other reason than this: choosing Clinton would amount to Obama repudiating much of what his own campaign has been about (breaking from the old politics, embracing a more unifying 50-state approach to governing and campaigning, etc.). And that's without even getting into the headaches of having the Clintons' baggage/sideshow/"Hey!-Look-at-Me"-ism on the ticket.

Even if Clinton were likely to be palatable to a broad cross-section of the electorate, which I don't think she is, I don't think Obama should choose a running mate who's as likely as not to make the presidential race more about the VP nominee than it is about the head of the ticket.

Of course, the best reason not to choose Clinton is the simplest one--independents (and plenty of others) hate her. I guess I don't think Obama should be that concerned by the exit polls suggesting large number of Clinton supporters wouldn't support an Obama candidacy; first, a lot of those respondents are probably republicans who voted for Clinton in an attempt to defeat Obama (and who are therefore, in fact, not likely to vote for Obama in November but also wouldn't have voted for Clinton), second, I think a lot of this is short-lived sour grapes among actual Clinton supporters, which will dissipate once the general campaign gets under way.

Everyone understands that Republicans are evil and do stuff for nefarious partisan reasons, while Democrats are noble and do stuff for the good of the country.

No, obviously the Democrats oppose these Voter ID laws primarily because they will depress Democratic turnout. They're politicians, not saints.

However, in this case, there is no evidence that these laws will prevent fraud in meaningful degree, because there is no evidence of a meaningful degree of fraud in existence. As such, the laws appear to have primarily the purpose of depressing turnout among Democratic-leaning constituencies. And that's wrong.

The Democrats are defending the status quo, which has not been shown to be problematic. They're not saints, no one said they were. Their motives are dirty and political. But this is a dispute, and in it one side is right. And in this case, it's the Democrats.

Generally speaking, the Republican party doesn't do identity politics...

Tell that to Mitt Romney.

They are citizens. They do not need an ID card to be citizens. Jesus Christ.

They need the ID card because of an new law that created excess government regulation in response to a problem that hasn't been shown to exist. It is funny to see Dan Szymborski, defender of all things bureaucratic.

What's interesting about the libs' defenses of the ID card on this page is that they resort to the silliest of argumentative fallacies available. Come on, guys, just acknowledge that even if one grants IDs are Constitutional, they're not necessary and as such ought to be viewed by all citizens - libertarian or otherwise - as a bureaucratic overreach.

I think she'd be a lousy choice, if for no other reason than this: choosing Clinton would amount to Obama repudiating much of what his own campaign has been about (breaking from the old politics, embracing a more unifying 50-state approach to governing and campaigning, etc.).

I thought Andrew Sullivan actually made the case very well. Obama would be "unifying" the party and showing he could work with those whom he disagrees. I think it would be pretty easy to spin as evidence of a new politics, in which people who do disagree come together to work for a common, higher purpose.

Generally speaking, the Republican party doesn't do identity politics...

Good point. Republican party candidates have come from all across the demographic spectrum, men and young, black and white and hispanic and asian. No one group has predominated.

They are citizens. They do not need an ID card to be citizens. Jesus Christ.

They do not need an ID card to be citizens, but they should need to demonstrate that they're voters to vote - not every citizen is a voter.

Generally speaking, the Republican party doesn't do identity politics, that's the Democrats' obsession, now more so ever before.

Whatever. If you think Obama's appeal is based entirely (or even primarily) on his race, or that Obama has made his campaign about "identity politics" (rather than having "identity politics"-based labels slapped on it by others) you're either a hopeless partisan, not paying attention, or both.

I will not disagree that old-guard Democrats (i.e., the Clintons) have done their damnedest to make sure identity politics play a central role in this campaign, but to suggest that the party as a whole is more obsessed with identity now than it ever has been is absurd, and intellectually lazy.

The Democrats are defending the status quo, which has not been shown to be problematic.

The very fact that people can vote without demonstrating that they're entitled to is in fact problematic in and of itself.

The polls show Clinton faring much better than Obama among women versus McCain. Webb's history of sexism would be exploited by McCain to woo even more women.

Can't you see how talking about women as if they are something to woo is sexist.

They do not need an ID card to be citizens, but they should need to demonstrate that they're voters to vote.

That's what the old-school signature cards on the voting rolls are for. Seemed to work fine for years (still do in my precinct, where I don't get "carded"), until this phony "voter fraud" issue was scared up in recent election cycles.

The very fact that people can vote without demonstrating that they're entitled to is in fact problematic in and of itself.

That's not a fact. As has been said over and over, people do have to identify that they're an eligible voter. They just do so in a different way than you've oddly convinced yourself should be required.

The very fact that people can vote without demonstrating that they're entitled to is in fact problematic in and of itself.

They demonstrate it by swearing under penalty of law that they are registered to vote. That's how the system works. This system of demonstration has been shown to work quite well. There's no reason to create a new one, except for partison reasons of depressing turnout among Democratic-leaning constituencies.

They don't though. Scroll up. Eraser-X and Andy were unable to see what was wrong with those ads

Dan, once again, do you even bother to read what I write before you post? Scroll up to #3407.

Evidently Dan either doesn't read what I write, or chooses to ignore it when it suits his polemical purposes. Of course this could be an honest oversight on his part, so I'm giving him a third chance to scroll up to #3407.

Can't you see how talking about women as if they are something to woo is sexist.

And possibly anti-Asian, or so says a doctor I know.

That's what the old-school signature cards on the voting rolls are for. Seemed to work fine for years (still do in my precinct, where I don't get "carded"), until this phony "voter fraud" issue was scared up in recent election cycles.

Worked fine? So, then ACORN wasn't caught forging signature cards, with the Miami-Dade field director of ACORN admitting that their workers also routinely removed cards of Republicans voters when working on election day?

Actually, I didn't see 3407, so that's one place I have to admit to being mistaken.

I think Richardson might be the Dems' best VP choice, actually--good combination of swingstate appeal, executive experience, and foreign policy cred. He's a bland campaigner, but who cares. Obama's got charisma to burn.

There are tons of ways to expect voters to identify themselves. In most states, it's done through a voter registration process in which people provide personal information under penalty of law for misrepresentation.

Which would be enforced how?

This has been shown to be an effective system, as there is no evidence of widespead voter fraud.

You can keep posting the same disingenuous link, and it won't make the argument any less ridiculous. There can't be evidence without voter ID laws. You oppose the very proposal that would provide the evidence and then say, "See, there's no evidence." How many fictional people voted? How would you know, since they didn't have to show ID? If patrons of a bar didn't have to show ID to anyone in order to buy alcohol, there'd be no evidence that the bar was serving underage people. Would you cite the failure to catch the bar serving 18 year olds as evidence that it wasn't doing so?

Besides, if you're going to keep harping on "no evidence," there is no evidence that a single eligible person who wanted to vote has been unable to do so because of the voter ID law. But let's not forget about one of the poster children cited by opponents of Indiana's law, who turned out to be trying to vote illegally in Indiana.

What does everyone have against Sherrod Brown? He's perfect, perfect I tells ya!

Worked fine? So, then ACORN wasn't caught forging signature cards, with the Miami-Dade field director of ACORN admitting that their workers also routinely removed cards of Republicans voters when working on election day?

How would imposing an ID requirement on voters keep corrupt election workers from removing voters' signature cards?

Which would be enforced how?

Um, if there's a complaint about illegal votes, it will be investigated by police officers. If they find evidence of a crime, they will arrest people.

What does everyone have against Sherrod Brown? He's perfect, perfect I tells ya!

Well, he's another freshman senator, for one. What was his background before he came to the Senate?

What was his background before he came to the Senate?

Eight years Ohio Secretary of State, fourteen years in the House of Representatives.

Excellent progressive record, economic populist, highly popular in his home state.

If patrons of a bar didn't have to show ID to anyone in order to buy alcohol, there'd be no evidence that the bar was serving underage people. Would you cite the failure to catch the bar serving 18 year olds as evidence that it wasn't doing so?

Is this for real? Absent IDs, there can be no evidence of a bar serving someone underage?

That's not a fact. As has been said over and over, people do have to identify that they're an eligible voter. They just do so in a different way than you've oddly convinced yourself should be required.

So, an ACORN employee in Cuyahoga county being arrested for forging registration cards isn't a problem? Or ACORN employee Kym Cason admitting to registering 3 of her friends to vote 40 times isn't a problem? The registration card system is completely insecure.

I'm not sure making Oprah the VP nominee would pull much black vote away from Obama at this point.

Seeing as how her appeal's mostly among middle aged white women (or so it seems to me), you're probably right.

There can't be evidence without voter ID laws.

This is really profoundly stupid.

I guess that there can be no evidence of theft unless I've carved my social security number into every piece of property that I own.

You know, DMN may be right. I just checked my wife's "Rules of Evidence" textbook, and the first chapter is "Evidence: It's All about the IDs - Without 'Em, You Got Bupkis."

I just checked my wife's "Rules of Evidence" textbook, and the first chapter is "Evidence: It's All about the IDs - Without 'Em, You Got Bupkis."

I *knew* I shouldn't've cut out of evidence class so often...

Oh barf, Andy. You're better than that.
EDIT: or, God, I wonder what could possibly make women see sexism around them. What crazy #######!


I think Andy and I had this discussion once already, Matt. ;-)

They demonstrate it by swearing under penalty of law that they are registered to vote. That's how the system works. This system of demonstration has been shown to work quite well.

It hasn't been shown at all. Hell, by your own "academic" stats, 2.5% of voting is fraudulent; that's the amount that turnout drops once they require ID. (It's just as reasonable to assume that people who vote without ID are committing fraud as it is to assume that everyone who votes without showing ID isn't committing fraud.)

Has Sherrod Brown gotten more popular recently? The most recent survey I see, SurveyUSA's November poll, had Brown's approval rating in Ohio at 46%, below the Senate median of 53% (Voinovich at 44%).

Can't you see how talking about women as if they are something to woo is sexist.

Not nearly as sexist as referring to women as things.

Actually, I didn't see 3407, so that's one place I have to admit to being mistaken.

Much appreciated, Dan. I don't mind being flamed, as long as it's WRT a position I actually hold. That's all I've ever asked.

There can't be evidence without voter ID laws. You oppose the very proposal that would provide the evidence and then say, "See, there's no evidence."

(1) I recall posters saying, "There is no evidence of a steroid problem" and I never saw you break out this reasonsing against them.

(2) Not true. First of all, you can have plenty of evidence. You can cross check voter rolls with city and federal census figures. You can randomly choose people to conduct follow up investigations. You can use the same intelligence gathering means that you use for all crimes to infiltrate and investigate coordinated voter fraud. There are many, many other ways. Some more intrusive than others, and most of them may receive some level of opposition.

Second, I don't know how they do things in MD, NJ, IN, or other applicable places, but that is the last way you would catch people in MA. In MA, the polling centers are run by volunteers who I doubt are going to help much in stopping people or in gathering evidence for an investigation. If Indiana brings out the stormtroopers to ask for people's papers to check if they are entitled to vote maybe it would help catch those 72 year old people that make the mistake of registering in two places, so that they could then not vote in either place and have their children taken away.

Not true. First of all, you can have plenty of evidence. You can cross check voter rolls with city and federal census figures. You can randomly choose people to conduct follow up investigations. You can use the same intelligence gathering means that you use for all crimes to infiltrate and investigate coordinated voter fraud. There are many, many other ways. Some more intrusive than others, and most of them may receive some level of opposition.


They all have. Even removing dead voters receives a huge level of opposition.

If city and county governments had been able to properly cull voter rolls and enforce proper registrations, there'd be less of a problem and less need for voter IDs.

Make that state governments, I always forget that county government in Maryland is far more significant than pretty much every other state.

I guess that there can be no evidence of theft unless I've carved my social security number into every piece of property that I own.

I imagine your homeowner or renter's insurance will want more documention of your ownership of a Picasso than some flimsy card you could make with your inkjet printer or an affidavit from you cousin Bill that MCoA does in fact own that precious painting.

If Indiana brings out the stormtroopers to ask for people's papers to check if they are entitled to vote maybe it would help catch those 72 year old people that make the mistake of registering in two places, so that they could then not vote in either place and have their children taken away.

But how would it affect their HOF chances?

If city and county governments had been able to properly cull voter rolls and enforce proper registrations, there'd be less of a problem and less need for voter IDs.


Szym,

(1) I'm not sure what you consider "proper" and why that has not been able to be done.

(2) You keep saying "less of a problem," but every problem you have mentioned (which are few) is not solved by a voter id system. That is why JC and MCoA are laying down holy terror on these arguments.

Personally, I don't think requiring identification is a draconian intrusion. The problem occurs with the strict type mandates that occur in IN. If persons could use:

(1) SS checks
(2) College grade sheets/College Ids (and forget that "state university" malarky)
(3) Utility bills
(4) Affidavits of another
and other forms of identifying documents that may exist for people, then I don't think there is a problem. I DOUBT THERE IS A STATE IN THE UNION THAT DOES NOT COMMISSION NOTARIES WHO MAY INDENTIFY OTHERS UNDER EVEN LESS STRICT GUIDELINES.

The problem, which I would think good libs would share, is that IN, et. al., is making you get your ID from the Man. Not everybody listens to what the Man says AND YOU CAN'T DISENFRANCHISE THEM FOR THIS REASON. Its especially egregious b/c it does disproportionately target groups that tend to block vote in a certain direction.

A good voter id law I could get behind. A system that is meant just to jack the government away from the people -- save it for the movies.

I imagine your homeowner or renter's insurance will want more documention of your ownership of a Picasso than some flimsy card you could make with your inkjet printer or an affidavit from you cousin Bill that MCoA does in fact own that precious painting.

I wonder if anti-voter ID people would be upset if their banks closed out their accounts and handed the money to the first person who comes in and says, "I'm MCoA. It's racist to make me show ID, so I won't. You just have to trust me that I am."

imagine your homeowner or renter's insurance will want more documention of your ownership of a Picasso than some flimsy card you could make with your inkjet printer or an affidavit from you cousin Bill that MCoA does in fact own that precious painting.

(1) If he has insurance on a Picasso, the insurance company came to see that and appraised it before they issued the policy. Likewise, if someone says their address is the local graveyard, I don't, nor does most any dem, have a problem with someone going to see if they actually live at the graveyard before the election.

(2) If the Picaso is stolen, they aren't going to ask him for an ID made by the Man before they process his claim.

(1) SS checks
(2) College grade sheets/College Ids (and forget that "state university" malarky)
(3) Utility bills
(4) Affidavits of another
and other forms of identifying documents that may exist for people, then I don't think there is a problem. I DOUBT THERE IS A STATE IN THE UNION THAT DOES NOT COMMISSION NOTARIES THAT WHO MAY INDENTIFY OTHERS UNDER EVEN LESS STRICT GUIDELINES.

I actually would be in favor of Indiana making their free ID documentation less stringent and allowing a number of secondary documents to take the place of a primary document. I also would be in favor of the state of Indiana waiving clerical fees one-time for birth certificate for those under the poverty line.

It's just that I'm not arguing with people who want to make the ID law in Indiana better (until you showed up), I'm arguing with people who compare Indiana's law to a poll tax or Jim Crow laws.

I wonder if anti-voter ID people would be upset if their banks closed out their accounts and handed the money to the first person who comes in and says, "I'm MCoA. It's racist to make me show ID, so I won't. You just have to trust me that I am."


If they handed my money to someone who:

(1) Didn't know my account number; and
(2) Had a signature that was different than my signature card.

I would be highly upset.

If the bank would not process my checks they get from the clearinghouse until I go down to the local branch, show them my gubmit issued id card, and sign form 345 stroke z12, then I might be looking for another bank.

I wonder if anti-voter ID people would be upset if their banks closed out their accounts and handed the money to the first person who comes in and says, "I'm MCoA. It's racist to make me show ID, so I won't. You just have to trust me that I am."

Another killer argument for voter IDs.

BL: To be clear, I don't think MCoA opposes identifying legitimate voters and neither do I. We're objecting to a particular "solution" to a non-existent problem. The non-existence of the problem I believe is apparent by the horrible argumentation Zim and DMN - two of the more able debaters we have in this league (I'm channeling Hubie) - are mustering in its behalf.

From Drudge:

CONGRESSIONAL SOURCE: Hillary having trouble finding superdelegates who will meet with her... 'No one wants to see her today'... Developing...

I wonder if maybe her new loan to her campaign is simply a prelude to her trying to get out gracefully. She can pretend that it wasn't that the voters rejected the Clintons, but that they just didn't have the money to fight Obama's deep pockets, mainly because she's out for the little guy.

It's just that I'm not arguing with people who want to make the ID law in Indiana better (until you showed up), I'm arguing with people who compare Indiana's law to a poll tax or Jim Crow laws.

Its not a poll tax; Nieporent resolved that line of reasoning hundreds of posts ago.* Nevertheless, I think the people that are anti-voter id, aren't abolitionists. They are opposed to the effects of the system. We also presume those effects were intended.

* I missed most of this argument, and I did not want to revive. I agree that the 24th amendment does not relate to this issue. Where there is a relationship to the 24th Amendment is in the rational of Scalia of, "...law’s several light and heavy burdens are no more than the different impacts of the single burden that the law uniformly imposes on all voters." This rationale would allow for a poll tax.

imagine your homeowner or renter's insurance will want more documention of your ownership of a Picasso than some flimsy card you could make with your inkjet printer or an affidavit from you cousin Bill that MCoA does in fact own that precious painting.

(1) If he has insurance on a Picasso, the insurance company came to see that and appraised it before they issued the policy. Likewise, if someone says their address is the local graveyard, I don't, nor does most any dem, have a problem with someone going to see if they actually live at the graveyard before the election.

No, actually the insurance company is more likely to take your word for it that you have a Picasso to be insured, pocket your premium monies

and then if you report it stolen, then at that time, demand that you prove you owned a Picasso- receipt, evidence of payment, appraisals, photos etc.

To be clear, I don't think MCoA opposes identifying legitimate voters and neither do I.

That coincides with my impression, which I belatedly identified in 3486.

No, actually the insurance company is more likely to take your word for it that you have a Picasso to be insured, pocket your premium monies

and then if you report it stolen, then at that time, demand that you prove you owned a Picasso- receipt, evidence of payment, appraisals, photos etc.


I have never seen a situation where a rider was issued without up front information, and I've never seen a fine arts policy with that value not involve special appraisal.

It's just that I'm not arguing with people who want to make the ID law in Indiana better (until you showed up), I'm arguing with people who compare Indiana's law to a poll tax or Jim Crow laws.

I never did that, of course. Are we not arguing, or are you massively misrepresenting my position?

I have no problem with making sure that voters are who they say they are. Our current system includes all sorts of checks on illegal voting, and I basically support it, though as with every system, I have a number of reform ideas.

The question is whether the actual law that Indiana passed is a good thing. (Not some version of the Indiana law that BL and Szym have agreed upon, the actual law.) Given that it has not been demonstrated that a problem exists for which it is the solution, and given that it has other externalities in terms of disproportionately keeping poorer voters, African-American voters, and women voters from exercising their right to vote, I see no reason to support the law.

Drudge and the Sources.

An imaginary beat that one should never attempt to dance to.

It's just that I'm not arguing with people who want to make the ID law in Indiana better (until you showed up), I'm arguing with people who compare Indiana's law to a poll tax or Jim Crow laws.

I've not made any such comparison. I've noted what anyone w/sense would note: the purported warrant for the move doesn't exist; as such, it makes one wonder what the real reason is.

So far we've got (through 3415):

Jim Webb
Ed Rendell
Wesley Clark
Hillary Clinton
Mark Warner
Evan Bayh
Sherrod Brown

and for McCain:

JC Watts
Bobby Jindal
some woman

When I read McCain-Watts I briefly thought the poster meant Alan Watts. While he is dead, he's also a buddhist, so it shouldn't matter.

I think Richardson's out. I think he'd be a terrifc veep, but two brown guys on the ticket is way too scary for most. If Obama just wants to maximize his chances of winning, I think he's got to pick someone who brings him a good-sized swing state. That's Hillary with Florida (or is it still close?), and Rendell with Pennsylvania. I can see him losing VA even with Webb, but Andy's mileage may vary...

Drudge and the Sources.

An imaginary beat that one should never attempt to dance to.

It is a little weird, though. Drudge has been Wright Central, and he's been the place for a wide variety of Clinton insiders to drop either bits of oppo or bits of spin and expectation-setting. He seems to have turned on Clinton in the last day or so. My guess is that he's just reflecting the mainstream media in this regard, who basically decided last night that the race was over. I think they're basically right, but it's sort of weird to watch it happen.

Prediction: Clinton will remain in the race until the 20th, when Obama will clinch a majority of pledged delegates through the Oregon primary, and then bow out. In the meantime, she will campaign against McCain, not against Obama, similarly to how Edwards finished up the primaries in '04. Clinton ought to stay in for the good of the party, because she's going to win big in WV and KY regardless of whether she drops out, and the optics of Obama losing big while being the only candidate still in the running would not be so nice.

When I read McCain-Watts I briefly thought the poster meant Alan Watts.

I was thinking he meant Mike Watt and was starting to reconsider my vote.

I brought up the poll-tax issue, and it proved to be unfruitful. I withdraw the suggestion.

Nor is there anything in the language of the law that is explicitly Jim Crow. But this country has a history that you can't detach from its sometimes neutral-sounding laws. And that history includes putting little impediments in the way of people exercising their rights, till they just give up and don't exercise them anymore. This picture-ID requirement is such an impediment. It doesn't do much towards proving your identity or citizenship, but it gives a challenger one more reason to shoo you away from the polls if you forget to bring the damn thing. And you can say, "well, silly voter, you should have gotten out of bed earlier and crossed more of your Ts and dotted more of your Is," but at what point does all the T-crossing and I-dotting fail to have a purpose and become just another depressant to democracy?

I brought up the Indiana case many hundreds of posts ago because I am always amazed that Clarence Thomas doesn't see this kind of thing. (And consequently amazed that people are amazed that Thomas isn't real popular among civil-rights-minded folk.) Incidentally, since the death of Mildred Loving was also reported in this thread (I get all my news here :), people might be interested in Sam M.'s book Original Sin, which starts from a hypothetical look at how Thomas might think about Loving v. Virginia.

I was thinking he meant Mike Watt and was starting to reconsider my vote.

Hell yes.

An Obama/Mike Watt ticket would make me quit my job to start campaigning full time.

The obvious VP choice for McCain is Huckabee.

Huckabee seals in the social conservative voters that McCain is still trying to appease (see recent comments), and he seals them in without McCain needing to make statements that can be used against him in the general.

Huckabee is an astoundingly good politician. I've never seen an outspoken hardline Southern Baptist get so much love from liberals - and myself as well, I can't help but like the guy (tell me this exchange isn't utterly disarming).

Huckabee isn't beloved by the Club For Growth wing of the party, but those are hardline partisans who will come home just as surely as Paul Krugman will to an Obama candidacy. He's good with the voters that McCain needs to lock in, and his opponents are not the people that McCain needs to worry about. I think his ability to articulate moderate critiques of Bush on economic issues is precisely what McCain needs in order to make his case to independents (given that McCain's foreign policy stance is locked in), and Huckabee is quite simply the most talented politician the Republicans have right now.

I have never seen a situation where a rider was issued without up front information, and I've never seen a fine arts policy with that value not involve special appraisal.

I have
repeatedly

and involving more than one insurer.

But then again I only see these policies when something like that has already taken place- the [vast majority I assume of] policies that were correctly issued- I never see

Prediction: Clinton will remain in the race until the 20th, when Obama will clinch a majority of pledged delegates through the Oregon primary, and then bow out. In the meantime, she will campaign against McCain, not against Obama, similarly to how Edwards finished up the primaries in '04. Clinton ought to stay in for the good of the party, because she's going to win big in WV and KY regardless of whether she drops out, and the optics of Obama losing big while being the only candidate still in the running would not be so nice.


The only problem is that this is what everyone is saying. I doubt there is any transparency left to the action. More important is the delicious consequences to Hilary. She could have walked away over a month ago. Her head could have still been held high, she would have saved lots of money that was spent needlessly, would not have had to spend her own money, and not gotten into that negative crap she was pushing all across America. Now, when she may actually want to leave, Barack is able to do a silent, "You'll go when I tell you to go."