Florida purging mainly minority & poor Democrat voters ahead of 2012 Election

[Away]

C'mon if this wasn't happening then Mitt Romney wouldn't have a chance in FL...

Really? Looks pretty close to me. I know facts can be hard sometimes though.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_romney_vs_obama-1883.html

 

[Craig234]

Yeah but YOU are missing the solution. If the federal government would actually do something about illegals then the states wouldnt have to resort to these measures, whether their intentions are honorable or not.

Republicans' voter suppression has nothing to do with illegals. How many illegals vote? Do illegals make Republicans create hugely false purge lists? Implement them illegally?

 

[LunarRay]

I think a fair and very conservative analysis of this Nov election at this point in time would have the following States as 'swing'...
Florida - 29
Nevada - 6
Colorado - 9
Iowa - 6
Wisconsin - 10
N. Carolina - 15
Virgina - 13
Ohio - 18
Pennsylvania - 20
New Hampshire -4

That is 130 swing electors... and, it has about 85 different Obama combinations and 72 Romney with it looks like 15 possible tie combos...
For Romney it looks like 60 combos must include Florida and for Obama only 12 combos must include Florida... Forget the tie combos atm but they are about 4 in Obama's column and 11 in Romney...

The point here is that Florida is a must win for Romney... almost. I have it at 217 Obama and 191 Romney.... IF Romney does not win Florida his remaining combos are extremely cut back. Everyone in Romney's and Obama's camp know this and when winning is what it is all about and you have a Must situation... You do all you can to secure that Must...
Florida, atm, is within most margins of error... and 2000 votes could move it one way or another and probably will.

If Romney does not carry Fl and also loses Pa... he has only one possible combo left.. He must carry the other 8 swing States... So Florida is crucial and Pa is almost as crucial...

 

[blankslate]

Really? Looks pretty close to me. I know facts can be hard sometimes though.

idiotic post. try harder.

If you look at who posts on RCP you can see that it is the furthest from an unbiased site.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Had they used the method Al Gore wanted he still would of lost.

Even the Duke could at least win his home state. Had Tenn felt Gore was qualified, Fla never would have mattered.

The media also contributed by calling the state before polls closed.

 

[Craig234]

Even the Duke could at least win his home state. Had Tenn felt Gore was qualified, Fla never would have mattered.

The media also contributed by calling the state before polls closed.

Gore losing TN is not justification for Florida stealing votes.

"Well, if you hadn't made that bad stock investment and lost $5,000 then the robber who held you up for $1,000 wouldn't have cost you money."

Same for nonsense about the media - who called the state first? Fox, who had a Bush cousin in charge of calling it as I recall - and he called it for Bush.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Whats the problem with looking? Why is the left so afraid of trying to find illegal voters on the roles?
Futhermore, what tiny precentage of legal voters would possible by effected by the search?
What is the left afraid of?

The problem is that a significant burden is being placed on legitimate voters in an attempt to "solve" an essentially non-existent problem.



You seem quite convinced that electoral fraud is a major problem in the United States that somehow evades detection. Do you really imagine that organizations like ACORN are capable of a massive undetectable conspiracy to rig elections when they couldn't even escape a would-be Woodward with a hidden camera and a cheap pimp costume?

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually theres plenty of states that require ID no matter how old you look.

Other than Utah? Indiana, where they seem intent on a police state? Does it have to be current? Show the correct address?

Hell, I haven't been there in so long that I don't know if Utah requires liquor cards any more, or not.

Is buying booze a Constitutional Right?

 

[LunarRay]

(...)
Is buying booze a Constitutional Right?

Aside from Federal land and the like I'd say the States make the laws regarding many things and Booze is among them.

The Constitutionality follows the same path as say Marriage.
An analysis of the 21st Amendment indicates the importation into a State of booze that is not permitted by the State is unlawful. So that clearly defers to the States the authority to act as they please. (Section 2)

Utah has a 3.2 beer thingi sold in all but State Stores and some other kind of outlet while other States are not so 'restrictive'.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

There's really no catch-22 at all. (and not to be pedantic but that is my favorite book of all time and this would not qualify as a catch-22)

First, we aren't using convictions as a standard for whether voter fraud exists or not, we are using detected voting irregularities. The record keeping for individual districts might be bad in certain cases, but our overall records of who votes and who doesn't are just fine for this purpose. Voter fraud could be quite easily detected during electoral audits that can be done and have been done, with basically zero evidence for such a thing happening. If it were happening you would find dead people who voted, you would find lots of cases of two votes being recorded for the same person without explanation, etc, etc. (2 votes for one person does sometimes happen benignly, btw with absentee ballot screwups, etc)

You have to remember, Republicans have been desperately searching for evidence of voter fraud for decades now. Those attorneys that GWB fired in that scandal a few years back? That was in large part due to his desire that they find more evidence of voter fraud. The fact that they have not been able to find any speaks volumes for what's really going on.

First, not all types of voter fraud are detectable in an audit. Second, even if we accept your premise that it is not a significant problem, the type of cross checking being done in Florida is still common sense, low cost, relatively low burden, enforcement mechanism. In the age of the computers there is virtually no cost to this type of cross checking.

The article states that 2700 suspected intelligible voters where identified. For arguments sake, if 50% of them were found to in fact be illegible would you consider this a worthwhile exercise?

 

[dmcowen674]

I think a fair and very conservative analysis of this Nov election at this point in time would have the following States as 'swing'...
Florida - 29 Romney
Nevada - 6 Romney
Colorado - 9 Obama
Iowa - 6 Romney
Wisconsin - 10 Romney
N. Carolina - 15 Romney
Virgina - 13 Romney
Ohio - 18 Romney
Pennsylvania - 20 Obama
New Hampshire -4 Obama

Romney 288

Obama 250

 

[LunarRay]

First, not all types of voter fraud are detectable in an audit. Second, even if we accept your premise that it is not a significant problem, the type of cross checking being done in Florida is still common sense, low cost, relatively low burden, enforcement mechanism. In the age of the computers there is virtually no cost to this type of cross checking.

The article states that 2700 suspected intelligible voters where identified. For arguments sake, if 50% of them were found to in fact be illegible would you consider this a worthwhile exercise?

What the motive is is not the issue atm. That comes later. That the actions violate VRA '93/65 is the issue.

There should be no argument if the State legaly tries to insure fair elections. The methods used should not eliminate eligible voters but, rather, ineligible ones... to default to eliminate both is not right. The onus ought to be on the State to prove ineligible which as I recall might be a crime where the person voting does so fraudulently.

 

[Throckmorton]

The idea of illegal immigrants voting is hilarious. Really, you think illegal immigrants desire to interact with governmental institutions? And you think they support Barack Obama? The only ones who might want to vote are the political fringe La Raza types

 

[LunarRay]

Romney 288

Obama 250

I said there are various combos to win extrapolated from my very very conservative givens... Obama will no doubt win what I've given him and Romney the same...

I can't argue your assignment of States atm because I'm using today's data... If I predict certain economic news between now and Nov I might have different States going different ways... And how close to Nov some good or bad news occurs.

The analysis can be moved all sorts of ways and especially if you give O or R different States as givens.

But, using my data Romney can win handley if this or if that State goes to him... but if he loses Fla AND Pa... he can still win by winning all 8 other swings..

So, Dave, what are you indicating that may be different than what I postulated?

 

[the DRIZZLE]

What the motive is is not the issue atm. That comes later. That the actions violate VRA '93/65 is the issue.

There should be no argument if the State legaly tries to insure fair elections. The methods used should not eliminate eligible voters but, rather, ineligible ones... to default to eliminate both is not right. The onus ought to be on the State to prove ineligible which as I recall might be a crime where the person voting does so fraudulently.

The intent does matter because that is part of what determines if the action does indeed violate the VRA. Just because the Justice Dept says it does doesn't make it so.

 

[LunarRay]

The intent does matter because that is part of what determines if the action does indeed violate the VRA. Just because the Justice Dept says it does doesn't make it so.

The court has spoken on at least part of the Scott action... Judge Hinkle said what he said... that is at least some sort of 'makes it so'.

The job of Justice is to interpret the law and enforce it.... That is what they seem to be doing. And doing so under the premise that this purge is quite illegal. Would you prefer the Marshall's visit Scott and toss him in the pokey pending trial or some such and them still able to terminate the purge... Scott, et. al. then have to go get an injunction against justice pending the judicial process and we already have court opinion on it... VRA is really pretty clear.

Edit: "... Additionally, the DOJ said the purge violated the National Voter Registration Act, which requires states to complete changes to their registration rolls 90 days in advance of an election. Since Florida's primary is on August 14, all maintenance should have been completed by May 14."

 

[the DRIZZLE]

The court has spoken on at least part of the Scott action... Judge Hinkle said what he said... that is at least some sort of 'makes it so'.

The job of Justice is to interpret the law and enforce it.... That is what they seem to be doing. And doing so under the premise that this purge is quite illegal. Would you prefer the Marshall's visit Scott and toss him in the pokey pending trial or some such and them still able to terminate the purge... Scott, et. al. then have to go get an injunction against justice pending the judicial process and we already have court opinion on it... VRA is really pretty clear.

Edit: "... Additionally, the DOJ said the purge violated the National Voter Registration Act, which requires states to complete changes to their registration rolls 90 days in advance of an election. Since Florida's primary is on August 14, all maintenance should have been completed by May 14."

Judge Hinkle ruled against specific parts of the law, but it seems he has left the bulk of it intact. I do not know if he considered this particular practice or not but he certainly didn't rule against it. The 90 day rule would appear to limit any changes for the upcoming primary, however the state may still be allowed to make changes on a 90 day rolling basis. I haven't read the law so I'm not clear on that part.

 

[dmcowen674]

But, using my data Romney can win handley if this or if that State goes to him... but if he loses Fla AND Pa... he can still win by winning all 8 other swings..

So, Dave, what are you indicating that may be different than what I postulated?

Not much difference.

I was just noting what states each will get the electoral vote.

There are not that many "swing states"

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The important thing to remember about swing states is that they are mostly not completely independent. If Romney wins in places like Wisconsin and NH, he'll also win a pile of other states. Similarly, if Obama wins North Carolina and Virginia, there is no way in hell Romney will win PA or Ohio.

 

[dmcowen674]

The important thing to remember about swing states is that they are mostly not completely independent. If Romney wins in places like Wisconsin and NH, he'll also win a pile of other states. Similarly, if Obama wins North Carolina and Virginia, there is no way in hell Romney will win PA or Ohio.

Come on there is no way Obama will win any of the southern states like North Carolina.

Also Ohio has completely self destructed and gone Red.

PA thanks to mainly Philly is still Blue.

I don't see any combo that Obama could overcome Romney.

Too much of the country has gone bat shit crazy for Religious Republican rule.

 

[shortylickens]

The important thing to remember about swing states is that they are mostly not completely independent. If Romney wins in places like Wisconsin and NH, he'll also win a pile of other states. Similarly, if Obama wins North Carolina and Virginia, there is no way in hell Romney will win PA or Ohio.

Virginia as a whole seems pretty happy with Obama. I suspect it may have something to do with all the federal employees (congressmen included) that live here.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Come on there is no way Obama will win any of the southern states like North Carolina.

He probably won't. That was the point of my post: if Obama wins NC, it probably means he is ahead of Romney enough that Romney will never win states like PA or WI.

Also Ohio has completely self destructed and gone Red.

PA thanks to mainly Philly is still Blue.

I don't see any combo that Obama could overcome Romney.

Too much of the country has gone bat shit crazy for Religious Republican rule.

Way too early for that stuff.

Personally, I think Obama will win, and while it will be close, it won't be a nail-biter. The main reason Romney is doing (relatively) well now is that he's mostly keeping his yap shut and most swing voters don't know who he is. If there's one pattern that played out repeatedly during the primaries, it is that the more voters get to know him, the less they like him.

 

[LunarRay]

Judge Hinkle ruled against specific parts of the law, but it seems he has left the bulk of it intact. I do not know if he considered this particular practice or not but he certainly didn't rule against it. The 90 day rule would appear to limit any changes for the upcoming primary, however the state may still be allowed to make changes on a 90 day rolling basis. I haven't read the law so I'm not clear on that part.

Justice is interpreting it to be May 14 for the August election and November because the 90 window appears only after the Nov election...

Yes, Hinkle ordered the State to stop parts of the law enacted last year which dove tails with the VRA bit.

I suppose it is only right to have legal voters voting but the Hinkle bit went to registration boondoggles or what ever he called it... and that is also VRA stuff.. NVRA probably ('93)

If I were Scott I'd eye ball the 2700 or so he has currently and file charges if it really looks bogus... I think that is only right as well...

 

[LunarRay]

Not much difference.

I was just noting what states each will get the electoral vote.

There are not that many "swing states"

I'm starting with what the California Republican Committee (wife's thing) have as solid one way or another and where they won't send resources. And leaving what they say as swing as swing... I agree with the base bloc... But, the Republicans seem to have a different strategy for each of the ten Swings depending on if it rains or snows or gophers dance at midnight... It seems incredible to me.

I looked up another resouce and it has Obama (as of today) with 258 probable with 5 swing... I'll check again later to see what changed, if anything has.

 

[LunarRay]

Come on there is no way Obama will win any of the southern states like North Carolina.

Also Ohio has completely self destructed and gone Red.

PA thanks to mainly Philly is still Blue.

I don't see any combo that Obama could overcome Romney.

Too much of the country has gone bat shit crazy for Religious Republican rule.

I agree with the general theme of your thesis...

But.. think the forthcoming dynamics have yet to grab that fat lady and make her sing. It could be Obama >300 or <258.