NationStates Jolt Archive

We're talking about politics in Ohio, here. Nothing at all is absurd. It also doesn't make it untrue.

There was no fraud, no planned attempt to disenfranchise voters. That's just how the chips fall here.There may well have been fraud AS WELL AS ineptitude. One does not exclude the other.

That's Ohio for you. *grimaces*

Ouch. :p

(Does anyone else find this 6-chars-minimum rule utterly irritating?)

There may well have been fraud AS WELL AS ineptitude. One does not exclude the other.

In this case, it was ineptitude.

The precinct my parents vote in is 98% white, and goes Republican to the tune of roughly 75%. My dad waited over an hour to vote after he got off of work.

Why? Because the county planned for far fewer people to actually show up to vote. They thought forty percent turnout, they got seventy five at my parents place.

Why would I waste the time? Everyone concerned is well aware of all the blatantly incorrect "predictions" you have made. You may have convinced yourself you havent been wrong since last December, but no one else is buying.

I have no intention of doing this either.
FYI I have tacked on your flaming and trolling posts to the thread you started yesterday in Moderation.

FYI I have tacked on your flaming and trolling posts to the thread you started yesterday in Moderation.

Considering I havent been flaming or trolling, simply calling the validity of your predictions into question, be my guest.

That's easily dealt with. Simply limit the number of voting machines in black precincts so that there is an absolute ceiling on the number of votes that can be cast there, regardless of how many turn out to try to vote.
thats harder than it used to be now that most states have early in person voting.

i havent gone to the polls on election day in many years now. im not even in the country on the first week in november. i vote at the county courthouse a week or 2 early.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/28/mccain.vp/index.html

Well, given that this thread theoretically is about both parties and their VP picks, CNN is reporting that McCain has made his, and will be announcing it tomorrow in my semi-ok state.

In this case, it was ineptitude.
In the matter of voting delays, yes. The questionable tallies, however, may have been fraud rather than ineptitude.
The precinct my parents vote in is 98% white, and goes Republican to the tune of roughly 75%. My dad waited over an hour to vote after he got off of work.
He didn't get a 14-hour wait, however; those were reserved for black people.
thats harder than it used to be now that most states have early in person voting.
Not "most" states, only a handful.
I expect this election to be disputed, and to turn on a contentious recount. Florida and Ohio will probably make extra efforts not to be the problem states again, but may screw it up anyhow. Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Missouri are the most likely sites for the 2008 recount.

In the matter of voting delays, yes. The questionable tallies, however, may have been fraud rather than ineptitude.

I'm not entirely aware of the charge of questionable tallies. Do tell.

I'm not entirely aware of the charge of questionable tallies. Do tell.Ohio was one of the states where the gap between what the voters told the exit pollsters and the percentages reported was most extreme. It is suspected that this is largely due to the fact that the Diebold company, which created the freely-hackable and unverifiable touch-screen machines, was from Ohio and counted most of the votes. There were numerous reports of "flipping", where the voter pushed the Kerry button but saw the machine light up Bush instead (never in the other direction), and other strange irregularities (one county's board met to total up the numbers under a "security lockdown", barring all outside observers on grounds of a supposed terrorist-threat warning, which the FBI denied every issuing). The Green party raised the funds required for a "recount", but the state refused to do anything except run the machines again to produce the same numbers again without any inquiry.
I followed on the radio a subsequent Congressional by-election which ended suspiciously. I don't remember the names, but it was a largely Republican district in which however the Democrats ran an Iraq War vet who was running even in the polls. It was back-and-forth all night, by slight margins either way, except there was 0% reporting from any of the precincts in the Diebold-counted section of the district; a couple hours after everything else was reported, the Diebold territory came in, 60.0% to 40.0% for the Republican (suspiciously round), which put the Republican ahead by just over the threshold that the Democrats would have had to pony up money to get a recount (the Diebold territory was said to be the most Republican-leaning area of the district, and since the race was even in the rest of the district, it is probable the Republican did win legitimately, but it is impossible to tell, really).

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/28/mccain.vp/index.html

Well, given that this thread theoretically is about both parties and their VP picks, CNN is reporting that McCain has made his, and will be announcing it tomorrow in my semi-ok state.

I find your attempt to get this 34-page thread back on topic admirable, if slightly quixotic. :salute:

Lieberman or Ridge would be an edgy pick -- my understanding is that the anti-abortion vote is still too important to the party to risk messing with, but you never know. Romney's a safe pick, but does he actually win McCain any states? MA and MI are pretty deep blue as far as I know.

I find your attempt to get this 34-page thread back on topic admirable, if slightly quixotic. :salute:

Lieberman or Ridge would be an edgy pick -- my understanding is that the anti-abortion vote is still too important to the party to risk messing with, but you never know. Romney's a safe pick, but does he actually win McCain any states? MA and MI are pretty deep blue as far as I know.
Massachusetts yes; but Michigan has an increasing number of lunatic-Christians, and is in play this time.

I find your attempt to get this 34-page thread back on topic admirable, if slightly quixotic. :salute:

Lieberman or Ridge would be an edgy pick -- my understanding is that the anti-abortion vote is still too important to the party to risk messing with, but you never know. Romney's a safe pick, but does he actually win McCain any states? MA and MI are pretty deep blue as far as I know.

A Romney selection would swing Massachusetts even further blue, not that that matters.. He's not a popular man up here.

Massachusetts yes; but Michigan has an increasing number of lunatic-Christians, and is in play this time.
lunatic christians arent swung by mormons. (unless they ARE mormons)

Ugh... is nothing sacred.

I have to depart this thread, possibly forever. I can't even debate without McCain banner ads appearing on the page. I think I need to go see if I can find a nice 'asian lesbian porn' thread, or something...

lunatic christians arent swung by mormons. (unless they ARE mormons)

Nonetheless, Michigan is in play because Detroit's population continues to decline, giving it less power to tilt the state blue. And if Ohio is still in play this year, it's likely to be the last time it ever is. Ohio is not a swing state anymore, it's a red state.

Nonetheless, Michigan is in play because Detroit's population continues to decline, giving it less power to tilt the state blue. And if Ohio is still in play this year, it's likely to be the last time it ever is. Ohio is not a swing state anymore, it's a red state.
surely michigan swings with its economy. if the economy sucks why would they vote to continue the status quo with mccain?

snip

I guess that I should be used to it by now but the high level of ignorant morons in this country always astounds me.

Why would I waste the time? Everyone concerned is well aware of all the blatantly incorrect "predictions" you have made. You may have convinced yourself you havent been wrong since last December, but no one else is buying.

Stop playing dumb<snip>Stop playing dumb.


KoL, cut it out.

Why would I waste the time? Everyone concerned is well aware of all the blatantly incorrect "predictions" you have made. You may have convinced yourself you havent been wrong since last December, but no one else is buying.

KoL, your own sense of self-preservation should be enough to keep you well away from the CanuckHeaven-Heikoku squabble. I'll be looking over this thread in more detail later; expect repercussions.

Edited to remove my mistaken assumption that Cerean was flaming.

I find your attempt to get this 34-page thread back on topic admirable, if slightly quixotic. :salute:

Lieberman or Ridge would be an edgy pick -- my understanding is that the anti-abortion vote is still too important to the party to risk messing with, but you never know. Romney's a safe pick, but does he actually win McCain any states? MA and MI are pretty deep blue as far as I know.

Very much agreed. From my point of view, if McCain wants to make a smart pick, it's none of them. There's too much "conventional wisdom" that's not quite wise that says these guys should be the front runners.

Bobby Jindal, for instance, gives McCain a good counterpoint. It gives him someone with executive experience, in a state where there have been a significant number of challenges. Not only that, but he gives McCain a youthful partner, with the immigrant parents history. It would be a wild card choice, and I think it would help McCain.

Pawlenty would also be a good choice. Also a slightly less known name, and highly polarizing in his own state, but he is from outside of Washington, and he has executive experience as well, and in a state that isn't Texas.

McCain needs someone to be his Biden equivalent really...and by that, I mean he needs someone who resembles Obama, to balance his cratchety old white dude.

Just my opinion, though.

Ohio was one of the states where the gap between what the voters told the exit pollsters and the percentages reported was most extreme.

The difference was not quite as extreme or unreasonable as the Penn State study indicated, though. The primary issue at hand with the Penn State study was that they used a single standard deviation to find statistical significance...an unreasonable standard to use.

Also, there was a significant self-selecting bias amongst those who were administering the exit polling, specifically in regards to age. Virtually all of the exit poll staff were under thirty, and more significantly, a large portion were 18-22. Whether intentional or not, they interviewed a disproportionate number of their own demographic group, because they were "attracted" to younger people more so than older people.

It is suspected that this is largely due to the fact that the Diebold company, which created the freely-hackable and unverifiable touch-screen machines, was from Ohio and counted most of the votes.

Having worked extensively with those Diebold machines, being acquainted with the software, and the physical security measures, I can tell you that the "flipping" charge is ridiculous. You literally have to confirm your vote three times before it registers. First, on screen, then you confirm that the paper print-off is correct, and then, finally, you confirm that you wish to cast your ballot. You can go back to the beginning at any point.

Secondly, the Diebold touchscreen voting machines were not widely available in Ohio until well after the 2004 election. Diebold's home county, Stark, did not receive the machines until the summer of 2005. I, voted on a paper ballot in Franklin in 2004.

Beyond that, the machines are not so easily hacked as some studies have led folks to believe. To begin with, they are not connected to the internet, so a hacker would need to bypass the physical security system first. Access to each machines physical data entry ports is key-lock protected. Finally, the machines are not linked, and cannot share data, so a hacker would need to go through each machine individually.

Finally, election programs are not programmed into the machine, rather, on an external memory card that is not loaded until election day. Election results are stored on the card, as is functionality. The individual memory cards also have a significant degree of physical security.

Finally, Diebold is the company you trust with your money. Almost all American and European ATM's are Diebold machines. The reason they were selected for the voting machine contracts is because they had experience in secure user-interface computer systems.

surely michigan swings with its economy. if the economy sucks why would they vote to continue the status quo with mccain?

Beats me, but they might.

KoL, your own sense of self-preservation should be enough to keep you well away from the CanuckHeaven-Heikoku squabble. I'll be looking over this thread in more detail later; expect repercussions.

Come on, now: Has it really gotten to the point in which we can't even discuss with CH? Because I'm pretty sure my last posts were, yes, kosher.

Very much agreed. From my point of view, if McCain wants to make a smart pick, it's none of them. There's too much "conventional wisdom" that's not quite wise that says these guys should be the front runners.

Bobby Jindal, for instance, gives McCain a good counterpoint. It gives him someone with executive experience, in a state where there have been a significant number of challenges. Not only that, but he gives McCain a youthful partner, with the immigrant parents history. It would be a wild card choice, and I think it would help McCain.

Pawlenty would also be a good choice. Also a slightly less known name, and highly polarizing in his own state, but he is from outside of Washington, and he has executive experience as well, and in a state that isn't Texas.

McCain needs someone to be his Biden equivalent really...and by that, I mean he needs someone who resembles Obama, to balance his cratchety old white dude.

Just my opinion, though.

the pundits on the today show this morning said that the mccain short-list is romney, pawlenty and lieberman.

my son tells me that the only compliment romney could come up with for mccain recently was "he loves his children". id have to guess that they dont like each other enough to make it as a team.

nominating lieberman would mean that all mccain is interested in is sticking it to the republican party. it would be a slap in the face of the republican base.

so that leaves pawlenty. i dont know anything about him. he doesnt have the experience that mccain claims to be so very important. he seems like the best choice from that list though.

maybe the pundits are wrong?

the pundits on the today show this morning said that the mccain short-list is romney, pawlenty and lieberman.

my son tells me that the only compliment romney could come up with for mccain recently was "he loves his children". id have to guess that they dont like each other enough to make it as a team.

nominating lieberman would mean that all mccain is interested in is sticking it to the republican party. it would be a slap in the face of the republican base.

so that leaves pawlenty. i dont know anything about him. he doesnt have the experience that mccain claims to be so very important. he seems like the best choice from that list though.

maybe the pundits are wrong?

If McCain puts Pawlenty on the team he'll lose the ONLY cudgel he has to hit Obama with.

If McCain puts Pawlenty on the team he'll lose the ONLY cudgel he has to hit Obama with.
think he'll go with romney even though they dont seem to like each other much?

its hard to believe that romney would be willing to take the spot of losing vp candidate.

think he'll go with romney even though they dont seem to like each other much?

its hard to believe that romney would be willing to take the spot of losing vp candidate.

I think McCain is in a bad situation mo matter who he picks between these...

think he'll go with romney even though they dont seem to like each other much?

its hard to believe that romney would be willing to take the spot of losing vp candidate.

Romney's probably the best bet, although he's been playing a lot to (actual) moderates - which makes me think he's expecting a lot of racist Dems to hop the trenches...

At this point, I'm betting McCain will run with anything he thinks can derail Obama. I bet he wishes Arnie was legal.

(Anyone else looking at the banner ads on the site? Out of every... say, 20, banners - 15 will be McCain banners, paid for by McCain, and 3 or 4 will be Obama banners, paid for by MoveOn. McCain is fighting desperately for placement and visibility. He'll take anything he can get).

KoL, Cerean, cut it out.



KoL, your own sense of self-preservation should be enough to keep you well away from the CanuckHeaven-Heikoku squabble. I'll be looking over this thread in more detail later; expect repercussions.

um, not to be disrespectful or anything Ardchoille but those posts were all relatively mild. Also KoL's post could actually be portrayed as a compliment. .. (him saying that CH is deliberately playing dumb when he's actually smart . . .)

Romney's probably the best bet, although he's been playing a lot to (actual) moderates - which makes me think he's expecting a lot of racist Dems to hop the trenches...

At this point, I'm betting McCain will run with anything he thinks can derail Obama. I bet he wishes Arnie was legal.

(Anyone else looking at the banner ads on the site? Out of every... say, 20, banners - 15 will be McCain banners, paid for by McCain, and 3 or 4 will be Obama banners, paid for by MoveOn. McCain is fighting desperately for placement and visibility. He'll take anything he can get).
im wondering how those ads got onto jolt. i dont know what the advertising rates are here but it doesnt seem like money well spent.

i think that romney would make the best VP. but hes not popular with the evangelical base--too mormon--and he and mccain are not friends.

im wondering how those ads got onto jolt. i dont know what the advertising rates are here but it doesnt seem like money well spent.

i think that romney would make the best VP. but hes not popular with the evangelical base--too mormon--and he and mccain are not friends.

I suspect the ads got here because MoveOn realised four years ago that the internet is the new battlegorund - especially for the particular voter they're trying hardest to target this time round (hard-to-motivate young people). And the overwhelming McCain presence would be a desparate attempt (starting WAY too late in the game) to try to stamp out the signal. (You can't stop the signal). I doubt if Jolt is the only place getting hit.

Doh! In fact, thinking about it - Jolt probably has a deal with one of those googly-type things that packages marketting suggestions based on on-screen content. We're getting spammed with candidates because we're such a bright, informed lot... and can't shut up about it. :D

MoveOn - this is their medium. McCain throwing money at the problem.

Like I said, I don't think McCain's trying AS hard now for the evangelicals, and that makes me worry. I hope he's misreading it, but then - I don't know Americans very well. I think he's banking HEAVILY on making himself just popular enough for people to choose him over a black Democrat.

think he'll go with romney even though they dont seem to like each other much?

I'd say Romney would be a transcendingly awful mistake. They don't get along, Romney won't deliver either Michigan or Massachusetts, and he certainly doesn't help with the "out of touch" problem McCain has begun to have lately.

I'd say Romney would be a transcendingly awful mistake. They don't get along, Romney won't deliver either Michigan or Massachusetts, and he certainly doesn't help with the "out of touch" problem McCain has begun to have lately.

I say he should try to mend his bridges, and ask Paris Hilton to be VP.

I say he should try to mend his bridges, and ask Paris Hilton to be VP.
alas, she isnt old enough.

but she would be a spectacular choice.

I say he should try to mend his bridges, and ask Paris Hilton to be VP.

That would be soooooooooo haaaawwwwttttttt!1!!111!!!!!!

I bet he wishes Arnie was legal.

hey, if mccain can be made legal by act of congress, couldn't they have done likewise for the governator?

alas, just like ms hilton it would require a constitutional ammendment. there just isnt enough time to get that done.

they should have started working on this 4 years ago! maybe have a dual vp--hilton AND schwartzenegger.

you thought that if they got seated, clinton would win but had some doubt whether they would be. i said that they would get seated with full voting rights and at the convention would vote for obama. turns out that i was right about everything, while you, not so much. and this is no mystery. its because the end game was pretty obvious like half a year ago to anyone who really got the the rules, the precedent, and the political pulse and wasn't blinded by their own biases.
Once again, your facts here are somewhat skewed. As you recall, I was pushing for the Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated, and most of the Obama supporters were dead set against including those delegates. I suggested that such a stance was political suicide (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13429225&postcount=136).

And another reference to political suicide (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13535307&highlight=suicide#post13535307)if the issue was not resolved.

In regards to Clinton and the Florida/Michigan vote, you are wrong. I made this statement (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13738142&postcount=2074):

IF Michigan and Florida had been viable from the outset, and IF Hillary had won both after the campaigning there, she probably would have received a super boost taking her into Super Tuesday with quite a handy lead.

And the only reason that Hillary's Florida delegates would be voting for Obama at the convention would be the fact that she released them to do so.

alas, just like ms hilton it would require a constitutional ammendment. there just isnt enough time to get that done.

i'm not sure it would. natural born citizen isn't defined in the constitution, so presumably congress could just say that he is totally included in it. bigger problem is their upcoming semi-permanent minority status until they figure out a coalition not based on hating the darkies.

Once again, your facts here are somewhat skewed. As you recall, I was pushing for the Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated, and most of the Obama supporters were dead set against including those delegates.

and i told you exactly how it would all play out. in fucking february. the shape of game was obvious, and three weeks later, so was the winner. the pieces were all lined up and there wasn't another outcome possible unless obama got caught in bed with a dead blond white girl.

You all realize that if Michigan and Florida delegates get representation, then Hillary will more than likely win the nomination. And they should have representation.

the only reason to let them in at all is party unity. but that must and will take place only after places that actually had primaries determine who the winner is, at which point florida and michigan's delegates will all vote for that person at the convention anyways.

and i told you exactly how it would all play out. in fucking february. the shape of game was obvious, and three weeks later, so was the winner. the pieces were all lined up and there wasn't another outcome possible unless obama got caught in bed with a dead blond white girl.
And yet, most of your American friends/Obama supporters here got it all wrong, but were you singling them out for your scorn? Naw....you had to dump on the Canuck.

And you wanted to give those delegates 1/185th of a vote (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13535174&postcount=2097).

And what did you say in Feb (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13561076&postcount=2646).?

listen, the one thing that absolutely insures that mi and fl don't get seated with full voting rights is if clinton stays in to the bitter end. that's pretty much the only scenario that results in their delegations not getting seated. if you are really very concerned with letting them vote at the convention, then you must demand that clinton withdraw.
Interesting huh?

Oh, and at one point, we actually were in agreement on this point:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13428833&postcount=102

Massachusetts yes; but Michigan has an increasing number of lunatic-Christians, and is in play this time.

I always forget about those people until I go out to GR to visit friends or family.

surely michigan swings with its economy. if the economy sucks why would they vote to continue the status quo with mccain?

That's my thought as well. Many Michiganders feel abandoned by Washington (if not downright hostility, see many comments from Congressmen about the auto industry) and want anything different. Also, most Michiganders blame the economy's woes on Washington rather than Lansing, and the economy is far and beyond the most important issue to Michiganders, has been since 2001.

While the conservative, religious western coast of the state has been growing in population, and thusly power, the overwhelming concern throughout the entire state, even in the affluent Detroit suburbs, is the economy. Whoever can convince Michiganders they'll help us fix our economy will win our state.

I'd say Romney would be a transcendingly awful mistake. They don't get along, Romney won't deliver either Michigan or Massachusetts, and he certainly doesn't help with the "out of touch" problem McCain has begun to have lately.

Agreed about Romney and Michigan. His father may have been Governor here but he wasn't exactly the most popular Governor in history.

One positive thing about this election year is that people are at least pretending to care about Michigan's problems, for a couple of months at least.

On the lighter side of life - http://www.viralvideochart.com/youtube/barack_roll?id=65I0HNvTDH4

um, not to be disrespectful or anything Ardchoille but those posts were all relatively mild. Also KoL's post could actually be portrayed as a compliment. .. (him saying that CH is deliberately playing dumb when he's actually smart . . .)

It's not disrespectful to politely tell me I'm wrong when I am. Barringtonia has already pointed out that Cerean was talking about the people in the quoted article, not, as I thought, forum posters. My apologies, Cerean.

KoL, however, starts mild but occasionally works up. Mine was a "don't even think about it" post. My compliments on your, ah, forgiving interpretation of his comments, however.

Come on, now: Has it really gotten to the point in which we can't even discuss with CH? Because I'm pretty sure my last posts were, yes, kosher.

Yes, your last posts in this thread were. I was mixing this thread up with another in which your remarks were not. The repercussions I mentioned in this thread are, in fact, about to come your way in the other one.

CanuckHeaven, your determination to answer even the slightest reference from anyone to your arguments during the Democrat primaries is hijacking the US political threads. It has become so annoying that it is tempting other posters into what is currently fairly mild flaming. As such, your actions also constitute flamebait.

Euro warned you recently over one such situation with, predictably, Heikoku. You are still doing the same thing with other people; consequently, you've now got a yellow card infraction to remind you not to. Do not take part in any other fruitless exchanges about the past. It's over.

how goes that soaring that clinton did?

and while we are at it, how about your count of who wins what state in the event of a tie throwing the election to the house? oh, and which of us knew how mi and fl would be resolved back in feb, and which one was totally wrong about it?

It would take very little more of this sort of thing to make me hammer you for gloating, FS. I'm not, because you're not the only one, and I haven't given any sort of general warning about it. Please note that I'm doing so now.

C'mon, everyone, people are going to get even more emotionally involved as the election nears. The arguments about candidates' policies and values will be hot enough without adding exaggerated language and personal attacks to the mix. You may want to stab someone through the eyeball with a red-hot steak-knife, but don't post it.

The McCain VP comments are shorter here, so I'll merge them with the new thread, leaving this one for Obama's VP. It'll take me a few minutes to do it, so while I'm getting organised, please pack your bags and assemble at the exit.

EDIT: Please pass one by one through this portal: McCain VP Thread. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=564472)

The difference was not quite as extreme or unreasonable as the Penn State study indicated, though. The primary issue at hand with the Penn State study was that they used a single standard deviation to find statistical significance...an unreasonable standard to use.
The study I looked at found five standard deviations.
Also, there was a significant self-selecting bias amongst those who were administering the exit polling, specifically in regards to age. Virtually all of the exit poll staff were under thirty, and more significantly, a large portion were 18-22. Whether intentional or not, they interviewed a disproportionate number of their own demographic group, because they were "attracted" to younger people more so than older people.
This sort of factor may indeed be the explanation. I have not seen it substantiated however.
Having worked extensively with those Diebold machines, being acquainted with the software, and the physical security measures, I can tell you that the "flipping" charge is ridiculous. You literally have to confirm your vote three times before it registers. First, on screen, then you confirm that the paper print-off is correct, and then, finally, you confirm that you wish to cast your ballot. You can go back to the beginning at any point.
You have obviously seen a very different generation of machines than were used in 2004. Those did not have any sort of paper print-off whatsoever. The touch-screen machines still in use in many states (almost all of Virginia, much of Pennsylvania) still do not.
Secondly, the Diebold touchscreen voting machines were not widely available in Ohio until well after the 2004 election.
Not what I've heard.
Access to each machines physical data entry ports is key-lock protected.
The same key works all of them, which is astoundingly poor.
The reason they were selected for the voting machine contracts is because they had experience in secure user-interface computer systems.
Which is what makes the poor security on these voting machines look very suspicious.