Archive | 2016 Election RSS feed for this section

Black Voters to Democrats: We Are Not Your Negroes

13 Mar

Last month, Tom Perez was elected the first Latino chair of the Democratic National Committee. In remarks to the International Association of Fire Fighters, Perez acknowledged the party has work to do:

I understand that one of the basic pillars and adages of politics and of life is often, “What have you done for me lately? What do you stand for today?”

Democrats stand for illegal immigration. In a statement following his election, Perez said fighting President Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration is a high priority:

The Democratic National Committee will fight back by (shining) a spotlight on the real faces of those impacted by Donald Trump’s cruel mass deportations. We will not allow this administration keep their stories in the dark.

The DNC’s program, “Faces of Trump’s Mass Deportation Plan,” Latino Victory Fund whose tagline is: We are the future. Latinos may be the Democrats’ future but African Americans are asking: What have you done for me lately?

In a post-election survey for the Congressional Black Caucus, pollster Cornell Belcher found that African Americans feel they are being taken for granted.

cornell-belcher-blacks-feel-theyre-taken-for-granted

Rep. Cedric Richmond, chairman of the CBC, told the Grio:

African Americans are the Democratic Party’s most loyal voters and they should be treated as such. The results of this survey are clear marching orders for the Congressional Black Caucus — African Americans want Democrats to stop using the same old playbook and to make substantive progress on the issues that affect their communities.

African Americans muted their opposition to illegal immigration while President Obama was in office. But the Age of Obama is over.

The fear of criticism keeps most people from speaking out. African Americans’ absence from “A Day Without Immigrants” protests speaks volumes about how they feel. A recent Pew Research Center poll found a 14 percent approval rating for President Trump. With ± 2.9 percent margin of error and 7 percent refusing to say, Trump’s approval rating among African Americans’ could be as high as 20 percent.

pew-poll-2-16-17-black-approval-14-percent-7-percent-refused-to-say

The Democratic Party must face the reality that African Americans are not their Negroes.

Presidents’ Day 2017

20 Feb

A picture is worth a thousand words. Donald J. Trump has joined the pantheon of presidents.

donald-trump-waving-after-taking-inaugural-oath-1-20-17

Democrats in the Age of Obama

12 Dec

President Barack Obama reportedly will go on a “farewell tour” in mid-January. In light of Democratic losses since 2009, he may want to fly over some states.

democrats-collage

Washington Post political commentator Chris Cillizza recently wrote:

What Democrats expected to be the historic election of the first female president was instead a devastating loss — for Clinton, Obama and their political vision. That reversal of fortune was palpable in the days following the election as Democrats reeled from a knockout blow that they never even saw coming.

When President Obama passes the baton to President Donald J. Trump, Democrats will be left with memories.

Jill Stein’s Vanity Recount

5 Dec

I am a founding member of the Election Verification Network. The membership includes University of Michigan computer science professor J. Alex Halderman, the computer science expert who sparked Jill Stein’s petition for a recount in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Since its founding, EVN has pushed for voter-verified paper ballots and a forensic audit of every election. So it’s not surprising that Alex and other members have latched on to calls for recounts in three states.

But Jill Stein’s vanity recount is not advancing election integrity. Instead, it’s setting back electoral reform.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorialized, it smacks of a “vanity project”:

Maybe ‘democracy’ will be served by Jill Stein’s quixotic moralizing. More likely, Jill Stein and the Green Party will be served.

Jill Stein may actually believe that demanding a recount of presidential tallies in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania will ensure that “democracy” is served.

More likely, she believes the Green Party will be served by her audacious PR stunt.

Either way, the Stein recounts are a colossal waste of money and energy when there is not a shred of credible evidence of fraud or error and when the final vote in these three states likely will not change very much.

Stein’s quixotic moralizing damages the credibility of the very institution she claims to protect — the sanctity of the ballot box.

Those who donated to Recount 2016 did so voluntarily. Stein paid the state of Michigan $787,500. But taxpayers could end up paying $5 million in additional costs. So Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette has filed a lawsuit to halt the “dilatory and frivolous” recount:

Michigan voters rejected Stein’s candidacy by massive margins but her refusal to accept that state-verified result poses an expensive and risky threat to hard-working taxpayers and abuses the intent of Michigan law. We have asked the court to end the recount which Stein is pursuing in violation of Michigan laws that protect the integrity of our elections. It is inexcusable for Stein to put Michigan voters at risk of paying millions and potentially losing their voice in the Electoral College in the process.

Meanwhile, the Green Party has withdrawn its lawsuit for a statewide recount in Pennsylvania. Although Stein has raised over $7 million, they claim the petitioners “cannot afford to post the $1,000,000 bond required by the Court.”

In a tweet, Stein asks, “How odd is it that we must jump through bureaucratic hoops and raise millions of dollars so we can trust our election results?”

jill-stein-tweet

What’s really odd is that the candidate who received less than 1% of the vote is pushing for a recount in Pennsylvania rather than the candidate of the 1%, Hillary Clinton.

pennsylvania-results

Facing long odds in Pennsylvania, the nutcase is taking her case to federal court. If the case winds its way through the federal court system and makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court, President Trump’s pick will be there waiting for Dr. Jill Stein.

2016 Recount Farce

28 Nov

Karl Marx said, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” The 2000 presidential election came down to Florida. Trailing George W. Bush by 537 votes, Al Gore pressed for a recount in four cherry-picked counties. He pressed his case all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The Supremes stopped the recount.

bush-gore-dec13-jpg

Fast forward to today. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein’s share of the vote barely registered in Wisconsin (1.04%), Pennsylvania (0.81%) and Michigan (1.07%). Still, in less than 48 hours, she raised over $4.7 million towards the cost of recounts in the three battleground states.

jill-stein-election-integrity

On Friday, Jill Stein filed a petition for a recount in Wisconsin.

In Pennsylvania, petitions are filed by voters not candidates on a precinct-by-precinct basis. In Philadelphia County alone, there are over 1,600 precincts. The deadline (November 21) to file the petitions has passed. So a lawsuit is Jill Stein’s only option.

It should be noted that only 17 counties have any form of paper trail. Voters in these counties represent roughly 20% of the total vote in the Keystone State. In vote-rich Philadelphia and Allegheny (Pittsburgh) counties, there are no paper records to recount.

Josh Marshall, editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com, advises caution:

There are countless reasons why people are upset about the results of the 2016 presidential election. The final tallies in the critical states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania were extremely close. But we cannot help noticing that Green Presidential candidate Jill Stein’s fundraising goals for recounts in these three states keeps rising as she brings in more money. The initial goal was for $2.5 million. That was bumped up to $4.5 million. Now it has been raised again to $7 million.

That’s very fishy.

[…]

At best, I think this is basically a publicity stunt for Jill Stein. At worst, well … the ever-escalating goals speak for themselves. An election campaign really has no limit on how much money it can raise or spend. Recounts are finite. There’s only so much recounting you can do – even when you pile on ‘lawyers fees’ and fees for recount workers.

Hillary Clinton’s supporters have been crying since Election Night. When the farcical recounts are completed, they may drown in their own tears.

%d bloggers like this: