Jeanne Shaheen is the Democratic Party (incumbent) candidate for Senator from New Hampshire.
Aside from the cheap smear in her interruption, it’s interesting that this Democrat doesn’t feel like she has to play by the same rules as us mere citizens.
In mid-term elections, we’re voting for Representatives and Senators for Congress as well as Representatives and Senators for our state legislatures (except States like Nebraska, which have gone the unicameral route; my point will be the same when I get to it) as well as lots of candidates for positions farther down the ballot.
In all of these races, questions are local, and we voters must choose our candidates based on our view of those candidates’ positions on those local questions.
However.
When we’re voting for those Representatives and Senators in Congress, it’s necessary to keep in mind that the Congress takes most of its actions in the name of the United States, not in the name of any particular State. Congress’ questions are national more than local; what our Congressmen do has national and international implications.
Democratic Party Senate candidates like Alison Lundergan Grimes of Kentucky and Michelle Nunn of Georgia, as well as their counterparts in other States’ Congressional races, like to insist that President Barack Obama is not on this fall’s ballots, only their own names are. They’re right, and that’s the crux of the matter.
Obama also agrees that his name isn’t on any of the ballots this time around. However, he’s been quite explicit about his policies, those candidates, and those ballots:
I’m not on the ballot this fall. But make no mistake, these policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them.
Obama also is urging you to vote for Democratic Party Senate candidates in close-run races in several States so he can keep the Senate and continue those policies.
If Michelle Nunn wins, that means that Democrats keep control of the Senate, and that means that we can keep on doin’ some good work.
And
These are all folks who vote with me, they have supported my agenda in Congress…. These are folks who are strong allies and supports of me….
Keep this in mind as you vote next Tuesday. And check you ballots very carefully before you cast them.
Voting machines that switch Republican votes to Democrats are being reported in Maryland. One voter reported
When I first selected my candidate on the electronic machine, it would not put the “x’ on the candidate I chose—a Republican—but it would put the “x” on the Democrat candidate above it.
This happened multiple times with multiple selections. Every time my choice flipped from Republican to Democrat. Sometimes it required four or five tries to get the “x” to stay on my real selection
And
Queen Anne County Sheriff Gary Hofmann said he encountered the problem, too, personally[.] … It occurred on two candidates on my machine. I am glad I checked. Many voters have reported this here as well[.]
And in Illinois, to Republican state representative candidate Jim Moynihan:
I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent. You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat.
And in North Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Utah. So far.
It’s never in the other direction, either. There’s never any accidental switch of a Democrat’s vote to the Republican candidate. This isn’t random error. It’ll be…instructive…to see who wins in the toss-up states and by what margin.
Review your votes, as you cast them and at the final review before you push the CAST or ENTER button that finalizes your choices, to be sure that it’s really your choices that are being registered.
But, there’s no voter fraud. Mm, mm.
This is triggered by a summary of a case that’s before the Supreme Court in the just-started Court session.
Alabama redistricting: Democrats and black lawmakers contend that Republican leaders in Alabama drew a new legislative map that illegally packed black voters into too few voting districts to limit minority political power. Republicans say they complied with the law by keeping the same number of districts in which black voters could elect candidates of their choice.
This question should be irrelevant today.
Instead, we should have square districts, except where the district abuts a state border (perhaps, also, where a small part of a district would be on the other side of a natural barrier, like a river, with no nearby path across/around the barrier). Political districts should be drawn without regard to the population encompassed.
There should be no special treatment for one group of Americans over another; this accomplishes nothing beyond harming the groups denied the same special treatment. There should be no differential treatment under law for one group of Americans compared to any other; this accomplishes nothing beyond harming the groups denied that same differential treatment. The 14th Amendment makes this clear, as if it’s not morally so, already.
Especially, there should be no special political district shapes carved to accommodate, or to disaccommodate, one group or another. We each have one vote, of equal value to each other vote, regardless of our skin color or ethnicity. We are, after all, each equal to another before God and law. We are, after all, each of us Americans; in this this political, legal, religious context, there are no relevant distinctions among us. Full stop.
As a Supreme Court Justice already has recognized, the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
Ex-President Bill Clinton and the AP are at it again, this time from the venue of the Civil Rights Summit at the Lyndon B Johnson Presidential Library in Austin.
Former President Bill Clinton is using the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act to criticize efforts in several states to create new restrictions for voters, saying they threaten to roll back a half-century of progress.
Clinton and the AP, on the occasion of this auspicious anniversary, are beefing about the Supreme Court’s ruling releasing a number of states that had a history of discriminatory voting laws, now that they have accumulated a substantial and substantive history of non-discrimination, from the Federal bondage of having to plead “Mother, may I?” from the Feds before they could update any of their election procedures. The two also are beefing about the increasing number of voter ID laws.
Of course, this is just Progressive nonsense. The efforts “in several states” are to increase restrictions on ineligible voters, for the protection of voters. The only “roll back” that’s going on is of the progress made in the last 50 years enabling the dead to vote, enabling non-citizens to vote, enabling “voters” to vote multiple times and in multiple districts during the same election.