Ohio is a crucial state in the November election. And Romney isn’t doing well enough there to win. The following analysis may have come from Karl Rove:
On the eve of the Republican convention, a senior strategist with a Republican “super PAC,” who would share the group’s strategic thinking only on the condition of anonymity, said Mr. Romney would need a “real surge” and “a reset to the dynamics there” to gain an edge over Mr. Obama in Ohio.
This is why the Republicans have been fighting so hard to eliminate early voting. But they’ve run into a problem there, too.
…the Republicans had a setback on Friday when a federal judge reversed a new state law that halted early voting on the weekend before Election Day. In 2008, that final weekend was seen as giving Mr. Obama an advantage, especially as African-American churchgoers organized trips to the polls on Sunday.
The early voting accounted for 100,000 ballots in 2008, roughly 2 percent of the total cast. That is no small number in such a hard-fought swing state, especially this year. Republicans said they would appeal the judge’s ruling.
For more than two weeks I had been working on developing a campaign to try to bring pressure on the Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted to drop his opposition to early voting. Then, right before we were ready to press the ‘go’ button, a federal judge ruled that the new Ohio law is unconstitutional. And, while the Ohio Republicans are appealing, once things get in the judicial arena, the opportunities for political action pretty much evaporate.
So, on the one hand, I wasted a lot of time and energy. On the other hand, at least for now, black folks in Ohio can vote after church on the Sunday before the election. And that really is what these voting changes are about. Whether it is limiting early voting or requiring a state-approved photo identification, or it’s purging the voter lists, to beat Obama it is not enough to get the Republican base out to vote. And, since the GOP is having almost no success in winning over Obama voters from 2008, their only path to victory is to suppress the Democratic vote. They have been trying to do that through the law, but they can do it in other ways, too. They can fail to supply an adequate number of voting machines, thereby creating long lines in urban areas. They can arbitrarily strike people off the registration rolls. They can send in hordes of “election observers” to harass and challenge people’s right to vote. Perhaps they can even hack into the vote tabulating computers in certain instances. The GOP will employ most if not all of these tactics in addition to the legal shenanigans they have already pursued.
The good news is that the Republicans have been consistently losing in court. Yet, court battles are not truly decided until the Supreme Court weighs in. With the Roberts Court, I don’t think either side can assume they will prevail in the end.
trying to help is never a “wasted” effort. 🙂
The court ruling this week was, obviously, a welcome sign. Yet, we are making no assumptions about how this will play out.
Here on the ground in Ohio, we are now ramping up the early vote effort in advance of the October 2 start of early voting. We know that early vote is key to making sure that everyone who supports the President gets their vote “in the bank” as early as possible. And we are encouraging people to not assume that those weekend days just prior to November 6 will even be there. Everyone here sees the attempts at suppression and know that they cannot take anything for granted. I am encouraged by how much attention people are paying to this here in the state. I am cautiously optimistic. Contingency plans are in place for all of the suppression tactics you have outlined. We are ready, I hope, for the worst case scenario.
McDonnell signed a voter ID law here in VA, but the Justice Department approved of it. I still oppose it because it’s unneeded legislation to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, but the Justice Department obviously doesn’t have much of a case (you can use utility bills as identification, for example).
It still discriminates against poor and young people, in my opinion, though.
it’s because of the types of ID – far more expansive than PA. the regular different types of ID that isn’t cumbersome on lower-income folks.
Yeah, but it’s still more of a burden before; you gotta remember a utility bill or w/e. Before if you didn’t have an ID, you just signed a piece of paper saying you affirm you are who you are, and if you’re lying we’re going to bring the hammer down. Simple, no issues.
Like when I didn’t have my license, I needed the same forms of ID to verify my address…but I had no utility bills or bank statements or anything. I had mail, but it wasn’t good enough. At least they’re accepting any form of ID, doesn’t have to be government issued. Still dumb, still gonna cost money to enforce.
Don’t you have voter cards? I haven’t voted in virginia since 1978, so I’m not up on what’s going on now. It was always easy with no lines to speak of and the old mechanical voting machines that were a lot harder to fake than electronic machines. If you are using Diebold machines now, you might as well give up.
We had electronic machines in 2008, 2009, and 2011. I assume we’ll have them for 2012 lol.
Never really any lines any time I’ve voted. They mail out voter registration cards before the election.
I think Kos made a pretty good case for bowing to public sentiment and working for harmless ID laws instead of trying to stand in the door.
I’m not at all comfortable with his idea that vote-by-mail is the answer, but it seems to me the VA form of the law does some good in that it defangs the propaganda war over the concept and the claims. It might even make voting seem more special and important — kind of verify that we are qualified members of the body politic. I’m persuaded that, having accepted a pretty harmless version of an irrelevant “solution” we’re in a better position to fight the monstrosities in places like Florida, PA, WI, and more.
Vote by mail should be supported, but it’s definitely not the answer. There’s no evidence it increases turnout, there’s some evidence that it decreases turnout in national elections, and still other evidence that it discourages voting down-ticket.
If significant numbers of liberal minorities voted by mail they’d outlaw it. The only reason it’s allowed today is that it raises the conservative vote tally — and if there is any measurable voter fraud in this country, it’s in those absentee and vote by mail ballots.
More important to me is that vote-by-mail throws away the tradition of privacy in the voting booth without a second thought. It was there for a reason. It blows away the door that prevented vote theft through intimidation, vote buying, and threats or implied threats by employers, unions, local pols, and more — to say nothing of folks you don’t want to get into disputes with. I think it does, or will do when fully developed, more harm than good to the ideal of one person one vote.
All that as well. We couldn’t do any worse than we do now if we simply limited campaigns to six or eight weeks followed by a one week voting period with an electoral politics news/advertising blackout.
No, no blackout. Light is the key to fair elections, not information suppression.
Would prefer to have suggested that partisan political campaigning stops when the voting begins. However, in this country, there is no such thing as non-partisan groups and media outlets. Voter suppression is a crime, and therefore, reports of such activities wouldn’t be subject to a blackout. Voter turnout by location would be news. Exit polling data would conform to the current practice — not released until the final closing of polls.
Yes, I remember that the precinct captain brought the mail-in ballot to my grandmother and stood there as she filled it out. He then mailed it for her as a “service”. My grandfather, who was born and raised in Italy, just signed the blank ballot card and handed it back. This was in Richard J. Daley’s Chicago.
Part of Jeb’s 2000 vote theft included sending out absentee voter helpers to retirement communities. They really did have it hard-wired as long as GWB didn’t lose by more than 2%. The last minute surge by Gore had them scrambling on election day.
It would not be at all surprising that the efforts of Rover’s Repubs to suppress the minority vote in Ohio while flooding the state with a last week corporate tsunami of 24/7 teevee lies will tip the state to Rmoney. That is obviously the Repubs’ plan, and it should work—they are very competent at rigging/throwing elections. It’s the only thing they do well.
If there is some plan to (politically) pressure the Repub Ohio officials to continue the early voting procedures that worked so well in 2008, I’m not sure why that should be held in abeyance during the appeal. The Repubs don’t HAVE to press the appeal, they can always dismiss it, or settle the case with the Feds (by agreeing to restore early voting and stop their suppression). Why should this litigation derail a planned public campaign to pressure Hustad to actually protect democracy and voting rights in Ohio and carry out the actual duties of his office? One would think that the recent ruling would stengthen the political argument. Message to citizens: “Tell Dewine to drop his anti-voting appeal! Protect democracy!”
Plus, it’s going to be a big risk waiting for the appeal ruling, hoping for affirmance. The 6th Circuit is very solidly Repub-controlled, it is highly likely to be hostile to this pro-voting ruling, and won’t likely end up opposing Rover’s efforts at Ohio vote suppression. These election cases don’t get to the Supreme Court, there typically isn’t time before an election. That’s why the federal appeals courts are so crucial, and why Repubs have intentionally packed them with radical “conservatives”, mostly ideological young white males. So when they reverse the lower court’s ruling in a month or so, you’ll have the worst of both worlds. No early voting and no time for “pressure”.
20 or 30 years ago, if the US Justice Department brought a voting rights case against a state for suppressing minority voting ahead of a prez election, the federal courts (at all levels) would have been VERY supportive of the federal gub’mint’s position, and most states would just settle. As a result of Newt’s monstrous “conservative” movement, those days (sad to say) are long, long gone.
Maybe the practical response would be to shift the pressure from just Dewine to the governor and the GOP in general: “They’re trying to steal your right to vote — it’s who they are”. Doing pretend appeals to Dewine just suggests that he’s a reasonable being who might respond public pressure by doing the right thing. The best pressure we can bring is to make this a major political issue against the Ohio Republican Party.
When Democrats did everything they could to force Nader off the ballot, by hook or by crook, that was not an effort to steal the election?
Pshaw.
Under pressure, neither side cares a lot about democracy or the procedural rectitude it requires.
Terrorists and freedom fighters, criminals and war heroes willingly pursue their ends by any means necessary.
No holds barred in war, they say.
And politics is war without the organized, large-scale violence.
There is not right to have the candidate you like on the ballot.
There is a right to be allowed to vote.
Don’t you mean that individuals (with or without the endorsement of minor political parties) that offer themselves as candidates for political office have no right to appear on the ballot? That’s not a democracy, but it keeps everyone engaged in the endless stupid battles on social issues while the US war and climate destroying machines march on.
I mean both that would-be candidates have no right to be on the ballot, and that voters have no right to have a particular person they like appear as a candidate on the ballot.
And far from being “not a democracy,” that is how every democracy that has ever existed has run every election that has ever occurred. If you screw up your paperwork, for instance, you don’t appear on the ballot. If you are the only one willing to sign some guy’s ballot-signature page, you don’t get to appeal to the Supreme Court insisting that your rights have been violated.
Oh, btw, nice dismissal of things like abortion rights and gay marriage as inconsequential.
This is a very false equivalency. I think it was a regrettably legalistic strategy that did more harm than good, but it had nothing to do with stealing votes or obstructing anyone’s right to vote. It was shoddy political maneuvering, but not the blatant violation of the Constitution’s spirit the way the Ohio GOP’s vote suppression attempts are.
Well, OK.
Their side is a lot worse, I admit.
As so often, “both sides do it” is a false assertion of equivalence.
Sooner or later this type of nonsense will lead to severe riots. This year, 4, 8 years from now, whatever. The Republicans have zero respect for democracy, and that is a galling fact. They should re-read Thomas Jefferson if they have any doubts where it leads.
“…African-American churchgoers organized trips to the polls on Sunday.” I can imagine how this sight drove the wingnuts crazy — the living culmination of everything they hated about the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Which are what really continue to fuel the wingnut/teabagger rage, even after all these years.
hey guys, has anyone read this article from last week? If so, I’d like to know what ya’ll think. I don’t think I believe the reporting that the Obama camp feels they have the election “in the bag”. This excerpt stood out for me, I’d like to know what ya’ll think?
The Confidence Game
Team Obama won’t come out and say it, but it believes the race is in the bag.
This also stood out to me and it’s exactly what I’ve been hearing from people who are part of OfA.
CO, NV and NM combined have about 20+ electoral college votes, the equivalent of Ohio or Pennsylvania. The Republicans sacrificed their old western base by refusing to moderate their nativist and white supremacist attacks on Latinos.
This more than anything else is at the heart of their newfound inability to seriously contest the electoral college. It will only get worse.
I think it’s a ridiculous article. The guy basically quotes staffers as saying they ran good strategy and they think they’ll win, and equates that with “a “there’s-no-way-we-can-lose” assessment of the campaign.” OK, that’s how it feels to him, maybe, but he gives no evidence to support it. And it doesn’t match anyone else’s take that I know of.
Kind of pisses me off, actually, because it suggests that the Obama campaign is stupid enough to get complacent. Like they believe today’s numbers have the power to set the final result in stone. That’s just not the way they think, or should think. The article sounds like a guy who got to talk to Axelrod and tried to milk that with a sensational claim and a lot of weird metaphors that don’t make any sense.
Well, if it suggests that the Obama campaign is getting complacent, it is the GOP that are most likely to believe it (wishful thinking), so it may come as a little surprise to them when they find out it’s not true. And no, I don’t think I’m being complacent in saying that.