If you’re waiting for Dino Rossi’s legal team to prove their allegations of fraud and ballot stuffing, don’t hold your breath, because today they finished presenting their evidence with a whimper, not a bang. Not even the GOP’s lead attorney is convinced, admitting:
“I cannot point to anybody who committed fraud. We’re just saying clearly the opportunity was there and it looks suspicious.”
Um… I’m not an attorney, but I’m guessing that doesn’t quite meet the standard of “clear and convincing.”
Much of the fourth day was spent in a “Frye hearing” in which both sides argued whether the Republican’s proposed proportional deduction methodology is accepted science. I guess I should provide a wrap-up of the days events, but I don’t really feel like it. I’m tired, I’ve got other things I’d rather write about, and besides… what the hell do I know? So instead I’m going to leave the wrap-up to DJ, an HA regular, and real life statistician.
The Frye hearing started out with Professor Katz on the stand, being grilled about the binomial and multinomial methods he proposed to “fix” the election. Katz came off as nervous (“squirrel-like” comes to mind), defensive and even evasive. Much of the testimony seemed to be Mr. Burman trying to get admissions out of Katz about limitations of his method for adjusting a statewide election. As he did in his deposition, Katz repeatedly resorted to “my analysis is conditional on the data” as a way to avoid discussing the non-representativeness of the GOP felon voter list. Burman had to press hard, but finally got Katz to admit that if the underlying assumptions are violated you can get the wrong answer. My (possibly biased) opinion is that Katz’s weaseling answers and telescopic interpretations of questions did not leave a good impression on Judge Bridges.
In contrast to Professor Katz, Professor Adolph was calm, friendly and composed. He gave an outstanding summary of the problems in Katz’s analysis. Adolph’s expertise is ecological inference, and he gave an excellent summary of the issues. He then provided two examples of a so-called “ecological fallacy.” The first concerned estimating Ichiro Suzuki’s batting average using league or team statistics. The second example was to estimate the sex of felons using Katz’s method of ecological inference, and sex proportions at the county level. The resulting 95% confidence interval was that between 44 to 50 percent of the felons were male. The true proportion is 75 percent
Thanks, dj! Good job delegating, Goldy.
At the end of the day, I heard a GOP lawyer state that they had no more live witnesses. I guess the “smoking gun” must be buried somewhere in the 12 newly-admitted depositions that Bridges will be reading in his spare time.
Hmmm. That must be why the democrats are making a motion to dismiss tomorrow. That sounds exciting for the democrats. Though it shouldn’t be, its a mandatory motion at the end of any prosecutor or plaintiff’s case.
On the other hand, Judge Bridges is making an unprecedented effort thwart either parties’ ability to make an interlocutory appeal (an appeal to a higher court before the trial is over). Thus, the democrats shouldn’t feel bad when they lose this motion.
I believe Judge Bridge’s primary goal is to make his decision appeal proof, much more than a normal trial judge would. That doesn’t cut one way or another for a party.
Bridges is going to let each side present all of the evidence on nearly every legal theory imaginable. He will then make a ruling as follows:
A) Rossi wins on a number of basis. Regardless if the porportional analsys is accetped or not, the republicans have shown that there a number of methods that the election could be overturned.
(A remote chance especially since there is no evidence of fraud even according to Rossi’s attorney. Also, Bridges specifically required the GOP to show that the felons voted in the governor race which there has been no evidence of.)
OR
B) The petition for the election contest is denied. The proportional analysis does not meet the Frye test. Even if it did, Gregoire will still have prevailed. All of the GOP’s theories have been considered permitted into evidence and found to have an insufficient basis.
With either of the above rulings, the state supreme court will have little to review other than the judge made an error based on his “abuse of discretion” which is a difficult basis for an appeal indeed.
If after 4 days of testimony this is all the GOP have come up with I must admit I’m a little underwelmed, and somewhat shocked at the paucity of their case. Why weren’t Ron Sims or Dean Logan asked to testify? After all after the Governor herself, the right wingnuts have made these two the primary culprits in the supposed fraud allegation.
For Bridges to rule to throw out the election result it just seems that there would be that “aha!” moment when you just knew he had been presented with information that without a shadow of a doubt screamed for such a decision. That moment hasn’t happened.
For Bridges to rule to throw out the election result it just seems that there would be that “aha!” moment when you just knew he had been presented with information that without a shadow of a doubt screamed for such a decision. That moment hasn’t happened.
That’s because this is primary a GOP media campaign, not a legal action with any merit. Today, the GOP lawyer admitted they didn’t have any evidence of fraud.
Plus, the GOP never included fraud as a cause of action in their election contest petition. They never believed it from the start to the end of the contest.
Don’t think that will stop the KVI or SP crowd. Let the all CAPS fly.
When Rossi predictably loses the elecion contest, prepare for the next GOP spin:
1) Everyone knows there was fraud involved. The democrats got out on a technicality.
2) “What a mess.” All of the spreadsheets I have looked at show that. If there was any justice, there would be a re-vote as that’s what everyone wants. The polls show that. So do the billboards on I-5.
3) There should be a change in state law so that every close election is revoted.
4) The judiciary is out of control. This case just proves it. (Go figure how this one makes sense).
5) This just shows how Washington should be splt into two different states.
6) We would have won except than Sam Reed sold us out. I can’t believe I voted for him. What happened to the movement to recall him.
7) I never trusted that judge with the earring.
Westneat says it better that I:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....nny27.html
That’s it? That’s all you’ve got?
After coming into court and saying government officials perpetrated “sinister fraud” to steal the 2004 governor’s election, Republicans have finished backing up that claim in the trial in Wenatchee. Their fraud claim, supposedly based on statistical science, wouldn’t earn a passing grade on the 10th-grade WASL.
GOP lawyer Dale Foreman told me earlier this week that when I saw the circumstantial evidence of fraud, there would be no doubt in my mind that “somebody was messing with the ballots.”
Now that I’ve seen the evidence, there’s no doubt in my mind Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Oh boy, suprise there, agreeing w/ Westneat (connelly, balter, et all).
Still convinced you had a model election? Hate to see what Ron sees as a poorly run one?
righton @ 6:
In other words, WAAAH! WAAAH! We didn’t win, so you LEFTY PINHEADS must have cheated!
Ivan, what’s your answer for the take-home ballots?
Yes, this was a model election for the world.
I am so thankful I don’t live in the Ukraine.
After seeing the testimony from King County officials admitting to falsifying certification documents and patiently explaining that the number of voters versus the number of votes doesn’t really matter, I feel so much better about casting my vote in the future.
Thanks Dean Logan. Thanks Bill H. and Paul B. You guys are really heroes!
righton @ 8
Taking ballots home: see http://www.horsesass.org/index.php?m=20050424
righton: What is it with you and the “take-home ballots”? The judge is basically letting Rossi present any evidence he wants and yet, they don’t seem to think this merits any time in their case. Whenever I ask you about this, you have no answer.
The answer is obvious. There is nothing to it.
Now we’ll have time to examine those touch screen results in Snohomish county.
11, your link almost had me going till Goldy lauded the real journalists at the PI. crash. me falling to the floor laughing.
Ballots still not accounted for, even in Goldy’s dem friend says they probably are counted (his recap has about 20 holes in how KC had no clue the ballots they released for the “take home” assignment.
So today is the day the GOP is going to prove ballot stuffing right? Right? They are going to introduce evidence that backs up all the claims they have been making on the radio, in the newspaper, etc, right? Right?
S U R E they will. S U R E!
Scott @ 14: Who knows what they’ll be talking about? They won’t be talking about the “take-home ballots”. They’re leaving that vital part of their case to righton.
“statistical shortcuts” … hmmm … that seems to be the key. Sort of like, my mechanic can give you a better deal on an engine rebuild if he doesn’t have to put in piston rings or rod bearings.
Comment on 2
I think Erik is on the right track — Judge Bridges is appeal-proofing his final ruling by letting everything into the record — but I think his decision will be simpler than Erik suggests. There’s no need for Bridges to address the validity of proportional analysis, and he won’t. He’ll simply say the GOP hasn’t met its burden of proof under any theory.
The real question is will the Republicans appeal to the US Supreme Court after they lose at the Superior Court.
They know they have a friendly US Supreme Court who has shown they are willing to trump states’ rights if it means good things for republicans.
The rest (how Bridges rules,etc.) all seem much less relevant.
Comment on 8 and 9
You assholes have had your day in court. You’ve been represented by some of the most capable (and highly paid) attorneys in Washington and D.C. Over 2 million dollars has been spent presenting your grievances to the judge. At the end of the day, your complaints don’t add up to a rat turd. You’re nothing but sore losers and crybabies!
I meant lose at the “Supeiour Court and State Supreme Court”.
I meant lose at the “Supeiour Court and State Supreme Court”.
Reply to 18
SCOTUS won’t touch this case. No federal office involved, so it’s a state matter. But after losing in Superior Court and losing in WSSC, the GOPers will try to drag it into the federal courts just to prolong their PR campaign and run up the Dems’ bill. Personally I think Bridges should sock Vance, Rossi & Co. with Rule 11 sanctions.
Erick@2,
“Also, Bridges specifically required the GOP to show that the felons voted in the governor race which there has been no evidence of.”
Yes there is evidence that felons voted in the governors race – even DEMOCRATS found evidence of that!!! At least make your lies plausible!
Hey dims; how’s the special panel Sims appted doing in investigating their own mess? How come we don’t hear good self criticsm from them? You know in business you have to do that a lot…?
pbj @ 23
They did? Link please? I hope you don’t mean based on ASKING them–isn’t that what the GOP says is useless as a way to find out if they did?
Oh, and DJ–nice job! I linked back to you in my day four wrapup here.
So let’s get to the bottom-line here:
1) Everyone agrees there are ILLEGAL VOTES. Right?
2) The Judge requires validating the ILLEGAL VOTES presented by the R’s and D’s to a certain standard. Right?
Once this is done, the Dems say:
1) We should ignore the illegal votes and let the Election results stand as is.
or
2) We should depose each felon and other illegal vote (including depose the dead people).
The ILLEGAL VOTES are comingled with the LEGAL VOTES. The Dems also say, repeatedly, that ILLEGAL VOTES are spread equally around the State and they are an acceptable part of any election.
to my LEFTIST PINHEADED acquaintences—-
Good luck with this one.
Intelligent design of a stolen election. We won back when the count was honest.
Still convinced you had a model election? Hate to see what Ron sees as a poorly run one?
No, Righton, we didn’t have a model election. But we didn’t have a fraudulent one either. There is no state in this country where the most populous counties don’t end up with a higher incidence of mistakes and issues. This is common sense. When you have to deal with higher volumes in the same amount of time, you will have more instances of error. Period.
The Republicans have had this whole week to present a case to show that there was fraud behind the election or that it is a statistical certainty that eliminating felon votes would put Rossi over the top. The Republican lawyer has already admitted he can’t prove fraud, and the notion that felons voted overwhelmingly for the state’s Attorney General is maybe the dumbest thing I’ve heard in years.
This will probably surprise a lot of people on this board, but I actually voted for Dino Rossi. I was undecided until the night before, and my decision ultimately came down to a belief that if a party is in power in a certain office for too long, it gets complacent and that a change is good. I thought Christine Gregoire was running as if she was the heir to the governor’s mansion, and that she didn’t have the kind of vision that I would expect from someone who wanted to lead one of the most progressive states in the U.S. I’ll probably get blasted for that, as I’m sure there were a lot of things about Rossi that I didn’t know that probably would have made me think harder about voting against him. But at the time, I really didn’t see much of a difference between the two candidates.
But since the election, a lot of that has changed. I’ve heard some of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard come out of the mouths of Republicans. I’ve heard them dismiss what happened in states like Ohio, where people in heavily Democratic districts waited as much as 10 hours to vote, and Florida, where numerous people’s touchscreen votes were changed to show that they voted for Bush when they hadn’t, and claim that the election here was worse. I’ve heard people refer to people who live in Seattle as lazy, drug addicts. I’ve heard accusations of grand conspiracies involving King County officials fixing the election. I’ve heard people claim that it was a certainty that 95% of ex-felons voted for Christine Gregoire. And the saddest thing of all is that even the more intelligent Republicans drink this nonsense up without question. If there actually is a revote, I’ll undoubtedly be voting for Gregoire.
I’ve voted for Republicans in the past, and I will never have the mentality that real liberalism is inherently superior to real conservatism. Good politics requires a balance between the two. But believing in fairy tales is not conservatism, and even though it may work well in the red states, it doesn’t work very well among those of us who care about things making sense. Righton, I know you’re not stupid. If you consider yourself a Republican, and you care about your party, signing up to be part of the fantasy camp is a sure way to ensure that you’ll be going down with the ship.
Mr. C. Where is the BIG SURPRISE? Remember the BINDER with the BIG SURPRISE!!!!!????
Man, I am back to watching Perry Mason re-runs. These Repugs just shot themselves in the foot WHILE it was in their mouth.
And regarded the excess ballots instead of absentee voters:
1) The KingCo Election Officials admit falsifying the reconciliation.
2) Nicole Way says Huennekens knew this before Huennekens presented the report to the Canvassing Board. Huennekens denies with his Sgt. Schultz impression “I know Nuthinggg”!
3) Dems know want to go back and count envelopes. This SHOULD have been done BEFORE certification, shouldn’t it have??
4) Dems want R’s to provide NAMES of whoever cast these excess ballots. that’s a good one.
5) Absentee ballots exceeded voters in key Gregoire precindts and voters exceeded ballots in key Rossi precindts.
6) KingCo Officials KNEW before the election there were serious problems tracking absentees and did nothing.
Dems want R’s to produce names of who stuffed and unstuffed the ballotbox OR ignore this happened.
Donna@30–
Obviously you haven’t been paying attention to all the ground work that was laid and made part of the record.
You are in Don-ial!!
cyn @ 31
as they used to say in high school debate: “Stipulated. Impact?”
Keep repeating the mantra Cyn, and clap your hands. Or as Willy Wonka sang “Come with me to a world of PURE imagination…”
Hey Totally Wrong @ all
I cannot point to anybody who committed fraud. We’re just saying clearly the opportunity was there and it looks suspicious.
Why don’t you point this lame-brain attorney over to (u)SP? Obvious ly you and (u)SP know better. Yeah sure, that’s the ticket!
Erik@4–
I trust Judge Bridges. Clearly he is wise in allowing all evidence in as part of the record. And he really has done little to tip his hand about how he is viewing things except in his questioning of Nicole Way. The Judge was very interested in what she had to say. She appeared genuine and honest as opposed to Huennekens who was slimey and evasive.
Bridges comment to Braden about questions re: proportional analysis merely reminded Braden that his expert better do a thorough job of convincing him. Nothing more.
The fact that the Dems expert was a grad student who worked for the R’s expert doesn’t mean as much as the Dem’s expert has ZERO background in election contest testimony. Dems need someone much more experienced and seasoned.
The bottom-line is their are Illegal Votes. Does the Judge ignore them? Since they are comingled, how does he identify them?? Ask felons to testify and risk incriminating themselves??
I don’t think the Judge wants that circus. What about those who refuse to testify??? Naaah. Some form of proportional analysis will rule at the end of the day.
Will that be enough for the R’s to prevail…that is the question!
thehim; no way you’d say that crap and vote republican
ps, its a liberal state, not progressive. Progressives were the folks 80 years ago who favored referendums and initiatives…harldy similar to today’s lib/dem party.
cyn @ 36
don’t mess with the facts. Adolph is NOT a grad student; he is an associate professor at one of the best social science schools in the country. And he made his former mentor look like an idiot.
thehim; no way you’d say that crap and vote republican
Are you saying that you don’t think I voted for Rossi? I’m not proud of it, but I did. In fact, in gubernatorial elections, I’ve tended to vote more for Republicans than Democrats over the years.
ps, its a liberal state, not progressive. Progressives were the folks 80 years ago who favored referendums and initiatives…harldy similar to today’s lib/dem party.
LOL! Do you even have a concept of how silly it is to claim that the only “progressives” were people who were around 80 years ago? Do you understand what the word “progressive” means?
Issues such as civil rights, drug law reform, and first amendment protection are progressive issues. Washington State has long been a leader in issues such as that. It’s not necessarily a Republican-Democrat thing either. There have always been progressives in the country, and they’ve come from both parties. Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were Republican progressives.
One thing about Washington State that I point to when I consider it one of the more progressive states is that even many Washington State Republicans understand the failures of the drug war. I did research on this in the months before the election, and roughly 1/3 of our Republican State Representatives believe that laws against marijuana are counter-productive. That’s a sign of a progressive state.
We can argue all day over whether we’re a liberal state as well, but with the amount of different definitions for the word liberal there are out there, we probably won’t get very far.
Mr. Cynical @ 27
Let’s review. To overturn the election, there must be fraud, illegal votes, and/or errors that changed the result. The challenger has the burden of proof.
Yes, there were illegal votes. But what if Rossi got more than Gregoire? Or, Gregoire didn’t get enough to change the result? Then she’s the legitimate winner, is she not?
How can you say Rossi won, if you don’t who the illegal votes and errors favored? The GOP would like to do it with speculation and conjecture, but that doesn’t satisfy ANY legal standard.
The bottom line, Cynical, is you wish the law was different. Be careful of what you wish for, though. If the law is changed to make it easier to overturn elections, Democrats will use that law too. And courts, instead of voters, will be deciding who occupies public offices. Is that what you want?
Reply to 28
How can you call “honest” two machine counts that skipped several thousand ballots because the machines could read them, and didn’t count hundreds of valid ballots cast by legitimate voters in King County that county election workers wrongly rejected? That isn’t an “honest” count, it’s a fucked-up count. So you can congratulate yourself that Rossi won two fucked-up counts, for whatever that’s worth. In my book, it’s worth no more than a rat fart.
thehim @ 29
Funny you say that about Gregoire. I voted for her precisely because she’s a visionary who gets things done.
As for the one-party-in-power-too-long argument, I don’t see how you can claim they got complacent when the GOP controlled the Senate (and obstructed much of the Democratic agenda) for most of the last 10 years, and in any case mere longevity is not a good enough reason to vote for a gang of fucked-up radicals.
In politics, the most logical explanation for a party’s longevity in power is they’re in synch with the voters and producing the results the voters want (or at least prefer to the alternative).
Patrick@40
Possibly you need to read the RCW again…remember “appears”
No election may be set aside on account of illegal votes, unless it appears that an amount of illegal votes has been given to the person whose right is being contested, that, if taken from that person, would reduce the number of the person’s legal votes below the number of votes given to some other person for the same office, after deducting therefrom the illegal votes that may be shown to have been given to the other person.
Patrick; you mean the cherry picked homes Dems got to go and get new signatures from? They only went to Dem homes
thehim: Politically correct, or spin to now call yourselves progressives. You guys just trying to use a new name for yourselves now that liberal is a perjorative. You are trying to say, we’re the good, old fashioned liberals, pure populists, when in reality you’re all the same boatload of mcdermott dems repackaged in a new wrapper.
Republicans seem more interested in pigeon holes than in pigeons.
Patrick,
I’ll be the first to admit that my vote in November was not the most informed vote I’ve cast in my life. I paid a lot of attention to national races, and not enough to the local ones. I never got the sense that a vote for Rossi was a vote for a “gang of fucked-up radicals”, but I get a sense of that now. That was the point of my comment. But I think the fact that Gregoire barely squeaked out a victory in a state that voted very strongly for John Kerry was a sign that Democratic voters in Washington are more satisfied with the Democratic Party moreso than the particular Democrats who have been running the state.
I don’t see Gregoire as a visionary. I think she’s competent, and I think she’ll do a fine job as governor, but as a younger person, she’s an old-school Democrat to me, and as an Attorney General, I’m disappointed that she hasn’t come to the same conclusions on certain law enforcement issues that I have, or is at least too afraid to express her opinion.
Reply to 31
1) What reconciliation? There was no reconciliation process in November 2004. How can you falsify the reconciliation when there is no reconciliation?
2) Looks like nothing more sinister than bureaucrats practicing CYA, but if you want to do something about it, the appropriate remedy is to punish the guilty bureaucrats.
3) No, we want YOU to go back and count the envelopes. You’re the ones crying “fraud” — so why expecting you to prove it asking too much?
4) If “excess ballots” were cast, someone must have cast them. If you can’t show that, then maybe the “excess ballots” are nothing but theoretical blips on a piece of paper.
5) Here is what Westneat said about this:
“Even if you go down the GOP’s rabbit hole, the rest of the data — the part they didn’t share in court — don’t support their own theory. For example, there were 703 King County precincts in which there were more absentee voters than ballots, not just six. The GOP said in court that ballots were undercounted mostly in precincts that backed Rossi, but 500 of these 703 precincts — 71 percent — actually backed Gregoire.”
Can you say “cherry picking?”
6) So what were they supposed to do, postpone the election? They did the best they could with what they had. If Rossi can prove in court that KC’s mistakes cost him the election, Judge Bridges undoubtedly will award Rossi his due remedy. If he can’t, instead of crying over spilled milk, the focus should be on fixing the problems and doing better next time.
By the way, where’s your outrage about the much worse (and much more partisan) handling of the Ohio election?
Cynical, you say Democrats stuffed the ballot box. That’s a direct accusation that Democrats committed election fraud — a serious crime. I say you’re a fucking liar. Either prove your charges with evidence, or shove it up your ass.
Politically correct, or spin to now call yourselves progressives. You guys just trying to use a new name for yourselves now that liberal is a perjorative. You are trying to say, we’re the good, old fashioned liberals, pure populists, when in reality you’re all the same boatload of mcdermott dems repackaged in a new wrapper.
It has nothing to do with liberal being a pejorative term. It has to do with liberal being a term that has no real definition. What is a liberal? I guarantee you that no two people on this board will have the same definition. Liberal can mean progressive, but in another realm, it can mean siding with workers, and it another realm, it can mean being supportive of internationalism. Progressive is a more limited term that is generally tied to promoting social progress. Where that gets tricky is when people believe that restricting freedom is social progress. It’s not.
And Jim McDermott is probably one of the most Progressive congressmen in the country.
Goldy, If you want us in here stirring the pot for you, ya gotta get your boys to stop threatening us. You lose cynical and me and you’re left with whacky donna vs angry patrick
Comment on 37 and 39
Rossi is making such a fool of himself, why would anyone lie and say they voted for Rossi if they didn’t?
Reply to 43
I know what the RCW says, Cheesy Chuckie! How does an armchair lawyer like you do what the statute says unless you come up with a way to differentiate between illegal votes for Rossi and illegal votes for Gregoire? Cynical wants to throw out the election simply because there were illegal votes. Maybe you can reconcile that with the statute?
Reply to 44
Why do you think the Democrats had an obligation to collect signatures for Rossi? That’s the GOP’s job. It’s not the Democrats’ fault the GOP didn’t do its job.
By the way, wrongass, I’m a LIBERAL not a progressive. Contemporary “progressives” (as I understand the term) are farther left than me. I’m a LIBERAL and PROUD of it!!!
LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL
So why don’t you shove that up your ass!
Patrick@51
A logical means of differentiating between votes has been presented.
DJ: Excellent Summary!!!
righton @ 6:
Still convinced you had a model election?
It’s a model process: far more questions/problems/illegalities in Ohio, and not a single complaint was allowed hearing in court. State AG sued petitioners (and lost) for filing
Hate to see what Ron sees as a poorly run one?
Sure… so many to choose from. How about this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....ida_voting
A report released by the Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition said during the elections there were “serious problems with policies and procedures that are supposed to protect the integrity of the ballot.”
In many precincts, the number of people who signed in to cast votes was not tracked carefully, or in some cases was not compared with the actual number of ballots cast at those precincts.
The group also said there was a touchscreen machine malfunction; when votes were tallied the results from one machine had been counted three times, creating a discrepancy of 171 votes that became part of the certified canvass, the group said.
chuck @ 54
what’s the logic?
Comment on 46
Gregoire is not a terrific campaigner. But she is indeed a visionary, because she believes she can accomplish things others don’t dare to try — then goes out and does them.
1. As the daughter of a single mother, she believed she could graduate from college.
2. As a DSHS caseworker, she believed she could graduate from law school.
3. As an assistant attorney general, she believed she believed she could run the Department of Ecology.
4. As director of Ecology, she believed she could get elected attorney general.
5. As attorney general, she believed she could run one of the best consumer protection departments in the country, and did it.
6. As attorney general, she believed she could take on the tobacco companies, and won the biggest legal settlement in world history.
7. As attorney general, she believed she could get elected as this state’s second woman governor, and did it.
8. As governor, she believed she could get funding for transportation, the education initiatives funded, and election reform — and did it in three months.
9. As governor, with a stroke of the pen she gave health care care back to 40,000 kids whom Rossi had cut out of the budget, and said she won’t stop until EVERY child in our state has health care.
This is a gal who believes anything is possible if you just do it, and who has big dreams for our state — lots of good paying jobs, a leadership position in technology, better public schools, access to higher education for all deserving students, health care for every child, a fix for our transportation problems, and much more. If anyone can do these things, she can, and is already well on her way. She is the most dynamic and imaginative public figure I’ve ever met. A real can-do, gonna-do person. Just watch it unfold. Our state is very lucky to have her.
torridjoe@54
Remove illegal and additional votes respective to the majority precinct by precinct.
Comment on 49
Don’t let the door hit your ass on your way out.
Reply to 54
That’s not what Cynical said. He didn’t say anything at all about differentiating the illegal votes. He wants the election thrown out merely because there were illegal votes. If you acknowledge the need to determine who the illegal votes were for, then you agree with me and disagree with Cynical.
Patrick,
I hope you’re right. I could quibble that a person who accomplishes tasks with determination isn’t quite what I’m referring to when I talk about someone being a visionary, but it’s certainly a wonderful trait to have as a public official.
I’m willing to judge her now on her record, just as I would have done for Dino Rossi.
Reply to 58
How is that logical? My neighborhood has lots of professionals and retirees. We also have a halfway house. What is logical about assuming those thieves and drug addicts vote the same way the rest of us do? They couldn’t be more different from the voters that make up my precinct. I don’t see your logic — or the GOP’s.
Reply to 61
Rossi compiled a record of cutting health care for poor children, opposing minimum wage, opposing unemployment benefits for people forced to quit jobs to flee domestic abuse, opposing using the state’s buying power to cut prescription drug costs, opposing retraining for laid-off Boeing and timber workers, and much more. Read more here http://www.wslc.org/cope/rossi.htm Not only is he terrible on labor issues, he is in the pocket of developer interests and terrible on environmental issues.
How is that logical? My neighborhood has lots of professionals and retirees. We also have a halfway house. What is logical about assuming those thieves and drug addicts vote the same way the rest of us do? They couldn’t be more different from the voters that make up my precinct. I don’t see your logic – or the GOP’s.
It’s not logical, but it’s been the basis for the argument the whole time. I’m not sure if this is what they were referring to with the example of trying to accurately determine Ichiro’s batting average by looking at the team and league averages, but that’s what it reminds me of.
chuck @ 58
I know the proposed process. I was asking for the logic of it.
Wrongo @ 49 Is that all it would take? Then here goes. Wrongo, some day I will meet you in a dark alley, strap you to a trash receptical and read Earth In The Balance till you wet yourself!
Goodbye!
Donnageddon “Champagne Social-ist”
Donnageddon, we humbly offer you our assistance in your proposed project.
david @ 1, torridjoe @ 26, and JDM @ 55,
Thanks!
Unfortunately, today I am unable to listen to the trial–I look forward to reading your summaries, torridjoe, when I get a chance.
thehim @ above,
Thanks for the confession. I’ll still drink beer with you anytime.
Thanks for the confession. I’ll still drink beer with you anytime.
Cool, looking forward to it. November was a wake up call for me to get more involved in local politics, and not just look at things on a national level. Doing the Drinking Liberally thing is arguably a partisan activity, but it has gotten me up to speed.
Patrick,
You seem to be in angry don-ial tonight and at the very same time a resident expert on rat turds and rat farts.
What kind of vitamins have you been taking?
TorridJoe – You’re just an idiot. Stipulated. Impact?
Patrick,
Oh, I should have read further. Are you really sitting in a corner shouting or mumbling “Liberal” over and over?
And broom-rider Gregoire? Did you see the look on her face when she realized she was getting the benefit of Demo control of a crooked election? It was like OJ all over again. No, I didn’t touch Nicole. It was the masked assailant. I swear.
The funny thing is that I’m sure that most conservatives wrote this election contest off quite some time ago. The deck is just too stacked against fairness.
The King County Tammany Hall political machine.
The overwhelming Democratic control of the House and Senate.
The insane rush to certify the closest statewide race in history.
The pendantic drag towards this trial.
The difficulty of trying to prove what happened really did happen- that through acts of omission and/or comision, this election was thrown to the loser (that would be Mrs. G.).
So it’s very refreshing to see all you Progressives, esp. Patrick, quaking in your shoes.
And there is a smug confidence in knowing that at least that we conservatives support truth, honestly, liberty, and democracy.
Reply to 71
Getting a little nervous about how Rossi’s lawsuit might turn out, are you? You seem a bit edgy tonight.
It is gonna be fun to see what happens to the pet trolls after their man Rossi is set packing to peddle real estate again.
This is gonna be FUN!
Don / Donna @72, 73 – Not really. I am cautiously optimistic that something good will come of this trial. Rossi’s chances for justice are pretty slim. I think that judge Bridges spoke well though when he said (I paraphrase) that we are now going where we have not gone before.
Troll? Are you offended at what I write? Was I not truthful in my observations? To me you seemed a little edgy with the rat feces thing going on. If I am really a troll, my posts are horrific, bombastic, and without merit, and I have no sense of humor (?) then what would it be worth to you if I never posted here again?
Admit it, you would have much less fun if no one challenged your progressive belief system.