Sunday, November 18, 2012

What the heck is wrong with Florida?

I have no sympathy for Congressman Allen West's (R-FL) political views, and he would call me a Commie soon as not.

But there is no reason whatsoever, from a fairness perspective, why there should not be a full recount and more time given for such a recount.

Getting back at West for what a Republican dominated Supreme Court did in Bush v. Gore is not justice. It is not fair and it is wrong.

Again, there should be a full recount. And it should not matter if it takes a month.

ADDENDUM 11/20/12: West concedes. He admitted his legal team told him that even with undervotes, overvotes or fraudulent votes rejected, the result would still be that Murphy beat him. See here. I had become interested in this because the registrar of voters that covered the area of St. Lucie, Florida had admitted to what appeared to be significant irregularities in the admittedly small precincts of voters. Still, it is more than significant for West to concede that his advisers are saying there were not enough to change the outcome.

Now, perhaps the Republican partisans will wake up and realize that just because a highly black and urban area in Philadelphia votes 100% for Obama, it doesn't mean there is fraud....Maybe if the modern Republican Party was not so hospitable to the promotion of white racism, this wouldn't happen.

5 Comments:

At 8:28 PM, Anonymous hip703 said...

"Now, perhaps the Republican partisans will wake up and realize that just because a highly black and urban area in Philadelphia votes 100% for Obama, it doesn't mean there is fraud....Maybe if the modern Republican Party was not so hospitable to the promotion of white racism, this wouldn't happen."

Yes, anyone who suggests fraud could possibly be involved when the tally is Obama 19,605, Romney 0 (well beyond a simple error rate), is obviously a racist.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't' there a deafening silence at the MF Blog take regarding the leak of the Durbin memos about the judicial nomination of Miguel Estrada. I forget, it is impossible for a Democrat to be racist.

 
At 8:55 PM, Blogger Mitchell J. Freedman said...

Durbin was merely making a point that Estrada was on the fast track to the Supreme Court and that the Republicans were pushing him because he was Latino the way they pushed Thomas because he was black. It was the hypocrisy that he was talking about. Compare that to Lee Atwater's famous admission about how racist appeals were made by Republican candidates and campaigns over the years.

As for those particular precincts where 100% of the voters voted for Obama, I'm not saying that people who are shocked by those 100% votes in various precincts are racist. My only point in connecting with the ellipsis is that black voters have learned over the years that the Republican Party hates them. That's why they vote what appears to be in "lockstep" for Democrats, even though Democrats don't earn their vote in a positive way these past couple of decades. Why that is difficult for your comprehension is something that mystifies me.

 
At 10:13 PM, Anonymous hip703 said...

1. No one seriously disputed Mr. Estrada's qualifications to sit on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The Durbin memo stated that the one of the reasons Estrada was "dangerous" was BECAUSE he was a Latino.

Now, if one was opposed to Mr. Estrada's confirmation because of his political views, that is fair game. But opposing him BECAUSE he is a Latino is rank racism of the worst sort. I am shocked by your defense of Senator Durbin on this point. Surely, you must have misspoken.

2. My comprehension is fine. It's the lack of precision in your writing, which results in ambiguities, which is the problem. Let's take a look at what you actually wrote:

""Now, perhaps the Republican partisans will wake up and realize that just because a highly black and urban area in Philadelphia votes 100% for Obama, it doesn't mean there is fraud....Maybe if the modern Republican Party was not so hospitable to the promotion of white racism, this wouldn't happen."

In your first sentence, you state that, contrary to "Republican partisans," just because urban voters vote 100% for Obama, it does not mean there is fraud." That's a fair statement. But you conspicuously omit the MAGNITUDE of the numbers, Obama 19,605, Romney 0. Your omission renders the sentence misleading. Again, 19,605 to 0 is beyond a simple error rate. In other words, even if, in a given area 19,605 voters preferred Obama, and none preferred Romney (which in itself is implausible), we would expect a few voters to make an error marking or punching their selection. If you think the numbers are legitimate, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell to you.

In your second sentence, you begin your racism riff. But you created an ambiguity by employing the term "this": "Maybe if the modern Republican Party was not so hospitable to the promotion of white racism, this wouldn't happen."

The last noun before the ellipses is "fraud." A fair reading of the two sentences together, is that, because the Republican Party, in your view, is so steeped in racist thinking, its partisans would believe that Obama receiving 100% of the vote is a sign of fraud. In other words, "this" refers to fraud, the last noun before the ellipses.

The way to remove the ambiguity and make your point more clear is to rewrite the second sentence as follows: "Maybe if the modern Republican Party was not so hospitable to white racism, Romney could have earned at least one black vote in Philadelphia." That is a better sentence: it's more clear, and delivers a stronger rhetorical punch.

In any event, you said in your comment: " I'm not saying that people who are shocked by those 100% votes in various precincts are racist. " Fair enough, but you are avoiding the issue. The issue is not whether some people are shocked that Obama won 19,605 to 0 in an urban area. One can be shocked at the tally, but not believe fraud was involved. The issue is whether Obama winning 19,605 to 0 involved fraud. So let me ask you: is one who believes a 19,605 to 0 margin to be fraudulent a racist?

 
At 10:57 PM, Blogger Mitchell J. Freedman said...

To answer your last sentence and question first, "No." However, I believe one is deluded to think first of fraud, instead of the usual mistakes that human beings make. I also believe that one who rushes to judgment of fraud in this context is willfully ignoring the history of too many Republican Party campaign tactics over the last 40 years.

I am merely saying that it is rational for a person who knows this history to say, "I can see how 100% of the vote for Obama could happen in those precincts." That is precisely what a political scientist was quoted as saying in the linked to article I cited.

The rest of your analysis should go into a dictionary to illustrate the word "specious."

Contrary to your "analysis," the word "fraud" in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Addendum does NOT define the next sentence after the ellipsis. I am saying the opposite of what you are arguing. I am saying the case for fraud is not proven merely by the particular Philadelphia precinct tabulations.

The Addendum's next sentence's reference to "this" refers to the voting result, which is that 100% of people in a particularly high black and urban area voted for Obama. There is no ambiguity for anyone who is interested in a good faith reading of the words used. Your analysis says more about your viewpoint than mine.

As for your initial part of your analysis, it is merely a series of declarative statements that end up with the conclusion that you think the 19,000 to 0 sum is "implausible." Again, it is only implausible if one ignores the history of the past 40 years of the Republican Party campaign tactics.

It is foolish for you to harp on those results in Philly as if there is some big fraud going on. At least Allen West had the decency to listen to his lawyers who told him the problems at the St. Lucie precincts were not significant enough to change even a razor thin lead for Murphy in West's favor. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if West realized that a full recount would reveal suppression tactics that were favoring him, which is consistent with the fact that after the first recount, Murphy increased his lead over West.

 
At 11:26 PM, Anonymous hip703 said...

1. You're the guy who believes a 19,605 to 0 margin is plausible, and you're calling my analysis "specious"? Heh. Your analysis should go into a dictionary to illustrate the word "delusional."

2. My rewrite of your second sentence is superior, resolved the ambiguity, and is more rhetorically effective. Another way to avoid such ambiguities is to stop labeling everyone who disagrees with you a racist.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home