Edwards files comment on voting!

[DemDogs]

Edwards filed a comment on the voluntary voting guidelines, arguing that there needed to be a paper trail and that the guidelines needed to be mandatory. Read his whole comment at
<http://blog.oneamericacommittee.com>
Finally someone speaks up!

[Inspired]

1. Kick

and nominated. Edwards....my choice for 2008.

:kick:

[NVMojo]

2. kick again!

[rosesaylavee]

3. Kick and nominated...

Can only hope the others find their spines.

[Catchawave]

4. Yay !

In closing he states:

"These are just a few of the problems and shortcomings in the EAC’s current set of guidelines. The bottom line is, it’s a national embarrassment when people can’t vote or don’t know if their vote was counted. That’s not the way it should be in America. We need to get serious about election reform in this country, and we need to do it now."

[chimpymustgo]

5. Remember, JRE wanted to keep fighting in Ohio.

-snip-

Many of the worst problems happened in Ohio. After the election, 28 percent of voters there reported problems with their voting experience. These problems were ones that shouldn’t exist in America, like intimidation and not being able to find your polling site. The racial disparities within these problems are especially alarming: in Ohio, African American voters were twice as likely as white voters to experience problems.

The result of these problems is a dramatic blow to our faith in our democratic system: in Ohio in 2004, only 19 percent of African Americans were confident that their vote was counted correctly. That’s not the way it should be in America.

-snip-

[mzmolly]

9. That last part means that African Americans will be less likely to vote.

Voter confidence or a lack thereof will keep voters from voting in coming elections. It's a win win for the bastards who made it all happen. :(

[FreedomAngel82]

13. Kerry's still involved with Ohio

They have a court date for August 2006. I wonder why he's speaking now though? Wasn't he silent for along time while even Teresa was speaking out?

[AmericanDream]

14. Ummm...

Edwards actually mentioned this even in the very first speech he gave after the election. And, he has mentioned the need for voting reform in every speech that he has given at democratic fundraisers. So, it's not that he's speaking out now... he's been there all along.

As for this particular statement... this is in response to the federal commission's report on voting reform that came out lately.

[Mass]

24. kerry is one of the original co-sponsor of the Boxer bill concerning ,,

voting reform.

Is that a contest? Cant the two of them do good things on this issue?

[AmericanDream]

28. It's not a contest....

Of course, I'm glad that they are both stepping up on this issue in whatever capacity they can. However, the post that I replied to implied that Edwards just started talking about this... and I wanted to make sure that he/she knows that Edwards has been talking about it from day one too!

[I Have A Dream]

6. Kick.

:kick:

[Usrename]

7. Let it rip!

The I-4 corridor here in FL is just as messed up!

[mzmolly]

8. Here is a snip:

September 30, 2005

As we all know, the 2004 election was marred by widespread voting problems – long lines, miscast ballots, votes that people weren’t sure were cast properly by new machines they’d never used before.

Many of the worst problems happened in Ohio. After the election, 28 percent of voters there reported problems with their voting experience. These problems were ones that shouldn’t exist in America, like intimidation and not being able to find your polling site. The racial disparities within these problems are especially alarming: in Ohio, African American voters were twice as likely as white voters to experience problems.

The result of these problems is a dramatic blow to our faith in our democratic system: in Ohio in 2004, only 19 percent of African Americans were confident that their vote was counted correctly. That’s not the way it should be in America.

So, while I commend the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) for taking another look at problems in our voting system, I’m concerned that these guidelines – just like those issued in 1990 and 2002 – do not go far enough.

More here: http://blog.oneamericacommittee.com/article.pl?sid=05/10/01/1433231§ion=&mode=nested&tid=1&threshold=0

Excellent statement. Thanks! To Mr. Edwards :toast:

[AmBlue]

10. When I click your link, mzmolly...

... it says, "Nothing to see here. Please move along." WTF?

[mzmolly]

11. LOL. Try again, I did it the ol' fashioned way.

;)

[garybeck]

12. a paper trail will not solve the problem

paper trail is baby steps.

all it means is that there is paper in case of a recount. the first count is still just as curruptable as it was before.

it's like telling your kid, I'm going to leave that cookie jar full of cookies while I'm gone, and I'm going to leave a video camera running. But I'm never going to watch the tape.

[nvliberal]

15. Paper trails give a false sense of security.

Who is going to bother with them unless a vote is close?

What happens if the fascists rig an election so it is not close enough to be recounted?

What we need is a movement to get rid of the machines--period. Unfortunately many legislatures are Republican, and they will be loath to get rid of something that benefits them.

There's the rub.

[In Truth We Trust]

19. Damn straight skippy-Paper ballots and hand counts ONLY!

[DemDogs]

16. Which is why Edwards . . .

said we can start with having a paper trail but that even more was needed.

I am just glad someone spoke up and I am not surprised it was Edwards, who was the one who didn't want to concede since all the votes hadn't been counted.

[mom cat]

17. Damn! It took long enough. Backwards countries with tin horn dictators

can do better then this!...Oops...Maybe we are the one that is the backward country with a tin horn dictator. :grr::grr:

[skipos]

18. Great! But before anyone says Edwards 2008 consider

that he didn't even come close to carrying North Carolina in 04. He probably wouldn't have been re-elected to the senate there either. Candidates who don't carry threir home state, usually don't get elected.

[Inspired]

20. Same old, same old

People don't vote for the VP. Edwards could have never carried NC. Kerry couldn't carry North Carolina. It had NOTHING to do with Edwards. Kerry lost NC. It would be hard to find a dem who could have carried NC in a presidential election.

I know dozens of people who voted for Bush simply because they couldn't stomach Kerry. These same people said they would have voted for Edwards is he had been on the top of the ticket instead of the bottom.

I guess we'll never know how the outcome would have been if Edwards were the nominee in 2004. All I can go by is what Bush voters told me.

[DemDogs]

22. Actually . . . Edwards wins!

In the last public poll before Edwards dropped out of the primary race, he was a point or two AHEAD of Bush.
Who knows what would have happened if he had been the nominee and contested the state? I think he would have won in Ohio, too, by the way.

[Mass]

26. As you say, who knows?

There are plenty of questions that we can ask ourselves. Is it worth starting a flamewar?

He may have win Ohio and lost other states as well.

You can rewrite history as much as you want. It will not change the fact that Edwards did not win the primaries, except for birth state South Carolina (and North Carolina that was uncontested).

[ultraist]

23. Exactly, KERRY lost NC

Kerry didn't even really campaign here in NC. NO candidate can expect to win a swing state, a state that hasn't gone to a Dem president since 1976, without campaigning in the state and spending some serious time and money. Kerry did NOT do that.

IF Kerry had invested in NC, I tend to think he could have swung the state. Early on, NC was in play but as the campaign went on, and the state was neglected, Bush starting making gains. Bush's visits and investment in NC, paid off for him.

[brentspeak]

32. Important point that you make

The Democratic leadership has fostered this this lame-brained, loser mentality that Democrat presidential candidates "just can't win in the south." As a result, Democrat presidential candidates DO end up losing in the south -- but because they don't even try!

It's a self-fullfilling prophecy.

[I_am_Spartacus]

21. Kerry did worse than Gore nationally, but did better than Gore in NC

He got about 25% more votes than Gore got in NC, and got closer to Bush than Gore got.

Gore was from the next state over, yet NC liked Kerry more than Gore. Which is even more interesting, since Kerry didn't even bother campaigning in NC (and was on record during the primaries as saying that he could win without the South -- something many southerners probably had in mind when pulling the lever).

Edwards might not have won NC for Kerry (a state the Democrats haven't won since 1976), but he certainly was the reason the Democrats did better in NC than they did with Gore.

Also, before Edwards dropped out of the Senate race, he was consitently widening his margin over Burr in the polls and was up on Burr by about 20% on the day he dropped out. I can't imagine a scenario by which Burr would have regained support that he was losing.

One thing about Edwards is that in his Senate race and in the primaries, Edwards has displayed one of the most important qualities that no other person running for president in 2004 could say about themselves: in every poll he's ever been in, over time, people grow to like him. There aren't many people in NC or America who say that they used to like him. And there are a lot of people who say, "as I learned more about him, I grew to like him."

Kerry, even though he was nominated, went through a period when he was high in the polls, then slipped back. He regained a lot of attention because he came in first in Iowa, but it was probably an important lesson to learn that people who supported him ended up not supporting him. The same with Dean and Clark. Both of them were at the top of national polls in 2003, but people who supported them one day, learned more about them and other candidates and decided they liked someone else more.

Edwards, however, in his '98 Senate race only went one direction as people learned about him. In '03 and '04, he went from 5% to coming in second. Even in polls over the final three or four days of each primary, Edwards kept going up -- and he was taking votes away from Kerry who was dropping over the last three days in many primaries.

That should be an important lesson for people trying to decide who would make a good candidate.

As important as whether someone won a primary is the question, "will people like this person as they learn more about him or her?" Of all the people who ran in the 2004 primaries, Edwards is the only one for whom you can say yes about, and the data proves it.

[ultraist]

27. Excellent points!

Edwards did beat the Helms machine, the most powerful Republican group in the state, for decades.

Edwards also won the SC primary, beating Kerry by a landslide. And of course, Edwards won his homestate primary by a very large margin. This speaks to the fact that Edwards is more popular in the South than Kerry is and further supports your premise, that Edwards did boost the ticket in the South, thus, Kerry won more NC votes than did Gore.

[skipos]

29. I'm not looking to start any battle with you but

"He got about 25% more votes than Gore got in NC, and got closer to Bush than Gore got."

That may be true, but it means Bush got about 25% more votes in NC in 2004 too. In 2000 and 2004 Bush took about 56% of the state. Gore and Kerry took about 44%.

Alas, I agree that 2008 is far off. I would vote for Edwards if he is nominated, I just don't see him taking any states that Kerry wasn't able to take.

[PeaceProgProsp]

30. Here are the NC numbers for 2000 and 2004:

NC 2000:
Democrat 1,257,692 43.15% Vice President Albert A. "Al" Gore, Jr.
Republican 1,631,163 55.96% Governor George W. Bush
(14 Electoral Votes)

NC 2004
Republican 1,961,166 56.02% President George W. Bush (office website)
(15 Electoral Votes)
Democrat 1,525,849 43.58% Senator John Kerry (office website)

For fun, we can compare Gore's home state:

TN 2000
Democrat 981,720 47.28% Vice President Albert A. "Al" Gore, Jr.
Republican 1,061,949 51.15% Governor George W. Bush
(11 Electoral Votes)

TN 2004
Republican 1,384,375 56.80% President George W. Bush (office website)
(11 Electoral Votes)
Democrat 1,036,477 42.53% Senator John Kerry (office website)

And now, a randomly selected third Southern state, say, Georgia:

GA 2000
Democrat 1,116,230 42.99% Vice President Albert A. "Al" Gore, Jr.
Republican 1,419,720 54.68% Governor George W. Bush
(13 Electoral Votes)

GA 2004
Republican 1,914,254 57.97% President George W. Bush (office website)
(15 Electoral Votes)
Democrat 1,366,149 41.37% Senator John Kerry (office website)

I'm not going to check, but I wouldn't be surprised if NC were the only southern state where Kerry did better than Gore. Any theories about what that was the case?

[skipos]

31. I guess

Kerry/Edwards having 43.58 while Gore/Joe had 43.15 doesn't make me feel Edwards has the kind of strength we need in NC or the South in general. I could be wrong, and I'll worry more about this in a few years. As I said before, if he is nominated, I'll vote.

[PeaceProgProsp]

33. I wonder what Kerry's second best Southern state was?

Perhaps 3.5% worse than Gore?

I'm not sure I'd conclude that Edwards couldn't win NC based on the fact that on the bottom of the ticket, he ensured that Kerry did better than Gore in the only southern state where Kerry achieved that. If he was worth a, say, 4% swing on the bottom of the ticket in a state that's split 56:44, and considering that, unlike Kerry, he'd actually campaign in NC if he were on the ticket, and considering that NC is worth 15 electoral votes, I really can't think of a 2004 candidate who makes more sense on the top of the ticket from a purely demographic standpoint.

But who knows who will be running for the nomination in 2008. It might be someone with a more persuasive argument for their demographic relevance.

[Skwmom]

35. Sorry but I've found the exact opposite to be true.

The more people know about Edwards the LESS likely they are to support him. Edwards would be slaughtered in a general election (which is why he is the Democratic candidate of choice for the Republicans). Even Clinton would have a better chance in winning the general election.

[AmericanDream]

37. Lol.. who are these people? Your Clinton, Edwards assessment is a joke.

[DemDogs]

43. What a joke.

Edwards was by far our most charismatic candidate, and it turns out he is the one who "hangs" best, too. You need to get yourself to one of his events and start talking to people there. He was mobbed in Iowa, FWIW (and its probably worth pretty much.)

[renie408]

45. Yep

He is an awesome speaker. There is a REASON that other seasoned lawyers would go to the gallery and watch his summations. He knows how to make his point and make it in a way that hits people right in the heart.

[renie408]

42. What the hell are you talking about?

To a man, everybody that I personally know who has really looked into Edwards ended up supporting him. Including several Republicans who now say that if he is the Dem nominee in 2008, they will support him.

Just because you support someone else is no need to start saying really weird shit.

[Catchawave]

52. Edwards has amazing crossover appeal......

ALOT of McCain 2000 supporters were behind Edwards in the primaries, including my repug husband ! Edwards walked the talk.

[I_am_Spartacus]

48. Skwmom, dear, the numbers don't lie.

Edwards polled at 5% all of 2003, while Dean and Clark were polling at and above 20% in December. If memory serves, just before practically every primary Edwards was between 4 and 10%, often in 4th place or lower.

Edwards ended up first or second in all but 16 states, and in second place with 19% of all votes cast. On the day he dropped out, his vote percentage was certainly higher than 19%. In other words, for every 1 person who liked Edwards during 2003, three more grew to like him by the time they voted in their primary (and that includes a lot of people who were voting after it was clear Kerry was going to be the nominee). Who else can you say that about?

Incidentally, if you look at states on and prior to March 2nd, you'll almost certainly find that in many cases Edwards was taking votes from Kerry as the primary neared.

So, I don't know who your friends are, but they don't have much in common with most voters and I'm not sure we should be trust that their wet fingers in the air can give us any valuable insights.

[Mass]

25. Why even bring 08 in the discussion?

[loudsue]

34. North Carolina had MAJOR ELECTION FRAUD...they had machines

that were counting BACKWARDS!! And the State legislature had to step in and decide what to do about it.

There are many many many people (me included) who LIVE in North Carolina, who felt pretty certain that Kerry was going to take the State in 2004. There were several times that the right wing news media even ADMITTED that North Carolina was looking like a swing state.

If we had not used REPUBLICAN OWNED voting machines in 75% of the State, I have NO DOUBT that Kerry would have won....maybe by a small margin, but he would have won.

North Carolinians were NOT happy with boosh during the last election, even though the state rethug party was very well organized, and the Dem party in N.C. was being run by Barbara Allen (a republican with a "D" after her name), AND the fact that Kerry didn't even campaign there, makes me think that Kerry would have taken it!

The entire 2004 presidential election was every bit as crooked as the entire republican party has finally been shown to be:

the administration under investigation for treason (outing a CIA agent)
Tom Delay indicted in Texas for breaking election laws
Bill Frist under investigation for insider trading
Ney, of Ohio, stealing the state retirement fund blind, and being protected by the republican legislature and judiciary.
Abramhoff shown to be mafia/money laundering/murdering crook.

The republicans stole the entire congressional and presidential election in 2004. They're all crooks, and their people in the election offices are crooks.

:kick:

[skipos]

38. In 1996, Clinton also took about 44% of the vote in NC

Dole 769,044 50.12%
Clinton 662,165 43.16%

[renie408]

40. Uhhh...what part of NC are you from?

Cause I lived there in the last election and where we were, there were PLENTY of people in love with Bush. There still are. We are now just inside the SC state line, south of Charlotte. I used to live just on the other side. My informal car rider line poll of bumper stickers said that there were vastly more Bush supporters than Kerry/Edwards supporters. And the rural counties were even more pro-Bush.

You are rewriting history, I think. I don't think that Kerry ever seriously stood a chance here.

[loudsue]

49. I live in the piedmont, in a VERY rural, red-neck area...

in fact, I was in the process of moving from one red-neck rural area to another during the campaign. Both areas...where I was moving FROM and where I was moving TO, the locals were all talking about how they were sick of boosh, and planning to vote for Kerry.

I have friends up in the mountains...normally the "survivalist", neo-nazi type people...were sick of boosh, and planned to vote Kerry.

People who I know that were near Fayetteville and Goldsboro (military), most people were voting Kerry.

I'm NOT "rewriting history", thank you very much. The election in North Carolina was as crooked as a dog's hind leg, in case YOU don't remember what happened there.

:kick::kick::kick:

[NCarolinawoman]

50. I have to disagree here.

We have a Democratic Governor, Democratic Lieutenent Governor, Democratic Secretary of State, and a Democratic Attorney General. In '04 the Dems took back the House of Representatives in the statehouse and the Dems run the senate here as well. There was a smattering of voting machine problems in a few areas; and in the case of that one county on the coast, the voting machine results unfairly favored the Democrat instead of the Republican. It was taken to court and now a Republican is our Secretary of Agriculture.

Let's be fair, there is really no comparison with Ohio. The Democrats in NC were running everything. My many relatives who live in Eastern North Carolina told me that Bush made them feel safe and he was a "good Christian". Ugh. Haven't we heard that one before? I will have to tell you, though, that some of these same people had voted for John Edwards when he ran for the Senate, but had grown disillusioned with him.

[usregimechange]

36. Damn strait!

[stickdog]

39. Weird that we are reduced to cheering a tiny subset of Dems

speaking up for an issue that by all logic and common sense should have 99% bipartisan support!

[DemDogs]

41. Weirder still that he's virtually alone

Of course he was alone fighting for counting all the votes on election night, too.

[renie408]

44. I love John Edwards

He is one of the very few politicians I have heard that does not sound contrived. Maybe its because I am a Southerner, but he speaks to me and in ways that are meaningful to me. He also is starting to get good buzz again around here. I have had several Republicans that I know say that if he runs again, they will support him.

[OzarkDem]

46. Have any of the other Dems

weighed in on this report?

[sepia_steel]

47. Great News!

Thanks, John!

[ladylibertee]

51. John Edwards rocks! This time around, I also cannot help but

notice, he has a little more of a backbone.He's not yelling or anything, but some of his speeches,sounds a little like they are "laced"with Howard Dean's assertiveness . I like it.