A repeatedly useful Salon column that sometimes deals with voting issues flagged a NYT article pointing out various problems with the unofficial votes from February 5th in NYC:
In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city’s 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.
In the Harlem district, for instance, where the primary night returns suggested a 141 to 0 sweep by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the vote now stands at 261 to 136. In an even more heavily black district in Brooklyn — where the vote on primary night was recorded as 118 to 0 for Mrs. Clinton — she now barely leads, 118 to 116.
There is a graphic at NYT that describes the method of counting out lever machine created votes, providing a (negative, for us) comparison to (!) Cook County, Illinois, which it notes has few problems with its electronic voting system (a bit of research would raise a red flag or two, probably), while early discrepancies in NYC are fairly common. If so, it is not something that either (1) gets much press and/or (2) affects many races. And, there are relatively few truly competitive races around here. In fact, Obama himself at most will probably get a few extra delegates, if things play out all in his favor. I'm not sure that the final count will be that close.
Still, the Harlem district results (and Salon notes, Clinton also had reason to complain in some cases, though it didn't matter in the end for her) underline that the results can be pretty bad. This is a warning and a reason for local voters (even if cynics will say they don't count ... like those people without governmentally issued identification that need to go thru hoops to vote, but hey, maybe they can have their provisional votes counted if it is a close race!) to be upset. Those level machines might be as quaint (like, you know, the Geneva Conventions), but it is time for us to go beyond the 19th Century.
And, to the degree it adds to concerns of fraud and vote stealing, well, that is that much worse. Race only complicates matters further, as does the fact that (saying there isn't doesn't make it less so*) there is some division among the camps overall. Likewise, some are concerned about "superdelegates" ignoring the will of the voters (who matter, says Mark Penn, when they vote for Hillary), and this adds to the general voter disenfranchisement issue that is weighty issue for many. As it should.
Meanwhile, Glen Greenwald has more on our President's continual fear mongering. I was at the library yesterday and glanced at Michael Kinsley's column in a recent Time magazine. It was a playful criticism of Republicans for picking John "fine and decent" McCain as the nomination, since each candidate was supposed to be someone the other side can hate. But, McCain is such a great guy! Well, a reasonable liberal sort says so, so it must be true. [Spin] You know, the guy who enables and supports (on some things, like Iraq, maybe out Bushing-Bush). Advancing this sort of thing:
The President himself this morning dramatically intoned: "At the stroke of midnight tonight, a vital intelligence law that is helping protect our nation will expire." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell gravely pointed out: "What will happen at midnight tonight is much more significant than stump speeches, steroids or superdelegates. On Sunday, the terrorist tracking program . . . no longer will be fully operational." National Review warrior and all-around tough guy Andy McCarthy fretted: "When the Clock Strikes Midnight, We Will Be Significantly Less Safe."
MK predicts:
If the Democrats nominate Hillary, both parties will have chosen candidates who are intensely loathed by more than a few of their own members. But the parallel stops there. McCain is widely admired among Democrats, and many Democratic Hillary haters will be happy to vote for him. By contrast, there is no constituency for Hillary among Republicans who can't stand McCain. Nor, for that matter, will many of them vote for Barack Obama.
The last comment is b.s. and recent voting results underline the point. In fact, h/t Rachel Maddow, a top advisor on the McCain team said he would step down if Obama won the nomination -- he supports McCain, but couldn't go full court press against Obama. See also, this article in Time. Likewise, M. argues:
Even though McCain is the candidate of the President's party and even though he is the biggest supporter of the Iraq war outside of the Administration, McCain is the one who will seem like a new broom that sweeps clean.
The operative word is "seem." Do you like promoting b.s., Michael? McCain is the one who said he wouldn't mind American troops staying there a hundred years. He thinks the "surge" worked fine. How is this like to "sweep clean" the mess there? The piece does underline, if in a backhanded fashion, that this is an image over substance game. For instance, voters couldn't quite believe he is totally serious on his antiabortion stance. Yeah, he is. We went thru this before ... "well, Bush can't be as bad as those naysayers warn ...."
Michael Kinsley, promoting media darling St. McCain, as part of his role as a ranking member of the fake reasonable people's club. War, war on choice, self-admitted weak on economic matters, loyal Bushie (the "maverick" tag helps that btw), etc. And, we will still have an uphill fight. Reality notwithstanding. Joy.
---
* Yeah, it's a double negative. Whatcha going to do about it?