Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

[burd]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

So I have a question. My county seems to have a very hotly contested election for Register of Wills. Why? What are candidates for RoW after? I get Council (real estate developers bribe you). I get Board of Ed (those copies of Huck Finn aren't going to burn themselves). But what does a RoW do and more importantly why are they willing to apparently spend a ton of money for the privilege of doing it?

In Wisconsin, most estates go through either a formal or an informal process. The majority go through informal probate, which is handled exclusively by the Register in Probate (your Register of Wills, I assume). A judge never enters the case unless there is a claim against the estate, a will contest, or something like that. The Register in Probate monitors the filing of papers that are necessary to run the estate through probate, including those identifying interested persons, the will itself, inventories, accountings, receipts from beneficiaries, and statements from taxing authorities verifying that no tax filings are due. These folks also review the filings to ensure that the will instructions have been carried out--at least on paper. Obviously, some Registers are more vigilant than others, but they are important gatekeepers.

Why the job is sought after? IDK--hot filing clerk?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Looks like it's a way to launder campaign time and money.

Until her resignation last spring, Quinn worked in Reilly's office for 18 years, rising to become a trusted administrator.

As such, prosecutors say, Quinn helped direct an office rife with corruption and intimidation, where employees were forced to perform political work on county time and were punished for resisting.

"This practice of illegally paying employees for doing political work was able to continue for so long because of the people Reilly put in place to help her run her office," states a grand jury presentment supporting the charges.

The grand jury cast Quinn as a feared and vindictive supervisor whose transgressions ranged from coercion to petty theft.

Quinn was in charge of maintaining the infamous "pink book" - a handwritten ledger of otherwise undocumented compensatory time doled out to office employees who worked the polls for Reilly or performed other political functions.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

I have no reason to doubt your Chicago example. If State A passes as voter ID statute that is challenged in court, should the court balance the reasonable likelihood of voter ID fraud against the reasonable likelihood of voter suppression, or does that go to the efficacy of the law and not its legality? Is it a fact-based, jurisdiction specific analysis or one based on a principle that should be uniformly applied?

The court should respect the will of the freely elected legislature to pass legislation regulating the conduct of elections. "Reasonable likelihood of voter suppression" is a phrase absolutely lousy with subjective possibilities. It's not "voter suppression" if potential voters are too lazy or stupid to get an ID card. As I've said several times now, if going to the DMV represents such a hurdle (never mind Motor Voter) then an alternative would be to offer Social Security cards with photos. And I've further stipulated that DMV office hours and locations could be expanded. And fees for the ID cards waived. But none of that is the issue. None of it. Democrats would oppose a system where the states went door to door giving out free ID cards. They simply don't want any change in the status quo. A status quo which they deeply believe advantages them. And they're right. Which is why they're fighting so hard to oppose any change in that status quo. In the process they're insulting their most reliable constituent group by repeatedly suggesting black folks are somehow uniquely unable to get ID cards like everybody else. Here's a thought: why can't "community groups" like Operation Push and National Action Network (to name two entirely random examples) devote themselves less to the enrichment of their principals and more to the mundane work of helping folks get their ID cards?

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

No. But I borrowed his cattle prod to give you the proctological exam you so clearly need. Explain to me again why only black folks are incapable of getting IDs. I'm sure your condescension is genuine. But it's still condescension. Fueled by fear that your built in advantage may be on its way out.

You aren't getting within 100 miles of my back side Opie, except maybe when I use you to wipe it after Hillary gets elected President! In the meantime kindly keep me out of your sick fantasies.

Condescension is my middle name. Well, one of them anyway. However, its not just "black folks" but poor people in general. Not everybody has 5 hours to get to the overwhelmed RMV during the day to get an ID. Furthermore, as I've often cited the RI example, if you put in a tighter ID requirement but give the populace a couple of years to comply then that's okay within reason 1) you can't charge for the ID's as that's a poll tax, and 2) any official govt ID should be accepted.

Otherwise Opie, voter supression laws screw Republicans. When you're going to learn that is beyond me, but for every person you turn back at the polls, 2 more who probably couldn't be bothered to vote are now going to show up, PO'd at you, just to vote against you. Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Kep, in Mass those Registars of Probate jobs are simply a no-show, 100K a year gubmint job with a cushy pension! While I don't subscribe to a lot of Boston Herald theories, The Place Where Hacks Go to Die is a good one for these jobs, as its usually some washed out politician who ends up winning one of them...

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Otherwise Opie, voter supression laws screw Republicans. When you're going to learn that is beyond me, but for every person you turn back at the polls, 2 more who probably couldn't be bothered to vote are now going to show up, PO'd at you, just to vote against you. Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

So, according to that line of thinking, you should be happy that the Republicans are pushing voter ID. Are you? Maybe for some of us, this really is about the integrity of the process - forget the outcome; let those chips fall where they may. If that means that more (legitimately registered) Democrats show up to vote, then so be it.

 

[unofan]

So, according to that line of thinking, you should be happy that the Republicans are pushing voter ID. Are you? Maybe for some of us, this really is about the integrity of the process - forget the outcome; let those chips fall where they may. If that means that more (legitimately registered) Democrats show up to vote, then so be it.

If it's about integrity of the process, then you'd be against such laws if shown they disenfranchise more legitimate voters than they prevent fraudulent votes, right?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Otherwise Opie, voter supression laws screw Republicans. When you're going to learn that is beyond me, but for every person you turn back at the polls, 2 more who probably couldn't be bothered to vote are now going to show up, PO'd at you, just to vote against you. Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I would like to believe this, but I don't. If voter suppression wasn't effective the Republicans wouldn't be pursuing it. It's a rearguard action to swing elections while they figure out how to finally break the news to the base that they can't be the Ignorant White People's Party anymore.

The integrity of the voting process is vital, but as Posner points out these measures have zero to do with that. These are every bit as politically motivated as poll taxes and literacy tests were back in the day. It's just a modern form of Jim Crow.

 

[LynahFan]

If it's about integrity of the process, then you'd be against such laws if shown they disenfranchise more legitimate voters than they prevent fraudulent votes, right?

Nope. The evidence will always be asymmetric - there is always incentive to expose disenfranchisement, and always incentive to hide fraud. You can't simply count the known cases of A and B, since they aren't going to be equally representative of the underlying phenomena.

Edit: not to mention the potential fraud that might have happened. If we had an effective voter ID law, fraud would drop effectively to 0, but you'd always be able to trot out someone to say that they didn't get to vote, at which point you'd be crying, "see, it didn't work!" when in fact, the lack of fraud was evidence that it DID work.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

I would like to believe this, but I don't. If voter suppression wasn't effective the Republicans wouldn't be pursuing it. It's a rearguard action to swing elections while they figure out how to finally break the news to the base that they can't be the Ignorant White People's Party anymore.

The integrity of the voting process is vital, but as Posner points out these measures have zero to do with that. These are every bit as politically motivated as poll taxes and literacy tests were back in the day. It's just a modern form of Jim Crow.

Voter suppression, like people voting multiple times, or dead people voting, are the boogeyman each side trots out to scare and rouse it's base. They are myths.

The whole voter id argument is a waste of time and money. But both parties are equally at fault. Democrats absolutely refuse to consider voter id's, "confirming" Republican fears of fraudulent voting. Republicans repeatedly insist on "hurdles" (albeit, relatively low hurdles) to negotiate before voting, "confirming" their voter suppression efforts.

It's a bunch of crap.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Edit: not to mention the potential fraud that might have happened. If we had an effective voter ID law, fraud would drop effectively to 0, but you'd always be able to trot out someone to say that they didn't get to vote, at which point you'd be crying, "see, it didn't work!" when in fact, the lack of fraud was evidence that it DID work.

Fraud is already virtually at an effective 0. Again it's not that it happens, does it happen at a rate that is alarming/impactful? We're not talking about murder or rape before someone responds with such an angle.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

I would like to believe this, but I don't. If voter suppression wasn't effective the Republicans wouldn't be pursuing it. It's a rearguard action to swing elections while they figure out how to finally break the news to the base that they can't be the Ignorant White People's Party anymore.

The integrity of the voting process is vital, but as Posner points out these measures have zero to do with that. These are every bit as politically motivated as poll taxes and literacy tests were back in the day. It's just a modern form of Jim Crow.

Kep you subscribe to the theory that Republicans always have some dastardly plot to win elections. If they did, why have they been outvoted in 5 out of the last 6 Presidential elections? If they're going to supress the vote, they really ought to figure out a better way of doing it.

The GOP is made up of small minded individuals who think they see an easy win with restricting voting. As Opie for once in his life correctly alluded to (by accident I'm sure) the Dem organizations that register thousands of voters most likely have also figured out how to get them the proper ID. The court fights revolve around changing the rules days before the election. The SCOTUS seems to allow tighter ID's (but not at a cost to the voter) but disallows changing the law in the run up to the start of voting.

The odd thing is this: what kills the GOP, far more than voter ID, is early voting. If you give lukewarm voters two weeks or more to vote (or they can vote by mail) as opposed to one day, that gives Dems the opportunity to reach these people and mobilize their trek to the polls over time. Rick Scott understood this in Florida, but unfortunately for him Florida had the longest waits at its polling stations in 2012 so its kinda hard to restrict early voting when you can't process everyone on election day.

The whole voter ID thing is stupid from a political perspective. Increased turnout will continue to be driven by increased days or ways to vote.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Rover,

The voter suppression thing is two pronged. They got themselves control of enough local/state seats to get the districts drawn around the census to get control of the House for the forseeable future. Now they have the Senate all but locked up.

And I saw a poll this morning that says 55% of folks want the Republicans in control of the Senate. If I wasn't already entrenched I'd be looking to move out of the country cause that's pure insanity.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Rover,

The voter suppression thing is two pronged. They got themselves control of enough local/state seats to get the districts drawn around the census to get control of the House for the forseeable future. Now they have the Senate all but locked up.

And I saw a poll this morning that says 55% of folks want the Republicans in control of the Senate. If I wasn't already entrenched I'd be looking to move out of the country cause that's pure insanity.

Scooby, Dems got outmaneuvered on redistricting and got what they deserved. With any luck they won't make that mistake again next decade end. I highly doubt 55% of voters want a GOP Senate, unless its a very tight likely voter model. The GOP's approval rating is in the teens. Simply put, people don't like them. The only way they get into power is through indifference with the left leaning voter population. Either show up and vote, or your state turns into Kansas or Mississippi. Its not any more complicated than that.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Scooby, Dems got outmaneuvered on redistricting and got what they deserved. With any luck they won't make that mistake again next decade end. I highly doubt 55% of voters want a GOP Senate, unless its a very tight likely voter model. The GOP's approval rating is in the teens. Simply put, people don't like them. The only way they get into power is through indifference with the left leaning voter population. Either show up and vote, or your state turns into Kansas or Mississippi. Its not any more complicated than that.

Just wait until Mittens gets elected as President in '16.

Here's a little story on why we don't have a Surgeon General. You know, the guy/gal who would be handling this Ebola mess but can't because Ted Cruz doesn't think the nominee is a health professional and only thinks the nominee is an anti-gun nut. Cause, guns are NOT a public health issue.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-blames-obama-obstruction-surgeon-general

Scott Brown (the greatest one term Senator of all time) thinks Mitt Romney would have prevented Ebola.

Scott Brown told Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade Friday that Ebola wouldn’t be a problem for America if Mitt Romney had won in 2012.

“Gosh can you imagine if Mitt was the president right now?” Brown said. “He was right on Russia, he was right on Obamacare, he was right on the economy. And I guarantee you we would not be worrying about Ebola right now and, you know, worrying about our foreign policy screw ups.”

 

[unofan]

Nope. The evidence will always be asymmetric - there is always incentive to expose disenfranchisement, and always incentive to hide fraud. You can't simply count the known cases of A and B, since they aren't going to be equally representative of the underlying phenomena.

Edit: not to mention the potential fraud that might have happened. If we had an effective voter ID law, fraud would drop effectively to 0, but you'd always be able to trot out someone to say that they didn't get to vote, at which point you'd be crying, "see, it didn't work!" when in fact, the lack of fraud was evidence that it DID work.

You realize you're effectively saying you don't care about a cure being worse than the (statistically non-existent) problem of in person voting fraud, right?

it's a bit like saying "here's a cure for Ebola. Ignore the fact that it will give 5% of you MRSA."

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Scooby, Dems got outmaneuvered on redistricting and got what they deserved. With any luck they won't make that mistake again next decade end. I highly doubt 55% of voters want a GOP Senate, unless its a very tight likely voter model. The GOP's approval rating is in the teens. Simply put, people don't like them. The only way they get into power is through indifference with the left leaning voter population. Either show up and vote, or your state turns into Kansas or Mississippi. Its not any more complicated than that.

They deserved it, but it wasn't just luck. It's the natural pattern one would expect to see when one party's base dominates its electoral support.

The GOP's net favorability is -20; the Dems is -8. The Dems should have a net generic advantage in the polls but at the moment there is a small GOP advantage (I've seen 52-48 which is within the margin of error).

It's not left wing indifference, it's centrist indifference that gives the current GOP traction. The left and right base are going to go to the polls. The right base is bigger for two reasons, both tribal: fundamentalist Christianity and rural white identity. Obviously there is a lot of overlap.

I'd posit that the breakdown of the full electorate is roughly:

30% GOP base
10% GOP lean
40% Dem lean
20% Dem base

Let's say 90% of the base turns out in all elections.
Let's say 20% of leaners vote in midterms and 40% vote in presidential years.


That gives:

Midterms:
GOP vs Dem
(.3 * .9) + (.1 * .2) vs (.2 * .9) + (.4 * .2)
.27 + .02 vs .18 + .08
.29 > .26

Presidential:
GOP vs Dem
(.3 * .9) + (.1 * .4) vs (.2 * .9) + (.4 * .4)
.27 + .04 vs .18 + .16
.31 < .34

Hence the difference.

 

[goldy_331]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Here's a little story on why we don't have a Surgeon General. You know, the guy/gal who would be handling this Ebola mess but can't because Ted Cruz doesn't think the nominee is a health professional and only thinks the nominee is an anti-gun nut. Cause, guns are NOT a public health issue.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-blames-obama-obstruction-surgeon-general

You do know that the Senate can approve an appointment with a simple majority now since the dems changed the rules, right? And you do know the dems have a five seat majority of the Senate, right? So just how is it the repub's fault that there is no sitting Surgeon General?

Is it still Bush's fault? Or is it the Kochs now?

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

You do know that the Senate can approve an appointment with a simple majority now since the dems changed the rules, right? And you do know the dems have a five seat majority of the Senate, right? So just how is it the repub's fault that there is no sitting Surgeon General?

Is it still Bush's fault? Or is it the Kochs now?

I agree with this. Dems should approve the guy and call it a day.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

You realize you're effectively saying you don't care about a cure being worse than the (statistically non-existent) problem of in person voting fraud, right?

it's a bit like saying "here's a cure for Ebola. Ignore the fact that it will give 5% of you MRSA."

You keep relying on "statistics" which I've already explained don't prove (to me) what you think they prove to you.

It's a bit more like saying "here's a cure for Ebola, but it will give 0.0001% of you the sniffles and I'm okay with that."

 

[goldy_331]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

I agree with this.

Mark this day down. First and last time Rover and I agree on something.