Oregon - Potentially the biggest voting disaster since Florida

According to the Multnomah County, OR site, voters passed a ballot measure directing all elections to be conducted by mail in 1998. No doubt, some people will say, "OR has been doing Vote By Mail for 10 years. It must be successful." Well, let me break things down for you a little bit. That's 2 presidential elections (not including the current race), 3 gubernatorial elections, and 3 U.S. Senate elections (not including the Class 2 election this year. Digging a little further we find that: 1) In the 2000 presidential election, only approximately 17,000 OR citizens voted for Gore over GWB and only approximately 76,000 OR citizens voted for Kerry over GWB in the 2004 presidential election; alas, this did not matter because GWB "won" both elections, 2) OR has had the same governor since the 2002 election (he's currently serving his 2nd term), and 3) The northwestern state has had the same 2 senators since 1998. To summarize, only 2 presidents have been in office since 1998, only 2 OR governors have been in office since 1998, and the same 2 OR senators have been in office since 1998. In my opinion, that's not much of a proving ground for the success or failure of Vote By Mail elections.

Proving ground aside, all sorts of problems can arise when using a 100% vote by mail election process. The Multnomah County site expresses some legitimate concerns in their FAQ:

1) What if a mistake is made on the ballot? While they explain what to do, the only way to assure that the ballot is not misinterpreted is to get a replacement. Honestly, how many people do you think are going to do that (i.e. call for or pick up a replacement ballot)?

2) What If I forget to sign my return envelope and I have already mailed it? They state that they will mail the ballot back to you. However, there is a disclaimer: "unless there is not time to return it by mail." Yes, they say you can come to their office to sign it. Again, how many people are going to do that?

3) How do I know if my ballot was received? They say you can call the county election office for your county. Broken record . . . how many people are going to do that? Sure, there are some obsessive compulsives out there, but most aren't going to go through the trouble.

Another concern is raised by the Washington Post:

"Tens of thousands of Oregonians switched their registration from Republican or unaffiliated so they could vote in the Democratic primary. But many switched so close to the April 29 deadline that election officials had already prepared ballots to send to them under their previous registrations. Pulling out those ballots would have been too arduous for most counties, so 33,500 voters received ballots for both parties.

State officials insist this won't be a problem. The scanners that will be used to count the ballots -- all counting is done on the day of the election-- are designed to only count the ballots that are in accord with the voter's new registration status."

This might not sound like a big deal to some, but Oregon is a closed primary state. This means that registered Democrats can only vote Democrat and registered Republicans can only vote Republican. If you're an Independent or one of the many minor "3rd parties", you're screwed unless you register as Democrat or Republican before the deadline. What if the current registration status is not the "new" registration status? Those people are likely not mailed the appropriate ballot -if any ballot at all. Thus, tens of thousands of people who might have voted for Hillary might well have been unable to vote. And what about those voters who decided not to change their status from Independent to Democrat or Republican? As you can see, the vote by mail process is quite problematic and closed primaries only add to the issue.

I'm not claiming that Hillary could have easily won in OR. In fact, their process makes it highly improbable for the underdog to win. Even so, I have to ask why Hillary didn't do some heavy campaigning there? She did do some campaigning there, but considering Oregon's Vote By Mail system, it was more than likely too little, too late. While I have to say "shame on Oregon", I have to say "shame on Hillary" too. She knew, or should have known, their process. Yet, she didn't campaign there in early April before many people would have already mailed their ballots.

Yeah, Barack. You won in OR. Perhaps unfair and not very square, but you won. That's OK. According to my predictions, Hillary's got you beat big time in Puerto Rico. I'm showing her winning in Montana and South Dakota as well. Those wins as well as a fair (or even slightly "more than fair") division of the MI and FL delegates or even re-votes in both states should bring Hillary over the top. It was a great game, Barack. You had the lead for a while. But it's time to say goodbye!

Obama - The Great Deceiver: Redux (Truth in media . . . or not)

I said it in my Obama - The Great Deceiver post and I'll say it again. I strongly feel that Barack Obama is completely media generated. It started in 2004 when Democrats had him speak at the Democratic National Convention. Ever since, the media has run with Barack acting as if he's the Messiah or something. On one hand, I can see why. He's young, handsome, and capable of giving great speeches. Thus, I think that the media is treating Barack like a pop culture icon much like teen magazines and such treat Justin Timberlake. However, the truth is that Barack Obama is not a pop culture icon. He's 1 of 2 democratic presidential candidates. If he wins the nomination, Barack is potential going to be the face and mouthpiece of the U.S. to the rest of the world. Therefore, the questions we all need to ask is:

1) Can Barack Obama regain the respect of the NATO countries?

2) Can Barack Obama be a strong, effective leader among nations who despise the U.S.?

3) Can Barack Obama bring about real change in domestic affairs such as the economy, education, and health care?

4) Can Barack Obama accomplish what few, if any, have been able to accomplish since Ronald Reagan by improving our relationship with Russia and possibly even gaining them as a very strong ally?

Personally, I'm not so sure that Barack can regain the respect of NATO countries or be an effective leader among nations who despise us. I think that GWB, McCain and others might have a good point when they say that Barack might try to negotiate with terrorist sponsoring countries. Barack might be able to affect positive change regarding some domestic affairs. However, I am also quite unsure that he would be a leader that could strengthen our relationship with Russia. If we want to be less dependent on the Middle East, we need Russia as an ally. Why? Because there's a lot of untapped oil in Siberia.

Some of you might be asking, "what prompted me to write this article?" Well, I stumbled across an article on Politico over the weekend. It's an article about how the media is already claiming that Obama is the democratic nominee. I've seen the media reporting this garbage first hand. In fact, I have links in some of my recent posts to such articles. The truth is that Barack has not won the democratic nomination. Furthermore, Hillary has just won another primary in Kentucky --and by a large margin. Thus, she is still very much in the race. For Barack, his campaign, the media, or anyone else to say otherwise is both heinous and false.

What do I and other seekers and writers of truth have to say to make people realize that Barack is just another politician? He might be a pop culture icon, but he is certainly no Messiah and does not deserve the gratuitous votes that he's been receiving. I am writing this with sternness to all U.S. citizens: This is not a season of American Idol. This is not a pageant for Miss Universe. This is a presidential election. Again, this person, if elected, is going to be the face and mouthpiece for our nation. Do we want a pop culture icon or someone with the skills and experience to do a great job?

Barack is just as tainted and corrupt as any other Washington politician if not more so. Let's stop treating him like he's made of gold and can do no wrong and start voting for a person who can affect real, positive change . . . Hillary Clinton.

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee holds key to Hillary's fate

It's mid May and the May 31 meeting of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee is approaching fast. According to the New York Times, there is a panel of 30 people on this committee. The NYT article also states that 13 of the panel members support Hillary Clinton while only 8 support Barack Obama. That leaves 9 members that could tip the scales one way or the other. Let's make no bones about it people. This panel holds the key to Hillary's fate. The logic that they use to make their decision is very important. The ruling that this panel makes could effect future elections if, God forbid, states decide to break the rules again.

Here are a couple of rulings that I would consider bad judgment:

1) FL and MI remain stripped of their delegates and the popular votes in those states do not count.

2) Split the delegates 50/50 and the popular votes in those states do not count.

Then, there are a couple of rulings that might seem more reasonable but don't really make anyone happy:

1) Split the delegates 50/50 and let the popular votes count.

2) Force a revote in both states.

Hillary Clinton wants the delegates apportioned according to popular vote. That seems to be a fair choice as long as the panel allows the overall popular vote decide who gets the nomination. Being that the DNC will have waited about 4 months to make this decision when an early, fair decision might have given Hillary more momentum, I say that all MI and FL delegates should be awarded to Hillary. Yes, this might seem unfair. However, it is also unfair that the DNC has dragged this situation out for 4 months. This lack of decision has allowed Barack to enjoy momentum he might not have had if the DNC had ruled on this by the beginning of March. Need more reasons that I think my "ruling" on the situation is fair? Well, for one thing, Barack took his name of the ballot in Michigan. Until very recently, Barack had not campaigned in either state. Last but not least, Hillary won the primaries in both states.

I say that supporters of Hillary should gather in Washington DC and put pressure on this DNC panel to make a decision that's more than just fair. A decision that compensates for momentum lost due to their not dealing with the issue in a timely manner.

Barack - One presumptuous Democrat!

It seems that the past few days have seen Barack Obama getting busy with general election strategies. These strategies include the aforementioned trip to Michigan, a 'faith' flyer circulating in Kentucky, and John Edwards leading an establishment rally. Barack also seems to be "locking the party down". He is doing this despite the fact that he has only won 3 out of 9 primaries since February and the DNC has yet to make a final decision about Florida and Michigan. In racing or track, the sort of behavior would be considered a false start and can lead to disqualification. Unfortunately, it is extremely unlikely to happen in the realm of a political race. Why? Primarily because there is no rule against it. The DNC had the foresight to make rules regarding when states can hold their primaries. However, they seem to be myopic when it comes to making rules for prospective presidential candidates and when they can start campaigning for the general election.

Does anyone else see the injustice here? Does anyone else out there think that Barack is jumping the gun? What, if anything, should be done? I think, at minimum, the DNC should pull the reigns on Barack and say, "not so fast. there's no clear winner yet." Of course, then he'll claim that he's just doing this for the primaries. "Change We Can Believe In." Yeah, right. Face it. You're just another Washington politician.

Barack campaigns in Michigan - Why?

CNN gave me the hint that Barack Obama is in Michigan in an article regarding John Edwards' endorsement of the democratic candidate. So, I took the opportunity to dig a little further and found this article on the msnbc site. As I suspected, Barack Obama is in fact campaigning in Michigan. This leads us to ask the following question:

Why is Barack Obama campaigning in Michigan?

I stumbled upon this article on the Fox News site the other day. I was thinking that it's not the most fair solution; however, I was going to wait until Howard Dean and the Dysfunctional Nihilistic Committee (read Democratic National Committee) had their little meeting to discuss the issue. In light of the fact that Barack is now campaigning in MI, I thought it best to lay that proposal on the table now. This proposal was made just last week. Furthermore, Barack had already stated in March that he did not want a revote in MI. In fact, his campaign essentially blocked a MI revote. After all this, does Barack have the audacity to imply that he has already won the nomination by visiting Michigan as the Democratic presidential candidate?

I hope that U.S. citizens see this sly move for what it is. Barack showing his true colors as a two-faced, hypocritical candidate who is pulling every low blow and sneak attack possible to give him an edge. In other words, Barack Obama is Washington politics at its finest. Want real change? Give Hillary the Democratic nomination! Step up and give her a much deserved victory in Oregon next week. She already has an edge in Kentucky. Let's keep the momentum going! If Hillary can rise victorious in the OR and KY Democratic primaries, she can put pressure on the DNC to resolve the FL/MI debacle in a fair and speedy fashion.

Hillary wins big in West VA!

It's the evening of May 14 and 100% of precincts have reported their data. The final results of the West Virginia primary show that Hillary has a 41 point lead on Obama according to CNN! I predicted a big win, but a 41 point lead! Wow! Now, she needs to focus really hard on Oregon. I am currently predicting an Obama victory, quite an upset of my original prediction, by a very narrow margin. If Hillary can close that gap by doing some heavy campaigning, she might be able to pull off a slim victory in Oregon too. It would really help, of course, if Barack sticks his foot in is mouth between now and May 20.

That's the good news. Unfortunately, I also have some bad news. Despite a clear victory in WV, Hillary seems to be hemorrhaging superdelegates by the barrel. According to an article on the Yahoo News site, the shift in lead to Barack occurred over the weekend. I am hoping that there is a shift back to Hillary by the end of next weekend given the big win in WV.

If by some minute chance someone in Hillary's inner circle is reading this, please get her on a plane to Oregon tomorrow! She needs the victory in WV to be very fresh in people's minds so that she can keep her momentum and, with some hope and a few prayers, achieve a slim victory in Oregon. Please, no mishaps this time! Stick to the issues and let Barack dig his own grave!

The May 6 primary split - Surprise, yet no surprise

Although Real Clear Politics showed Hillary with an averaged 5 point lead over Barack in Indiana, Hillary actually won with a 2 point lead. In contrast, Hillary lost to Barack in NC with a 14 point deficit. While we saw the gap closing in both states in the days leading up to the primaries, the only surprise is that there was a double digit gap between Hillary and Barack in NC. The Real Clear Politics average was 8 points with only 2 out of 7 polls showing double digits.

The real question is why was Hillary able to close the gap for a win in Indiana, but not in North Carolina? Although NC has a large technology sector, there is also an abundance of blue collar workers. With the negative comments that Barack made about blue collar workers in PA, it surprises me that they still sided with him in NC. Hillary also tends to pick up the Hispanic vote and NC has a substantial Hispanic population.

Let's take a look at some data for both NC and IN:

NC Hispanic population percentage as of 2006: 6.7%
NC African American population percentage as of 2006: 21.7%
NC Caucasian (not Hispanic) population percentage as of 2006: 67.9%

IN Hispanic population percentage as of 2006: 4.8%
IN African American population percentage as of 2006: 8.9%
IN Caucasian (not Hispanic) population percentage as of 2006: 83.9%

For comparison, let's also look at PA:

PA Hispanic population percentage as of 2006: 4.2%
PA African American population percentage as of 2006: 10.7%
PA Caucasian (not Hispanic) population percentage as of 2006: 82.1%

Looking at this data it seems to become clear how Hillary was able to win IN and PA, but not NC. Looking at the data, it might not be mere coincidence that the difference in African American population (roughly 13%) between IN and NC accounts for the 14 point lead that Barack acquired in NC. Thus, although NC does have a slightly higher Hispanic population than IN and PA, it was not enough to overcome the African American vote.

The question now is should Hillary continue the nomination contest with Barack? Although I am sure that the superdelegates will put pressure on Hillary to drop out, I strongly feel that she should continue. Why? Howard Dean and the DNC still have yet to decide the fate of MI and FL. Hillary won both states with large margins in the initial primaries. Therefore, even if MI and FL have to redo their primaries, I think Hillary has a good shot at winning again. Yes, a do-over could create a real mess. I really don't like the idea. However, Barack and the African American population would probably complain if this were not done. So, I say let them do it. Barack will still lose in both states. I am confident of that. Had Howard Dean and the DNC resolved the FL/MI primaries issue in February or March, Hillary might have had more momentum at this point. However, I still think she could win the nomination by a razor thin lead by the time of the Democratic National Convention.