2007 Elections

Why Puerto Rico's Democratic Primary Won't Matter

dlindorff — Wed, 28 May 2008 16:10:17 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

There are a number of reasons why the Puerto Rican Democratic primary election set for this coming Sunday won’t matter, in terms of Hillary Clinton’s failed bid for the party’s nomination.

The main one is that she’s not going to get the big vote that she has been predicting.

Clinton, trailing Obama by about 400,000 votes nationwide with only three primaries to go, is fantasizing that she will win the lion’s share of one million Puerto Rican votes, which would put her in the lead for the nomination in terms of the popular vote, though not in the delegate count.

The problem with this fantasy is that Puerto Rico, a colonial possession of the US since the 1898 Spanish-American War, while famous for its passionate electorate when it comes to island elections, is not going to have that kind of turnout for a Democratic presidential primary. Indeed, local politicos in Puerto Rico are saying they will be surprised if even 600,000 people turn out to vote.

Clinton may well win the majority of those votes that are cast, but her margin is shrinking as Obama campaigns and runs ads on the island. She’s already down to a 13% lead, with 11% still undecided, and that lead is liable to shrink further, not grow. Even if Clinton kept that lead in the voting, however, if the turnout were just 600,000, she’d only pick up a net 88,000 votes. And Obama is likely to win Montana and South Dakota two days later, by large margins, erasing much of that gain again.

The other thing is, why would Democratic leaders and the all-important remaining undecided so-called superdelegates care what Puerto Rican voters do? Thanks to the continuing colonial status of the island, although its residents are all American citizens, free to travel to and from the US and to carry US passports, they are not allowed to vote in national elections, have no representation in Washington, and don’t even pay federal taxes (only Social Security and Medicare taxes). Puerto Rico has no Electoral College votes.

That in a nutshell is why Puerto Rican voters are so uninterested in this primary—so uninterested that the Democratic Party of Puerto Rico earlier this week requested that the island’s election authorities close 1000 polling stations. It wasn’t that they thought nobody would want to vote in them—they couldn’t find volunteers to staff them!

The other thing is it would not surprise me if the vote this Sunday comes out a lot closer than the polls have been predicting. For the most part, the early advantage held by Clinton has been a matter of name recognition. Clinton’s husband was president for eight years, and moreover, with half of the eight million Puerto Ricans living in the mainland US, most of them in New York, Clinton is familiar as “their” Senator. By rights, she ought to be considered Puerto Rico’s home state senator, as sure to win this primary as she was of winning New York, or as Obama was of winning Illinois.

But in fact, there are reasons for Puerto Ricans, particularly those on the island, to view Clinton negatively. Her husband, after all, helped get rid of corporate tax breaks for American companies doing business on the island—tax breaks that kept a lot of US manufacturing jobs on the island. Doubling the felony, the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary, pushed through the NAFTA treaty that made it easy for those same companies, when their tax breaks were lost, to pack up and move to Mexico, since Puerto Rico also lost its advantage of being inside the US customs zone. Now US companies can make things in Mexico, where labor costs are a fraction of what they are in Puerto Rico, and ship them tariff-free to US consumers.

Puerto Ricans also do not have the same latent hostility towards blacks that some Mexican-Americans may harbor, and which the Clinton campaign so shamelessly tried to stir up in her Texas and California campaigns.

Unlike Mexican-Americans, who are ethnically a mix of white and Indigenous American, Puerto Ricans are much more a mix of white and African—a legacy of the slaves that Spain brought over to the island to replace the native Indians who were slaughtered, worked to death or who died of disease and starvation. Many Puerto Ricans are indistinguishable from African-Americans in appearance, and when they come to America to visit or live are likely to experience the same racism from whites that African Americans experience. They are not going to be easy marks for a campaign that tries to stir up racial fears or animosity.

Obama’s skin color will not be a liability in Puerto Rico. It will more likely be an asset.

Although predicting this kind of thing is always risky, I’m going to bet that Clinton will win a narrow victory in Sunday’s Puerto Rican primary—somewhere between 5-9 percent, with turnout of perhaps 550,000.

If I’m right, she will pick up a net 55,000 votes and 5-6 delegates. There are also 11 Puerto Rican superdelegates, but they will also probably split fairly evenly, at best, for her.

So no big deal—especially since Puerto Rican voters, in the end, simply don’t count.

Until the island is either made a 51st State—an unlikely occurrence since it would be a reliably Democratic state virtually ensuring Democrats of Senate and House majorities for years to come, and thus would never be admitted by Republican members of Congress, and since almost half the island is passionately opposed to such a submerging of their unique culture—or set free as an independent nation, the citizens of Puerto Rico will mean next to nothing to the powerbrokers in Washington.

The Democratic Primary is over, whatever Hillary Clinton may say or do between now and the Democratic Convention in August.

Obama has won it.
___________________
Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press and now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33688'; digg_title = "Why Puerto Rico\'s Democratic Primary Won\'t Matter"; digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n\r\n There are a number of reasons why the Puerto Rican Democratic primary election set for this coming Sunday won’t matter, in terms of Hillary Clinton’s failed bid for the party’s nomination.\r\n\r\n The main one is that she’s not going to get the big vote that she has been predicting.\r\n\r\n Clinton, trailing Obama by about 400,000 votes nationwide with only three primaries to go, is fantasizing that she will win the lion’s share of one million Puerto Rican votes, which would put her in the lead for the nomination in terms of the popular vote, though not in the delegate count.\r\n\r"; digg_skin = 'standard';

Join Us for a Live Interview With "Uncounted" Director David Earnhardt

davidswanson — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:33:38 -0500

By David Swanson

As we muddle our way through primary elections fraught with errors, fraud, and suppression, it's useful to look back at the elections of 2004 and 2006. So, on Wednesday February 20th, from 8 to 9 p.m. ET I'll be interviewing David Earnhardt live online, and you can phone in with your questions.

In the past few elections, and in the recent primaries, we've seen such probems as: precincts turning out more voters than exist (is 110% voter turnout an achievement in some people's minds?), huge percentages of people voting in minor races but supposedly failing to vote at all in key contests, results that vary from unadjusted exit polls by unheard of margins, people forced to wait 12 hours to vote, people turned away in the general election who voted in the same location in the primaries, flyers advising Democrats to vote the day after the election, and dozens of other problems, most of them based in electronic voting machines, most - but definitely not all - of them swinging votes in favor of Republicans.

David Earnhardt's new film "Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections," tells this story powerfully and convincingly. If I were a reporter outside the United States and able to publish the story, I'd watch this film and report on the complete breakdown of credible democratic elections in the U.S.A. I'd report on it in the way we can expect international media to report on an election in Pakistan. If I were an American of any political persuasion I'd have a hard time watching this film and not asking what I could do about this crisis. I'd leave a theater that showed this movie with a very different view of recent history from the orthodox. I'd come away understanding that the Democratic Party landslide in 2006 fell far short of what voters actually voted for, that George Bush has never once been elected president, and that the solution to the 2000 Florida debacle (the solution of buying electronic voting machines) took a relatively small problem and made it enormous.

You can watch a trailer for the movie and buy a copy of it HERE.

You can listen to a promotion of the upcoming interview HERE.

The interview on Wednesday will be at The People Speak Radio, where you can listen live, or find the file later in the archives.

Here are details on the interview from The People Speak Radio Network:

David Earnhardt, Producer/Director/Writer

Showtime: Wednesday, February 20th - 8:00pm-9:00pm Eastern
Listen Live on BBSRadio or you may also join us live in our virtual auditorium!

An Emmy-winning producer/director of 31 years, David has produced a wide range of television and video productions including documentaries, entertainment programs, and educational videos. His work has been recognized with numerous Emmy, Iris and Telly national awards. A national documentary on children’s rights, a biographical documentary about jazz legend Helen Humes, and a comedy special featuring an up-and-coming Jay Leno are among Earnhardt’s many credits.

After seventeen years in television, Earnhardt started a new phase of his career in 1993 with Earnhardt & Co., which has grown to be one of Nashville’s most prestigious production companies. Originally co-founded by David and Patricia Earnhardt in 1993, the company specializes in high quality video presentations for a variety of nonprofit organizations. Longtime creative professional Mac Pirkle joined the firm as a partner in 2002 - and the company was soon after renamed Earnhardt Pirkle, Inc., acknowledging the strength of their partnership. Earnhardt Pirkle has produced projects for more than 250 clients and has won more than 60 national awards in its 14-year history. Mac Pirkle and Patricia Earnhardt are executive producers of UNCOUNTED.

David Earnhardt is a graduate of the University of North Carolina, where he majored in film studies. He was born in Alexandria, Virginia – and grew up in Greensboro, North Carolina. UNCOUNTED is Earnhardt’s first full-length documentary film.

UNCOUNTED is an explosive new documentary that shows how the election fraud that changed the outcome of the 2004 election led to even greater fraud in 2006 - and now looms as an unbridled threat to the outcome of the 2008 election. This controversial feature length film by Emmy award-winning director David Earnhardt examines in factual, logical, and yet startling terms how easy it is to change election outcomes and undermine election integrity across the U.S. Noted computer programmers, statisticians, journalists, and experienced election officials provide the irrefutable proof.

UNCOUNTED shares well documented stories about the spine-chilling disregard for the right to vote in America. In Florida, computer programmer Clint Curtis is directed by his boss to create software that will “flip” votes from one candidate to another. In Utah, County Clerk Bruce Funk is locked out of his office for raising questions about security flaws in electronic voting machines. Californian Steve Heller gets convicted of a felony after he leaks secret documents detailing illegal activities committed by a major voting machine company. And Tennessee entrepreneur, Athan Gibbs, finds verifiable voting a hard sell in America and dies before his dream of honest elections can be realized.

UNCOUNTED is a wakeup call to all Americans. Beyond increasing the public’s awareness, the film inspires greater citizen involvement in fixing a broken electoral system. As we approach the decisive election of 2008, UNCOUNTED will change how you feel about the way votes are counted in America.

Please visit: http://www.uncountedthemovie.com

If you can make it to Charlottesville, Va., on Thursday, February 21st, you can discuss the film with the director in person:

February 21st in Charlottesville: Free Screening of "Uncounted" With Remarks and Discussion Led By the Filmmaker

Click for larger image:
On Thursday evening, February 21st, CCPJ will screen a new film in Charlottesville on a very timely topic: the verifiability of U.S. elections. We'll bring the writer, director, and producer of "Uncounted," David Earnhardt, to town to show his film and then speak about it and lead a discussion.

There will be no charge for admission, and we encourage you to join us and bring along anyone who cares about how (and whether) votes are counted. The event begins at 7 p.m. at Sojourner's Church at 1017 Elliott Avenue and will include the screening of an 80-minute film.

"Uncounted" is a nonpartisan look at election fraud and error, with a focus on the elections of 2004 and 2006 and the problems created by the expanded use of DRE (directly recording electronic) voting machines. Both Charlottesville and Albemarle residents vote on DREs.

The film trailer can be viewed at http://www.uncountedthemovie.com

OH05: DCCC Ignores Iraq and Loses Again

Bob Fertik — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:13:40 -0500

In 2006, Rahm Emanuel's DCCC wanted to talk about everything except Iraq. Fortunately Ned Lamont's campaign in the spring and summer of 2006 proved Iraq was a winning issue, and many Democratic candidates ignored the DCCC's advice, talked about getting out of Iraq - and won.

But now it's deja vu all over again.

Yesterday there was a special election in OH-05 to fill the seat vacated by the death of Paul Gillmor. It's a pretty solid red district, rated R+10. Local Democrats worked their hearts out to elect Democrat Robin Weirauch, or at least beat the spread. But Weirauch lost by 14%.

I didn't follow the campaign messages, but I trust Matt Stoller when he says Weirauch took Iraq off the table.

not putting Iraq front and center in your campaign is really weird. Weirauch mentioned it once, in brief in her opening announcement, without taking a position on it. And then at the very end she called for a responsible end to the war. It was not included in any paid media on TV to the district.

This is shocking because every poll shows Iraq is the most important issue for voters.

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Dec. 5-9, 2007. N=1,133 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
War in Iraq - 25
Economy/Jobs - 12
Health care - 7
Immigration - 4
Environment - 3
Gas/Heating oil crisis - 3
Poverty/Homelessness - 3
Terrorism (general) - 3
Other - 36
Unsure - 4

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. Nov. 30-Dec. 3, 2007. N=1,245 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
War in Iraq - 32
Economy - 25
Health care - 19
Terrorism - 18
Illegal immigration - 15
Education - 10
Environment - 5
Other social issues - 5
Other - 4
None/All (vol.) - 10
Unsure - 1

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Nov. 1-5, 2007. N=1,509 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2.5.
The war in Iraq - 26
Health care - 16
Job creation and economic growth - 14
Terrorism - 13
Illegal immigration - 11
The environment and global warming - 8
Energy and the cost of gas - 6
Social issues such as abortion and gay marriage - 3
Other (vol.) - 1
All equally (vol.) - 2

And here's another poll from Gallup, 11/30-12/2:

So who at the DCCC is deciding which issues our candidates should run on - and which issues (like Iraq) they should ignore? Is it Rahm Emanuel? Chris Van Hollen? Some expensive but idiotic pollster?

It's time for the blogosphere to demand - and get - some answers.

Update 1: Stoller says the DCCC is citing different polls:

CNN 12/11:

Economy: 29%
War in Iraq: 23%
Health Care: 20%
Illegal Immigration: 14%
Terrorism: 10%

WP/ABC 12/9:

Economy: 24%
Iraq: 23%
Health Care: 10%
Terrorism: 9%
Illegal Immigration: 5%

Both polls show a small drop in concern over Iraq and a small rise in concern over the economy.

But there's a huge problem with the DCCC citing those polls: they were published on the last day of the campaign, long after decisions were made about which issues to use. One month earlier, when those decisions were made, Iraq was the #1 issue in both polls.

Also, Matt makes an important point: Democrats need to tie the Iraq War issue to the economy. How hard is that? It's child's play.

We've spent over half a trillion in Iraq so far, and we're on our way to $1.5 trillion. If we had spent that money at home, what could we have done with it? We could have invested massive sums in renewable energy and cut our dependence on foreign oil - and cut gasoline costs in the process. We could have helped owners of subprime mortgages so they didn't have to abandon their homes and destroy neighborhoods. We could have made health care affordable for everyone. And on and on.

But it's not just a "what-if" exercise. We don't have to sit idly by as Bush triples our Iraq spending from $.5 trillion to $1.5 trillion. Democrats in Congress can tell Bush he's not getting one more penny except what it costs to bring all our troops home - which shouldn't cost more than $50 billion.

Debra Bowen Continues to Come Through

davidswanson — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:36:26 -0500

California seeks nearly $15 million from voting machine company
Associated Press

SACRAMENTO - Secretary of State Debra Bowen sued a major voting machine company Monday, accusing Election Systems & Software of selling unauthorized machines to San Francisco and four counties.

The lawsuit seeks nearly $15 million in penalties and reimbursements. Bowen contends that ES&S sold 972 of its AutoMark A200 voting machines to San Francisco and Colusa, Marin, Merced and Solano counties in 2006 even though the state had not tested and certified the machines.

"ES&S ignored the law over and over again and it got caught," Bowen said in a statement. "California law is very clear on this issue. I am not going to stand on the sidelines and watch a voting system vendor come into this state, ignore the laws and make millions of dollars from California taxpayers in the process."

The suit was filed for Bowen by the attorney general's office in San Francisco Superior Court. It seeks $9.7 million in penalties and asks the court to order ES&S to reimburse San Francisco and the four counties for the nearly $5 million cost of the machines.

Some of the AutoMark A200s apparently were used in the November 2006 election along with a previous version of the machines, Bowen said. Local election officials reported some problems with the AutoMarks, but Bowen said her office had no way of knowing if the problems were with the new machines or the older ones.

Omaha-based ES&S, which bills itself as the "world's largest and most experienced provider of
Advertisement
total election management solutions," said the AutoMark A200 included only "minor hardware modifications" from an earlier model that was certified by the state.

The company said it followed an "established practice" in which California relied on federal testing to decide if it would allow minor modifications to existing voting systems without new state certification.

Ken Fields, an ES&S spokesman, said the AutoMark A200 modifications were submitted to federal labs in late 2005, when former Secretary of State Bruce McPherson was in office.

Under established protocol at that time, the state allowed equipment to be modified if the federal labs determined the changes didn't alter the "fit, form or function" of the equipment, he said.

The changes were intended to make the AutoMarks easier to service and manufacture, Fields said.

"The penalties sought by the secretary of state bear no relationship to the claimed violations, particularly given that the claimed violations resulted from ES&S adhering to the state's established practice," the company said in a statement.

But Bowen said it wasn't up to ES&S to determine if the hardware modifications were minor and that the AutoMark A200s had to be submitted to her office as well as to federal labs for testing and certification.

"California law does not ask the manufacturer if the changes to a voting system are big or small or medium size," she said in a conference call with reporters. "That's a matter for California's chief elections officer to decide."

A spokeswoman for Bowen, Nicole Winger, said the independent labs used by the federal government "clearly do not test these systems to the depth and breadth that California expects and the standards that California has."

The AutoMarks are designed to be used by voters with disabilities to mark ballots that are then read by scanners.

Bowen said the secretary of state's office became aware of the sale of the AutoMark A200s to San Francisco and the four counties when an ES&S employee accidentally mentioned the changes in the system during a conference call in July with members of the secretary of state's staff.

But Fields said examiners for the secretary of state's office saw the AutoMark A200 in 2006 as part of testing and certification of voting equipment used by San Francisco.

"I don't know if (the examiner) marked it A200, but that was the equipment that was there," Fields said.

Winger said local election officials were unaware they were getting modified equipment when they bought the AutoMark A200s. State officials also didn't know of any changes until the July conference call, she added.

Bowen said her office is now testing the AutoMark A200s to make sure they work as they should. She hopes to have results by early December.

If her lawsuit is successful, ES&S could be required to reimburse the five local governments for the AutoMark A200s, even if Bowen's office subsequently certifies the machines and they resume using the devices.

---

On the Net:

Secretary of State's office: www.ss.ca.gov

Election Systems & Software: www.essvote.com

Update Congressional e-mail to include Richardson

lynmarenjensen — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:59:56 -0400

Somebody needs to update your e-mail for Congress to replace Juanita Millender-McDonald with Laura Richardson. Ms. Richardson has been Ms. McDonald's successor and has been serving in Congress for more than a month but e-mail from this the CA-37 (including my protest of the possible cave-in on FISA) is still going to the Millender-McDonald e-mail. Maybe it's being forwarded to Ms. Richardson, but it doesn't look good.