MadLibDem Control of Congress? Don’t Count Your Chickens.
With 68 percent of Americans not yet focused at all on the November mid-term Congressional elections, it is a fair to say that the Chattering Class is making mountains of molehills in their undaunting and definitive predictions of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (**takes a shot of bourbon after having to type that**)
After all, we’ve been through this drill before. Ever since the mid-term elections of 1996, the Democrats and their comrades in the MSM have been assuring their supporters they will “Take Back The House” this year. No, THIS year. No, THIS YEAR. Really, this year.
The Washington Times has a further look at the latest polling data and puts some context behind it all.
An Associated Press-Ipsos poll of 1,001 Americans, including 813 registered voters, conducted last week found that 71 percent think the country is on the wrong track, compared with only 26 percent who say it’s going in the right direction.
This year’s primary results, where three congressional incumbents were dumped by the voters, “combined with Congress’s abysmal job-approval ratings and extremely high ‘wrong-track’ numbers — indicate a very volatile, turbulent election year, the kind that incumbents hate for good reason,” election forecaster Charlie Cook writes in the National Journal.
But an earlier poll of 1,047 Americans conducted for CNN by Opinion Research Corporation from Aug. 2 to 3 drew a dramatically different response when it asked people, “How well are things going in the country today?”
A combined 55 percent said things were going “fairly well” (47 percent) or “very well” (8 percent), compared with those who said “pretty badly” (29 percent) or “very badly” (15 percent).
Keating Holland, CNN’s polling director, said the question is fundamentally different from the right track/wrong track that other pollsters ask, but he acknowledged that “it is a measurement of how well Americans think things are going in the country today.”
(GP Polling Editorial Note: Aug. 2nd and 3rd are weeknights…. traditionally a better time to fairly sample Republicans who are known not to be home on Friday nights and weekends when polling is done then.)
I would simply warn those popping their champagne bottles over an assured Democratic victory to keep it on ice, and your bravado in check, until Americans actually vote. Remember, in the United States of America actual votes that are cast count — exit polls do not count.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
UPDATE (from GPW): Over at Wizbang, Alexander McClure notes that on “the generic congressional ballot between Republicans and Democrats, the margin is now only 2 points.” In the last poll, the Democrats led by 11 points. Looks like things are looking up for the Grand Old Party.
31 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Remember, in the United States of America actual votes that are cast count
Unless of course The Supreme’s say the votes shouldn’t be counted…
Otherwise, you’re absolutly right about that. It will be an interesting season to watch the macinations from Left & Right to intimidate and disqualify registered voters to tip the election in their favor.
Comment by Alex — August 21, 2006 @ 4:35 pm - August 21, 2006
Why is it that when MadLibDems lose an election, they blame (a) the voters for their ignorance, (b) the voting booths or election machines and (c) some evil unnamed force that miraculously switches votes from the Rat to the GOP candidate?
Why can’t they figure out how they lost the election by just looking in the mirror?
Note to democRATS: your right to govern this country is not a birthright. You’ve lost consistently in the mid-term elections since 1994. Get a clue.
And here’s more food for thought for you on the left:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/D8JL0N501.html
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 21, 2006 @ 4:40 pm - August 21, 2006
Of course, what Dems also don’t want to admit is that they don’t want voters to have to show identification, actually live in an area, or even be citizens to cast votes.
After all, the main reason that Dems oppose electronic voting is because paper ballots are easier to forge and fake.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 21, 2006 @ 4:58 pm - August 21, 2006
At least here in NJ, there’s been a move a-foot to displace the incumbants…regardless of party. There’s a lot of anger of the current status-quo, and the the current gerrymandered-districts had no real competition for the ballot-spots of either party. Most of the candidates ran unopposed in the Party Primaries, and will have only-token opposition from the opposing party-machine….professional courtesy and a 7% voter primary-turnout.
A number of people in my circle from both sides simply plan to vote against the incumbant..regardless of party.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — August 21, 2006 @ 5:00 pm - August 21, 2006
Bruce, that news is about as bad as it can get for Democrats. Party leadership in disarray. Victim groups fighting for intraparty dominance. Gays and blacks leaving the Democrat Plantation and speaking for themselves. BigLabor losing members, money and relevancy. And the netrooties taking the Democrats farther to the Left into the fringe.
Add to that a horrible, dismal DNC meeting last week –my gosh, you’d think the Democrats were talking about themselves when they try to spin doom and gloom in the GOP ranks. Talk about projection from the therapist’s couch.
Remember, if the Democrats don’t take the House by 35 seats, the Senate by 9 seats and at least keep or take 12 governorships in contention, it’s a failure for the Democrats and a win for the GOP –another vindication for our twice elected President George Bush.
I predict the Senate Dems will lose seats, the House Dems will suffer a huge setback and repudiation, and some of the BlueState governors will be tossed out. But, I also predict that Dean will claim victory even if that all comes true –”We came close again”, says HowieDean, “No need to modify course or change our approach. This was just a dry run for 2008.”
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 21, 2006 @ 5:07 pm - August 21, 2006
“After all, the main reason that Dems oppose electronic voting is because paper ballots are easier to forge and fake.”
I oppose voting machines because I don’t trust voting machines. Most people that are opposed to voting machines, don’t trust them.
Comment by DanielFTL — August 21, 2006 @ 5:39 pm - August 21, 2006
Make that electronic voting machines.
Comment by DanielFTL — August 21, 2006 @ 5:53 pm - August 21, 2006
I oppose voting machines because I don’t trust voting machines. Most people that are opposed to voting machines, don’t trust them.
And yet these same people will, day in and day out, use ATMs, do online banking, submit credit and purchase applications online, turn the keys in their car and expect them to run, etc.
Isn’t it amazing how the only form of technology these Luddites don’t trust is a voting machine?
I love the inanities of the Dems who demand these machines produce a “paper trail so we can verify the vote” as well.
My answer — “Sure — as long as that paper trail has on it the voter’s name, identification, time they voted, and where the ballot was cast. They sign it, then drop it into the box.”
Suddenly the MadLibDems’ heads explode — and why? Because the point of the paper trail was not to verify and confirm the vote — it was to create an avenue for them to forge and fake ballots.
They can’t do that when you can confirm that a voter who voted on such and such time on this day did so from her grave, or with a totally-different signature than the one she put on the check-in list.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 21, 2006 @ 5:55 pm - August 21, 2006
Also, take a look at recent polling data for some supposedly “vulnerable” GOP candidates. They’ve made up a lot of lost ground and those who were previously considered “on the way out” just may pull off an upset in 11 weeks. Bank on it.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 21, 2006 @ 6:23 pm - August 21, 2006
OK, you guys are sucking me in again.
CA election worker here. In the last election, we had electronic machines with an internally generated paper record of the votes. It’s a well-done system and the best of both worlds. You get the vote-counting speed and accuracy of the electronic, but if any Luddite or partisan wants to challenge it, there is a pretty clear and secure (given various audit/control procedures I have not gone into) paper trail that the count can be checked against. I predict everyone will eventually use this system.
The paper trail does NOT include any info about the voter. That’s exactly as it should be. If a person could be tied to the content of their vote, well, let’s just say that the potential for FUTURE abuse under future President-for-Life Hillary would be scary indeed. Any system that would let you identify a person’s vote content would be wrong, wrong, wrong.
Having said that – I am 100% in favor of voters having to show ID when they register, vote, etc. Once they’ve been admitted to the booth, there should be no way to tie them to the content of their vote – but yes, we should verify citizenship on the way in. (CA does not at present, except for “first time” voters.) I agree that the Democrats oppose voter ID essentially because it would put a stop to illegal aliens voting. And we should stop illegal aliens from voting. I hereby question the patriotism of anyone who would claim otherwise.
Comment by Calarato — August 21, 2006 @ 6:45 pm - August 21, 2006
#10 P.S. Note that checking ID would only verify the person’s identity, not their citizenship per se. But it would be a step in the right direction. Fraud would get a little harder.
Also note that in the last several years, most-or-all PROVEN cases of voter fraud or interference have indeed been committed by Democrats. A few minutes with Google will suffice to verify that. Lots of crazy-talk allegations about Republicans out there, I know – but when the grownups get going, i.e. when the actual police and justice system investigates things and hands out real convictions, well, the real shit is much more often found to be done by Democrats.
Comment by Calarato — August 21, 2006 @ 6:50 pm - August 21, 2006
Calarato-I agree with having to show ID when voting. I am yet to understand how anyone can view having to show you are who you say you are somehow keeps people from voting. Might keep dead people from voting, and others from voting twice, but not sure about the first time.
I think most people are apathetic right now. I think they are frustrated with both parties, and in the end it will probably mean low turnout.
I know for me, I would like to kick a lot of congress members in the seat of their pants-they appear very dissinterested in doing anything important.
Comment by just me — August 21, 2006 @ 7:12 pm - August 21, 2006
I live in the red state of Texas with a purplish-pink precinct in the city of Houston, and I am STILL asked to show ID for all elections. Am I mad or upset? Do I have a problem with this request? No, because that’s the way the system works. Each vote must indeed count – but it has to have been submitted by someone who is indeed who they say they are.
Good work, Cal.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 21, 2006 @ 11:41 pm - August 21, 2006
NDT, save it. I have been a programmer most of my life. Electronic voting machines without a paper printout are not trustworthy. Programmers know how to store results different than the pixels displayed. Election officials and electronic voting machine salespeople are not programmers. Running a recount can yield the same results repeatedly. The whole process of electronic voting needs more oversight, more process control, and better implementation including paper printouts that are dropped into a ballot-box.
Also, the examples you cite:
“And yet these same people will, day in and day out, use ATMs, do online banking, submit credit and purchase applications online, turn the keys in their car and expect them to run, etc.”
ATMs have cameras, timestamps, and paper printouts. However, I wouldn’t recommend making cash deposits in them and I recommend getting a paper receipt for every transaction. In fact, if you’re smart, you’re scanning your deposit slips, scanning the bills that you deposit (or the front and back of the checks and money orders), going to a teller, verifying the money count with that teller as another check, and getting a receipt which you should also scan also an electronic image.
Online banking is tied to a paper-based system.
Credit and purchase applications online can also be printed and if there’s a problem with a credit purchase it can be reversed against the merchant by the credit card holder through your card-issuing bank.
Turn the keys in the car and expect it to run…and if it doesn’t start, you know there’s a problem.
Comment by DanielFTL — August 22, 2006 @ 3:16 am - August 22, 2006
DanielFTL, for the record, I am also a longtime professional software engineer. And you have offered no real basis for claiming the electronic voting machines are untrustworthy.
Just because one unscrupulous programmer COULD write a machine to cheat, does not mean that the voting machines in use today haven’t been exhaustively reviewed and controlled by representatives of all political parties to prevent cheating.
You claim the existing processes for machine review & control are insufficient. Offer specifics to explain or support your claim.
It’s true that, for the Luddites and the partisans of the world, the systems that incorporate a paper audit trail will help soothe their paranoid feelings, and I have explained and endorsed such systems in #10.
Comment by Calarato — August 22, 2006 @ 10:08 am - August 22, 2006
NDXXX, Calarato –you’re on the right track. I’ve worked Voter Integrity projects here in Michigan and I can tell you the level of vote fraud in Detroit and many surrounding cities is unconscionable. But it’s also true in cities like Flint, Saginaw, Grand Rapids, Benton Harbor, and across the UP. Paper ballots and punch cards –plus the process of accounting for absentee ballot votes– is riddled with fraud when the local elections clerk is a Democrat in a city.
Why? I think part of it is local clerks don’t have access to the money necessary to run a clean system, but I also think they don’t want to run a clean system.
Technology along the lines you’ve suggested would be a big step in the right direction –
–use electronic machines;
–allow voters to walk away with a paper receipt of their vote in the mix of votes cast (Candidate Smith has 1,234,543 votes; you voted for Candidate Smith; you are voter #1822 at this precinct today at 11:55:01AM);
–require proof of ID beyond a simple match of a signature on the voter registration card (which is what they do in Michigan);
–require registration 30, 60 or 90 days prior to Election Day;
–tighten absentee voting access.
We don’t take our voting process seriously. In our country, many groups within the community don’t want voter turnout to increase –like the school districts looking for more $$$, the ballot initiative people on most ballot question, and –frankly– the candidates. They have a stake in keeping turn out low and suppressed. And they have a stake in fraud.
It’s a shame. Voter integrity is a cultural issue that BigCityDemocrats and BigLabor won’t allow to be addressed in a meaningful way unless we allow voting at home by PC/Internet and lift all restrictions that might assure vote integrity.
It’s the biggest Purple Elephant in the room in a country that claims to be a beacon of democracy and democratic values.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 22, 2006 @ 10:19 am - August 22, 2006
Calarato, my initial writing was to counter NDT’s assertion which was, “after all, the main reason that Dems oppose electronic voting is because paper ballots are easier to forge and fake.” That main reason is, at the very least, a stretch. If you believe that electronic voting machines are trustworthy simply because I haven’t provided enough of a reason for them to be untrustworthy, that’s okay. You’re free to believe whatever you like. It doesn’t make what NDT said correct.
Comment by DanielFTL — August 22, 2006 @ 10:42 am - August 22, 2006
. Electronic voting machines without a paper printout are not trustworthy.
Yes, whereas it is nearly impossible to commit voter fraud with paper ballots.
With a paper balloting system, you would never, ever, have a case where there was a close election, say, for governor in, for example, a state in the Pacific Northwest. Where the Republican won the first two recounts, but then partisan campaign workers were allowed to “enhance” ballots on the third recount, and then hundreds of ballots would mysteriously appear three weeks after election day, and there would be more votes cast in one heavily Democratic county than there were registered voters… and then the Democrat wins on the third recount.
That would TOTALLY never happen with paper ballots.
Comment by Gaylord McGay — August 22, 2006 @ 11:16 am - August 22, 2006
No one stated that voter fraud doesn’t exist with paper, except you.
Comment by DanielFTL — August 22, 2006 @ 11:29 am - August 22, 2006
Then you need to do as Calarato said and cough up proof that electronic machines are more fraud-prone than paper ballots. There’s a mountain of evidence of Democrats commiting voter fraud with paper; meanwhile, the only proof you have of fraud being committed with electronic machines is the fact that Republicans win.
So you’re a “programmer”, eh? Ever hear of keystroke programs, or other embedded devices that can be used to track upgrades, inputs, and other out of the ordinary situations? Why are you so certain that there are no safeguards on electronic voting machines?
If you are truly a programmer, you’re engaging in the typical disinegenuous Democrat crap of claiming systems are “unreliable” because you don’t know what their security protections are — even though, as a programmer, you should know that companies ALWAYS keep security precautions close to the vest to keep people from detecting and disabling them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 22, 2006 @ 12:07 pm - August 22, 2006
Is that do as I say, NDT? You made the initial assertion, provide the proof. Stop diverting from your initial false claim. You can’t prove it and you know it.
Comment by DanielFTL — August 22, 2006 @ 12:18 pm - August 22, 2006
[Comment deleted.]
Comment by Gaylord McGay — August 22, 2006 @ 1:02 pm - August 22, 2006
Sigh!
http://www.schneier.com/essay-101.html
Comment by DanielFTL — August 22, 2006 @ 1:17 pm - August 22, 2006
#23 – Daniel, sorry but the article sheds no light in this discussion.
It’s full of mere assertions and alarmist language; desperately short on relevant problem examples. It’s basically a rant.
Tortured sentences like “Accuracy is not how well the ballots are counted; it’s how well the process maps voter intent…” don’t even pass a smell test. Hint: Accuracy IS how well – that is, how accurately – the ballots are counted.
Other sentences are clearly false, such as this example: “With traditional voting machines, election officers are present to ensure integrity. But with DREs, election officers are powerless to prevent accidental or deliberate errors in the recording of votes.” Hint: I’m an election officer. I’m in the room while people vote and yes, I often help people prevent or avoid errors.
Such few real-life examples as are offered are misinterpreted. The article exclaims breathlessly, “…a March 2002 runoff election in Wellington, FL, was decided by five votes, but 78 ballots had no recorded vote. Elections Supervisor Theresa LePore claimed those 78 people chose not to vote for the only office on the ballot!” Hint: To an election officer, LePore’s interpretation is plausible. Some people really do get to the ballot booth, then decide they just don’t care. And in the days of punched cards, problems of voter misunderstanding were worse.
But most important: as described in #10, California’s electronic voting machines are already NOT paperless – so, um, how does an article on paperless models apply to this discussion, exactly?
NDT requested “proof that electronic machines are MORE fraud-prone than paper ballots” (emphasis added). The article is a total miss, on that.
Better luck next time.
Comment by Calarato — August 22, 2006 @ 1:49 pm - August 22, 2006
(P.S. Or to state it positively: What the article does prove is that its particular authors happen to feel very, very, very worried about potential abuse in paper models. And unfortunately, that is all it proves.)
Comment by Calarato — August 22, 2006 @ 1:52 pm - August 22, 2006
(sorry, paper*LESS* models)
Comment by Calarato — August 22, 2006 @ 1:52 pm - August 22, 2006
There are valid concerns about electronic voting machines and the article points some of them out. You are free to discount those concerns. It is the man’s blog, he makes arguments, and he is a security professional. He collaborates with others and I have no idea what his politics are. It was not an attempt to prove that electronic machines are MORE fraud-prone than paper ballots. That assertion was not made in this thread that I am aware of and therefore no one needs to provide proof to support the assertion. I certainly did not say at any time that paper is fraud proof or less subject to fraud that electronic voting machines. Again, NDT made a still unsupported assertion to which I countered. That Republicans win in electronic voting is not my concern, as he and others have suggested or explicitly stated. Everything else from his initial assertion and my response to it is off-topic and typical. That said, if all of you GPers are happy to trust electronic voting machines, then please, by all means do use them. It is your right to do so. There are those of us however (and we’re not all Democrats either), who do not trust them, not because Democrats lose, but because the electronic voting machines are highly suspect. To state that the main reason that Democrats don’t like electronic voting machines is because they’re not subject to fraud is false. I am a Democrat and I explained why I am opposed to them and my stated reason for distrusting electronic voting machines has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans winning or losing, nor with them not being subject to fraud. End of Discussion
Comment by DanielFTL — August 22, 2006 @ 4:34 pm - August 22, 2006
LOL….but you see, Daniel, the reason is because we know how you came up with that assertion; you made it first, then tried to find information to support it.
Just like your authors do.
For instance, the following quote:
There is no indication that the major vendors or testing laboratories have computer security professionals to design and evaluate voting equipment. Manufacturers make basic computer security errors, such as failing to use cryptography appropriately, or designing their own home-brew cryptographic algorithms. Moreover, regulations and tests of greater rigor than those used for DREs routinely miss accidental flaws in software for other applications, and have virtually no chance of discovering tampering with software.
Thus they are saying that vendors and testing labs don’t have computer security professionals, that their cryptography is wrong, that their algorithms are bad, and that their software is rife with bugs and errors.
But then they admit the following:
If there is tampering, it is likely present in the DRE’s code, to which election officers have no access. In fact, DRE code is usually protected by code secrecy agreements, so that no one but the manufacturer has access to it. In recent cases the complainants have not been allowed to review the code, even when DRE-based elections have been contested in court.
In short, they’re making bald assertions about the software and security used — when they’ve never even seen the code in the first place. Why?
Because they started with the preconceived notion that voting systems were all corrupt, then tried to string together evidence to prove their case.
Furthermore, any computer security professional with half a brain will tell you that the risk of system compromise is equal to the square of the number of the people who know the guts of the system. When Schneier’s being an honest consultant, he is usually the first to tell you that, if you want your code and your system design to stay safe, keep it secret in the first place.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 22, 2006 @ 6:18 pm - August 22, 2006
The state where I vote had the best of both worlds — paper ballots counted by electronic scanners — until the federal government interfered. We now have touch screen electronic voting machines.
It’s not fraud that worries me.
I’ve talked to dozens of elderly, computer illiterate voters who didn’t fully understand what they were doing and, typical of people their age, were too proud to ask for help. Many say they won’t go through the frustration again in November.
I think Congress overreacted to the problems in Florida in 2000.
Comment by Ashley Hunter — August 22, 2006 @ 8:35 pm - August 22, 2006
I’ve talked to dozens of elderly, computer illiterate voters who didn’t fully understand what they were doing and, typical of people their age, were too proud to ask for help. Many say they won’t go through the frustration again in November.
Yet another example of right wingnuts trying to disenfranchise voters. If we’re going to have fair government, we absolutely have to maximize voter particiation, and that means pushing it down to the lowest common denominator. People who are too dim to figure out “Touch here to vote for this candidate” have as much to contribute to the Democratic process as anyone else.
Comment by Gaylord McGay — August 23, 2006 @ 7:48 am - August 23, 2006
LOL. Well, Ashley’s views are left of the old person’s average, so she deserves some credit for consistency of principle.
Comment by anon — August 23, 2006 @ 11:39 am - August 23, 2006