When many of us question Hillary Clinton’s performance and strategy in 2016 and say that she should have won, we’re speaking sloppily.
We mean that she should have won by more. We mean that she should have won by so much that James Comey’s vain and imprudent fit of conscience didn’t matter, that Russian interference didn’t matter, that Mark Zuckerberg’s abdication of responsibility for content on his platform didn’t matter, that the quirks of the Electoral College and the advantage it confers on Republicans didn’t matter.
She got almost three million more votes than Donald Trump, as she justifiably mentioned on Wednesday night at the Democratic National Convention. We’re saying that in light of what a wretched man he is, what an unsavory candidate he was and what a chaotic campaign he ran, she should have received, heck, five million more, which would surely have included enough in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan to tip the Electoral College to her and save us from these past few soul-effacing years.
…
They [Democratic convention speakers] urged a show of force so lopsided that it would be able to overcome undelivered mail, closed polling sites, whatever schemes Trump might hatch and, on the far side of that, his insistence that any vote count that doesn’t put him on top is rigged and illegitimate.
What a chillingly cynical perspective. And what an entirely accurate one.
…
A fair fight? Trump is the presidential equivalent of the sucker-punching boxer who left Hilary Swank paralyzed in “Million Dollar Baby.” Those of us who care about American democracy are Swank.
The situation is so perverse that Facebook is already bracing for, and figuring out how to respond to, Trump’s likely attempt to use the social network to invalidate any election results not to his liking, as Mike Isaac and Sheera Frenkel reported in The Times on Friday. Already, Facebook has been besieged by disinformation that gives people the wrong details about when, where and how to vote.
…
These questions aren’t the products of Trump Derangement Syndrome. They’re the fruits of exposure to Trump. They’re also the legacy of Clinton’s defeat in 2016, when there was such a strong sense that the will of a majority of people fell prey to freaky, funky twists. A lesson was learned, and Democrats are now heeding it: To eke out a victory, you need a landslide.
A persistent Texas voter, twice thwarted when he tried registering to vote while renewing his driver’s license online, has for the second time convinced a federal judge that the state is violating federal law.
In a 68-page ruling Friday, U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia of San Antonio found that Texas continues to violate the federal National Voter Registration Act by not allowing residents to register to vote when they update their driver’s license information online.
Garcia found that DPS is “legally obligated” to allow voters to simultaneously register to vote with every license renewal or change-of-address application, and ordered the state to set up a “fully operable” online system by Sept. 23. The Texas attorney general’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but the state is likely to appeal the ruling.
It’s the second time Garcia has sided with the voter, former English professor Jarrod Stringer. Garcia’s first ruling was overturned on appeal on a technicality.
The National Voter Registration Act requires states to let residents complete their voter registration applications when they apply for or renew their driver’s licenses. But Texas officials have staunchly opposed any form of online registration.
The Texas Department of Public Safety follows federal law when residents visit a driver’s license office in person. But Texans who try to register while using the state’s online portal are instead directed to a blank registration form they must fill out, print and send to their county registrar.
…
The people who renew their driver’s license online are likely to be those naughty scamps who also expect to be allowed to vote by mail, amirite?
If junk mail is down 36% and first class mail is down 8%, then combined they are NOT down by 44% (which is what I guess you meant by almost 50%, but something between 36% and 8% depending on the relative volume of junk mail and first class mail.
I’m one of the few people whose vote might actually make a difference, as I live and vote in North Carolina. I have no intention of voting absentee. Absentee ballots in North Carolina are sealed in an envelope with the signature of the voter. Voting officials examine the signature, and if; in the opinion of the examiner; it matches the one they have on record the envelope is opened and the ballot recorded. If it does not the vote is not counted, and there is no provision for the voter to remedy any defects or even to be notified. They can throw your ballot in the trash and they don’t even have to tell you that it happened, much less why.
I’m not about to have my ballot end up in the trash because some functionary decided I failed to dot an “i” or left out a middle initial.
Why is everyone so fixated on voting by mail? Unless one is feeble or ill, one needs to get his ass out and vote. I’m going to watch my vote go into the machine, so I don’t have to worry about my ballot being “lost” or not counted.
There is a pandemic on, so even if one is not feeble or ill, standing in lines and crowding toegether in voting locations is going to increase the spread.
There is also the fact that poll workers tend to be older. They are the ones that are at high risk, so there may be issues as polling locations are understaffed, with a fair amount of the new staff not being as conversent in procedures.
Then there is the concern about threats of sending law enforcement, military, and others to “monitor” the voters, as well as the invitation for civilians to arm themselves and do the same.
Leaving it to the last minute, only to find out that the polls have been closed due to factors beyond your control seems a bit chancy.
Personally, I already have plans to go down to the county board of elections, and vote “absentee” there, and turn it in there. That’s the only way I see being sure that I get my vote in.
So, you never go out anywhere? You don’t go to the market to shop? You don’t go to work? You don’t go out to eat? If so, then voting by mail makes sense. However, there are many people who do all of those things, and it is my belief that they need to go out and vote because it is the most important of them all.
Yes, I go out to shop. In and out as quickly as possible, wearing a mask the whole time.
No, I don’t go to work. My company had been 100% WFH since March.
No, I don’t go out to eat. All restaurants are takeout only.
I Personally LIKE voting in person. It’s democracy in action. I sometimes see neighbors. I sometimes have some fun chats. I like seeing other people actually going out and practicing democracy. All kinds of people are there, young and old, all races, and the thing is we are all exercising our right as citizens. Can you imagine what its like for new citizens voting for the first time? Remember the first time you voted when you were 18? You miss all that by voting by mail.
BTW, 2020 marks the 100th anniversary to when women got the right to vote.
As for worries in our area the voting in the primaries went really well. People wore masks and used hand sanitizer and kept apart so I dont see the problem.
Historical Note:
I read than back in the olden days when it was only white male landowners who could vote election day was a big event. Their would be a band playing at the polling place and men would arrive wearing their sunday best. After voting someone would announce something like “And Mr. John Davis has voted”. Now I dont a return to the day when only white male landowners could vote but their is something to be said about it being more interesting.
That’s me. I see family, and my family does my shopping. I work from home. And going out to eat would feel like I was putting a gun to my mother’s head.
I still might go vote in person, though, because I’m not sure I trust the mail anymore. I’ll have to cut off all contact with my family for two weeks afterward if I do that, though.
I hope this isn’t too personal a question: why do you have to cut off all contact with your family for two weeks if you leave the house to vote? Do you need to quarantine for leaving the house or something?
I absolutely refuse to murder my parents. I know, I’m weird.
It’s my vague understanding that if you get potentially exposed to coronavirus you should self-isolate for two weeks to greatly reduce the chance of unknowingly infecting people.
If I go out and vote, I consider it highly likely that I’ll rub shoulders with some dipwad who doesn’t fear death or believe in germ theory.
It’s not quite 1 + 1 = 2, but the math here doesn’t seem that hard.
ETA: I suppose a relevant variable in the equation here is that I don’t live with my parents, but during this corona thing we’ve both been separately isolating and (on the assumption that that’s working) traveling freely to and fro seeing each other.