Support NeoGAF

[speculawyer]

last minute trick of soliciting liberal Democratic voters to jigger the GOP primary

I . . . I'm not going to read anything into that choice of words.

 

[PhoenixDark]

This could be what guarantees a Democrat win if McDaniel runs third party. That "concession" speech suggests he might.

The registration deadline has passed for third parties. However he could run as a write-in...which could throw the election to the democrat...

 

[CygnusXS]

We all know black votes don't count, except for when they count five times each.

 

[speculawyer]

Don't mind if I do...

I work my butt off and get shafted on the amount of taxes I pay just so some lazy a$$ can suck off the public teat.

If that came from a voter in Mississippi . . . the irony. (Which they would never understand.)

 

[Diablos]

Matt E Richard Reed • 13 minutes ago
I remember back in 2004 when I was young and naiive and used to like guys like Barbour and Karl Rove. These guys are evil SoB's - kind of like the Chamber of Commerce. Too many low information voters. Too many people don't understand the stakes.

Yes they don't understand the stakes, so drifting to the right of these people is just so much more sensible. lmao

YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. Head towards the center at least.

Anyway, I am all for McDaniel running third party.

 

[Piecake]

Primaries are so fucking stupid and undemocratic. That said, open primaries are a lot better than closed ones as MS situation illustrates. Cochran is more representative of his state than McDaniel.

 

[benjipwns]

Mississippi has a sore-loser law.

 

[Diablos]

Fun fact: Did you know trying to verify a doctor's license on the Mississippi state website requires a $25 fee? That's right. Meanwhile, in liberal California, New York, you name it -- totally free. Most if not all states but MS afaik do it for free. So ironic.

Mississippi has a sore-loser law.

Honestly, I thought about if I was forced to move to the South, which state would suck the most... MS would probably be the LAST place I'd go to. Even Texas would be better.

 

[benjipwns]

Primaries are so fucking stupid and undemocratic. That said, open primaries are a lot better than closed ones as MS situation illustrates. Cochran is more representative of his state than McDaniel.

The primary problem with well...primaries is that they're state funded. The parties should pay for their own selection process. (Or switch to the jungle primary like CA/WA which is really just a runoff under another name.)

 

[thepotatoman]

The registration deadline has passed for third parties. However he could run as a write-in...which could throw the election to the democrat...

Hmm, maybe there's another third party guy McDaniel and his followers can rally behind instead.

 

[gcubed]

so the only rule is they couldn't have voted in the democratic primary a few weeks ago?

i like that he thinks that any of those voters voted in a mid-term democratic primary in Mississippi

... mid term ... democrats ... mississippi

 

[Owzers]

Captain_America • 21 minutes ago
The same black race voters (most of them illegal Democrat voters) that vote race over logic helped this lying jerk over the line out of being told McDaniel "hates" Obama because of his race, not realizing that the tidal wave of illegal aliens that RINO filth like Cochran support is going to utterly wipe them out in employment, opportunities, and even welfare programs. Stupid suicidal behavior is typical of these idiots.

Gotta be the Mark Millar Cap from the Ultimate Universe.

 

[benjipwns]

The only other candidate who will be on the ballot other than Cochran and Childers will be Reform Party candidate Shawn O'Hara who has run for everything in MS and is now a registered Democrat.

O'Hara is a self-employed motion picture producer and business consultant. He has unsuccessfully ran for office on many occasions, running for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010 and for Mississippi Governor in 1991, 1995, 1999, 2003 and 2011. O'Hara has also sought election to the U.S. Senate and as mayor of Hattiesburg, MS

 

[NYCmetsfan]

"@MattBinder: Tea Party fav Chris McDaniel literally believes he was cheated out of the election because black people showed up to vote for the other guy"

 

[sc0la]

So this all basically boils down to "Black people v,vv,voted? My word this will not stand."?

smh :/

 

[benjipwns]

I think there is a strong "Democrats interfered in a Republican election" aspect outside of any racial one. McCain's Michigan victory in 2000 had an even larger kerfuffle than this over accusations of Democrats voting in the Republican primary.

 

[sprsk]

Surely the armies of poll watchers dispatched to Mississippi caught all the evil voter fraud?

 

[Tamanon]

I am shocked people are rushing to label black people as thieves in Mississippi.

 

[speculawyer]

I think there is a strong "Democrats interfered in a Republican election" aspect outside of any racial one. McCain's Michigan victory in 2000 had an even larger kerfuffle than this over accusations of Democrats voting in the Republican primary.

But if it is an open primary and they didn't vote in the Democratic primary . . . there is nothing illegal about it.


I wish the crazy man won.

 

[benjipwns]

But if it is an open primary and they didn't vote in the Democratic primary . . . there is nothing illegal about it.

I never said it was illegal?

 

[PhoenixDark]

I think there is a strong "Democrats interfered in a Republican election" aspect outside of any racial one. McCain's Michigan victory in 2000 had an even larger kerfuffle than this over accusations of Democrats voting in the Republican primary.

Of course a presidential primary was more noteworthy than a senate primary in which the republican nominee is going to win regardless. McDaniel supporters would be upset even if white democrats had caused this, just as democrats were outraged when republicans helped save Joe Lieberman's ass in 2006. But the racial element certainly plays a major role in how these events were framed. The official right wing narrative is that blacks were paid to vote today and committed crimes; these narratives likely wouldn't exist if white democrats propelled Cochran to victory. I'd imagine many will indeed break the law in November considering MS "requires" you to vote for the same candidate in November, but it's not really enforced apparently.

And let's not forget 2008 during which republicans did the exact same thing they're complaining about tonight.

 

[RustyNails]

So this all basically boils down to "Black people v,vv,voted? My word this will not stand."?

smh :/

Time for more stringent voter ID laws!

 

[benjipwns]

Right, I'm not saying there's no racial animus, merely that it's unnecessary. I think these people would be just as upset and consider it stolen and crimes committed if they could somehow canvass all the voters who voted in the Democratic primary and the Republican runoff and every single one was white.

Them's the breaks when you want the state to fund your election and you don't close it though.

 

[speculawyer]

I never said it was illegal?

"Democrats interfered in a Republican election"

If it is legal, I wouldn't use the world 'interfered'. As PD pointed out, Limbaugh had a whole radio campaign on doing just that. And these voters were just picking the person they would rather see in office (the point of voting) as opposed to Limbaugh's attempts just to drag out the primary.

 

[benjipwns]

If your assumption is that only Republicans should select Republican nominees then any Democrats or independents or Libertarians or whatever getting an equal say as Republicans would be seen as interfering in the Republican selection process.

 

[kehs]

If it is legal, I wouldn't use the world 'interfered'. As PD pointed out, Limbaugh had a whole radio campaign on doing just that. And these voters were just picking the person they would rather see in office (the point of voting) as opposed to Limbaugh's attempts just to drag out the primary.

I don't think they can get away with that anymore.

Not even home robbers can get away with theft without facebook incriminating them.

 

[Black Mamba]

Of course a presidential primary was more noteworthy than a senate primary in which the republican nominee is going to win regardless. McDaniel supporters would be upset even if white democrats had caused this, just as democrats were outraged when republicans helped save Joe Lieberman's ass in 2006. But the racial element certainly plays a major role in how these events were framed. The official right wing narrative is that blacks were paid to vote today and committed crimes; these narratives likely wouldn't exist if white democrats propelled Cochran to victory. I'd imagine many will indeed break the law in November considering MS "requires" you to vote for the same candidate in November, but it's not really enforced apparently.

And let's not forget 2008 during which republicans did the exact same thing they're complaining about tonight.

Wait, Mississippi has a law stating that a person has to vote for a specific candidate? Like, you're not allowed to change your mind?

WTF. Not seeing how this would pass muster...

 

[B-Dubs]

Wait, Mississippi has a law stating that a person has to vote for a specific candidate? Like, you're not allowed to change your mind?

WTF. Not seeing how this would pass muster...

How would that even be legal or enforced?

 

[Black Mamba]

How would that even be legal or enforced?

Pretty sure it's not legal.

As far as enforcement, only way is if MS recorded for whom you voted, which yeah, is also not going to be legal.

 

[Aaron Strife]

The registration deadline has passed for third parties. However he could run as a write-in...which could throw the election to the democrat...

Eh... I'm kind of doubtful but it'll make for some interesting politicking!

 

[B-Dubs]

Pretty sure it's not legal.

As far as enforcement, only way is if MS recorded for whom you voted, which yeah, is also not going to be legal.

I wonder how much time and money they wasted passing a law that's not only illegal but also unenforceable. It's an electoral sodomy law.

 

[KingK]

I just don't get it. These groups were given clearance eventually (which was the wrong decision imo given how blatantly partisan many were), and liberal groups also received scrutiny. So what's the conspiracy, outside of attempting to invalidate Obama's re-election? Shit is pathetic.

Agreed. This "scandal" pisses me off so much because, aside from slinging mud at Obama, it's so obviously a successful attempt to intimidate the IRS (ironically by claiming the IRS intimidated them) into being afraid of actually applying any scrutiny at all to clearly political organizations applying for tax exempt status (aka, making them afraid of doing their damn job).

Both the IRS and Obama said there was inappropriate behaviour validating the claim of wrongdoing. They should have just owned it, denied any wrongdoing, and rode the uproar til it blew itself out rather than giving the claim an ounce of credibility.

Yep. Once again, Obama was falling over himself in his eagerness to jump into the Republican framing and narratives, instead of defending the IRS for doing their fucking job. Now you don't see a single person on TV even bringing up the fact that these groups are supposed to be non-political at all. Everyone just fucking accepts that the IRS was persecuting those poor conservatives and Tea Partiers, the only discussion is whether it's linked to Obama or not. Disgusting cowardice. Even Jon Stewart fell for it (he is prone to the false equivalencies and stuff from time to time).

 

[Pickles the Firecat]

I'd like to think we can all agree that, at the heart of it all, this is absolutely hilarious.

 

[benjipwns]

It's unenforceable merely by the existence of the secret ballot.

And the primary law is unenforceable unless they record who votes in which primary:

Crossover voting prohibited
Crossover voting is prohibited in the State of Mississippi. Crossover voting is defined as participation in the first primary of one political party and participation in the runoff primary of another party. Thus, a voter who cast his/her ballot in the Democratic Primary Election on June 3 is prohibited from casting his/her ballot in the Republican Primary Runoff Election on June 24, and vice versa. See MS AG Op., Brown (April 7, 1988).

Will see if I can find when the statute was enacted.

 

[benjipwns]

So the Mississippi State Democratic Party and the NAACP attempted to find a way to enforce this in 2003-08:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions\pub\07/07-60667-CV0.wpd.pdf

In June 2003, the Mississippi State Democratic Party and Mississippi
State Democratic Party Executive Committee (collectively “MSDP&#8221 asked the
state attorney general (“AG&#8221 how the party could enforce § 23-15-575, which it
had not done before. The MSDP wanted to curtail alleged “party raiding” and
crossover voting “whereby voters in sympathy with one party designate
themselves as voters of another party so as to influence or determine the results
of the other party’s primary.”2 This practice is forbidden by the plain language
of § 23-15-575. The AG responded with an opinion (“Cole Opinion&#8221 stating that
a party may challenge a voter in a primary only in accordance with Miss. Code
Ann. § 23-15-579, which outlines strict procedures for challenging a voter. The
AG stated further that a voter may be challenged only for the reasons listed in Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-571

According to the AG:

[W]e find nothing that would allow a poll worker, poll watcher or
another voter to ask a voter if he or she intends to support the
nominees of the party once the voter presents himself or herself to
vote. Challenges may be made . . . for the reason that the voter
does not intend to support the nominees of the party per Section 23-
15-575 . . .
If a challenge of a voter is properly initiated in strict accordance
with Section 23-15-579 and the voter then openly declares that he
or she does not intend to support the nominees of the party, the poll
workers could find the challenge to be well taken and mark the
ballot “challenged” or “rejected” consistent with the provisions of
said statute. On the other hand, if the voter openly declares his or
her intent to support the nominees, then a challenge is not proper
under Section 23-15-575.
. . . .
[W]e have previously opined that absent an obvious factual situation
such as an independent candidate attempting to vote in a party's
primary, the stated intent of the voter is controlling. . . . No past
action by a voter can form the basis of a valid challenge under
Section 23-15-571(3)(g) and Section 23-15-575.

....

In August 2003, the MSDP sought preclearance to implement the semiclosed primary system that § 23-15-575 allowed. The MSDP did not seek
preclearance to implement a closed primary system in which the voters must be
registered Democrats. Due to the vagueness of the party’s submission, the DOJ
could not understand what changes MSDP sought to effect, and it found the
party’s filing incomplete and not “ripe for review,” and warned that any changes
to voting procedures that the MSDP may have adopted were legally
unenforceable without preclearance.
he MSDP turned next to federal court, filing a complaint against
members of the Mississippi State Board of Election Commissioners
5
on the basis
that § 23-15-575 unconstitutionally infringes its First Amendment right of association.

6
The party asserts a First Amendment right to exclude nonDemocrats from participating in Democratic primaries. Most pertinent are its
requests for a judgment declaring Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-575 unconstitutional
and the AG’s Cole Opinion inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in
California Democratic Party v. Jones.
7
The MSDP also sought an injunction permanently restraining the state
defendants from: (1) conducting any partisan primary without affording the
MSDP reasonable opportunity in advance of that primary to exercise its rights
to define participation in that primary; (2) conducting any partisan primary
without (a) implementing a reasonable mechanism for that primary to effectuate
the MSDP’s exercise of its right to limit participation in that primary, and
(b) providing a means for the MSDP to verify who participated in its primary
and communicate with its supporters and members who identified themselves
by participating in the primary; and (3) encouraging or facilitating, directly or
indirectly, party raiding by Republican and independent voters in connection
with any partisan primary except to the extent expressly authorized by the
MSDP for that primary.

...

In its cross-motion, the MSDP disclaimed authority to hold a closed
primary under § 23-15-275 because there is no party registration in Mississippi
and no way to verify whether a prospective primary voter “intends” to support
the same party in the primary and the general election. The MSDP further
argued that its claims were ripe for judicial review because it has no means to
enforce § 23-15-275, and the issue of the statute’s constitutionality affects past
and future primaries.

...

The party unquestionably pleaded a constitutional injury by alleging that
Mississippi’s semi-closed primary statute requires it to associate with members
of the other party during its candidate-selection process.

...

MSDP primarily relies on the Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Miller to support
its argument that it has standing. In that case, a local GOP organization sought
a declaration that Virginia’s open primary law violated its First Amendment
right of association. Miller, 462 F.3d at 316. The GOP amended its “Plan of
Organization” to exclude voters who participated in the nomination process of
another party within the preceding five years before the primary. Id. at 314.
The Fourth Circuit, reversing the district court, held that the GOP had standing
because Democratic “party raiding” was inevitable and the GOP had to know
what process would govern candidate selection.
MSDP contends that, like the GOP in Miller, it has standing to challenge
a statute that produces imminent harm by altering the nature of its candidate
selection process. See Clingman, 544 U.S. at 600, 125 S.Ct. at 2043 (O’Connor,J., concurring) (“[T]he choice of who will participate in selecting a party’s
candidate obviously plays a critical role in determining both the party’s message
and its prospects of success in the electoral contest.&#8221. But Miller is
distinguishable because while the GOP had made and attempted to implement
plans to hold closed primaries, the MSDP has done neither.

...

It is certainly conceivable, for instance, that the party’s mere public
announcement of its intent to challenge suspected non-Democratic voters would
discourage raiding attempts. Further, the party admitted in discovery that it
was unaware of any primary voters who did not support Democratic Party
principles or intend to support the party’s nominees. In sum, while it might be
true that § 23-15-575 permits party raiding, the existence and extent of such
raiding are factual questions that cannot be assessed until MSDP has made
some effort to enforce the existing law. Only after § 23-15-575 has been enforced
can the novel legal issue of its effect on the MSDP’s associational rights be
compared with the blanket primary at issue in Jones.

After reading that opinion and some smaller and earlier ones on the law, I could foresee a sliver of a case for McDaniel to try and throw out the "crossover" votes that gets kicked up to higher courts.

 

[Metaphoreus]

It's unenforceable merely by the existence of the secret ballot.

And the primary law is unenforceable unless they record who votes in which primary:

Will see if I can find when the statute was enacted.

Looks like the original version of the statute was enacted in 1857. You can find the statute, Miss. Code Ann. § 97-13-35, at this website. Here's the text and historical info:

Any person who shall vote at any election, not being legally qualified, or who shall vote in more than one county, or at more than one place in any county or in any city, town, or village entitled to separate representation, or who shall vote out of the district of his legal domicile, or who shall vote or attempt to vote in the primary election of one party when he shall have voted on the same date in the primary election of another party, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, shall be fined not exceeding two hundred dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail not more than six months, or both.

HISTORY: SOURCES: Codes, 1857, ch. 64, art. 73; 1871, § 2537; 1880, § 2772; 1892, § 1044; 1906, § 1122; Hemingway's 1917, § 848; 1930, § 873; 1942, § 2099; Laws, 1964, ch. 348, eff from and after passage (approved May 22, 1964).

And here's the AG opinion that was cited by whomever you were quoting:

A question has arisen as to the eligibility of municipal voters to participate in the Super Tuesday primaries on March 8 and thereafter in the municipal primaries on May 10 and May 24.

Specifically, the question is whether or not a voter may participate in the Republican primary on Super Tuesday and thereafter participate in the Democratic primary in the city election on May 10.

Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-575 (1987), a qualified elector is eligible to participate in a primary election only if he intends to support the nominations made in the primary in which he participates. While recent participation in a primary election of another party may provide grounds for challenging a particular person's participation pursuant to this statute, this statute does not automatically preclude a person from changing his party allegiance from one election to another.

There is, however, a statutory prohibition to ‘crossover’ voting. Crossover voting may be defined as participation in the first primary of one political party and participation in the runoff primary of another party. Several Attorney General's opinions and case law has defined the first and second primary as one election process. The runoff primary has been described as a continuation of the first primary. Therefore, Miss. Code Ann. § 97-13-35 (1972), which prohibits participation in more than one primary on the same day, has been interpreted to prohibit crossover voting. This statutory prohibition does not, however, prohibit the participation in the congressional primaries on March 8, 1988, for one party, and subsequent participation in the municipal primaries on May 10 and May 24, 1988, for another political party because they are different elections.

For those curious, below is the text of the other statute mentioned by the AG opinion, Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-575:

No person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in the primary in which he participates.

 

[benjipwns]

It's actually kinda fascinating how you can see what they were trying to do but didn't figure it out all at once and so you have this mishmash where the law is some combination of unenforceable, unintelligible and unconstitutional.

This might actually drag on longer than it initially seemed. Does Cochran then back out to ensure the seat stays GOP?

 

[ErasureAcer]

Does Cochran then back out to ensure the seat stays GOP?

Are we living in the same universe?

 

[pigeon]

It's actually kinda fascinating how you can see what they were trying to do but didn't figure it out all at once and so you have this mishmash where the law is some combination of unenforceable, unintelligible and unconstitutional.

This might actually drag on longer than it initially seemed. Does Cochran then back out to ensure the seat stays GOP?

Can't tell if seriously suggesting GOP politician would take principled high road and give up power for good of party.

I think there's definitely room there for McDaniel to challenge the election results. Whether he actually has a legal remedy available to him is probably a different question that will not get answered for many talk show appearances to come.

 

[benjipwns]

I think it turns on whether Mississippi can tell who voted in which of the first primaries. I know some states have separate ballots but others have both primaries on one, I could probably look this up in the time I took to write this garbage post.

Can't tell if seriously suggesting GOP politician would take principled high road and give up power for good of party.

I reworded it from various forms of him being persuaded to do so, especially at age 76, but went with the honorable version.

 

[speculawyer]

These are as effective as the "yeah, I'm buying these 20 semi - auto rifles with cash for myself" laws.

 

[benjipwns]

Okay, so in MS you take separate ballots for each parties primary.

Mississippi ranked 51st out of the 50 states and District of Columbia in the Pew Charitable Trusts' Elections Performance Index (EPI), based on the 2012 elections. The EPI examines election administration performance and assigns an average percentage score based on 17 indicators of election performance. These indicators were chosen to in order to determine both the convenience and integrity of these three phases of an election: registration, voting and counting. Mississippi received an overall score of 37%

The sky's the limit!

 

[Aaron Strife]

I wish it stopped at Mississippi being 51st out of 50 states

 

[thepotatoman]

While we're talking Mississippi law anyway, I've been looking into whole sore loser law nonsense.

It seems that mississippi write-ins are only ever counted for nominated substitutions which are only allowed for proven non-political purposes, if I'm reading the law right. That's what creates Mississippi's sore loser law, and gives McDaniel no recourse in the general election. And that means the third party spoiler dream is dead.

Like Benjipwns pointed out, there's probably a chance he somehow gets enough votes thrown out to overturn the primary results, but you guys have convinced me that I'd rather not see that happen.

 

[Black Mamba]

Normally, I'd want the crazy guy to win the primary cuz he won't win the general election, but Mississippi hasn't reached 1950 yet, so I'd rather not leave it to chance.

 

[benjipwns]

I don't think a situation where a seemingly endless legal fight over an already contentious primary is so hostile that people just don't want anything to do with either is too farfetched.

Remember, Childers is pro-life, against gay marriage and gun control, has been NRA endorsed, voted against Obamacare. If he can shift himself towards a sweet spot on immigration and not fuck anything up he doesn't have the worst shot. And surely would do better now (and later) than those polls from over three months ago where he was getting his shit kicked in by either Cochran or McDaniel.

His website is basically an "offend no one" type, doesn't even have an issues page or anything: http://childersforsenate.com/

 

[thepotatoman]

I would agree with that, where the more contentious things get the less likely the losers and moderates will support whoever wins the legal fight.

It would at least be really interesting in any case.

 

[Aaron Strife]

If Cochran came out the winner I doubt he'd be that hurt. I mean... he did win.

The best possible outcome for Democrats would be for the legal battle to be really ugly and drawn out, and for McDaniel to have the results overturned and become the nominee. I have to imagine many Republicans might actually go for Childers in that scenario.

 

[Oblivion]

Good god...Alex Wagner was so utterly useless on Morning Joe today. Scarborough and every other Republican on the panel spewed talking point after talking point on the IRS shit, and Wagner just sat there with a stupid smile on her face and let all that garbage go uncontested. Once again, your liberal media, ladies and gentlemen.


By the way. I read the reports of a hard drive getting broken back in 2011. But was there another hard drive that was broken recently? And what are these missing e-mails I keep hearing about?

 

[Black Republican]

msnbc seem upset thad won