While I finish up grading my 1000 papers (I’m exaggerating a little), I figured I’d open up the discussion about the election. We have two big primaries today in Indiana and North Carolina. What are your thoughts? Any pressing issues you want to bring up. Anybody in Indiana or North Carolina, feel free to let us know what’s going on in you’re voting district.
Recent Comments
Cartoon: The Measure of Intelligence
Cartoon: The Celestial Politics of Trans Bans
Cartoon: Hey did you hear? Biden is old!
Cartoon: "Sex Is Real" Is A Euphemism
Cartoon: Let's Outlaw Being Homeless! That'll Work!
Cartoon: Appealing to Trump Voters by Getting Tough on Immigration!
Cartoon: Free Trade Is For Peasants, Not Cartoonists!
Cartoon: HOMOPHOBIC WOKE PARENTS ARE TURNING GAY KIDS TRANS!
- Older »
Most Recent Open Thread
The most recent open thread can always be found at the top of this page. When older posts have closed comments, please respond to them on the most recent open thread.Alas, a Blogroll
Alas, A Subscription Service
Archives
Categories
Amp on Twitter
My Tweets
Hey, the Oregon primary is going on, too. I received my ballot on Saturday, filled it out Sunday and mailed it back Monday.
What? Is there a Presidential election going on?
A little bit of popular vote analysis:
If you take the totals and don’t exclude anything, Obama has a 0.27% lead.
If you exclude their home states and include Florida and Michigan, Clinton has a 0.84% lead.
If you include their home states but exclude Florida and Michigan, Obama has a 2.29% lead.
Illinois went 2:1 for Obama and New York went 3:2 for Clinton. Illinois had about 2 million voters, 150,000 (rough estimate) more voters than New York.
I’m taking the vote totals from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html and dropping them into an Excel spreadsheet.
From Yahoo News
Yep, looks like that nasty old Indiana Photo ID law really depressed turnout.
Ron, surely you don’t intend for that to be a serious argument.
O.K., [ /snark ]. It’s certainly only a first-order analysis and has no breakdown for elderly, poor, or racial/ethnic classifications. Hopefully those will be done and we can take a look. It’s going to be tough to show any negative effect on the vote, though – as we noted back in the discussion about this law in a previous thread, factors such as the contentiousness of a particular contest can easily swamp out the effects of this law. I’m willing to guess that the minority and poor votes (and there’s quite an overlap there) are way up, the exact opposite of what opponents of this law would have expected. Obama’s presence on the ballot was very likely a much more powerful stimulant than the Voter ID law was a depressant. It’ll be very difficult to come up with any hard evidence that would support a statement such as (for example) “Voting among blacks was 25% greater than usual, but it would have been 27% greater without this law.”
There is some interesting information in the initial story. A voter hotline set up by a number of advocacy organizations only logged “several” (their term) calls. Given that there were 1.6 million Democratic voters (plus I don’t know how many Republican voters), “several” calls doesn’t seem like there’s much of a problem at first glance. Again, we’ll need to see more data. There were a few cited examples.
A few elderly nuns didn’t vote due to not having IDs. Actually, it turns out they could have voted provisionally, but they didn’t care to do the follow up that would have validated the provisional ballots. Note that we’re talking about “didn’t care to”, not “couldn’t”. My guess is that any number of the faithful would have literally considered themselves blessed to transport a few nuns anywhere they wanted to go to validate their ballots. “Couldn’t” would bother me. “Didn’t care to” doesn’t bother me at all.
Then there was a woman who had recently married (with the default concomitant name change) and who was denied based on the fact that the name on her drivers license didn’t match her voting record. Again, she could have voted provisionally. Why she didn’t do so and then fix whichever of those two didn’t reflect her new name was left unsaid. In any case, this sounds like a minor bug to fix rather than some huge problem.
The other example given was that of a college student who had an out-of-state license, which therefore didn’t match her local registration. Now that’s a very interesting case. IIRC, the overall presumption is that an American citizen only has a right to vote in one juristiction – “one man, one vote” (I didn’t make the phrase up, folks) cuts both way. Everyone gets a vote, but they only get one vote. It seems to me that it’s quite reasonable to presume that in fact she had no right to vote in the Indiana primary if her primary residence is not in Indiana. Again, why didn’t she vote a provisional ballot? My guess would be that it wouldn’t hold up, and she knew it. She wasn’t denied her right to vote; she could have obtained an absentee ballot from her home state and cast it.
The Democrats have a dilemma here. While Obama is the odds-on favorite right now to actually win the election, from an overall viewpoint there’s not a particularly significant difference between the two of them with regards to the number of voters they attract. It’s a virtual tie. I can’t recall a major party having two candidates with equal voter totals this late in the primary season.
The other part of their dilemma is that each candidate has a significant fraction of supporters that will feel alienated if the other candidate wins, to the point that they would either sit out the election or vote for the Republican candidate. Before this whole process got started it was widely noted that Sen. Clinton had a lot of “negatives” – people who were not just indifferent to her or who liked someone better, but who actively did not like her. What has now to be considered is that the same thing now affects Sen. Obama. While you’d think that the reaction on the part of such voters would be “Well, even if he/she wins, he/she is better than McCain”, come to find out it’s not in many cases. How many we’ll find out in November.
Conservatives are famous for splitting their vote and watching their candidates lose to more moderate ones because the various factions view the other factions’ candidates as not being acceptable due to what an outside observer sees as minor differences. This phenomenon may affect the Democratic vote this year.
“Yep, looks like that nasty old Indiana Photo ID law really depressed turnout.”
Well, it obviously didn’t depress the Republican turn-out for the Democratic primary. They really came through for her when she needed it.
supporters that will feel alienated if the other candidate wins, to the point that they would either sit out the election or vote for the Republican candidate.
I don’t get this. If the two candidates were Kucinich and Lieberman, sure, that would make sense. But the positions of Obama and Clinton are virtually identical; the only major differences between them are in how they’ve chosen to handle the election (and some vague guesses about their personal integrity). Can someone who prefers Clinton over McCain and McCain over Obama please clarify what the big fuss is?
Protests and arrests in New York City in response to the acquittals of the NYPD officers in the Sean Bell case.
Those aren’t the numbers I’m getting. From the same site, counting the popular as it is right now gives Obama a 2.3% lead. Estimating the raw totals yet to released from Iowa, Washington, Nevada, and Maine, Obama leads by 2.5%. Counting Florida but not the four states above gives Obama a lead of 1.2%; counting them, 1.6% lead. Also counting Michigan but again not counting those four states gives Obama a 0.25% lead; counting them, 0.57%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Yes, and the biggest hazard zones for each candidate are AA voters and senior voters, respectively.
At least for presidential nominations, that has not been my experience. In the only true, open Republican primary in my memory where a competitive election awaited in the fall, we saw a moderate McCain being taken down by Bush by some pretty heinous tactics and stalwart support by hardline wingers, such as the Religious Right. (I’m discounting the 1996 Dole nomination because the Republicans knew they had no chance, though I’d agree that Dole was definitely more moderate than Forbes and Armey and co.) Bush Sr. of course faced no competitive primary in ’88.
By contrast, every one of the Democrats’ primary-elected candidates since Carter has been a compromise candidate of the worst sort that was a slap in the face to its activist base. The possible exception was (B.) Clinton, who was running in a weak pool back in ’92, and I’m not sure of the ideological differences between Brown and him. The kinds of attacks he chose to make against Clinton suggest that he wasn’t the steadfast liberal of the two, though.
Sadly, at least part of it has to do with demographic angles, of which there are two – the whole Black man/White woman thing, and the generation gap. But I’d figure a great number of Clinton/Obama partisans who make a show of wondering what they’ll do in November if their candidate loses are bluffing. I call bullshit. Whether or not they’ll admit it, their thought process basically goes, “I’ll say I won’t ever vote for the other candidate, and if there are enough of us, the media can make an electability argument around it”. The more contentious blog posts they make about it, the more likely this applies.
I certainly don’t prefer McCain over Clinton policy-wise, but I do admire him more than I do most Senators. Granted, much of his “maverick” image is media-created and carefully crafted by McCain himself, but to those who say it’s entirely a political maneuver, I give the same answer to those who say Edwards’ populism is a show: if it’s so politically advantageous to be an independent Republican/working class advocate, why aren’t more senators doing it? There are benefits, but there are also drawbacks and risks. Their willingness to stomach the latter must be at least in part to their truly held beliefs.
I haven’t talked to any blacks about what they’ll do if Clinton is nominated, but I’ve definitely been told by women that support Clinton that there’s no way they’ll vote for Obama. The media is all full of the concept that given Obama’s present position, they’ll turn away from the Democrats if Clinton gets the nomination; but then, I generally figure the MSM is full of something else in general, so we’ll see.
As far as what happens with conservatives in elections, I’m not just talking about Presidential elections, but House and Senate ones as well. But take this cycle; you had Huckabee, Thompson and Paul at least running as conservatives; if they had all united behind one they would have had a chance. Instead, McCain has the nomination wrapped up.
Jim, I wish there was a way to measure the crossover vote on that. It’ll be interesting to compare the vote totals by party in November with the primary votes. I actually voted a Democratic primary ballot myself this year. But I did so because I was interested in the more local races, where there are rarely Republican contests that matter where I live. I don’t even remember voting on the top of the ticket. If I did, I probably voted for Clinton, but not to screw with Obama (there’s no way he was going to lose Illinois).
“Women” are not a bloc of voters that are for Clinton the way African Americans are for Obama. Obama actually carries women under 65. It is the senior vote he has to watch out for, not the women vote. The generation gap is the most neglected major aspect of this primary cycle.
I was under the impression that what defined the Republicans’ primary cycle this year was the presence of no real conservative candidates, with the exception of the weak, half-hearted Thompson. You could say the Republicans failed in rallying behind Thompson; I say Thompson was just a really shitty candidate.
> Protests and arrests in New York City in response to the acquittals of the
> NYPD officers in the Sean Bell case.
I remember this case pretty well, because I have been, myself, detained for disarming a plainclothes police officer that failed to identify himself. I was lucky that it happened in a dorm’s pub, that the officer was outside of his jurisdiction, intoxicated, that no shots were fired, and that I called the Campus Police myself. Oh, he happened to be black, but at that time I did not even know it was significant. I still don’t know whether it would have been any different if he had been white (or I black) I knew that it was DAMN significant that he was from Boston’s PD and not a Cambridge or CP officer. Still, it took me months to stop worrying about being jailed or deported.
I frankly do not understand the protests. In cases like this, the judge will always, always, always decide for the policemen, unless the witnesses are absolutely unanimous that they failed to identify themselves. Any other outcome is unimaginable… law enforcement cannot function if policemen are afraid to fire at someone who rams one of their cars. As for how many bullets are used… policemen are human, they get scared like everyone else, and I am sure we can all tell a dozen anecdotes about people surviving/firing after being riddled with bullets. Once the shooting starts, some people do not stop until they run out of ammo (yes, that includes spare magazines)
The police had multiple witnesses who swore 1. that the victims talked about fetching guns before the shooting and 2. that the officers identified themselves as police. You can say the witnesses lied, and I could believe it. I definitely believe that the officers and witnesses lied about a fourth man who was armed. I also know that given the seriousness of the case, the police applied pressure on everyone on whom they had something, and insured the maximum number of favorable witnesses.
But once the witnesses were recorded, it was all over. It’s ridiculous to talk about excessive use of force, or racism. Both were present, and they do not matter. When dealing with a policeman, you have to be an idiot to do anything without him telling you. People should remember that a cop is a stressed out human with a gun, with at least a few chips on his shoulder, and a good reason to fear that he’ll die in the line of duty. Don’t try to be funny, don’t reach anywhere he did not tell you, keep your hands in plain sight… and for sure, don’t ram his car.
I am pretty sure the victim thought he was fleeing from carjackers. I am quite sad that he died. But even knowing that, I would have still let the policemen go.
I just reread what I have written, and there is something I should have said: I believe that the officers did identify themselves, just as I believe that the victims may not have understood that they are dealing with policemen. Unless you want to look for a conspiracy, there is no reason to believe that a group of seven police officers will try to conceal their identity.
Petar;
Actually, according to the NYT, it doesnt appear that there were many–if any–witnesses that testified to hearing the police identify themselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/04/24/nyregion/20080424_BELL_GRAPHIC.html
I disagree that the police identified themselves. Even the lieutenant testified that he didn’t think they did so. The only officer who wasn’t involved in the shooting who said they IDed themselves admitted that he saw them do so four minutes after the shooting when he first arrived. One civilian witness said that he heard them do it. The rest said, no.
That’s assuming that you know of course it is a police man. My only two runins with police with guns drawn were plainclothed officers who didn’t identify themselves and it was mistaken identity but I thought what would have happened if I weren’t a White woman. I do believe, therefore but the grace of (God or luck or racism) go I.
And yes, a police officer might be a stressed out person with a gun, but he or she’s a highly trained stressed out person with a gun, although I believe at least two of the officers in this case weren’t properly certified at the range (according to documents obtained by members of the 100 Black Police Who Care) It’s amazing that you yourself have laid out the rules that some individuals need just to survive an encounter with them. That in itself indicates a serious problem.
The only consolation in a case like this is that hopefully, the 19 “reforms” that the NYPD has implemented with its very problematic special units (which have a disproportionately higher shooting rate particularly of minorities even as the overall shooting rate by NYPD officers is quite a bit lower than average) will prevent the next hail of gunfire against an unarmed Black man or woman. But the NYPD only reforms its operations when its officers are held accountable in criminal courts.
“Jim, I wish there was a way to measure the crossover vote on that. It’ll be interesting to compare the vote totals by party in November with the primary votes. ”
Ron, I was just being snarky, but there is some substance – Rush Limbaugh was crowing this morning abiout the way his “Operation Chaos” affected the outcome in Indiana.
“But the NYPD only reforms its operations when its officers are held accountable in criminal courts.”
Radfem, I don’t know much about New York and less about the police, but I get the impression that the core of the problem is in the origin of the NYPD itself as a tribal militia of Irish and later Italians that was formed for a radically different demographic situation, which ceased to exist decades ago. They may recruit from other communities, but the culture of the force still reflects that origin. Holding officers accountable in criminal courts is certainly necessary, obviously, but isn’t that like closing the barn door after the cow has gotten out?
Sen. Clinton is now saying that “Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again…”
Do I even need to comment?
No Robert, we all know that in order to be “working” let alone a “hard-working American”, you have to be White. The truth is, “workers” and “hard-working Americans” and other salivating worthy demographics, are spread out across three candidates at the moment.
And in Indiana, Obama even pulled in a large chunk of voters who were both White and working-class, so to say it’s “weakening” is hardly the case among the demographic she cited. Both Obama and Clinton are too far to the right of what’s left of the Democratic Party for me, but her words are just so far removed from reality, it’s embarrassing.
I think the culture is fairly old as you state. As far as diversity, the NYPD is better some agencies particularly in terms of the percentage of women (roughtly 19% of all officers) being somewhat higher than the national average for large agencies (which is between 13-15%) but the salaries are among the lowest (and start at about $25,000 after being reduced by arbitration several years ago), cap out pretty low and the only way to get higher pay outside of promotion is through “bonus” pay based on arrest numbers. The department “introduced” the latter recently to much fanfare but having talked to ex-NYPD officers, that provision was in place for years.
The reason why I place more emphasis on accountability through criminal courts is because the NYPD has historically been so resistant to reform efforts. They’ve had various commissions including the Knapp and Mollen Commissions which have addressed mostly corruption issues rather than excessive force issues.
History of the NYPD
The NYPD was also the focus of pattern and practice investigations which were tabled when Bush came into office, in connection with both the Abner Louima torture case and the Amadou Diallo shooting.
New York does see more prosecutions of its officers in relation to use of force including lethal force than in other cities probably because it utilizes the grand jury process rather than leaving it up to the discretion of a D.A.’s office but very few of them result in convictions.
There’s no question Thompson was a shitty candidate. I wonder if the whole thing was a dodge so he could get out of his Law and Order contract?
I’ve got to say that I don’t know how much credit Rush Limbaugh deserved. I saw a lot of “crossover and vote for Hillary to keep the pot boiling” on a few blogs and never saw anything about “Operation Chaos” or Rush Limbaugh. In fact, I didn’t even know Rush was publicizing this idea (I don’t listen to him and I don’t know anyone who does) until about two weeks ago.
law enforcement cannot function if policemen are afraid to fire at someone who rams one of their cars
Were 50 bullets really necessary? Whatever happened to shooting out the car’s tires and approaching cautiously, after calling backup? Even if they heard someone talking about “fetching a gun” the very word “fetching” implies that they did not, currently, have a gun. The best interpretation one can possibly put on this case is that the officers in question were ill trained, in which case the city is liable for not training its police officers better. The police are supposed to protect the public. That implies that they may have to take some risks. Including being willing to give someone the benefit of the very large amount of doubt about their having a gun just because someone MAY have said that they were going to FETCH a gun. If the best law enforcement can do in that situation is shoot 50 times then it’s time for a major overhaul of the law enforcement system.
Regarding seating of the Michigan delegates, the Michigan Democratic Party leadership floated a compromise yesterday, which the Clinton campaign turned down.
Well, it would have been nice if the lieutenant hadn’t been hiding beneath the dashboard while his officers were shooting and reloading (in the case of Michael Oliver) and that when an officer is asked by the grand jury why he fired his gun, he would respond by saying something besides “I don’t know” as in the case of Det. Marc Cooper.
Many police shootings at motor vehicles occur when the officer is standing to the side of the car by the driver’s side. So if the car’s moving, it’s not in the process of running him over or hitting him. My city even had two officers shoot at a man in a completely totaled car and they still feared being hit by it, even though the surveilance video showed it was not going anywhere. Another walked behind a stationary vehicle to shoot through the driver’s side of the stationary vehicle. If he’d been in danger, he never would have gone behind a car he had alleged had been backing into him earlier.
Dianne said:
“”Whatever happened to shooting out the car’s tires and approaching cautiously, …”
Dianne, in all seriousness, have you ever shot a firearm in your life?
You see this sometimes. “Why didn’t they shoot the guy just to wound him?” “Why didn’t they shoot out the car’s tires?” Maybe in the movies or on TV. But in real life it’s pretty much impossible to do that deliberately. It’s way too difficult of a target. Police, military, anyone who handles a gun professionally is taught to shoot for the center of the body mass. To hit any other target quickly, or if the target itself is moving, is just too damn hard. Try to shoot out the tire of a moving vehicle from the front and I guarantee you’ll never hit it. If you don’t believe me, go stand out in front of your car (or a car) from, oh, 40 feet away and see if you can even see the front tire. It’s a miniscule target. Even from the side, it’s not particularly big, and I’ll give you 20:1 odds you won’t hit it, either (and remember, the wheel doesn’t count, just the tire). Especially if it’s moving at all.
Oh, another question; have you ever had a flat tire? I’ve blown tires at all speeds from 15 to 90 mph (I don’t recommend the latter, BTW, it was the front right tire on a rear-wheel drive car, I was actually scared). You keep going for quite some distance, especially if you don’t give a shit about the resultant condition of the tire and/or wheel afterwards. Shooting out a tire – shit, shooting out all the tires – would do the person being targeted by the car the tires were on exactly no good unless they were quite some distance away. Watch Cops when they put down a nail strip to stop someon. Even then, with all four tires shredded, the car keeps going for a 100 yards or so or more.
Oops.
That’s true. One DA investigator was trying to stop an unarmed man in a truck from fleeing so he shot out his tires and then when it slowed but didn’t stop the truck, he patiently waited until the driver’s window approached him before sticking his gun inside the window and executed the driver.
He’s doing seven years in the state pen for involuntary manslaughter.
Radfem, do you have a link for that? If the DA assistant was able to stick his arm into a window of a passing vehicle and shoot the driver (and if the vehicle was moving in a relatively straight line), that would indicate that the angle of approach of that vehicle was very close to straight on. Between the angle and the motion it would be very, very hard to shoot the tires, especially with a handgun.
Here’s a link. There’s not many left.
Daniel Riter
His name was Daniel Riter, a senior investigator out of Indio. His story was originally that he was in front of the vehicle and he shot at it to keep it from hitting him. His statement was backed by an Evidence Tech from the D.A.’s office who was with him but contradicted by other witnesses and by ballistics which placed the gun less than two feet away as among other things, there was stifling on the victim’s skin. The shell casing of the bullet that hit the driver was found on the floorboard of the car.
So he changed his story after telling two friends the original version was what had happened. He said he was trying to get away from the vehicle, spun around and the gun accidently discharged which didn’t match with ballistics which placed the muzzle of the gun inside of the car b/c the gun used discharged cartridges to the right and behind. They did 700 trials all on video and all played in court to try to recreate the shooting to get the shell casing to go forward (and thus inside the truck) but the casing stovepiped all but twice and he had to fling the gun forward and the casing still wouldn’t travel foreward far enough. The window of the truck was 2/3 up so he had to put his gun inside the window.
But hey, he’s a cop, and they knew involuntary manslaughter was his only hope. So they constructed an account and the jury either bought it or looked for a way out. The judge sentenced him to seven years. The AG had argued first degree saying that Riter waited with the gun for the truck to come past him. I think it was closer to second degree. It was more than just recklessness and his providing a version of events to investigators which was refuted by ballistics and then claiming amnesia while being spun around didn’t wash in my opinion.
The case was prosecuted by the state AG due to him being a D.A. office employee and he was represented by one of the foremost defense attorneys for law enforcement officers. I saw most of the trial and talked to the driver’s relatives, watched Riter testify and he got upset during his testimony angry, but it was like a cold, chilly anger. Really unnerving.
The county did pay out several million in litigation settlement to the family of the guy killed.
And maybe it’s the Indio office but another investigator killed his entire family before killing himself and another beat his girlfriend and threatened to kill her.
Yep, sounds bogus to me, too. I’m still curious about the previous shots where he reputedly shot out the tires of the car. If he actually did, the holes those left in the tires should give a clue as to the angle between the shooter and the car.
The link says he hit the tires and the radiator. I’ll take that at face value, but I’d like to know what the angles were.
One bullet did strike metal, because I remember a photo of it. What complicated evidence gathering outside the car (i.e. shell casings of bullets fired at tires) was the helicopter landing nearby, because the draft could have compromised the crime scene. I can’t remember the angle when he shot at the tires, in his testimony as well as those of his colleague and the other witnesses. As far as the fatal shot, the civilian witnesses agreed pretty much where he was standing which fit the ballistics, stifling, angle etc. Riter and his colleague told similar but not identical accounts at trial.
But the evolution of his account which ballistics contradicted to what it became was disturbing and interesting in terms of its impact on his cross-examination. I think the jury was looking for a way out and the defense attorney is one of the best for defending police in criminal cases in the business.
Radfem is either uninformed or just plain lying. I sat through every day of that trial.
All ‘700″ ballistic tests were not shown in court. There were far fewer than that (and it’s not worth pulling out my notes to say how many there were…the issue radfem alludes to is that there was a casing found in the truck. It’s important to note that this casing was found after the truck had been released to the family and not during the original investigation…so who knows where it came from given the helicopter.)
Riter did not change his testimony at any point…how do we know? He didn’t testify except in court. He spoke informally with a “friend” soon after the incident and she misconstrued his stressed comments…then decided to make a name for herself by coming forward.
The ballistics absolutely matched (especially the trajectory of the bullet…which would be impossible for a shot where he “patiently waited” for the truck to go by –in the blink of an eye–) the accidental shooting that it was.
The previous shots have relevance it two ways…
1. They all but one hit the target of the tires. The metal that radfem recalls was the rim of one of the tires…that was the one that missed.
2. Because of those shots, intended to deter the meth-addled driver from engaging in a high-speed pursuit with kids in the car, the amount of pressure needed to pull the trigger was easily within the range of involuntary sympathetic response as Riter dodged the truck (which was turning toward him).
The eye-witnesses DID NOT all agree. One said he shot out the windshield. Others said he crouched and shot (in which case he would have hit the side of the door). And one teenager said he turned the gun sideways and trotted next to the truck, shooting gansta’ style…amazingly like what it would was…stumbling away from the truck with the gun at an awkward angle as you tried to get out of the way.
The jury? They may have been looking for a way out but not in favor of a life-long cop without a SINGLE issue in his jacket. They were looking for a way out of a cry of racism.