Kobach expert witness: Carlos Murguia sounds foreign. ACLU attorney: Thats a federal judge

[Gothmog]

My new favorite soap opera is very amusing http://www.cjonline.com/news/20180313/kobach-expert-witness-carlos-murguia-sounds-foreign-aclu-attorney-thats-federal-judge

In another survey, Richman looked at people on the list of suspended voters — people who didn’t provide proof of citizenship — and flagged any names that appeared to be foreign. Ho asked Richman for an explanation of how he determines which names are foreign and asked if, for example, a name like “Carlos Murguia” would be flagged. When Richman said yes, Ho informed him Murguia is a federal judge in the same courthouse where the trial is taking place.....

During the course of testimony, Richman confirmed is research is intended for a popular audience, and none of it has been reviewed by peers. Instead, 200 political scientists signed an open letter condemning his work.

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

1. My son (another lawyer) just sent me this tweet

My is also enjoying my soap opera

Link to tweet

[dameatball]

3. This guy is using the ever successful "Betsy DeVos" ploy

[Gothmog]

13. Yep

Link to tweet

[TeamPooka]

2. K&R

[Gothmog]

4. It is not a good sign when the judge tells you to read the Rules of Fed. Civil Procedure

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

6. The judge just gave kobach a quiz on the rules

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

5. Laughing at your opposing counsel

Link to tweet

[dalton99a]

7. Kick

[Gothmog]

11. It is hard to stop following this trainwreck

Link to tweet

[DFW]

8. I have a foreign-sounding name they should try on Jesse Richman

How about "Barack Obama?"

I knew a guy named Milo ("MEE-Low" ) Yellow Hair. I don't know the original pronunciation, as I do not speak Lakota. His family was in North America more than a thousand years before Kobach's family or Richman's family ever showed up. These Republican circus clowns need a lesson on just what the word "foreign" means.

[brer cat]

9. You know you are enjoying this too much!

I do appreciate that you are sharing it. We all need a good laugh.

[Gothmog]

10. I have two children who are lawyers who are also having fun with this case

I am really feeling sorry for the poor judge in this case

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Eliot Rosewater]

12. Here is the interesting part of this, because of fucking NOSE HOLDERS and whiners

that pile of F I L T H in the WH is appointing judges who will side with Kobach every fucking time.

[lunasun]

64. +++++++that is correct. So many already

[ProudLib72]

14. This is more to the point

Stephen Ansolabehere, a professor of government at Harvard who developed a data source Richman used for some estimates, said Richman’s analysis of suspended voters actually shows the majority are legal residents who were denied the right to vote.

I wish this were a trial to put these assholes away for life. Now that would truly be a worthwhile trial.

[Gothmog]

16. To me this is one of the key moments in this trial

Hans Van Spakovsky is a major league asshole and was on trump's bogus voter fraud commission. The judge confronted this asshole on this point

Link to tweet

[ProudLib72]

18. Damned right!

It's really too bad this isn't getting more coverage. The one upside of this farce of a trial is that it is exposing the tactics the GOP has been using to block legitimate voters. Of course, the trumpanzees have no problem restricting the votes of American citizens with foreign sounding names.

[Gothmog]

31. Kobach is going a great job of proving that it is the GOP who is committing fraud

Link to tweet

[Sophia4]

27. This is important!

"FINALLY someone points this out. Preventing/failing to count one citizen's vote is EXACTLY the same offense as counting one extra/fake/noncitizen's vote."

A Tweet by Sam Levine at the link Gothmog linked to.

Same point is made about having super delegates in the Democratic Party. Their votes dilute the value of the votes of people who participated in the democratically run primaries or caucuses.

Just a point I want to make.

Preventing people from voting dilutes the value not just of their potential vote but of other voters who would vote as they do. And adding voters to the sum of voters because they are likely to vote a certain way, say for the Party's preferred candidate, is just as undemocratic because it dilutes the votes of the people.

We should not laugh too hard because we are members of a Party that allows super delegates and is having a hard time giving up the ability to dilute votes in primaries and caucuses with the super delegates.

The honor of being a super delegate is probably very hard to resist even if it does dilute the value of the votes of those elected to serve as delegates.

[Gothmog]

28. This attack on super delegates makes no sense

I know that you seem to believe that voters elect pledged delegates but that is not what happens in the real world. I ran and was elected as a Clinton pledged delegate. No voter directly voted for me. The Clinton campaign did vet me but I was on that vetting committee. Pledged delegates are elected either by the party chairs of the various counties in the applicable district or by delegates selected by such party chairs.

Nothing in the Levine tweet or the case of the ACLU v. Kobach has anything whatsoever to do with super delegates in the real world. Your prior posts on the other threads were shown to be wrong.

I live in the real world and I volunteer a great deal of my time on voter protection efforts. In 2014, the GOP got to use its voter id law in Texas and voter turnout went from 39% in 2010 to 33% in 2014. The Democratic Party had a stronger candidate in 2014 compared to 2010 but the GOP kept a large number of voters from voting. Here real voters were actually prevented from voting in the real world which helped elect jerks like Greg Abbott and Dan Patrick.

The Texas Democratic Party, a Super delegate named Marc Veasy and a good friend sued and got the Texas voter id law largely gutted which helped turnout in 2016 and in the recent Texas primary. In 2016, we had a great court ruling that allowed voters to vote with alternative forms of ids. Even with this court ruling we had to fight GOP voter suppression in the real world. I trained 200+ poll watchers who filmed GOP election site greeters telling voters at polling places to go away if they did not have an approved id. We got that practice stopped. I helped organized the statewide voter protection hot line and we had Bexar County, McClennan and other counties using the wrong signs on the voter id laws (using the old law prior to the court ruling). We got this stopped.

Voter suppression is a real issue. Super delegates have nothing to do with voter suppression in the real world. I live in the real world and will be busy fighting voter suppression this cycle. I spent most of March 6 (Texas primary day) in a local county voter protection war room. I will be in the war room on the run off and will be busy fighting voter suppression in the real world on election day.

I am sorry that your feelings were hurt by super delegates who were mean to your candidate. However super delegates are not corrupt and do not dilute the vote in the real world. GOP voter suppression efforts are real and that is what this thread is about.

[Sophia4]

32. In California, the number of delegates pledged to a candidate is voted on in the

election.

If I am incorrect, please cite the rule that explains how this is done.

[Gothmog]

36. You are wrong yet again

California does not allow for direct election of national delegates. You have yet to be right on anything and here you are wrong yet again. You may elect delegates to the county convention but those delegates in turn elect delegates to the state convention where the national delegates are elected.

Please get out into the real world.

[Sophia4]

37. Here you go:

By the numbers

Total delegates: 546
District-level delegates: 317 – allocated by congressional district based on population and presidential voting in prior elections
At-large delegates: 105 delegates confirmed at a statewide delegation meeting on June 19 and subject to approval by the presidential candidate they pledge to support
Party leaders and elected officials: 53, including big-city mayors, statewide elected officials and legislative leaders
Unpledged delegates, known as superdelegates: 71, including California members of Congress and Gov. Jerry Brown


Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article71833077.html#storylink=cpy

I am saying that only those delegates who reflect the voting in the presidential primary by the voters, ordinary voters, should count.

All the rest should not exist in my view. I want truly democratic elections for the Democratic primaries.

Why should I go out and vote in a Democratic presidential primary? Why should I campaign for the presidential primary for the candidate I prefer if my vote doesn't really elect a delegate who goes to the convention?

That makes no sense.

We need truly democratic primaries. I don't like caucuses either.

Anything less is a lie and a sham.

And super delegates are at the top of the list of lie and sham conventions.

I used to listen to the Democratic convention on the radio with my father when I was a child. The wheeling and dealing! Uggh!

[Gothmog]

40. This has nothing to do with real voter suppression in the real world

You have repeatedly claim that voter elect the pledged delegates to the national convention. That claim was funny but false.

As for allocations, please go to a state convention. I understand the process because I ran and was elected as a national delegate. Under DNC rules, no pledged delegate is bound to vote for anyone. I was solicited by the Sanders campaign to get me to try to change my vote. My youngest child was called the C-word by the Sanders delegates because she would not get me to change my vote.

In the real world, campaigns have absolute approval rights over delegates. The Clinton campaign vetted her delegates. I know because I was on one of the vetting committees. The Clinton campaign chief, Gary Mauro, had approval rights over all Clinton delegates. The allocation rules you cited are not binding on the delegates in the real world.

Super delegates are party leaders and elected officials. I have no issue with states getting extra delegates if they elect more senators and members of the House. States should be encouraged to have as many super delegates as possible in the reals world. This system does not dilute anyone in the real world. These super delegates are leaders of the party.

I am sad and feel a great deal of pity for you. You need to get out into the real world. In the real world, GOP voter suppression is real. 35,000+ Kansas voters were being denied the right to vote by Kobach until the ACLU sued. In Texas 600,000 registered voters and 1.2 million eligible voters were denied the right to vote in 2014 due to the Texas voter id law. Comparing real GOP voter suppression to your hurt feelings about super delegates is simply sad and wrong.

[LiberalFighter]

105. I agree on all your points. You are correct.

IMO super delegates is an incentive for each state to elect as many federal and other top level Democrats to office.

What many may not realize is that the regular delegates are not even determined by the general voting population. There is a formula that involves the general election turnout of voters voting for the Democratic candidate for President in the last three elections. The higher the turnout the more delegates they will be assigned. So states that lower numbers than the Republican side will be apportioned a lower number. As an example, if two states with the same population but one is normally Republican and the other Democratic, there will be fewer delegates for the Republican state compared to the Democratic state. And it could be higher or lower depending on turnout on the Democratic side.

A good example would be Indiana in 2008. It is considered Republican. The number of delegates increased for the 2012 election because of the turnout in 2008 with Obama winning it. There were fewer delegates in 2016 as a result of it going back in the red for the 2012 election.

[Hortensis]

61. Sophia, your allegation that Republican voter suppression

is no worse than the existence of superdelegates in the DNC is terribly wrong.

I don't understand why you are pushing this shocking fake equivalency between the Repugs and Democrats. Repugs are trying to overcome democracy and Democrats are trying to protect it.

But please stop. This subject can be discussed intelligently and honestly without inserting the kind of demoralizing spin that causes innocent readers to not vote.

[ehrnst]

62. So, you're saying that the Democratic party nominee selection "a lie and a sham?"

Shouldn't you be posting on JPR?

[George II]

68. Since you mention California, how about this for diluting votes:

In 2016 about 13.2 million people went to the polls in California to elect Kamala Harris as Senator, one of 100 Senators. On the other hand, in Vermont only 320,000 people went to the polls to elect Patrick Leahy as Senator.

[Sophia4]

69. It is set up that way because we are a union of states, and each state gets

equal representation in Congress.

I can understand that to some extent. But the problem with that is the unfairness it means in the electoral college. Only two senators plus representatives for a state as populous as California means that the electoral college elects a president who in some mythical world is supposed to be the president of all of us but who doesn't represent Californians as much as he or she does the people of Montana or Vermont.

We Californians get cheated in both the Senate and the electoral college, and since our population is around 39 million and those of 7 states including Wyoming, Montana and Vermont is less than 1 million, the inequity is extreme. 39 to 1 is an outrageous ratio.

[George II]

33. What do super delegates have to do with this legal proceeding?

[Sophia4]

34. They have to do with the fact that the way that votes were being diluted

has the same effect as the way that super delegates dilute the value of the votes we cast in presidential primaries. One super delegate has more vote value in his or her vote than thousands of California voters for example.

The topic on this subthread is diluting the value of votes. It was raised not by me but by something on this thread.

Allowing people to vote or not vote empowers or dilutes the votes of those who can vote.

If people with a certain kind of name are not allowed to vote then votes by people with that kind of name are diluted in their value because not as many votes will be cast by people with that kind of name.

[Gothmog]

38. I deal with real voter suppression in the real world

Super delegates do not suppress the vote in the real world. Despite your silly claims, super delegates are not dirty or corrupt.

This thread deals with a Kansas law where Kobach was requiring Kansas voters to show birth certificates in order to register to vote. Thousands of voters were not being allowed to vote and so the ACLU sued and won. This thread deals with voters in the real world who want to vote but do not have copies of their passports or birth certificates handy. The GOP used a similar tactic in Texas where to get the "free" id that allowed a person to vote, one had to pay for a birth certificate. The GOP want to make it hard for people in the real world to vote and know that poor persons are less likely to have birth certificates and are less likely to be able to pay for birth certificates.

A super delegate named Marc Veasey sued and got this law largely gutted. Even with a favorable court ruling, the GOP tried to keep people from voting with stunts as not telling voters about the new ruling. the signs in Bexas and several other counties used the old signs that did not tell voters that they could vote with alternative ids. We got this fixed during the early voting period including getting the local press to cover the fact that the wrong information had been given to voters. In Harris County, the poll greeters in gop controlled voting sites told voters to go away if they did not have the right ID. We got this process stopped.

I am sorry that your feelings were hurt by super delegates who were mean to your chosen candidate. Your hurt feelings are meaningless when compared to real voter suppression that is the subject of this thread. Voters in Kansas were being prevented from voting in the real world.

This trial is exposing the lies about the GOP claims of voter fraud. The press is covering this trial and people are seeing that Kobach is a liar and a fraud. The Slate article cited on this thread indicates that Kobach's attempt to run for governor may be adversely affected by his failure to show voter fraud. This is important in the real world and out weights your hurt feelings.

[Sophia4]

39. Super delegates are a way for those who support a status quo or a particular

delegate to stack the deck in favor of their delegate.

This has nothing to do with any particular candidate or election. The idea of allowing anyone to "vote" when they aren't elected by voters to represent the voters themselves is anathema to me.

If our candidates are truly elected as candidates by those of our voters who are interested enough to get out and vote, we will win more elections.

Works at all levels of our party. Not just the presidential elections.

I don't think that the Democratic Party should throw any money or any support behind any candidate until that candidate has been nominated in an election open to all members of the party that is public and honest.

No thumbs on the scale please.

[Gothmog]

41. The real voters in the real world will disagree with your hurt feelings

I am sorry that your feelings were hurt because super delegates were mean to your candidate. Your hurt feelings pale in comparison to the topic of this thread which deals with real voter suppression in the real world.

Again, 35,000+ voters were being blocked from registering to vote in Kansas until the ACLU sued. 600,000 registered and 1.2 million eligible voter in Texas lacked the id necessary to vote under the Texas voter id law. In both Kansas and Texas, the only way to vote was to find or purchase a birth certificate. The GOP enacted these laws to keep real people from voting in the real world. Your hurt feelings about super delegates being mean to your candidate does not compare to these real voters being denied the right to vote in the real world.

I am serious. You need to get out into the real world. In 2014 I was part of an effort by the DNC and the Texas Democratic Party to help people get birth certificates and ids. We helped a couple of hundred people get ids but that was a drop in the bucket. Again voter participation in Texas dropped from 39% in 2010 to 33% in 2014 due to real voter suppression. Wendy Davis (the 2014 Dem. Gov Candidate) got almost 300,000 fewer votes than Bill White (the 2010 Dem Governor candidate).

I help establish the voter hotline for the 2016 cycle and trained poll watchers. We ended up with 200+ poll watchers just in Harris County and a large number more trained online for other counties. It takes hard work to make a difference in the real world.

I strongly believe that the voters who were denied their real right to vote will not find your claims about super delegates being mean to your chosen candidate to be amusing. There is no vote dilution in the real world with super delegates.

Again, I am sorry that you have hurt feelings about super delegates being mean to your candidate. How do you think that people who tried to vote and were denied the right to vote in the real world feel about your concerns?

[Sophia4]

44. I was a delegate to my state convention.

I did voter protection in a swing state and in a couple of states.

I have registered countless voters in a couple of states and lived in Alabama as a teenager.

I'm not ignorant. I understand what you are talking about.

I am talking about a different kind of manipulation of primary outcomes than simply denying people their right to vote.

[Gothmog]

45. Really?

Then why did you claim that voters elected national delegate? I have been to several state conventions and been on the rules committee. I ran and was elected as a national Clinton delegate and I am good friends with a number of past national delegates. I will be at my senate district convention on March 24 and will be at the state convention again this summer.

In the real world, the voters who were denied the right to vote would not be amused by your hurt feelings about super delegates. GOP is good at voter suppression and thousands of voters have been denied the right to vote due to these efforts.

This thread deals with an important trial where the GOP patron saint of voter fraud claims is being exposed for his lies. The idiot cited by Trump as proof that three million people voted illegally was exposed as a fraud in this trial

Link to tweet

Hans von Spansky was exposed as a fraud also and there is a chance that the court will rule that Hans does not qualify as an expert witness

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

The GOP justifies their voter suppression laws with lies about voter fraud. This trial is exposing these claims as lies

Link to tweet

The real voters who have been denied the right to vote will not be amused by your attempt to compare their plights to your hurt feelings about super delegates. This thread is addressing real issues that exist in the real world and your hurt feelings about super delegates being mean to your chosen candidate are not relevant to this thread.

I actually live in the real world and I actually do work on voter protection issues. I know Marc Veasey (the super delegate who sued on the Texas voter id case) and Chad Dunn (the lead attorney in that case). I was in the local county voter protection war room on primary day and I will be active during the primary run off and the general election. Voters are being prevented from voting in the real world and your attempt to compare the plight of these voters to your hurt feelings on super delegates is sad.

[Sophia4]

46. My thread points out that votes can be watered down in more ways than one and that

when we hold a primary and then the Party that held the primary appoints additional delegates who can be relied upon to vote as the Party wishes, that also dilutes or waters down the votes of the voters at the polls.

That is the point of my post, and I stand by it. It is simply a mathematical fact.

Having appointed super delegates and other Party appointed delegates is not the only way to dilute the votes of voters at the polls, but it is one of the ways it is done.

So is, of course, denying voter registration to qualified voters.

[Gothmog]

47. Not only are you are wrong as to the math, you ignore how offensive your comparison is

I am sorry but your understanding of math rivals your lack of understanding of the convention process. There is no dilution because under party rules these super delegates are in addition to the number of delegates that a state would otherwise be entitled to. I know the formulas and rules for delegate allocation and super delegates help a state by increasing the number of delegates and the number of votes cast at the national convention. Again I live in the real world and I know many of the super delegates who attended the 2016 convention. These super delegates did not replace other delegates but were additions to the delegation.

I know that your feelings are really hurt that these mean super delegates were not nice to your favored candidate but there is no dilution. States are granted extra delegates if that state wins either a senate seat or congressional seat. We want our states to win congressional and senate seats in the real world. In Texas we hope to pick up three or four congressional seats and have a chance of electing Beto as Senator over Carnival Cruz. If this happens, these victories will increase the size of the Texas delegation and everyone including the national party will be very very happy (have you met Carnival Cruz?). Due to the recent redistricting decisions in Penn., the Democrats may pick up five additional congressional seats which would increase the size of the Penn. delegation. That is not dilution but a reward for taking seats away from the GOP.

More importantly your comparison of real GOP voter suppression efforts to your hurt feelings about super delegates would offend real voters who are being denied the right to vote by GOP voter suppression tactics. This thread is about the trial where GOP voter suppression tactics are put on trial. Again, voter participation in Texas went from 39% in 2010 to 33% in 2014 and Wendy Davis got almost 300,000 fewer votes compared to the 2010 Democratic governor candidate. I had to deal with voters who could not get an id and were unable to vote. It was not fun.

If the ACLU wins this trial, then Kobach may be eliminated as one of the GOP's main witnesses for claims of fictional voter fraud. Here is some more from the trial http://www.cjonline.com/news/20180319/aclu-voter-fraud-story-isnt-real-kobach-respect-kansas-legislature

KANSAS CITY, Kan. — The story Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach tells about noncitizens stealing elections isn’t real, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union said Monday, but thousands of disenfranchised Kansans are.

As seven days of testimony concluded in the federal trial over the Kansas voter registration law, the ACLU’s Dale Ho alluded to Kobach’s frequently spoken claim that the few known examples of voter fraud are just the tip of the iceberg. Ho worked to dismantle Kobach’s estimate of 18,000 illegal voters in the state by pointing to flaws with the estimate’s underlying survey of just 37 people.

“The iceberg, on close inspection, your honor, is more of an ice cube,” Ho said in closing arguments before U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson.

The ACLU has done a great job in this case and the net result of this trial is that the GOP may not have Kobach available to make bogus claims of voter fraud to be used to justify GOP voter suppression efforts in the future.

Link to tweet

I live in the real world and I am fighting real GOP efforts of voter suppression. Harris County turned blue in 2016 due in part to the voter id trial win and as a result one of the people I trained as a poll watcher in 2012 is now in charge of voter registration. This will be one of the first cycles when the local party does not have to sue the county on failure to register voters. During one cycle, the county refused to pay for sufficient voter registration forms in the needed languages (Harris County has to provide for six different languages on its voting machines and voter registration forms). That is not going to happen this cycle.

Progress is being made in the real world and progress will be continued to be made by actually fighting real GOP voter suppression efforts and not complaining about hurt feelings. A voter who was denied the right to vote will be offended by your comparison of your hurt feelings about super delegates being mean to your chosen candidate to their denial of the right to vote.

Again, this thread is about Kobach and real voter suppression and not hurt feelings about super delegates

[Sophia4]

48. The ACLU is great. But if the Democratic Party wants the super delegates to have

the final say in who is the presidential candidate, why do they spend all that money to go through the motions of having voters vote in a primary?

If it is just a sham, why bother?

Either the voters' votes count and decide who will be the candidate or they don't.

Why ask people to go to the polls and vote if you know you have super delegates in your back pocket who can change the outcome if a) it is close enough and b) you don't like what the voters decided?

[Gothmog]

49. Why are you making clearly false claims that have nothing to do with the topic of this thread?

Do you tire of making clearly false statements. First you claimed that voters directly elected national convention delegates. I ran and was elected as a national convention delegate and not one voter directly voted for me. Next you claim that your hurt feelings about super delegates being mean to your candidate is the same as GOP voter suppression which is the topic of this thread. Next you claimed that super delegates dilute the vote of regular pledged delegates which was wrong mathematically. Super delegates are additional delegates who are in addition to each states allocation of pledged delegates. A state that wins a number of Senate seats and House seats should be rewarded. Today's news about Penn. should mean that the Democrats in that state will pick up three to seven new Congressional seats which is good for the party and bad for the GOP.

Now you are claiming that super delegates control the process. Super delegates have never overturned the will of the voters or gone against the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Super delegates are honored leaders of our party and include persons like Congressman John Lewis (one of my heroes). Super delegates have never changed the result of the candidate who had the most pledged delegates. Your claim here is totally wrong.

Next, your claim that holding primaries is a waste of time needs to be addressed because it is clear that you do not understand the party rules or the real world. I was a pledged delegate for Clinton. I could have voted for Sanders if I wanted to under party rules. I was not bound under party rules by the vote of voters. My daughter was my guest as the national convention and she was attacked and called the C-word (do I need to use the actual word for you?) because she would not agree to convince me to vote for Sanders. Under current DNC rules, no delegate is bound by the will of the voters.

This is well recognized and handled in the real world. Each candidate has approval rights over their delegates and the Clinton campaign carefully vetted delegates. I was on the committee that vetted delegates for my senate district. The people who pass this vetting process are loyal democrats who are long time members of the party and who actually believe in the party. People who are properly vetted are not going to ignore the will of the voters or do something that will hurt the party. That is true even if their daughter is being attacked for not agreeing to get me to change my vote. The current system works because the candidates and the campaigns carefully vet national delegates in the real world and these national delegates are always going to do what is best for the party. I live in the real world and I understand and trust the system. Your attacks are based on a lack of understanding of party rules and how the system works.
'
I understand that your feelings are badly hurt because super delegates were mean to your candidate. Your hurt feelings are not a reason to change the system. None of the reasons that you have advanced for changing the system stand up if one lives in the real world.

Finally this thread is about real GOP voter suppression. Kobach is a bad actor who has lied to justify GOP voter suppression efforts. This thread is about the trial that is exposing these lies. I sat through one day of the Texas voter id trial and followed the testimony in that trial. Texas had no evidence of voter fraud which is why the super delegate who sued (Marc Veasey) won that case. Kobach is a bad attorney and did a horrible job of defending himself. There are grounds to hope that in the real world that Kobach will not be taken seriously in the real world due to this trial

Link to tweet

Dealing with real GOP voter suppression efforts is far more important compared to your hurt feelings about super delegates being mean to your candidate.

[stevenleser]

56. All good points. The items you raised all paint a singular picture of a person

Whose purpose is to hurt the Democratic Party with false accusations. This includes an attack on superdelegates while their chosen candidate is a superdelegate and will again be a superdelegate in 2020.

[ehrnst]

59. It's interesting that there were indeed superdelegates who have supported candidates

against the the choice of the majority of the Dem Voters.

But they are not among the ones being complained about here, interestingly enough.

[Sophia4]

77. Super delegates dilute the votes that reveal the will of the ordinary voters.

That is all there is to it. They dilute the votes of voters in primary elections for the president in the very same way that denying the right to vote to certain voters dilutes the votes for the party or candidates that the voters denied the vote would have voted for. It is a mathematical fact.

[Gothmog]

78. Not in the real world

You are wrong yet again. Just because your feelings were hurt by super delegates being mean to your chosen candidate, there is no need to make silly and false claims. There is no dilution in the real world because super delegates are in addition to each states normal allocation of delegates. That does not dilute the vote of anyone.

You have made numerous false claims including that normal voters actually elect national delegates. All of these claims are clearly false and it is clear that your hurt feelings about super delegates are all that matter to your.

Today, the ACLU appears to have won a major victory where the lies about real voter suppression and GOP fake claims about voter fraud were debunked. I live in the real world and in the real world, GOP voter suppression is a real issue. Your concerns about super delegates are all based on made up facts and your hurt feelings.

I am happy that Kobach had a bad day in court today

Link to tweet

I feel sorry for you and the fact that your hurt feelings are getting in the way of fighting real voter suppression. The real world is a nice place. I like working in the real world on real issues

[Gothmog]

70. Meanwhile back in the real world, the ACLU is claiming victory

The ACLU has documented and proved that Kobach is a liar and that the GOP lies about voter fraud are false.

Link to tweet

[Sophia4]

76. Good for the ACLU.

I want every voter to be able to vote and every vote to count equally.

[Gothmog]

79. But some of us are working in the real world to deal with this issue

The ACLU and the judge were amazing in this case

Link to tweet

The trial was based on facts and not on made up claims and hurt feelings

[Sophia4]

80. I live in the real world where super delegates dilute my vote in presidential primaries.

The Democratic Party should not be doing this to voters within its own ranks while trying to rectify wrongs toward minority voters in Republican states.

Super delegates were created in order to dilute the vote of people who sacrifice in many cases to go to the polls and cast their vote in Democratic presidential primaries.

[Gothmog]

81. Your claims are false in the real world

There is no dilution in the real world. You have made repeated claims that are all false. The only thing that you can point to is the fact that your feelings were hurt because super delegates did not support your candidate. That is not voter suppression or voter dilution in the real world.

The fact that you think that your made up claims and hurt feelings are the equivalent of thousands of voters who were denied the right to vote in the real world is sad. The hearing today has demonstrated that Kobach has been ignoring the rulings of the judge in this case and that thousands of Kansas voters have not been allowed to vote in the real world.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

This thread is about real voter suppression that is not made up and is not based on hurt feelings.

I am having to deal with GOP voter suppression in the real world. Again, due to the GOP vote id law, turnout out in 2014 governor's race was only 33% compared to turnout of 39% in the 2010 governors race. Wendy Davis got almost 300,000 fewer votes compared to the 2010 democratic candidate while Greg Abbott (the 2014 GOP governor candidate) got approximately 10,000 more votes compared to Rick Perry.

These are real issues that are not based on made up facts and false statements. I will continue to fight real voter suppression and you are entitled to continue to have hurt feelings

[Sophia4]

82. Super delegates are real vote dilution.

I fight voter suppression too.

And vote dilution is a part of that fight.

I will continue to mention it as I will the fact that we can hardly criticize other countries that have unfair elections when we continue to diminish the value of a California vote in presidential elections by using the outdated electoral college. The electoral college is remnant of the past that should be eliminated the way that literacy tests were elminated in the South.

[Gothmog]

84. And others will continue to be amused by your hurt feelings and lack of facts

Your only claim is based on your hurt feelings. Your math claim fell apart in that there is no dilution. Your claim that voters actually elect national delegates fell apart because you did not understand the process. The claim that Democrats winning Senate seats and Congressional seats is amusing. Again, I am hoping that yesterday's SCOTUS and federal court rulings pave the way for the Penn. Democratic Party to win a number of Congressional seats and expand the size of the Penn. delegation. In Texas we are hoping to expand the size of our delegation by defeating Carnival Cruz and picking up some Congressional seats. These are good things and should be applauded.

You are basing your attacks solely on the fact that your feelings are hurt because super delegates did not support your candidate. The fact that you dare claim that your hurt feelings are equivalent to the feelings of tens of thousands of Kansas voters who were not allowed to vote because Kobach ignored a judge's order is sad.

You are not fighting voter suppression but you are expressing your displeasure at your hurt feelings. I like living in the real world and I am busy fighting real and not made up voter suppression. This statement from the ACLU of Alabama is meaningful to me

Link to tweet

[Sophia4]

85. Super delegates and the electoral college are forms of voter dilution.

I wish the ACLU would speak out about the vote dilution that results from the electoral college. Hillary won the popular vote and would be president but for the electoral college.

[Gothmog]

86. Legal Team Led by David Boies and LULAC Files Lawsuits Challenging Winner-Take-All Approach to Selec

Only someone who does not live in the real world and does not understand the concepts would equate the electoral college system with super delegates. Your hurt feelings concerning super delegates being mean to your candidate are getting sad and old. There is no equivalence between super delegates and GOP voter suppression and none of the claims that you have advanced are based in fact.

Since I actually live in the real world, I keep track of real issues. David Boies and LULAC are suing in Texas and a couple of other states to get rid of the all or none aspects of the electoral college. https://electionlawblog.org/?p=97652

A coalition of law firms led by David Boies of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, and The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) today announced the filing of four landmark lawsuits challenging the winner-take-all method states use to allocate their Electoral College votes. By magnifying the impact of some votes and disregarding others, the winner-take-all system is not only undemocratic, but it also violates the Constitutional rights of free association, political expression, and equal protection under the law. These suits aim to restore those rights nationwide.

The non-partisan effort will draw on the resources of several law firms in advancing legal challenges in two states that are solidly blue, Massachusetts and California, and two others that are solidly red, South Carolina and Texas. All four suits are designed to uphold the Constitution’s guarantee that every vote—whether for a Republican, a Democrat, or third-party candidate—will be treated equally.

This lawsuit is still in the early stages.

The real world is a nice place. I like living in it and dealing with real issue. Your hurt feelings about super delegates being mean to your chosen candidate are getting sad but funny

[Sophia4]

88. Changing the winner take all aspect of the electoral college will not make it fairer

for Californians. We 39 million people. And a number of states are less than one million.

Fact is, they get far more electors per voter than we do.

The problem is not how California's votes are divided up.

The problem is that because we only have two senators for our 39 million people, and states like Wyoming, Montana and Vermont to name only three of them, have fewer than one million people and two senators, the overall number of electors from our state versus less populous states is a big, big problem, a big, big source of inequity and voter repression.

So their idea of changing winner take all will not help voters in populous states. And note that the less populous states including, for example, Alaska tend to be very conservative. Think of the Dakotas that have low populations and are conservative.

So Bowie' approach fails when it comes to making Californians' votes for president count anywhere near as much as those of votes in many other states.

[Gothmog]

90. At least Boies is living in the real world and is attempting to solve a real problem

This is the only legal option that is available to the plaintiffs in this case. If you want to rid of the electoral college, get the National Popular Vote interstate voting compact approved. Boies is pursuing one of the few theories that may work under the law.

Again, I do not have time to deal with the hurt feelings of someone who is offended by super delegates being mean to her candidate. There are real issues to deal with in the real world.

[Sophia4]

94. Boies' theories with which I am very familiar, do nothing to solve the injustice

to California voters. Nothing at all.

[Sophia4]

110. I am very happy that you are working on the voter suppression that you are working on.

The super delegates do not suppress votes in the way you are describing. But they make the votes of those of us who go to the polls and cast our votes worth less than they would be if there were no super delegates. That is just a reality at the convention. Technically, the super delegates have not changed the outcome of the vote at a convention. But they easily could. That is why they were invented after the convention at which McGovern was chosen as the candidate.

I volunteered for McGovern. So I know about this.

I will post this history again:

After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, at which pro-Vietnam War liberal Hubert Humphrey was nominated for the presidency despite not running in a single primary election, the Democratic Party made changes in its delegate selection process to correct what was seen as "illusory" control of the nomination process by primary voters.[15] A commission headed by South Dakota Senator George McGovern and Minnesota Representative Donald M. Fraser met in 1969 and 1970 to make the composition of the Democratic Party's nominating convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast in primary elections.

The rules implemented by the McGovern-Fraser Commission shifted the balance of power to primary elections and caucuses, mandating that all delegates be chosen via mechanisms open to all party members.[15] As a result of this change the number of primaries more than doubled over the next three presidential election cycles, from 17 in 1968 to 35 in 1980.[15] Despite the radically increased level of primary participation, with 32 million voters taking part in the selection process by 1980, the Democrats proved largely unsuccessful at the ballot box, with the 1972 presidential campaign of McGovern and the 1980 re-election campaign of Jimmy Carter resulting in landslide defeats.[15] Democratic Party affiliation skidded from 41 percent of the electorate at the time of the McGovern-Fraser Commission report to just 31 percent in the aftermath of the 1980 electoral debacle.[15]

Further soul-searching took place among party leaders, who argued that the pendulum had swung too far in the direction of primary elections over insider decision-making, with one May 1981 California white paper declaring that the Democratic Party had "lost its leadership, collective vision and ties with the past," resulting in the nomination of unelectable candidates.[16] A new 70-member commission headed by Governor of North Carolina Jim Hunt was appointed to further refine the Democratic Party's nomination process, attempting to balance the wishes of rank-and-file Democrats with the collective wisdom of party leaders and to thereby avoid the nomination of insurgent candidates exemplified by the liberal McGovern or the anti-Washington conservative Carter and lessening the potential influence of single-issue politics in the selection process.[16]

Following a series of meetings held from August 1981 to February 1982, the Hunt Commission issued a report which recommended the set aside of unelected and unpledged delegate slots for Democratic members of Congress and for state party chairs and vice chairs (so-called "superdelegates&quot .[16] With the original Hunt plan, superdelegates were to represent 30% of all delegates to the national convention, but when it was finally implemented by the Democratic National Committee for the 1984 election, the number of superdelegates was set at 14%.[17] Over time this percentage has gradually increased, until by 2008 the percentage stood at approximately 20% of total delegates to the Democratic Party nominating convention.[18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

The math says that the super delegates in a close race would have the ability to dilute the value of the votes of those of us who bother to go and vote in the primaries.

It's simply a fact. It is there. It is wrong. It is corrupt. The Democratic Party needs to rid itself entirely of the concept of super delegates. Party functionaries should be invited to attend the convention without voting as super delegates. The nominations should be either decided by the primaries or we should not hold primaries.

[Gothmog]

118. I worked on the McGovern campaign also even though I was too young to vote

Your hurt feelings on super delegates being mean to your candidate is not convincing anyone. I have been a lifelong Democrat and I am very familiar with the history of super delegate and I actually know a good number of super delegates in the real world.

Super delegates do not dilute the vote and claims that super delegates are the same the real GOP voter suppression. Real voters are being denied the right to vote in the real world by GOP voter suppression efforts. This thread is supposed to be discussing Kobach and his lies about voter fraud. I am happy to see that Kobach has been discredited and now it will be harder for the GOP to attempt to justify voter suppression laws based on these lies.

Link to tweet

[Sophia4]

122. I don't have hurt feelings.

I don't think that super delegates deprived anyone of winning a nomination in my lifetimes.

Please stop ascribing words and ideas to me that I do not have.

I think that super delegates COULD in the future deprive a candidate that honestly won the presidential nomination in primaries and caucuses in the future.

Please do not ascribe to me ideas I do not have.

[Gothmog]

123. Your hurt feelings about super delegates being mean to your candidate are not relevant

This thread is about real voter suppression and how the lies to the GOP about voter fraud were exposed. Super delegates do not dilute the vote of any voter in the real world and you just admitted that super delegates have not changed the nominee in your lifetime(s) and I know that this has not happen in my lifetime. In the real world, I know a good number of super delegates and all of these super delegates are good democrats who will be looking out for the best interests of the party. One of these super delegates was the lead plaintiff in the Texas voter id case.

I have county/senate district convention to go to on Saturday and there are a number of campaigns that I am looking forward to working on. We are still having issues in Texas on voter suppression because the GOP will not give up on these claims. In addition, the DNC told one of my friends that even my congressional district could be in play if the right candidate wins the run off.

Right now, I am amused to see Kobach doing something that he promised the court that he would do a long time ago. Kobach is trying to avoid being jailed for contempt.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

These actions will assure that 30,000+ votes in Kansas will know that they are eligible to vote in the upcoming Kansas primaries and in the November general election. That is far more important to me than dealing with hurt feelings and your worries about super delegates perhaps doing something in the future.

[R B Garr]

102. Bernie lost California by millions. You keep trying to

attribute that loss to corruption. It is completely bizarre that you are desperately trying to create a false narrative about Democrats. These kinds of conspiracies belong on a site like JPR.

[Sophia4]

103. This does not have to do with Bernie.

Why do DUers think Hillary lost in November 2016?

Because not all votes count equally.

If Californians' votes had counted in November 2016 as much as the votes of voters in many other states, Hillary would have won.

The super delegates have the same effect in our presidential conventions. They dilute the vote so that the other delegates' votes, the delegates who represent various candidates, their votes don't count as much as the vote of a super delegate. Technically, it may appear to be the same. But each delegate who was "elected" at a primary or caucus represents the votes of many individuals. The vote of the super delegate in vote tabulation value equals many, many votes cast in primaries.

Why hold Democratic primaries if the Democratic super delegates are going to decide who wins.

Bernie would not have won even if there were no super delegates. This has nothing to do with Bernie. It is a matter of democracy and whether primary votes by ordinary voters really count.

[Gothmog]

107. Your hurt feelings about super delegates being mean to your candidate are sad

Super delegates are not like the electoral college and do not dilute the vote. Clinton was the nominee because she won the most votes and pledged delegates. Super delegates may have hurt your sad little feelings but super delegates did not affect the 2016 election. Super delegates have never changed the result of any nomination contest.

Your comparison of your silly hurt feelings about super delegates to real voters who were denied the right to vote is sad. I live in the real world and there is a great deal of work to be done in the real world This thread is about real voter suppression and the fact that the GOP tells lies about voter fraud to justify voter suppression.

[R B Garr]

108. You contradict yourself and it's too late to say this isn't about Bernie

because your other posts have complained that it is. This is the system we have, so for you to continue to malign Democrats by calling them corrupt is beyond outrageous and really just ignorant of the facts. Wasn't this your excuse for not voting for Hillary? You are put upon that you live in a big state -- that is the essence of your complaint. The big state voted for Hillary and you want to make it about something else besides the reality of the system we live in.

It has already been explained to you and common sense also dictates that super delegates don't vote in the manner you have fabricated. You keep saying that Democrats are corrupt, and that voters don't matter when that is simply not the case.

I was always concerned about your posts before this return since you said you lived in an area of Los Angeles where you could find no support for Hillary, which is rather hard to believe, and you were also concerned about Bernie and the super delegates. Hopefully, your crusade to register a protest vote against Hillary did not affect too many others -- all it took was 75,000 nationally to turn the election over to Trump. With this CA debacle now, it is being exposed how they even targeted as little as 15 voters at a time based on their Facebook pages. Every negative and misinformed message sent out is why we have Trump. Blaming it on super delegates is a fool's errand. California voted for Hillary.

[Sophia4]

109. California voted for Hillary.

But because the electoral college limits the number of electors California sends to the electoral college to our representatives (counted based on our population) and our senators (only 2 for approximately 39 million people in our state) and thus, our individual votes for Hillary did not have the value that the votes of other voters in less populated states had, Hillary was not picked by the electoral college as the winner.

Californians were cheated, and so was Hillary.

And within the Democratic Party, Hillary won the primary in the state of California. Many Bernie voters received only provisional ballots which may or may not have counted because the voters were not properly registered as Democrats. Nevertheless, as I understand it and have always understood it, Bernie lost the primaries because he did not receive as many votes as Hillary.

The super delegates did not make any difference at the Democratic convention in 2016 as I understand and have always understood it. Nevertheless, their existence puts the thumb of the hierarchy and management of the Democratic Party potentially in the pot of the convention voting. It is corrupt. It is wrong if we are to claim to be a democratic party.

Please do not ascribe to me opinions, views or acts that are not mine. I will be very grateful if you respect me as a person and as a Democrat to refrain from depicting me as someone I am not. Thank you in advance.

[R B Garr]

112. Thanks for confirming this is about Bernie, which was obvious. Your doublespeak is

truly remarkable. First you claim that superdelegates are corrupt, but then you go on to describe that basically you are just put upon because of supposed provisional ballots given Bernie voters as if they were singled out. That is not a factual statement, as you were not there at the time that their voting affiliations were communicated. Now you are ascribing sinister motives to California poll workers by saying they didn't count the Bernie votes. We've seen this all before.

You keep insinuating corruption but have nothing to back it up. We have seen this before, too. I hope these charges of corruption didn't affect other California voters even though you refused to vote for Hillary. California is a large state -- so what. Your concerns over that have nothing to do with the Democratic party, nothing to do with corruption at any level. They are just generalized gripes about how our country's voting apparatus is is set up. California is a state like all the others. It's ludicrous to go about maligning Democrats because California is a large state.

Please quit maligning and bad mouthing Democrats for your own misinterpretations, generalized complaints and other non sequiturs. California voted overwhelmingly for Hillary. You just keep trying to make it about something else.

[Sophia4]

113. Guess what! I was there at the California primary.

Thank you for, in the future, refraining from making assertions about events and things about which you do not know.

I was at the polls on the day of the primary, 2016 in California. I went to the polls because some people complained that they had registered as Democrats but were required to vote provisional ballots or that they were not being given Democratic ballots.

I believe I mentioned that I have done some election protection work.

Nevertheless, Hillary won the Democratic primary in California. No one is questioning that. Still, the fact remains that the super delegates were, historically, created so that the Democratic Party bureaucrats could insure that the outcome of Democratic conventions was what they wanted it to be. Read the history please.

Thank you.

Super delegates or primaries. Which will it be? We don't need the expense of both.

[R B Garr]

114. Guess what! You weren't there at the "California primary". California is a huge state,

and you can't be in two places at once. You were at one location. This is all about rehashing the primaries now, which was obvious from your first post in this thread, actually -- it was a complete non sequitur from the content of the OP and just used as a way to spread this meme about Democrats, voting, and corruption.

You are just one person. The state is huge. I was also at the "California primary" then. Do you remember the massive news coverage especially after the polls closed that focused on the efforts to count the provisional ballots?? How could you have missed it -- come on now... The counting went on for awhile. There were formal tallies shown on the news constantly. It would have been impossible to miss the provisional ballots being counted. Impossible.

Now you are going back to trying to fuse two completely different circumstances and events. You are again trying to say that, yes, Hillary won the primary, but something something super delegates. Your distorted comments about history don't make California poll workers corrupt or Democrats corrupt. Please stop.

You keep forgetting that you have many other posts doing the same thing. You make a generalized derogatory observation that is basically just factually biased and then fuse it with actual events in a way that distorts, misrepresents and mischaracterizes. This is all very noticeable.

[Sophia4]

115. I was there. I was at two polling places. I saw the provisional ballots and the many

voters checking their cell phones to look up their voter registration information in order to hopefully get the right ballot. It was a mess.

I know what I saw.

But what happened at the polls has nothing to do with the existence of super delegates.

What happened at the polls probably did not change the outcome of the primary. The super delegates could but have not yet changed the outcome of a Democratic convention. If that should happen, the risk is very great that the very event that would seem unfair to one side or the other at the convention, would cause many people to stay home and not vote. The super delegates would thus cause the defeat of the Democratic candidate.

In addition to diluting the vote of voters who go to cast ballots in Democratic primaries, super delegates could in a close contest cause Democrats to doubt the integrity of the process that nominates the candidate picked at the convention. It could thus, as in Hillary's case for other reasons, discourage many Democratic voters from going to the polls in a November presidential election.

We Democrats cannot afford another lost election. And the super delegates could easily lead to such discontent that many Democrats who supported a candidate who did not win the nomination by a close vote, from going to the polls.

I know there were a lot of problems at the polls in my area (which was an area of strong Bernie support in Los Angeles) in 2016. I do not think that the problems were sufficient to have placed the nomination of Hillary in California in question. But in the future they could be.

Remember as I say this that I have done election protection work. A lot of the talk among Bernie supporters about unfairness or fraud at the polls was exaggerated and in my humble opinion, not true. But it is not always merely the truth that matters. What people believe to have happened also matters because people base their conduct on what they believe happened and not on what happened.

Super delegates are not needed. They dilute the votes that are cast in the primaries. Either Democrats should have an open, honest primary in which ordinary voters decide the candidate, or they should simply revert to the sort of open convention at which you have a lot of favorite sons of various states, uproar, etc. and pick a candidate that pleases the upper echelons of the party. In the latter case, just forget the expense and trouble of the primaries.

We no longer live in the days of Tammany Hall. Either pick the candidate democratically or just pick him or her institutionally and not democratically. But this in between thing makes some very voters think the whole system is rigged.

The super delegates are not necessary, and they should not exist.

It looks odd when we Democrats go to certain usually Republican states and complain about the voter fraud and the diluting of Democratic votes when in our own party, we accept a process that purposely dilutes the votes of people who vote in a way that displeases the Party hierarchy.

Ordinary Democratic voters should choose the Democratic candidate without interference from the Party bureaucrats.

I am not suggesting that any past candidates were picked by super delegates. I am abstractly criticizing the existence of the super delegate institution because it is undemocratic and dilutes the votes of voters in primaries. I am not doing this on behalf of any past candidate. That is absurd. Hillary won the primaries. At least that is what I have been told by the news media. If you know differently or believe differently, please let me know.

[R B Garr]

116. At least you now admit that you are abstractly criticizing....

that much is very obvious. Nothing you mention is based on the reality of the actual events. It is strictly abstract and, as you state, an attempt to change reality so that what people think happened is really more important than what actually happened. What?? No thanks. That kind of deception should not be tolerated in any campaign ever again. That is exactly what the Russian trolls did -- have you read about their methods?? It is all over the news -- it is the essence of what the Mueller indictments are about. Altering facts and reality and phony abstract smear campaigns meant to turn people off Hillary as a candidate...sound familiar??

It is obvious that you cannot begin to blame super delegates on Hillary Clinton's huge victory in California, although that hasn't stopped people from trying to do that and even call California poll workers corrupt as your post seems to attempt. By riffing on abstract poll problems, you neglect to mention the vast press coverage that those so-called problems received, so the facts do not really back up the corruption claims. You even acknowledge that yourself. Your quote:

"A lot of the talk among Bernie supporters about unfairness or fraud at the polls was exaggerated and in my humble opinion, not true."

So you type multiple paragraphs about what you supposedly experienced, and then proceed to declare that all that wasn't really true. Those of us who saw it in real time also knew that it wasn't true.

If you just want to engage in generalized abstract riffing and smears on Democrats calling them corrupt, then you should maybe start another thread instead of trying to fuse actual events in with the abstract and unsubstantiated accusations against Democrats.

Hillary Clinton beat both her male opponents by millions -- so going on about super delegates is beyond abstract. It is just sour grapes that more people supported her because she was an active and loyal Democrat. It is not corrupt to be an active and loyal Democrat who enjoys widespread party support. You keep trying to make someone's popularity within the party about super delegates, so you continue to try and alter perception that they are corrupt, but they are not. Third party candidates are just that.

[Sophia4]

117. I don't blame super delegates for Hillary's winning anything.

I think that super delegates as a concept are undemocratic and should not be allowed in the Democratic Party.

Please explain to me a) what the purpose of the super delegates is, and b) how they further democracy in the Democratic Party?

My problem with superdelegates is not that they HAVE cheated anyone but that they were created to cheat a candidate should the candidate win the Democratic primary without the blessing and coronation of the Democratic bosses.

I am not complaining about unfairness or cheating in any specific election. I am complaining about the existence of the super delegate provision in the Democratic Party rules.

Please do not place on my words a meaning that is neither in my words nor in my thoughts. Thank you for respecting my words and not projecting thoughts on them that do not exist in my words.

[R B Garr]

124. You should take your own advice. Your posts are full of aggressive and unfounded insults

towards Democrats, the party, individuals and groups of people, but you don't like it when challenged on what you say about them. Can't have it both ways. You have called scores of people corrupt on a routine basis -- no proof, just a litany of derogatory speculations, none of which have been proven correct. That was actually a tactic of the Russian bots in the last election cycle. They were tasked with undermining our democracy with constant smears that cause people to doubt our own government. It is the essence of the current Russia investigation.

Here is just a brief list of those you have called corrupt:
Hillary
Democrats
Superdelegates
California poll workers

You have actually thrown the word "corrupt" around quite a bit, so please take your own advice and show respect and do not project your own unsavory ideations about Democrats that do no exist. There are other sites for that kind of thing...thank you.

If you are concerned about democracy, it seems you would be against the caucuses, too, as they directly cheat people. They are also undemocratic. They should not be allowed in the Democratic Party. Now that is something you should really get behind -- there is direct evidence just recently about voter intimidation and other issues with the caucuses that stifled voter participation, a real blow for Democrats; whereas, your superdelegate scenarios never happened.

[Gothmog]

126. Yep and such posts are based on claims that fall apart very easily

[R B Garr]

128. Yes, very easily. They are purely a strategy of getting smears out,

not on substance, truth or legitimacy. Very Rovian and also very familiar......

[Tavarious Jackson]

50. The black Caucas would disagree with you

With good reason

[ehrnst]

58. And it's interesting how their voice is dismissed entirely among some in the discussion. (nt)

[KitSileya]

67. Yeah, unfortunately the Democratic party isn't completely devoid of racism,

and the black caucus knows very well that if we didn't have superdelegates, the base of our party, black men and women, would be grievously underrepresented among the delegates. In each case there would be very good reasons to elect a white man or woman, but really, overall, representation at the convention would skew whiter than it already is.

Not to mention, having superdelegates makes it more likely that people who are newer to politics, who haven't been elected to office get to go to the convention. Let's face it, if we didn't have superdelegates, the county and state conventions would most likely let senators and congresspersons have first chance to become pledged delegates. Now they are taken out, and rewarded for their unstinting work for the party by becoming superdelegates, and ore mundane people get a chance to enter the political process hands-on.

[ehrnst]

54. If the Democratic part is so corrupt, as you describe, "putting thumbs on the scale"

Why do you participate in party activities so heavily, as you claim to?

And why would Bernie participate as a superdelegate, let alone run as a candidate in such a system, if indeed it was as shadowy as you claim.

Can you answer?

Of course not. Your passively worded rants about Democrats are noted.

[stevenleser]

55. All good questions. nt

[NastyRiffraff]

66. Yes, thank you.

It's always been interesting that the very people who constantly attack the Democratic Party then demand that the same party give special treatment to their chosen candidate. I could go on (and on), but it would then be alerted on.

The superdelegate system is something that the Republicans WISHED TO GOD THEY HAD HAD in 2016. It would have prevented a Trump nomination. It was set up to prevent an terrible and/or dangerous candidate from ever achieving the party's nomination and to bring some sort of order to the chaos that was the norm at Democratic conventions. It was never intended to override the will of the voters, and in fact never has overridden the will of the MAJORITY of voters. Of course, there's always the minority, some of whom have hurt feelings and need to blame someone--anyone--for their candidate's loss.

[Gothmog]

43. Kobach Exposed at Trial

Super delegates are a distraction and have zero relevance to this thread. The ACLU is doing a great job of showing that the GOP's claims of voter fraud are bogus in this case. https://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/fighting-voter-suppression/kobach-exposed-trial

The federal trial over a law that disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters in Kansas is expected to end tomorrow. For the past two weeks, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach has attempted to defend not just his signature legislation, which requires people to show documentary proof of citizenship such as a birth certificate or passport when registering to vote, but to support his claim of rampant voter fraud.

He failed spectacularly on both scores. Here are the courtroom highlights:

Kobach’s “iceberg” of fraud:
Kobach has been looking for proof of illegal voters for years, and he’s had unparalleled resources to do so. In 2015, he successfully pushed Gov. Sam Brownback for the power to criminally prosecute cases of voter fraud, making him the only secretary of state in the country with such sweeping authority.

So what exactly did he come up with?

At trial, Kobach was only able to identify 18 noncitizens — out of 1.8 million voters —who have successfully registered to vote over a nearly 20-year period. Only five of them actually cast a ballot. Kobach was not able to show that these 18 instances constituted intentional cases of fraud, rather than mistakes stemming from clerical errors.

Regardless, Kobach claims that these numbers represent “just the tip of the iceberg.” In his crusade to find the rest of the non-existent mass, he seems willing to accept the more than 35,000 people who were actually blocked from registering to vote under his law as collateral damage.

In the Texas, North Carolina and Penn. voter id trials, the state could find no evidence of voter fraud. This trial is getting better press and Kobach is the patron saint of voter fraud claims. The ACLU is doing a great job of establishing that there is no voter fraud and that the GOP voter suppression efforts are not needed.

This is an important case and I do not want silly and bogus claims to derailed the importance of this case.

Tomorrow, the court may get to determine if Kobach is in contempt

As trial wraps, opposing sides will make closing arguments and the judge will rule on a motion to hold Kobach in contempt of court for repeatedly refusing to comply with the court’s preliminary order blocking the law, and with related orders on notifying the public about voter registration requirements. A federal magistrate has already sanctioned Kobach for making “patently misleading representations to the court."

Finally this trial has discredited both Hans van Spanskoy and the idiot that trump claims show that there were three million illegal votes. Dale Ho of the ACLU has asked for finding that Hans be declared to be non-expert in this area

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

This trial deals with important real world issues

[ehrnst]

52. Why would Bernie participate as a superdelegate if it was so wrong?

You never answer that. It would not jibe with the rest of your theory....

No, caucuses dilute the vote far, far more than Superdelegates. Superdelegates have never given a candidate the nomination over the wishes of the people.

Even when a candidate really, really wants them to.

[ehrnst]

53. So if you think superdelegates make Democratic primaries a "sham"

How on earth could you ever participate in such a party that simply wants to seat "a preferred candidate?"

You have posted many times about your deep participation in the Party.

This makes no sense to do both.

Can you explain?

[ehrnst]

60. Your hijacking of this thread to change it to one where you bash the Democratic party is noted. (nt)

[Gothmog]

72. Meanwhile back in the real world, I am so proud of the ACLU and this victory

Link to tweet

[ehrnst]

74. Fantastic! Real progress on actual voter supression!

[mcar]

15. This is one of those very important issues

being lost in the flood of important issues.

Thanks Gothmog!

[Gothmog]

17. Top ACLU Voting Rights Lawyer Rips Into Trump Experts Evidence Of Kansas Voter Fraud

Dale Ho is a very good lawyer and this trial gave the ACLU to poke holes in the lies about voter fraud used to justify GOP voter suppression efforts https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/aclu-hans-von-spakovsky_us_5aa33fe0e4b01b9b0a3b7c9b?kwk

The ACLU’s top voting rights lawyer faced down one of President Donald Trump’s voter fraud commissioners in court on Friday, getting him to concede that he had shaky evidence of significant voter fraud in Kansas.

The exchange came on the fourth day of a trial over a Kansas law that requires residents to prove they are U.S. citizens when they register to vote. Several residents who were not allowed to vote in the 2016 election are being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union in the suit against Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R).

Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s voting rights project, questioned Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official and member of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, who is one of the most prominent people arguing that noncitizen voter registration is a substantial issue. Several studies and investigations have shown it is not.

The back-and-forth between the two men in U.S. District Court ostensibly was about Kansas law (von Spakovsky is serving as an expert witness for Kobach). But Ho’s cross-examination had deeper significance in the national debate over voting restrictions because he was able to show that allegations of widespread voter fraud can often be based on incomplete information derived using unscientific methods.

In the Texas voter id case, Greg Abbott and the State of Texas could provide no evidence of voter fraud which was important. The same thing happened in the Penn. and North Carolina cases. It is important that we use these trials to show that the GOP claims of voter fraud are bogus.

BTW, I do admit that I am really enjoying myself but then again I spent most of primary day in a voter protection war room trying to protect the vote. It is my hobby

[Gothmog]

19. My soap opera is only hold until Monday

[Blue_true]

20. Ho should have said "A federal judge whose family has been US citizens for X generations".

That would have gutted the bastard.

[Gothmog]

22. The judge in that case knows

That is all that matters

[gratuitous]

21. A hard lesson for Kobach and his cronies

Ramming legislation through a pliant legislature is pretty easy. Whatever you say about voter fraud just becomes true, and everyone votes as if it were true.

Then, you get into a court of law, and "Because I said so" no longer operates as a basis for proceeding. There's all these rules and laws and procedures and stuff that get in the way! How is that even fair? And don't get Kobach started on the judge! Such a smarty-pants; thinks she's so big just because she wears a black robe and gets to boss men around. Bet she doesn't even read the Bible about how she's supposed to be submissive.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

23. But judge, it says right here on page 27!

[Gothmog]

42. How not to try a case

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

75. The judge is not happy with Kobach

Link to tweet

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

104. Doesn't sound like Mr. Kobach knows how to make a factual record

I'm sure somewhere in Law for Dummies it must mention that a successful appeal needs good facts. He probably never got that far in the book. Maybe if there were more pictures. Probably should have watched more episodes of Law and Order before he decided to play trial lawyer.

[Gothmog]

106. Kobach needed this

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

24. My soap opera starts again on Monday

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

25. This is not a good sign for Kobach

The audience applauded after the ACLU's cross of Kobach's latest expert

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. Were Kobach and his witnesses all homeschooled by Betsy DeVos?

[Gothmog]

30. You may be right

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

35. One of the observers at this trial asks a very important question

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

29. Kris Kobach Is a Loser

The voter-fraud obsessive once looked like a threat to American democracy. It’s now clear he’s too obtuse to sell his own lies.

This article makes me smile https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/kris-kobach-is-a-loser.html

Kobach limped home to Kansas to prepare for a bench trial over his proof-of-citizenship law. That trial, which began earlier this month and is ongoing, has been an unmitigated disaster for Kobach—a merciless rebuke of his professional life’s work. The trouble actually began well before the trial started, when a federal judge fined Kobach $1,000 in June for making “patently misleading representations to the court” about a document he’d taken to his initial meeting with Trump, one that proposed eviscerating a federal voting rights law. A different judge then almost held Kobach in contempt for refusing to comply with a court order and accused him of having “sandbagged” the court by trying to introduce new evidence at the last minute.

Remarkably, things only got worse for Kobach. In an unusual move, he decided to try the case himself with the assistance of lawyers from the secretary of state’s office. It quickly became apparent that he does not understand civil procedure in the slightest. Early on, U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson, a George W. Bush appointee, reprimanded Kobach and his team for failing to follow the rules. “Evidence 101,” she told him. “Not going to do it.” Later, she instructed Kobach to “please” read the rules of evidence, noting that he had made the same mistakes “ad nauseam.” Eventually, Robinson delivered a trenchant lecture to Kobach from the bench, scolding him for attempting “trial by ambush.”

Meanwhile, the ACLU, which filed suit against the proof-of-citizenship measure, savaged Kobach’s paranoid theories in meticulous detail. His expert, Richman, was forced to concede on the stand that his work did not suggest that Trump lost the popular vote due to fraud, as Kobach had asserted. ACLU attorney Dale Ho also illustrated the profound infirmities of Richman’s methodology—which, again, formed the basis of Kobach’s allegation that 18,000 noncitizens are registered to vote in Kansas. As part of his process, Richman flags names on the voter rolls that sound “foreign.” Ho asked him if the name “Carlos Murguia” would be flagged. Richman said yes. Ho informed him that Murguia is a federal judge who works in that very courthouse.

Robinson will almost certainly rule against Kobach. If the secretary of state appeals, even a conservative judge sympathetic to Kobach’s voter-suppression agenda would have a hard time upholding this act with a straight face.

It is difficult to overstate the damage this trial has done to Kobach’s mission of disenfranchisement. The secretary of state has spent years building up a dossier of pseudoscientific studies that putatively prove the existence of mass fraud at the polls. His claims have served their political purpose: Republicans cite them as holy writ, Democrats contest them, and their validity became yet another point of partisan debate. Kobach had a good thing going, which he ruined by attempting to pass off this nonsense in court, where evidence is scrutinized for its veracity rather than its partisan utility. The result has been catastrophic for Kobach’s cause, exposing the voter-fraud panic to be nothing more than a cynical, half-baked myth.

This trial is going to hurt the myth of voter fraud and hurt GOP voter suppression efforts which are real

[SonofDonald]

51. A preview of what dumpf would be like

Under oath, I'm gob smacked by the above details, unfreakin believable, it's convinced me that any of the special suspects such as page, kushner, Jr. Nunes and more if hauled into court would be the gift that keeps on giving.

I can't wait to read the final report on this trial, one with all the giggles and snickers included.

And some of us have been so worried about these brain donors.

[lastlib]

57. I went to law school with Carlos Murguia--SMART guy!

Kobach is a grandstanding dipsh&it.

[Gothmog]

63. The contempt phase starts today

Kobach ignore the court's rulings in this case and may be held in contempt today

Given the poor performance by Kobach so far, this could be fun

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[lunasun]

65. K&R This how they do it and it must be stopped

Aside from Ho, Judge Robinson also confronted von Spakovsky. He said that any time a non eligible person cast a ballot it was voter fraud because they were diluting a legitimate vote. But Robinson wanted to know if it would also be fraud if thousands of citizens were blocked

[Gothmog]

71. Yeah for the ACLU-there is no voter fraud

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

73. Federal judge scolds Kobach for violating her trust at contempt hearing

Kobach has really pissed off this judge http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article206025749.html

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach could be facing a contempt order from a federal court after a judge in Kansas City, Kan., tore into the Kansas Republican about repeatedly skirting her orders.

U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson chastised Kobach, a candidate for governor, at a contempt hearing Tuesday for suggesting that her previous orders in a federal case that has dragged on for several years have left any room for ambiguity.

"I've had to police this over and over and over again,” Robinson said with frustration.

Robinson ordered Kobach in 2016 to fully register thousands of Kansas voters who had registered at the DMV but had failed to provide proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport, as required by a Kansas law that Kobach crafted.

Kobach defied this judge's rulings and thousands of citizens were prevented from voting. The ACLU is calling for Kobach to be held in contempt

Link to tweet

[Hermit-The-Prog]

83. wish I could shake your hand

The work you do to end voter suppression beats hell out of the latest "storm" from TrumPutin!

And thanks, too, for reporting on this lawsuit. Kobach is hilariously incompetent at times -- may all their evil schemes get burned in the light.

[Gothmog]

89. The judge was not amused

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Hermit-The-Prog]

91. roast him!

I followed Groklaw (SCO vs the world) for ten years and there was never any satisfying judicial roasting like this.

Gonna check ACLU to see if the full transcript is available there.

[Gothmog]

92. This will make you smile

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

95. Trump's claims of voter fraud are on trial in Kansas and Kris Kobach is losing

Link to tweet

[Hermit-The-Prog]

96. thanks! needs more coverage

That one loaded. I hope all the news media outlets cover this outcome.

Citizens denied the right to vote is far more serious than the latest outrageous tweet from the imposter. We've been dragged back to 1964 on our way to 1890.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

87. "Kobach" sounds like a foreign name.

Possibly Germanic?

I think there's a lot of foreign-sounding names around here.

[Gothmog]

93. Kris Kobach Just Got Humiliated in Federal Court

The Kansas secretary of state wanted to prove his claims of widespread voter fraud. Instead, he was repeatedly embarrassed.

This trial has really made me happy. The GOP lies about voter fraud were destroyed. The expert witnesses were torn to pieces and Kobach may have killed his chances to be governor. I love this article https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/kris-kobach-just-got-humiliated-in-federal-court/

Judge Julie Robinson was losing patience. Before the 2016 election, she had ordered Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach to restore the right to vote to thousands of Kansans who’d been disenfranchised by a state law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. On Tuesday, Kobach was again in her courtroom, this time at the tail end of an eight-day trial challenging the proof-of-citizenship law, in which the ACLU was also asking Robinson to hold Kobach in contempt of court for declining to tell those voters that they were once again eligible to vote. “I made it clear they’re fully registered voters,” she told Kobach, pounding on her desk for emphasis.

Kobach’s battle against the ACLU was supposed to be a showcase for his claims of widespread voter fraud. When he ran for Kansas secretary of state in 2010, Kobach said “the illegal registration of alien voters has become pervasive.” That led Kansas to pass the law requiring people to provide documentation including a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers to register to vote. The law prevented 35,000 Kansans from registering between 2013 and 2016.

Instead, the trial devolved into a comedy of errors, with Kobach’s witnesses frequently contradicting his claims or getting humiliated by pointed questions they couldn’t answer.

Kobach, who led President Donald Trump’s election integrity commission and is now running for governor, hired Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation to support his claim that illegal votes by non-citizens had swung US elections. But under questioning from ACLU lawyer Dale Ho, von Spakovsky admitted he couldn’t name a single election where votes by non-citizens had decided the outcome.

Von Spakovsky is a truly evil person who really believes that it is voter fraud when a non-white vote. I followed other voting rights trial. In the Texas, the North Carolina, and the Penn. voter id trials no evidence of voter fraud was provided but the attorneys in those cases did not make fools of themselves. Here the amazing failure of Kobach to prove anything will hurt the GOP's attempt to use lies about voter fraud to justify voter suppression

[Hermit-The-Prog]

97. was about to post the motherjones

Was just about to post that motherjones article in this thread. Good thing I reloaded.

Still looking for a transcript.

[Gothmog]

98. The Mother Jones article is great

I would like to see a transcript.

The ACLU did a great job

[Hermit-The-Prog]

99. Fish v. Kobach ?

Is this it, just not yet updated on the website? last update: Memo in Support of Contempt "02/26/2018"

https://www.aclu.org/cases/fish-v-kobach

[Gothmog]

100. That is the original style of this case

[Hermit-The-Prog]

101. it has the principals

All the people mentioned in your reports above match, but I can't tell if it's the same case.

http://ksd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/16-2105-doc-258-amd-schedo.pdf

Dates match reasonably well, too.

http://ksd.uscourts.gov/?s=16-2105

None of that gets to the juicy transcript, though. Bet that's only available through Pacer.

[Gothmog]

121. It is the same case according to what I read

[Gothmog]

119. Pseudoscience on Trial: The Spectacular Fall of President Trumps Voter Fraud Thesis

This article made me smile https://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-latner/pseudoscience-on-trial-the-spectacular-fall-of-president-trumps-voter-fraud-thesis

The voter fraud thesis fell apart in truly spectacular fashion under examination, and could very well result in the overturning of the law, the denial of one witness as an “expert” in future testimony, and even a finding that Mr. Kobach be held in contempt of court. To understand how things could have possibly gone so badly for Mr. Kobach, consider some the highlights of the trial, wherein the “science” used to claim that voter fraud is rampant dissolves before our eyes, much like the Kobach Commission:

Hans Von Spakovsky, a fellow member of the Kobach Commission, had to acknowledge early on that his research on voter fraud has not been subjected to peer review, and further acknowledged that all of his inferences about voter fraud in Kansas were based on a spreadsheet provided by Mr. Kobach.
Regarding the frequent comment that known accounts of voter fraud are “just the tip of the iceberg,” lead counsel for plaintiffs Dale Ho asked “You don’t have any estimate of the size of the iceberg, is that right Mr. Von Spakovsky?” Von Spakovsky: “That’s correct.”
Cross-examination also revealed that Von Spakovsky’s submitted court report contained incomplete information that made it possible for him to inflate estimates of non-citizen registration. Subsequently, plaintiffs asked Judge Julie Robinson to make a finding that Von Spakovsky is not an objective expert, having offered incomplete and misleading testimony.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

120. needs own OP!

That made me smile, too. Leave it to a scientist to make a bullet list of the anti-science involved.

That should be an opening post with a link back to this OP (for background).

[Gothmog]

127. Done

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210403135

[NastyRiffraff]

111. This is better than "Law and Order"

It's more like "Days of our Lives." It's fun seeing Kobach being humiliated by the ACLU AND a judge!

[Gothmog]

131. Yep

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

125. The Kris Kobach Voter Fraud Trial Was About Much More Than Kris Kobach

This article summarizes the trial well https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kris-kobach-proof-of-citizenship-trial_us_5ab508d2e4b0decad0494b28?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004

As the trial progressed, it became clear that the case was about much more than the Kansas law and Kobach. It began to revolve around a deeper question: Is the evidence that supports the idea of widespread voter fraud credible at all? For the ACLU, the trial offered a unique chance to get a judge to assess the reliability of experts whose research is used to justify claims about voter fraud across the country; even though several studies and investigations have shown it is not a widespread problem.

The ACLU repeatedly got Kobach’s experts to concede their work was not always subject to peer review and highlighted flaws in their methodology. In doing so, the ACLU sought to deal a more devastating blow to claims about voter fraud, creating a court record anyone can point to in the future to question claims about illegal voting....

As the trial progressed, it became clear that the case was about much more than the Kansas law and Kobach. It began to revolve around a deeper question: Is the evidence that supports the idea of widespread voter fraud credible at all? For the ACLU, the trial offered a unique chance to get a judge to assess the reliability of experts whose research is used to justify claims about voter fraud across the country; even though several studies and investigations have shown it is not a widespread problem.

The ACLU repeatedly got Kobach’s experts to concede their work was not always subject to peer review and highlighted flaws in their methodology. In doing so, the ACLU sought to deal a more devastating blow to claims about voter fraud, creating a court record anyone can point to in the future to question claims about illegal voting.

This trial destroyed the claims made about voter fraud. In the Texas, Penn. and North Carolina, the attorneys could not prove voter fraud but these attorneys for Texas, NC and Penn did not give us so much material to use against trump, Kobach and the other idiots pushing lies about voter fraud.

[Gothmog]

129. Kobach's Behavior During Recent Trial Prompts Ethics Complaint From Overland Park Lawyer

This will be fun to watch. I guess that Kobach can be disbarred and still run to be governor http://kcur.org/post/kobachs-behavior-during-recent-trial-prompts-ethics-complaint-overland-park-lawyer#stream/0

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach committed ethical violations during the just-completed trial over the state’s voter registration law, a Kansas immigration lawyer alleges in a bar complaint.

Matthew Hoppock, who practices in Overland Park, said he was duty-bound to file the complaint as an officer of the court.

“I have to,” he told KCUR. “Any licensed attorney in Kansas who thinks another attorney has broken the rules is required to."....

Although he declined to spell out the contents of his bar complaint, Hoppock’s tweets made clear he believes Kobach violated at least four of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, the canons governing attorney behavior:

By acting as an attorney and serving as a fact witness in the same case, Kobach violated the rule that bars lawyers from acting as advocates at a trial in which they themselves are witnesses.
Because U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson found before the trial that Kobach had made “patently misleading representations to the court,” Kobach violated the rule prohibiting attorneys from knowingly making false statements to the court.
By missing filing deadlines, Kobach violated the rule requiring attorneys to “act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.”
Because he was repeatedly chastised by the judge for running afoul of evidentiary rules during the trial, Kobach violated the rule requiring attorneys to “provide competent representation to a client.

[stranger81]

130. This flew completely under my radar last week, but Kobach has picked a running mate,

Wichita businessman and former Kobach-critic Wink Hartman.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article206248779.html

I know nothing about this guy. Does anybody else?

Here's to a crushing defeat for Kobach come November.