Open Left - Michigan

CA Measure to Improve Youth Voter Engagement Goes to Governor

project vote — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Cross-posted to Project Vote's Voting Matters Blog

The California Legislature approved a bill last week to extend voter registration privileges to 17-year-old citizens. If signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the bill would help put California youth on the road to a lifetime of democratic participation.
Nearly half of all eligible voters under age 30 nationwide were not registered to vote in 2008. Assembly Bill 30 extends voter registration opportunities to all 17-year-olds, not just those who will be 18 by the next election, as current California law allows. This change would "make implementation of preregistration more efficient and streamlined, and should lead to less confusion," wrote Elizabeth Wu of the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan public policy group, in a press release Tuesday. AB 30 would more effectively reach young people in high school civics classes and voter registration drives, and ultimately get them on the rolls in advance of turning the legal voting age of 18.

Voter registration is "one of the largest barriers to voting," said Steven Hill, director of the foundation's Political Reform Program, because "citizens often become energized by candidates or issue campaigns in the last weeks of an election only to find they are not registered to vote." The idea of allowing young people to register in advance not only has them ready to participate upon turning 18, but it also instills civic duty at an early age.

"Research has demonstrated that developing good 'political engagement' habits at a younger age will increase the likelihood of civic participation as an adult," said Hill. "AB 30 will help break the 'disengagement cycle' that often prevents young people from developing habits of participation that carry over into their adult years."

While several states like California already permit certain 17-year-old citizens to preregister to vote, only five extend the opportunity to all 16 or 17-year-olds. States with laws similar to the pending AB 30 include Louisiana and Oregon. Preregistration is also extended to citizens as young as 16 in states like Hawaii, Florida, and most recently, North Carolina, which passed House Bill 908 into law last month.

Rhode Island also passed a preregistration bill earlier this summer, only to be vetoed by Governor Donald Carcieri. However, FairVote - a voting rights group that has long championed preregistration in the state - hopes that with the "huge majorities in favor of the bill in both the RI House and Senate this year," the General Assembly will override the governor's veto, according to a July blog entry. Proving to be a popular year for preregistration, a similar measure was adopted by the Michigan House. The pending HB 4261 awaits a hearing in the Senate Committee on Campaign and Election Oversight.

To monitor the California and Michigan bills, visit www.ElectionLegislation.org.

Michigan to Build Windmills--If You Let Them

lord_mike — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 05:09:08 GMT

Today, the news posted a glimpse of the promise of Obama's green economic initiatives:

From the Detroit Free Press: http://www.freep.com/article/2...

Granholm's remarks on the rescue came after her announcement that state tax breaks for 20 business projects will net the state $2.3 billion in new investments.
That will ultimately produce 7,400 new jobs, directly and indirectly, according to the Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC).
Among the ventures is a company that makes wind turbines and a firm that will make a lightweight bus that gets three times the gas mileage of conventional buses.

Such a vision might transform manufacturing in the midwest and bring new prosperity to the long suffering rust belt... Except that this initiatives is very close to failing, if... if... (more over the break)
...if General Motors fails.

People who live outside the former Northwest Territories don't seem to really understand the tangled web of manufacturing that binds, and sometimes suffocates, this part of the country.

Rural and urban are all alike. Whereas you may see massive auto plants in Flint, Michigan, perhaps.... you are equally likely to see a wheel axle plant in the absolute middle of nowhere. Huge, majestic... out rising from the corn like some ancient pyramid.

GM buys from practically all of them.... whether it be a giant manufacturing plant that employs several thousand, or some small 10 person machine shop that makes specialty springs... They all need GM to keep them going.

And if GM's 35,000 suppliers (that includes all the little guys that feed up to GM's main suppliers) from all over the country don't get paid and go under...

Well, Michigan won't be building those wind turbines to power the country will they? They won't be building those fuel efficient buses, either...

No one in America will... the manufacturing base will be gone... the facilities permanently closed, their skilled labor scattered... and Obama's Green Economy will be outsourced to China like everything else.

Do we really want that?

Support America. Save GM. Save the green economy.

State Report: Michigan

21st Century Democrats — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:09:41 GMT

This is the second in a series of Grassroots Reports we will be providing over the final few weeks of the campaign to let the blogosphere know what 21st Century Democrats is doing in several key battleground states. This week we're focusing on Michigan where Democrats continue to build momentum. Recently, John McCain was forced to pull out of the Wolverine State in a move that will benefit not only Barack Obama, but Democrats all down the ticket - including our endorsed candidates Gary Peters, Mark Schauer and Andy Meisner.

21st Century Democrats has focused the majority of our resources in the important swing district of Oakland County. We've had organizers on the ground there for months and the polls have started to show voters moving in the Democrats' favor with Barack Obama now leading John McCain in the county by 6%. While this is a good sign, we must keep fighting hard until all the votes are counted on November 4th.

In Michigan's 9th Congressional District (which includes Oakland County), Gary Peters is running ahead of incumbent Republican Rep. Joe Knollenberg. Recent polling has shown Peters up by as much as 9 points, and he is 'banking' a lot of support in preparation for a strong get-out-the-vote effort. The campaign has already identified over 55,000 'yes' votes for Gary! Things are also looking good in the 7th Congressional District where Mark Schauer is consistently polling 7-10 points ahead of his opponent, Rep. Tim Walberg.

Andy Meisner, our endorsed candidate for Oakland County Treasurer, is running a truly impressive field operation as he tries to move to a new post after three successful terms in the state legislature. 21st Century Democrats' organizers have helped the Meisner Campaign contact 34,143 voters and make 7,886 IDs. The numbers are looking very good with 7,886 voters identified as a '1s' or '2s' (meaning they will likely vote for Andy) against only 463 people who said they would probably vote for his opponent.

The prospects for a big Democratic victory in Michigan are strong, but we can't let McCain's withdrawal make us complacent. As Peter's Republican opponent's campaign manager said, "our voter turnout operation is knocking on doors to get people to show up on Election Day." These Republicans understand the value of knocking doors and turning out the vote - and so do we! I hope you will support our efforts in Michigan and around the country.

Our first state report (on Montana) can be found here.

Latest chapter in GOP voter suppression efforts

21st Century Democrats — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:53:40 GMT

Cross-posted at 21st Century Democrats blog.

Afraid that they will lose this election, Republicans have turned ACORN into the boogie man. They are making baseless claims that ACORN is perpetuating voter fraud due to its voter registration activities.

In fact, the Republican National Committee's chief lawyer has labeled ACORN a "quasi-criminal organization," and McCain's campaign has launched ads accusing the group of "massive voter fraud" and bullying banks into making risky home loans. McCain's camp is also trying to link Democratic Sen. Barack Obama to ACORN. Last night, McCain said, "ACORN is destroying the fabric of democracy."
Rather than cower in fear, 21st Century Democrats is proud we honored Katy Gall of Ohio Acorn with our 2008 Paul and Sheila Wellstone Award. And we are equally proud to have honored Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, as one of our Leaders-in-Action - another target of Republican voter suppression tactics.

Now we will be partnering with No Voter Left Behind to fight voter suppression and vote theft in Ohio and throughout the country because these charges are just another chapter in the long history of conservatives trying to suppress and steal votes.

Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups telling a gathering of conservatives that he doesn't want people to vote. In fact he says, "Our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

Here are some additional facts:

ACORN has helped 1.3 million citizens from all parties and all walks of life register to vote.
In most states, ACORN is required by law to turn in every voter registration card - even in cases where the cards are not valid.
It is ACORN that has reported almost all of the issues regarding voter registration cards.
Invalid voter registration cards do NOT constitute voter fraud. Even RNC General Counsel Sean Cairncross has recently acknowledged he is not aware of a single improper vote cast as a result of bad cards submitted in the course of an organized voter registration effort.
A 2005 study by the League of Women Voters and the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio found that only 4 of about 9, 000,000 votes cast in the state from 2002-2004 were fraudulent.

Here are some additional links to the voter suppression efforts in Michigan this cycle: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Changing the Game: Voter Registration Drives Reshape the American Electorate

project vote — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:50:07 GMT

Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, Voting Matters

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns

Monday marked the last day to register to vote before November's presidential election in many states and the conclusion to one of the nation's largest nonpartisan voter registration drives in history. Helping more than 1.3 million of the America's underrepresented young, low-income and minority citizens register to vote, Project Vote and its voter registration drive partner, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), have played a leading role this election cycle in changing the face of the electorate to represent all Americans.
In 2006, according to Project Vote study, "Representational Bias in the 2006 Electorate," the proportion of the U.S. population that was registered to vote was biased toward Whites and older, affluent and educated voters. Latino and Black citizens were less likely to be on the voting rolls, registering 17 and 10 percentage points, respectively, behind Whites. Lower income citizens, or those earning less than $25K per year, registered 21 percentage points (60%) behind those earning $100K per year or more (81%). And in keeping with their long history of lagging voter registration and participation rates, voters under the age of 30 registered to vote at a fraction (51%) of the rate of those ages 30-64 (70%). The most stunning findings in the report were that if eligible minorities actually voted at the same rates as Whites, an extra 7.5 million votes would have been cast in 2006.

News articles from every corner of the country are reporting increased registration rates, pointing to a potentially "game-changing" reshaping of the electorate with voters feeling newly empowered to demand that elected officials address their issues. Election officials are predicting "it's going to be a tsunami of voters" on Election Day.

"In the past year, the rolls have expanded by about 4 million voters in a dozen key states," according to the Washington Post Monday. More than half of the 1.3 million that Project Vote helped register were in key states Ohio, Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania, according to Richard Wolf of USA Today, 60 percent of which "are under 30 and about two-thirds are minorities." A driving motivation behind this rise in registrations, according to ACORN board member Carmen Arias, is the "faltering economy."

"In 2004, we were met with apathy," Arias said in a press briefing Tuesday. "We had to convince people to register to vote. This year, we were met with excitement: people are excited to have an opportunity to have a say in solving the foreclosure crisis, and the health care crisis. They're eager to have politicians listen to them."

Elected officials listen to those who vote, and America's imbalanced electorate has effectively silenced millions of low-income citizens.

"We think it's important that the voices in our community get heard," said interim chief organizer of ACORN, Bertha Lewis. "This isn't just about going into the voting booth, but it's actually about strengthening democracy and instilling an ongoing commitment to effect real change."

Reports from Colorado, Michigan, and Florida all note increased registration rates and spikes in last minute registrations. On Monday, a Denver elections office took 100 people per hour who poured in to register or apply for mail ballots before the deadline, according to Myuang Oak Kim of the Rocky Mountain News. Project Vote and ACORN's voter registration effort helped more than 70,000 Colorado voters get on the rolls.

In Michigan, 95 percent of eligible voters are registered, according to the Associated Press. Local clerks, who processed 217,000 applications from Project Vote, "are gearing up for what's expected to be a heavy turnout on Election Day," which may exceed the 68 percent that turned out in 2004. To accommodate the influx, secretary of state spokeswoman Kelly Chesney said her office has recommended increasing the number of voting stations to avoid long lines as well as develop separate lines for those who "are having issues with the state's relatively new voter ID requirements."

In Florida, 430,000 "younger, more ethnically diverse and more Democratic" voters joined the voter rolls since January, according to Michael Bender of the Palm Beach Post Saturday. Project Vote and ACORN's efforts helped register152,000 of these voters.

"Everyone wants to be involved this year; they want to be a part of history," says Verna Hunter, a retired Fort Pierce, Fla. woman and long time local voter registration drive volunteer. "It's just a really inspirational time."

"Our belief, fundamentally, is that by expanding the electorate, by changing its profile, we will get candidates who will start to appeal to those new voters," said Project Vote Executive Director Michael Slater in Tuesday's press briefing. "The idea isn't to assist, whether overtly or covertly, the election of any single candidate, but to force candidates to take into account the interests of Americans who have not historically participated in as high rates as others and to start pursuing policies and programs that are more responsive to their needs."

The idea of new voters demanding different policies and programs is threatening to some entrenched powers, and many partisan attacks on voter participation programs and disinformation campaigns have already been launched with just less than four weeks to go until Election Day.

Project Vote will be running a voter education and mobilization canvass in the run-up to Election Day to ensure that all of our registrants go out to the polls. In addition we are running an aggressive Election Administration program to fight partisan attempts to suppress the vote, and ensure that all eligible voters can cast a ballot and that those ballots will be counted. Please follow this link so that you can help support Project Vote's Get Out The Vote and Election Administration Program.

Quick Links:
Hess, Douglass R. "Representational Bias in the 2006 Electorate." Project Vote. Sept. 2007.

In Other News:

States' Actions to Block Voters Appear Illegal- New York Times
Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law, according to a review of state records and Social Security data by The New York Times.

Disabled vet says Tucson officials kept him from voting - Associated Press
A disabled veteran says the city of Tucson prevented him from exercising his right to vote last year.

20 percent of Ohio's provisional ballots rejected - Associated Press
CLEVELAND -- Roughly 20 percent of provisional ballots cast in the March primary election in Ohio were rejected by election officials, a newspaper review found.

Idaho voter registration for students questioned - Associated Press
BOISE, Idaho - Idaho college students face some of the toughest restrictions in the nation when trying to register to vote at their college addresses, according to a national study.

Erin Ferns is a Research and Policy Analyst with Project Vote's Strategic Writing and Research Department (SWORD).

As the Bank Run Ends, McCain May Have Another Shot

Matt Stoller — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:07:10 GMT

Photo from Bartcop

So McCain will have no more mail, TV, or staff in Michigan, though the Republican independent expenditures arm will still be running a campaign on his behalf. Larry Kissell is leading by 11 points in his North Carolina district, just one more data point this crisis has been great for Democrats (something Lieberman echoes in lauding the passage of the bailout as good for McCain). The polling lead for Obama has expanded, but now, if the economy settles down, the race can tighten up again. Jointly pushing this bailout could take the economic crisis off the table, and bring back Wright and the nonsense of the conventions.

Meanwhile, what we're learning about this crisis, in a terrifically reported article by Andrew Ross Sorkin, Diana B. Henriques, Edmund L. Andrews and Joe Nocera, is pretty awful. One thing that confused me is how small dollar donors and ordinary people thought this was a travesty, but elites and wealthy progressives were absolutely panicked and crazed that it had to go through. This article clears that right up; the crisis was essentially a bank run by hedge fund managers and billionaires. One way to think about investment banks is as basically banks where rich people and companies put billions of dollars; when the Fed let Lehman fail, billions of dollars in those accounts were frozen. If you are someone with tens of millions of dollars, some of your money at Lehman was inaccessible, and it was supposed to be liquid. Hence, panic. This panic was directly Bernanke/Paulson's fault for letting Lehman go under after bailing out Bear Stearns and AIG.
Now, normally you don't put a billion dollars into an account without insurance (people like you and me get FDIC insurance, but that only goes up to $100k), but there's no 'real' market for this insurance, because no one except the Fed has the resources to insure the deposits at any of these major investment banks. Still, a market for something called 'credit default swaps' developed, which were marketed as insurance for these accounts, even though everyone knew that the people selling the insurance couldn't actually guarantee anything. It would be as if my neighbor claimed his house was worth a billion dollars, was able to borrow money against his house and bet at the track, and I offered to insure his house at a billion dollar rate for ten thousand dollars a week (selling him what's known as a credit default swap). He and I would know it was a farce, that I couldn't insure his house and his house wasn't worth a billion dollars, but if he could borrow the money against an asset and bet at the track, why wouldn't he? Someone else is going to be stuck with the bill if he loses, and if he wins at the track, hey, he's got a billion dollars, for real this time.

If everyone pretends that the house is worth a billion dollars, the system works. But once that pretense goes away, the system collapses, and that's essentially what happened here. The collapse of Lehman, after the toxic assets and overleverage (aided by a rule change pushed by Paulson as CEO of Goldman) caused it to lose billions betting with money borrowed against overvalued assets (housing stock), created mass panic, because unlike AIG and Bear Sterns, Bernanke decided to just let Lehman go under. He didn't just punish the stockholders and bondholders of Lehman, he punished the institutions with money in their account at Lehman, which were other banks and very very wealthy people.

And it turns out, none of their vaunted insurance was valuable in a crisis, and they knew it. You see, most Wall Street types assumed that investment banks were too important to fail, so like my insurance against my friend's billion dollar house, they underpriced the insurance and knew it couldn't actually insure anything. When the Fed let Lehman fail, credit default swaps skyrocketed in price and credit froze up, because no one knew if any of their normal accounts were safe. Of course, no one can actually afford to be the insurer of last resort, except the government, so in a sense, these credit default swaps are just a profit stream for the unscrupulous willing to tell you they can insure your money without being able to do it. When investment banks like Goldman Sachs become unsafe to hold money, then money floods into treasury bonds, the only safe place in a storm; this was the credit crunch, a run on the banks for the mega-wealthy.

As for the $700B bailout plan, it really doesn't make any sense as a solution for this problem. What is needed is government insurance of the shadow banking system, regulation of that system (which has happened sort of with Goldman and Morgan becoming bank holding companies), and a winding down of the credit default swap market, as well as a recapitalization of the banks. The $700B can simply be used as a cash injection to take toxic assets off the books through holding companies, and my guess is that this cash is going to be used to help out the Arabs and Chinese, who hold our toxic paper and can at any point stop lending us money.

The politics are almost rote in their routine of bad faith. Paulson and Bernanke, who screwed everything up in the first place by letting Lehman go under and freezing up all the accounts, thereby setting in motion the bank run, had their 'break the glass' plan ready for the crisis, and after credit began freezing up because of Lehman, Bernanke lied to Congressional leaders (or simply panicked.)

That Thursday evening, however, time was of the essence. In a hastily convened meeting in the conference room of the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, the two men presented, in the starkest terms imaginable, the outline of the $700 billion plan to Congressional leaders. "If we don't do this," Mr. Bernanke said, according to several participants, "we may not have an economy on Monday."

Well, obviously, he was wrong, the economy did fine on Monday. One thing the article makes clear is that Congressional leaders want to pass this. Schumer clearly doesn't care that Bernanke was wrong and dishonest, neither does Dodd, Pelosi, Frank, etc. They don't know what they are doing, and so are listening to their panicked big dollar donors, who are the depositors making a run on the bank.

For one moment, the wealthy saw that they had lost control of their political leaders, and absolutely panicked. Warren Buffet bought in to Goldman and GE, and says that he's relying on this bailout to make sure that investments pay off. We have no idea how many toxic assets these firms own, and we don't know what these assets are worth. All we know is that Hank Paulson, and whichever Treasury Secretary Obama or McCain appoints, will have a basically unlimited budget to take them off the books of these extraordinarily wealthy people (as well as the foreigners lending us money), and put them onto our backs. And yes, we will pay for this, deeply.

The monetary system is deeply broken, and this may stave off a crisis for another few months or years, but this won't be the only shot to reform the system. Let's just hope that the crisis is enough to fully sink McCain's chances.

On Winning the Midwest: Part 1

Andrew Davey — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:46:57 GMT

(Proudly cross-posted at C4O)

Last week, we finished surveying the lay of the land out West. This week, we begin to turn our attention to the Midwest. Yes, that's right. The Midwest looks to be once again a crucial battleground to win both the White House and Congress. And with just six weeks left until election day, we'd like to talk about the state of the races in America's Heartland.

So would you like to join us?

Let's begin with Ohio. Ohio may yet again be THE critical swing state this year, as polls show an extremely tight race here. However, the Presidential race isn't the only exciting contest in The Buckeye State. We also have some great opportunities to win some more Congressional seats as well!

In the Columbus based 15th District, we have a great candidate in Mary Jo Kilroy. She's currently a Franklin County (Columbus) Commissioner who has a terrific record of accomplishments in bringing Republicans and Democrats together to enact real solutions to the county's economic, health care, and environmental problems. But while Kilroy offers a message of real change, her Republican opponent only offers more of the same Bush-Cheney-McCain nonsense. Mary Jo Kilroy nearly ousted the Republican incumbent in 2006 (who's now retiring) and Bush barely squeaked by with 50% of the vote here in 2004, so this district is ripe for the picking in 2008! With the DCCC and EMILY'S List already all in here, our help can really help put Mary Jo Kilroy (and Barack Obama, for that matter!) on top this November.

Another race that the DCCC and other top Democrats are targeting in Ohio is the 16th District. Here, Air Force veteran and current state representative John Boccieri is running to bring some real change for Northeast Ohio. He's fought for our country, and he now wants to fight for Ohioans... For more and better jobs, affordable health care, and real help in these perilous economic times. Meanwhile, Republican Kurt Schuring... Well, he's not quite as fond of his possible future constituents. This race is quite winnable for Democrats, and we have a terrific candidate in John Boccieri. If we support him, he will win.

Another state that's critical for Barack Obama this fall is Michigan. The race here is close, but the renewed focus on the economy does seem to help Obama here. If there's any state that's been severely hit by the economic downturn, it's Michigan. And hopefully with Obama's message resonating here, we can also elect more good Democrats to Congress from here.

One great candidate running is Gary Peters from Michigan's 9th District (Oakland County, Detroit suburbs). Peters is an accomplished state legislator, business owner, and a Navy Veteran who signed up again to serve after 9/11. Unlike the incumbent Republican Joe Knollenberg, Peters wants to get to work to help rebuild Michigan's economy. But in order to make change happen here, we need to help Gary Peters win.

Michigan and Ohio are two critical swing states for Barack Obama to win this fall. If he wins them both, he'll likely win the White House. But in addition to the Presidential race, we have critical Congressional races to win as well in these two states. Please don't forget to help all these wonderful Democrats win by giving what you can here and by volunteering for the campaign if you live in or near any of these districts. With our help, we'll make victory happen on November 4 in the Midwest and all over the country! :-)

Mich. GOP Targets Foreclosure Victims for Election Day Dirty Tricks

project vote — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:19:22 GMT

Cross-posted at Project Vote's Voting Matter's Blog

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns

Partisan political operatives in Michigan are taking voter caging operations to depths that would surprise even the most cynical observers of American elections. If their plans are put into action, thousands of Michigan foreclosure victims may find that they will not only have lost their homes this year, but also their vote.
Operatives in the closely contested state, which is home to thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure, are "gearing up for a comprehensive voter challenge campaign," according to Eartha Jane Melzer of the Michigan Messenger Wednesday. The state allows parties to send election challengers to polls to challenge the eligibility of voters if they "have good reason to believe" a voter is ineligible. In this case, the GOP of Macomb County-a "key swing county" with a foreclosure rate in the top three percent in the nation-has announced plans to challenge the voting eligibility of foreclosure victims based on residency.

"We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren't voting from those addresses," Macomb County GOP chairman James Carabelli told the Messenger.

J. Gerald Herbert, a former voting rights litigator for the U.S. Justice Department, questions what he calls a "mean-spirited" and possibly legally-baseless tactic: "You can't challenge people without a factual basis for doing so...I don't think a foreclosure notice is sufficient basis for a challenge, because people often remain in their homes after foreclosure begins and sometimes are able to negotiate and refinance."

Teresa James, attorney for Project Vote, agrees. In a statement released today, James explains that Michigan law allows challenges at the polls only if the challenger "knows or has good reason to suspect" a voter is ineligible. According to James, the Michigan Secretary of State has clarified this to require that challenges should be based on "reliable sources or means."

"Republican challengers with only a list of foreclosure notices will have NO evidence or reliable source to suggest that eligible voters have moved and are no longer eligible to vote," says James.

"The Macomb County party's plans to challenge voters who have defaulted on their house payments is likely to disproportionately affect African-Americans who are overwhelmingly Democratic voters," Melzer writes. "More than 60 percent of all sub-prime loans - the most likely kind of loan to go into default - were made to African Americans in Michigan..."

Melzer points out that Republican presidential candidate John McCain's regional headquarters is in the office of the state's largest foreclosure law firm, Trott & Trott, whose founder has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the campaign. McCain "stands to benefit from the burgeoning number of foreclosures in the state," Melzer writes.

"At a minimum, what you are seeing is a fairly comprehensive effort by the Republican Party, a systemic broad-based effort to put up obstacles for people to vote," says Herbert. "When you are comprehensively challenging people to vote, your goals are two-fold: One is you are trying to knock people out from casting ballots; the other is to create a slowdown that will discourage others." This type of disruption would be expected in areas with high foreclosure rates, particularly the Detroit metropolitan, where one in every 176 households received foreclosure filings during the month of July, according to Melzer.

"You would think [the Macomb GOP] would think, 'This is going to look too heartless,'" says David Lagstein, head organizer for Michigan ACORN, which has registered 200,000 new voters statewide and provides foreclosure-avoidance assistance.

"The Republican-led state Senate has not moved on the anti-predatory lending bill for over a year and yet have time to prey on those who have fallen victim to foreclosure to suppress the vote," Lagstein says.

Michigan is not the only swing state at the risk of voter caging issues this election. At the urging of Project Vote and other voting rights advocates, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner recently issued a binding directive to all county election boards, instructing them that parts of the state's challenge laws in relation to residency challenges based only on returned mail were unconstitutional. It is unclear, however, whether Brunner's directive will prevent partisans from filing frivolous challenges anyway, which-however baseless-could have a chilling effect on voter turnout. And the Michigan Messenger reports that Franklin County, Ohio director of elections Doug Preisse and the chair of the local GOP have said they do not rule out challenging voters before the election due to foreclosure-related address issues.

In Project Vote's statement, Teresa James says "The GOP's plan is a cynical partisan attempt to suppress the vote of thousands of low-income and African-American voters, a replay of the 2004 threats of mass challenges...In America you get to vote even if you're behind on your bills. All Americans-particularly those members of the community hit hardest by the economic crisis-deserve a voice and a vote on Election Day."

Quick Links:
"Voter Caging." Project Vote.
James, Teresa. "Caging Democracy: A 50-Year History of Partisan Challenges to Minority Voters." Project Vote. September 2007.

In Other News:

'No-Match, No-Vote' Law Draws Criticism - Associated Press
TALLAHASSEE - Advocacy groups predicted Wednesday that thousands of people, mostly the poor and minorities, will be denied the right to vote through no fault of their own under a new Florida voter registration law.

Can young people actually make a difference this year? - Slate
In 2004, the "youth vote" was supposed to break all records. It did and it didn't-but either way, it didn't make a difference for John Kerry, even though he won 54 percent of voters under 29. So it is with this year's youth vote: Even if it exceeds that of four years ago-Barack Obama currently commands about 60 percent of the under-29 cohort-it will be nearly impossible to say whether it made a difference.

ACLU launches campaign to get former prisoners to register to vote - Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin [N.Y.]
ALBANY -- The New York Civil Liberties Union today kicked off a six-week campaign to educate county election boards and former prisoners on the voting rights of convicted felons.

Erin Ferns is a Research and Policy Analyst with Project Vote's Strategic Writing and Research Department (SWORD).

Daily Tracking Polls for Saturday

Chris Bowers — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:30:00 GMT

The daily tracking polls for Saturday directly contradict one another, with Obama up 2 in Gallup and down 2 in Rasmussen:

Gallup (8/6-8/8, 2,686 RVs, MoE 2, yesterday's number in parenthesis)
Obama: 47 (46)
McCain: 42 (43)

Rasmussen (8/6-8/8, 3,000 LVs, MoE 2, yesterday's results in parenthesis)
McCain: 47 (46)
Obama: 46 (47)

The national trend from Pollster.com shows Obama ahead by 2.4%, although that will probably eke up slightly with the addition of the new Gallup numbers (Rasmussen's numbers from tomorrow, not today, will be added into the average).

With a new poll yesterday, McCain's advantage in Missouri has grown to 2.8%, both in the four-poll average an in the regression trend line. In Michigan, where there was also a new poll yesterday, Obama's advantage has dropped to 3.2% in the four-poll average, and 5.4% in the regression trendline.

The state of the campaign continues to hover between a statistically significant Obama lead, and a statistically insignificant Obama lead. A complete, 50-state survey of the four-poll averages can be found at my Presidential Forecast, and a complete survey of regression trendlines can be found at Pollster.com.

Path To The White House Leads Entirely Through Blue States

Chris Bowers — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:30:00 GMT

As a result of gians made in the 2006 elections, the path to the White House now leads entirely through blue states. If one adds Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico to the states Kerry won in the 2004 election, there is now an easy, non-Ohio, non-Florida path to victory for Democrats. The new, natural governing map now looks like this:

"Easy" Or "Firewall" Map: Obama 273--265 McCain

This is the easy path to victory, and it requires neither Ohio nor Florida. Here are some worthwhile facts about these twenty-two states, plus D.C.:

Democrats control both branches in 20 of the 22 state legislatures: In every state except Michigan and Pennsylvania, Democrats control both branches of the state legislature.
Democrats control a majority of 22 of the 23 congressional delegations (note: some errors follow--update below): If the members of the House and Senate are combined, Democrats control the majority of congressional delegations in every single one of these states except Michigan, where Democrats trail by only an eight to nine margin.
Obama leads in all 23 states: Obama currently leads by 5.5% or more in all 23 jurisdictions, except in Colorado where he leads by 4.0%. I has been more than a month since even a single poll has shown McCain either ahead or tied in any of these states. The last was a poll Michigan, on May 27th. Since hat time, three Michigan polls have shown Obama ahead by 3%, 6%, and 9% respectively.
Democratic dominance in three new states: In Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico, Democrats hold the trifecta--both branches of the state legislature and the Governorship. Democrats have picked up four of the fifteen seats in the U.S. House in these three states over the last four years, and are poised to pickup even more this time (NM-01 is a particularly strong pickup). Democrats picked up a U.S. Senate seat in Colorado in 2004, and are set to pick up tow more Senate seats this year, with the Udalls poised for a Colorado and New Mexico sweep.

In other words, thanks to large local gains in the 2006 elections, Democrats now completely dominate local politics in enough non-southern states to win the Electoral College. There are now enough "naturally" Democratic states in order to win the White House.

Unlike Gore and Kerry in 2000 and 2004, Obama does not have to go through Republican states in order to win the Presidency. He doesn't have to win Ohio, and he doesn't have to win Florida. Basically, all he has to do is hold states where, other than Michigan, Democrats have been completely dominant lately. If we lose this election, it will be because we lost at least one blue state, and picked up no red states. As such, we now win unless something abnormal happens. The Presidency is now ours for the taking.

Update: Oh yeah, Republicans still technically control the New York State Senate, for at least another couple of months. I forgot that Bruno's retirement didn't automatically and immediately hand over control. Also, Democrats do control the Michigan State House, while Republicans control the Delaware and Wisconsin State Houses. See it all here. Democrats have two of three (Sate House, State Senate and Governor) in all of the blue states listed above.

Veepstakes - Why not Bonior?

Englishlefty — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:03:58 GMT

The Democrats have plenty of strong VP picks this cycle. Amongst those who get a lot of blogosphere attention I'm particularly partial to Sherrod Brown, Brian Schweitzer, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Kathleen Sebelius and Bill Richardson.

Nevertheless, the blogosphere doesn't make the decision. And we have less influence than the media. The conventional wisdom in the media is that Obama needs to pick a moderate elder statesman with defence and foreign policy credentials. A lot of people seem to be backing Sam Nunn.

This would be a truly appalling choice. He's been good on nuclear non-proliferation issues and is no doubt a dab hand at negotiating with banana republic despots, but he's terrible on economic issues and routinely favoured regressive social policies.

He supported the Iraq war and he mulled an independent run this year. The only saving grace is that he's too old to run as Obama's successor.

Thankfully such a choice appears unlikely at present. Obama's decision to interview Patty Murray suggests that he's not fooled by the beltway consensus that Unity 08 was a great idea.

Nevertheless, there's still an outside chance that Nunn, or similar wastes of space like former Indiana congressmen Lee Hamilton and Tim Roemer. And even if that doesn't happen, this kind of media discourse pushes the Overton window leftward, so figures like Feingold are not perceived as remotely plausible candidates.

To that end, I have a solution: David Bonior.
David Bonior was a Democratic representative from Michigan for more than two decades and was the Whip of the Democratic Caucus from 1991. In 2002 Republican redistricting divided up his district, so he ran for Governor instead, losing in the primary to Granholm. This cycle he was John Edwards' campaign manager and has since become a forceful advocate for Barack Obama.

He's got close ties to labour and has been an opponent of all manner of free trade agreements. He'd probably be able to bring Michigan out of McCain's reach and his background would be helpful in the Rust Belt and parts of Appalachia.

I won't pretend he's a perfect candidate. His base is white union members, which is not a demographic Obama has problems with, and it's far from certain he could also help in non-union households. Also, he's pro-life.

Yes, this is a major problem. Ordinarily, I'd say it disqualifies him. Except he's not going to succeed Obama, the judges he'd name would be economic populists more than they'd be pro-lifers and, most importantly of all, we're not trying to make him get the nod.

I don't think David Bonior should be VP. We have a lot of good candidates already and we should pick someone who can carry on after Obama. But putting him forward as an acceptable elder statesman is the best counter to Nunn. If change must be balanced with experience, let's have someone on the side of the working man. Let's have an opponent of the Iraq war. Let's stop pretending that sitting on Intelligence and Defence committees automatically makes you an expert on national security.

Why not David Bonior? There are good reasons why not, but all of them should move the narrative in a more progressive direction.

A Very Close Election, But Clinton Wasn't Robbed

Chris Bowers — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:30:00 GMT

After any close election, not only will there be a sense of frustration and anguish among the supporters of the losing candidate, but there will also be a significant amount of feeling that the result was somehow unfair or unjust. The 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination campaign will be no different in this regard, as there are already numerous narratives from the Clinton campaign and Clinton supporters that Senator Hillary Clinton was, in some fashion, robbed of the nomination.

However, while there are at least six narratives of this type, none of them hold up to closer scrutiny. I examine, and debunk, each of these six arguments in the extended entry.
Debunking The Six "Clinton Was Robbed" Arguments

Popular Vote: The Clinton campaign has long claimed that Senator Clinton received more votes in the nomination campaign than did Senator Obama. However, when all states are included, and when Senator Obama is, as per exit polls, properly allocated 72.9167% of the Michigan uncommitted vote and uncounted write-in votes, then he actually leads by 17,393 votes. This is the only counting system that I know of which includes every state, and which only counts each voter once. As such, it is the broadest and fairest count, and Obama leads in it. Senator Obama, not Senator Clinton, narrowly won the national popular vote.
Caucuses: This complaint is mainly a subset of the popular vote argument, but it has still cropped up enough to deserve individual mention. The Clinton campaign has repeatedly argued that Senator Clinton leads among primary delegates, and would have won the nomination if every state held a primary instead of a caucus. As I explained earlier today in more detail earlier today, it is probably correct that Clinton would have won the nomination if every state held a primary instead of a caucus. However, since Obama won the popular vote, since every campaign knew which states would hold caucuses more than a year ahead of time, and since no campaign complained about caucuses until at least late January 2008, this argument doesn't hold any weight. These were the rules, everyone knew them ahead of time, but the Clinton and Obama campaigns simply approached caucuses with different amounts of resources. For example, according to an article in today's Washington Post, Obama had 21 campaign staffers in Kansas to Clinton's 3, and the Obama campaign has an official presence in the state three months longer than the Clinton campaign. Clinton did just fine in the caucuses she targeted--Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico. Her failures in other caucus states are due to a lack of organizing and her inability to sway the Democratic activist class.
Media Coverage: The Clinton campaign and Clinton supporters have complained excessively about imbalanced, supposedly pro-Obama media coverage during the nomination campaign. However, as it turns out, media coverage of Clinton and Obama was equally favorable from January 1st through March 9th, according to the latest study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism. The time period of the study, which ended just before coverage of Jeremiah Wright exploded across the corporate media, showed Obama with 69% favorable media coverage, and Clinton with 67% favorable media coverage. As such, in 2008, it does not appear that Senator Barack Obama received more favorable media coverage than Senator Hillary Clinton.
More Sexism Than Racism: I won't attempt in this space to determine if there was more sexism or racism in the campaign, if one candidate benefited more form the refusal of certain voters to pick a woman / African-American, or if one campaign played the racism / sexism card more. From my vantage point, it has pretty been a wash. I suppose someone could conduct a survey of exit polls, and add of the Clinton vs. Obama split in every state among voters who said that "race was a factor" in their decision and that "gender was a factor" in their decision. Combine that with a more extensive media study, and maybe we can make an actual determination. Until that time, however, this is a question with only subjective, indeterminate answers.
Rules and Bylaws Committee Decision: What if Michigan and Florida has been seated, with full voting rights, based exclusively on the results of their January primaries? Even then, because of the 22 uncommitted Michigan delegates who chosen at the April 17th district conventions and who publicly supported Obama, it turns out that Obama would have still gone over the 2,210 magic number last night. So, according to the Clinton campaign's own delegate argument, Barack Obama has reached the magic number of delegates. The Rules and Bylaws Committee did not change the outcome, only the margins.
No Florida and Michigan Revotes: Finally, according to today's Washington Post, the Obama campaign was always opposed to any revotes in Florida and Michigan, because they feared such revotes could give Clinton momentum, delegates and a popular vote advantage. This does seem like an egregious act on the Obama campaign's part. However, the Clinton camp never approved a revote plan for Florida, either, so the Obama camp is no more at fault in that state than the Clinton camp. When it comes to Michigan, any revote would have probably allowed Obama to narrow Clinton's popular vote margin in Michigan (a margin of roughly 135,000 according to the above popular vote totals), and at least draw even to the five delegate margin that Clinton eventually received from the Rules and Bylaws committee. This is because the only post-primary poll of Michigan showed a dead heat, 41%-41%, between Obama and Clinton in Michigan. Had there been a Michigan revote, Obama's delegate margin would not have been reduced, while his popular vote margin would have increased. So, while it was not the most enlightened action undertaken by the Obama campaign, it would not have affected the ultimate outcome.

Overall, while the margin was extremely narrow, Obama still won the nomination fair and square. He won the popular vote, did not receive more favorable treatment in the media during 2008, probably did not disproportionately benefit from the racism vs. sexism divide (although more study might be needed on that one), and would have still prevailed under any Florida and Michigan scenario. It was a tough, bitter, slog of a campaign, but the outcome was not unfair. In the most fascinating nomination campaign any of us will probably ever witness, Barack Obama emerged the narrow, but ultimately deserving, victor. Let the healing begin.

Who Gets To Vote? States Battle Over Voter ID and Election Day Registration

project vote — Thu, 29 May 2008 18:25:04 GMT

Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, Voting Matters

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold Indiana's voter ID law, the state-by-state battle to pass similar legislation has escalated with politicians seeking partisan gain furiously pushing laws that hinder access to the ballot. However, lawmakers seeking to dismantle barriers to electoral participation are just as committed to election integrity and protecting the voting rights of potentially millions of voters by calling out voter ID laws as "sheer political posturing." Meanwhile, positive measures to increase participation through Election Day Registration (EDR) are gaining ground in several states even as Iowa prepares to test-drive its new EDR law in the June 3 primary.
Voter ID

Last week, two states introduced new voter ID bills, including Mississippi. The state - which convened for a "costly special session" - introduced two new voter ID bills after seven failed at the end of the 2008 regular session in April. One bill, S 2004a passed, but is expected to die in the House, according to Jackson, Miss. publication, The Clarion Ledger. The other state, North Carolina introduced voter ID bill, H 2284, explicitly citing the Supreme Court's Indiana decision and the state's unspecified "voter fraud history" as reason to enforce voter ID.

This week, stubborn Illinois politicians extended the deadline to pass voter ID bill, H 4403 for the third time since the bill was introduced in January. The state is projected to adjourn on May 29. Illinois' openness to continued efforts to pass a voter ID bill was not mimicked in Massachusetts on Tuesday when lawmakers blocked an effort to allow voter ID legislation in the city of Lawrence, according to The Eagle Tribune.

The Lawrence bill passed the city council in February in hopes of silencing "frequent rumors of electoral fraud and voter mischief," the mayor, Michael Sullivan, said. In another interview, Sullivan admitted he was not aware of actual voter fraud in the state, the Eagle Tribune reported. Even on the national level, voter fraud is exceedingly rare. Between 2002 and 2005, the federal government was able to secure just 24 voter fraud convictions out of 214 million ballots cast in federal elections during the same period, according to Project Vote report, The Politics of Voter Fraud.

Despite nine pending voter ID bills, such legislation is unwelcome in Mass., having a "powerful enemy" in chief election officer and Secretary of State William Galvin and organizations such as MassVote and the state ACLU, which "contended requiring voter ID was an unreasonable burden on voter access."

While the Mass. legislature blocked the bill to avoid setting "a precedent of allowing individual communities to have different election laws," Delaware politicians were less concerned with confusion and disenfranchisement. State legislators enacted a law permitting Milton city councilors to pass an ordinance requiring both proof of citizenship to register to vote and voter ID to cast a ballot.

This legislative session, Project Vote has monitored 25 states that introduced numerous voter ID bills. Currently, six states are still considering such legislation. To track some of these bills, visit ElectionLegislation.org (registration required).

Election Day Registration

On the positive side of election reform, several states are considering or preparing to implement a measure that "significantly increases the opportunity to cast a vote and participate in American democracy."

Iowa will "test" a new law allowing citizens to both register and vote on Election Day during the June 3 primary, according to the Associated Press. "It will be a good test for the county commissioners, because in November there will be a flood of people," said Secretary of State Michael Mauro.

The AP noted fears of voter fraud as a result of convenient registration procedures like EDR.

However, "administered effectively, Election Day Registration may actually provide more security for the ballot, not less," according to Demos, a research and advocacy organization. "As the secretary of state of Minnesota [Mark Ritchie] recently put it, 'EDR is much more secure because you have the person right in front of you-not a postcard in the mail. That is a no-brainer. We have 33 years of experience with this.'"

Election Day Registration helps enfranchise historically underrepresented communities, including minorities and young people. Currently, eight states allow same day registration, most of which boast a turnout rate 10-12 percent above the national average, Demos reports.

Last week, Ohio joined the ranks of seven other states that are currently considering EDR. The state introduced House Joint Resolution 6 to provide for same day registration. It is currently in the House committee on State Government and Elections. Same day registration is also being considered by Congress. Earlier this month, Sen. Russell Feingold introduced an EDR bill, S 2959. The bill is currently in the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. To monitor Election Day Registration bills, visit ElectionLegislation.org or Demos.org.

Quick Links:
Voter ID:
Bills and Contact:
Miss. Senate Bill 2004a
Sponsor: Sen. Terry Burton (R-31)
Resources:
BLOG: Counter framing Voter ID: Voting is a Right, Not a Privilege. Voting Matters Blog.
Citizens Without Proof: A Survey of Americans' Possession of Documentary Proof of Citizenship and Photo Identification. Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
EDR:
Bills and Contact:
Mass. S 2514
Sponsor: Joint Committee on Election Laws
Mich. H 410
Sponsor: Rep. Bettie Scott (D-3)
Neb. L 803
Sponsor: Sen. Ray Aguilar (NP-35)
N.J. S 141
Sponsor: Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-20)
N.Y. A 4488
Sponsor: Asm. Michael N. Gianaris (D-36)
N.Y. S 581
Sponsor: Senate Rules Committee
Ohio HJR 6
Sponsor: Rep. Tyrone K. Yates (D-33)
Okla H 3035
Sponsor: Rep. Ryan McMullen (D-55)
Resources:
www.Demos.org

In Other News:

The Vote Fraud Bogeyman: Evidence suggests that rampant voter fraud is a myth, and voter-ID laws may suppress votes rather than protect them - Newsweek
Just as a sizable fraction of American children firmly believe in a bogeyman in the closet, many American adults are gripped by the paranoid fear that the opposing political party regularly steals votes-Democrats allegedly do this through vote fraud (i.e., casting ballots for dead people) and Republicans apparently do so through vote suppression (i.e., preventing voting through intimidation or misinformation).

Arizona to seek dismissal of challenge to voter ID law - Associated Press
State officials say a challenge to Arizona requirements for voter identification and proof of citizenship should be thrown out in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana's voter ID law.

Erin Ferns is a Research and Policy Analyst with Project Vote's Strategic Writing and Research Department (SWORD).

Gimme That Old Time Delegate Count

Chris Bowers — Wed, 28 May 2008 17:53:42 GMT

I had promised myself that I wasn't going to write about the Democratic presidential nomination campaign anymore, or at least that I wouldn't write about it as an unresolved, ongoing process anymore. However, with very few new general election polls after the holiday weekend, what's one more for old time's sake?

Anyway, in advance of the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting this Saturday, DNC lawyers have issued an advisory opinion that the DNC is required to strip Michigan and Florida of at least half their delegates. Assuming for a moment that Florida and Michigan are seated with half delegations based on the results of the January 22nd primaries, we are presented with the following delegate chart:

DNC Advisory Ruling Delegate Count

Type	Obama	Clinton	Edwards	Remaining	50% + 1
Pledged	1,660.5	1,499.5	7	86	1,627
Super	318.5	280.5	0	197	--
Florida*	37	56.5	5.5	6.5	NA
Michigan**	13.5	40	0	25.5	NA
Total	2,029.5	1,876.5	12.5	314.5	2,116.5

* = Florida pledged delegates currently split 105 Clinton, 69 Obama, and 11 Edwards, based on the results of the January primary and two Edwards pledged delegates flipping to Obama. Superdelegate totals in the state currently stand at 8 Clinton, 5 Obama, and 13 uncommitted.
** = Michigan pledged delegates current split 73 Clinton, 22 Obama, and 33 uncommitted, based on the results of the January primary and April district conventions. Superdelegates totals in the state currently stand at 7 Clinton, 5 Obama, and 17 uncommitted.

And here are the future projections:

Future Delegate Projections

Type	Obama %	Clinton %	Obama	Clinton
Puerto Rico	37%	50%	24	31
Montana	52%	35%	9	7
South Dakota	46%	35%	9	6
Pelosi Club	--	--	7	-1
Sub-Total	--	--	49	43
Grand Total	--	--	2,078.5	1,919.5

This leads to a grand total of Obama 2,078.5, Clinton 1,919.5, Edwards 12.5, and 222.5 uncommitted. Obama would be 38 delegates away from officially clinching at this point, and Obama + Edwards would be 25.5 away from officially clinching. If reports of Obama banking three dozen or so superdelegates in order to officially clinch on June 4th or June 5th are accurate, then Obama will comfortably clinch before the June 14th Michigan state convention.

So, barring something truly shocking, Obama will reach the magic number no later than next Thursday. The nomination campaign, and all major federal primaries will be over. From that point, we will have exactly five months to come together, crush Republicans, and build the enormous trifecta.

HRC compares not changing the rules so she can win to egregious civil rights cases in history

mtayl — Thu, 22 May 2008 04:08:52 GMT

Kos and Chait both quickly noticed Hillary Rodham Clinton's outrageous (morally, intellectually, politically) argument today that to not allow her to go back on her word on Florida and Michigan (she originally agreed that the two states would not count) so her delegate margin could get reduced (she'd still be prohibitively in second place) is similar to the denial of the right to the vote to women, and of civil rights to blacks in the South in the 60s.

This mostly speaks for itself. What is truly unfortunate (for her, her followers) is that many journalists, party activists, and rank-and-file Dems liked her OK but just preferred Obama (more progressive, etc.) before the primary. Now, with such ridiculous pandering (and intellectually vacuous reasoning and hypocrisy and maniacal fear-mongering) she has truly become a political monster, a figure unlikable (not for her being a woman or being "shrill" or any of those other euhpemisms for sexism) because she is simply intolerably, cynically corrupt and destructive.

She is a pox on the Democratic Party, on progressive values (including feminism), and on our country's future. I hope she is pushed out (not just rejected as VP, but truly pushed out of the party leadership) and shown the error of her ways.

I hope.

Yes, State Parties Influenced Blog Selection

Matt Stoller — Thu, 22 May 2008 03:05:06 GMT

I've been trying to contact Aaron Myers of the DNCC all day to find out what's going on with the blog credentials, but surprisingly, he's not answering his phone. He did put up a diary on Dailykos in which he seemed to suggest that state parties had no role in the process. Here's what he wrote.

We didn't hand off this project to state party officials, as was rumored. The DNCC published a list of requirements, we read applications, and we looked at lots of blogs.

As it turns out, I did talk to Matt Jerzyk of the credentialed blog Rhode Island Future, and he had a conversation with state party executive director Tim Grilo about the blog credentialing process. He asked about the process of credentialing bloggers. Grilo said that the DNCC called and asked for the party's input about each blog that applied, and the Rhode Island Democratic Party was told directly that their input would be valued and would be involved in the decision-making process about who to credential. Grilo said that the party was not given veto power but he did get the strong sense that their input would be a valuable part of the credentialing process.

In broad strokes, Jerzyk outlined for me, what this means is that there was no veto power by state parties and the decision resided with the Democratic National Convention Committee, but yes, state parties had input and yes state parties could give negative information about blogs they didn't like.
Myers is a good technical guy, but he does not have a strong background working with blogs and bloggers. I actually asked him about a year ago, when he was the internet director for the John Edwards campaign, whether he read blogs, and he said he didn't have time. Jenni Engebretsen, his boss, is the person in charge of PR for the convention, and she is a former RIAA spokesperson with substantial problems with the tech blog Boingboing.

When I asked Myers about whether state parties had influence, here's what he said.

When we were soliciting applications, the DNCC contacted state parties for help in growing our blog applicant pool.
In fact, if you talk to many of the folks who applied, they'll tell you they learned first about the credentialing program through their state party. We ended up with more than 200 state blog applicants. So I'd say the parties were helpful in getting the word out.
It's just incorrect to say that anyone outside of the Convention staff had some sort of "veto power".

This is clearly designed to make us think that state parties had no influence in the process, and played a marketing role at most. And that is, while perhaps not a lie, quite close to bad faith.

I think I kind of figured out what happened. Myers and Engebretsen basically don't understand new media or progressive blogs, and went out and asked state parties about their local blogospheres. In some cases, they followed the recommendations of the state parties, in others, they didn't. They credentialed a wide range of blog types, from nonpartisan media outlets to activist progressives to random press release repositories without any sense of what they were doing. State parties didn't have official veto power, but there was no one internally at the DNCC who would advocate for progressive bloggers like Juan Melli of Blue Jersey, who last night was awarded a party-building award from the Hoboken Democratic Party, along with the New Jersey Democratic Party Chair Joe Cryan but has a history of criticizing the New Jersey Democratic Party's history of unfairly privileging Clinton over Obama (and pissing off the party managers that Myers called for input into who to credential).

This led to a chaotic process open to corruption and bad decision-making. In some cases, as in Michigan, the decision to credential an employee of the Michigan Democratic Party and not an older blog was simply questionable. In other cases, as in Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Alabama, and Democrats Abroad, the decision overtly hurt progressive activists.

It is rather appalling at this point in the Democratic Party's history that the DNCC can't get a good blogger operation together. The lack of transparency in how blogs were selected, the lack of awareness that they are dealing with a community rather than a medium, and the overt conflicts of interest they never bothered to even consider are problems. Myers and his posts on Dailykos in which he acknowledges none of this, and even tries to suggest state parties had no influence, are even worse.

I did the credentialing at the 2004 convention, so I knew something about this. I even sat down with the former blog outreach specialist of the DNCC and suggested at the time that state blogs be credentialed and that the credentials be based on their capacity for social change and not on their credibility as neutral media outlets, and it looks like that was the plan. (I originally wanted blogs who had Actblue pages to be privileged in the process, but that didn't happen.) Still, the original credential criteria was spelled out as follows:

Bloggers must submit their daily audience and list their authority based on Technorati stats. Bloggers may also provide examples of posts that make their blog stand out as an effective online organizing tool and/or agent of change.

It's quite clear that the DNCC has a lot of room for improvement. For a few days, the eyes of the country will be focused on Denver, and it's better to call out mistakes like this now, and silly attempts at spin, then have them happen when the convention is going.

State Bloggers Protest Credentialling Decision

Matt Stoller — Tue, 20 May 2008 19:28:30 GMT

Marc Ambinder picked up a letter from 21 progressive state bloggers frustrated with the selection process. I wrote about this on Sunday and Monday, pointing to the credentialing of a state party friendly blog in Michigan over one that has higher levels of influence and accomplishment but had been critical of the state party. It now appears that the blogger given credentials works for the Governor of the state, though I can't confirm that since she won't return my email (I have put the question to her in her comment thread).

The issue here is simple, and doesn't have to do with any specific bloggers given or not given credentials. State parties are clearly using blog credentials to reward bloggers they think support them best. In some cases, in most actually, they are willing to reward critics. In some states, though, particularly New Jersey and New York, it's possible that the decision cut out progressive activists because they are willing to speak out about problems within the party. Leaving progressive bloggers out of the convention is a financial and political penalty for these small businesses, many of which will now shy away from being independent and progressive out of fear of retribution.

This is a problem.

Update: Ok, apparently it's common knowledge that Cathleen Carrigan is an employee of Governor Granholm. That is absurd. Simply absurd. An employee of the most powerful politician in the state was given convention credentials over a larger progressive blog. This is just ridiculous. Granholm can get her employees credentials, she doesn't need to take them from independent progressive activists.

Update again: Carrigan is not an employee of Granholm, but is an employee of the Michigan Democratic Party. This is a distinction without a difference. I do find it frustrating that Carrigan refuses to answer my questions and then mewls on about being persecuted and misrepresented. I am perfectly willing to issue corrections and sought her response before printing anything about her employment status.

State Parties Nixing State Blogs from the Convention?

Matt Stoller — Sun, 18 May 2008 22:53:02 GMT

I worked in New Jersey during Jon Corzine's gubernatorial campaign in 2005, and one of the (few) joys of that campaign was seeing BlueJersey start up and grow into an incredible resource for progressives. The blog led a groundbreaking TV and internet campaign for marriage equality in the state, and Juan Melli, the proprietor, was dubbed 'Politician of the Year' by PoliticsNJ, the insider outlet in the state. Local blogs serve as activist hubs for progressives, 'grasstops' that can move message and organize influentials within a state community. Oftentimes the number of insiders is strikingly small - only about 1000 - in a state, and these blogs are the only progressive media that can influence them.

It was with pride then that the Democratic National Convention Committee announced that every state would have credentials issued for state blogs. These state blogs help Democrats get elected, stay in power, and push progressive policies. At the same time, these blogs ruffle feathers, whether it was Raising Kaine complaining about the field campaign of Tim Kaine or primary fights taking place on various state blogs. I worked at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, and credentialed the first set of bloggers to attend a national political convention. I remember fighting internally for progressive blogs to get the credentials, not conservative of neutral blogs. Since it was a Democratic convention the DNCC should prioritize Democrats (the others could go through the neutral media queue). That logic holds today; the convention is a giant media, organizing, and networking event, so Democrats should get to go and gear up for the general election.

It's a bit disturbing to hear what's going on, then, with a few of the credentials. Pam's House Blend has a discussion going on about which blogs were credentialled at the Democratic National Convention. Mostly the choices were good, but four states in particular raise questions: Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, and Michigan.

Here's Cotton Mouth blog, which had content posted from new representative Travis Childers:

Cotton Mouth has been the only progressive political blog covering Mississippi's politics at the federal, state and local levels since it started May of 2007. It had more posts than any other progressive Mississippi political blog and had far more original content than any other Mississippi political blog. That content included original reporting on events, analysis, aggregation, original video, exclusive candidate authored posts and a solid and consistent defense of the Democratic Party of Mississippi.
We've had 33 posts so far THIS WEEK. The Natchez blog has had 24 posts so far THIS YEAR.

So why was the Natchez blog credentialled?

We've been in contact with people who have told us that we were considered for the credential, but were vetoed by someone in Mississippi's Democratic Party. We are attempting to find out who that person is and why they felt we should not represent Mississippi. Any assistance in the matter would be greatly appreciated.

Similarly, Bluejersey was nixed in favor of PoliticsNJ, a neutral media site owned by the New York Observer. The Albany Project, which cohosted a fundraiser for a special election candidate who is helping to flip the New York state Senate, was nixed in favor of Room Eight, a nonpartisan media site focusing on corruption. And MichiganLiberal was nixed for Blogging for Michigan, a much newer and less trafficked blog.

Why does this matter? Well, aside from the basic lack of fairness in excluding genuine change agents in favor of media sites or newer sites, as blogs become more closely wedded to the Democratic Party establishment, the pressure to NOT speak out about problems increases. Credentials for the DNCC are not only a 'goodie', but they are a clear competitive advantage for any state-based blog. If state parties are able to nix progressive state blogs from something so significant to their business models as the Democratic National Convention, it's just going to incentivize the creation of an 'official' blogosphere, one that is sycophantic and less progressive, and an 'activist' blogosphere which bitterly stares at a party it does not trust. Regardless, we're looking at a party structure that is more corrupt, less accountable, and less progressive.

Howard Dean should not let this happen. The DNCC needs to take another look at the blog credentially process for New Jersey, Mississippi, New York, and Michigan. Regardless of whether this was a simple mistake or retaliation from a state party, the credentials of the other blogs should be revoked and regranted them to the more deserving progressive blogs. And this should happen soon.

End Of The Nomination, At A Glance

Chris Bowers — Sun, 18 May 2008 21:00:00 GMT

This is the final nomination at a glance post that I intend to make. Tomorrow, the 2008 Presidential Election Forecast, which I will update just about every day between now and November, will replace it

The Democratic nomination campaign is over, and there is no need to keep a running, updated count anymore. Massive pro-Obama superdelegate movement, combined with the John Edwards endorsement, were the final straws. At this point, Obama now holds a commanding lead, even if Florida and Michigan are seated exactly as the Clinton campaign hopes they are.

Best-Case Clinton Delegate Count

Type	Obama	Clinton	Edwards	Remaining	50% + 1
Pledged	1,612.5	1,442.5	20	189	1,627
Super	305.5	288.5	0	257	--
Florida*	69	105	11	0	NA
Michigan	31	47	5	45	NA
Total	2,018	1,883	25	491	2,208.5

* Two Edwards delegates in Florida have now indicated they will support Obama

Even if Michigan and Florida are seated based entirely on the results of the January "primaries," which is extremely unlikely, then Obama leads by 135 delegates even without the remaining 25 Edwards delegates and 19 Michigan uncommitted delegates added to his total. There is simply no longer any path for Clinton to reach the nomination. This is probably why Obama is poised to declare victory on Tuesday night:

Senator Barack Obama has chosen to spend Tuesday night not in Kentucky or Oregon, the two states that will be holding their primaries that day, or even at his home in Chicago. Instead, Mr. Obama's staff announced on Saturday, he will be returning to Iowa, where he won the Democratic caucuses way back in January and has at least two good reasons to revisit now.

Much more than nostalgia seems to have motivated that decision. If things continue to go as well for Mr. Obama this week as they have so far this month, with a romp in North Carolina, a strong showing in Indiana and daily growth in his support among party superdelegates, he could actually end up with enough pledged delegates to proclaim, without fear of contradiction, that he is now the Democratic nominee for president.

They should change the "could" to "will" in that article. As a result, it will be exciting to live blog Tuesday's returns. Here are a few more notes on the end of the nomination at a glance series:

On Tuesday night, Obama will also be able to secure victory in a metric that has long been important to me: the popular vote. Even if Michigan and Florida are included in measures of popular participation, notions to which I am actually quite open because no other delegate selection events were made available to the residents of those two states, about 260,000 more participants in Democratic delegate selection events preferred Obama to Clinton. While the uncommitted vote in Michigan and lack of popular totals in four caucus states make a final count impossible, exit polls and voter turnout estimates among those groups provide conclusive, incontrovertible evidence that more participants in Democratic delegate selection events supported Obama than Clinton. This metric might not matter to you, but it even with all the imperfections in the process it does matter to me, and I am very glad that our presumptive nominee will finish ahead in this category. (See here and here for more information on this.)
Biggest Upset Ever. The enormity of Obama's accomplishment should not be underestimated. He succeeded where Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart and Bill Bradley failed: defeating a candidate with overwhelming institutional support to win the Democratic nomination. Going into this campaign, the Hillary Clinton had fifteen years of power building at her back, and Obama was able to edge her out in only fifteen months.
Best Nomination Campaign, Ever: The three nomination campaigns I remember when I was growing up were 1984, 1988 and 1992, all of which were lengthy, unpredictable contests with numerous twists and turns. The next three Democratic contests, 1996, 2000 and 2004 were incredibly weak and boring by comparison. For quite some time, I have longed for a campaign when everyone got to have their say, not just Iowa and New Hampshire. I longed for a real contest over who would lead the Democratic Party, and even though the ideological component of this campaign was mainly identity-based, we finally got another one of those. As a blogger and a political junkie, I wanted few things more than to be able to become a leading expert on delegates and delegate counting. Over the last four months, I have relished that role about as much as I have ever enjoyed anything as a blogger. Truly wonderful.

On balance, the nomination campaign was overwhelmingly positive for the Democratic Party. Three million new Democrats were registered. Democrats took a huge lead in partisan identification. Our small donor and activist bases were greatly expanded, with twice as much money already being raised from donors of $200 or less than the 2004 Democratic presidential candidates raised during the entire cycle. And, despite all the attacks, Obama's lead over McCain is as large is it has been in nine months.

It has been a hell of a ride, and I like where we are. It is time for delegate math to be but aside, and for electoral math to take center stage.

Broward County Dems' video eviscerates FL GOP

Trumandem — Sun, 18 May 2008 03:54:03 GMT

Don't look now, but the Broward County Democrats down here in the Sunshine state has just fired the first broadside of the general election and saying they scored a direct hit is an understatement. Led by their fiery Chair Mitch Ceasar, they have put together a video that crystallizes the issues of state GOP voter suppression and irregularities that defines their brand and takes advantage of the new election law mandating statewide ballot paper trails.
This video has to be seen to be believed as its simplicity and directness makes it impossible for the states dominant party to ignore:

If you live in Florida or you simply like the message please head on over and make a donation. I've already made a modest one and hope to contribute to their efforts helping them make statewide media buys and define the state GOP brand before they have time to figure out what hit them. I feel this video is so important because it addresses several issues that continue to make voter disenfranchisement such a raw, open wound here in Florida where the state GOP continues to stand in the afterglow of the 2000 election debacle. One of those issues indirectly concerns the seating of the Florida delegation at the 2008 DNC convention.

What bothers me the most about this issue is how the MSM and yes, the liberal blogosphere [even this blog], has ignored the other side of this story which has been well covered in this state by most media outlets. I posted about this issue on my blog earlier today, but even then the whole story does not do justice exposing what the state GOP has done to make sure voter disenfranchisement remains a core element of their ruling philosophy.

To understand how much the GOP dominates the state legislature here one has to see how both houses, led by Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, break down by party lines. The state house has a ratio of 77 Republicans to 43 Democrats. The state senate has a ratio of 26 Republicans to 14 Democrats. Early in 2007 the state GOP introduced a bill that would move up the Florida primary from March, to January 29th violating DNC Rule 20.C.1(a) & Rule 11.A. The majority of the elected Democrats and state party officials objected. The Democrats in the state legislature of both houses introduced two of their own bills moving the date up to and not before Feb. 5 to comply with the DNC. The state GOP overwhelmingly defeated both bills. They then turned around and made their original bill an omnibus bill that included a provision to mandate statewide paper trials for all ballots regardless of how they are cast. A couple of other provisions were thrown in to make it politically impossible for the Democrats to vote against and that was that. The Dems overwhelmingly voted for the bill and were subsequently stripped of their seats at the 2008 convention. The GOP knew this would happen. They wanted to make the state would be wide open for one sided media coverage of their Presidential candidates as they knew the Democratic Presidential candidates had already pledged to honor the no campaigning rule as outlined in Rule 20.C.1(a) & Rule 11.A.

It bothers me that Florida's delegate problem is lumped in with Michigan's. Their state is led by Democratic Gov., Jeanne Granholm and a Democratic majority in their state house. Though the Michigan state senate has a thin GOP majority, Michigan could have avoided this problem had they wished.

That's why this video is so important. I hope others here agree and head over to take a look. I'll be interested in what you think.

TrumanDem
Truman's Conscience