July 28: Some Basic Realities For Democrats on Voting Rights
Watching an intra-Democratic argument on voting rights strategy intensify in Washington, I offered some advice to both sides at New York:
There has been an underlying disagreement within the mostly Democratic coalition favoring voting rights that was nicely captured in this New York Times report on Friday:
“A quiet divide between President Biden and the leaders of the voting rights movement burst into the open on Thursday, as 150 organizations urged him to use his political mettle to push for two expansive federal voting rights bills that would combat a Republican wave of balloting restrictions … In private calls with voting rights groups and civil rights leaders, White House officials and close allies of the president have expressed confidence that it is possible to ‘out-organize voter suppression,’ according to multiple people familiar with the conversations.”
Both sides in this argument are partly wrong. Those who expect Joe Biden to force the For the People Act or the John Lewis Voting Rights Act through the Senate via some major revision in the ability to filibuster are probably expecting the impossible. Yes, perhaps if Biden personally and insistently and abrasively lobbied Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema to abandon her very consistent defense of the filibuster, up to and including encouragement of a primary challenge to her when she is up for reelection in 2024, she might decide her current and very insistent independent-maverick “branding” isn’t going to keep working for her. But Joe Manchin? He would be thrilled to get attacked by a Democratic president or Democratic advocacy groups for insisting that he won’t support voting-rights measures unless at least some Republicans support them. His state is so very red that the threat of a primary challenge to the sole remaining successful West Virginia Democrat is a laugher.
Short of a nuclear attack on West Virginia, it’s hard to identify anything Biden might do to Manchin that wouldn’t run a high risk of backfiring. And he does need Manchin on the reconciliation bills Democrats are using to get around the filibuster to enact Biden’s social and economic agenda. It’s just too bad voting-rights bills don’t qualify for reconciliation.
Yes, it is intensely frustrating that Biden cannot bring himself to come out forthrightly for filibuster reform, but it probably doesn’t matter since it is not happening unless the Democratic Senate Conference gets bigger, making senators like Manchin and Sinema irrelevant on the subject. So at some point voting-rights advocates need to focus on that goal.
At the same time, White House claims that Democrats can “out-organize voter suppression” are partially wrong as well. Yes, restrictive provisions like voter-ID requirements, limits on voting by mail, and even voter-roll purges can be countered and perhaps overcome by intensive efforts to educate and energize the voters Republicans are trying to keep from the polls. But you cannot out-organize a partisan gerrymander, or a law that lets election officials or state legislators overturn the outcome of an election after votes are cast.
Voting-rights advocates will eventually have to play the cards dealt to them by the system as it currently exists. That means refraining from too much anger aimed at Democratic pols who have little choice but to concede defeat on some legislation and concentrate on legislation (i.e., those reconciliation bills with many items vital to the people whose voting rights are also under attack) they can enact with no margin for error in the Senate and little in the House. At the same time, Biden and his staff and Democratic “pragmatists” in Congress should never for a moment be cavalier about the legislative obstacles they face in defending democracy itself. They may have to accept a tactical defeat on voting rights in this Congress. But they should never, ever, give up on making it happen later if not sooner.
What about voting purges? Greg Palast, author of “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy,” writes on his website http://www.gregpalast.com that voting purges, some of which could be illegal, in the states of New Mexico and Ohio could have swung the vote to Bush and not to Kerry. The problem existed in Florida in 2000 and likely did in 2004.
Let’s face it….The R’s will do anything to hold power. The only thing for Dems to do is cheat better than them or to outsmart them in their cheating game. Maybe we need to run candidates for SOS in southern states as Republicans and after the win, lead as a Democrat. I feel the R’s care more about their party being in power than they care about their country being a democracy. Ironically, their voting habbits insure neither their political freedom or a country based on freedom.
The reasoning is mind boggling. Here’s how it goes: exit polls show Kerry is ahead in certain states. Final results show Bush is ahead. Therefore, voting machines must be broken or there’s a conspiracy.
Could it be true the exit polls were *biased*? Nothing evil or premeditated even… just biased, possibly leading, surveys?
Wouldn’t that be a shock.
Satisfying as it might be to do the Reps what DeLay did to the Dems, it would be the worst possible course of action–not only because it wouldn’t work (face it: Dems aren’t sufficiently bloody-minded) but because it would do great damage to the Republic.
So, let me understand this.
The exit polls are correct almost everywhere to within 0.1%. In Florida and Ohio, the two states where electronic voting critics have been complaining that there is no paper trail, the margin of error is 4%.
Yet, you think it’s the polls that are fault, not the electronic voting machinery. I’m not claiming there was deliberate fraud, although I am open to the possibility, just that it seems like closer scrutiny is warranted.
For example, there is anecdotal evidence that the computer interface was designed such that people whose hand grazed the edge of the screen caused the choice to be flipped. This may easily account for a few percent of the voters choices going awry.
I think the comment from onprotractedwarfare sums up the terrible situtation quite well. I can’t help wondering whether after the coming disasters a modern equivalent of FDR will emerge to help put at least some of the pieces back together. I also can’t help reflecting that FDR didn’t have to contend with CNN, Fox, and the like.
This is a huge defeat for us. Even if Kerry pulled Ohio he would be a minority president. We can’t say our message didn’t get out. The resources were there. The situation in the Senate and the House is very bad. I would like to know what kind of message we have that can be understood and bought by a majority of citizens, short of issuing a machine gun to every household, putting a Baptist preacher in every science room, and burning gays at the stake. (In retrospect it clearly was a stroke of Republican genius to have the anti-gay measures on the ballots. But we have to wonder why so many people fell for it.)
Speaking for myself, I am familiar with the literature on “critical realignments” and all I can say is we are definitely in a specific sort of electoral era. Reagan was the start and it jelled in 1994. This could easily last till 2014-2020 if past “electoral systems” hold. I’m running out of decades in my personal arsenal to be around for this to turn around. And there are a lot of lurking calamities: on the dollar, in the environment, in the Middle East, that are going to come crashing down in the next four years which the re-elected national leadership won’t be able to cope with and which won’t be reversible by Dems with a simple election victory, even if it is a sweep.
My predictions for the next four years: A severe financial crisis, probably associated with a decline in the dollar; the draft; a national sales tax; privatization of social security; reversal of R v Wade; and some kind of very bad news on the environmental front.
I do think that we should be thinking along the lines I have posted here before, to wit, that we should at a minimum be signing up for contributions of $10 to $20 a month to the Democratic party to help it get on its feet for a permanent mobilization.
The other thing I think we need to look at is whether in certain areas, like CA, MA, NY, maybe CT, we can do to the Republicans something analogous to what was done to the Dems in TX. Obviously there won’t be a redistricting opportunity. But in the current juncture having “Red” members of Congress in blue states is a luxury we can ill afford, so strategies need to be developed that chisel away at the very concept of a “safe seat.”
The bright side: we showed we can raise money en masse and mount a vigorous campaign. That’s about it.
Well, based on all the comments and analysis I read that said Bush would not win because his highest approval ratings were his ceiling in the popular vote, and all the polls were rated unfairly to rvs instead of lvs, I took two weeks off work to focus on this election. I read the blogs alot, did gotv efforts, donated all the spare cash I had to get Kerry elected, because based on all the analysis I read here and on MYDD, it seemed improbable Bush would win. All the major media polls were biased, they were oversampling repubs, blah, blah blah.
Turns out they were right. We’re living in a right-wing, Christian conservative nation and I don’t see anyway for the democratic party to compete nationally. Look at all the red on that map. It’s heartbreaking. The dems and all the hopefuls like yourself and your contributors need to wake up and admit — we are on the outside looking in.