Skip to main content

View Diary: Worried that Kloppenburg will bow out (38 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  in fact, Waukesha HAS reported the canvass (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jon Says, erush1345, in the Trees

    It's a state law, after all.

    Canvass reports, including Waukesha's, can be found on the GAB website, here.

    I don't really know what you're saying about "helping our side." Prosser/Kloppenburg isn't the Alamo; Wisconsins, and Americans, have lots of other things worth fighting for. But if it's your view that no one should say anything that doesn't lend itself to the impression that Kloppenburg won, at least that helps me understand where you're coming from.

    I favor a recount because recounts are good. When it comes to counting votes, and election administration generally, I'm not a partisan.

    •  Look at your own link, some wards are congregated (0+ / 0-)

      They aren't all broken out.  Honestly, you're carrying over our last debate and obviously you're still annoyed about it.  And stop mischaracterizing what I say.  You claim I meant this

      But if it's your view that no one should say anything that doesn't lend itself to the impression that Kloppenburg won, at least that helps me understand where you're coming from.

      when actually I said this

      It's ok to have doubts or questions, but it's not ok to give up.

      So, actually, we all know where you're coming from, too.

      Elections are the quintessential partisan event.  They aren't neutral.  The process should be fair as far as both sides being treated equally, and it should be transparent, but it's not over until Kloppenburg concedes.  We aren't election officials, this is a partisan site.

      Now stop with the needling me already, it's unbecoming.

      Which side are you on?

      by wiseacre on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 12:28:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  look at your words here (0+ / 0-)
        Every Democrat who says "well I think she lost the race because of Nate Silver or because of past patterns or because she just seems incompetent or because of whatever" is not helping our side.  

        It seems to me one reasonable interpretation is that while it may be "ok to have doubts or questions," it's most certainly not ok to say anything that points in the "wrong" direction.

        I didn't know if that was what you meant, which is why I wrote, "I don't really know what you're saying..." and "if it's your view." You may honestly think that was some sly misrepresentation, but I still don't know what you think is "not helping our side."

        (If people were saying, "I think she should concede because of Nate Silver (etc.)..." -- or even if people weren't saying that, but you had made your point that way -- then I could make sense of it. But I don't remember seeing anyone on DKos saying anything like that.)

        I agree that this isn't over until Kloppenburg concedes. And I agree that the process should be fair and transparent. And I agree that we're not election officials, and that the site is committed to electing more and better Democrats. I don't see what any of that has to do with your assertion that unnamed people who say "I think she lost..." are "not helping our side."

        Incidentally, I don't even try to keep track of whom I might be "annoyed" with. If I wrangle repeatedly with people on multiple threads, I look for patterns -- but on the internet, anyone can get wrong-footed on any given day.

      •  The SC is supposedly a non-partisan election, but (2+ / 0-)

        even so, even given the strong conservative/liberal tendencies of the candidates, even given the stated, rubber-stamp whoring of one of the candidates and even if, as an undifferentiated rule  

        Elections are the quintessential partisan event.
        Their outcomes are not.  Their outcomes should not be.  There is no reason to try and make certain that their outcomes are, as well.

        It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

        by Murphoney on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 06:08:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  trying to see the other side here... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I can see how someone could really lose patience with the comment that "Even though she came close, Kloppenburg was a sacrificial lamb." That doesn't just undercut the call for a recount, but it's like retroactive defeatism.

          In this I agree with wiseacre: it's in poor taste to start playing Taps.

          •  Retroactively claiming "Told ya so!" is bad form-- (0+ / 0-)

            without doubt; reassessing so as to appear "right" is one of the weakest canards I can imagine.  To the extent that and where that conceit is in play, there's no argument here.

            And while the opposite of that is a good thing, I'm suggesting that the opposite should be something other than channeling Norm Coleman.

            It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

            by Murphoney on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 08:37:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  absolutely (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Full stop, because I don't intend to accuse anyone on DKos of "channeling Norm Coleman."

              I've now written two diaries plus a bunch of comments critiquing supposed evidence of fraud in Waukesha County in this or past elections. Obviously I'm partial, but I would say the criticisms I've gotten are very light on substance (which I welcome) and heavy on 'Why are you defending that liar?!' and, well, downhill from there. Sometimes it feels as if some folks are treating inquiries into how people actually voted in past elections as if this were just another political campaign, or a continuation of the campaign. I don't think that is the actual intention, but since what they say doesn't make much sense to me, what do I know?

              •  "Trust, but verify" -- the words make me shivver, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                but there is some sense in them and I wouldn't (and don't) want anyone to be able to walk away from cheating an election by using the database-equivalent of "Sorry, I didn't get your e-mail" *SHRUG* as an excuse.

                To your other point... in the Open Thread this morning, someone mentioned hunting wild boar on their property; someone else referenced the Simpsons, and it has me thinking of folks running along after their flying pig roast chanting, "It's still good! It's still good!"...It's just that it's appropriate to admit when it's gone, Homer.  

                Eventually, it's best to put your efforts toward making sure it doesn't happen that way again.

                It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

                by Murphoney on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 09:46:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  indeed (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  An ounce of prevention, and all that.

                  I don't think it's very easy, in Wisconsin, to steal an election by allowing a cyberdog to eat the homework. That's what the canvass is for; even if the canvass board butchers something, people can check their own municipality's numbers, and anyone can check the addition. Of course, that only works if people actually do it.

                  So it would be nice if one outcome of this controversy is for people to understand how they can contribute to election verification, beyond insisting that some trustworthy authorities somewhere should investigate. (Obviously the GAB can obtain information the rest of us can't, but we're not completely at others' mercy.) Another good outcome would be to think about how the canvass could be subverted, and how to fix that.

                  •  oh please (0+ / 0-)

                    there is evidence of fraud in this election. what do you call immunity kathy's past : human errors"?
                    a perpetual human error machine is evidence not just of incompetence but also of a willingness to overlook the integrity of elections. this neglect if you will, is evidence that the WI election process is not honest.

                    as for the canvass you sure put your trust in how numberss are entered and tabulated. i however am aware of human error.

                    show me the actual cat ballots
                    dont show me an incompetent party hack that was given immunity

                    •  (shrug) (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      What's your evidence that votes were stolen? If someone has something that makes sense, s/he really ought to post it. Otherwise, the most I can say is that fraud is always logically possible.

                      It doesn't really matter what anyone thinks of Kathy Nickolaus (except that she now seems unlikely to keep her job). Lots of people run Wisconsin elections. What did she do, and how did it work? It's fine to say that you're "aware of human error," but can you be specific?

                      If they recount Waukesha and the count is very close to the original, what will you say then? That you were wrong about the evidence? that the recount is wrong? that the ballots have been rigged?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site