Arizona Nader Challenge Update

Kos is correct that volunteers are working in Phoenix this weekend to examine each of the names entered on Nader's petitions. I was given permission to blog the current numbers.

Total Number of Reviewed Petition Lines: 7618
Unregistered Names 3942
Party: Democrat 911
Party: Republican 1572
Party: Independent/Other 1151
Party: Libertarian 24  
Party: Green 18

The first thing to get excited about is the number of unregistered names. That is a very high number. But on further review some of those will be marked as OK as the name checks go deeper.

I think even more fascinating is the fact that almost twice as many republicans are trying to get Nader on the ballot. This cofirms what we have suspected, that the effort in Arizona to get Nader on the ballot is largely a spolier effort by the republicans.

If people are interested in these numbers, I will post again tomorrow. (That is if I don't get locked out before then.)

I have been told that they will be able to review all the signatures before the deadline passes. So how about heading over to the Arizona Democratic party web site and make a donation and tell them thanks for their effort this weekend!

•  thanks for the update Greg

  :-)

  by Trix on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 08:07:34 PM PDT

  •  Lost point remade ...

    Since people targeted a recent post I made with totally unnecessary "troll" ratings, I will repost a rewrite. Simply put, using these petition numbers, the number of signers are not overwhelmingly Republican, rounded up:

    Valid signatures: 3,616.
    Republicans: 1,572 or 43.5 percent.
    Independent: 1,151 or 31.8 percent.
    Democrats: 911 or 25.2 percent.

    Again, Republican voters who signed the petition are not almost twice as many as others. In order to be twice as many as Democrats, Republicans would need more than 50 percent. In order to be twice as many as Independents, Republicans would need 63 percent. In fact, Democrats and Independents make up more than half the number of signers - 57 percent. This is a more significant number than the Republican number!
    That was my point and the point is accurate and not worthy of all the troll ratings it received.

    by politizine on Sun Jun 13, 2004 at 07:23:53 AM PDT

    •  Hey Gregg, why the troll rating?

      Is this comment inaccurate? Does it attack anyone? No. Re-read the ratings rules. This is not a troll post and is not deserving of your 1 rating. It is fact - based on your diary. Unless of course your numbers aren't accurate, in which case my numbers aren't accurate.

      by politizine on Sun Jun 13, 2004 at 08:32:07 AM PDT

    •  aoeu

      You willfully ignored a key word and went off like a little baby.  Yeah you deserved the troll.

      by TealVeal on Sun Jun 13, 2004 at 10:01:51 AM PDT

    •  It wasn't so much what you said

      but how you said it.

      Mi dos centavos.

      by James Benjamin on Sun Jun 13, 2004 at 02:56:18 PM PDT

•  You need a tip jar

  Thanks for the updates.

  by michael in chicago on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 08:08:30 PM PDT

•  911? Spooky.

  by JamesB3 on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 08:10:21 PM PDT

  •  yeah

    I was just thinking that. What I want to know is who the hell were those 911 democrats and where do they live...
    just kidding.

    by TustonDAZ on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 08:15:41 PM PDT

    •  Coincidence

      That was purely a coincidence. Had I noticed, I would have waited for the numbers to change so as not to distract. The current number of dems is (ah, shot!) still 911. :(
      

      by GregFromFlagstaff on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 08:22:11 PM PDT

      •  aoeu

        Finish counting!!

        Make him follow the rules and not cheat.

        by TealVeal on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 08:22:59 PM PDT

•  Post it again, Sam

  Let those numbers fly.

  If I were being helped this much by conservative Republicans, I'd stop what I was doing.

  by Ptolemy on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 08:12:09 PM PDT

  •  Or...

    ...you might point to this as clear evidence of the broad appeal of your message.

    Nader will see in these numbers whatever he wants to see, just like us.

    by quintic79 on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 09:58:56 PM PDT

    •  I would never want to appeal to

      people who find torture appealing.
      I think that Nader doesn't either.

      by Ptolemy on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 11:48:43 PM PDT

  •  Re: Post It Again, Sam

    "If I were being helped this much by conservative Republicans, I'd stop what I was doing. "

    How do you know they're all conservative Republicans?
    

    by zuzu on Sun Jun 13, 2004 at 11:02:14 AM PDT

•  thanks for the update

  thanks very much for this update - I've been wondering how the petition-checking was going.

  by cyclopatra on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 08:30:24 PM PDT

•  Huh?

  I think even more fascinating is the fact that almost twice as many republicans are trying to get Nader on the ballot.

  Huh? "Twice as many" as who?
  Can't you add: 1572 Republicans are not "twice as many" as Democrats, that would be 1822. 1572 isn't "twice as many" as Independent/Other. That would be 2302.

  by politizine on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 08:47:08 PM PDT

  •  aoeu

    You would have a point if he said "twice as many" which he did not.

    by TealVeal on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 08:57:53 PM PDT

  •  Fine

    72.56% more repubs then dems. Happy? Did you see the qualifier "almost"? Can't you read?

    by GregFromFlagstaff on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 09:01:06 PM PDT

  •  Change name please

    
    I think even more fascinating is the fact that almost twice as many republicans are trying to get Nader on the ballot

    Huh? "Twice as many" as who?

    Instead of "Politizine", try Politidiot.  If you want to misquote someone, it helps to make sure the original comment is not visible. It really makes you look stupid when the people reading can see the ommision.
    

    by Mike S on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 11:34:41 PM PDT

•  Nader Targets R's for Signatures

  I've posted this before, but it's topical.  Via Time:

  But Nader's Virginia campaign coordinator, Jim Polk, knew where to find a mother lode of registered voters willing to put their names on a Nader petition. "Truck pulls," Polk said, patting his well-traveled clipboard as he suggested a quintessential red-state event. "People think they're doing George Bush a favor if they sign these. I've had some of my best luck at truck pulls."

  by Michael D on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 09:50:02 PM PDT

•  nader in dem part hq

  I was told by good sources that the Nader Campaign chair was acting as a volutneer while counting names within the Party HQ. Someone knew who he was and called him on it. He was escorted out.

  Now, I am all about telling Nader to stuff it. But is this what Democracy looks like?

  by KSpidel on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 10:24:23 PM PDT

  •  I would argue the opposite

    I wouldn't expect that it's kosher to verify your own campaign's petitions.

    Over the last ten years, Nader has slowly become old and sneaky.  He knows better than this.

    He can either do this on the square, or not at all.
    No one ever saved the people by thwarting their will.

    by Ptolemy on Sat Jun 12, 2004 at 11:55:58 PM PDT

    •  I would agree partially ...

      I don't think that the Nader state organizer should be checking signatures with the Democrats or should have concealed his identity.

      However, he - or somebody - should be able to watch over the Democrats looking at the signatures so that they don't do anything to the forms. I know in Massachusetts, if there is a smudge mark or a pen scratch, etc., on a petition form, a person can challenge the whole page of signatures - costing a candidate as many as 35 signatures.

      So, I wouldn't allow anyone to look over the forms without any supervision.  

      by politizine on Sun Jun 13, 2004 at 02:05:18 PM PDT

  •  well

    would you want Karl Rove counting up the votes in November?

    or Mary Beth Cahill, for that matter?

    by cyclopatra on Sun Jun 13, 2004 at 12:17:48 AM PDT

•  Blogging

  Greg, are you blogging anywhere else other than Kos diaries? [e-mail]

  by mbryan on Sun Jun 13, 2004 at 03:29:22 AM PDT

  •  Just here

    Think I should blog it in a couple of other locations?
    

    by GregFromFlagstaff on Sun Jun 13, 2004 at 08:08:18 AM PDT