@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack your efforts to educate me “about US and MA election law” is noted. However, I anticipated someone employing this method to take issue with my post by not only admitting that I might be unfamiliar with the total set of MA election laws by asking why they or any other states’ laws would still allow the very situation that might lend itself to the appearance of impropriety. Thus, ideally, all votes should be in by close of polls on election day,… period. Most voters have the responsibility to register and prove their legitimacy so why time delaying exceptions for others? This, ultimately, boils down to a political argument where a demand for total personal voter responsibility to ‘get their ballot in on time’ butts heads with a more liberal and accepted ‘why can’t we just all get along” attitude. But this is an argument pursued better on a separate thread.
Most of your post informs us about the “10 days” needed for this and that, and 2 more days for something else. So given, I am hopeful you will understand my confusion about the article’s mention of only a two day delay for the Rep. Tsongas election result:
Quote:” In contrast, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan. In that case, Tsongas made it to Capitol Hill in time to override a presidential veto of the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.”
Is this quote misleading us? Seriously, because I would like to know. My assumption with this quote is: two days (48hrs)
after election day Tsongas was sworn in,
not 12days after election day (required 10 certification plus 2 more days after that) which you seem to imply in:
Quote:” The election can't legally be certified as complete for those ten days and the couple days it takes to record the results and report them to the state and get the statewide totals verified (or the district or city totals, depending what the race was), but it's usually not in much doubt. Which is what as I remember happened with Nikki Tsongas. She and her late husband Paul are/were so beloved in their district that the election was never in doubt after the count on election night.”
So what exactly happened with Tsongas' election? Perhaps a link would be helpful to clarify and leave no doubt .
But, beloved politicians aside, there is this from the article:
Quote:” Another source told the Herald that Galvin’s office has said the election won’t be certified until Feb. 20 - well after the president’s address.
“Since the U.S. Senate doesn’t meet again in formal session until Jan. 20, Bay State voters will have made their decision before a vote on health-care reform could be held. But Kirk and Galvin’s office said Friday a victorious Brown would be left in limbo”
"Limbo" they say. The election is on Jan 19th but, certification, according to Galvin’s office, is a full month (Feb 20th ) after election day! Given your post and this quote, perhaps my confusion can be excused . You can also see how some MA voters might feel somewhat out of sorts, especially those who believe Scott Brown could help defeat Obamacare.
Never the less, if we eliminate partisan accusations of this or that, the question still remains:
Why would Democrats even want to call attention to or telegraph these future gyrations given that odds are that they will win any way? Does this tell us anything about democratic attitudes towards certain or, even, all voters?
Quote: “My feeling is that the Globe has it nailed--their results usually agree with state sentiment. I don't see any excitement at all for Brown,, or any swell of support for him, and he's proving to be quite the flip-flopper himself. I wouldn't start counting the chickens while the eggs are still in the nest, if I were you”
Really? Flip-flopper? Given Parker Griffith and Arlen Specter does this have much meaning any more? I have been advised by liberals that we conservatives should be more willing to compromise but these two would seem an argument more towards carefully picking one’s original principles as opposed to how and when it is most politically expedient to participate in horse switching mid-stream.
Given Brown’s increasing poll numbers you don’t see “any swell of support for him”? But, I have never said Brown would win this election. In fact, if I’m not mistaken the PPP poll did not include the Independent candidate Joe Kennedy. The point of the post is simply that it looks as if this election is becoming nationalized and, given the Democratic political majority in MA, the results to look for would be in how much Coakley wins by. On the record, I hope Brown wins but the Globe poll included Kennedy and has a better chance of accuracy so you probably are correct. The other point I tried to make in the post was how absolutely desperate Congressional democrats were to pass Obamacare and that MA Dems making explicit what they would do if they lost a Brown/Coakley election that was, supposedly, a safe one for them (as you apparently agree) was just another action in a long list speaking towards that perceived desperation.
I do appreciate your information about election law, your assumptions that I know nothing about US and MA election laws aside. However, your initial Hillary Clinton like characterization of my post as “… another extreme-right conspiracy theory rant. “ would suggest a misreading of my post. In fact my point, again, was not a democratic conspiracy (which implies secrecy). Indeed, it was just the opposite: the transparancy of Democratic actions implies not only desperation but an overall open disregard for the majority of American voters (including Howard Dean et al) who have voiced a preference for the death of Obamacare. Further, it is the Dems dismissive attitude towards the majority of voters who want Obamacare defeated that explains why Brown has a chance at all.
JM
