Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think a democrat should concern themselves about this case. Just pull up a chair and watch the fur fly. Watching Palin nearly blow her top on national TV was reward enough for me. Democrats were not expected to win this seat anyway so they have nothing to lose. The republicans will either bloody each other up and the left does not have to do or say a word. Enjoy the show boys.
Some people just can't deal with the fact that a Tea Party conservative lost. I just wish that Cochran had decided to retire and the GOP had another strong contender to run against this Tea Party clown; this coming from a democrat. I know Mississippi will be very hard pressed to ever have a democratic Senator again in the near future, but an old GOP type Republican is easier to work with than a tea party clown.
That still doesn't answer the question of why a Democratic poll book was updated in a Republican run-off election.
Those who didn't vote in the D primary were eligible to vote in the R runoff.
I checked around, and here's a little more clarification of how this works. Each registered voter's name is listed in both the Democratic and Republican Poll Books in any MS primary election. When the voter chooses which party's ballot s/he wants, it's marked in the corresponding party's book. That's why there are 4 names marked voted on June 3rd on that Democratic Poll Book sheet. Those 4 people voted in the Democratic primary on June 3rd. The 3 of the 4 who then voted again on June 24th SHOULD have been turned away from voting in the R runoff like the example I posted from the Clarion-Ledger, but for whatever reason... fraud, election tampering, whatever... they were illegally allowed to vote in the R runoff.
Those who didn't vote in the D primary were eligible to vote in the R runoff.
I checked around, and here's a little more clarification of how this works. Each registered voter's name is listed in both the Democratic and Republican Poll Books in any MS primary election. When the voter chooses which party's ballot s/he wants, it's marked in the corresponding party's book. That's why there are 4 names marked voted on June 3rd on that Democratic Poll Book sheet. Those 4 people voted in the Democratic primary on June 3rd. The 3 of the 4 who then voted again on June 24th SHOULD have been turned away from voting in the R runoff like the example I posted from the Clarion-Ledger, but for whatever reason... fraud, election tampering, whatever... they were illegally allowed to vote in the R runoff.
This thread sure ruffled the feathers of the libs.
If there really is evidence then let it be presented. Are you afraid of the truth?
Ruffled feathers? The GOP is engaged in a very public civil war. Cochran won the first battle, but here comes McDaniel armed with "the truth." Bring it on! There isn't enough popcorn in the world.
It's funny, too, that you think anyone on the left cares if this result gets overturned. The Democrats wanted McDaniel to win, because with the backing of the GOP, six-term incumbent Cochran was close to unbeatable. But Tea Party candidates have a way of taking themselves out of the race. Their popularity is waning and McDaniel has a history that would provide a lot of fodder for Childers' campaign. Now, of course, who knows, the Democrat might actually have a shot. In Mississippi. Who would have thought?
The enjoyment you perceive that some liberals are getting out of Cochran's win is because his win is the Tea Party's loss. So it wasn't all bad.
Those who didn't vote in the D primary were eligible to vote in the R runoff.
I checked around, and here's a little more clarification of how this works. Each registered voter's name is listed in both the Democratic and Republican Poll Books in any MS primary election. When the voter chooses which party's ballot s/he wants, it's marked in the corresponding party's book. That's why there are 4 names marked voted on June 3rd on that Democratic Poll Book sheet. Those 4 people voted in the Democratic primary on June 3rd. The 3 of the 4 who then voted again on June 24th SHOULD have been turned away from voting in the R runoff like the example I posted from the Clarion-Ledger, but for whatever reason... fraud, election tampering, whatever... they were illegally allowed to vote in the R runoff.
This is actually looking pretty bad. They keep finding more and more.
Sounds very odd. It would be very easy to find out who allowed them to vote that 2nd time.
OF course if it did happen then who did they vote for in the run-off? There is no proof of how an individual voted. Start tossing votes on this and all hell will break loose.
You know, either way this washes out is fine with me. Democrats wanted McDaniel to be the candidate all along because he would be easier to beat. And probably even more so now, should he win this fight. There will be a lot of Cochran supporters who won't vote for him. And if Cochran stays on the ticket, the McDaniel supporters won't vote for him, and may vote against him or write in McDaniel.
Fun times! All the Democrats need do is pop the corn and enjoy the show. Any way you slice it, this probably doesn't end well for the GOP.
You may be right. This GOP vs Tea Party schism may allow Obama to keep the Senate in November's election.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
