PDA

View Full Version : Incoherence in Maine



Qtec
02-16-2012, 02:25 AM
This is too sweet. LMAO

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">An update on the Maine Republican caucus which the Ron Paul campaign is challenging the results of. It turns out the problem is more widespread than simply one county not having their votes counted because their vote was delayed.

Pressure is on the Maine Republican Party to reconsider its weekend declaration that Mitt Romney won the state’s caucuses,” the Bangor Daily News reports.

“A number of communities were not included in that poll because they had not held their caucuses in time. Washington County Republicans postponed their caucuses, originally scheduled for Saturday, Feb. 11, because of a pending snowstorm and will now meet this Saturday. Other communities across the state also have caucuses scheduled for this weekend and later this month.”

“However, a review of the town-by-town results released Saturday by the Maine GOP suggests that some communities that had caucused prior to Feb. 11 were not counted.”

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>To recap — caucuses in some locations were delayed by bad weather and their votes will not be counted, some communities in other parts of the state aren’t voting until later this month and their votes probably won’t be counted, and some locations that actually voted early weren’t counted either.</span>

Even if all locations end up being counted, it’s possible Ron Paul will remain in second place, but this is still a laughable situation worthy of lampooning. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>And it makes me wonder if the GOP has done such a comprehensive job of driving all people of significant intelligence from the party they can no longer run a caucus without pictorial instructions.</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>I’m still waiting for the voter ID law that will magically fix all of this.</span> </div></div>

What a joke.

Q

eg8r
02-16-2012, 08:37 AM
What are the voting rules? What is the acceptable time from for a vote to be counted? What tolerance is given for early and late? Why don't you ever question your source?

eg8r

LWW
02-16-2012, 09:12 AM
Snoop will never ... and El Dubb means EVER ... question the spoon.

Soflasnapper
02-16-2012, 05:05 PM
Nobody has EVER claimed the GOP wanted all the votes counted.

Now that's become clear in their own primary and caucus states.

Maybe we all can now believe it.

eg8r
02-16-2012, 07:50 PM
Instead of putting words in your mouth are you believing everything he posted at face value? No question at all whether this was all law abiding activity? No question at all?

eg8r

Qtec
02-16-2012, 08:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Feb. 11, 2012.
By Eric Russell, BDN Staff
Posted Feb. 16, 2012, at 4:04 p.m.
Last modified Feb. 16, 2012, at 8:31 p.m.
Print this E-mail this Facebook this Tweet this

AUGUSTA, Maine — The Maine Republican Party has reversed course and will recommend that delayed caucus results from Washington County be included in its final presidential poll tally. The party also is reconfirming results from local caucuses in the wake of the recent controversy over how its presidential caucuses were handled.

“The results of the Washington County caucus will be reviewed at the March 10 Republican State Committee meeting,” Maine GOP Chairman Charlie Webster said in a prepared statement approved by the state party’s executive committee.

“The executive committee voted unanimously to recommend to the state committee that they include the results in the final tally for the presidential preference poll as their caucus had been scheduled to occur by the February 11 deadline, however it was postponed due to inclement weather. “

The party has been under fire this week for reporting on Saturday that Mitt Romney won Maine by taking 39 percent of votes in a presidential preference poll conducted during the state’s caucuses.

Ron Paul came in second with 36 percent of votes, but the results did not include Washington County, which postponed its caucuses because of weather, or nearly all of Waldo County, whose towns were omitted in what the party has called <u>a clerical error.</u>

The margin of victory for Romney was <u>less than 200 votes.</u>

In addition, the executive committee is working to reconfirm results that were turned in before Feb. 11 </div></div>

Deja vu?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The situation has parallels to January’s Iowa caucuses. Iowa initially awarded its caucus win to Romney only to discover about two weeks later that former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum actually had won.</div></div>

LOL. What a joke.

I thought this press release from the Ron Paul camp was funny.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“In Washington County – where Ron Paul was incredibly strong – the caucus was delayed until next week just so the votes wouldn’t be reported by the national media today.

“Of course, their excuse for the delay was ‘snow.’

“That’s right. A prediction of 3-4 inches – that turned into nothing more than a dusting – was enough for a local GOP official to postpone the caucuses just so the results wouldn’t be reported tonight.

“<span style='font-size: 14pt'>This is MAINE we’re talking about. The GIRL SCOUTS had an event today in Washington County that wasn’t cancelled!</span> </div></div>

LMAO

Q

Soflasnapper
02-16-2012, 08:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Instead of putting words in your mouth are you believing everything he posted at face value? No question at all whether this was all law abiding activity? No question at all?

eg8r </div></div>

It fits with the story as I've heard it.

I welcome any further information you may cite, but unless I see some, sure, it sounds right, based on the current facts I've heard.

LWW
02-17-2012, 04:40 AM
That was simply precious.

Qtec
02-17-2012, 06:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Instead of putting words in your mouth are you believing everything he posted at face value? <span style="color: #3333FF"> I doubt it.</span> No question at all whether this was all law abiding activity? No question at all?

eg8r </div></div>

Strawman.

They called it for Mitt and he might not have won it because they didn't count all the votes...and lets not forget the 'clerical error'.!

Where did I hear that before?????????????

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Iowa Republican party has a minor update to the results of this year's caucuses, something it discovered while going through the formality of certifying Mitt Romney's 8-vote victory: Someone else won. Eh, don't sweat it, Iowa Republican officials. We all change the course of a major party's presidential nominating process out of sheer incompetence from time to time.

The final vote count gave Rick Santorum a 34-vote advantage over Romney.<span style='font-size: 17pt'> Santorum was certified as the winner, but officials were calling the result a "split decision" since results from eight precincts are "missing" and will never be counted.</span> Wow. Give the Iowa GOP a round of applause, everyone, for an administrative performance commensurate with the great responsibility of running the nation's first presidential vote.</div></div>

Are we to believe that the party who wants to rule the country is so incompetent that they can't even run their own elections without getting the results repeatedly wrong?

Or is there another reason?

Q

eg8r
02-17-2012, 08:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Strawman.

They called it for Mitt and he might not have won it because they didn't count all the votes...and lets not forget the 'clerical error'.!

</div></div>Explain why you think me asking sofla to explain his reponse is a strawman argument.

eg8r

eg8r
02-17-2012, 08:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It fits with the story as I've heard it.</div></div>So based on stories you have heard you believe it. It seems in the past you were quick with your research and never just bought into anything you heard. Times are changing, huh?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
02-17-2012, 11:15 AM
I listened to the Republican chairman of one of the counties whose vote was delayed, and then later found out the plan was to NOT COUNT THAT LATER VOTE at all.

He was shocked, as the delay discussions (which were done by individual towns' decisions, each of which runs its own caucusing) only mentioned that of course, since their vote wouldn't have taken place by the time of reporting being due, it wouldn't be in THE (PRESUMED PRELIMINARY) RESULTS reported. Not that it wouldn't be added in later. He and his fellow Republicans who made those decisions were not so informed. He explained that he and the others thought the reporting would go something like: 'with 86% of the vote in, as of now, here are the vote totals for the various candidates,' pending the full count of all votes including the ones held later.

Now, in the meantime, the outcry by those Republicans has made the state party revise that decision, and they have announced that the prior released results are not final after all, and instead will reflect the accurate (hopefully) count of the uncounted Washington County towns and cities once they are in.

Which is all good, in my view, and moreover, proves the point of the critics of what they had done before.

Now, why they made the previous decision earlier, which is a travesty of voting, is a mystery.

The Ron Paul campaign made a series of claims about this county's voting makeup that were false (that Ron Paul had won this one county not counted this time, last time, but actually McCain won the county (???), although perhaps RP did beat Romney that time there (?)), and made this out to be the result of a pro-Romney conspiracy.

Despite being wrong on I think all their factual claims, the conclusion they reach still seems likely to me. For, what OTHER REASON than to benefit Romney would such a bad decision be put forward, one SO BAD that now the party has had to climb down from it, due to pressure from their own Republicans in the state?