Who Cares who Alison Lundergan Grimes Voted For?

[riqster]

Last edited Tue Oct 14, 2014, 12:20 PM - Edit history (1)

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/who-cares-who-alison-lundergan-grimes-voted-for/

Source info at the link.

Mitchy McConnell tells a lot of lies. A LOT of lies. But a very subtle and sneaky one jumped out at this humble blogger during the lone debate with his Democratic challenger: he said Americans have no right to a secret ballot:

Grimes stuck to her days-long refusal to say if she voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. She insisted that if she answered the question, it would “compromise a constitutional right” to cast a secret ballot.

McConnell quickly scoffed at that. “There’s no sacred right to not announce how you voted,” he said, seated next to Grimes for an hour-long debate hosted by KET, the state’s public television station.

There is indeed no explicit Constitutional right to a secret ballot: because Boards of Election need to track voters and ballots to prevent fraud. But that’s the only place where your right to voting privacy is limited.

But old Jerkle the Turtle goes a step further: not only does he not think you have a right to privacy in the voting booth, he thinks you can be forced to reveal your votes if any old yahoo asks you. This is some truly, scarily insidious, authoritarian, big-government s*** here, folks: “Republicans” think they can force you to tell them how you voted, and that you have no right to privacy.

It’s of a piece with GOP philosophy: they hates them some Fourth Amendment. Repubs think the government should be able to wiretap you, arrest you, torture you, dictate your medical care, and monitor your sex life. So voting rights are likewise non-starters for Big Brother Motherf***ers like McConnell and the rest of his party. Once again, Gentle Reader: Repubs think you have no right to privacy.

We should all of us applaud Ms. Grimes’ strong stand on privacy, and support her right to not say for whom she voted. This seems obvious, but even some Democrats are saying she should tell us all how she voted. Poppy-f***ing-cock. She has the same privacy rights as the rest of us, and we should all have her back on this issue – because we all are in the same boat. Want to be forced to tell your boss how you voted, or your parents, or a “news” organization? This writer does not, and you shouldn’t have to, either.

This election isn’t just about candidates, folks: it’s about our freedom from Big Government Repubs and their NSA-Patriot Act-Morals Police-Brute Squad vision of America. We all need to vote against any candidate who would take away our rights, and support any candidate who supports our rights.

This writer doesn't give a single turd from a tufted titmouse's ass how Ms. Grimes voted. It's her right to keep it private, and good on her for asserting that right.

[tritsofme]

1. This is a silly defense of a campaign faux pas

That for reasons unknown to me, she has decided to double and triple down on this strange line.

When you are a delegate to your party's national nominating convention, no one is surprised you voted for the nominee. As a candidate for US Senate, the optics couldn't possibly be worse. She could have handled this question a million better ways.

I support red state Dems doing what they have to do to win, but this isn't a stand on principle, it is a dumb strategy.

[riqster]

2. She has the same rights as you or I.

Running for office doesn't take her rights away.

And having Dems helping Repubs bash her is counterproductive, to say the least.

[Logical]

15. LOL, what a silly response.....

Then in a debate you have a right not to answer ANY question! Correct! And look like an idiot not answering them!

[riqster]

17. Not at all. The right to privacy is not all-encompassing.

In fact, as time goes by and the partisan Roberts court takes it away bit-by-bit, our right to privacy covers far less than it ought.

[peace13]

106. I agree 100%!

People who turn this issue into a make or break question are off base.

[riqster]

107. Yep.

[onenote]

122. She has the right not to answer, just as Mittens had the right not to disclose his taxes

Doesn't make it a smart move.
While I very much hope Grimes can pull off the upset, she has made her distance from Obama a feature of her campaign. If you run an ads that essentially say "I'm not Barack Obama" then you essentially have put the issue of whether you supported him in the election into play.

Put another way, if some repub candidate from Texas was trying to distance him or herself from the Tea Party and his or her Senator was Ted Cruz, I would imagine most of us wouldn't be upset if that candidate was asked whether they voted for Cruz and would be all over his/her ass if they refused to answer.

You may not give up your "right" to privacy when you run for office, but for all intents and purposes you give it up as a practical matter.

[Paladin]

3. I think she's handled the questions very well.

It's media twerps like Chuck Todd and Chris Matthews---and people like you---who are inflating the matter all out of proportion.

[Logical]

18. Bullshit, imagine a GOP candidate doing that about Bush, we would....

Laugh our ass off!

[abakan]

44. I don't understand what her problem is...

Does she think admitting to voting for the democratic presidential candidate, while being a democrat, will hurt her?
Why can't she say just that. Repubs vote for repubs and dems vote for dems. I think that is how the two party system works.
This is what will blow the election for her...It's just stupid.

[tazkcmo]

80. And not true

Dems vote for repubs (Reagan) and repubs vote for dems (Clinton). I know it's rare to see a politician take a principled stand so I can see how you would think it's stupid. I'll go ahead and assume you're willing to reveal how you vote when you next need to apply for a job as she is essentially doing by campaigning for elected office.

[abakan]

94. In my entire life I have never voted for a republican and I am not afraid to tell anyone who asks.

I voted for Obama, it should not be gotcha questions. It is my opinion anyone who thinks it is a gotcha question, does not trust the electorate. Who she voted for is irrelevant.

PS. I know not all repubs vote straight ticket and neither do the dems. In this case it is a safe bet both candidates in this race voted for their party. Thanks for the unneeded schooling. I will assume nothing about you.

[tazkcmo]

110. I responded to your statement

If you don't like "unneeded schooling" don't state things that make it seem like you do. You can assume what ever you want about me as I don't spend one second of my life wondering about what you may or may not be assuming about anything. And if it's irrelevant why post a such an idiotic statement about it? Apparently it's relevant. I will assume you are a walking contradiction with an exhaust fan set on "blow hard".

[branford]

111. She doesn't want the soundbite of "I voted for President Obama"

to air on Republican campaign ads. Like it or not, the President is not popular in KY.

However, avoiding such an obvious and simple questions is apparently causing more problems than it intended to solve.

[Logical]

14. She really dropped the ball on it. Idiotic. Nt

[riqster]

21. Why are candidates obligated to reveal their voting history?

I've never heard a convincing rationale for such abrogation of privacy rights.

[cali]

28. aargh. one more time. candidates are not being forced to reveal their voting histories

and asking in no way abrogates privacy rights. this is just a ridiculous and wholly FALSE claim.

[riqster]

33. Acting as though she is obligated to answer sets up a false paradigm.

And that seems to be the paradigm among quite a few people: here, and in the GOP.

[cali]

40. what on earth does that even mean??

and just what is this "false paradigm"? I see you're back to your unsavory habit of trying to smear people who disagree with you as akin to republicans.

[riqster]

45. I'll break it down.

Ms. Grimes is under no legal obligation to reveal for whom she has voted in the past.

Ms. Grimes is being taken to task for not revealing for whom she has voted in the past.

That is the false paradigm: the insistence that she voluntarily give up her privacy rights, and/or take criticism for her refusal to do so: bearing in mind that said criticism could negatively impact her chances to win this election.

And I am not smearing anyone. It is a fact that people across the political spectrum are criticizing Ms. Grimes for not revealing her private voting history. On this thread, in fact. So I am not saying anything that isn't factual.

She should not have had to answer that question. She did not answer it. To imply that it was a mistake or the wrong thing to do is to diminish her privacy rights.

[dumbcat]

65. It's almost like taking the 5th Amendment

means you must be guilty. And I have seen plenty of support for that position by people on this forum.

[riqster]

68. Well put. In fact, I wish I had said it that way.

[Dawgs]

67. She is being criticized for THE WAY SHE ANSWERED, not because she has the right to keep it secret.

Why do you refuse to comprehend what others are saying?

[riqster]

69. Because of two things:

Number one: not everyone holds the position you articulate. A good number think she should have given up the information.

Number two: her fumbling of the matter is irrelevant. It is a matter of personal privacy.

[Dawgs]

71. Everyone already knows that she voted for Obama.

And two, her fumbling may cost her the election. Why don't you find that relevant when the answer to the question she fumbled is already known?

[riqster]

74. No, no one knows that. You assume it.

She should be blasting back with a full-throated defense of personal privacy rights IMO. Because it is clear that such a defense is needed.

[Logical]

57. Lol, they are not. Just like they don't have to answer any policy question.....

Or debate question. But they will look really clueless if they don't.

[riqster]

62. Personal information is neither policy nor public information.

We have no right to know how someone else votes in their off hours.

[tazkcmo]

78. Such a narrow view

As the OP asks, are you prepared to state on your next job application who you vote for? How about why you vote for a particular candidate? A campaign for elected office IS a job application being submitted to the hiring authority, namely the voters. What's good for the goose is most definitely good for the gander.

[Supersedeas]

123. not according to Chucky Todd

[brooklynite]

4. If I told you I voted for Reagan...

(I didn't, but what about Elizabeth Warren?)...l suspect you'd have less respect for my positions. I can see why more conservative voters in Kentucky might feel the same way.

[riqster]

5. A good point, but that is more tactical realpolitik.

Valid, but I was looking at the big picture: yet again, Repubs want to take away our rights.

I think that from a campaign-specific standpoint, she couldn't help herself by answering, and indeed could only harm get chances.

[cali]

8. what specific rights are you talking about? asking her if she voted for Obama

is not taking away her (or anyone's) right to cast a secret ballot.

And as someone in this thread points out, she would have been better served by saying "Yes, I voted for the President, although I disagree with him on some issues".

[riqster]

13. Being compelled to answer makes it no longer a secret.

To say "your ballot is secret, but you are obligated to reveal your secret voting choices" kind of makes the whole idea of a secret ballot a joke.

[cali]

24. She is not being compelled. To compel means forced to.

She is being pressured. And that is NOT the same thing. Politicians are routinely asked who they voted for. Their rights are in no way, shape or form, being abrogated.

[riqster]

31. Poor choice of words on my part, there. Point taken.

But the basic issue remains: why are so many people pressuring her to answer a question that she has a right to not answer?

And acting as though it is a mistake to stand on principle? That bit really frosts my apricots, because (especially on DU and in the activist community) we tend to preach about how our candidates SHOULD stand on principle. Ms. Grimes does so and gets bashed for doing...why, what we say our candidates should do. Dafuq?

Her voting history is irrelevant to her suitability to act as a Senator. We have no need to know, and we should not act as though her refusal to give us unneeded information is a problem, gaffe, error or any of the other pejoratives that have been lobbed at her.

[cali]

43. "so many people"? Mitchy and his crew?

and it doesn't appear as if she's standing on principle, more like she's trying as hard as she can to distance herself from the President who is very unpopular in KY. Why come to that conclusion? Because she's been doing that for months and this fits that pattern.

Principle, my ass.

[riqster]

46. That is a valid critique, but doesn't invalidate my point.

"Running away from Obama" doesn't mean she should be pressured to reveal private information.

[brooklynite]

47. There are a great many rights you give up (voluntarily) when you run for office...

You're expected to reveal your finances and tax forms; to explain your religious views; and to put your spouse and family's background into public view. We can argue about the merits, but that's what's expected.

[riqster]

52. Expectations in some cases, law in others.

I support full disclosure of any and all legally required information, and taking whatever steps are required to ensure that disclosure.

I also support the rights of any candidate to not reveal information that's NOT required by law.

[brooklynite]

56. ...and they HAVE that right...with the risk that comes with it.

You can choose what information to provide to voters. You cannot decide what information voters will base their choices on.

[riqster]

61. Oh, I agree.

But DUers don't need to add to the calls to provide the info. Just adds fuel to the GOP fire.

[tazkcmo]

84. But

But being required to reveal who you vote for in an election is not one of those privileges (as opposed to a codified right) is not one of them. You are entitled to your opinion (obviously I support her view point) on this matter just as folks who would find it disagreeable depending on who she said she voted for. It's also as relevant as what her religion is, left or right handed, blow dry or towel dry.

[riqster]

89. I agree, it's as relevant as the examples you cite.

[hack89]

39. In an election there is nothing else but tactical realpolitik

at least if you want to win. All that matters is how the voters view you - we will find out soon enough if this hurt her with the voters.

[riqster]

48. Short term, perhaps.

I think that even through that lens, a fierce defense of individual rights would help her win the election.

[Proud Public Servant]

6. It's a sign her advisors are incompetent

They should have seen this coming on Day 1. In fact, they should have been out in front of it; if the plan was to have her run away from Obama anyway (and it is), she could have easily made a statement 6-8 months ago -- something like, "Now, as a Democrat, I voted for this president, but let me tell you..." -- that's how you do it. Own it and get it over with when no one's paying attention. But letting it become an issue now, three weeks from election day? That's amateur hour, verging on clown school.

[riqster]

12. That is electoral tactics, and you may be correct on that level.

Although I think the "none of your damned business" answer is a good one, it should have been foreseen and planned in advance to look more forceful.

[branford]

112. The Republican ads would conveniently cut-off the " . . ., but let me tell you . . ."

Answering the question would be the lesser of two evils.

Obama is not popular in KY, and she wanted to avoid a soundbite. However, now her failure to answer is an issue, regardless of whether she believed and answer was unnecessary, AND she looks, weak, with a lack of conviction that may demoralize Democratic supporters whom she needs to come out and vote.

[sendero]

121. Unfortunately..

.... I agree. McConnell is not a popular man and any decent candidate should be able to beat him but alas.

[cali]

7. describing Mitch McConnell as "bitchy"? really?

aside from that, this whole piece is silly hyper-partisan nonsense. She is so eager to distance herself from Obama that she fucked up- creating a story where there needn't be one.

[riqster]

10. I think the question of our rights is a valid one.

Yeah, I could be nicer in my writing style. Fair cop. But to me, the GOP assault on our rights is more important than who wins Kentucky. And this episode is indicative of the Teapubbies' attitude towards our rights.

YMMV and all that.

[cali]

26. It's sexist and it's against DU rules. I won't alert, but I'm sure you know this.

[riqster]

32. Point, thanks. I'll edit.

[Puzzledtraveller]

153. Glad it wasn't just me that thought it was hyper-partisan.

We also somehow were absolved of our part in NSA privacy violations.

[JaneyVee]

9. Mitch voted for Sarah Palin in 2008. He should be disqualified.

[riqster]

11. Or at least have his head examined. nt

[bigwillq]

16. I don't care.

It's her vote. She could vote for a hamster for all I care.

I really don't see the big deal with this story.

I don't think any less (or any better) of her if she did or did not vote for Obama.

[riqster]

19. Good on you! That is the point.

[bigwillq]

20. Well, I am sure some will disagree.

And that's fine.

[riqster]

22. Just so. That's debate, and it's healthy.

[bigwillq]

25. Oh, I agree.

I love debate. Especially on a DISCUSSION board!

[riqster]

35. Yup. Entertaining and enlightening.

Dog bless Skinner and Co.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. What if she voted for Bush?

[riqster]

37. As I said, I don't care. Warren once voted Repub, as she herself said.

If someone wants to reveal their votes, fine. And if not, that's OK too.

[belzabubba333]

27. who she voted for is nobodys business

[riqster]

38. Damn straight.

[branford]

113. The voters of KY, however, are free to disagree with that opinion.

[belzabubba333]

133. privacy in the voting booth is not an "opinion"

[branford]

138. You cannot demand what voters should believe is important in an election.

Grime's vote itself is certainly private as a legal matter.

However, you stated that her vote was "nobody's business." You are certainly free to hold that opinion, but the voters in KY are free to disagree.

Grimes is a public figure seeking higher elected office. She can be asked any question, and answer, or not, as she deems fit. However, her response, or refusal to respond, can be evaluated by any voter in their discretion. You cannot prohibit a voter from considering anything, no matter how trivial or otherwise private. Moreover, what is considered private for a regular citizen is not always so for candidates for office, regardless of the letter of the law.

In this instance, the Democratic candidate (and Obama delegate!) was asked who she voted for president. Either she did not vote for Obama, the Democratic nominee and current president, in violation of her duties as delegate, or lack the expected conviction of proudly stating that she voted for our president. I'm a loyal and lifelong Democratic, and I even found her response "odd."

It is not hard to imagine that independents, and even some Democrats, were perplexed by how Grimes did not have an appropriate response to such a simple question. I fully understand that she doesn't want to be linked to Obama, as he is unpopular in KY, but as has become evident, her non-answer was a much worse strategy.

[kentuck]

144. But there is no evidence that the majority disagree with her?

I think the small poll sample on DU was more in agreement with her? I'm not sure that the majority disagree with her?

[belzabubba333]

157. respectfully this is utter nonsense. imo

maybe they should demand to see her medical files or personal pictures since as you say Moreover, what is considered private for a regular citizen is not always so for candidates for office, regardless of the letter of the law.

no offense to you but we'll have to just disagree b/c it's a secret ballot no matter how famous you are that's why there's curtains around the voting booth.

[merrily]

29. She was correct not to fall into McConnell's framing of this election.

It's about him and her, not about Obama. She was also correct not to give anyone a line they could record her saying and include in his next commercial.

I said that on another thread an got lambasted, but that doesn't stop me from saying it again. That is both one of my best qualities and one of my worst.

And yes, a secret ballot is essential.

[riqster]

41. I suspect you are correct about her tactics.

I'd have liked her to turn it to her advantage, framing it as a rights issue and pointing out the repub mission of rights destruction, myself.

But voting rights and election integrity activism are my wheelhouse, so I might over-emphasize such matters. I expect she knows her way about a campaign far better than I.

[LawDeeDah]

30. I'm starting to care about who ordered her to distance herself from the President.

I am starting to care a lot about who the Clintons are working for, for themselves and their power structure or for the people of America.

[WinkyDink]

34. Is Reading Comprehension a lost art? MM said explicitly and clearly, "to not ANNOUNCE...."

I.e., WE CAN SAY WHICH WAY WE VOTED, IF WE CHOOSE TO.

Da*n.

Also, as for being "forced" into a statement, well, I for one, as with A.L., would not be so bullied! I'd tell him to go to blazes!
But asking, even badgering, is not "forcing."

I am not defending MM; I am defending his use of the language vs. the writer's twist.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

36. Well, I don 't care

but there are certainly are long term site users who would assert that she couldn't possibly be a real Democrat if she doesn't vote for Democrats every single time, that she's an 'Independent' if she fails even once to vote for whichever Democrat won/wins the Democratic primary, no matter how many other Democrats they've voted for, or what political positions they hold.

[TDale313]

42. I think how she's tried to distance herself from the President...

Has not done her any credit. It makes her look weak and embarrassed to be who she is. Perhaps that's not what she feels, but it comes across that way. If she pulls this off, great. I want her to win. But what did the campaign expect? She's spent months running ads saying she's not Barack Obama, I disagree with him,... Of course someone's gonna ask "If he's so bad, did you vote for him?" And of course it'll be an issue when she hems and haws on that answer.

[riqster]

50. A fair point. But I still don't care who she voted for.

It's a non-issue that is being blown up by Repubs, and we do ourselves no favors by not defending the principle of privacy rights.

[jen63]

93. This is such dangerous territory imo.

Setting a precedent for these kinds of questions would just be terrible. We basically have no rights left and to be pressured to answer will only make it worse. The frog is almost at full boil now.

[riqster]

96. Just so.

[Seeking Serenity]

102. "But I still don't care who she voted for."

I don't think this is exactly accurate. I think if she'd said, either proudly or sheepishly, "OK, I might have voted for Romney," I think that might make others, and possibly even you yourself, care very much.

[riqster]

104. Nope. Kentucky Dems chose her as their nominee. Their call.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. Best answer would be, "Maybe I did, maybe I didn't, and that's the truth".

[riqster]

53. I myself prefer "None of your business". But that's just me.

[brooklynite]

51. Wendy Davis became famous for standing in opposition to abortion restrictions...

...but I challenge you to go to her campaign website and find -any- reference to abortion rights. She knows that, in a campaign setting, it's a dicey issue to be tagged with.

[riqster]

55. I can see that, but I don't think it's analogous.

A more precise analogy would be "tell us about your personal gynecological history, Ms. Davis", and then proceed to bash her if she refused to provide that private information.

Candidates can choose to tell us private information: but the choice to do so should be theirs, and theirs alone.

[NCTraveler]

54. Possible answers...

It's none of your business.
I didn't vote for Bush.
I didn't vote for Mitch at any point in my life.
I voted for Obama.
Next question.

Kind of surprised she didn't seem ready. Still doesn't seem like a very big deal. Kick ass Ms. Grimes!!!!!

[riqster]

59. Shouldn't be a big deal. That is why I wrote my OP.

Too many DU threads bashing her for not answering the question. I agree she could have been smoother about exactly how she handled it.

[NCTraveler]

60. Gotta tell ya regster......

I would hate to be a candidate for anything and read what du had to say about me. She could have handled it better but it truly isn't that big of a deal. Most people I know would simply say "none of your business," and that is what they will think when seeing this. They would think "how is this going to help me" or "how does this tell me anything about her positions." Most would probably even think "I know how she feels, I don't want to admit my last vote either." Last one is suppose to be funny, even if it is a bit of the truth.

[Arkana]

58. Because she could clear it up so easily with "Yes, yes I did."

"I was a delegate at the convention and I voted for the President because he agreed with me on more things than Mitt Romney did. That does not mean I cannot act independently of the President, and I believe Kentucky voters are smart enough to understand that. Senator McConnell apparently has a lower opinion of your intelligence, because he believes you can't make the distinction."

Boom. Now the conversation becomes "Mitch McConnell thinks you're stupid." What she's done instead is obfuscate and blather about secret ballots.

[riqster]

64. But that requires her to give up her privacy.

In many cases we do have a right to know about our candidates. Not in this one.

[Dawgs]

70. So, what's wrong in telling everyone what they already know?

Not giving up her privacy and answering the question awkwardly may cost her the election. Is protecting her privacy really worth all of the work she put? I don't think so.

[riqster]

72. I disagree. Our privacy rights are in such tatters now.

I cannot fault someone for standing up for one of the few that remain. Even if it was done in an inept fashion, I applaud the stance.

[Dawgs]

73. You might applaud it, but others may not, and it might cost her the election.

Seems like a big waste of time to run if you don't have a better of way of answering a simple question like, 'who did you vote for?'.

[riqster]

75. Her answer is simple. "NOYFB". Phrased differently, of course.

[Dawgs]

79. I get it. You're concerned with the way she answered the question.

I'm concerned about her losing to McConnell.

[riqster]

85. No, I'm not really concerned with how she answered the question.

It's tangential, not central.

I am concerned with our country's predilection for the violation of other people's rights. Be it nude photos or prior votes, we as a people are all too ready to cede the rights of others for our own purposes. Ms. Grimes is right to refuse to answer.

As to her winning/losing: no answer is guaranteed helpful. If she says "Obama" she'll take flak. If she says "Repubs", she'll take flak. If she says, "fuck off", she'll take flak. It's a guaranteed losing proposition.

Anything she says, in short, can and will be used against her. So she might as well stand up for her rights.

[Dawgs]

108. I'll let someone else explain it for me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025664959

[LanternWaste]

76. Hence, the sad state of political debates...

Hence, the sad state of political debates-- candidates consistently being asked relevant questions that are simply no one's "damn business..."

[riqster]

82. I don't see it as relevant. It was a bear trap that she wisely chose not to step into.

And into which she was not obligated to step.

[IL Lib]

139. Do you really believe it was about privacy

when she freely said that she's a Clinton Democrat? Why offer that if it is about privacy?

[riqster]

141. We can bet she voted Dem. But she isn't obligated to help the Repubs create misleading sound bites.

Especially since her privacy rights are at issue.

[kentuck]

145. Agree.

And I'm not so sure that even the majority of Republicans disagree with her? What determines a "gaffe"? Is it sort of like the Howard Dean "scream"?

[riqster]

147. I think it's now defined as, "anything Mitch says is a gaffe ".

[IL Lib]

158. My question was if it was about privacy why did she offer that she was a Clinton Democrat?

Her backers either say she wouldn't state whether she voted for Obama because of her right to privacy, or that it was a calculated choice due to his unpopularity in the state. If it's the former why did she offer that she is a Clinton Democrat? If it's the latter, it doesn't appear to be any less disastrous if she'd stated she voted for him. It does appear that there are dems who have been turned off. I don't live in the state but didn't donate because I saw her strategy early on. I would have liked to have seen her unseat Mitch, but there is no way I'd vote for her if I lived in Kentucky.

[kentuck]

159. You can volunteer to give the people all the information you want...

But you cannot be forced or tortured or punished to do so... She volunteered the Clinton information. She did not volunteer the Obama information. You don't like it? Too bad. She is on the right side of this issue. It is surprising that so many Democrats no longer appreciate privacy rights.

[riqster]

160. And depressing that so many would rather help Mcconnell win than vote for a Dem.

[IL Lib]

161. What is too bad is that she is being disingenuous. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

148. Yep, and I'd take it as an opportunity to rail against both parties on class issues

I'd say that I voted for Obama because Mitt Romney wanted to do things to fuck over the middle and working classes even more than they're being fucked over now. But they're still getting fucked, and we need people in Washington who will challenge both parties on that.

[KamaAina]

63. Yertle was trying to get Alison to say the O-word

she has been distancing herself from Obama the entire campaign.

[riqster]

66. Most likely. Good on her for not playing into his hands.

And, frankly, for keeping private info private.

[questionseverything]

86. i have to quibble with ur op's wording

u said,

There is indeed no explicit Constitutional right to a secret ballot: because Boards of Election need to track voters and ballots to prevent fraud. But that’s the only place where your right to voting privacy is limited.

/////

boards of elections have to track who votes ,not how they vote

/////////////

i do support grimes in her decision to not tell how she voted, i assume it is because she knows ky voters better than we do

there is (basically) no paper to count in ky so she has an incredible uphill battle as is

[riqster]

87. Good clarification on voting processes.

Thanks, I was not clear enough on that point.

[questionseverything]

88. np

in some states they are using barcodes that can identify individual voters and their votes, we are fighting that and must continue to do so


http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2012/08/colorado_ballots_unconstitutional.php

[riqster]

92. Yep. It's why we need an explicit affirmation of our right to a secret ballot.

[questionseverything]

95. agreed

here is bev from bbv discussing////

... Bev Harris said on 4/27/2007 @ 1:50 pm PT...




Point of clarification: King County is already using Diebold, has been since 1998. They are planning to embark on something even worse: A Diebold privacy-theft and vote-switching machine made specifically for mail-in votes.

1) The machines King County wants to buy are the Diebold High Speed Central Count machines. These machines do not tabulate the BALLOT, but instead tabulate a digital photograph of the ballot produced by the scanner.

A feature: The users can, at their option, change the way the digital image is read. This is a FEATURE, not a bug. Right-click the yes and it becomes a no.

2) The machines automatically create directories full of ballot photographs, which I once thought was cool. No more. Because here's Part 2 of the privacy-stealing machine:

The county is planning to buy a ballot tracking system. I thought, at first, that this was a system to put a bar code on the outer envelope that allows the voter to check whether their ballot made its way through the post office. Well yes, but that's only PART of the goodies. It turns out that this same ballot tracking system optionally allows the County to put the ballot tracker bar code ON THE BALLOT itself.

This is already being done, and citizens, upon finding the bar codes ON THEIR BALLOTS in San Juan County, have filed a lawsuit. It's illegal, and the head of VoteHere --- Ralph Munro --- knows that full well, since he used to be secretary of state in Washington. No matter, he's successfully been pushing the development of, sales of, and implementation of vote-tracking bar codes printed on the BALLOT.

Now enter the Diebold image scanner again: No need for someone to sit in the warehouse digging through the ballots themselves to see how you voted, now that the bar code will be on the ballot. Nope, with the Diebold image scanner, this ballot-tracker bar code is photographed right there on your ballot, then neatly stored in a directory with thousands of others, easy to download the whole batch in minutes with a small USB thumb drive.
////////////////////

amazing to me that more du members do not understand how their rights are being taken from them

[riqster]

97. Election integrity is not sufficiently prioritized here, or in the nation as a whole.

People really need to wake the fucking fuck up, IMNSHO.

Speaking as an IT professional who knows entirely too much on the subject, I consider it scandalous how the masses have blithely allowed their franchise to be thus degraded.

[questionseverything]

98. and yet we keep trying

http://fatallyflawedelections.blogspot.com/


have u seen this latest from az? as an it guy it will make ur head spin

[fadedrose]

77. The question is

Who else knew who she voted for and whether it was or was not Obama?

There must be an informer there somewhere to even bring it up . . .

[riqster]

90. "What did she vote and when did she vote it?"

Sadly, that is where we seem to be as a nation.

[fadedrose]

99. I agree

Also, it's nobody's business who you vote for once you get behind that curtain, and McConnell or any reporter who brings it up is a jackass...

Sometime a person can have a neighbor running for something or other, and you just can't stand him/her, so you don't vote for them. Election passes, neighbor lost. Can you imagine the hard feelings that can destroy a neighborhood if the loser finds out?

It's the same in big politics. Hurt feelings and evading privacy should be avoided if possible.

[AngryAmish]

81. .

[liberal N proud]

83. If we have no right to a secret ballot, then why do they have curtains around the booths?

Has anyone asked the Turtle McConnell or the GOP and their right wing media that question?

[riqster]

91. Sadly, they have not. Too busy crapping on Grimes.

, indeed.

[kelly1mm]

100. Apparently the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is pulling out of Kentucky

so I guess they think she is done.

[riversedge]

103. I felt just sick when I saw the article a bit ago.

[riqster]

105. Me too. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Cha]

120. Reading beyond the headline, riqster.. Alison's campaign is reported to have lots of money and

strategically speaking.. I'm thinking the DCCC money is needed elsewhere. So it doesn't necessarily mean defeat.

[B Calm]

101. The perfect reply would be, I voted with the majority of people!

But no, she's being wishy washy and won't answer a simple question.

Damn, I think she is being stupid and we need Mitch out bad too!

[Maedhros]

109. What was wrong with just stating

"I'm a Democrat, and I believe our solutions to the country's problems are superior to those of the Republicans. So naturally I voted for the Democratic candidate?"

Waffling makes her look not confident.

[riqster]

116. What's wrong is it's none of our business.

[Maedhros]

117. I'm personally not concerned with how she voted.

I am, however, puzzled by her fumbling of the question.

[riqster]

118. Yeah, she could have told them to mind their own business in a forceful manner.

[Hippo_Tron]

149. Obama's job approval in Kentucky is a little over 30%...

Championing the national Democratic Party's ideas are a surefire way to get your ass kicked.

[Maedhros]

150. Um...then don't run as a Democrat?

If we can't expect our candidates to champion the Party's principles, then why on earth would we vote for them?

[Hippo_Tron]

151. The idea is to champion the principles but mention the brand name as little as possible

[Maedhros]

156. So you are, in essence, advocating that the voters should be misled

into voting for someone who will govern from very different principles than stated during the campaign? That's a catch-22. One of the following would by necessity be true:

A: The candidate should avoid revealing their Democratic principles in order to get elected, and then betray voters' trust by governing from principles the voters disagree with.

B: The candidate should tack a "D" next to their name to take advantage of low Republican popularity, and then govern from conservative principles.

Neither of those options sound reasonable.

[kentuck]

155. Excellent question.

One that all Democrats should answer.

[Orsino]

114. Politicians run on their goddamned voting records.

Hiding behind the inarguable right to the privacy of the voting booth is spurious and stupid when you are running for an office in which your every vote will be scrutinized.

When you stand for office, you're supposed to stand for something besides getting elected. Leave the doubletalk to your Republican opponent, Secretary Grimes. Yes, the question is a trap--so dazzle us with the way you proudly walk into it and back out again, so we can compare it to the sniveling lies of Senator McConnell.

[riqster]

115. The voting records you cite are not the same, and I suspect you know it.

But just in case you don't: the votes cast by legislators are indeed public record.

The votes cast by citizens for legislators in primary and general elections are NOT public record.

[Orsino]

119. That does not make her dodge any less stupid or cowardly.

The point of secret ballots is to free the voter from intimidation. That's not what Grimes is afraid of here.

[JEB]

124. Who the fuck cares.

Obama was elected twice. Now lets get on with sacking the fucking turtle.

[riqster]

125. From your lips to God's ear.

[muriel_volestrangler]

126. If she didn't vote for Obama, it shows incredibly bad judgement on her part

She was also a precinct officer for the 75th Legislative District in Kentucky as well as a member of the 2008 Democratic National Committee rules committee.

Grimes was a two-time delegate to the Democratic National Convention, supporting Hillary Clinton in 2008 and Barack Obama in 2012.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Lundergan_Grimes#Career

What the hell would a member of the rules committee and delegate to the convention be doing not voting for the Democratic presidential candidate?

[riqster]

127. I assume she did. It just ain't none of our nevermind.

[muriel_volestrangler]

128. She's standing for public office

Her opinions and actions are what she should be able to talk about, to help people decide what her beliefs are. She really can't expect votes for unknown stances, like which presidential candidate she supported - or none.

[riqster]

129. I disagree. The secret ballot is for us all.

Anything she does in a campaign or in the course of her official duties, or anything else law says we have a right to know, we should know, of course.

But who gives a rat's ass who she voted for in past elections? It's not relevant, and it's not our business.

[muriel_volestrangler]

130. The political beliefs of a candidate aren't our business?

If she said "no, I didn't vote for Obama" in either year, you'd be OK with that?

[riqster]

131. Yep. Because the Dem voters of Kentucky picked her as their candidate.

Vetting accomplished. Not my place to second-guess them.

Plus, bear in mind, Warren used to vote as a Repub. We're OK with her, yes? So such a litmus test isn't fair to apply to Grimes if we give others a pass.

But bottom line, it's NOOFB.

[muriel_volestrangler]

134. It's relevant information for the voters of Kentucky

If you want to be strict, no discussion of any candidate should take place outside the area that her voters are in. But I doubt that would be a rule you stick to. I certainly don't (I am, after all British, and I discuss American politicians).

She was a Democratic party official. Not voting for Obama would have been a serious problem. 6 or 2 years ago. Warren's voters know about her past; Lundergan Grimes should come clean about hers.

[riqster]

135. I think privacy trumps such requests.

Grimes was and is a cog in the Democratic Party machinery. No one has ever accused her of disloyalty. Lack of left-ness, yes, but not of disloyalty to the party.

There is no good cause for the breach of privacy. Dems did not ask, Repubs did.

[muriel_volestrangler]

136. This is not about 'privacy', it's about her politics

By asking her if she voted for Obama, they (even if it was Republicans) were asking her if she was ever disloyal. And she has decided not to answer. They would inevitably use that against her. If she didn't vote for him, that's bad. If she did but she decided, at that moment or earlier, to not admit it, then this is her fault for cowardice.

[riqster]

137. Crap. The Repubs care not a bit about Dem loyalty.

What they wanted was for Grimes to utter some set of syllables they could twist for their own purposes. I know it and you know it.

She did not provide them with what they wanted, so they went to plan B: accuse her of obfuscation and/or cowardice. Congratulations to you for helping the Repubs accomplish their goal.

So even if you reject her right to privacy, you are STILL wrong for bashing her. You hurt Dems and help Teapubs by acting as you are.

Please stop it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

142. If Democrats cringe so much they won't admit to voting Democratic, then they need bashing

It's an absurd hole she dug herself deeper into, even if a Republican first laid it as a trap. She wants to be a Senator; she need to be a grown-up and stand up for her beliefs.

[riqster]

146. She did. She said her ballot was a secret ballot.

So she DID stand up. Not her fault that the belief she stood up for isn't the one you wanted; nor is it her fault that people like you would deny her right to privacy, just to satisfy your lust for information to which you're not entitled.

[rock]

132. Petty

Crazy. Modern politics from the repiggies (and some DUers expect me to call them show them respect and call them Republicans; What a hoot!).

[ecstatic]

140. I partially understood the first gaffe, but making the same

mistake twice? She's now alienated people on both sides.

I don't think party affiliation matters to voters as much as simply saying what you mean and meaning what you say. People might not like what you have to say, but they can respect it.

[kentuck]

143. What evidence makes it a "gaffe"?

Or is that just an opinion? If she pulls ahead in the next poll, is it still a "gaffe"? Or was it a clever political maneuver? Many people, of all political Parties, agree with her.

[Puzzledtraveller]

152. Well our track record on privacy is not much better.

But I do think mconnels campaign likely did some illegal things in obtaining information on Grimes.

[riqster]

154. It would fit the pattern.