Bernie Sanders Progeny, Our Revolution, Rises Against Fascism in Swing States

When we stand together there is nothing we cannot
accomplish.

"Our Revolution will reclaim democracy for the working
people of our country by harnessing the transformative
energy of the 'political revolution.' Through supporting
a new generation of progressive leaders, empowering
millions to fight for progressive change and
elevating the political consciousness, Our Revolution
will transform American politics to make our political
and economic systems once again responsive
to the needs of working families," reads Our Revolution,
the most powerful machine against fascism.

Updated - A glance at the map of local groups for the national progressive political machine, Our Revolution, tells much.

Clusterings of groups surge in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, (at right).

For this progressive citizen action team, it's all about winning and making the "political and economic systems once again responsive to the needs of working families."

Even hapless, neolib Democratic Party strategists can tell you the significance of Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

No single person can ever be correctly characterized as the hope of America. Nevertheless, the political power of Bernie Sanders is undeniable and rising, precisely because Sanders rejects conventional notions of what a political party should do in our electoral democracy. People over everything.

If it appears the Republican Party and corporate wing of the Democratic Party are desperate, particularly corrupt and vicious of late, it's because their corrupt power over American lives is being challenged effectively. Resistance is strong.

Consider checking out Our Revolution. This machine kills fascists, as Woody Guthrie used to say, brandishing a guitar.

Remember to enjoy yourselves, some SRV for mid-June.

Clinton Allies Still Cold to Recounts, Bernie Sanders Applauds and Acclaims Civil Rights

The Recount effort in Wisconsin faced ridicule by pro-Hillary Clinton political sites, Wisconsin Republicans and Donald Trump since the inception of the successful fund-raising effort last week.

Now, an unequivocal ally, Bernie Sanders, has stepped forward. Figures.

Informed of Republican objections to the Wisconsin Recount, Sanders on Sunday bluntly replied, "Nobody cares," (NBC News).

Sanders offered several times rejoinders to objections to the recounts, fanned by Hillary Clinton sites and Republicans.

It's their "right," Sanders pointed out.

Contrast this appeal to liberty and rights with the Clintonesque, liberal response to the recount, and one can see why Bernie Sanders would have made a much stronger general election candidate than Clinton on every issue.

Democrats screwed-up badly. Told you so, and so and so, dumb Dems, as did millions of Americans.

For more information on the Wisconsin Recount, see Wisconsin recount information, governing Wisconsin state statute, and ARTICLE III, Suffrage (voting) text in the Wisconsin Constitution, indicated and explained in updated online Wisconsin public websites, in accordance with Wisconsin's historic open-government commitment and the Wisconsin Idea.The Wisconsin Elections Commission Board (formerly the GAB) 2015-2016 calendar is also online.

Recounts in Wisconsin and Two States Go Forward

Jill Stein campaign's check on election integrity is successful

Updated - Clinton campaign attentive to concerns animating recount, vows to take part in recount effort, reports Reuters. Damn well better.
 ---
Recount petitions addressing the presidential general election in Wisconsin were received today by the Wisconsin Elections Commission, reports Steve Hanson in the Uppity Wisconsin political site.

The Jill Stein and Rocky Roque De La Fuente 2016 presidential campaigns have both filed recount petitions in Wisconsin. Recount petitions are expected to be filed in Michigan and Pennsylvania next week.

Opposition to the Jill Stein recount petition, paid by the Stein campaign supporters, has come from Wisconsin Republicans and some liberal political sites editorially supportive of, [see update above], but separate from, the Hillary Clinton campaign.

As noted in the Wisconsin Elections Commission website, Wisconsin is composed of 72 counties that will be the authorities for the recount. Municipalities in the counties will conduct the actual processes, with the state Commission offering logistical, legal, and other support in a partnership capacity.

Wisconsin recount information, governing Wisconsin state statute, and ARTICLE III, Suffrage (voting) text in the Wisconsin Constitution are indicated and explained in updated online Wisconsin public websites, in accordance with Wisconsin's historic open-government commitment and the Wisconsin Idea.The Wisconsin Elections Commission Board (formerly the GAB) 2015-2016 calendar is also online.

From the Wisconsin Elections Commission website, a press release announcing the recount petitions and the current popular votes for president are posted.

Wisconsin Elections Commission Receives Two Presidential Election Recount Petitions

Date: November 25, 2016

MADISON, WI – The Wisconsin Elections Commission today received two recount petitions from the Jill Stein for President Campaign and from Rocky Roque De La Fuente, Administrator Michael Haas announced.

“The Commission is preparing to move forward with a statewide recount of votes for President of the United States, as requested by these candidates,” Haas said.

“We have assembled an internal team to direct the recount, we have been in close consultation with our county clerk partners, and have arranged for legal representation by the Wisconsin Department of Justice,” Haas said. “We plan to hold a teleconference meeting for county clerks next week and anticipate the recount will begin late in the week after the Stein campaign has paid the recount fee, which we are still calculating.”

The last statewide recount was of the Supreme Court election in 2011.  At that time, the Associated Press surveyed county clerks and reported that costs to the counties exceeded $520,000, though several counties did not respond to the AP’s survey.  That election had 1.5 million votes, and Haas said the Commission expects the costs to be higher for an election with 2.975 million votes.  “The Commission is in the process of obtaining cost estimates from county clerks so that we can calculate the fee which the campaigns will need to pay before the recount can start,” Haas said.  The Commission will need to determine how the recount costs will be assessed to the campaigns.

The state is working under a federal deadline of December 13 to complete the recount. As a result, county boards of canvassers may need to work evenings and weekends to meet the deadlines. “The recount process is very detail-oriented, and this deadline will certainly challenge some counties to finish on time,” Haas said.  

A recount is different than an audit and is more rigorous, Haas explained.  More than 100 reporting units across the state were randomly selected for a separate audit of their voting equipment as required by state law, and that process has already begun.  Electronic voting equipment audits determine whether all properly-marked ballots are accurately tabulated by the equipment.  In a recount, all ballots (including those that were originally hand counted) are examined to determine voter intent before being retabulated. In addition, the county boards of canvassers will examine other documents, including poll lists, written absentee applications, rejected absentee ballots, and provisional ballots before counting the votes.

Haas noted that the Commission’s role is to order the recount, to provide legal guidance to the counties during the recount, and to certify the results.  If the candidates disagree with the results of the recount, the law gives them the right to appeal in circuit court within five business days after the recount is completed.  The circuit court is where issues are resolved that may be discovered during the recount but are not resolved to the satisfaction of the candidates.

“Wisconsin has the most decentralized election system in the United States,” Haas said. “The system has strong local control coupled with state oversight, resting on the partnership between the Wisconsin Elections Commission, the 72 county clerks, and the 1,854 municipal clerks. State law clearly gives each county’s Board of Canvassers the primary authority to conduct the recount, and to decide which ballots should and should not be counted.  Recounting votes is an open, transparent process in which each of the candidates may have representatives present to raise objections, and where the public may be present to observe.” ...

Recounts Should Proceed

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and myriad Americans want a recount of three swing states comprising the Scranton-to-Oshkosh 'rust belt' corridor.

The white working-class, (among other demographics), voted differently than many voting models had predicted, amid unprecedented foreign intervention in our presidential campaign by Russian hackers, so many Americans want a recount to ensure the election was not hacked.

However, the specific reasons Dr. Stein and supporters have for requesting a recount are beside the point.

The election rules of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin afford opportunities for a recount, and do not condition a recount on the concerns of the petitioner(s) other than a broad stated belief that, for example, a "mistake or fraud has been committed in a specified ward or municipality in the counting and return of the votes cast for the office or upon the question or that another specified defect, irregularity, or illegality occurred in the conduct of the election," (Wisconsin State Statute).

The post-election conventional wisdom, collectively devoid of irony as an industry of experts deride the recount petition with the same certainty presented in falsely predicting the 2016 election results, does not address the rights and rules of the recount processes, (Wisconsin Elections Commission).

Correct?

Worth noting is the fact recounts are also a project with the added benefit of promoting confidence in the 2016 election, a plank of the Green Party platform calling for "publicly-owned, open source voting equipment [deployed] across the nation to ensure high national standards, performance, transparency and accountability; [a process using] verifiable paper ballots; and [instituting] mandatory automatic random precinct recounts to ensure a high level of accuracy in election results," (Green Party).

Recounts will continue because state statutes were drafted contemplating the broad election-administration concerns of Jill Stein, free and fair election activists and the voters.

With respect to 538.com and other anti-recount political sites, if you do not want a recount, don't petition for one.

Bizarre Opposition to Verifying Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania Presidential Results

Don't verify election results, just trust polling experts, argues 538.com

Update II: Jill Stein confirms intention to request recount in three swing states.
 
Update: Green Party raises $2.5 Million for recount in Wisconsin as corporate media and Clinton campaign throw wet blanket over recount-verification effort, (O'Brien, Reuters). What excuse could anyone possibly have to not verify the results of this election?
 ---
After Jill Stein joined the effort to verify the presidential elections in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania with a paper ballot recount, the project has drawn an unlikely opponent—538.com.

Recount proponents make a persuasive case for a recount of three swing states, and pointedly do not make specific hypotheses positing the states were hacked or the election results otherwise improperly tabulated.

Recount advocates do wish to ensure confidence and accuracy in the election results, which represent the will of the American voters.

In reaction, 538.com in a perverse column by Carl Bialik and Rob Arthur states with certainty, Demographics, Not Hacking, Explain The Election Result, and cautions recounts should be discouraged because they subvert confidence.

What?

Bialik and Arthur's concluding bizarre paragraph reads in part, "It’s possible nonetheless that the election was hacked, in the sense that anything is possible. ... The paradox is that in our current electoral system, without routine audits, seeking proof requires calling for a recount, which in itself can undermine confidence in the vote."

So in campaign 2016 we have foreign agents that all agree imposed a foreign power into the American presidential election, we have a major political party that was hacked by a foreign power, we have results almost no one saw coming determining the election, and we have election and statistical experts as well as a presidential candidate, Jill Stein, calling for a recount; therefore Bialik and Arthur conclude: No recount because the precision obtained in a recount will undermine confidence in the election.

Bialik and Arthur may have penned the dumbest column yet of campaign 2016.

Below is the press release by Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for president 2016 calling for a recount:

Election Integrity depends on YOU!

The Stein/Baraka Green Party Campaign is launching an effort to ensure the integrity of our elections. We are raising money to demand recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-- three states where there is a significant need to verify machine-counted vote totals. Please donate to this initiative today.
To give you a sense of the problem, the voting machines used in Wisconsin were banned in California after they were shown to be highly vulnerable to hacking and malicious programming due to lacking security features.

"After a divisive and painful presidential race, in which foreign agents hacked into party databases, private email servers, and voter databases in certain states, many Americans are wondering if our election results are reliable. That's why the unexpected results of the election and reported anomalies need to be investigated before the 2016 presidential election is certified. We deserve elections we can trust." -- Dr. Jill Stein.

This is about more than the results of this one election. This is about protecting our democracy and ensuring that "We the People" can have confidence in reported results.

We need your help to make sure your votes were counted accurately on Election Day. Please donate now to help maintain integrity in our elections. Please donate to this effort to protect our democracy.
This effort to ensure election integrity is in your hands! In order to make this happen, we need to raise over $2 million by this Friday, 4pm central. In true grassroots fashion, we're turning to you, the people, and not big-money corporate donors to make this happen.

Click Here to Donate Today! We hope to do recounts in all three states. If we only raise sufficient money for two, we will demand recounts in two states. If we only raise enough money for one, we will demand a recount in one state. If we do not raise enough for any recount (which is highly unlikely) we pledge to use the money for election integrity efforts and to promote systemic voting system reform.

Top Comp Scientists, Election Attys Want Recount of Wisc, Michigan and Pennsylvania

A prominent group of computer scientists and election attorneys has met with the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign chair and general counsel to call for a recount in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, Gabriel Sherman reports in New York magazine.

The call for three swing-state recounts follows the unprecedented foreign intervention in the presidential campaign by international and Russian hackers, widely publicized before Election Day.

"A growing number of academics and activists are calling for US authorities to fully audit or recount the 2016 presidential election vote in key battleground states, in case the results could have been skewed by foreign hackers," reports Jon Swaine in The Guardian.

As noted via the Election Law site, Sherman reports:

Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked. The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private.

Last Thursday, the activists held a conference call with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign general counsel Marc Elias to make their case, according to a source briefed on the call. The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots.

Wisconsin voting rights activists have for years eyed with suspicion the over-performance of Republicans in red and purple counties using electronic-voting machines. They want verification to promote confidence in election results, and to protect voting rights.

In Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, Trump leads Clinton by 0.8%, 0.2% and 1.1%, respectively, according to data compiled by David Wasserman @Redistrict, Cook Political Report @CookPolitical.

Wisc AG Van Hollen hosts McCain 'victory' party

From the Capital Times (Madison, Wis), John Nichols reports:

VAN HOLLEN TO HOST McCAIN "VICTORY" PARTY
After claiming for weeks that there was nothing partisan about his ambitious election season regimen of suing the Government Accountability Board and dispatching attorneys and special agents to polling places where high Democratic turnouts might reasonably be expected, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen comes out of the closet Tuesday night.
He's co-hosting the 'Wisconsin GOP Election Night Party' -- where supporters of John McCain and Sarah Palin will toast their successes or drown their sorrows -- at a Waukesha hotel.
Van Hollen, a McCain campaign co-chair, will be joined by other non-partisan good government activists like Republican congressmen Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner.

Wisconsin is in the bag folks, no one is complacent here. We'll handle Van Hollen and the pricks here.

But Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada and even Pennsylvania, any obstruction problems voting there, go the polls prepared:

- 1-866-OUR-VOTE Hotline (1-866-687-8683)
- Find your local Obama office and vote prepared to call them, http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
- Find your local paper's office and prepare to call them

AFL-CIO to Hit McCain in Wisconsin, Swing States

John McCain's hostile voting record against veterans will be the topic of a major media buy by the AFL-CIO.

The ad blasts McCain for his close political commitments to George W. Bush on veterans issues.

From the AFL-CIO's Union Veterans Council:

The AFL-CIO also is launching a TV ad today featuring Jim Wasser, a Vietnam-era veteran and retired Electrical Workers (IBEW) member.

In the ad, Wasser speaks about McCain, whose military service is honorable but whose Senate voting record hasn’t supported veterans and their families. The ad will run in communities around the country hard-hit by the nation’s economic crisis.

In the ad, Wasser praises McCain’s military service and discusses his concerns about McCain’s political agenda.

"Every vet respects John McCain’s war record. It’s his record in the Senate that I have a problem with," said Wasser.

Wasser says McCain supports continuing to spend billions in Iraq, yet he repeatedly voted against increased funding for veterans health care.

"People should let McCain know that his agenda is not what we need. Not now," said Wasser.

According to the Washington Post, "The ads will run on stations in Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin for the next three weeks."

Watch the video:

Wisconsin's Obama Delegate Win Equals Clinton's Penn Win

Wisconsin Obama Delegate Win - 10

Pennsylvania Clinton Delegate Win - 10

The question is not if but when Obama wins the nomination.

Faced with Obama's inevitability, and apparently intent on stretching the primary out as long as possible, what will Hillary do?

Third Party Run for Hillary?

via MAL Contends

Most rational, honest observers (those are not whom we see on cable TV) know that absent a historic meltdown by Obama, Hillary Clinton has virtually no chance of winning the Democratic nomination.

Her nine-digit win in the quasi-machine state of Pennsylvania excites only those with a vested interest in seeing her continue in the race.

Here's an updated reposting of one rationale explaining why Hillary stays in, consistent with known facts: A third-party/independent run.

In Hillary Clinton's willingness to blow up a historic Democratic constituency (the African-American vote, now voting against her nine-to-one), her embrace of John McCain's national security credentials over Barack Obama's, and her utilization of rightwing media organs to smear Obama, right as her money is drying up, one sees at least the outlines of a rationale for the messianic Hillary to morph into Joe Lieberman and stage an independent run for the presidency.

Said James Carville in April: "Well, you know the convention is not the end game, folks. Now, don’t get me wrong I think Hillary Clinton will get the nomination in the end. But, if the Washintonian elites decide to throw her under the bus, who could blame her if she took this all the way to November."

Bill has been building up McCain for months, saying McCain is a “moderate”

Certainly Hillary possesses the sense of entitlement and burn-down-the-house drive to wage such a battle.

And the Clinton's loyalty to the Democratic Party has never been that strong. Hillary is a Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) Democrat.

Her continued presence in the race and her general-election attacks speaks clearly that she really does not care what damage she inflicts on the Democratic nominee.

Maybe Hillary does care, and wishes to subtly inflict as much damage as possible, weakening Obama for her historic third-party run facing a weakened Obama and a historically weak GOP.

Such a run would be the realization of the ultimate triangulation.

What's to stop her? Hillary's lack of ambition, Hillary's loyalty to the Democratic Party?

We'll see.

Clinton's Unchallenged Spin

Update: See Getting Real and Assessing Strength in Swing States (NYT, April 24, 2008).

This morning, Hillary Clinton and her surrogates keep on with the desperate and ludicrous spin that winning big states in the Democratic primary points to winning these states in the general election, hence Hillary is the stronger candidate.

Losing in national popular vote total, number of states won, number of pledged delegates won, and high negative voter impressions, the Clinton campaign's contention is posited to the likes of Wolf Blitzer and network know-nothings who let Clinton's ridiculous proposition go on in silence, without laughing it off the air.

To impart any substance into Clinton's assertion, one has to believe that Clinton's winning California and New York in the primary means that Obama as nominee would not win these states in a general election. Ridiculous.

And as Hillary likes to appeal to history, one must believe that Bill Clinton's losing most of New England in the 1992 primary would suggest that Bill would perform there badly in the general election. [It didn't happen.]

And to take Hillary's thesis and apply it to the swing states like Missouri, Iowa and Wisconsin (where Obama won in this primary), one must, by Clinton's logic, argue that Obama and not Clinton would win these vital states in the general election.

In fact, one can apply this logic of the 30-plus states won by Obama (at this primary's end) and conclude that Obama, and only Obama, would win these states in the general election.

Preposterous, yet the network airheads let this crap go on unchallenged.

Obama Hits Back

If they don't get it here, they gonna it out there with the Republicans.

Such is the occasional justification offered for Hillary's tactics when her campaign veers into lies and sleaze against Obama that go against conceptions of fair play and justice.

But the 'gonna get it out there' sounds a lot like the muttered idiocies of an abuser.

Barack Obama neither fights, flees nor freezes in the face of the assault of arguably the most inane presidential campaign debate of modern politics, as Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos delivered a pathetic performance, with a civil but typical Hillary on display.

He offers an agrument in rebuttal ande speaks to people as though they were adult voters.

In North Carolina yesterday, Obama delivers so reasonably and effectively that Obama's over-the-top critics have made mockeries of themselves, and implanted a meme in the political consciousness of what are the ridiculous charges next that they are going to try to sell.

“That was the roll-out of the Republican campaign against me in November. That is what they will do,” Mr. Obama said. “They will try to focus on all these issues that don’t have anything to do with how you pay your bills at the end of the month.” (NYT. Jeff Zeleny)

Obama brings it all back home to substance with a cool that is a pleasure to watch viz a vis Gibson, Stephanopoulos, and Hillary.

NYT Video of Obama at a town meeting today in North Carolina:

Clinton Pretends There Was a Debate Last Night

via MAL Contends

The campaign reactions tell the story.

You can see the difference in the integrity of the two campaigns by their reactions to this inane, imbecilic forum last night by two manifestly unqualified debate moderators.

There was serious a debate last night and Hillary won - says Hillary's campaign.

Obama’s site offered Americans the opportunity to comment on this travesty, "Post Debate: Any thoughts? If you're tired of a slash and burn politics that trades distraction for real debate, you don't have to sit idly and watch anymore."

Clinton’s site pretended that this was a real, substantive debate, "Hillary's Reviews Are In: 'The Winner,' 'Strong Presence,' 'In Her Element'" [Just like Hillary is pretending there was a primary in Michigan and Fla.]

Hillary is still the same, old, lying politician to which more and more Americans are taking a dislike.

No need to cite from last night; it's a waste of time that only Hillary could dignify.

Daily Kos Headlines

Good stuff at Kos:

- Ashcroft: "History will not judge this kindly" (Update w/Video)

- "Mr. Barammobama going to win it all!"

- Getting ready for the third wave of financial panic

- Why Elizabeth Edwards is Wrong

- [Update][w/Video] IN-06 Dem. Candidate Barry Welsh Punched in the Face

- Inflation Is Getting Worse

- Levittown Lovin’ Obama – Seriously (Photos!)

- Colin Powell praises Obama