[guest post by JVW]

Some gal named Maria Theresa Kumar on MSNBC claimed during that network’s election coverage that changes to the Voting Rights Act contributed greatly to the GOP wave earlier tonight. She lamented that she had been at the University of Florida in Gainesville a couple of weeks ago and “50,000 students found that their voting booth had been removed.” Not sure what she means – is she talking about a removal of all polling locations from the campus? That would presuppose that all 50,000 students live on campus, which I find to be highly unlikely, but let’s put that aside for a moment. Were University of Florida students left without any voting locations on Election Day 2014? Let’s go to the Alachua County Supervisor of Elections website and see for ourselves. Here is a map of the area around the university with the polling locations marked with the blue pins:

By my account that’s at least four (and probably five) on-campus polling locations, with another five or so within a mile walk of the campus boundaries. Yep, those poor college kids sure are finding lots of roadblocks in front of them in trying to vote. But nice try anyway, Ms. Kumar.

– JVW

[guest post by JVW]

Today in the race for California State Senate District 26, I marked my ballot for Ben Allen, a Santa Monica Democrat with impeccable lefty credentials. A tour of his website demonstrates that Allen is all-too-familiar with silly progressive talking points, especially my perennial favorite, the notion that government spending is really an “investment.” Here is a partial list of all the things that Ben Allen believes California’s government should be “investing” in:

Our children
Early education programs
Public college and university system
Our workforce
High-tech jobs
Rainwater diversion, drip irrigation, covering the aqueducts, and water recycling
Renewal alternative energies
Mass transportation*
Drunk-driving prevention**

It is worth noting here that nowhere on his website does Ben Allen promise not to raise taxes; in fact, there is ample reason to believe that Allen would seek to raise taxes by repealing the parts of California’s Proposition 13 which apply to business properties. This while he promises to “work with local businesses to create a friendlier atmosphere for job growth” because who after all expects a Democrat to have a consistent message on taxing and regulating businesses?

And naturally, Allen has all of the requisite progressive beliefs in forcing employers to pay for their employees abortions and birth control, ensuring that LBGTQ students never hear a dissenting word uttered in college, publicly funding campaigns, and jumping aboard every trendy environmental fad as soon as it rears its head.

Still, I voted for him. Why? Because his opponent was none other than Sandra Fluke, whose puerile campaign website not only matches Allen’s hyper-leftism, but takes it a step beyond where even Allen dares to go. Just look at Fluke’s list of endorsements to see the absolute dregs of the modern Democrat Party.

I filled-in my little ballot oval for Allen with passion but certainly no sense of satisfaction or joy. What do you think? Should I have not voted for either candidate and run the risk that Fluke somehow managed to squeak through? Is the lesser of two evils still too much of an evil to garner your support? Leave comments below.

– JVW

————–

*Actually Allen doesn’t directly call for “investment” in mass transportation, but he criticizes what he terms the past “disinvestment” in mass transport, leading one to conclude that he wants to “reinvest” in mass transport.

**While he doesn’t use the word “invest” in that regard, here is the exact language from his website: “Ben will reduce the terrible tragedies that DUIs are causing each year by providing the resources necessary to hire additional officers to protect our roads and support education campaigns that help discourage people from driving under the influence.” That sounds like “investing” to me.

***Sorry to shamelessly steal the whole Mickey Kaus footnoting thing.

(- JVW)

JD had a predictions thread, but feel free to leave predictions in this one as well.

Does your individual vote matter? Almost certainly not.

Would a Republican Senate help the country? Unclear. It would make it easier to block judicial nominees, if Republicans had a spine, which they don’t. But (as has been pointed out in the comments here) it could also lead voters to prefer a Democrat in 2016 on the theory that we need “divided government” and Republicans control Congress. And the presidency is all that really matters. The GOP can’t pass anything now to reduce the burden of government, even if it tried (which is a big assumption).

So I can’t get too excited about today. But I recognize many are. So have at it.

If you live in a state with a Senate race, go ahead and vote Republican. If for no other reason, you can cancel out one fraudulent vote of a non-citizen for the Democrat.

Ed Morrissey relates the story of a drunken dude who gets arrested for disorderly conduct at a Steelers game. And then:

According to the criminal complaint, Sapp stated, “Listen, I know how this works. How much money will it take to make this go away and to let me go home today?”

The officers informed Sapp that he could not attempt to bribe them, but Sapp continued.

“Look, I am an IRS agent and I can help you in other ways if you let me go home and make this go away.”

Ed says it’s not entirely clear that the guy is an IRS agent. But a) it’s also not entirely clear that he’s not, and b) it’s too good to check. Ed says:

On the plus side, Sapp can console himself by noting that there is plenty of precedent for IRS agents to take the Fifth and still come out with their retirement intact. But for that to work, Sapp will have to demonstrate that he was attacking conservatives, I suppose.

Ed has it all wrong. Sapp could also show that he was giving a pass to Democrats.

From the Fort Worth Startlegram (that’s what natives call the Star-Telegram):

Gov. Rick Perry seems to be threatening to retaliate against grand jurors who indicted him for felony abuse-of-office and is misusing rules to try and toss out the charges before trial, a special prosecutor alleged in a filing made public Monday.

“The defendant’s own words have instilled a concern for all persons who participated in the grand jury investigation,” Michael McCrum, Perry’s special prosecutor, said in the filing, asking a state judge to deny the governor’s request for grand jury transcripts.

. . . .

[Perry] held a press conference the day after his Aug. 15 indictment saying: “This farce of a prosecution will be revealed for what it is, and those responsible will be held accountable.”

“This comment struck many listeners as a threat against the members of the grand jury and all of those associated with the grand jury process,” McCrum said.

Somewhere in Rick Perry’s camp, a conversation very much like this has no doubt taken place:

Person #1: Oh, Governor Perry threatened the grand jury! Better file a new charge, McCrum!

Person #2: Don’t give him any ideas.

“Person #2” has it right. You can’t put anything past a prosecutor so partisan and irresponsible that he would file such an “unbelievably ridiculous” indictment (Jonathan Chait’s characterization).

Neal Rauhauser often accused me of “witness intimidation” for . . . criticizing Nadia Naffe. McCrum’s latest move follows the Rauhauser Two-Step:

• Make a ridiculous criminal accusation against the target.

• If the target criticizes you, claim “witness intimidation.”

McCrum is utterly shameless, and his behavior is utterly shameful. I hope a judge puts an end to this farce, and soon.