2008-general-election &laquo; WordPress.com Tag Feed http://wordpress.com/tag/2008-general-election/ Feed of posts on WordPress.com tagged "2008-general-election" Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:31:10 +0000 http://wordpress.com/tags/ en <![CDATA[Boston 2008 General Election Results]]> http://masselections.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/boston-2008-general-election-results/ Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:41:06 +0000 Bob LeLievre http://masselections.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/boston-2008-general-election-results/

 

2008 General Boston Voter Turnout by Neighborhood

- by Bob LeLievre

 

NEIGHBORHOOD

 11/2008
Turnout

% Turnout
Estimated

% Turnout
change
2004–2008

G2008
% Obama

G2008
% Question #1 - No

G2008
% Question

#2 - Yes

2000 Census Data
% White

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Allston

      10,677

70%

19%

82%

69%

73%

65%

Back Bay

        7,232

76%

7%

75%

63%

72%

81%

Beacon Hill

        4,126

82%

9%

77%

65%

71%

91%

Brighton

      14,633

75%

11%

74%

71%

67%

78%

Charlestown

        8,158

78%

15%

65%

66%

64%

85%

Chinatown

        2,075

64%

41%

75%

66%

57%

32%

Dorchester - All

      43,616

76%

20%

84%

73%

61%

28%

East Boston

        9,235

70%

14%

66%

65%

57%

53%

Fenway

        6,108

71%

2%

82%

67%

72%

69%

Hyde Park

      13,830

79%

19%

84%

74%

58%

38%

Jamaica Plain

      18,347

81%

14%

88%

81%

74%

57%

Mattapan

        6,900

78%

25%

97%

76%

64%

3%

Mission Hill

        4,084

72%

8%

85%

71%

66%

49%

North End

        7,144

76%

9%

69%

65%

68%

87%

Readville

        1,343

80%

10%

61%

73%

56%

84%

Roslindale

      12,747

79%

13%

77%

75%

63%

62%

Roxbury

      17,273

74%

23%

96%

74%

66%

14%

South Boston

      16,538

77%

19%

59%

67%

63%

88%

South End

      12,963

75%

11%

85%

71%

71%

60%

West End

        2,098

70%

12%

71%

63%

68%

83%

West Roxbury

      15,387

82%

11%

59%

69%

57%

89%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY-WIDE TOTALS

   234,514

76%

16%

79%

71%

65%

55%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dorchester Subtotals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blue Hill Ave. / Wash. St.

      7,269

75%

24%

97%

76%

63%

2%

Bowdoin / Meetinghouse Hill

        4,342

75%

32%

94%

70%

59%

8%

Fields Corner

        2,832

74%

25%

88%

68%

62%

13%

Grove Hall

        3,601

74%

31%

97%

75%

64%

3%

Melville Park / Ashmont Hill

        2,982

79%

22%

92%

77%

70%

20%

Savin Hill

        3,064

76%

14%

66%

68%

60%

61%

South - Majority Non-White

        6,337

76%

18%

86%

77%

65%

32%

South - Majority White

        7,633

80%

8%

58%

69%

54%

75%

Uphams Corner

        5,556

74%

24%

86%

70%

61%

30%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DORCHESTER - ALL

     43,616

76%

20%

84%

73%

61%

28%

 

 

Highlights

 

 

  1. Voter Turnout

 

  1.  
    1. The citywide turnout was 234K voters, a 31K (16%) vote increase from the 2004 presidential election.  It also was a 46K (25%) vote increase since the 2000 presidential election.

 

  1.  
    1. Turnout was high
]]> <![CDATA[Election ’08 turnout disappointing. Put it down to the boring campaign, and perhaps the Obama factor]]> http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/poll/ Wed, 12 Nov 2008 04:21:18 +0000 poneke http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/poll/

The voter turnout for Saturday’s general election was a disappointing 78.69 per cent, one of the lowest turnouts ever. Just 2,345,104 of the 2,990,759 enrolled voters actually voted.

Why is this? The number of voters actually enrolled was a record , and represented 95.31 per cent of eligible voters (that is, New Zealand citizens and eligible residents aged 18 and above).

Some political scientists have suggested many voters stayed home because the opinion polls for months had predicted a National victory. Apparently, some voters feel it’s not worth voting if the result is a foregone conclusion.

If that’s the case it’s not particularly good for democracy, is it?

There have also been suggestions that many Labour supporters simply decided not to vote.

Another explanation, the simplest, is that the entire campaign was so boring that huge numbers of people failed to notice it, let alone be excited by it, and come election day, they didn’t even know it was on.

It was certainly the dreariest election campaign in my adult lifetime. Some of them – particularly 1984, 1996, 2005 – have been full of drama and high interest. Even the less exciting ones were much more memorable than the somnambulant month we had to endure before Saturday.

Many New Zealanders probably compared our campaign with the one taking place in the United States, which was among the most exciting and interesting of any in any country in recent times. How could ours even begin to compete with that extraordinary spectacle?

At the election night party we were at on Saturday night, the sound was off on the television set for most of it, so humdrum it had all become.

Maybe the Great 2008 World Financial Crisis – the dour backdrop to the campaign – had convinced the contenders this was not a campaign to perform theatrical flourishes during, or even make interesting promises.

Maybe none of it matters at all. There have been no great wails of anguish, even from those who lost. I haven’t heard anyone talk about the elections since Monday. Saturday night seems all but forgotten. The sun still shines and Christmas decorations already adorn many shops. All must be well, then.

]]> <![CDATA[Voter's Regret]]> http://geoausch.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/voters-regret/ Wed, 12 Nov 2008 03:03:46 +0000 geoausch http://geoausch.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/voters-regret/

A week ago I voted for John McCain. At no point did the prospect of a McCain/Palin ticket excite me, but the “cult of personality” surrounding Barack Obama pissed me off.  Obama was much better in 2004 when he was my little secret. In the end, that’s why I voted for John McCain–Obama had become trendy.

As the week has passed, I am reminded why I left the Republican Party. The rhetoric among McCain supporters ranges from bitterness towards Sarah Palin to not-so-subtle racism. I look at the anger directed at McCain’s “moderate” positions and I see calls for a return to the rigid, Levitical legalism of the Rapture Right. Then you have the fringe, conspiracy theorists, claiming that Barack Obama is part of some grand plot with terrorists to coordinate an attack on the United States or that Obama is the anti-Christ because the winning numbers in the Illinois lottery last week were 6-6-6.  There’s the story of the University of Texas football player kicked off the team for posting racist remarks, which supposedly stemmed from a text message circulating among many McCain supporters. Then today, on my way to work, I got behind a car with a bumper sticker that read, “Be Afraid: There’s Another Hussein in Power.”

After taking all that in, I wish I could go back in time and recast my vote. There’s no doubt in my mind that I would vote for Barack Obama if I had it to do all over again. It took me nine months to regret my vote for George W. Bush in 2000; it only took me one week to regret my vote for John McCain.

Thank God Obama won!

I will never vote for another Republican again–ever! After all, if I must choose between socialism or the unholy alliance of religious extremism and fascism of the right, I will take the socialism every time.

]]> <![CDATA[Planning under way for Obama holiday]]> http://themountainsage.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/planning-under-way-for-obama-holiday/ Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:10:21 +0000 Sage http://themountainsage.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/planning-under-way-for-obama-holiday/

Oh, give me a friggin’ break. The man hasn’t served one second as president yet and they want a holiday named for him?

Planning under way for Obama holiday

The Capital-Journal

Published Sunday, November 09, 2008

Plans are being made to promote a national holiday for Barack Obama, who will become the nation’s 44th president when he takes the oath of office Jan. 20.

“Yes We Can” planning rallies will be at 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. every Tuesday at the downtown McDonald’s restaurant, 1100 Kansas Ave., until Jan. 13. The goals are to secure a national holiday in Obama’s honor, to organize celebrations around his inauguration and to celebrate the 200th birthday of President Abraham Lincoln, who was born on Feb. 12 1809.

At 7:30 a.m. on Inauguration Day, Obama Cake will be served at the downtown McDonald’s, and a celebration is scheduled for 8 p.m. to midnight Jan. 20 at the Ramada Hotel and Convention Center, 420 S.E. 6th.

For more information, contact Sonny Scroggins, (785) 232-3761, 845-6148 or at biasbustersofkansas@yahoo.com; Lamont Lassiter, McDonald’s general manager, 608-2739; Ava Chander-Beard, (785) 234-9138, ava.beard@sbcglobal.net

REST OF ARTICLE

]]> <![CDATA[Obama Presidency Challenged By New Jersey Voter ]]> http://themountainsage.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/obama-presidency-challenged-by-new-jersey-voter/ Tue, 11 Nov 2008 02:37:57 +0000 Sage http://themountainsage.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/obama-presidency-challenged-by-new-jersey-voter/

I am posting this in full because it is a press release.

Obama presidency challenged by New Jersey voter re: “natural born citizen” now before US Supreme Court. Standing not an issue-Birth Certificate not main point of suit. Action was originally filed against both Obama and McCain alleging ineligibility.

Champion of rights

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRLog (Press Release) – Nov 10, 2008 – On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution.Unlike other law suits filed against the candidates, Berg etc., this action was the only bi-partisan suit, which sought to have both McCain and Obama removed for the same reason.  (Later, Plaintiff also sought the removal of Nicaraguan born Roger Colera, the Presidential candidate for the Socialist Workers Party). The Berg suit will almost certainly fail on the grounds of “standing”, but Donofrio v. Wells, having come directly from NJ state courts, will require the SCOTUS to apply New Jersey law, and New Jersey has a liberal history of according standing to citizens seeking judicial review of State activity.


While raising it as an ancillary issue, Plaintiff in this case didn’t rely upon questioning Obama‘s birth certificate as the core Constitutional issue.  Rather, he alleges that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was born to a Kenyan national father and is therefore not eligible to be President due to having dual loyalties at birth and split jurisdiction at the time of his birth.

The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written “statement”, prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were “by law entitled” to be listed on ballots in New Jersey.  The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.

The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary’s oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the “natural born citizen” requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election.

The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President.  These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd.

Plaintiff-Appellant then initiated the litigation process on Monday, October 27th.

Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the “natural born citizen” issue.  Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the “natural born citizen” test.  The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President.

The action was brought as a “Complaint In Lieu of Prerogative Writs” (aka writ of mandamus) directly to the Appellate Division in NJ.  An arduous four day litigation ended with Judge Sabatino denying plaintiff emergency relief.

Plaintiff then submitted the matter to the New Jersey Supreme the next morning, and after an emergency review by multiple Supreme Court Justices, the application for emergency relief was denied.

However, in an incredible turn of events, the NJ Supreme Court specifically ignored the lower court’s five page opinion – such opinion having avoided the Constitutional question presented – and relied upon “Movant’s Papers” which did discuss and employ Constitutional issues.

This then opened a door to US Supreme Court review.  Since “Movant’s papers” are based on a Constitutional issue, it is proper for the US Supreme Court to review the case.

Plaintiff-appellant prepared the US Supreme Court emergency stay application over the weekend and then rushed off to Washington DC on November 3rd where he filed an Application For Emergency Stay of New Jersey ballots, and/or a stay of the “national election”.  Plaintiff’s terminology is of vital importance here.  Plaintiff’s use of the term “national election” includes all aspects thereof, including the popular vote, full election results, and the Electoral College process.

Justice Suoter, facing a tough decision in the wake of Obama’s landslide victory, took four days to examine the extensive lower court paper trail and legal precedents pertaining thereto, but he eventually denied the application on Nov. 6th, 2008.  However, the case is still live, but not for the reason erroneously listed on the SCOTUS Docket.

It appears Justice Suoter was misinformed by the US Supreme Court Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickle. A full Petition for Writ of Certiorari is listed as “pending” on the Supreme Court docket, and such Petition having not been dismissed by Justice Suoter indicates the serious merits of the case, but plaintiff-appellant did not make a full Petition, and so its existence is a procedural fiction.  But the case is still live and pending as an Emergency Stay Application.

Due to the emergent nature of Stay proceedings, plaintiff is entitled - by law - under US Supreme Court Rule 22 to