Maggie Haberman and Chozick have an article at the New York Times which details an upcoming battle plan “by Democrats” to wage war against what they refer to as voter restrictions in states across the nation. What they’re talking about of course are the legislatures in multiple states who have implemented voter ID laws and related regulations designed to prevent – or at least discourage – voter fraud. But in the usual language of the Left, it’s all about raaaaacism.
Given the slant of the article, I didn’t find it all that interesting and far preferred the coverage offered by Steven Benen at the WaPo’s Political Animal blog. Benen is an unapologetic leftist and dedicated worker for the Democrat Party, but he retains the redeeming trait of being able to admit it and cut through some of the politically correct nonsense and say what’s really going on. This example is no exception.
At the New York Times today, Maggie Haberman and Chozick have an important article on a legal campaign being undertaken by “Democrats allied with Hillary Rodham Clinton” to challenge a welter of voting restrictions enacted by Republican legislatures around the country. To make a relatively long story short, the idea is twofold: to get enough litigation underway so that friendly judges can perhaps intervene to suspend or modify some of these restrictions during the 2016 election cycle, and to identify HRC (who is expected to speak on this subject at Texas Southern University tomorrow) with an issue of particular concern to the minority voters she needs to hang onto in order to replicate the “Obama Coalition” in the general election.
That’s a breathtaking collection of truthspeaking in a single paragraph right there. First, it’s worth noting that Benen cuts straight to the chase and as much as admits that this has nothing whatsoever to do with any alleged “voter suppression” or fraud or anything of the kind. It’s all about finding friendly judges who will entertain litigious challenges and (hopefully) tie up lawfully passed legislation specifically to increase voter turnout which would go to benefit… you guessed it: Hillary Clinton. But he’s also honest enough to admit that Hillary will have trouble holding the Obama coalition together and this scheme is designed to fire up minority voters in her base and rebuild the turnout model Obama managed to summon the last time out.
But Steve also points to potential hard times on the horizon for the DNC and sends out the call for the troops to start breaking open their piggy banks.
Unlike Mr. Obama, who could rely on a much wealthier Democratic National Committee to pursue voter registration for several years leading up to his re-election campaign, the party’s standard-bearer this time will have no such backup: The national committee has struggled financially of late and has largely outsourced its registration efforts to nonprofit groups.
That means Mrs. Clinton, if she is nominated, may have to compensate for underwhelming efforts to register voters by maximizing the ability of existing Democratic voters to cast their ballots.
The RNC has been prompt about paying off their debts and getting the fundraising game started early. It sounds like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s crew hasn’t been quite so much on the ball and are now scrambling to play catch up. It’s a heartbreaking tale, and I’m sure many of you will want to pitch in and give them a hand.
Let me know how that works out for you, guys.