If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Chris McDaniel's legal challenge: Facts schmacts, give me the nomination, you f*ckers   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 65
    More: Amusing, Chris McDaniel, GOP, Mississippi Republican Party, Mississippians, voter database, Thad Cochran, crossover voting, Republican nominee  
•       •       •

1838 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Aug 2014 at 11:23 AM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



65 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-05 09:17:21 AM  
If we're very lucky, Chris McDaniel is going to keep the legal challenge going until Election day and split the GOP.
 
2014-08-05 09:37:52 AM  
Point 1: But the Mississippi law that the team is basing that on is unenforceable and was overturned by a federal judge in 2008. That's a doozy of a starting point and brings to mind the "house built on shifting sands" parable.

Point 2: Nowhere in any of the three articles I've read on this matter have any good figures been trotted out.  Sure they say "40,000 votes from likely Democratic general election voters and a net of 25,000, but there are no rates of county vote-count shifts, no rates of actually illegal Dem primary-to-GOP-runoff voter shifting, none of it.  It just seems like a flim flam.
 
2014-08-05 10:09:07 AM  
a4.img.talkingpointsmemo.com

Cameron from Ferris Buehler is an attorney now?
 
2014-08-05 10:37:55 AM  

factoryconnection: Point 1: But the Mississippi law that the team is basing that on is unenforceable and was overturned by a federal judge in 2008. That's a doozy of a starting point and brings to mind the "house built on shifting sands" parable.

Point 2: Nowhere in any of the three articles I've read on this matter have any good figures been trotted out.  Sure they say "40,000 votes from likely Democratic general election voters and a net of 25,000, but there are no rates of county vote-count shifts, no rates of actually illegal Dem primary-to-GOP-runoff voter shifting, none of it.  It just seems like a flim flam.


It doesn't matter, the important thing is to keep bringing up even the vague possibility that black persons have some degree of self-determination. That alone is enough to keep the primary-voter demographic agitated and involved.
 
2014-08-05 10:53:55 AM  

markie_farkie: [a4.img.talkingpointsmemo.com image 652x365]

Cameron from Ferris Buehler is an attorney now?


No, the attorney is on the right. McDaniels is the low-resolution Cameron.

factoryconnection: Point 1: But the Mississippi law that the team is basing that on is unenforceable and was overturned by a federal judge in 2008. That's a doozy of a starting point and brings to mind the "house built on shifting sands" parable.

Point 2: Nowhere in any of the three articles I've read on this matter have any good figures been trotted out.  Sure they say "40,000 votes from likely Democratic general election voters and a net of 25,000, but there are no rates of county vote-count shifts, no rates of actually illegal Dem primary-to-GOP-runoff voter shifting, none of it.  It just seems like a flim flam.


Came to say something along these lines. But there are even more problems than that, his primary assumption is that every Democrat who voted in the Primary voted for Cochran. Given the whole "secret ballot" thing, there's no way he can show that the people who are Democrats voted for Cochran, so he has no grounds to exclude those votes, because they just as likely could be votes for him.
 
2014-08-05 11:16:42 AM  
So I see McDaniel's strategy of CRY MOAR continues like gangbusters.
 
2014-08-05 11:25:08 AM  

Karac: Mississippi state Sen. Chris McDaniel (R) and his legal team formally announced on Monday his legal challenge to the runoff results of the Republican primary for U.S. Senate  ... McDaniel attorney Mitch Tyner (pictured right), with McDaniel standing next to him, announced the McDaniel campaign would file a formal challenge to the election results with the state executive committee of the Republican Party.

So he's not actually filing a challenge, he's just holding a press conference to officially announce that he plans to file a challenge?

[www.jaroslavmachacek.com image 502x269]

shiat or get off it already.


It also sounds like he's filling his "challenge" with a body that has zero legal authority.
 
2014-08-05 11:27:32 AM  
i3.photobucket.com
 
2014-08-05 11:27:59 AM  

qorkfiend: It also sounds like he's filling his "challenge" with a body that has zero legal authority.


IMA GOIN TO THE DMV AND FILE A COMPLAINT BECAUSE THE TATER CHIPS I BOUGHT AT PIGGLY WIGGLY WAS STALE!!!!11
 
2014-08-05 11:28:44 AM  
Black people voted for my opponent so I should get the GOP nomination.
 
2014-08-05 11:33:53 AM  
McDaniel ultimately won the runoff by 25,000 votes, Tyner claimed. That 25,000 number seems to be the McDaniel team factoring Democrats who voted in the Republican primary but don't plan to vote for the Republican nominee in the general election. McDaniel and his team have argued that under Mississippi law, anyone who votes in the primary is bound to support the eventual nominee of that primary. But the Mississippi law that the team is basing that on is unenforceable and was overturned by a federal judge in 2008.

Wait. Seriously? They had a law that stated if you voted for someone in the Primary you had to vote for them in the General?
 
2014-08-05 11:35:10 AM  
Chris McDaniel also said that if he were given the Mississippi GOP Senate nomination, he will tell everyone how to find and get Osama bin Laden.
 
2014-08-05 11:35:20 AM  

Fart_Machine: Black people voted for my opponent so I should get the GOP nomination.



That's a bingo!
 
2014-08-05 11:35:45 AM  

Fart_Machine: Black people voted for my opponent so I should get the GOP nomination.


As a Mississippian, I can tell you that I've heard almost that exact argument come out of the pie holes of some of the people around here.
 
2014-08-05 11:37:43 AM  

Nadie_AZ: McDaniel ultimately won the runoff by 25,000 votes, Tyner claimed. That 25,000 number seems to be the McDaniel team factoring Democrats who voted in the Republican primary but don't plan to vote for the Republican nominee in the general election. McDaniel and his team have argued that under Mississippi law, anyone who votes in the primary is bound to support the eventual nominee of that primary. But the Mississippi law that the team is basing that on is unenforceable and was overturned by a federal judge in 2008.

Wait. Seriously? They had a law that stated if you voted for someone in the Primary you had to vote for them in the General?


"Had" being the operative word, yes.
 
2014-08-05 11:38:19 AM  

Witty_Retort: Fart_Machine: Black people voted for my opponent so I should get the GOP nomination.

As a Mississippian, I can tell you that I've heard almost that exact argument come out of the pie holes of some of the people around here.


But don't you DARE call them racist!
 
2014-08-05 11:39:00 AM  
Facts have the exact same effect on conservatives that kryptonite has

on conservatives.
 
2014-08-05 11:40:08 AM  

Smoking GNU: Witty_Retort: Fart_Machine: Black people voted for my opponent so I should get the GOP nomination.

As a Mississippian, I can tell you that I've heard almost that exact argument come out of the pie holes of some of the people around here.

But don't you DARE call them racist!


Its not racism if its true.
/actually overheard around these parts
 
2014-08-05 11:40:19 AM  

Smoking GNU: Nadie_AZ: McDaniel ultimately won the runoff by 25,000 votes, Tyner claimed. That 25,000 number seems to be the McDaniel team factoring Democrats who voted in the Republican primary but don't plan to vote for the Republican nominee in the general election. McDaniel and his team have argued that under Mississippi law, anyone who votes in the primary is bound to support the eventual nominee of that primary. But the Mississippi law that the team is basing that on is unenforceable and was overturned by a federal judge in 2008.

Wait. Seriously? They had a law that stated if you voted for someone in the Primary you had to vote for them in the General?

"Had" being the operative word, yes.


His entire case hinges on a law that is no longer in place.

Well, I'm having Boehner arrested for drinking. I mean, alcohol is illegal per Constitutional Amendment.
 
2014-08-05 11:41:04 AM  

markie_farkie: Cameron from Ferris Buehler is an attorney now?


Yeah Cam and the alien from the Last Starfighter went hard into politics in their later years.
 
2014-08-05 11:41:54 AM  
This guy is complete sack of shiat. And of course, a bunch of Southern Republicans voted for him.
 
2014-08-05 11:42:43 AM  

Witty_Retort: Fart_Machine: Black people voted for my opponent so I should get the GOP nomination.

As a Mississippian, I can tell you that I've heard almost that exact argument come out of the pie holes of some of the people around here.


This is why i left that shiathole. You should really do the same. fark those racist rednecks.
 
2014-08-05 11:45:09 AM  

Smoking GNU: Witty_Retort: Fart_Machine: Black people voted for my opponent so I should get the GOP nomination.

As a Mississippian, I can tell you that I've heard almost that exact argument come out of the pie holes of some of the people around here.

But don't you DARE call them racist!


www.politicususa.com
 
2014-08-05 11:49:12 AM  

Nadie_AZ: McDaniel ultimately won the runoff by 25,000 votes, Tyner claimed. That 25,000 number seems to be the McDaniel team factoring Democrats who voted in the Republican primary but don't plan to vote for the Republican nominee in the general election. McDaniel and his team have argued that under Mississippi law, anyone who votes in the primary is bound to support the eventual nominee of that primary. But the Mississippi law that the team is basing that on is unenforceable and was overturned by a federal judge in 2008.

Wait. Seriously? They had a law that stated if you voted for someone in the Primary you had to vote for them in the General?


I believe that the law said in order to vote in the primary, you must have "sincere" intent at the time to vote for that person in the general election.  That is why it was ruled as unenforceable (because of course you can't prove that someone didn't just change their mind in between),
 
2014-08-05 11:50:44 AM  

Nadie_AZ: Wait. Seriously? They had a law that stated if you voted for someone in the Primary you had to vote for them in the General?


Actually, no, it was stupider than that. The law said that you had to vote with the intent to support the candidate in the general (clearly they intended it so that if the candidate were found with a dead girl, a live boy, or any kind of sexy ghost you could change your mind), so your actual vote didn't matter, for the law to even come close to being enforceable they'd have to prove what you intended your vote to be.
 
2014-08-05 11:54:09 AM  

nmrsnr: Nadie_AZ: Wait. Seriously? They had a law that stated if you voted for someone in the Primary you had to vote for them in the General?

Actually, no, it was stupider than that. The law said that you had to vote with the intent to support the candidate in the general (clearly they intended it so that if the candidate were found with a dead girl, a live boy, or any kind of sexy ghost you could change your mind), so your actual vote didn't matter, for the law to even come close to being enforceable they'd have to prove what you intended your vote to be.


They'd also have to be able to prove who you actually voted for in both elections.
 
2014-08-05 11:56:08 AM  

markie_farkie: [a4.img.talkingpointsmemo.com image 652x365]

Cameron from Ferris Buehler is an attorney now?


Huh.  I thought that guy was Abe Froman, the Sausage King of Chicago.
 
2014-08-05 11:56:08 AM  

nmrsnr: Came to say something along these lines. But there are even more problems than that, his primary assumption is that every Democrat who voted in the Primary voted for Cochran. Given the whole "secret ballot" thing, there's no way he can show that the people who are Democrats voted for Cochran, so he has no grounds to exclude those votes, because they just as likely could be votes for him.


Wouldn't it be a super swell counter argument for McDaniels to point out that "Of course the blacks voted for Cochran and not me, I'm much more awful for blacks!  So there!  Checkmate!"
 
2014-08-05 11:56:31 AM  

qorkfiend: nmrsnr: Nadie_AZ: Wait. Seriously? They had a law that stated if you voted for someone in the Primary you had to vote for them in the General?

Actually, no, it was stupider than that. The law said that you had to vote with the intent to support the candidate in the general (clearly they intended it so that if the candidate were found with a dead girl, a live boy, or any kind of sexy ghost you could change your mind), so your actual vote didn't matter, for the law to even come close to being enforceable they'd have to prove what you intended your vote to be.

They'd also have to be able to prove who you actually voted for in both elections.


Isn't this illegal somehow?
 
2014-08-05 12:02:50 PM  

Smoking GNU: qorkfiend: nmrsnr: Nadie_AZ: Wait. Seriously? They had a law that stated if you voted for someone in the Primary you had to vote for them in the General?

Actually, no, it was stupider than that. The law said that you had to vote with the intent to support the candidate in the general (clearly they intended it so that if the candidate were found with a dead girl, a live boy, or any kind of sexy ghost you could change your mind), so your actual vote didn't matter, for the law to even come close to being enforceable they'd have to prove what you intended your vote to be.

They'd also have to be able to prove who you actually voted for in both elections.

Isn't this illegal somehow?


Hence the law being judged unenforceable.
 
2014-08-05 12:05:59 PM  
Oh, just let him have it if he wants it that much. Cry-baby
 
2014-08-05 12:06:57 PM  

Smoking GNU: qorkfiend: nmrsnr: Nadie_AZ: Wait. Seriously? They had a law that stated if you voted for someone in the Primary you had to vote for them in the General?

Actually, no, it was stupider than that. The law said that you had to vote with the intent to support the candidate in the general (clearly they intended it so that if the candidate were found with a dead girl, a live boy, or any kind of sexy ghost you could change your mind), so your actual vote didn't matter, for the law to even come close to being enforceable they'd have to prove what you intended your vote to be.

They'd also have to be able to prove who you actually voted for in both elections.

Isn't this illegal somehow?


Let's back up a minute. Can you describe or provide illustrations for some of the sexy ghosts that might meet this criteria?
 
2014-08-05 12:09:04 PM  

Smoking GNU: qorkfiend: nmrsnr: Nadie_AZ: Wait. Seriously? They had a law that stated if you voted for someone in the Primary you had to vote for them in the General?

Actually, no, it was stupider than that. The law said that you had to vote with the intent to support the candidate in the general (clearly they intended it so that if the candidate were found with a dead girl, a live boy, or any kind of sexy ghost you could change your mind), so your actual vote didn't matter, for the law to even come close to being enforceable they'd have to prove what you intended your vote to be.

They'd also have to be able to prove who you actually voted for in both elections.

Isn't this illegal somehow?


Illegal?  ILLEGAL?

A bunch of nig-  uh, urban types vote for an establishment so-called Republican, and you're worried about what's ILLEGAL?!

I tells ya, the law is supposed to uphold America.

And what Thad Cochran done to win this here primary?
Maybe it was "legal".
But THAT. AIN'T. AMERICAN.

Least ways, that ain't no America I want to live in.  *spit*
 
2014-08-05 12:10:34 PM  

Witty_Retort: Fart_Machine: Black people voted for my opponent so I should get the GOP nomination.

As a Mississippian, I can tell you that I've heard almost that exact argument come out of the pie holes of some of the people around here.


Tell them to write McDaniels in.

I can't remember if there is a sore loser law in Mississippi though.
 
2014-08-05 12:13:09 PM  

qorkfiend: They'd also have to be able to prove who you actually voted for in both elections.


Technically no. If you walked in to the voting booth on primary day and tell the poll worker and everybody else there "check this out, I'm a Democrat voting for McDaniels so that my guy (insert Democratic Candidate name here) can beat McDaniels in the general, don't you love open primaries?" Then, upon filling out his form, showed it to the others in attendance, says "see, look, I just voted for McDaniels, the sucker, there's no way in hell he gets my vote come November." They might have a case against you without your actual voting record in the general election.

Of course, your defense could be you were lying the whole time as some sort of performance art, but technically they'd still have a case.
 
2014-08-05 12:13:14 PM  

Lochsteppe: Smoking GNU: qorkfiend: nmrsnr: Nadie_AZ: Wait. Seriously? They had a law that stated if you voted for someone in the Primary you had to vote for them in the General?

Actually, no, it was stupider than that. The law said that you had to vote with the intent to support the candidate in the general (clearly they intended it so that if the candidate were found with a dead girl, a live boy, or any kind of sexy ghost you could change your mind), so your actual vote didn't matter, for the law to even come close to being enforceable they'd have to prove what you intended your vote to be.

They'd also have to be able to prove who you actually voted for in both elections.

Isn't this illegal somehow?

Let's back up a minute. Can you describe or provide illustrations for some of the sexy ghosts that might meet this criteria?


Show us your boooOOOoooOOOoooOOOooobs!

c2.staticflickr.com


img2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-08-05 12:13:14 PM  

Lochsteppe: Smoking GNU: qorkfiend: nmrsnr: Nadie_AZ: Wait. Seriously? They had a law that stated if you voted for someone in the Primary you had to vote for them in the General?

Actually, no, it was stupider than that. The law said that you had to vote with the intent to support the candidate in the general (clearly they intended it so that if the candidate were found with a dead girl, a live boy, or any kind of sexy ghost you could change your mind), so your actual vote didn't matter, for the law to even come close to being enforceable they'd have to prove what you intended your vote to be.

They'd also have to be able to prove who you actually voted for in both elections.

Isn't this illegal somehow?

Let's back up a minute. Can you describe or provide illustrations for some of the sexy ghosts that might meet this criteria?


c2.staticflickr.com
 
2014-08-05 12:16:50 PM  
One should also note that his other allegation - that some voters voted in the Democratic primary but the Republican runoff - may not be illegal. The law on the books states that a voter cannot vote in two different party primaries in the same election. The Attorney General has stated his opinion - which may or may not hold up in court - that a runoff counts as the same election as the initial primary, and this voters cannot cross over.

However, there's no guarantee that a court will see them as the same election, in which case the crossover voting - the only other thing he has other than "Black people voted for Cochran!" - is perfectly legal.

(There's also the minor detail that Cochran is not unpopular with the black community in Mississippi. He generally gets a decent amount of support from black voters as he does being home the bacon - for everybody in the state).

McDaniel's argument boils down to, a Republican supported by black people cannot actually count as a Republican. It's the Southern Strategy in all but name.
 
2014-08-05 12:21:57 PM  

Smoking GNU: Nadie_AZ: McDaniel ultimately won the runoff by 25,000 votes, Tyner claimed. That 25,000 number seems to be the McDaniel team factoring Democrats who voted in the Republican primary but don't plan to vote for the Republican nominee in the general election. McDaniel and his team have argued that under Mississippi law, anyone who votes in the primary is bound to support the eventual nominee of that primary. But the Mississippi law that the team is basing that on is unenforceable and was overturned by a federal judge in 2008.

Wait. Seriously? They had a law that stated if you voted for someone in the Primary you had to vote for them in the General?

"Had" being the operative word, yes.


This whole "law" that was passed and then overturned has always defied my understanding.  So someone votes for candidate A in the primary, and candidate B in the general.  HOW would anyone know this? Voting is to be secret, is it not? Even if they made you prove your registration at the polling place, how the actual fark would they know WHO you voted for?

SMH  really, asshats?  really?
 
2014-08-05 12:25:42 PM  

meat0918: Witty_Retort: Fart_Machine: Black people voted for my opponent so I should get the GOP nomination.

As a Mississippian, I can tell you that I've heard almost that exact argument come out of the pie holes of some of the people around here.

Tell them to write McDaniels in.

I can't remember if there is a sore loser law in Mississippi though.


Does a sore-loser law prohibit a write-in candidate from taking office? I thought it just kept their names off the ballots.
 
2014-08-05 12:27:17 PM  
Has McDaniel shown any kind of numbers proving that x number of voters voted in both primaries (let's say the runoff is part of the GOP primary)?  If so, and that number is enough to swing the runoff his way, has he shown any proof that those x number of voters actually did vote for his opponent?  There's no way he can show that, so shut up you cocksucker.  If nothing else, your whiny dickishness proves you shouldn't be in any elected office anywhere.
 
2014-08-05 12:30:17 PM  
1.  Chris McDaniels and his supporters are awful.

2.  The Republican committee that will review this challenge initially will reject it as quickly as they can.

3.  McDaniels (did I mention he's awful?) will file a lawsuit.

4.  The lawsuit will be ridiculous and will be rejected.

5.  Chris McDaniels is awful.
 
2014-08-05 12:31:18 PM  
McDaniel, not McDaniels

/sleep deprived
 
2014-08-05 12:35:05 PM  

Parthenogenetic: Lochsteppe: Smoking GNU: qorkfiend: nmrsnr: Nadie_AZ: Wait. Seriously? They had a law that stated if you voted for someone in the Primary you had to vote for them in the General?

Actually, no, it was stupider than that. The law said that you had to vote with the intent to support the candidate in the general (clearly they intended it so that if the candidate were found with a dead girl, a live boy, or any kind of sexy ghost you could change your mind), so your actual vote didn't matter, for the law to even come close to being enforceable they'd have to prove what you intended your vote to be.

They'd also have to be able to prove who you actually voted for in both elections.

Isn't this illegal somehow?

Let's back up a minute. Can you describe or provide illustrations for some of the sexy ghosts that might meet this criteria?

Show us your boooOOOoooOOOoooOOOooobs!

[c2.staticflickr.com image 640x399]


[img2.wikia.nocookie.net image 550x733]


Smoking GNU:

[c2.staticflickr.com image 640x425]

Spooktacular.* Thank you.

*The ghost kind, not the racist kind.
 
2014-08-05 12:35:25 PM  

Spreadhead: McDaniel, not McDaniels

/sleep deprived


No, it's McDaniels because he's twice as awful as one McDaniel.  The extra S is for shiatstain.
 
2014-08-05 12:36:40 PM  

Spreadhead: 1.  Chris McDaniels and his supporters are awful.

2.  The Republican committee that will review this challenge initially will reject it as quickly as they can.

3.  McDaniels (did I mention he's awful?) will file a lawsuit.

4.  The lawsuit will be ridiculous and will be rejected.

5.  Chris McDaniels is awful.


Awful? You're being kind.  That guy is a smarmy sack of shiat. Just look at him.
 
2014-08-05 12:37:29 PM  
Nadie_AZ:

His entire case

I assume he's only in it for donations from the rubes.
 
2014-08-05 12:52:59 PM  

Lochsteppe: Smoking GNU: qorkfiend: nmrsnr: Nadie_AZ: Wait. Seriously? They had a law that stated if you voted for someone in the Primary you had to vote for them in the General?

Actually, no, it was stupider than that. The law said that you had to vote with the intent to support the candidate in the general (clearly they intended it so that if the candidate were found with a dead girl, a live boy, or any kind of sexy ghost you could change your mind), so your actual vote didn't matter, for the law to even come close to being enforceable they'd have to prove what you intended your vote to be.

They'd also have to be able to prove who you actually voted for in both elections.

Isn't this illegal somehow?

Let's back up a minute. Can you describe or provide illustrations for some of the sexy ghosts that might meet this criteria?


i.myniceprofile.com
 
2014-08-05 12:53:40 PM  

clkeagle: meat0918: Witty_Retort: Fart_Machine: Black people voted for my opponent so I should get the GOP nomination.

As a Mississippian, I can tell you that I've heard almost that exact argument come out of the pie holes of some of the people around here.

Tell them to write McDaniels in.

I can't remember if there is a sore loser law in Mississippi though.

Does a sore-loser law prohibit a write-in candidate from taking office? I thought it just kept their names off the ballots.


Your impression matches mine. I did hear that Mississippi has a sore-loser law, but it wouldn't obstruct someone from writing in a candidate. If McDaniel is still serious about being Mississippi's senator, it would absolutely make sense (from his perspective) for him to pursue a write-in campaign in parallel with these legal challenges.

Indeed, these challenges, silly as they may be legally, would help him keep his name in Mississippi voters' minds as a lead-up to the write-in campaign, and when the courts eventually tell him to sit down and shut up, he will presumably shift his efforts to full-on write-in advertising. Hell, the ads write themselves - "Tell the activist judges where to stick it! Write-in McDaniel for Senate!"

/brb, gonna go take a brain shower after thinking like a tea partier
//not even gonna think about the dog-whistle ads to go with that one
 
2014-08-05 12:55:34 PM  
I'm beginning to think he's "Gone Rove".

It's starting to sound like he didnt get the election results he paid for...
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report