Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Democrats pick up a GOP seat in congress in a special election.
Final, unofficial results gave Hochul, the Erie County clerk, 47%. Corwin, a state assemblywoman, received 43%. Tea Party candidate Jack Davis took 9% of the vote. He has run as a Democrat in the past, and polls say he took votes from both major candidates.
Final, unofficial results gave Hochul, the Erie County clerk, 47%. Corwin, a state assemblywoman, received 43%. Tea Party candidate Jack Davis took 9% of the vote. He has run as a Democrat in the past, and polls say he took votes from both major candidates.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
This is a story about the bloomberg story on campaign finance disclosure.
It started, as many topics on this blog do, with an entry at hasen's election law blog:
"'GOP FEC Commissioner To Campaign Reformers: You've Wasted Your Life'
TPM reports."
TPM of course is talking points memo, a popular liberal blog.
GOP FEC commissioner McGhan looked younger and hairier than I expected. I can't place who he reminds me of. Charlie Sheen? The dad from Malcolm in the Middle, Bryan Cranston? Winning!
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/gop_fec_commissioner_to_campaign_reformers_youve_wasted_your_life.php
It's a good story,and in the blogosphere we aren't bound by the mainstream media's pretense of objectivity.
The story jumps off with a bang with an accusation of $4 million in illegal campaign spending. That sounds potentially libelous if untrue. The source is a bloomberg article,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-19/secret-donors-multiply-in-u-s-with-finances-dwarfing-watergate.html
I was really struck by a paragraph a bit further down the article.
Bloomberg's report also found another group called "Water for All" ran ads on Spanish stations showing Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) with a red circle and a line running through her, but didn't report its campaign expenditures because their lawyer said the ads weren't political in nature.
I thought to myself, would a lawyer really say the ads weren't political?
So I followed the link, and the word "political" is used in that way three times in the Bloomberg article.
Once outside the quote marks, once inside quote marks, and once while describing WRTL.
NFIB spokesman Kipp Maloney acknowledged not reporting $1.53 million to the commission....
FEC rules mandate the reporting of ads that mention candidates within 60 days of an election, and that target “the relevant electorate.” The unreported NFIB ads were aimed at “constituents,” who may or may not vote, and not the “relevant electorate” specified in the law, Maloney said. “They were not political ads. They were lobbying efforts.” (see Maloney response below.)
Water for All didn’t report its campaign expenditures to the FEC because the ads weren’t political in nature and “we don’t need to file,” said Brian C. Leighton, the group’s attorney. “The rules do not require us to file.” Mr. Leighton sent me a very interesting email, see below.
Five years later, a group called Wisconsin Right to Life, which had been urging voters to demand that senators oppose the filibustering of judicial nominees, argued that even though their ads named lawmakers running for re-election, they were not political since they didn’t ask voters to vote for or against a particular senator.
But of course, that wasn't WRTL's argument at all. The article seems to be using the term "political" as shorthand for express advocacy. But politics is more than express advocacy. The personal is the political, and vice versa, as Hillary or Simone or somebody once told us. So the hunch I had upon reading the TPM blurb had gotten some confirmation,and next I wrote to one of the quoted sources. Here's his reply.
Hi Robin---I never said anything close to " the ads weren't political in
nature " ; the reporter kept asking why we didn't file and I repeated
several times that we don't need to file , and the rules don't require us
to file . he attempted to get me to say something about the political nature
of the ads , and I told him not to put words in my mouth ; it was his false
assumption that we were absolutely required to file and I said that that
was his own biased interpretation , and simply we were not required to
file. he certainly was not an objective reporter. Thanks for the heads up.
So Bloomberg, in what purports to be an article and not an editorial, seems to be accusing some people with pretty deep pockets of having violated federal law, while misquoting their sources and showing some lack of understanding of the case law.
I'll be interested to see what repercussions this article has, in either direction.
Wednesday update: Kip Maloney writes: Robin
I had the same experience as Brian. He totally turned everything I said to meet what he had already decided was the story.
thursday:
"We have not heard from Leighton, he never told us or complained to us that he was misquoted. In any event, we have checked our reporter's notes and they are accurate, and we stand by the story."
-Ty Trippet
Bloomberg News spokesman
It started, as many topics on this blog do, with an entry at hasen's election law blog:
"'GOP FEC Commissioner To Campaign Reformers: You've Wasted Your Life'
TPM reports."
TPM of course is talking points memo, a popular liberal blog.
GOP FEC commissioner McGhan looked younger and hairier than I expected. I can't place who he reminds me of. Charlie Sheen? The dad from Malcolm in the Middle, Bryan Cranston? Winning!
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/gop_fec_commissioner_to_campaign_reformers_youve_wasted_your_life.php
It's a good story,and in the blogosphere we aren't bound by the mainstream media's pretense of objectivity.
The story jumps off with a bang with an accusation of $4 million in illegal campaign spending. That sounds potentially libelous if untrue. The source is a bloomberg article,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-19/secret-donors-multiply-in-u-s-with-finances-dwarfing-watergate.html
I was really struck by a paragraph a bit further down the article.
Bloomberg's report also found another group called "Water for All" ran ads on Spanish stations showing Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) with a red circle and a line running through her, but didn't report its campaign expenditures because their lawyer said the ads weren't political in nature.
I thought to myself, would a lawyer really say the ads weren't political?
So I followed the link, and the word "political" is used in that way three times in the Bloomberg article.
Once outside the quote marks, once inside quote marks, and once while describing WRTL.
NFIB spokesman Kipp Maloney acknowledged not reporting $1.53 million to the commission....
FEC rules mandate the reporting of ads that mention candidates within 60 days of an election, and that target “the relevant electorate.” The unreported NFIB ads were aimed at “constituents,” who may or may not vote, and not the “relevant electorate” specified in the law, Maloney said. “They were not political ads. They were lobbying efforts.” (see Maloney response below.)
Water for All didn’t report its campaign expenditures to the FEC because the ads weren’t political in nature and “we don’t need to file,” said Brian C. Leighton, the group’s attorney. “The rules do not require us to file.” Mr. Leighton sent me a very interesting email, see below.
Five years later, a group called Wisconsin Right to Life, which had been urging voters to demand that senators oppose the filibustering of judicial nominees, argued that even though their ads named lawmakers running for re-election, they were not political since they didn’t ask voters to vote for or against a particular senator.
But of course, that wasn't WRTL's argument at all. The article seems to be using the term "political" as shorthand for express advocacy. But politics is more than express advocacy. The personal is the political, and vice versa, as Hillary or Simone or somebody once told us. So the hunch I had upon reading the TPM blurb had gotten some confirmation,and next I wrote to one of the quoted sources. Here's his reply.
Hi Robin---I never said anything close to " the ads weren't political in
nature " ; the reporter kept asking why we didn't file and I repeated
several times that we don't need to file , and the rules don't require us
to file . he attempted to get me to say something about the political nature
of the ads , and I told him not to put words in my mouth ; it was his false
assumption that we were absolutely required to file and I said that that
was his own biased interpretation , and simply we were not required to
file. he certainly was not an objective reporter. Thanks for the heads up.
So Bloomberg, in what purports to be an article and not an editorial, seems to be accusing some people with pretty deep pockets of having violated federal law, while misquoting their sources and showing some lack of understanding of the case law.
I'll be interested to see what repercussions this article has, in either direction.
Wednesday update: Kip Maloney writes: Robin
I had the same experience as Brian. He totally turned everything I said to meet what he had already decided was the story.
thursday:
"We have not heard from Leighton, he never told us or complained to us that he was misquoted. In any event, we have checked our reporter's notes and they are accurate, and we stand by the story."
-Ty Trippet
Bloomberg News spokesman
another democratic sex scandal - cleveland
Monday, May 23, 2011
very interesting article about disclosure by bloomberg. it's kind of a hit piece against pro-gop independent expenditures.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-19/secret-donors-multiply-in-u-s-with-finances-dwarfing-watergate.html
I'm interested in the way the article uses the word "political'.
I've written to one of the guys quoted, asking him if that's actually what he said.
update:
Hi Robin---I never said anything close to " the ads weren't political in
nature " ; the reporter kept asking why we didn't file and I repeated
several times that we don't need to file , and the rules don't require us
to file . he attempted to get me to say something about the political nature
of the ads , and I told him not to put words in my mouth ; it was his false
assumption that we were absolutely required to file and I said that that
was his own biased interpretation , and simply we were not required to
file. he certainly was not an objective reporter. Thanks for the heads up
- Hide quoted text -
-----Original Message-----
From: Robbin Stewart [mailto:gtbear@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 8:26 PM
To: bleighton at arrival.net
Subject: wondering if you were misquoted in bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-19/secret-donors-multiply-in-u-s-with-
finances-dwarfing-watergate.html
"Exemption Claim
Water for All didn't report its campaign expenditures to the FEC
because the ads weren't political in nature and "we don't need to
file," said Brian C. Leighton, the group's attorney. "The rules do not
require us to file." "
Hello. I'm an election law attorney and run an obscure blog. I was
wondering if you actually said "the ads weren't political in nature"
or something comparable.
I'm guessing the reporters don't understand the nuances of express
advocacy, etc. But maybe that was actually what you said. Wanted to
check in with you before publishing anything.
Thanks, Robbin Stewart.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-19/secret-donors-multiply-in-u-s-with-finances-dwarfing-watergate.html
I'm interested in the way the article uses the word "political'.
I've written to one of the guys quoted, asking him if that's actually what he said.
update:
Hi Robin---I never said anything close to " the ads weren't political in
nature " ; the reporter kept asking why we didn't file and I repeated
several times that we don't need to file , and the rules don't require us
to file . he attempted to get me to say something about the political nature
of the ads , and I told him not to put words in my mouth ; it was his false
assumption that we were absolutely required to file and I said that that
was his own biased interpretation , and simply we were not required to
file. he certainly was not an objective reporter. Thanks for the heads up
- Hide quoted text -
-----Original Message-----
From: Robbin Stewart [mailto:gtbear@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 8:26 PM
To: bleighton at arrival.net
Subject: wondering if you were misquoted in bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-19/secret-donors-multiply-in-u-s-with-
finances-dwarfing-watergate.html
"Exemption Claim
Water for All didn't report its campaign expenditures to the FEC
because the ads weren't political in nature and "we don't need to
file," said Brian C. Leighton, the group's attorney. "The rules do not
require us to file." "
Hello. I'm an election law attorney and run an obscure blog. I was
wondering if you actually said "the ads weren't political in nature"
or something comparable.
I'm guessing the reporters don't understand the nuances of express
advocacy, etc. But maybe that was actually what you said. Wanted to
check in with you before publishing anything.
Thanks, Robbin Stewart.
"The Case for Voter ID You can't cash a check, board a plane, or even buy full-strength Sudafed over the counter without ID. Why should voting be different?" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704816604576333650886790480.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Kansas SOS Kris Kobach has written this oped for the WSJ. I expect at some point I'll be linking to a rebuttal of some of Mr. Kobach's empirical claims in this piece.
I could write that, but probably won't get around to it.
Kansas SOS Kris Kobach has written this oped for the WSJ. I expect at some point I'll be linking to a rebuttal of some of Mr. Kobach's empirical claims in this piece.
I could write that, but probably won't get around to it.
possible tommy thompson v russ feingold race in MN in 2012 for Kohl's seat. still just speculation. that race would lean GOP. see charts.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Quote of the Day
"Colbert Super PAC will also pay usual and normal administrative expenses, including but not limited to luxury hotel stays, private jet travel, and PAC mementos from Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus."
---Colbert Super PAC Advisory Opinion Request to FEC
Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:48 AM
-- sweet.
"Colbert Super PAC will also pay usual and normal administrative expenses, including but not limited to luxury hotel stays, private jet travel, and PAC mementos from Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus."
---Colbert Super PAC Advisory Opinion Request to FEC
Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:48 AM
-- sweet.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
In Ft Wayne Indiana, Tom Schrader was fined $25 for a late campaign finance report. pdf.
But he didnt raise or spend any money, so he didnt meet the $100 threshhold, so the board lacked jurisdiction to fine him,and violated his civil rights by doing so.
I should send a letter.
Allen County Election Board
Room 136
1 East Main Street
Fort Wayne, IN 46802-1811
M-F 8 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
(260) 449-7329 (phone)
(260) 449-7908 (fax)
electionboard@co.allen.in.us
Campaign Finance Questions
acebcf@co.allen.in.us
IC 3-5-2-6
"Candidate"
Sec. 6. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), "candidate" means a person who:
(1) has taken the action necessary to qualify under Indiana law for listing on the ballot at an election or to become a write-in candidate;
(2) has publicly announced or declared candidacy for an elected office; or
(3) otherwise seeks nomination for or election to an elected office, regardless of whether the individual wins election to the office.
(b) As used in IC 3-9, an individual becomes a "candidate" when the individual, the candidate's committee, or a person acting with the consent of the individual:
(1) receives more than one hundred dollars ($100) in contributions; or
(2) makes more than one hundred dollars ($100) in expenditures.
As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.1. Amended by P.L.4-1991, SEC.1; P.L.3-1997, SEC.4.
draft:
To: Allen County Election Board
From: Robbin Stewart
Re: T. Schrader fine, Jurisdiction of Board
Date: 5/14/2011
I read today in the News-Sentinel that the board has fined Thomas Schrader $25 for filing a late campaign finance report, in an election in which you have ruled that he is not a candidate and will not appear on the ballot. I had a hnch that he might not have raised or spent the requisite $100 for the board to have jurisdiction to issue a fine,and indeed when i checked his report he had not raised or spent any funds.
Therefore the board's decision to assess a fine was in excess of its jurisdiction and violated Mr. Schrader's civil rights.
I was involved in the drafting of this statute in 1997 and have litigated this issue several times,although so far there has been no definitive court ruling on whether the statute means what it says.
Please put this matter on your agenda for reconsideration at your next meeting,and keep me advised of how you are handling this matter.
Cordially, Robbin Stewart.
But he didnt raise or spend any money, so he didnt meet the $100 threshhold, so the board lacked jurisdiction to fine him,and violated his civil rights by doing so.
I should send a letter.
Allen County Election Board
Room 136
1 East Main Street
Fort Wayne, IN 46802-1811
M-F 8 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
(260) 449-7329 (phone)
(260) 449-7908 (fax)
electionboard@co.allen.in.us
Campaign Finance Questions
acebcf@co.allen.in.us
IC 3-5-2-6
"Candidate"
Sec. 6. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), "candidate" means a person who:
(1) has taken the action necessary to qualify under Indiana law for listing on the ballot at an election or to become a write-in candidate;
(2) has publicly announced or declared candidacy for an elected office; or
(3) otherwise seeks nomination for or election to an elected office, regardless of whether the individual wins election to the office.
(b) As used in IC 3-9, an individual becomes a "candidate" when the individual, the candidate's committee, or a person acting with the consent of the individual:
(1) receives more than one hundred dollars ($100) in contributions; or
(2) makes more than one hundred dollars ($100) in expenditures.
As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.1. Amended by P.L.4-1991, SEC.1; P.L.3-1997, SEC.4.
draft:
To: Allen County Election Board
From: Robbin Stewart
Re: T. Schrader fine, Jurisdiction of Board
Date: 5/14/2011
I read today in the News-Sentinel that the board has fined Thomas Schrader $25 for filing a late campaign finance report, in an election in which you have ruled that he is not a candidate and will not appear on the ballot. I had a hnch that he might not have raised or spent the requisite $100 for the board to have jurisdiction to issue a fine,and indeed when i checked his report he had not raised or spent any funds.
Therefore the board's decision to assess a fine was in excess of its jurisdiction and violated Mr. Schrader's civil rights.
I was involved in the drafting of this statute in 1997 and have litigated this issue several times,although so far there has been no definitive court ruling on whether the statute means what it says.
Please put this matter on your agenda for reconsideration at your next meeting,and keep me advised of how you are handling this matter.
Cordially, Robbin Stewart.
Friday, May 13, 2011
The return of Feingold?
Wisconsin senator Kohl (D) won't run again. As the still-being counted Supreme Court race shows, WI is a toss-up state. Russ Feingold would probably like his old job back. There's no obvious GOP front-runner. I'll rate this one as toss-up. Even if the Dems keep the seat, it will take money and effort. On the other hand, the GOP and tea party may spend money and effort trying to win the seat that could have gone elsewhere.
bumping previous post
Monday, March 07, 2011
Ensign, R-NV, won't run. Leans GOP with congresscritter and former SecState Dean Heller a likely frontrunner.
Is all this just the usual generational turnover, or are we seeing real change?
Ensign Akaka Bingaman Hutchinson Conrad Lieberman Kyl Webb, that's 8, how many more to go? I predict several D seats will turn R this year, but I don't know how many more of these voluntary retirements we'll see. On average, expect 1 incumbent to lose the primary. It probably won't be Lugar.
Senator Akaka, D-HI, 86, will retire. Stays D. This will reduce the number of palindromatic senators by 1.
Jeff Bingaman D NM will retire. Likely GOP pickup. toss-up.
Jim Webb (D-VA) will retire. Likely GOP pick-up.
Hutchinson (R-TX) Conrad (D-ND) and Lieberman (I-CT) are retiring. Probable GOP pickup in ND, Dem pickup in CT. Susan somebody Bysiewicz, who was just CT sec of state, has announced, as have a few others. Susan was removed from the ballot for Attorney General in 2010 for not enough legal experience, by the state supreme court.
Jon Kyl, R AZ is also not running in 2012.
Tea party favorite "State Treasurer Richard Mourdock is planning a statewide tour to formally announce his intention to challenge U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar in the 2012 Republican primary."
Ensign, of course, resigned and may face indictment after the senate ethics committee referred his case to Justice, a rare move.
Kohl Ensign Akaka Bingaman Hutchinson Conrad Lieberman Kyl Webb, 9 down 41 to go.
In Indiana Joe Donnelly is leaving his congressional seat to take on Lugar/Mourdock, for a possible pick-up of one more house seat for the
OP. Lugar would beat Donnelly; a Mourdock/Donnelly race leans GOP.
Race Now Likely outcome:
WI Kohl D Tossup
NV Ensign R R (Heller)
HI Akaka D D
NM Bingaman D leans R
TX Hutchinson R R
ND Conrad D R
CT Lieberman I leans D
AZ Kyl R leans R
VA Webb D leans R?
So in open seats so far the GOP appears posed to pick up about 3, which would be 50-50.
I assume a GOP vice-president is more likely in the event of a tie.
Meanwhile way more D seats are in play in 2012 than GOP ones.
Feingold could run again and lose again, like Adlai.
In 2012, there are 21 Democrats, 10 Republicans and 2 Independents up.
At risk D seats include
Missouri Claire McCaskill.
Montana Jon Tester is polling at under 50%, congressman reberg likely challenger.
Nebraska Ben Nelson considered weakened, but no current opponent
Florida Bill Nelson, I didnt realize there were two Senator Nelsons.
W Virginia Manchin as incumbent has the edge.
At risk GOP seats include
MA
So a GOP pickup of the senate is likely, but not by much.
I expect I'll be updating this post many times before 11/2012.
wild guess: R 52 D 47 I 1.
These pictures of the senate majority and minority leaders illustrate the stark differences between the two parties. Note how McConnell leans slightly to the right, while Reid leans slightly to the left. McConnell's tie is blue, while Reid wears a blue tie.
Wisconsin senator Kohl (D) won't run again. As the still-being counted Supreme Court race shows, WI is a toss-up state. Russ Feingold would probably like his old job back. There's no obvious GOP front-runner. I'll rate this one as toss-up. Even if the Dems keep the seat, it will take money and effort. On the other hand, the GOP and tea party may spend money and effort trying to win the seat that could have gone elsewhere.
bumping previous post
Monday, March 07, 2011
Ensign, R-NV, won't run. Leans GOP with congresscritter and former SecState Dean Heller a likely frontrunner.
Is all this just the usual generational turnover, or are we seeing real change?
Ensign Akaka Bingaman Hutchinson Conrad Lieberman Kyl Webb, that's 8, how many more to go? I predict several D seats will turn R this year, but I don't know how many more of these voluntary retirements we'll see. On average, expect 1 incumbent to lose the primary. It probably won't be Lugar.
Senator Akaka, D-HI, 86, will retire. Stays D. This will reduce the number of palindromatic senators by 1.
Jeff Bingaman D NM will retire. Likely GOP pickup. toss-up.
Jim Webb (D-VA) will retire. Likely GOP pick-up.
Hutchinson (R-TX) Conrad (D-ND) and Lieberman (I-CT) are retiring. Probable GOP pickup in ND, Dem pickup in CT. Susan somebody Bysiewicz, who was just CT sec of state, has announced, as have a few others. Susan was removed from the ballot for Attorney General in 2010 for not enough legal experience, by the state supreme court.
Jon Kyl, R AZ is also not running in 2012.
Tea party favorite "State Treasurer Richard Mourdock is planning a statewide tour to formally announce his intention to challenge U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar in the 2012 Republican primary."
Ensign, of course, resigned and may face indictment after the senate ethics committee referred his case to Justice, a rare move.
Kohl Ensign Akaka Bingaman Hutchinson Conrad Lieberman Kyl Webb, 9 down 41 to go.
In Indiana Joe Donnelly is leaving his congressional seat to take on Lugar/Mourdock, for a possible pick-up of one more house seat for the
OP. Lugar would beat Donnelly; a Mourdock/Donnelly race leans GOP.
Race Now Likely outcome:
WI Kohl D Tossup
NV Ensign R R (Heller)
HI Akaka D D
NM Bingaman D leans R
TX Hutchinson R R
ND Conrad D R
CT Lieberman I leans D
AZ Kyl R leans R
VA Webb D leans R?
So in open seats so far the GOP appears posed to pick up about 3, which would be 50-50.
I assume a GOP vice-president is more likely in the event of a tie.
Meanwhile way more D seats are in play in 2012 than GOP ones.
Feingold could run again and lose again, like Adlai.
In 2012, there are 21 Democrats, 10 Republicans and 2 Independents up.
At risk D seats include
Missouri Claire McCaskill.
Montana Jon Tester is polling at under 50%, congressman reberg likely challenger.
Nebraska Ben Nelson considered weakened, but no current opponent
Florida Bill Nelson, I didnt realize there were two Senator Nelsons.
W Virginia Manchin as incumbent has the edge.
At risk GOP seats include
MA
So a GOP pickup of the senate is likely, but not by much.
I expect I'll be updating this post many times before 11/2012.
wild guess: R 52 D 47 I 1.
These pictures of the senate majority and minority leaders illustrate the stark differences between the two parties. Note how McConnell leans slightly to the right, while Reid leans slightly to the left. McConnell's tie is blue, while Reid wears a blue tie.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
today, for the first time in 6 years, they let me vote w/o showing ID.
maybe they are tired of being sued.
maybe they are tired of being sued.
Monday, May 02, 2011
I don't know much about canadian politics. But it looks like the conservatives stay in power, but NDP has replaced the Liberal party as the opposition,and the bloc quebequois also lost seats to NDP. Cons 154 seats so far, NDP 100+. update 167 seats, 54%.
con 40%
ndp 30
lib 20
bloc 6
grn 4
canadians vote today. there are allegations that Harper violated election rules by, on election day, asking people to vote for him. we have a municipal primary here tomorrow.
i will go try to vote and probably be refused over ID issues.
As the initial results started coming in soon after 7:00 p.m. eastern time, some users were decidedly cautious, using code words to describe the rise of the left-leaning New Democrats -- whose party color is orange.
"My orange soda is fizzy," said one user, adding the hashtag "#notaresult".
"If I used to have three oranges, and someone gave me four more oranges, would I go to jail?" asked another.
Within half an hour several bolder souls had lost all sense of hesitation and were tweeting the results from the 32 seats in Atlantic Canada, some using the hashtag #tweettheresults.
i will go try to vote and probably be refused over ID issues.
As the initial results started coming in soon after 7:00 p.m. eastern time, some users were decidedly cautious, using code words to describe the rise of the left-leaning New Democrats -- whose party color is orange.
"My orange soda is fizzy," said one user, adding the hashtag "#notaresult".
"If I used to have three oranges, and someone gave me four more oranges, would I go to jail?" asked another.
Within half an hour several bolder souls had lost all sense of hesitation and were tweeting the results from the 32 seats in Atlantic Canada, some using the hashtag #tweettheresults.
Sunday, May 01, 2011
http://mashable.com/2011/05/01/2012-election-killer-app/ Why Location-Based Services Will be the Killer App of the 2012 Elections. maybe.
