When I started this piece I found myself writing the same story everyone else has about the emergence of President Clinton as the star of the 2012 election cycle. His incredible Democratic convention speech made the arguments on behalf of President Obama better than the candidate himself – leaving pundits speechless and the party faithful hungry for more. And by cleverly extending his speech into the local evening news, he grabbed millions of viewers otherwise disinterested in politics.

The Obama cultivation and inclusion of Clinton in his reelection effort is no real surprise. Recent polling shows that 68 percent of Americans view Clinton favorably – 18 points higher than President Obama and more than 50 points higher than Congress. President Clinton oversaw the greatest economic expansion in recent history, creating 22 million jobs under his watch. But it’s not just his record that is appealing. Democrats appreciate the Clintons more in hindsight because they remember not only his ability to connect with voters, and enthusiasm for the Party faithful – but also his political acumen. Everyone misses the old days, when no one was above a good partisan fight, but politics wasn’t nasty or mean.

If Obama’s embrace of President Clinton is inherently logical, the opposite could be said about Mitt Romney. At first glance, it is stunning to think that the GOP nominee would ever see any advantage in playing up Clinton. But it was the best option he had.

While the GOP faithful still hold President Ronald Reagan in the highest esteem–and Mitt Romney referred to Reagan during the GOP primary–Reagan’s presidency was almost 25 years ago. A nice chunk of the electorate just isn’t familiar with Reagan, and think of him more as an historical figure rather than relevant to the politics of today. So while invoking Reagan might work with seniors, Reagan is not a useful standard-bearer for the voters Romney needed to reach.

Of course, Mitt Romney’s campaign also knew they couldn’t associate with President George W. Bush — the person most Americans still believe wrecked our economy and got us entangled in an unnecessary war in Iraq that cost us dearly in both lives and monies. Romney has gone out of his way not to discuss George W. Bush, and Romney is quick to change the subject if the Bush Presidency comes up.

So that left Clinton as the ‘go to’ guy. Romney may have made the calculation that Obama and Clinton had too much baggage between them to ever join forces. He was wrong.

I also believe that Romney may see much in common with President Clinton: a former governor with a focus on creating jobs; a politician who worked across the aisle when necessary, and a politician who believes he can triangulate himself in the model of Clinton. The Clinton association for Romney is about appealing to the middle, about beginning perceived as moderate. But here’s where Romney miscalculated.

The politics of the Great Recession are very different than in the Clinton era. In our hyper-partisan, Internet-fueled news cycle, Romney’s attempts to grab the middle just aren’t credible. Voters are paying more attention to the details than ever before. In the Bush years, they felt they were sold a false bill of goods – and they are now sensitive to Romney’s blatant flip-flops, like claiming credit for the auto bailout and now supportive of leaving Afghanistan in 2014 — that are spin rather than moderation.

We are now days way from determining the next President of the Untied States, and this is arguable an even more important election than 4 years ago.  We have two very different choices for president with very different ideas about government.

While both candidates have tried to associate themselves with President Clinton, only one can do so with credibility. There is a reason Bill Clinton is happily packing his schedule full of events to help re-elect President Obama, which I’m certain Clinton is enjoying. He knows that America cannot afford a President who says one thing, but will do another.  We had 8 years of that recipe and it was a disaster.

I know Bill Clinton, and Mitt Romney is no Bill Clinton. And the good news is the American people know it too.

Most recently, Clyde Williams was a congressional candidate for CD 13.  He served as National Political Director at the Democratic National Committee under President Barack Obama, Domestic Policy Advisor to President Bill Clinton, a Vice President at the Center for American Progress, and as Deputy Chief of Staff of the U S Department of Agriculture. You can follow him on Facebook@clydewilliams2012, on twitter@clyde2012.

New York City is home to many registered Democratic voters, but it also contains its fair share of independent or unaffiliated voters who don’t always vote down party lines. Many of those residents might be surprised to find out, however, that if they want to cast a vote in next year’s primary elections in the city, they have to register with a party this Oct. 12.

Ken Biberaj, who is running for City Council on the Upper West Side, has been doggedly reminding potential voters that they have to register now. He’s been canvassing subway stops, and his campaign sent out a mailer to over 700 “blank” voters (those who are registered but have no party affiliation) encouraging them to sign up with the Democrats.

“There’s a lot of folks who in my opinion, and I have talked to, who have voted in general elections, but because there wasn’t a competitive council race or assembly race, they’ve just voted in the general election,” Biberaj said. “Everyone’s waking up and realizing that in 2013 it’s a new mayor, a new council. So many folks I’d talked to were planning on participating and didn’t realize the deadline was coming up.”

For example, according to the city’s Board of Elections, there were 57,649 active Democratic voters in the downtown District 1, Council Member Margaret Chin’s District, as of last April. That’s roughly 65 percent of all active voters. The number of voters without a party affliation is 18,701 or about 21 percent of active voters in the district.

In a city with often times at least a few Democratic candidates running for the same seat and a small number of Republican voters, it’s entirely likely that whoever wins that primary will win the general election.

“If the disaffected independents were voting in the primaries of the Republicans and of the Democrats, I think you’d see very different choices of candidates,” said Michele Wucker, an Upper West Side resident who runs a global policy think tank and considers herself politically engaged.

“I have registered as a Democrat because I want to be able to vote for Ken [Biberaj] in the primaries,” Wucker said.

Wucker said that she had no idea the deadline was approaching until she noticed Biberaj’s posting on Facebook about it, and quickly registered as a Democrat.
David Loewenthal, another resident who is a friend of Biberaj’s, also switched from blank to Democrat after hearing about the upcoming cut-off date.

“I don’t want to be affiliated with any party, [but] I believe in Ken for this particular election,” Loewenthal said. As a libertarian-leaning independent voter, he said that he bristles at the assumption some people make that those who don’t check the box for a major party aren’t as engaged in politics.

“I’m actually very opinionated in my set of beliefs,” he said. “When you always have the red team versus blue team, you don’t have a lot of choices.”

The election laws are set up this way to prevent people in one party or another from easily switching sides for the primary to sabotage the opposing party, by purposefully voting for a weaker candidate.

“Political parties want to prevent party raiding, people from other parties joining up at the last minute,” said Jerry Goldfeder, an experienced election lawyer. “Generally speaking, it’s extremely rare that somebody would want to change parties. There aren’t that many people who fall into that category.”

But in a five-way primary, where a handful of votes could determine the outcome, Biberaj doesn’t want to take any chances that the system cuts potential voters out of the process.
“Lower turnout will always benefit the establishment candidates. If we can dramatically increase the Democratic party for this election, we can really have an honest turnout,” Biberaj said. “We’re not leaving any stone unturned.”

To register to vote in New York City, visit vote.nyc.ny.us.

Most of the races West Siders will be voting for are foregone conclusions.

Democrats are expected to trounce their Republican opponents in the two Senate races and Andrew Cuomo is a lock for governor. Locally, state legislators will walk into a new two-year term.

There are nearly a hundred heated House races throughout the country that will decide which party controls Congress. But West Side Reps. Jerrold Nadler and Charlie Rangel are safe bets.

Still, Upper West Side voters lived up to their reputation and came to the polls. Home to the most loyal of Democratic voters, a good turnout could only help Eric Schneiderman, the liberal Upper West Side state senator locked in a tight race for attorney general, and State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, who faces a strong challenge from Republican Harry Wilson. (West Side Spirit went to press before election night results were announced.)

A poll worker outside of P.S. 87 on West 78th Street between Amsterdam and Columbus avenues said additional hands were called in to help with the higher than usual turn out for the morning, lunch time and evening rush.

“You expect a big turnout for what we call a major election,” said Council Senior Center volunteer Florence Kohn, referring to the 2008 presidential race. “I think we have a pretty good turnout.”

Kohn, who quoted the adage that those who don’t voting can’t complain, said she was dedicated to getting out the vote for her favorite candidates. She did, however, have choice words for Carl Paladino, the Republican gubernatorial nominee that she and other West Side voters would not mention by name.

“It’s offensive to even have someone like that on the ballot,” Kohn said.

In a city where Democrats rarely have competitive general elections, there were Upper West Side voters that wanted to show their support for progressivism.

Richard Levenson said it was important to vote against the conservative Tea Party activists and Paladino, “the great ‘genius’ from Buffalo.” Levenson voted straight down the Working Families Party line, which cross-endorsed Democrats this year.

“I like to vote for the liberal left-leaning party,” Levenson said.

Despite being a tenant lawyer who likes “rent to be low,” Levenson opted for Cuomo over the Rent Is Too Damn High Party’s candidate for governor, Jimmy McMillan.

But there was more on the line this election day than just the election of candidates. This is the second time New Yorkers used new scanning machines that read paper ballots marked by voters.

The new voting method had a rocky debut during the Sept. 14 primary as machines broke down, malfunctioned or jammed with a paper ballot. Mayor Michael Bloomberg called the primary day operation a “royal screw up” that was “unacceptable.”

But there were some reoccurring complaints about the ballot this year.

“It’s not laid out particularly well,” said Peter Chapin, who had voted at P.S. 87. “The type is too small.”

But Sally Cohen called the paper ballot and the electronic scanning machine the “best of both worlds.”

“It’s worked beautifully today,” Cohen said. “I know the primaries had problems.”

Though Cohen said that the candidates she voted for are on track to winning Nov. 2, she wants a high turnout on the West Side.

“The more noise we can make,” Cohen said, “the better.”

CUNY launched a voting drive aimed at battling apathy among young voters and students.

CUNY students are encouraged to wear their school’s colors and apparel to the polls. The university system got Barnes & Noble to give students a 25 percent discount on collegiate apparel to help. Campus stores are giving out “CUNY VOTES” buttons every day until the election. Faculty members have been recruited to encourage students to vote Nov. 2.

Are the voting machines being used by the city proprietary? Inherently, any and all proprietary voting systems eliminate the right to vote, which requires public scrutiny of the elections. That’s why Australia rejected proprietary voting systems, and requires Open Source voting systems, owned by no single entity. Australia felt the voters should be able to protect their right to vote, and not be forced to vote on systems that eliminate public scrutiny and utilizes a secret vote count. Did these questions get answered? Did the city council inform the public on the findings of Australia from back in 2000? Will the report coming out in December address the voters’ right to public scrutiny of the elections?

Tom Poe
Upper West Side

City Council members demanded answers from the city’s Board of Elections Monday, Oct. 4, regarding its handling of the Sept. 14 primary. New optical scan voting machines were debuted during that election, causing headaches for some voters.

During the hearing, poll workers and public interest groups voiced their concerns about voter privacy, late poll site openings and quality of worker-training to Gale Brewer, the Upper West Side Council member who chairs the Government Operations Committee.

West Side residents prepare to vote before the Sept. 14 primary. Photo by: Andrew Schwartz

Brewer wanted to clear up problems in time for the Nov. 2 general election, although board Executive Director George Gonzalez said a full review would not be completed until December.

Council Speaker Christine Quinn said the primary was marred by “bureaucratic missteps” and accused the board of blaming lack of funding “as an excuse for poor performance.” The Office of Management and Budget, she said, had consistently funded the board’s needs.

Gonzalez, however, argued the Board of Elections suffered from “chronic underfunding.”

He said the switch over to electronic voting machines “would be monumental under any circumstance” and said a preliminary analysis showed problems were similar to those of past elections.

The committee didn’t take stock in the board’s findings. Council Member Peter Vallone, Jr., of Queens said “a full review that’s completed after the election is not acceptable.”

Upper West Side resident Barbara Lee, who testified at the hearing and worked at Edward A. Reynolds West Side High School as a scanner inspector during the primary, said she witnessed many problems.

Privacy was a “big issue,” she said, as were machine paper jams and a lack of knowledge among poll workers about key procedures.

“I think that they were kind of nervous and overwhelmed by the new system and it didn’t go as smoothly as everyone had hoped,” Lee said.

Gonzalez said only 85 percent of about 27,000 poll workers passed the required training exam. Additional training will be provided for coordinators before Nov. 2, he said, but the board lacks the resources to retrain everyone.

Jerome Koenig, an Upper West Side resident and former chief of staff for the State Assembly’s Election Law Committee, didn’t notice any major problems at his polling site but said a “little more training” would help.

“I had to stop them from taking the ballots out of the privacy sleeve and putting them in the machine themselves,” he said. “They shouldn’t be near the machine at all.”

Brewer had her own privacy problem when she cast a ballot at her 97th Street polling site, which opened at least an hour late. The woman in front of her was given a sleeve in which to place her ballot, but Brewer wasn’t offered one.

“People did feel that their votes could be seen,” she said. “I got that complaint a lot.”

Council Member Gale Brewer will lead a hearing Oct. 4 at 10 a.m. on the problems voters had with the new machines during the Sept. 14 primary.

Upper West Siders and voters throughout the city reported that the new optical scanning machines were malfunctioning and polling places were opening late.

That prompted Mayor Michael Bloomberg to call the situation a “royal screw-up.”

On primary day, Brewer, who chairs the Government Operations Committee that oversees the Board of Elections, promised hearings on the problems.

“We have, citywide, pages and pages of complaints,” Brewer said. “The point of the hearing is to prevent these challenges and problems on Nov. 2 [the general election].”

Ruth A. Unterberg
York Avenue

Letters have been edited for clarity, style and brevity.

Senior technician James Parks called the voter machines he has maintained for seven years his "babies." Photo by: Sandra Roa

More than a dozen workers pushed the first group of machines toward the loading dock, and the machines rattled as they rolled onto the back of the truck. Most of the team members see each other more than their own families during the busy election season, O’Grady said. He and his staff have been working since July to prepare, and have worked many 12-hour days since Oct. 9.
“The last mechanical machine is going to crush me before it goes into storage,” he said with a wry smile and a laugh.
Nearby, Yolanda Bentley, another senior technician, carefully copied a series of numbers from yellow police envelopes and wrote them onto “long sheets,” or logs. Each police envelope contains a key to a voting machine.
Each machine is assigned to one election district, and there dozens of election districts at each polling site, said Bentley, 42, who lives in East New York and has worked for the elections board for seven years. The law requires an additional voting machine for an election district with more than 800 people, she said.
Surrounded by piles of envelopes, she marked some of them in red to remind poll workers to use the correct key to lock the machines when the polls close. If they use the wrong key, it will break in the machines, which causes delays on election night, she said.
Bentley said she was going to miss the lever machines, but that the most important thing on her mind was to get the machines out to the polling places in time for the election.
“Main thing is to get everything out and in order,” Bentley said. “It’s history and we’re a part of it.”

View more pictures and video of this story and other local election news at http://www.nycitynewsservice.com/2008/11/03/final-curtain-for-old-voting-booths/.