Tuesday, December 29, 2009

The best way to lose an election… Court the black vote!

If given a little thought, it would come as no surprise that the best, sure fire way to lose an election would be to court the African American vote. Even in cities, counties and districts where they represent a fairly large percentage of the population, the per cent of those who are eligible and registered voters is more likely than not disproportionately small. Of those African Americans who are registered to vote, the likelihood that they will avail themselves of the opportunity is not as great as other blocks of voters. The reasons are many, and include the fact that many blacks feel disenfranchised and have no faith in elected politicians to seriously address their concerns. Others may feel intimidated about voting due to possible outstanding warrants, fines, or other legal snares awaiting them. A larger per cent of African Americans are usually unemployed, with many of voting age being single parents, and many do not have a high school diploma. Statistics have shown that populations that are not highly educated are less likely to vote. African Americans struggling to support their families are less likely to take time to vote, as well. Finally, a disproportionately large number of African Americans are incarcerated, or have been labeled by the courts as being felons. Therefore, a large per cent of African Americans making up a population does not automatically guarantee that a large number of them will be registered to vote, and that of those who are registered, that they will turn out. Therefore, it is a reasonable premise that the best way to lose an election is for a candidate to court the black vote.

This premise is applicable to the city of Durham, and any reasonable person would know that former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong lessened his chances for re-election when he prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case. He did not try to use the case for political leverage one way or the other. Mr. Nifong prosecuted the case because of the particulars of the alleged attack: 1) gang-like sexual assault; and 2) use of racial epithets by the partygoers against the alleged victim. Mr. Nifong prosecuted the case because it was in his job description as a district attorney to do so. Had Mr. Nifong wanted to play it safe as far as re-election went, he would not have sought an indictment of the Duke Lacrosse defendants. He proceeded with the prosecution with the full knowledge that doing so would actually put his re-election campaign in jeopardy, which it did. In May 2006, he barely won the primary. There is no doubt in my mind that had Mr. Nifong not prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case, that his margin of victory in the primary race would have been comfortably much larger.

The accusations by the attorneys of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, the State Bar, and the Attorney General’s Office that Mr. Nifong was motivated to pursue criminal charges against the Duke Lacrosse defendants for political gain, is totally unsubstantiated, without merit, and lacks logic when one considers the aforementioned issues. The State Bar, in particular, has nothing on which to base their claims that Mr. Nifong’s actions in the Duke Lacrosse case were politically motivated.

Like so much else associated with actions and attacks against Mr. Nifong in this case, this claim is not only reckless but illogical. It behooves the public to think long and hard about statements made by Mr. Nifong’s detractors. Unfortunately, the biased media is in cahoots with the state and defendants, and it cannot be relied upon to report fairly and objectively about Mr. Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case.

9 comments:

JSwift said...

The accusations by the attorneys of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, the State Bar, and the Attorney General’s Office that Mr. Nifong was motivated to pursue criminal charges against the Duke Lacrosse defendants for political gain, is totally unsubstantiated,

This statement is demonstrably false.

The State Bar included two polls as Exhibits 20 and 21. A Dixon Black survey dated March 27, 2006, showed Mr. Nifong trailing Ms. Black 37% to 20%, with almost 40% undecided. A WTVD poll dated May 1, 2006, showed a virtual tie, with Ms. Black holding a 39% to 38% lead, with 12% undecided.

The first poll was before the effect of the frame took hold, taken on the day Mr. Nifong made his first statement on this case. At that time, Mr. Nifong suffered from low name recognition. He largely overcame this problem by May 1. Perhaps his interviews provided the “million dollars of free publicity” as he is alleged to have claimed.

I ask that you retract your statement that the accusations are “totally unsubstantiated.” While you may disagree with the accuracy of the polls or by allegations of Mr. Nifong's motivation by his low standing in the polls, you have provided no data to substantiate your own claim and to refute them.

I have asked previously that you “stop insulting the intelligence of those of us who know better” as you have accused the media of doing. You have refused to do so.

As a result, I believe that you owe your readers yet another apology.

You also continue to owe me a valid response as you promised on December 3. Your attempt yesterday was totally unacceptable, evading once again the substance of my comment.

unbekannte said...

Hey crazy sidnet harr de harr harr:

You have admitted you are not familiar with the evidence upon which is based the exoneration of the Lacrosse defendants. Yet you say the exoneration was racially motivated. Can we say inconsistency, Boys and girls?

Now you are saying that

nifong's prosecution of the Lacrosse defendants was not racially motivated. Why should anyone believe you are knowledgeable about the circumstances that led to the prosecution?

Of course, you probably believe anyone who does not buy into your delusions is biased.

Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Sidney? said...

There is no doubt in my mind that had Mr. Nifong not prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case, that his margin of victory in the primary race would have been comfortably much larger.

Sidney, JSwift amply demonstrated the problems with your assertion with the polls, but there is also this:

Why did Nifong feel the need to pump $30,000 of his own (and Cy's, presumably) money into the campaign at about this time if he was doing so well?

You have really outdone yourself this time, Sidney. A stunningly obtuse post.

DeHall said...

In the 2006 election, there were 24,822 votes cast for the 3 people running (Mike Nifong, Freda Black, Keith Bishop). Mike Nifong won by 883 votes (11, 206 to Freda Black's 10,323).
A poll taken for WTVD-TV (conducted from 4/28 - 4/30 2006) asked, "If the Democrat Primary for District Attorney were today, and you were standing in the voting booth right now, who would you vote for? Keith Bishop? Freda Black? Or Mike Nifong?" showed that 38% of the African Americans polled would vote for Mike Nifong.

To suggest that he did not need to "court the black vote" is not in any way supported by fact.
As stated by the survey, "Nifong runs slightly stronger than Black among African American voters, who are presumed to be 48% of the electorate in SurveyUSA's turnout model. If African Americans vote in smaller numbers, this benefits Black.If African Americans vote in larger numbers, this benefits Nifong."

unbekannte said...

crazy sidney harr de harr harr:

You continue to manifest your distorted view of the legal system. A DA can, as part of his job, prosecute a crime. He is obligated to prove that a crime happened, that the accused did it. His proof must meet the criterion, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

That a rape can occur even if DNA is absent is irrelevant. Beyond a reasonable doubt means a crime did happen, not that it might have happened.

Likewise, even if the DNA on cgm's person did not exonerate the Lacrosse players, that is irrelevant. The presumption of innocence would have required that the DNA incriminate the defendants, which it most certainly did not.

AS other's have pointed out to you, cgm's word on the subject(which word as you say was the basis of nifong's prosecution) was that her attackers penetrated her and ejaculated on her. The lack of dna on her person creates doubt about her word.

As I have pointed out to you, in a rape case, when the DNA on the victim matches someone other than the accused, it indicates that the accused is not the rapist. The finding of male dna which did not match the defendants was exculpatory evidence.

Stop your delusional raving about what might have happened. What is important is what did happen.

I again remind you, you are unfamiliar with the evidence about what did happen.

Nifong Supporter said...

To DEHall:

In the primary election for Durham district attorney, registration was not restricted to African Americans. I would guess that a greater majority of non-African Americans were registered to vote, and did, in fact, vote. To suggest that Mr. Nifong, by courting the African American vote would do better among non-African American voters, and benefit in the election overall, is totally absurd and illogical.

Would you please provide me with a link or web address for your poll? I would very much like to see it completely. Thank you, and Happy New Years.

DeHall said...

Dr. Harr --
Of the people polled by SurveyUSA for the previously mentioned WTVD poll, Black and Nifong were virtually tied among both black and white voters -- with a significantly larger amount of black voters undecided. Clearly, Nifong needed these "undecided" voters to win. What in your estimation did he do to win these "undecided" votes? Do you really think that the Duke Lacrosse case in no way influenced these voters?

Here is the link:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/
PollPrint.aspx?g=8b540b49-7e13-
44d5-9ba8-b3711253a648&d=0

Walt said...

Well Syd, there you go again.

" He did not try to use the case for political leverage one way or the other. Mr. Nifong prosecuted the case because of the particulars of the alleged attack: 1) gang-like sexual assault;

It was obvious after the DNASI and SBI reports came back that none of the lacrosse team was involved if there was a sexual assault, gang like or otherwise. In fact, even before the SBI and DNASI reports came back, there was no physical evidence to corroborate a gang like sexual assault. Which begs the question, with no physical evidence corroborating Crystal's claim, why did Nifong go to the media?

"and 2) use of racial epithets by the partygoers against the alleged victim."

I have always wondered why Nifong and his apologists thought this justified criminal charges.

"Mr. Nifong prosecuted the case because it was in his job description as a district attorney to do so."

No, it is not. In fact, the District Attorney is charged with doing justice, not simply prosecuting every case the falls into his lap. (Rule 3.8)

Walt-in-Durham

PS: I know Nifong reads this blog, so I'll include the relevant text of rule 3.8 for him, as he appears not to know what it says.

Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;...

(d) after reasonably diligent inquiry, make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information required to be disclosed by applicable law, rules of procedure, or court opinions including all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor,...

(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

Nifong Supporter said...

To DEHall:

Thanks for the link to the survey. I'll check it out right away and get back with you about it.