"Elections Have Consequences"

[journalist3072]

After Shrub's annoucement of Roberts as his SC pick, John McCain was saying "elections have consequences."

And for once, I totally agree with him. Elections do have consequences.

So boys and girls, what have we learned today? The next time someone like Ralph Nader tells you that there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats, you tell him "elections have consequences."

Sometimes, I think people go into the voting booth and just start pulling levers; not really understanding the issues of the day, where the candidates stand on those issues, and the consequences of a particular candidate winning.

We need a more informed, educated electorate.

[goclark]

1. The consequesnces of 04 were horrible

[wli]

2. what election? it was all rigged

c.f. the usual sources (2004 ERD forum etc. can fill in here)

[Walt Starr]

5. PROVE IT!

I'm sick and tired of the "theories" that don't even pass muster as hypothetical.

Put up the evidence. The canard of blaming everything on a "stolen election" in 2004 is tiring.

[wli]

13. you are blind

There are mountains of evidence. The voter suppression, the international election observers' reports, the exit polls, and the bribes.

Do you even read half of what goes across DU? For instance, the Diebold bribing in Ohio? The statistical analyses of exit poll vs. election result disparities showing vanishingly small odds for such a disparity to occur by chance? The judicial suppression of the Florida recount in 2000?

Far from "passing muster as hypothetical" it's staring us all in the face as plainly as the color of the sky and boiling point of water.

[Walt Starr]

20. You've got evidence of things that happen in every election

and quite frankly, it happens on both sides in all elections including this one.

You have no evidence whatsoever of widespread fraud that had any effect whatsoever on the outcome. Not a shred.

[wli]

23. then try reading it

It's all there in the 2004 ERD forum. If you want to refute it, then try reading it there and posting refutations there.

[Walt Starr]

24. I've read it before it ever got sent to the basement

No evidence.

None.

Hyperbolic tinfoilhat nuttery. That's about it.

[wli]

47. nothing like tinfoil hat nuttery

You didn't read it. It's re-analyzed on a daily basis on ERD. Answer those posts, not this one.

You've got nothing. You're not even responding to the evidence.

[specimenfred1984]

66. Really. "Tinfoil hat nuttery"

Somebody needs to switch parties.

I never thought I'd read something like that in this arena. If I posted anything as absurd as that, my post would be instantly pulled.

Yo mods, WTF?

[Walt Starr]

69. I'd respond to the evidence

if there actually was any.

[iconoclastNYC]

72. How many reports have you read?

How about the Conyers Report? Did you read that?

The Report that Dean Just put out?

How about The USA Counts Votes report?

Will you read Mark Cripin Millers forthcoming book? Or do you know that he's just a wingnut too?

Your response to this issue is defamatory.

[WinkyDink]

88. Then why waste your time here?

Besides, if you don't think 2004 was stolen, try 2000.
The thieves were on the SCOTUS.

[cascadiance]

63. Then why were those things so special in the Ukraine for Rethugs...

... and not the VERY SAME symptoms of a thrown election ignored here! Why, because they are PART of the problem, and the corporate media also falls into line as well!

[FreedomAngel82]

97. And don't forget also

that the same people who did our polling did the Ukraine's so I doubt they got our's wrong. John Kerry did win. At least over or around 60%. Watch the pbs documentary on Karl Rove called "The Architect" and the first segment where it talks about the election.

[FreedomAngel82]

96. And you don't have proof that it never happened either, do you?

Go to bradblog.com and listen to his archives of his shows dealing with the election. You might be surprised at what you learn. Also http://www.commoncause.org/november2ndvideo I love how you want people to prove their theories to you but you don't back up what you have to say either. :eyes:

[IdaBriggs]

29. PM me. I'll hook you up with the folks who've got it. :) nt

[Walt Starr]

31. spreadsheets and statistical analysis are worthless. n/t

[IdaBriggs]

53. Did I offer spreadsheets and statistical analysis?

No, I offered to hook you up with the folks who have the evidence.

Is there anyone so blind as a man who will NOT see? :)

[Orsino]

55. Those are the only way to prove...

...that election-rigging was statistically significant.

Really, though, all you have to know is that machine-rigging has been proven to be possible. With every other aspect of elections being swung by Big Money, from the dough needed to become a candidate to that needed for organizing campaigns and running ads to that needed to employ push-pollers, do you honestly believe that they would forego any chance to monkey with the numbers on a massive scale for cheap? The numbers that so obviously bore you and nearly everyone else?

You're right to demand proof of specific acts affecting the outcomes, but sneering at the very idea strikes me as incredibly naive.

[Walt Starr]

62. I sneer t the idea because it is ludicrous

Statistical evidence is only useful in CONFIRMING how physical acts for which there is evidence affected an outcome.

That's how it works.

[iconoclastNYC]

77. thats not the way it works in business

ever hear of forensic accounting?

[Orsino]

82. That's what I said. n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

99. Have you ever heard some of the evidence???

Seriously. You should listen. Of course if you like thinking Bush really "won" both times and want them to keep stealing elections then go ahead and ignore it. Just because you don't believe it happened doesn't mean it didn't. It did.

[iconoclastNYC]

73. Name some evidence that would not be worthless.

Would the Pope have to come forth with images of Rove's hand in front of a computer with a Diebold logo on it? Is that what it would take?

[journalist3072]

34. No need to PM the person....see my post below!!! eom

[journalist3072]

32. You want it? I got.

There is CLEAR evidence that voter suppression occured in the 2004 election.

1. In Ohio, many voters in predominantly African-American neighborhoods had to wait in line to vote anywhere from 4-10 hours. Contrast that with their Caucasian counterparts, some of whom only had a 15-minute wait. They did not put enough voting machines in African-American neighborhoods, while putting more than enough in the Caucasian ones.

2. Let's also examine the "vote challengers" that the Republicans put in place. The put "vote challengers" in predominantly African-American neighborhoods...the point being so they could just walk up to anyone they want and say "I don't think you are a registered voter, etc." This slowed down the process, and forced legitimate voters to vote by a provisional ballot..and the provisional ballot probably wasn't counted at all. Now, I remind you, vote challengers are nothing new. However, the difference is that normally, vote challengers are LOCAL people who know their neighborhood. Let's say you decide to sign up to be a vote challenger. If you see your neighbor voting at 7:00 in the morning, and then you see them come back at 3:30, you can challenge them and say "I saw you voting earlier today."

3. Also, you had Rep. Peter King (R-NY) on Alexandra Pelosi's political movie, saying "It's all over but the counting, and we'll take care of the counting."

4. You had the head of Diebold, Inc (who makes the majority of these voting machines) writing a fundraising letter to the Republican Party in August of 2003, saying he wanted to guarantee Ohio's electoral votes for Bush.

5. In Detroit, State Rep. John Pappageorge (R-Troy) told the Detroit Free Press "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election." (Detroit is 83% African-American)

[Walt Starr]

35. No evidence there of widespread fraud that affected the outcome n/t

[journalist3072]

39. That's a ridiculous assessment!

They supressed the vote, for crying out loud! And if you notice, they did it in predominantly African-American neighborhoods.

I think they understood that a heavy African-American turnout can make the difference between victory and loss.

Voter supression is illegal.

[Walt Starr]

42. And Democrats flattened the tires of vans used for getting REpublicans

to the polls.

This shit happens every election and it did not affect the outcome in Ohio.

[FreedomAngel82]

100. There was a video going around of this

I can't remember where it was, but there was a video about this going around. Showing surpression and all that. Anybody know where that was at??

[mongo]

70. Widespread fraud

I guess that depends on your definition. Maybe not every county in Ohio, but many, many places. Maybe not a coordinated attack orchestrated by Blackwell, but individuals working on their own.

They didn't use the same tactics everywhere. But it happened. No big smoking gun, just lots of little firecrackers.

Did you hear any right-wing radio the week before the election? The message was "The dems are going to cheat, the dems are going to cheat!". Thus giving power hungry small time officials the last push they needed over that edge into corruption.

Even the Dem party itself in Ohio has been infiltrated with repubs in disguise.

[FreedomAngel82]

101. Don't forget a week or so before the election

there was this group going around in various states (I remember reading Ohio and Nevada) where they would register people and at the end of the day they would tear up any forum that said "democratic" on there. That really pissed me off. :mad:

[iconoclastNYC]

75. Oh now you are raising the bar.

No proof that there is widespread fraud that AFFECTED the outcome.

There wasn't one conspiracy WALT, it was a massively distributed effort.

How much fraud is acceptable to you?

[okieinpain]

54. my problem with the vote rigging claims is kerry knew this shit

was going to happen. remember he had 10,000 lawyers ready to fight just this kind of shit. so if you saying bush people rigged the election then you have to put kerry in that equation also. because he damn sure did let them get away with it.

[iconoclastNYC]

76. They didn't use the courts to steal it this time.

We needed 10,000 PI's on the ground 5 months before the election. And if the DNC had have a clue the would have been on the ground, and we'd have a big fat juicy file of leads to persue when we get the house back and can actually get a real investigation.

[journalist3072]

86. Agree with you wholeheartedly, and to add to that...

I also blame the Democratic National Committee's Voting Rights Institute (VRI). The DNC established the VRI right after the 2000 election, to avoid another Florida every happening again.

Where was the VRI before and after the 2004 election?

[FreedomAngel82]

103. And how was he supposed to fight it?

He didn't have the proof did he? It was all in the machine's and you can't video doc someone voting can you? These machine's were hacked. Blackwell had a computer in his office where he could hack in somehow and change the results. He was even bragging about this and he also recently fired a whistleblower as well. Now why would he fire this woman if he had nothing to hide? Visit http://www.votecobb.org and see his video's and evidence he has. Go to bradblog.com and listen to the archives of his show where he talks about the election and people who have been on the case (especially Bob Firtakis, sp?). If Kerry didn't have the evidence to fight it he would've been called a "consperiacy theorist". There was no paper trails to fight except absentee ballots. But go to http://www.commoncause.org/november2ndvideo as well and http://www.bushflash.com/media.html and watch their "Stolen Election 2004" video. And the last video at http://www.pbs.org and look for the video "The Architect" and watch the first segment which deals with the election.

[okieinpain]

106. sorry for being late. but he had proof that they wee not installing

enough machines in certain areas. he knew that there would be a problem with there not being enough poll workers in certain areas. he knew that there would be problems having two different county's in the same building, so if a voter goes in and votes, at the wrong machine it's thrown out. he knew that there should have been spare machines available to backup the ones that went down. he should have sued to have a certain number of machines set aside after the polls closed for testing to verify there accuracy.

sorry, but on this subject kerry SUCKS.........

[Zorra]

58. Electronic voting machines are specifically designed to produce

results that can't be counted.

You can believe whatever you want friend, but BTW, I have some nice property for sale, really reasonable, about 100 miles west of San Francisco if you are interested. I'll even throw a bridge in to sweeten the deal.

Don't you get it?

Why are republicans fighting tooth and nail to keep elections from being transparent?

Criminals are running the courthouse, and the judge is not allowing the evidence. You can't prove the crime if the evidence has already been destroyed.

But you can still know that a murder was committed when the body you found was shot in back.

[grace0418]

68. Good lord, isn't the entire Bush administration's every action enough

to show you that they would stop at NOTHING to win elections? Why is it so hard to believe that the election was rigged, even without numbers to prove it (although I feel there is plenty of evidence available)? We're talking about BUSHCO. They lie, they cheat, they steal, they kill. That is what they do every hour of every day. Why is election theft such a big stretch?

I think anyone who doubts the election was stolen (again) should have to PROVE the election was won fairly, because it seems far less likely to me.

[bpilgrim]

92. that's the PROBLEM, hello...

we CAN'T 'prove it' anymore since we ain't got no paper trail.

fyi :hi:

peace

[MaraJade]

98. Black Box Voting

Go here--

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

and read the proof for yourself. Both the 2000 and 2004 elections were freeped.

[Inland]

80. It wasn't ALL rigged. But it was rigged enough for Nader to make a

difference.

[Walt Starr]

3. Sure as shit n/t

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

10. It Amazes Me

That you can come here, talk about all that the administration and the Repubs are doing which is Illegal, and involves TREASON! Yet, you think that rigging the election is some fantasy that's impossible just because there is no specific hard evidence to "prove" it.

There are enough people who figured out what happened that night, and it does not bother me that most of them are on the internet. I witnessed it myself, and there is not a doubt in my mind, that the 2004 election was 100% rigged, and that Kerry should have won.

I have the same belief that our 2000 election was decided by a supreme court which was also "Rigged," and that Gore should have won that election.

Nobody will be able to convince me otherwise, and it's just another example that the leaders of this country will do as they please, with little regard for it's citizens and who they vote for.

[Walt Starr]

19. I'm a skeptic. I require hard evidence

none has been forthcoming, ergo, there is no compelling reason to buy into the vaalidity of the proposal (I won;t even refer to it as an hypothesis as it does not even rise to that level).

This is America and you are free to believe in whatever hair brained scheme you choose. Hell, my five year old niece believes in the Easter Bunny and the tooth Fairy.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

26. And With Rove?

What hard evidence has there been with Rove so far, which leads you to believe he committed a crime? Isn't that speculation as well? All you have so far is the word of 1 reporter, and some leaks which suggest a wider conspiracy.

I've seen you jumping to conclusions in other threads regarding that, yet after 8 months of details relating to the stolen election, there's still not sufficient evidence to convince you it was basically stolen?

There's been plenty of evidence presented via this site and quite a few others, as well as a report published recently, along with a book coming in October detailing scenarios.

I think it's safe to say that if an investigation hadn't been undertaken in relation to the outing of Plame's wife, we never would have learned about that one either. Nobody has bothered to look into the way the 2004 election was stolen, nor did they in 2000. That's the real conspiracy, in that people are silent and act like "nothing to see here, move along."

And don't give me any garbage about the Easter Bunny and your 5 year old. I don't have to listen to your bullshit insults, when there are plenty of other intelligent and educated adults who believe the same as I do, if not more so.

From the very beginning, you've been very forceful with trying to throw water on every possible election fraud example, and it's obvious your opinion. I would not have even posted until I saw your criticism of someone else who voiced their belief that our election system is rigged. Had you not chimed in, I wouldn't be writing this, but it's obvious to me at this point, you have an axe to grind somehow in relation to this election fraud. I'm not sure why, but you always seem to be the one there trying to poo-poo the fraud committed, and I guess I won't understand the reason you feel like insulting and attacking fellow dems who obviously feel pretty intensely that something just wasn't right on 11/2/04.

[Walt Starr]

28. I know for a fact he committed a crime

His testimony to the FBI does not match what his attorney says he testified to the grand jury.

That is a crime.

I am also positive Fitzgerald believes he will be able to indict as indicated by the actions he has taken.

Everything from there has been speculation on my part, and I am free to speculate all I want.

If you want to speculate about the potential of widespread fraud in the 2004 election, be my guest. Until you have prood all you;ve got are speculations, though.

[okieinpain]

56. I think it's obvious that both election were rigged (on both sides).

but that's not going to stop roberts from being put on the scotus. It's just kinda annoying to hear it over and over without it being put to use of some kind. like we need to be ready for this in 06, or 08.

frankly I blame kerry for 04, he knew this was coming and they did nothing to stop it.

[iconoclastNYC]

78. you knew it was coming, I knew it was coming.

We all need to demand that the DNC do something about this......every democratically controlled state should be passing massive election protection legislation that serves as a model to the entire country.

Why hasnt' this happened yet?

Ho...hum....zzzzzzzz.....znooooze..

[okieinpain]

81. exactly. like I said kerry supposedly had 10,000 lawyers ready to

do battle. so what happen, blackwell was still able to pull every freakin trick in the book. every one man, it's freakin unbelievable the tricks he was able to pull. but yet kerry's 10,000 lawyers never made one stinking peep, nothing. it's just unimaginable to me that blackwell could get away with putting to few machines in a area that he knew was going to have a high turn out.

Kerry had 300 million dollars, so what the hell did he do with it. make loans to bush?

[iconoclastNYC]

107. not to defend KERRY but.....

Ohio was controlled by a Republican and has a Republican supreme court (supreme court in FLORIDA) was controlled by Democrats.

I believe Kerry would have fought if he could have. I think he saw it as a loosing battle that would have sapped political capital for the party and as him as a candidate.

I just dont see why Gore and Kerry aren't screaming and forming groups to fight for Electoral reform. It is a huge issue and it think it's a winner for our side.

Why can't we frame it so Republicans get hurt by fighting against it like they frame medical privacy rights as "baby killing?"

[wli]

27. I'm a skeptic and I also require hard evidence

The exit poll numbers can't have been so different from the election result by chance. The prob/stat demonstrating this is not very involved. Then the observed behaviors demonstrate fraud, from overt statements of intent to deliver states to W to gerrymandering state electoral votes, voter suppression, voting machine allocation bias, wildly incorrect voter counts (some negative, some larger than the populations of the districts), and so on.

It's your argument that doesn't add up.

[Walt Starr]

30. Not by chance, by design

Statistics are not hard evidence.

[wli]

36. statistics are hard evidence

If you don't understand what statistics are and what the statistical conclusions mean, you are beyond my help.

[Walt Starr]

38. Believe me, I know what statistics are

and any statistics utilized are only worth the validity of the sample.

[wli]

43. the samples have been scrutinized

If you want to debate the validity of the statistical analysis then look at the statistical analysis and make specific objections. If you know of fallacies in the statistical analysis then go to the 2004 ERD forum and tell it to those who are doing them. I already did and found their methods to be sound.

[Walt Starr]

50. The methods are unsound no matter how they cry about it

Sorry, the statistic sampling was erroneous to begin with, thus all conclusions were erroneous.

[dsc]

44. The statistical argument only holds up to the extent that the exit polls

are independent of each other. To take a ridiculous example. Say at noon on election day a video of Kerry slapping a nun had run on every network. Clearly exit polls would turn out to have been wrong (at least those based on the early non nun affected samples) and very much wrong in Kerry's favor. Pretty much all states would have been affected, though some more than others.

There are plenty of non ridiculous events which could have affected the exit polls. Maybe evangelical voters were undercounted in the polls. Maybe black voters were overcounted in the polls. In short, even a significant variance between the polls and the actual tally doesn't necessarily show fraud. It may well be the polls which were wrong.

[wli]

45. they're demographically analyzed, with response rates too

The conclusion is also limited: that these things didn't happen by chance. This is why the exit poll results are picked apart and analyzed so heavily.

[dsc]

52. From what I understand

exit polls are designed to get a certain number of people from each demographic group. They determine how many of each group by past voting performance. I know evangelicals out performed their 2000 total by a considerable margin. Did the exit pollsters know that was going to happen and adjust their data accordingly? That question needs answered before we can intelligently discuss any other reason they may have been wrong.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

48. Another Coincidence

I'm sure there's little importance to the fact the head of diebold made a statement promising to deliver Ohio's electoral votes, and the election to Shrub.

[dsc]

51. that would matter a lot more if Diebold actually managed to get

a lot of contracts in Ohio. To my knowledge they only got two.

[iconoclastNYC]

79. Diebold machines = only 1 way to alter the offical count

There are about 10 of 15 other ways to alter it to. And the republicans used every single one they could use without getting caught.

And it succedded and the statistical and other evidence shows this. We need a real investigation for the hard proof that skeptics demand.

But just b/c the investigation hasn't happened doesn't mean this is all wingnuttery.

[specimenfred1984]

67. "Easter Bunny" and "Tooth Fairy"?

Get a grip man and stop insulting the $hit out of people. Cite some research that you see as flawed and put it into perspective.

An intelligent person would be capable of that.

[Yupster]

89. Here's my example

I was an avid reader of the fraud articles and threads all through November.

I was very interested and then disappointed in the New Hampshire recounts. I read a lot about the election, and believe the best piece I read was the New York imes magazine aticle following the Ohio State Director ofAmerica Coming Together (ACT) on election day.

There was one particular poster on DU who is the only poster who I ever put on ignore (and remains there) who was doing much statistical research and complicated posts on the exit polls and such.

One of his continuing works was on how the last pre-election polls showed Kerry winning, yet Bush won. This surprised me because I was paying close attention to the polls and I thought Bush was ahead a point or two overall in the many polls if you averaged them together.

He had the PEW poll listed as showing Kerry ahead right before the election.

This had me scratching my head because I thought the PEW poll showed Bush ahead.

I looked at the PEW website and their final pre-election poll showed Bush ahead 51-48 %. In other words, they called it exactly right on the bullseye.

Yet this poster was using this poll as evidence of how Kerry led the final polls.

Of course I asked him what the heck he was doing?

He said that the PEW poll did indeed show Bush winning 51-48, but if you looked at registered voters, not likely voters, then the PEW poll had Kerry ahead, so he used the registered voter numbers.

Obviously that was the last time I paid any attention to that poster's analysis as in a close election, if you're willing to manipulate data to that extent you can prove anything you want.

Anyway, I don't go to the election forum much anymore.

I realize that some people have an urge, or even more a need to believe. I think it's because there just have to be more of us than there are of them. Anyway, I'm not going to convince anyone if they're a believer. They'll go to their graves believing and you can't prove a negative anyway.

I'll just hear over and over again that the exit polls are never wrong, even though others have posted time after time showing how the exit polls are wrong every single election, always in the Democratic candidate's favor and almost always by a bigger gap than 2004.

But to a believer, all that will mean is that all the elections have been stolen for 25 years now.

So, I try to avoid the subject and just accept that those who believe have some kind of need that makes them have to believe. That's fine and I'll try to stay out of it as much as I can.

Now if I were king, I'd keep the tin foil stuff in a tin foil forum, but alas no one asked for my less than Royal missives.

[tommcintyre]

71. What you are doing here is called baiting, not skepticism

I won't dignify your attempts with any further response.

[FreedomAngel82]

104. Go to the 2004 forum

Look at the McKinney report that came out about Georgia. If that isn't evidence enough for you then stay in your la la happy fairytale land.

[B Calm]

4. Elections have consequences, especially when there is no

PAPER TRAIL!!

[Windy]

7. Get off the 2004 election and start concentrating on 2006!!!!

McCain has a point...

And its also a "beating around the bush" warning about Roberts.

[B Calm]

9. OK, how about a PAPER TRAIL in 2006?

[Windy]

11. Ok, well what are you doing to promote our party

and progressive causes other than bitching here? Are you volunteering? Now is the time to start. If you want to ensure a paper trail for 2006 then you better get on the stick and start writing, calling etc!! I've done a lot of that and more. You have to step away from the computer and get active. I'm not insinuating that you're not because I don't know you. Just making a general statement!

[B Calm]

16. You don't know me! I agree with that statement!!

[HysteryDiagnosis]

8. How convenient... no paper trail.... "We don't need no

steenking paper trail".... ok?? Just "trust us"... and we will take your country places it's never been before..... straight to hell.

[FreedomAngel82]

105. Or as King said

"we'll take care of the counting."

[lvx35]

6. I say we take responsibility.

Its more empowering. I say, we ask ourselves what we did do lose a large portion of our base to Nader, and correct the problems. Yes elections matter, and we want everybody who voted for Nader to be with us in upcoming elections. Its pure power, taking responsibility!

[Windy]

14. Agreed!

[Warren DeMontague]

46. About half my friends were part of that "portion of the base"

I agree, there are things that our party needs to do to reconnect with people who are disaffected: Personally, I think we need to clearly appeal to socially small-l libertarian urban voters who are turned off by the religious right yet wary of the nanny state voices and would-be control freaks in our own party. (For example, the only porn I want Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman concerning themselves with right now is the images from Abu Ghraib the Bush Administration is trying to put off releasing)

I think we need to clearly come out in favor of a Single Payer Health Care plan. I think we need to unequivocally say, for instance, It's long past time to End the Drug War- and plow that all money into treatment.

I would agree that the "republican lite" crowd had quite a bit to do with driving some people to Nader.

That said, however, (and again, some of these folks, particularly in 2000, were good friends of mine) I think a big part of what drove the Nader crowd was a combination of short-sighted scorched earth political thinking, a lack of realism, petulance, and unwillingness to be satisfied with ANYTHING the Democratic party had to offer. Can anyone honestly look back, five years later, and say Al Gore wouldn't have been a stellar fucking President, not even mentioning the fact that he would have been light-years better than what we've had?

No, the Nader people fucked up, and my opinion on that isn't going to change. I'm willing to let bygones be bygones, and I'm all for the party doing some soul-searching, direction and principle-considering, and particularly ball (or ovary) finding... however I don't think the Nader crowd should be let off the hook for their own responsibility in what was, I still believe, a monumentally bad collective political decision.

[lvx35]

91. Well, you live and learn.

I think the most important thing is to let bygones be bygones. Hell, I didn't even vote in 2000, so I take my share of blame. But damn, Bush has done a good job of waking me up from political slumber!!!

I think the most important parts of what you say invovles the present, and embracing the libertarian sentiment. We are a much meaner, much more cautious of big government party sinse we have seen what Bush has done, and if we are to responsibly look to the future, our leaders in Washington need to take note. I'm fairly encouraged, with all that Dean has achieved, but there is still a lot more work to be done.

[Warren DeMontague]

93. It's very interesting to me to watch...

because although I'm old enough to remember Watergate, I really cut my political teeth during the Reagan years.

I've always been very active politically.

When Bill Clinton won in 1992, and we controlled the House and Senate, it was like the Berlin Wall coming down for me. Little did I know what was around the corner..

I wasn't always in agreement with everything Clinton did; but I supported the guy for eight years and was more or less always pretty damn glad to have him as my President.

The Clinton years seem like a dream compared to the nightmare we are in now- and I certainly know a lot of folks, younger than me, who grew up thinking that politics was something of a funny sideshow, that it really didn't matter who was in charge (because the guy in charge was reasonably competent, even if his personal life was the fodder for late night comedians).. I remember, really I remember, saying to more than one apathetic person in 1999 and 2000... "just wait; you don't remember what it's like to have a Republican President.. you have NO FUCKING IDEA what you're getting into"

Like the song says, I wanted to be wrong. Oh well.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Yeah, stolen elections in particular.

Fucko.

[tnlefty]

15. Why are you singling out Nader and anyone who may have

voted for him? I'll admit that I was madder than hell and wrote some pretty angry letters and e-mails to the Nader campaign after '00. But I promise you that I am much more furious with Bush** voters, especially the moderate repugnicants, who no matter what info. was put before them, just had to toe the party line and vote for him - especially the women!!!

I'll save a majority of my anger for them. And besides, my mantra is, "What color was this state on the electoral map again? Oh, yeah, it was red. Maybe you republicans need to get busy fixing the things that you're complaining about now!"

[journalist3072]

17. I am singling out Ralph Nader because....

I can't tell you how many times I saw Ralph Nader go on tv when he was running for President, and say there was no real difference between the Repugs and Democrats. He said it almost ad nauseum.

And I would always get so angry when he said that. Because as I said, I believe there are REAL differences in the way Democrats and Republicans see America; there are true policy differences (i.e. social security and affirmative action). There are differences in the way the 2 parties view the Supreme Court, and the direction that court should go in.

So elections have consequences!

[tnlefty]

25. I understand what you're saying, as I stated I was angry, too.

But I will state again that I'm much more angry with people who actually voted for Dimson** no matter what facts were put before them - especially the moderates and the females.

Yes, there are real differences between Dems and Repubs, and I don't care for the repub-lite dems too much, but my anger will be directed to those who voted for the Great Lying Warmongering Fake Christian Smirking one.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. And don't forget - W is for women! (heavy, heavy sarcasm)

[journalist3072]

33. We really don't disagree then...

Because I totally agree with your anger at the people who actually voted for Shrub.

I wrote an article about this---people who vote against their own best interests, which a lot of people did in the last election.

[slor]

18. My favorite aspect of the ""elections have consequences"...

statement is how much it sounds like they are saying "you fucked up when you let me in your house, and now you gonna die!".

[wli]

21. that's about the size of it

I don't expect to live to see the end of this, and I'm not even an activist.

[journalist3072]

22. That's exaclty what it sounds like...

It sounds like they are saying "You all were crazy enough to continue to give us power....so now you deal with it!"

[Sgent]

37. I'm angry at Bush supporters as well

But Nader supporters generally agreed with Al Gore more than Bush, and they put Bush in the whitehouse. I blame Nader for Bush, right or wrong.

Bush votors aren't generally the ones bitching about what bush is doing -- in general 80% of them still support him (42% of 50% is 84%. Nader voters had to prove their independence and be pure to their ideals, and now many of them are on here bitching because of Bush.

Sorry, but in my book a vote for Nader was worse than a vote for Bush. You were effectively voting for Bush, but didn't have the intellectual integrity to admit it to yourself or others.

[journalist3072]

41. You hit the nail on the head! eom

[wli]

49. this is why Condorcet election methods are needed

The "spoiler effect" is crippling the electoral system, even without the blatant fraud.

Proportional representation in Congress would also be prudent.

[journalist3072]

85. Proportional representation in Congress???

Yep, you have a good point. But I'm still focused on trying to get representation in Congress for myself and every other D.C. resident that is being taxed without representation!

[PowerToThePeople]

40. Stolen elections can have no "good" consequences. n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

57. Was the asshole smirking when he said that?

Knowing full well the consequences of his being "elected", on this Country and the World has been disastrous for all save for him and his bidness buddies.

[MadHound]

59. You know, this is getting absolutely ridiculous

Geez, apparently Nader has more power than the might Clenis, and that's saying something:eyes:

First, Nader had a very negligible effect on both the '00 and the '04 elections. Even the DLC god Al From had this to say about Nader and the '00 election: "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."<http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919> Did you Nader hates get that? Bush would have gotten even MORE votes in Florida if Nader hadn't been in the race.

Another point, Gore couldn't hold his base, both in Florida and elsewhere. In fact Gore's kowtowing to his corporate masters at BP Oil on the issue of off-shore drilling in the Gulf cost him almost 600,000 votes, which would have assured a Gore win(you can read about this in books by both Greg Palast and Jim Hightower)

Then again, the Gore campaign had the whole votescam scandal handed to them on a silver platter by journalist Greg Palast, shortly after the Florida recount process began. Now think about it. You're in a tough election fight, recounting the key state. Somebody hands you information that could A: Win you the election B: Remove two of the more evil Republicans in the state, Harris and Jeb C: Banish all of Bushco to the political wilderness forever. What would you do? Most rational people would have dropped this bomb. But noooo, Gore and his DLC handlers decided to sit on it.

I pity the Nader haters out there. They are blinded by anger and resentment, and are lashing out at the nearest, most convienent target, Nader. But the trouble is that Nader is the wrong target. Instead, they should be demanding that Gore and his campaign be held accountable for bungling a golden opportunity. But apparently partisan prejudices hold such a large sway in their minds that questioning such authority within their own party is unthinkable for them, so they have to make Nader into a scapegoat to vent their anger on. And the truly sad part about all of this is that by giving the Democratic party a pass on this, they are merely insuring that such a scenario will happen again, and again, until those who ARE the actual perpatrators are held accountable for their actions.

[dsc]

60. This contradicts everything I have seen in regards to what Nader

voters would have done, and contravenes commonsense too. It also should be noted that even if this is true and From provides no evidence at all for it, that he doesn't mention Florida at all. Thus we have no idea what Nader's impact in Florida was from what From said.

The break down I have repeatedly seen quoted, even by Nader's supporters both here and elsewhere, is 33% of them would have voted for Gore, 25% would have voted for Bush, and the rest either would have voted for another 3rd party or not at all. Given the fact From is often wrong about most everything, I don't believe him here either.

[MadHound]

61. Well, gee, what about the other two factors I mentioned?

I can understand your mistrust of From, I don't put much stock in him either, but I threw that out there for the DLC worshippers around here. However you aren't addressing the other two issues I brought up, the 600,000 votes Gore and his campaign pissed away due to sucking up to BP Oil over Gulf drilling, and the Votescam issue that Gore and his campaign sat on. Two golden opportunities to win the election wasted. What is your response to those?

And again, I find it absolutely astounding the amount of power(and the consequent blame) that Nader haters assign to Ralph. Get a clue, Nader only pulled down 1.6% of the vote in Florida, and only 2.74% of the vote nationwide! Meanwhile, 13% of registered Dems in Florida voted for Bush! Hello, how can you expect Gore to win if he can't even hold onto his base. Yet somehow this is all Nader's fault:eyes: Give me a break!

I'm sorry, but I find this whole exercise in scapegoating to be completly counter-productive. It puts the blame on the wrong man, and allows those who truly bear the blame for the loss, Gore and his handlers, off scot free. It also prevents the type of soul searching and introspection the party needs to correct the faults that led to the defeat. And if you don't correct the faults, ie sucking up to corporate America, rigged elections etc., then as we see in '04, they'll happen again and again until they are corrected.

It is time for the Nader haters to wake up and drop this game. It wrongs an innocent man, and will continue to lose us elections until the hard questions are answered by the DLC and the Democratic party.

[dsc]

83. I would like a link for the oil thing

I don't recall anything like that, and I honestly would find it totally bizarre.

As to the "x% of Democrats voted for Bush". Well I live in the South and I know what kind of Democrats these people are. Now unless and until you are willing to advocate at least 2 of the 4 following things then these people won't vote for you. 1) Eliminate the right to abortion. 2) End any and all programs that help bring about desegregation. 3) End any and all gun control. 4) Pass laws making homosexuality a criminal offense and ban homosexuals from any position of trust in society. Frankly I don't want to do those things. I also think politically we would lose as many votes as we would gain from doing any of those things. Now if you honestly want us to do some of the above, then OK, you are right, we have some votes we could have gotten. But, I sincerely hope you don't want to do those things. It should be noted that Gore got a higher percentage of Democrats to vote for him than anyone since LBJ. That includes Clinton in 96. In all honesty that is probably because more of the above people are either dying off or reregistering to the party to which they really belong. But it is a fact.

As to the notion that Gore is to blame for his loss. All of the following is true:

A) Gore gained 15 points from the date of his announcement to election day, while his opponent lost only 2 points. (announcement day Gore 35 Bush 51, election day Gore 50 Bush 49) Since the advent of modern polling only 3 elections say equal or greater comebacks. Truman v Dewey, where polling methods were very much a contributer, Bush 1 v Dukakis, where Dukakis dropped like a stone, and Ford v Carter where Ford almost won but Carter also dropped several points. Gore's awful campaign convinced nearly one out of 7 voters to vote for him in the period of 16 months while his opponent held nearly all his own votes. You will try in vain to find another example of that.

B) From 1948 until 2000 there were 14 elections in which we finished 6 wins, 7 losses, and 2000. Gore outperformed every single loser and every winner save Carter and LBJ. That means his awful campaign did better than Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton (twice). He actually came pretty close to Carter (with Nader's vote he actually would have done better than he did). The only two who did better were LBJ, running as the heir of a martyr against a man who scared the Hell out of everyone, and Carter who ran against the man who pardoned Nixon and couldn't fight inflation. Incidently, he also out performed Kerry who didn't have a Nader factor to speak of.

In short, but for Nader's meddling in Florida people would have written tombs about the brilliant comeback campaign of Al Gore. He would have been cristened the modern version of Truman. All with the 'lousy' campaign and handlers.

[MadHound]

84. Here you go

Sources for you to read: Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy That Money Can Buy" Also read Jim Hightower's "If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote, They'd Have Given Us Candidates". If I remember correctly, both books have "the oil thing" in them, though they do not mention BP by name. Of course they don't have to, since if you can put two and two together correctly, you can figure this equation out. BP was/is eager to drill in the Gulf, off shore of Florida, and BP was one of Gore's largest corporate donors. You do the math.

As far as southern Dems go, don't go pulling that tired old canard out of the trash. Most of those old school Dems, and their Reagan Dem followers have either gone independent or Republican. I've lived and campaigned in the South also, and know the electorate quite well, and being a 'Pug no long has the stigma in the South that it once did, in fact ever since Strom and the boys bolted the Dems for the 'Pugs, it has been increasingly chic to be a 'Pug in the South. Nope, these are real live, voting Dems that Gore pissed off, not faux Dems. Again, go read your Palast and Hightower.

And I don't give a rat's ass about how well Gore ran against historical candidacies, he still ran a piss poor campaign and recount campaign against a chimp that he should have beaten up and down the block. You crow about Gore's great comeback, well I hate to tell you friend, but if Gore was running a better campaign, HE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO MOUNT A COMEBACK!

And I noticed that you haven't touched the issue of Palast handing Votescam to Gore on a silver platter. What, are you just conviently ignoring that, much like Gore did. Think about it, Gore had the means to not only win, but bring down Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, George Bush, and banish Bushco to the political wilderness forever, and probably the GOP for awhile. But noooo, he just sat on that. One hundred thousand people disenfranchised, and Gore does diddly. Whatever happened to his oath to protect and uphold the Constitution? Whatever happened to his spine?

I'm sorry friend, but you need to drop this. This continual scapegoating serves no purpose, and is in fact counterproductive, since it automatically excludes any meaningful discussion of the shortcomings of the Gore campaign. In addition, it makes you look like one of those who constantly yell about the mighty power of the Clenis. Give it up, for it is erroneous and unbecoming to otherwise sensible and intelligent people.

[dsc]

87. I would like a link

I don't have a personal library with every book ever written. Specificly I want a link where Gore supports off shore drilling in Florida. I don't recall him doing any such thing. That should be able to be provided without regard to Palasts or Hightowers book. They may even provide that for you check their source and see if it is online. I honestly don't care why he would have supported the drilling just that he did.

I canvased for Bowles of a list supplied by Democratic headquarters and that listed only registered Democrats. Bear in mind that Gore got over 91% of Democrats to vote for him (meaning less than 9% didn't). At least one out of every four voters on this list were solid Burr voters who had been Helms supporters. There are still a great many places in the South where if you aren't registered Democratic you can't vote in meaningful local elections. Ie you can only vote in the general election where a Democrat will face no or token opposition. Unless you can provide some evidence I simply won't believe that there are a significant number of people in the "Democrats" who voted for Bush category who aren't socially very conservative Democrats. Incidently the fact people are switching is why Gore did better than Clinton did in this regard.

As to Palast's charges. Nearly all of them would have been useless in getting a recount. I read a Palast book about the election quite some time ago so I don't recall every single thing in it. But those things which I did recall were the likes of voter suppression, scrubbing voter lists, and that kind of thing. All of those behaviors would have been grounds for a new election, not a recount. Once it got down to Florida, Gore was finished barring a huge cashe of votes for him that obviously should have been counted. Even then, I think both the FL legislature and the Congress would have railroaded Bush through but maybe they wouldn't have. The best case senario at that point was for a recount to proceed with Gore winning by a huge margin. Thanks to SCOTUS that didn't happen.

The notion that Gore somehow screwed up his campaign before announcement day is too silly for words. He started 15 points down, you can look it up. He hadn't campaign one minute of one day when he announced. It is just silly to say he somehow caused that deficit. It is directly relevent to compare Gore to past Democrats. Just whatelse should I compare him to (if you wish to compare him to his competitors he actually comes out even better Bush lost 2% despite a ridiculously friendly press and outspending Gore about 2 to 1, Nader lost close to 5 points from his best point, and Buchanan dropped off the map)? We keep hearing about how awful Gore was and how wonderful Clinton was, well Gore did better than Clinton did (both times), Kennedy was masterful and charismatic, well Gore did better than he did (and his opponent was the unshaven Nixon), we hear how awe inspiring Truman was, and Gore did better than he did too (though admittedly Truman had a much more virulent version of Nader plus a segregationist cutting into him). In short, I keep hearing how awful the happless Gore was but I never, as in not even one time, have heard anyone come up with a candidate who has done better than he did at the same task.

[confludemocrat]

64. Yeah, but those same people say we can't fight Bush nominees successfully

Throw up their hands and say it's a done deal. Blaming Nader is not going to cut it anymore, 2004 proved that. He was stopped dead, while people followed the notion of ABB, we got Kerry and THIS IS THE CONSEQUENCE of selecting his kind to run. So give it up people, that scenario won't wash

[LibertyorDeath]

65. The understatement of the decade

"We need a more informed, educated electorate."

ok the century.

[Yupster]

90. Some famous line by Adlai Stevenson

which I'll paraprase no doubt badly.

Someone told him after a speech that he was wonderful and certainly had the well informed vote wrapped up, to which he responded, well, we'll need a lot more than that to win.

Or something like that anyway.

[LibertyorDeath]

94. LOL

:)

[Ganja Ninja]

74. Write it down and remember it.

"Elections Have Consequences" We're going to be saying the same thing to them in the not too distant future.

[FreedomAngel82]

95. I think so too

I think that as well. People just vote for someone because they think they agree on religious issues because they can spew a few Bible verses here and there and all that or because their parents are of that party or whatever. I have been encouraging \people lately to really research a canidate and learn about him before you go and vote for him no matter who it is. I'm glad I did that because if I was to follow my parents I would've voted for Bush (ew!) and my mom probably would've too but she, my brother, grandparents and I all voted for Kerry. :D My vote is precious and is mine and I make sure to use that vote wisely because it's my say in the government (we still use paper ballots here).

[Guaranteed]

102. You start off your post with the statement "Elections Have Consequences,"

and then you proceed to shift the blame for the way the election went to...Ralph Nader.

You're definitely not talking about the LAST election, right?