I find it amazing....

[ClusterFreak]

...that there is such a backlash from some who don't think others, such as me, should even whisper the possibility of electoral fraud in the Hackett/Schmidt race.

Who the hell knows what went on there?? Maybe - sure, why not, I'll say it: most likely indeed, everything was on the up and up - BUT, inquiring about the possibility it wasn't doesn't make you a tinfoil hatter. It doesn't. When you've watched the walking, quacking duck of 2000 and 2004 go by, you wonder...hmmmmm....maybe this is another? Even Gore on Leno the other night referred to 2000 as an election not about winning or losing, but of that "3rd category".

Is Al a :tinfoilhat:-wearing, wild-eyed conspiracy theorist?

[Cocoa]

1. I wouldn't mind whispering or inquiring

it's the spamming and screaming and demanding that everyone else scream with them that bugs me.

[ClusterFreak]

5. I totally agree.

....some see conspiracy around EVERY corner....that serves no purpose whatsoever.

[babylonsister]

2. I think it's fraud overload from November;

warranted, absolutely, but tiring. :)

[Skinner]

3. Here's the problem.

Can you see the difference between these two:

First collect evidence, then make conclusion.
First make conclusion, then collect evidence.

Therein lies the problem. Yelling "fraud" without any serious evidence will make you suspect.

[ClusterFreak]

7. Not yelling....

...not accusing or pointing any fingers....definitely not. If there's no smoke, there's no fire. Is there no smoke? I can accept that. I do however think it's only natural to be curious, given recent history, and shine the spotlight on possible electoral wrongdoing. If there's none to be found, shut off the flashlight and move along.

[WilliamPitt]

4. I don't see a backlash

I see legitimate questions regarding the theory (too often presented as fact) that Hackett was robbed.

The late surge came because the late county was Schmidt's home county. Res ipsal loquitor.

Questions are good. Likewise, questions about the questions should not be fodder for attack.

[SteppingRazor]

6. OK, but two things --

1) You're putting words in Al Gore's mouth. You assume his "third category" bit means he thinks the election was stolen. He could just as easily be refering to elections being decided by the Supreme Court, for example.

2) the first point illustrates the second. You're making assumptions based on nothing. It was little better in the 2004 election. I pored over report after report, and found little to no evidence of outright fraud. It comes down to this -- why commit a crime when you don't have to?

[ClusterFreak]

8. Well one thing's for sure....

....you don't know what Gore's "3rd category" was suggesting either....if he wanted to suggest the election was stolen I suppose he could have come right out with it....if he wanted to say Bush was not elected by the people, but instead selected by the Supreme Court, he could have said that. He said neither thing....leaving us guessing. My guess is as good as yours.

As far as "assumptions based on nothing" goes....time will tell I suppose.
:shrug: